Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors developed a cell-type specific fluorescence-tagging approach using a CRISPR/Cas9 induced spilt-GFP reconstitution system to visualize endogenous Bruchpilot (BRP) clusters as presynaptic active zones (AZ) in specific cell types of the mushroom body (MB) in the adult Drosophila brain. This AZ profiling approach was implemented in a high-throughput quantification process, allowing for the comparison of synapse profiles within single cells, cell types, MB compartments, and between different individuals. The aim is to analyse in more detail neuronal connectivity and circuits in this centre of associative learning. These are notoriously difficult to investigate due to the density of cells and structures within a cell. The authors detect and characterize cell-type-specific differences in BRP-dependent profiling of presynapses in different compartments of the MB, while intracellular AZ distribution was found to be stereotyped. Next to the descriptive part characterizing various AZ profiles in the MB, the authors apply an associative learning assay and detect consequent AZ re-organisation.

Strengths:

The strength of this study lies in the outstanding resolution of synapse profiling in the extremely dense compartments of the MB. This detailed analysis will be the entry point for many future analyses of synapse diversity in connection with functional specificity to uncover the molecular mechanisms underlying learning and memory formation and neuronal network logics. Therefore, this approach is of high importance for the scientific community and a valuable tool to investigate and correlate AZ architecture and synapse function in the CNS.

Weaknesses:

The results and conclusions presented in this study are, in many aspects, well-supported by the data presented. To further support the key findings of the manuscript, additional controls, comments, and possibly broader functional analysis would be helpful. In particular:

(1) All experiments in the study are based on spilt-GFP lines (BRP:GFP11 and UAS-GFP1-10). The Materials and Methods section does not contain any cloning strategy (gRNA, primer, PCR/sequencing validation, exact position of tag insertion, etc.) and only refers to a bioRxiv publication. It might be helpful to add a Materials and Methods section (at least for the BRP:GFP11 line). Additionally, as this is an on locus insertion the in BRP-ORF, it needs a general validation of this line, including controls (Western Blot and correlative antibody staining against BRP) showing that overall BRP expression is not compromised due to the GFP insertion and localizes as BRP in wild type flies, that flies are viable, have no defects in locomotion and learning and memory formation and MB morphology is not affected compared to wild type animals.

(2) Several aspects of image acquisition and high-throughput quantification data analysis would benefit from a more detailed clarification.

a) For BRP cluster segmentation it is stated in the Materials and Methods state, that intensity threshold and noise tolerance were "set" - this setting has a large effect on the quantification, and it should be specified and setting criteria named and justified (if set manually (how and why) or automatically (to what)). Additionally, if Pyhton was used for "Nearest Neigbor" analysis, the code should be made available within this manuscript; otherwise, it is difficult to judge the quality of this quantification step.

b) To better evaluate the quality of both the imaging analysis and image presentation, it would be important to state, if presented and analysed images are deconvolved and if so, at least one proof of principle example of a comparison of original and deconvoluted file should be shown and quantified to show the impact of deconvolution on the output quality as this is central to this study.

(3) The major part of this study focuses on the description and comparison of the divergent synapse parameters across cell-types in MB compartments, which is highly relevant and interesting. Yet it would be very interesting to connect this new method with functional aspects of the heterogeneous synapses. This is done in Figure 7 with an associative learning approach, which is, in part, not trivial to follow for the reader and would profit from a more comprehensive analysis.

a) It would be important for the understanding and validation of the learning induced changes, if not (only) a ratio (of AZ density/local intensity) would be presented, but both values on their own, especially to allow a comparison to the quoted, previous AZ remodelling analysis quantifying BRP intensities (ref. 17, 18). It should be elucidated in more detail why only the ratio was presented here.

b) The reason why a single instead of a dual odour conditioning was performed could be clarified and discussed (would that have the same effects?).

c) Additionally, "controls" for the unpaired values - that is, in flies receiving neither shock nor odour - it would help to evaluate the unpaired control values in the different MB compartments.

d) The temporal resolution of the effect is very interesting (Figure 7D), and at more time points, especially between 90 and 270 min, this might raise interesting results.

e) Additionally, it would be very interesting and rewarding to have at least one additional assay, relating structure and function, e.g. on a molecular level by a correlative analysis of BRP and synaptic vesicles (by staining or co-expression of SV-protein markers) or calcium activity imaging or on a functional level by additional learning assays

https://boffosocko.com/tag/typewriter-display/

Note: This response was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. The content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

Reply to the reviewers

We thank the reviewers for providing us the opportunity to revise our manuscript titled “Identifying regulators of associative learning using a protein-labelling approach in C. elegans.” We appreciate the insightful feedback that we received to improve this work. In response, we have extensively revised the manuscript with the following changes: we have (1) clarified the criteria used for selecting candidate genes for behavioural testing, presenting additional data from ‘strong’ hits identified in multiple biological replicates (now testing 26 candidates, previously 17), (2) expanded our discussion of the functional relevance of validated hits, including providing new tissue-specific and neuron class-specific analyses, and (3) improved the presentation of our data, including visualising networks identified in the ‘learning proteome’, to better highlight the significance of our findings. We also substantially revised the text to indicate our attempts to address limitations related to background noise in the proteomic data and outlined potential refinements for future studies. All revisions are clearly marked in the manuscript in red font. A detailed, point-by-point response to each comment is provided below.

1. Point-by-point description of the revisions

Reviewer #1 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

Summary:

Rahmani et al., utilize the TurboID method to characterize the global proteome changes in the worm's nervous system induced by a salt-based associative learning paradigm. Altogether, Rahmani et al., uncover 706 proteins that are tagged by the TurboID method specifically in samples extracted from worms that underwent the memory inducing protocol. Next, the authors conduct a gene enrichment analysis that implicates specific molecular pathways in salt-associative learning, such as MAP-kinase and cAMP-mediated pathways. The authors then screen a representative group of the hits from the proteome analysis. The authors find that mutants of candidate genes from the MAP-kinase pathway, namely dlk-1 and uev-3, do not affect the performance in the learning paradigm. Instead multiple acetylcholine signaling mutants significantly affected the performance in the associative memory assay, e.g., acc-1, acc-3, gar-1, and lgc-46. Finally, the authors demonstrate that the acetylcholine signaling mutants did not exhibit a phenotype in similar but different conditioning paradigms, such as aversive salt-conditioning or appetitive odor conditioning, suggesting their effect is specific to appetitive salt conditioning.

Major comments:

1. The statistical approach and analysis of the behavior assay: The authors use a 2-way ANOVA test which assumes normal distribution of the data. However, the chemotaxis index used in the study is bounded between -1 and 1, which prevents values near the boundaries to be normally distributed.

Since most of the control data in this assay in this study is very close to 1, it strongly suggests that the CI data is not normally distributed and therefore 2-way ANOVA is expected to give skewed results.

I am aware this is a common mistake and I also anticipate that most conclusions will still hold also under a more fitting statistical test.

We appreciate the point raised by Reviewer 1 and understand the importance of performing the correct statistical tests.

The statistical tests used in this study were chosen since parametric tests, particularly ANOVA tests to assess differences between multiple groups, are commonly used to assess behaviour in the C. elegans learning and memory field. Below is a summary of the tests used by studies that perform similar behavioural tests cited in this work, as examples:

Table 1 | A summary for the statistical tests performed by similar studies for chemotaxis assay data. References (listed in the leftmost column) were observed to (A) use parametric tests only or (B) performed either a parametric or non-parametric test on each chemotaxis assay dataset depending on whether the data passed a normality test. Listings for ANOVA tests are in bold to demonstrate their common use in the C. elegans learning and memory field.

Reference

Parametric test/s used in the reference

Non-parametric test/s used in the reference

Beets et al., 2020

Two-way ANOVA

None

Hiroki & Iino 2022

One-way ANOVA

None

Hiroki et al., 2022

One-way ANOVA

None

Hukema et al., 2006

T-tests

None

Hukema et al., Learn. Mem. 2008

T-tests

None

Jang et al., 2019

ANOVA

None

Kitazono et al., 2017

Two-way ANOVA and t-tests

None

Lans et al., 2004

One-way ANOVA

None

Lim et al., 2018

Two-way ANOVA

Wilcoxon rank sum test adjusted with the Benjamini–Hochberg method

Lin et al., 2010

Two-way or three-way ANOVA

None

Nagashima et al., 2019

One-way ANOVA

None

Ohno et al., 2014

None

Sakai et al., 2017

One-way ANOVA or t-tests

None

Stein & Murphy 2014

Two-way ANOVA and t-tests

None

Tang et al., 2023

One-way ANOVA or t-tests

None

Tomioka et al., 2006

T tests

None

Watteyne et al., 2020

One-way ANOVA

Two-sided Kruskal–Wallis

We note Reviewer 1's concern that this may stem from a common mistake. As stated, Two-way ANOVA generally relies on normally distributed data. We used GraphPad Prism to perform the Shapiro-Wilk normality test on our chemotaxis assay data as it is generally appropriate for sample sizes Table 2 | Shapiro-Wilk normality test results for chemotaxis assay data in Figure S8C. Chemotaxis assay data was generated to assess salt associative learning capacity for wild-type (WT) versus lgc-46(-) mutant C. elegans. Three experimental groups were prepared for each C. elegans strain (naïve, high-salt control, and trained). From top-to-bottom, the data below displays the ‘W’ value, ‘P value’, a binary yes/no for whether the data passes the Shapiro-Wilk normality test, and a ‘P value summary’ (ns = non-significant). W values measure the similarity between a normal distribution and the chemotaxis assay data. Data is considered normal in the Shapiro-Wilk normality test when a W value is near 1.0 and the null hypothesis is not rejected (i.e., P value > 0.05).*

WT naïve

WT high-salt control

WT trained

lgc-46 naïve

lgc-46 high-salt control

lgc-46 trained

W

0.9196

0.9114

0.8926

0.8334

0.8151

0.8769

P value

0.5272

0.4758

0.3705

0.1475

0.1070

0.2954

Passed normality test (alpha=0.05)?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

P value summary

ns

ns

ns

ns

ns

ns

The manuscript now includes the use of the Shapiro-Wilk normality test to assess chemotaxis assay data before using two-way ANOVA on page 51.

Nevertheless an appropriate statistical analysis should be performed. Since I assume the authors would wish to take into consideration both the different conditions and biological repeats, I can suggest two options:

• Using a Generalized linear mixed model, one can do with R software.

• Using a custom bootstrapping approach. We thank Reviewer 1 for suggesting these two options. We carefully considered both approaches and consulted with the in-house statistician at our institution (Dr Pawel Skuza, Flinders University) for expert advice to guide our decision. In summary:

• Generalised linear mixed models: Generalised linear mixed models (GLMMs) are generally most appropriate for nested/hierarchal data. However, our chemotaxis assay data does not exhibit such nesting. Each biological replicate (N) consists of three technical replicates, which are averaged to yield a single chemotaxis index per N. Our statistical comparisons are based solely on these averaged values across experimental groups, making GLMMs less applicable in this context.

• __Bootstrapping: __Based on advice from our statistician, while bootstrapping can be a powerful tool, its effectiveness is limited when applied to datasets with a low number of biological replicates (N). Bootstrapping relies on resampling existing data to simulate additional observations, which may artificially inflate statistical power and potentially suggest significance where the biological effect size is minimal or not meaningful. Increasing the number of biological replicates to accommodate bootstrapping could introduce additional variability and compromise the interpretability of the results. The total number of assays, especially controls, varies quite a bit between the tested mutants. For example compare the acc-1 experiment in Figure 4.A., and gap-1 or rho-1 in Figure S4.A and D. It is hard to know the exact N of the controls, but I assume that for example, lowering the wild type control of acc-1 to equivalent to gap-1 would have made it non significant. Perhaps the best approach would be to conduct a power analysis, to know what N should be acquired for all samples.

We thoroughly evaluated performing the power analysis: however, this is typically performed with the assumption that an N = 1 represents a singular individual/person. An N =1 in this study is one biological replicate that includes hundreds of worms, which is why it is not typically employed in our field for this type of behavioural test.

Considering these factors, we have opted to continue using a two-way ANOVA for our statistical analysis. This choice aligns with recent publications that employ similar experimental designs and data structures. Crucially, we have verified that our data meet the assumptions of normality, addressing key concerns regarding the suitability of parametric testing. We believe this approach is sufficiently rigorous to support our main conclusions. This rationale is now outlined on page 51.

To be fully transparent, our aim is to present differences between wild-type and mutant strains that are clearly visible in the graphical data, such that the choice of statistical test does not become a limiting factor in interpreting biological relevance. We hope this rationale is understandable, and we sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s comment and the opportunity to clarify our analytical approach.

We hope that Reviewer 1 will appreciate these considerations as sufficient justification to retain the statistical tests used in the original manuscript. Nevertheless, to constructively address this comment, we have performed the following revisions:

1. __Consistent number of biological replicates: __We performed additional biological replicates of the learning assay to confirm the behavioural phenotypes for the key candidates described (KIN-2 , F46H5.3, ACC-1, ACC-3, LGC-46). We chose N = 5 since most studies cited in this paper that perform similar behavioural tests do the same (see the table below). Table 3 | A summary for sample sizes generated by similar studies for chemotaxis assay data. References (listed in the leftmost column) were observed to the sample sizes (N) below corresponding to biological replicates of chemotaxis assay data. N values are in bold when the study uses N ≤ 5.

Reference

N used in the study for chemotaxis assay data

Beets et al., 2020

8

Hiroki & Iino 2022

5-8

Hiroki et al., 2022

6-7

Hukema et al., 2006

≥ 4

Hukema et al., Learn. Mem. 2008

≥ 4

Jang et al., 2019

≥ 4

Kitazono et al., 2017

≥ 4

Kauffman et al., 2010

≥ 3

Kauffman et al., J. Vis. Exp. 2011

≥ 3

Lans et al., 2004

2

Lim et al., 2018

2-4

Lin et al., 2010

≥ 4

Nagashima et al., 2019

≥ 7

Ohno et al., 2014

≥ 11

Sakai et al., 2017

≥ 4

Stein & Murphy 2014

3-5

Tang et al., 2023

≥ 9

Watteyne et al., 2020

≥ 10

__Grouped presentation of behavioural data: __We now present all behavioural data by grouping genotypes tested within the same biological replicate, including wild-type controls, rather than combining genotypes tested separately. This ensures that each graph displays data from genotypes sharing the same N, also an important consideration for performing parametric tests. Accordingly, we re-performed statistical analyses using this reduced Nfor relevant graphs. As anticipated, this rendered some comparisons non-significant. All statistical comparisons are clearly indicated on each graph. Improved clarity of figure legends: __We revised figure legends for __Figures 5, 6, S7, S8, & S9 to make clear how many biological replicates have been performed for each genotype by adding N numbers for each genotype in all figures.

The authors use the phrasing "a non-significant trend", I find such claims uninterpretable and should be avoided. Examples: Page 16. Line 7 and Page 18, line 16.

This is an important point. While we were not able to find the specific phrasing "a non-significant trend" from this comment in the original manuscript, we acknowledge that referring to a phenotype as both a trend and non-significant may confuse readers, which was originally stated in the manuscript in two locations.

The main text has been revised on pages 27 & 28 when describing comparisons between trained groups between two C. elegans lines, by removing mentions of trends and retaining descriptions of non-significance.

Neuron-specific analysis and rescue of mutants:

Throughout the study the authors avoid focusing on specific neurons. This is understandable as the authors aim at a systems biology approach, however, in my view this limits the impact of the study. I am aware that the proteome changes analyzed in this study were extracted from a pan neuronally expressed TurboID. Yet, neuron-specific changes may nevertheless be found. For example, running the protein lists from Table S2, in the Gene enrichment tool of wormbase, I found, across several biological replicates, enrichment for the NSM, CAN and RIG neurons. A more careful analysis may uncover specific neurons that take part in this associative memory paradigm. In addition, analysis of the overlap in expression of the final gene list in different neurons, comparing them, looking for overlap and connectivity, would also help to direct towards specific circuits.

This is an important and useful suggestion. We appreciate the benefit in exploring the data from this study from a neuron class-specific lens, in addition to the systems-level analyses already presented.

The WormBase gene enrichment tool is indeed valuable for broad transcriptomic analyses (the findings from utilising this tool are now on page 16); however, its use of Anatomy Ontology (AO) terms also contains annotations from more abundant non-neuronal tissues in the worm. To strengthen our analysis and complement the Wormbase tool, we also used the CeNGEN database as suggested by Reviewer 3 Major Comment 1 (Taylor et al., 2021), which uses single cell RNA-Seq data to profile gene expression across the C. elegans nervous system. We input our learning proteome data into CeNGEN as a systemic analysis, identifying neurons highly represented by the learning proteome (on pages 16-20). To do this, we specifically compared genes/proteins from high-salt control worms and trained worms to identify potential neurons that may be involved in this learning paradigm. Briefly, we found:

• WormBase gene enrichment tool: Enrichment for anatomy terms corresponding to specific interneurons (ADA, RIS, RIG), ventral nerve cord neurons, pharyngeal neurons (M1, M2, M5, I4), PVD sensory neurons, DD motor neurons, serotonergic NSM neurons, and CAN.
• CeNGEN analysis: Representation of neurons previously implicated in associative learning (e.g., AVK interneurons, RIS interneurons, salt-sensing neuron ASEL, CEP & ADE dopaminergic neurons, and AIB interneurons), as well as neurons not previously studied in this context (pharyngeal neurons I3 & I6, polymodal neuron IL1, motor neuron DA9, and interneuron DVC). Methods are detailed on pages 50 & 51. These data are summarised in the revised manuscript as Table S7 & Figure 4.

To further address the reviewer’s suggestion, we examined the overlap in expression patterns of the validated learning-associated genes acc-1, acc-3, lgc-46, kin-2, and F46H5.3 across the neuron classes above, using the CeNGEN database. This was done to explore potential neuron classes in which these regulators may act in to regulate learning. This analysis revealed both shared and distinct expression profiles, suggesting potential functional connectivity or co-regulation among subsets of neurons. To summarise, we found:

• All five learning regulators are expressed in RIM interneurons and DB motor neurons.
• KIN-2 and F46H5.3 share the same neuron expression profile and are present in many neurons, so they may play a general function within the nervous system to facilitate learning.
• ACC-3 is expressed in three sensory neuron classes (ASE, CEP, & IL1).
• In contrast, ACC-1 and LGC-46 are expressed in neuron classes (in brackets) implicated in gustatory or olfactory learning paradigms (AIB, AVK, NSM, RIG, & RIS) (Beets et al., 2012, Fadda et al., 2020, Wang et al., 2025, Zhou et al., 2023, Sato et al., 2021), neurons important for backward or forward locomotion (AVE, DA, DB, & VB) (Chalfie et al., 1985), and neuron classes for which their function is yet detailed in the literature (ADA, I4, M1, M2, & M5). These neurons form a potential neural circuit that may underlie this form of behavioural plasticity, which we now describe in the main text on pages 16-20 & 34-35 and summarise in Figure 4.

OPTIONAL: A rescue of the phenotype of the mutants by re-expression of the gene is missing, this makes sure to avoid false-positive results coming from background mutations. For example, a pan neuronal or endogenous promoter rescue would help the authors to substantiate their claims, this can be done for the most promising genes. The ideal experiment would be a neuron-specific rescue but this can be saved for future works.

We appreciate this suggestion and recognise its potential to strengthen our manuscript. In response, we made many attempts to generate pan-neuronal and endogenous promoter re-expression lines. However, we faced several technical issues in transgenic line generation, including poor survival following microinjection likely due to protein overexpression toxicity (e.g., C30G12.6, F46H5.3), and reduced animal viability for chemotaxis assays, potentially linked to transgene-related reproductive defects (e.g., ACC-1). As we have previously successfully generated dozens of transgenic lines in past work (e.g. Chew et al., Neuron 2018; Chew et al., Phil Trans B 2018; Gadenne/Chew et al., Life Science Alliance 2022), we believe the failure to produce most of these lines is not likely due to technical limitations. For transparency, these observations have been included in the discussion section of the manuscript on pages 39 & 40 as considerations for future troubleshooting.

Fortunately, we were able to generate a pan-neuronal promoter line for KIN-2 that has been tested and included in the revised manuscript. This new data is shown in Figure 5B __and described on __pages 23 & 24. Briefly, this shows that pan-neuronal expression of KIN-2 from the ce179 mutant allele is sufficient to reproduce the enhanced learning phenotype observed in kin-2(ce179) animals, confirming the role of KIN-2 in gustatory learning.

To address the potential involvement of background mutations (also indicated by Reviewer 4 under ‘cross-commenting’), we have also performed experiments with backcrossed versions of several mutants. These experiments aimed to confirm that salt associative learning phenotypes are due to the expected mutation. Namely, we assessed kin-2(ce179) mutants that had been backcrossed previously by another laboratory, as well as C30G12.6(-) and F46H5.3(-) animals backcrossed in this study. Although not all backcrossed mutants retained their original phenotype (i.e., C30G12.6) (Figure 6D, a newly added figure), we found that backcrossed versions of KIN-2 and F46H5.3 both robustly showed enhanced learning (Figures 5A & 6B). This is described in the text on pages 23-26.

__Minor comments: __

1. Lack of clarity regarding the validation of the biotin tagging of the proteome. The authors show in Figure 1 that they validated that the combination of the transgene and biotin allows them to find more biotin-tagged proteins. However there is significant biotin background also in control samples as is common for this method. The authors mention they validated biotin tagging of all their experiments, but it was unclear in the text whether they validated it in comparison to no-biotin controls, and checked for the fold change difference.

This is an important point: We validated our biotin tagging method prior to mass spectrometry by comparing ‘no biotin’ and ‘biotin’ groups. This is shown in Figure S1 in the revised manuscript, which includes a western blot comparing untreated and biotin treated animals that are non-transgenic or expressing TurboID. As expected, by comparing biotinylated protein signal for untreated and treated lanes within each line, biotin treatment increased the signal 1.30-fold for non-transgenic and 1.70-fold for TurboID C. elegans. This is described on __page 8 __of the revised manuscript.

To clarify, for mass spectrometry experiments, we tested a no-TurboID (non-transgenic) control, but did not perform a no-biotin control. We included the following four groups: (1) No-TurboID ‘control’ (2) No-TurboID ‘trained’, (3) pan-neuronal TurboID ‘control’ and (4) pan-neuronal TurboID ‘trained’, where trained versus control refers to whether ‘no salt’ was used as the conditioned stimulus or not, respectively (illustrated in Figure 1A). Due to the complexity of the learning assay (which involves multiple washes and handling steps, including a critical step where biotin is added during the conditioning period), and the need to collect sufficient numbers of worms for protein extraction (>3,000 worms per experimental group), adding ‘no-biotin’ controls would have doubled the number of experimental groups, which we considered unfeasible for practical reasons. This is explained on __pages 8 & 9 __of the revised manuscript.

Also, it was unclear which exact samples were tested per replicate. In Page 9, Lines 17-18: "For all replicates, we determined that biotinylated proteins could be observed ...", But in Page 8, Line 24 : "We then isolated proteins from ... worms per group for both 'control' and 'trained' groups,... some of which were probed via western blotting to confirm the presence of biotinylated proteins".

• Could the authors specify which samples were verified and clarify how?

Thank you for pointing out these unclear statements: We have clarified the experimental groups used for mass spectrometry experiments as detailed in the response above on pages 8 &____ 9. In addition, western blots corresponding to each biological replicate of mass spectrometry data described in the main text on page 10 and have been added to the revised manuscript (as Figure S3). These western blots compare biotinylation signal for proteins extracted from (1) No-TurboID ‘control’ (2) No-TurboID ‘trained’, (3) pan-neuronal TurboID ‘control’ and (4) pan-neuronal TurboID ‘trained’. These blots function to confirm that there were biotinylated proteins in TurboID samples, before enrichment by streptavidin-mediated pull-down for mass spectrometry.

OPTIONAL: include the fold changes of biotinylated proteins of all the ones that were tested. Similar to Figure 1.C.

This is an excellent suggestion. As recommended by the reviewer, we have included fold-changes for biotinylated protein levels between high-salt control and trained groups (on pages 9 & 10 for replicate #1 and in __Table S2 __for replicates #2-5). This was done by measuring protein levels in whole lanes for each experimental group per biological replicate within western blots (__Figure 1C __for replicate #1 and __Figure S3 __for replicates #2-5) of protein samples generated for mass spectrometry (N = 5).

Figure 2 does not add much to the reader, it can be summarized in the text, as the fraction of proteins enriched for specific cellular compartments.

• I would suggest to remove Figure 2 (originally written as figure 3) to text, or transfer it to the supplementry material.

As noted in cross-comment response to Reviewer 4, there were typos in the original figure references, we have corrected them above. Essentially, this comment is referring to Figure 2.

We appreciate this feedback from Reviewer 1. We agree that the original __Figure 2 __functions as a visual summary from analysis of the learning proteome at the subcellular compartment level. However, it also serves to highlight the following:

• Representation for neuron-specific GO terms is relatively low, but even this small percentage represents entire protein-protein networks that are biologically meaningful, but that are difficult to adequately describe in the main text.
• TurboID was expressed in neurons so this figure supports the relevance of the identified proteome to biological learning mechanisms.

• Many of these candidates could not be assessed by learning assay using single mutants since related mutations are lethal or substantially affect locomotion. These networks therefore highlight the benefit in using strategies like TurboID to study learning. We have chosen to retain this figure, moving it to the supplementary material as Figure S4 in the revised manuscript, as suggested.

• OPTIONAL- I would suggest the authors to mark in a pathway summary figure similar to Figure 3 (originally written as Figure 4) the results from the behavior assay of the genetic screen. This would allow the reader to better get the bigger picture and to connect to the systemic approach taken in Figures 2 and 3.

We think this is a fantastic suggestion and thank Reviewer 1 for this input. In the revised manuscript, we have added Figure 7, which summarises the tested candidates that displayed an effect on learning, mapped onto potential molecular pathways derived from networks in the learning proteome. This figure provides a visual framework linking the behavioural outcomes to the network context. This is described in the main text on pages 32-33.

Typo in Figure 3: the circle of PPM1: The blue right circle half is bigger than the left one.

We thank the Reviewer for noticing this, the node size for PPM-1.A has been corrected in what is now Figure 2 in the revised work.

Unclarity in the discussions. In the discussion Page 24, Line 14, the authors raise this question: "why are the proteins we identified not general learning regulators?. The phrasing and logic of the argumentation of the possible answers was hard to follow. - Can you clarify?

We appreciate this feedback in terms of unclarity, as we strive to explain the data as clearly and transparently as possible. Our goal in this paragraph was to discuss why some candidates were seen to only affect salt associative learning, as opposed to showing effects in multiple learning paradigms (i.e., which we were defining as a ‘general learning regulator’). We have adjusted the wording in several places in this paragraph now on pages 36 & 37 to address this comment. We hope the rephrased paragraph provides sufficient rationalisation for the discussion regarding our selection strategy used to isolate our protein list of potential learning regulators, and its potential limitations.

***Cross-Commenting** *

Firstly, we would like to express our appreciation for the opportunity for reviewers to cross-comment on feedback from other reviewers. We believe this is an excellent feature of the peer review process, and we are grateful to the reviewers for their thoughtful engagement and collaborative input.

I would like to thank Reviewer #4 for the great cross comment summary, I find it accurate and helpful.

I also would like to thank Reviewer #4 for spotting the typos in my minor comments, their page and figure numbers are the correct ones.

We have corrected these typos in the relevant comments, and have responded to them accordingly.

Small comment on common point 1 - My feeling is that it is challanging to do quantitative mass spectrometry, especially with TurboID. In general, the nature of MS data is that it hints towards a direction but a followup validation work is required in order to assess it. For example, I am not surprised that the fraction of repeats a hit appeared in does not predict well whether this hit would be validated behavioraly. Given these limitations, I find the authors' approach reasonable.

We thank Reviewer 1 for this positive and thoughtful feedback. We also appreciate Reviewer 4’s comment regarding quantitative mass spectrometry and have addressed this in detail below (see response to Reviewer 4). However, we agree with Reviewer 1 that there are practical challenges to performing quantitative mass spectrometry with TurboID, primarily due to the enrichment for biotinylated proteins that is a key feature of the sample preparation process.

Importantly, we whole-heartedly agree with Reviewer 1’s statement that “In general, the nature of MS data is that it hints towards a direction but a follow-up validation work is required in order to assess it”. This is the core of our approach: however, we appreciate that there are limitations to a qualitative ‘absent/present’ approach. We have addressed some of these limitations by clarifying the criteria used for selecting candidate genes, based additionally on the presence of the candidate in multiple biological replicates (categorised as ‘strong’ hits). Based on this method, we were able to validate the role of several novel learning regulators (Figures 5, 6, & S7). We sincerely hope that this manuscript can function as a direction for future research, as suggested by this Reviewer.

I also would like to highlight this major comment from reviewer 4:

"In Experimental Procedures, authors state that they excluded data in which naive or control groups showed average CI 0.5499 for N2 (page 36, lines 5-7). "

This threshold seems arbitrary to me too, and it requires the clarifications requested by reviewer 4.

As detailed in our response to Reviewer 4, Major Comment 2, data were excluded only in rare cases, specifically when N2 worms failed to show strong salt attraction prior to training, or when trained N2 worms did not exhibit the expected behavioural difference compared to untrained controls – this can largely be attributed to clear contamination or over-population issues, which are visible prior to assessing CTX plates and counting chemotaxis indices.

These criteria were initially established to provide an objective threshold for excluding biological replicates, particularly when planning to assay a large number of genetic mutants. However, after extensive testing across many replicates, we found that N2 worms (that were not starved, or not contaminated) consistently displayed the expected phenotype, rendering these thresholds unnecessary. We acknowledge that emphasizing these criteria may have been misleading, and have therefore removed them from page 50 in the revised manuscript to avoid confusion and ensure clarity.

Reviewer #1 (Significance (Required)):

This study does a great job to effectively utilize the TurboID technique to identify new pathways implicated in salt-associative learning in C. elegans. This technique was used in C. elegans before, but not in this context. The salt-associative memory induced proteome list is a valuable resource that will help future studies on associative memory in worms. Some of the implicated molecular pathways were found before to be involved in memory in worms like cAMP, as correctly referenced in the manuscript. The implication of the acetylcholine pathway is novel for C. elgeans, to the best of my knowledge. The finding that the uncovered genes are specifically required for salt associative memory and not for other memory assays is also interesting.

However overall I find the impact of this study limited. The premise of this work is to use the Turbo-ID method to conduct a systems analysis of the proteomic changes. The work starts by conducting network analysis and gene enrichment which fit a systemic approach. However, since the authors find that ~30% of the tested hits affect the phenotype, and since only 17/706 proteins were assessed, it is challenging to draw conclusive broad systemic claims. Alternatively, the authors could have focused on the positive hits, and understand them better, find the specific circuits where these genes act. This could have increased the impact of the work. Since neither of these two options are satisfied, I view this work as solid, but not wide in its impact and therefore estimate the audience of this study would be more specialized.

My expertise is in C. elegans behavior, genetics, and neuronal activity, programming and machine learning.

We thank the Reviewer for these comments and appreciate the recognition of the value of the proteomic dataset and the identification of novel molecular pathways, including the acetylcholine pathway, as well as the specificity of the uncovered genes to salt-associative memory.

Regarding the reviewer’s concern about the overall impact and scope of the study, we respectfully offer the following clarification. Our aim was to establish a systems-level approach for investigating learning-related proteomic changes using TurboID, and we acknowledge that only a subset of the identified proteins was experimentally tested (now 26/706 proteins in the revised manuscript). Although only five of the tested single gene mutants showed a robust learning phenotype in the revised work (after backcrossing, more stringent candidate selection, improved statistical analysis in addressing reviewer comments), our proteomic data provides us a unique opportunity to define these candidates within protein-protein networks (as illustrated in Figure 7). Importantly, our functional testing focused on single-gene mutants, which may not reveal phenotypes for genes that act redundantly (now mentioned on pages 28-30). This limitation is inherent to many genetic screens and highlights the value of our proteomic dataset, which enables the identification of broader protein-protein interaction networks and molecular pathways potentially involved in learning.

To support this systems-level perspective, we have added Figure 7, which visually integrates the tested candidates into molecular pathways derived from the learning proteome for learning regulators KIN-2 and F46H5.3. We also emphasise more explicitly in the text (on pages 32-33) the value of our approach by highlighting the functional protein networks that can be derived from our proteomics dataset.

We fully acknowledge that the use of TurboID across all neurons limits the resolution needed to pinpoint individual neuron contributions, and understand the benefit in further experiments to explore specific circuits. Many circuits required for salt sensing and salt-based learning are highly explored in the literature and defined explicitly (see Rahmani & Chew, 2021), so our intention was to complement the existing literature by exploring the protein-protein networks involved in learning, rather than on neuron-neuron connectivity. However, we recognise the benefit in integrating circuit-level analyses, given that our proteomic data suggests hundreds of candidates potentially involved in learning. While validating each of these candidates is beyond the scope of the current study, we have taken steps to suggest candidate neurons/circuits by incorporating tissue enrichment analyses and single-cell transcriptomic data (Table S7 & Figure 4). These additions highlight neuron classes of interest and suggest possible circuits relevant to learning.

We hope this clarification helps convey the intended scope and contribution of our study. We also believe that the revisions made in response to Reviewer 1’s feedback have strengthened the manuscript and enhanced its significance within the field.

Reviewer #2 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

__Summary: __

In this study by Rahmani in colleagues, the authors sought to define the "learning proteome" for a gustatory associative learning paradigm in C. elegans. Using a cytoplasmic TurboID expressed under the control of a pan-neuronal promoter, the authors labeled proteins during the training portion of the paradigm, followed by proteomics analysis. This approach revealed hundreds of proteins potentially involved in learning, which the authors describe using gene ontology and pathways analysis. The authors performed functional characterization of some of these genes for their requirement in learning using the same paradigm. They also compared the requirement for these genes across various learning paradigms, and found that most hits they characterized appear to be specifically required for the training paradigm used for generating the "learning proteome".

Major Comments:

1. The definition of a "hit" from the TurboID approach is does not appear stringent enough. According to the manuscript, a hit was defined as one unique peptide detected in a single biological replicate (out of 5), which could give rise to false positives. In figure S2, it is clear that there relatively little overlap between samples with regards to proteins detected between replicates, and while perhaps unintentional, presenting a single unique peptide appears to be an attempt to inflate the number of hits. Defining hits as present in more than one sample would be more rigorous. Changing the definition of hits would only require the time to re-list genes and change data presented in the manuscript accordingly. We thank Reviewer 2 for this valuable comment, and the following related suggestion. We agree with the statement that “Defining hits as present in more than one sample would be more rigorous”. Therefore, to address this comment, we have now separated candidates into two categories in Table 2 __in the revised manuscript: ‘__strong’ (present in 3 or more biological replicates) and ‘weak’ candidates (present in 2 or fewer biological replicates). However, we think these weaker candidates should still be included in the manuscript, considering we did observe relationships between these proteins and learning. For example, ACC-1, which influences salt associative learning in C. elegans, was detected in one replicate of mass spectrometry as a potential learning regulator (Figure S8A). We describe this classification in the main text on pages 21-22.

We also agree with Reviewer 2 that the overlap between individual candidate hits is low between biological replicates; the inclusion of Figure S2 __in the original manuscript serves to highlight this limitation. However, it is also important to consider that there is notable overlap for whole molecular pathways between biological replicates of mass spectrometry data as shown in __Figure 2 __in the revised manuscript (this consideration is now mentioned on __pages 13-14). We have included Figure 3 to illustrate representation for two metabolic processes across several biological replicates normally indispensable to animal health, as an example to provide additional visual aid for the overlap between replicates of mass spectrometry. We provide this figure (described on pages 13 & 15) to demonstrate the strength of our approach in that it can detect candidates not easily assessable by conventional forward or reverse genetic screens.

We also appreciate the opportunity to explain our approach. The criteria of “at least one unique peptide” was chosen based on a previous work for which we adapted for this manuscript (Prikas et al., 2020). It was not intended to inflate the number of hits but rather to ensure sensitivity in detecting low-abundance neuronal proteins. We have clarified this in our Methods (page 46).

The "hits" that the authors chose to functionally characterize do not seem like strong candidate hits based on the proteomics data that they generated. Indeed, most of the hits are present in a single, or at most 2, biological replicate. It is unclear as to why the strongest hits were not characterized, which if mutant strains are publicly available, would not be a difficult experiment to perform.

We thank the reviewer for this important suggestion. To address this, we have described two molecular pathways with multiple components that appear in more than one biological replicate of mass spectrometry data in Figure 3 (main text on page 13). In addition, we have included __Figures 6 & S7 __where 9 additional single mutants corresponding to candidates in three or more biological replicates of mass spectrometry were tested for salt associative learning. Briefly, we found the following (number of replicates that a protein was unique to TurboID trained animals is in brackets):

• Novel arginine kinase F46H5.3 (4 replicates) displays an effect in both salt associative learning and salt aversive learning in the same direction (Figures 6A, 6B, & S9A, pages 31-32 & 37-38).
• Worms with a mutation for armadillo-domain protein C30G12.6 (3 replicates) only displayed an enhanced learning phenotype when non-backcrossed, not backcrossed. This suggests the enhanced learning phenotype was caused by a background mutation (Figure 6, pages 24-25).
• We did not observe an effect on salt associative learning when assessing mutations for the ciliogenesis protein IFT-139 (5 replicates), guanyl nucleotide factors AEX-3 or TAG-52 (3 replicates), p38/MAPK pathway interactor FSN-1 (3 replicates), IGCAM/RIG-4 (3 replicates), and acetylcholine components ACR-2 (4 replicates) and ELP-1 (3 replicates) (Figure S7, on pages 27-30). However, we note throughout the section for which these candidates are described that only single gene mutants were tested, meaning that genes that function in redundant or compensatory pathways may not exhibit a detectable phenotype. Because of the lack of strong evidence that these are indeed proteins regulated in the context of learning based on proteomics, including evidence of changes in the proteins (by imaging expression changes of fluorescent reporters or a biochemical approach), would increase confidence that these hits are genuine.

We thank Reviewer 2 for this suggestion – we agree that it would have been ideal to have additional evidence suggesting that changes in candidate protein levels are associated directly with learning. Ideally, we would have explored this aspect further; however, as outlined in response to Reviewer 1 Major Comment 2 (OPTIONAL), this was not feasible within the scope of the current study due to several practical challenges. Specifically, we attempted to generate pan-neuronal and endogenous promoter rescue lines for several candidates, but encountered significant challenges, including poor survival post-microinjection (likely due to protein overexpression toxicity) and reduced viability for behavioural assays, potentially linked to transgene-related reproductive defects. This information is now described on pages 39 & 40 of the revised work.

To address these limitations, we performed additional behavioural experiments where possible. We successfully generated a pan-neuronal promoter line for kin-2, which was tested and included in the revised manuscript (Figure 5B, pages 30 & 31). In addition, to confirm that observed learning phenotypes were due to the expected mutations and not background effects, we conducted experiments using backcrossed versions of several mutant lines as suggested by Reviewer 4 Cross Comment 3 (Figure 6, pages 23-24 & 24-26). Briefly, this shows that pan-neuronal expression of KIN-2 from the ce179 mutant allele is sufficient to repeat the enhanced learning phenotype observed in backcrossed kin-2(ce179) animals, providing additional evidence that the identified hits are required for learning. We also confirmed that F46H5.3 modulates salt associative learning, given both non-backcrossed and backcrossed F46H5.3(-) mutants display a learning enhancement phenotype. The revised text now describes this data on the page numbers mentioned above.

Minor Comments:

1. The authors highlight that the proteins they discover seem to function uniquely in their gustatory associative paradigm, but this is not completely accurate. kin-2, which they characterize in figure 4, is required for positive butanone association (the authors even say as much in the manuscript) in Stein and Murphy, 2014. We appreciate this correction and thank the Reviewer for pointing this out. We have amended the wording appropriately on page 31 to clarify our meaning.

2. “Although kin-2(ce179) mutants were not shown to impact salt aversive learning, they have been reported previously to display impaired intermediate-term memory (but intact learning and short-term memory) for butanone appetitive learning (Stein and Murphy, 2014).”*

Reviewer #2 (Significance (Required)):

• General Assessment: The approach used in this study is interesting and has the potential to further our knowledge about the molecular mechanisms of associative behaviors. Strengths of the study include the design with carefully thought out controls, and the premise of combining their proteomics with behavioral analysis to better understand the biological significance of their proteomics findings. However, the criteria for defining hits and prioritization of hits for behavioral characterizations were major wweaknesses of the paper.
• Advance: There have been multiple transcriptomic studies in the worm looking at gene expression changes in the context of behavioral training (Lakhina et al., 2015, Freytag 2017). This study compliments and extends those studies, by examining how the proteome changes in a different training paradigm. This approach here could be employed for multiple different training paradigms, presenting a new technical advance for the field.
• Audience: This paper would be of interest to the broader field of behavioral and molecular neuroscience. Though it uses an invertebrate system, many findings in the worm regarding learning and memory translate to higher organisms.
• I am an expert in molecular and behavioral neuroscience in both vertebrate and invertebrate models, with experience in genetics and genomics approaches. We appreciate Reviewer 2’s thoughtful assessment and constructive feedback. In response to concerns regarding definition and prioritisation of hits, we have revised our approach as detailed above to place more consideration on ‘strong’ hits present in multiple biological replicates. We have also added new behavioural data for additional mutants that fall into this category (Figures 6 & S7). We hope these revisions strengthen our study and enhance its relevance to the behavioural/molecular neuroscience community.

Reviewer #3 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

__Summary: __

In the manuscript titled "Identifying regulators of associative learning using a protein-labelling approach in C. elegans" the authors attempted to generate a snapshot of the proteomic changes that happen in the C. elegans nervous system during learning and memory formation. They employed the TurboID-based protein labeling method to identify the proteins that are uniquely found in samples that underwent training to associate no-salt with food, and consequently exhibited lower attraction to high salt in a chemotaxis assay. Using this system they obtained a list of target proteins that included proteins represented in molecular pathways previously implicated in associative learning. The authors then further validated some of the hits from the assay by testing single gene mutants for effects on learning and memory formation.

Major Comments:

In the discussion section, the authors comment on the sources of "background noise" in their data and ways to improve the specificity. They provide some analysis on this aspect in Supplementary figure S2. However, a better visualization of non-specificity in the sample could be a GO analysis of tissue-specificity, and presented as a pie chart as in Figure 2A. Non-neuronal proteins such as MYO-2 or MYO-3 repeatedly show up on the "TurboID trained" lists in several biological replicates (Tables S2 and S3). If a major fraction of the proteins after subtraction of control lists are non-specific, that increases the likelihood that the "hits" observed are by chance. This analysis should be presented in one of the main figures as it is essential for the reader to gauge the reliability of the experiment.

We agree with this assessment and thank Reviewer 3 for this constructive suggestion. In response, we have now incorporated a comprehensive tissue-specific analysis of the learning proteome in the revised manuscript. Using the single neuron RNA-Seq database CeNGEN, we identified the proportion of neuronal vs non-neuronal proteins from each biological replicate of mass spectrometry data. Specifically, we present Table 1 __on page 17 (which we originally intended to include in the manuscript, but inadvertently left out), which shows that 87-95% (i.e. a large majority) of proteins identified across replicates corresponded to genes detected in neurons, supporting that the TurboID enzyme was able to target the neuronal proteome as expected. __Table 1 is now described in the main text of the revised work on page 16.

In addition, we performed neuron-specific analyses using both the WormBase gene enrichment tool and the CeNGEN single-cell transcriptomic database, which we describe in detail on our response to Reviewer 1 Major Comment 2. To summarise, these analyses revealed enrichment of several neuron classes, including those previously implicated in associative learning (e.g., ASEL, AIB, RIS, AVK) as well as neurons not previously studied in this context (e.g., IL1, DA9, DVC) (summarised in Table S7). By examining expression overlap across neuron types, we identified shared and distinct profiles that suggest potential functional connectivity and candidate circuits underlying behavioural plasticity (Figure 4). Taken together, these data show that the proteins identified in our dataset are (1) neuronal and (2) expressed in neurons that are known to be required for learning. Methods are detailed on pages 50-51.

Other than the above, the authors have provided sufficient details in their experimental and analysis procedures. They have performed appropriate controls, and their data has sufficient biological and technical replaictes for statistical analysis.

We appreciate this positive feedback and thank the Reviewer for acknowledging the clarity of our experimental and analysis procedures.

Minor Comments:

There is an error in the first paragraph of the discussion, in the sentences discussing the learning effects in gar-1 mutant worms. The sentences in lines 12-16 on page 22 says that gar-1 mutants have improved salt-associative learning and defective salt-aversive learning, while in fact the data and figures state the opposite.

We appreciate the Reviewer noting this discrepancy. As clarified in our response to Reviewer 1, Major Comment 1 above, we reanalysed the behavioural data to ensure consistency across genotypes by comparing only those tested within the same biological replicates (thus having the same N for all genotypes). Upon this reanalysis, we found that the previously reported phenotype for gar-1 mutants in salt-associative learning was not statistically different from wild-type controls. Therefore, we have removed references to GAR-1 from the manuscript.

__Reviewer #3 (Significance (Required)): __Strengths and limitations: This study used neuron-specific TurboID expression with transient biotin exposure to capture a temporally restricted snapshot of the C. elegans nervous system proteome during salt-associative learning. This is an elegant method to identify proteins temporally specific to a certain condition. However, there are several limitations in the way the experiments and analyses were performed which affect the reliability of the data. As the authors themselves have noted in the discussion, background noise is a major issue and several steps could be taken to improve the noise at the experimental or analysis steps (use of integrated C. elegans lines to ensure uniformity of samples, flow cytometry to isolate neurons, quantitative mass spec to detect fold change vs. strict presence/absence). Advance: Several studies have demonstrated the use of proximity labeling to map the interactome by using a bait protein fusion. In fact, expressing TurboID not fused to a bait protein is often used as a negative control in proximity labeling experiments. However, this study demonstrates the use of free TurboID molecules to acquire a global snapshot of the proteome under a given condition. Audience: Even with the significant limitations, this study is specifically of interest to researchers interested in understanding learning and memory formation. Broadly, the methods used in this study could be modified to gain insights into the proteomic profiles at other transient developmental stages. The reviewer's field of expertise: Cell biology of C. elegans neurons.

We thank the reviewer for their thoughtful evaluation of our work. We appreciate the recognition of the novelty and potential of using neuron-specific TurboID to capture a temporally restricted snapshot of the C. elegans nervous system proteome during learning. We agree that this approach offers a unique opportunity to identify proteins associated with specific behavioural states in future studies.

We also appreciate the reviewer’s comments regarding limitations in experimental and analytical design. In revising the manuscript, we have taken several steps to address these concerns and improve the clarity, rigour, and interpretability of our data. Specifically:

• We now provide a frequency-based representation of proteomic hits (Table 2), which helps clarify how candidate proteins were selected and highlights differences between trained and control groups.
• We have added neuron-specific enrichment analyses using both WormBase and CenGEN databases (Table S7 & Figure 4), which help identify candidate neurons and potential circuits involved in learning (methods on pages 50-51).
• We have clarified the rationale for using qualitative proteomics in the context of TurboID, in addition to acknowledging the challenges of integrating quantitative mass spectrometry with biotin-based enrichment (page 39). Additional methods for improving sample purity, such as using integrated lines or FACS-enrichment of neurons, could further refine this approach in future studies. For transparency, we did attempt to integrate the TurboID transgenic line to improve the strength and consistency of biotinylation signals. However, despite four rounds of backcrossing, this line exhibited unexpected phenotypes, including a failure to respond reliably to the established training protocol. As a result, we were unable to include it in the current study. Nonetheless, we believe our current approach provides a valuable proof-of-concept and lays the groundwork for future refinement. By addressing the major concerns of peer reviewers, we believe our study makes a significant and impactful contribution by demonstrating the feasibility of using TurboID to capture learning-induced proteomic changes in the nervous system. The identification of novel learning-related mutants, including those involved in acetylcholine signalling and cAMP pathways, provides new directions for future research into the molecular and circuit-level mechanisms of behavioural plasticity.

Reviewer #4 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

Summary:

In this manuscript, authors used a learning paradigm in C. elegans; when worms were fed in a saltless plate, its chemotaxis to salt is greatly reduced. To identify learning-related proteins, authors employed nervous system-specific transcriptome analysis to compare whole proteins in neurons between high-salt-fed animals and saltless-fed animals. Authors identified "learning-specific genes" which are observed only after saltless feeding. They categorized these proteins by GO analyses and pathway analyses, and further stepped forward to test mutants in selected genes identified by the proteome analysis. They find several mutants that are defective or hyper-proficient for learning, including acc-1/3 and lgc-46 acetylcholine receptors, gar-1 acetylcholine receptor GPCR, glna-3 glutaminase involved in glutamate biosynthesis, and kin-2, a cAMP pathway gene. These mutants were not previously reported to have abnormality in the learning paradigm.

Major comments:

1) There are problems in the data processing and presentation of the proteomics data in the current manuscript which deteriorates the utility of the data. First, as the authors discuss (page 24, lines 5-12), the current approach does not consider amount of the peptides. Authors state that their current approach is "conservative", because some of the proteins may be present in both control and learned samples but in different amounts. This reviewer has a concern in the opposite way: some of the identified proteins may be pseudo-positive artifacts caused by the analytical noise. The problem is that authors included peptides that are "present" in "TurboID, trained" sample but "absent" in the "Non-Tg, trained" and "TurboID, control" samples in any one of the biological replicates, to identify "learning proteome" (706 proteins, page 8, last line - page 9, line 8; page 32, line 21-22). The word "present" implies that they included even peptides whose amounts are just above the detection threshold, which is subject to random noise caused by the detector or during sample collection and preparation processes. This consideration is partly supported by the fact that only a small fraction of the proteins are common between biological replicates (honestly and respectably shown in Figure S2). Because of this problem, there is no statistical estimate of the identity in "learning proteome" in the current manuscript. Therefore, the presentation style in Tables S2 and S3 are not very useful for readers, especially because authors already subtracted proteins identified in Non-Tg samples, which must also suffer from stochastic noise. I suggest either quantifying the MS/MS signal, or if authors need to stick to the "present"/"absent" description of the MS/MS data, use the number of appearances in biological replicates of each protein as estimate of the quantity of each protein. For example, found in 2 replicates in "TurboID, learned" and in 0 replicates in "Non-Tg, trained". One can apply statistics to these counts. This said, I would like to stress that proteins related to acquisition of memory may be very rare, especially because learning-related changes likely occur in a small subset of neurons. Therefore, 1 time vs 0 time may be still important, as well as something like 5 times vs 1 time. In summary, quantitative description of the proteomics results is desired.

We thank the reviewer for these valuable comments and suggestions.

We acknowledge that quantitative proteomics would provide beneficial information; however, as also indicated by Reviewer 1 (in cross-comment), it is practically challenging to perform with TurboID. We have included discussion of potential future experiments involving quantitative mass spectrometry, as well as a comprehensive discussion of some of the limitations of our approach as summarised by this Reviewer, in the Discussion section (page 39). However, we note that our qualitative approach also provides beneficial knowledge, such as the identification of functional protein networks acting within biological pathways previously implicated in learning (Figure 2), and novel learning regulators ACC-1/3, LGC-46, and F46H5.3.

We agree with the assessment that the frequency of occurrence for each candidate we test per biological replicate is useful to disclose in the manuscript as a proxy for quantification. This was also highlighted by Reviewer 2 (Major Comment 1). As detailed above in response to R2, we have now separated candidates into two categories: ‘strong’ (present in 3 or more biological replicates) and ‘weak’ candidates (present in 2 or fewer biological replicates). We have also added behavioural data after testing 9 of these strong candidates in Figures 6 & S7.

We have also added Table 2 to the revised manuscript, which summarises the frequency-based representation of the proteomics results, as suggested. This is described on pages 22-23. Briefly, this shows the range of candidates further explored using single mutant testing. Specifically, this data showed that many of the tested candidates were more frequently detected in trained worms compared to high-salt controls. This includes both strong and weak candidates, providing a clearer view of how proteomic frequency informed our selection for functional testing.

2) There is another problem in the treatment of the behavioural data. In Experimental Procedures, authors state that they excluded data in which naive or control groups showed average CI 0.5499 for N2 (page 36, lines 5-7). How were these values determined? One common example for judging a data point as an outlier is > mean + 1.5, 2 or 3 SD, or Thank you for pointing this out. As mentioned by both Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 4, the original manuscript states the following: “Data was excluded for salt associative learning experiments when wild-type N2 displayed (1) an average CI ≤ 0.6499 for naïve or control groups and/or (2) an average CI either 0.5499 for trained groups.”

To clarify, we only excluded experiments in rare cases where N2 worms did not display robust high salt attraction before training, or where trained N2 did not display the expected behavioural difference compared to untrained or high-salt control N2. These anomalies were typically attributable to clear contamination or starvation issues that could clearly be observed prior to counting chemotaxis indices on CTX plates.

We established these exclusion criteria in advance of conducting multiple learning assays to ensure an objective threshold for identifying and excluding assays affected by these rare but observable issues. However, these criteria were later found to be unnecessary, as N2 worms robustly displayed the expected untrained and trained phenotypes for salt associative learning when not compromised by starvation or contamination.

We understand that the original criteria may have appeared to introduce arbitrary bias in data selection. To address this concern, we have removed these criteria from the revised manuscript from page 50.

Minor comments:

1) Related to Major comments 1), the successful effect of neuron-specific TurboID procedure was not evaluated. Authors obtained both TurboID and Non-Tg proteome data. Do they see enrichment of neuron-specific proteins? This can be easily tested, for example by using the list of neuron-specific genes by Kaletsky et al. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature16483 or http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007559), or referring to the CenGEN data.

We thank this Reviewer for this helpful suggestion, which was echoed by Reviewer 3 (Major Comment 1). As indicated in the response to R3 above, the revised manuscript now includes Table 1 as a tissue-specific analysis of the learning proteome, using the single neuron RNA-Seq database CeNGEN to identify the proportion of neuronal proteins from each biological replicate of mass spectrometry data. Generally, we observed a range of 87-95% of proteins corresponded to genes from the CeNGEN database that had been detected in neurons, providing evidence that the TurboID enzyme was able to target the neuronal proteome as expected. Table 1 is now described in the main text of the revised work on pages 16 & 17.

2) The behavioural paradigm needs to be described accurately. Page 5, line 16-17, "C. elegans normally have a mild attraction towards higher salt concentration": in fact, C. elegans raised on NGM plates, which include approximately 50mM of NaCl, is attracted to around 50mM of NaCl (Kunitomo et al., Luo et al.) but not 100-200 mM.

We thank the Reviewer for pointing this out. We agree that clarification is necessary. The revised text reads as follows on page 5: “C. elegans are typically grown in the presence of salt (usually ~ 50 mM) and display an attraction toward this concentration when assayed for chemotaxis behaviour on a salt gradient (Kunitomo et al., 2013, Luo et al., 2014). Training/conditioning with ‘no salt + food’ partially attenuates this attraction (group referred to ‘trained’).”

Authors call this assay "salt associative learning", which refers to the fact that worms associate salt concentration (CS) and either presence or absence of food (appetitive or aversive US) during conditioning (Kunitomo et al., Luo et al., Nagashima et al.) but they are looking at only association with presence of food, and for proteome analysis they only change the CS (NaCl concentration, as discussed in Discussion, p24, lines 4-5). It is better to attempt to avoid confusion to the readers in general.

Thank you Reviewer 4 for highlighting this clarity issue. We clarify our definition of “salt associative learning” for the purpose of this study in the revised manuscript on page 6 with the following text:

“Similar behavioural paradigms involving pairings between salt/no salt and food/no food have been previously described in the literature (Nagashima et al. 2019). Here, learning experiments were performed by conditioning worms with either ‘no salt + food’ (referred to as ‘salt associative learning’) or ‘salt + no food’ (called ‘salt aversive learning’).”

3) page 32, line 23: the wording "excluding" is obscure and misleading because the elo-6 gene was included in the analysis.

We appreciate this Reviewer for pointing out this misleading comment, which was unintentional. We have now removed it from the text (on page 21).

4) Typo at page 24, line 18: "that ACC-1" -> "than ACC-1".

This has been corrected (on page 37).

5) Reference. In "LEO, T. H. T. et al.", given and sir names are flipped for all authors. Also, the paper has been formally published (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2023.07.041).

We appreciate the Reviewer drawing our attention to this – the reference has been corrected and updated.

I would like to express my modest cross comments on the reviews:

1) Many of the reviewers comment on the shortage in the quantitative nature of the proteome analysis, so it seems to be a consensus.

Thank you Reviewer 4 for this feedback. We appreciate the benefit in performing quantitative mass spectrometry, in that it provides an additional way to parse molecular mechanisms in a biological process (e.g., fold-changes in protein expression induced by learning). However, we note that quantitative mass spectrometry is challenging to integrate with TurboID due to the requirement to enrich for biotinylated peptides during sample processing (we now mention this on page 39). Nevertheless, it would be exciting to see this approach performed in a future study.

To address the limitations of our original qualitative approach and enhance the clarity and utility of our dataset, we have made the following revisions in the manuscript:

• Candidate selection criteria: We now clearly define how candidates were selected for functional testing, based on their frequency across biological replicates. Specifically, “strong candidates” were detected in three or more replicates, while “weak candidates” appeared in two or fewer.
• Frequency-based representation (_Table 2_):__We appreciate the suggestion by Reviewer 4 (Major Comment 1) to quantify differences between high-salt control and trained groups. We now provide the frequency-based representation of the candidates tested in this study within our proteomics data in __Table 2. This data showed that many of the tested candidates were more frequently detected in trained worms compared to high-salt controls. This includes both strong and weak candidates We hope these additions help clarify our approach and demonstrate the value of the dataset, even within the constraints of qualitative proteomics.

2) Also, tissue- or cell-specificity of the identified proteins were commonly discussed. In reviewer #3's first Major comment, appearance of non-neuronal protein in the list was pointed out, which collaborate with my (#4 reviewer's) question on successful identification of neuronal proteins by this method. On the other hand, reviewer #1 pointed out subset neuron-specific proteins in the list. Obviously, these issues need to be systematically described by the authors.

We agree with Reviewer 4 that these analyses provide a critical angle of analysis that is not explored in the original manuscript.

Tissue analysis (Reviewer 3 Major Comment 1): We have used the single neuron RNA-Seq database CeNGEN, to identify that 87-95% (i.e. a large majority) of proteins identified across replicates corresponded to genes detected in neurons. These findings support that the TurboID enzyme was able to target the neuronal proteome as expected. Table 1 provides this information as is now described in the main text of the revised work on page 16.

__Neuron class analyses (Reviewer 1 Major Comment 2): __In response, we have used the suggested Wormbase gene enrichment tool and CeNGEN. We specifically input proteins from the learning proteome into Wormbase, after filtering for proteins unique to TurboID trained animals. For CeNGEN, we compared genes/proteins from control worms and trained worms to identify potential neurons that may be involved in this learning paradigm.

Briefly, we found highlight a range of neuron classes known in learning (e.g., RIS interneurons), cells that affect behaviour but have not been explored in learning (e.g., IL1 polymodal neurons), and neurons for which their function/s are unknown (e.g., pharyngeal neuron I3). Corresponding text for this new analysis has been added on pages 16-20, with a new table and figure added to illustrate these findings (Table S7 & Figure 4). Methods are detailed on pages 50-51.

3) Given reviewer #1's OPTIONAL Major comment, as an expert of behavioral assays in C. elegans, I would like to comment based on my experience that mutants received from Caenorhabditis Genetics Center or other labs often lose the phenotype after outcrossing by the wild type, indicating that a side mutation was responsible for the observed behavioral phenotype. Therefore, outcrossing may be helpful and easier than rescue experiments, though the latter are of course more accurate.

Thank you for this suggestion. To address the potential involvement of background mutations, we have done experiments with backcrossed versions of mutants tested where possible, as shown in Figure 6. We found that F46H5.3(-) mutants maintained enhanced learning capacity after backcrossing with wild type, compared to their non-backcrossed mutant line. This was in contrast to C30G12.6(-) animals which lost their enhanced learning phenotype following backcrossing using wild type worms. This is described in the text on pages 24-26.

4) Just let me clarify the first Minor comment by reviewer #2. Authors described that the kin-2 mutant has abnormality in "salt associative learning" and "salt aversive learning", according to authors' terminology. In this comment by reviewer #2, "gustatory associative learning" probably refers to both of these assays.

Reviewer 4 is correct. We have amended the wording appropriately on page 31 to clarify our meaning to address Reviewer 2’s comment.

• “Although kin-2(ce179) mutants were not shown to impact salt aversive learning, they have been reported previously to display impaired intermediate-term memory (but intact learning and short-term memory) for butanone appetitive learning (Stein and Murphy, 2014).”*

5) There seem to be several typos in reviewer #1's Minor comments.

"In Page 9, Lines 17-18" -> "Page 8, Lines 17-18".

"Page 8, Line 24" -> "Page 7, Line 24".

"I would suggest to remove figure 3" -> "I would suggest to remove figure 2"

"summary figure similar to Figure 4" -> "summary figure similar to Figure 3"

"In the discussion Page 24, Line 14" -> "In the discussion Page 23, Line 14"

(I note that because a top page was inserted in the "merged" file but not in art file for review, there is a shift between authors' page numbers and pdf page numbers in the former.)

It would be nice if reviewer #1 can confirm on these because I might be wrong.

We appreciate Reviewer 4 noting this, and can confirm that these are the correct references (as indicated by Reviewer 1 in their cross-comments)

Reviewer #4 (Significance (Required)):

1) Total neural proteome analysis has not been conducted before for learning-induced changes, though transcriptome analysis has been performed for odor learning (Lakhina et al., http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.12.029). This guarantees the novelty of this manuscript, because for some genes, protein levels may change even though mRNA levels remain the same. We note an example in which a proteome analysis utilizing TurboID, though not the comparison between trained/control, has led to finding of learning related proteins (Hiroki et al., http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-30279-7). As described in the Major comments 1) in the previous section, improvement of data presentation will be necessary to substantiate this novelty.

We appreciate this thoughtful feedback. We agree that while the neuronal transcriptome has been explored in Lakhina et al., 2015 for C. elegans in the context of memory, our study represents the first to examine learning-induced changes in the total neuronal proteome. We particularly agree with the statement that “for some genes, protein levels may change even though mRNA levels remain the same”. This is essential rationale that we now discuss on page 42.

Additionally, we acknowledge the relevance of the study by Hiroki et al., 2022, which used TurboID to identify learning-related proteins, though not in a trained versus control comparison. Our work builds on this by directly comparing trained and control conditions, thereby offering new insights into the proteomic landscape of learning. This is now clarified on page 36.

To substantiate the novelty and significance of our approach, we have revised the data presentation throughout the manuscript, including clearer candidate selection criteria, frequency-based representation of proteomic hits (Table 2), and neuron-specific enrichment analyses (Table S7 & Figure 4). We hope these improvements help convey the unique contribution of our study to the field.

2) Authors found six mutants that have abnormality in the salt learning (Fig. 4). These genes have not been described to have the abnormality, providing novel knowledge to the readers, especially those who work on C. elegans behavioural plasticity. Especially, involvement of acetylcholine neurotransmission has not been addressed. Although site of action (neurons involved) has not been tested in this manuscript, it will open the venue to further determine the way in which acetylcholine receptors, cAMP pathway etc. influences the learning process.

Thank you Reviewer 4, for this encouraging feedback. To further strengthen the study and expand its relevance, we have tested additional mutants in response to Reviewer 3’s comments, as shown in Figures 6 & S7. These results provide even more candidate genes and pathways for future exploration, enhancing the significance and impact of our study.

Note: This response was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. The content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

Reply to the reviewers

We thank all the reviewers for their helpful and constructive comments and for their time.

Reviewer #1 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):*

Summary: Dady et al have developed fluorescent reporters to enable live imaging of cell behaviour and morphology in human pluripotent stem cell lines (PSCs). These reporters target 3 main features, the plasma membrane, nucleus and cytoskeleton. Reporter PSCs have been generated using a piggyBac transposon-mediated stable integration strategy, using a hyperactive piggyBac transposase (HyPBase). The same constructs were also used for mosaic labelling of cells within 2D cultures using lipofectamine transfection.

The reporters used are tagged with either eGFP or mKate2 (far red) and tag the plasma membrane (pm) via the addition of a 20 amino-acid sequence from rat GAP-43 to the N-terminus of the fluorescent protein, the nucleus via Histone 2B with a laser-mediated photo-conversion option (H2B-mEos3.2), and the cytoskeleton via F-Tractin. In total, the authors produced lines with the following:

• pm-mKate2 (far red) • pm-eGFP (green) • H2B-mEos3.2 (green to red) • F-tractin-mKate2 (far red) • H2B-mEos3.2 and pm-mKate2 (green to red, plus far red)

The cell lines used to generate these were the human embryonic stem cell line H9 and human induced pluripotent cell line ChiPS4. The constructs were also used to label cells in a mosaic fashion, using lipofectamine transfection of the original cell lines once they had formed neural rosettes.

Using these cells, Dady et al then performed live imaging in vitro of human spinal cord rosettes and assessed cell behaviour. In particular they analysed mitotic cleavage planes and apical positioning of neural progenitor cells (NPCs), and assessed actin dynamics within these cells. They showed a slowing of the cell cycle length after the initial expansion phase, an increase in the rate of asymmetric division of these NPCs, and abscission of the apical membrane during these divisions. The F-tractin reporter showed enrichment at the basal nuclear membrane during these cell divisions, suggested to help prevent basal chromosome displacement during mitosis.

Major comments: The data presented are convincing and could be strengthened by the following additions and clarifications:*

2. How long do the fluorescent reports take to be visible when transfected via lipofectamine? How efficiently are they expressed? And what concentrations were tested to enable the mosaic expression presented? * We followed the manufacturer’s instructions for Lipofectamine 3000 transfection, using the protocol recommended for set up for a 6 wells plate. We detected fluorescence the following morning ~16h. We did not assess earlier time points or optimise efficiency as we observed the mosaic pattern of expression we set out to achieve, with small groups of labelled cells and single cells as shown in Figure 3 and movies 2 and 3. This information and the detailed protocol provided below are now included in the Methods section “Labelling individual cells in human spinal cord rosettes by lipofection”.

Manufacturer’s instructions for Lipofectamine 3000 transfection (6 well plate):

• 1 tube containing 125 ul of Opti-MEM and 7.5 ul of Lipofectamine 3000
• 1 tube containing 250 ul of Opti-MEM with 5 ug of DNA (total mix DNAs of 2 ug/ul) and P3000 Reagent
• Add diluted DNA to diluted Lipofectamine 3000 (Ratio 1:1) and incubate for 10 to 15 min at Room Temperature.
• 20 ul of DNA-Lipid complex was added to neural rosettes growing in 8 well IBIDI dishes (20 ul/well).
• The ratio of DNA (PiggyBac plasmid) and HypBase transposase was kept at 5:1 (for a final concentration of 2ug/ul).

• Cells in IBIDI dishes were left to develop in a sterile incubator overnight and mosaic fluorescence was observed the following morning (~16h post-lipofection).

• Will these cell lines and constructs be made publicly available after publication?*

The cell lines can be made available: for those reporters made in the H9 WiCell line an MTA will first have to be signed between the requesting PI and WiCell and permission for us to share the line(s) confirmed by WiCell; similarly, for reporters in ChiPS4 line an MTA will first need to be signed between the requesting PI and Cellartis/TakaraBio Europe. We will need to make a charge to cover costs. Constructs will be deposited with Addgene.

• Were the H9 and ChiPS4 lines characterised after the reporters were added to show they still proliferate/differentiate as they did prior to the reporter integration*?

In the Results we make clear that all lines created are polyclonal, with exception of a pm-eGFP ChiPS4 line, which is a monoclonal line (lines 145-150). We do not have direct data measuring cell proliferation but collected cell passaging data for all the reporter lines. This showed that they grow to similar densities at each passage compared to the parental line (this metadata is now provided as Supplementary data 1 and is cited in the Methods, line 348).

As a proof of principle for this approach, we created one monoclonal line from a polyclonal line ChIPS4-pm-eGFP. The latter was made by selecting an individual clone and this was then expanded and characterised for expression of pluripotency markers (immunocytochemistry data Figure S4), and the ability to differentiate into 3 germ layers (qPCR Supplementary data 1). This information is already cited in the Methods (Lines 358-362).

• Can the novel actin dynamics described be quantified? How many cells imaged show these novel dynamics?* Some of this quantification data was already reported in the paper (in figure 4 legend and in the Methods); we have now updated this and provide the detailed metadata in an Excel spread sheet, Supplementary data 4 (cited in the Methods, line 489)

Minor comments: 1. Some images in the figures and supplemental movies are low in resolution, for example the DAPI in Fig 4B, making it hard to distinguish individual cells. Please increase this.

We consider the DAPI labelling in Figure 4b to be clear, however, we wonder whether the reviewer was expecting to also see this combined with the other markers. We have therefore now provided these merged additional images in a revised Figure 4.

• Please show a merge of Phalloidin and F-Tractin in Fig4, this will help the colocalization to be fully appreciated.*

This has now been provided in revised Figure 4B.

• Some additional annotation on the supplemental movies would be useful to indicate to the **reader exactly what cell to follow. *

We have added indicative arrows to the movies, and note that more detailed labelling of the series of still images from these movies are provided in the main figures (Figures 3D and 4E & F).

*Reviewer #1 (Significance (Required)):

Human neurogenesis is currently poorly understood compared to many model systems used, yet key differences have already been identified between the human and the mouse, prompting the need for further investigation of human neural development. A major reason that human neurogenesis has been difficult to study is a lack of tools to enable cell morphology and behaviours to be analysed in real time.

The reporters and reporter PSC lines generated by Dady et al will allow many of these cell characteristics to be observed using live imaging. For example, the morphology of neural progenitors during and after cell divisions, how the apical and basal processes and membranes are divided, and how the actin cytoskeleton helps to regulate these processes.

*Importantly, PSC lines can be very heterogeneous, making generating reporter lines costly and time intensive. The use of these reporters with lipofectamine transfection, for a mosaic labelling, allows the visualisation of the plasma membrane, nucleus and cytoskeleton in any human PSC/NPC line, or even in human tissue cultures, without the need to generate each specific reporter line, making it a valuable tool for many labs in the field.

We strongly agree with this final point; this is a major reason for our study.

Reviewer #2 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):*

The manuscript describes the generation of novel lines of human pluripotent stem cells bearing fluorescent reporters, engineered through piggyBac transposon-mediated integration. The cells are differentiated into neuronal organoids, allowing to capture cellular behaviors associated to cell division. A replating protocol allows the observation of aging neurons by reducing the thickness of the tissue thereby facilitating live imaging. The authors also leverage the transposon technology to create mosaically-labelled organoids which allows visualizing aspects of neuronal delamination, notably cytoskeleton dynamics. They discover an undescribed pattern of F-actin enrichment at the basal nuclear membrane prior to nuclear envelope breakdown.

L104-109: "Moreover, the transposon system obviates drawbacks of directly engineering endogenous proteins...". Despite the risk of endogenous protein dysfunction, directly tagging allows the full regulation of gene expression (including the promoter, the enhancers and other regulatory regions rather than a strong constitutive promoter such as CAG). In addition, the number of copies integrated and the genomic regions are variable with PB, which does not reflect the endogenous expression. This could be rephrased by nuancing the advantages and drawbacks of each approach. The PiggyBac method is easier and faster, but it results in overexpression of a tagged protein that will be expressed since the hESC state and might not reflect the expression dynamics of the endogenous protein.* We agree and have now revised this in the Introduction L109-118.

*L124-126: "To monitor cell shape and dynamics we used a plasma membrane (pm) localized protein tagged with eGFP or mKate2 (pm-eGFP or pm-mKate2)." Could the authors provide more details and a reference on the palmitoylated rat peptide use to force membrane expression? *

This information, including the peptide sequence, is provided in the Methods (L330-331), we have now added a reference addressing its role in membrane localisation PMID: 2918027.

L132-133: " Finally, to observe actin cytoskeletal dynamics we selected F-tractin, for its minimal impact on cytoskeletal homeostasis".

A recent JCB paper (https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.202409192) suggests that "F-tractin alters actin organization and impairs cell migration when expressed at high levels". Whether the overexpression of F-tractin in hESC using a CAG promoter reflects the physiological F-actin dynamics and/or if the high levels could lead to an alteration of cell behavior should be addressed or at least discussed. The paper we cite in this sentence (Belin et al 2014) evaluates F-tractin expression against other approaches to labelling and monitoring the actin cytoskeleton and concludes that in comparison F-tractin has minimal impact.

We do appreciate that expression above the endogenous level has the potential to alter cell behaviour and have revised the paper to more explicitly acknowledge this: in the Introduction (L109-112), and in the Discussion/conclusion (L289-293) where we now note the recent advances reported in Shatskiy et al. 2025 PMID: 39928047.

“A further potential limitation of this approach is that over-expression driven by the CAG promoter might not reflect physiological protein dynamics and/or alter cell behaviour; for example, high levels of F-Tractin can impair cell migration and induce actin bundling, interestingly, this can now be minimised by removing the N-terminal region (Shatskiy et al 2025)”.

L146-147: "...to generate polyclonal cell lines selected for expression of easily detectable (medium level) fluorescence for live imaging studies". What are the criteria used to define medium level? Number of copies integrated into the genome? Or levels by FACS during clone selection?

To clarify, all the lines presented here are polyclonal, except for one clonal line, pm-eGFP in ChiPS4. The numbers of copies integrated may vary from cell to cell in polyclonal lines. In this study, we selected cells for all lines with a FACS gate and this data is presented in Figure S1 (see line 147).

L260-263: "Efficient stable integration and moderate expression levels were achieved by optimising, i) the quantity and ratio of piggyBac plasmids and transposase and ii) subsequent FACS to exclude high expressing cells, as well as iii) transfection methods, including temporally defined lipofection in hiPSC-derived tissues." The ration 5:1 is classically used for PB Transposase delivery, however there is still high variability in the number of copies integration. Lipofection in derived tissues has been shown to be challenging. Could the authors should provide quantitative data regarding the efficiency of their approaches, notably the level of mosaicism one could expect?

We provide quantitative data for the efficiency of transfection using nucleoporation assays (FACS data presented in Supplementary figure S1), which shows more than 80-90% efficiency for eGFP in 82.82% of cells, mKate2 in 92.74% of cells, and H2B-mEos3 22.75% of cells, while 13.79% of cells co-expressed pm-Kate and H2B-mEos3.2. No comparative data regarding the efficiency of the tissue Lipofection assay was collected: our goal was to label single/small numbers of cells in order to monitor individual cell behaviours, and this “inefficient labelling” was readily achieved following the manufacturer’s instructions (please see response to Review 1 point 1), further details are now provided in the Methods.

L191-194: "We further wished to monitor sub-cellular behaviour within the developing neuroepithelium. To achieve this, we devised a strategy to target a mosaic of cells in established neural rosettes using lipofection. PiggyBac constructs and HyPBase transposase were transfected into D8/D9 human spinal cord neural progenitors using lipofectamine (Felgner, et al., 1987)(Fig. 3A)." The mosaicism is not an all or nothing in this method but also leads to variations in expression levels among the positive cells. The protocol for lipofection could be better detailed to allow easy reproduction by other teams, and its expected efficiency should be discussed. It would be interesting to explore the relationship between individual cells phenotype and expression levels. Please see response to Reviewer 1 point 1 above for more detailed lipofection protocol which generated mosaic expression, this is now also included in the Methods. We agree that investigating the relationship between individual cell phenotypes and expression levels would be interesting, but we think this is beyond the scope of this paper.

Additional comments: -Did the authors perform karyotyping of the hPSCs prior to use in the differentiation protocol?

As these are polyclonal lines, we did not undertake karyotyping. This could be done for the one monoclonal line described here (pm-eGFP ChiPS4 line): we lack funds for commercial options, but we are exploring other possibilities.

-Were pluripotency assays performed after reporter lines generation?

These were carried out for the clonal pm-eGFP ChiPS4 line (lines 145-150). The latter was made by selecting an individual clone and this was then expanded and characterised for expression of pluripotency markers by IF (Figure S4), and the ability to differentiate into 3 germ layers by qPCR (Supplementary data 2). This information is provided in the Methods (Lines 358-362).

*-Did the authors measure the cell proliferation rate in H2B-overexpressing cells and controls? Since H2B plays an important role in cytokinesis, it could interfere in cell division when H2B is overexpressed (see doi: 10.3390/cells8111391). *

We did not directly measure cell division when H2B is over-expressed. However, we assessed cell -passaging time of all the transfected cell lines. This showed that they grow to similar densities at each passage compared to the parental line (this is now provided as Supplementary data 1 and is cited in the Methods, line 348). We also found no difference between apical visiting time of progenitors in spinal cord rosettes expressing pm-eGFP or H2B-mEoS3.2, further supporting the conclusion that levels of H2B-mEoS3.2 expression achieved in this line did not interfere with cell division (metadata provided in Supplementary data 3).

The authors should provide data concerning the efficiency of expression of the distinct markers after electroporation. This is provided in Supplementary Figure S1 (FACS data) and detailed above for this reviewer.

*At Fig 1C, the schematic representation describes clone selection, however in the methods it is stated (L348-349): "Sorted cells expressing medium levels of fluorescence were expanded and frozen then representative lots of each polyclonal cell line...". There is some confusion regarding which experiments were performed using polyclonal medium-level mixed populations or monoclonal populations. *

We apologise for any confusion and have revised the Figure 1C schematic to indicate that cells can be selected to either make polyclonal lines or clonal lines.

*Reviewer #2 (Significance (Required)):

The study provides novel tools, as well as elements regarding neuroepithelium biology. It is well conducted and written, and the quality of images is excellent. It reads more as a resource paper in its current version, since the observation regarding neural cell division and delamination are interesting but not deeply explored, so this review will focus on those technical aspects rather than the novelty of the biological findings.

This study would be of interests for researchers in stem cells and organoids, developmental biology, and neurosciences.

Reviewer #3 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

In the manuscript, "Engineering fluorescent reporters in human pluripotent cells and strategies for live imaging human neurogenesis" the authors Dady et al. describe the adaptation of a recent advancement in transposase technology (HyPBase) as a method to integrate live reporters in human pluripotent stem cells. They show that these florescent reporters paired with new imaging strategies can be used to confirm the existence cellular behaviour described in other species such as the interkinetic nuclear migration (IKNM) of dividing progenitors in neural tube development. Finally, they demonstrate that this live imaging system is also able to discover novel biology by identifying previously undescribed actin polymerization at the basal nuclear surface of cortical progenitors undergoing cell division. Overall, the study presents two examples in which this adapted tool will aid in live-imaging studies of cellular biology.

Major Concerns: 1. This work needs more controls to properly demonstrate claims that their engineering strategy provides an advancement to current Piggyback methods. Their HyPBase strategy needs to be compared and quantified in terms of efficiency with other methods to support their claims (increased detection and reduced phototoxicity).*

We do not make specific claims for our experiments with respect to the superiority of HyPBase strategy. Our comments on this approach referred to by the reviewer here are in the Introduction (L 94-103), are supported by the literature (e.g. more stable gene expression than native piggyBac or the Tc1/mariner transposase Sleeping Beauty (Doherty, et al., 2012, Yusa, et al., 2011) and serve to explain our selection of HyPBase for our experiments. We make a case for using HyPBase as opposed to another transposase and although it would be interesting to compare efficiencies, this comment does not specify what “other methods” might be informative.

2.Throughout the manuscript more quantification is needed of the results. How many rosettes were examined? Were all the reported cells within one rosette? Were there differences between rosettes? This should be done for both the spinal and cortical differentiations.

The reviewer appears to have missed this information – we placed detailed quantifications in the figure legends (numbers of independent experiments and rosettes) and in the Methods in a specific section on Quantification of cell behaviour (L465-486), rather than in the main text. These has since been further updated and we now also provide additional metadata in the form of Excel spreadsheets for quantifications and analyses made for both spinal cord and cortical rosettes (Supplementary data 3 and 4 respectively).

Minor Comments: 1. Line 246 needs quantification shown in figures of the statements made. Specifically, how many cells were measured to get this number?

This information was provided in the figure 4 legend and we have since added numbers to these data; we were able to monitor 169 divisions in 21 rosettes; 154/166 divisions had vertical cleavage planes (symmetric) and 12/166 had horizontal cleavage planes (asymmetric).

These detailed observations were made in two independent experiments, along with observations of basal nuclear membrane F-Tractin localisation. This is noted in figure 4 legend, Methods and detailed metadata is provided in Supplementary data 4.

2.How many cells in the cortical rosettes had the enriched actin at the basal nuclear surface?

We confidently observed basal nuclear membrane F-Tractin enrichment in 141/146 divisions, for the remaining 20 cases (166-146), we could not tell whether F-Tractin is enriched or not at the basal nuclear membrane either because of low expression levels or because the basal nuclear membrane was out of focus at NEB. In 5 cases, we did not see the basal nuclear enrichment despite sufficient F-Tractin expression levels and the nucleus being in focus. We have updated the Fig4 legend excluding the non-analysable cases and see detailed metadata is provided in Supplementary data 4.

*Reviewer #3 (Significance (Required)):

General Assessment: This manuscript makes a very minor advancement in the field of stem cell engineering and developmental biology, but one that is worthy of publication with a few edits.

Advance: While PiggyBac reporters are widely used in stem cell engineering, Dady et al. demonstrate a new workflow using HyPBase which would be beneficial to the field. However, to increase this benefit, much more description and quantification of the methods would be needed. The biological advances of this manuscript are also very minor, but interesting as most of them confirm that human neural rosettes mimic many of the observed cell behaviours seen in animal models. Along these lines is the actin dynamics observation in cortical rosettes is interesting, but a preliminary observation and in need of follow up experiments.

Audience: Regardless, this technique would be of interest to the wider field of stem cell engineering.

My Expertise: Human Stem Cell Engineering, Neural Tube Development*

Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

Referee #1

Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

Summary:

Dady et al have developed fluorescent reporters to enable live imaging of cell behaviour and morphology in human pluripotent stem cell lines (PSCs). These reporters target 3 main features, the plasma membrane, nucleus and cytoskeleton. Reporter PSCs have been generated using a piggyBac transposon-mediated stable integration strategy, using a hyperactive piggyBac transposase (HyPBase). The same constructs were also used for mosaic labelling of cells within 2D cultures using lipofectamine transfection.

The reporters used are tagged with either eGFP or mKate2 (far red) and tag the plasma membrane (pm) via the addition of a 20 amino-acid sequence from rat GAP-43 to the N-terminus of the fluorescent protein, the nucleus via Histone 2B with a laser-mediated photo-conversion option (H2B-mEos3.2), and the cytoskeleton via F-Tractin. In total, the authors produced lines with the following:

• pm-mKate2 (far red)
• pm-eGFP (green)
• H2B-mEos3.2 (green to red)
• F-tractin-mKate2 (far red)
• H2B-mEos3.2 and pm-mKate2 (green to red, plus far red)

The cell lines used to generate these were the human embryonic stem cell line H9 and human induced pluripotent cell line ChiPS4. The constructs were also used to label cells in a mosaic fashion, using lipofectamine transfection of the original cell lines once they had formed neural rosettes.

Using these cells, Dady et al then performed live imaging in vitro of human spinal cord rosettes and assessed cell behaviour. In particular they analysed mitotic cleavage planes and apical positioning of neural progenitor cells (NPCs), and assessed actin dynamics within these cells. They showed a slowing of the cell cycle length after the initial expansion phase, an increase in the rate of asymmetric division of these NPCs, and abscission of the apical membrane during these divisions. The F-tractin reporter showed enrichment at the basal nuclear membrane during these cell divisions, suggested to help prevent basal chromosome displacement during mitosis.

Major comments:

The data presented are convincing and could be strengthened by the following additions and clarifications: 1. How long do the fluorescent reports take to be visible when transfected via lipofectamine? How efficiently are they expressed? And what concentrations were tested to enable the mosaic expression presented? 2. Will these cell lines and constructs be made publicly available after publication? 3. Were the H9 and ChiPS4 lines characterised after the reporters were added to show they still proliferate/differentiate as they did prior to the reporter integration? 4. Can the novel actin dynamics described be quantified? How many cells imaged show these novel dynamics?

Minor comments:

1. Some images in the figures and supplemental movies are low in resolution, for example the DAPI in Fig 4B, making it hard to distinguish individual cells. Please increase this.
2. Please show a merge of Phallodin and F-Tractin in Fig4, this will help the colocalization to be fully appreciated.
3. Some additional annotation on the supplemental movies would be useful to indicate to the reader exactly what cell to follow.

Significance

Human neurogenesis is currently poorly understood compared to many model systems used, yet key differences have already been identified between the human and the mouse, prompting the need for further investigation of human neural development. A major reason that human neurogenesis has been difficult to study is a lack of tools to enable cell morphology and behaviours to be analysed in real time.

The reporters and reporter PSC lines generated by Dady et al will allow many of these cell characteristics to be observed using live imaging. For example, the morphology of neural progenitors during and after cell divisions, how the apical and basal processes and membranes are divided, and how the actin cytoskeleton helps to regulate these processes.

Importantly, PSC lines can be very heterogeneous, making generating reporter lines costly and time intensive. The use of these reporters with lipofectamine transfection, for a mosaic labelling, allows the visualisation of the plasma membrane, nucleus and cytoskeleton in any human PSC/NPC line, or even in human tissue cultures, without the need to generate each specific reporter line, making it a valuable tool for many labs in the field.

Zwei Ex-Soldaten rechnen ab: So schlecht steht es um Deutschland wirklich

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOWDBy4fbqs

Der Kipp-Punkt kommt, wenn die Kassen leer sind‼️ Dann gehen uns unsere Fachkräfte an die Gurgel‼️

selbstjustiz und revolution, das ist das einzige was hilft, alles andere ist zeitverschwendung.

4:51 Die Polizisten haben Angst, die Bürger haben Angst und das ist ja auch das Problem. Machst du jetzt irgendwas? Die sind ja nicht blöd, die kriegen deine Daten raus über die Staatsanwaltschaft, und dann auf einmal kriegst du Hausbesuche. Dasselbe Problem haben die Richter, dasselbe haben die Anwälte. Massive Einschüchterung, zumindest wenn es um Clankriminalität geht. Keiner traut sich mehr, was, also Deutschland hat fertig. Wir sind im Kriegszustand. nur hat es bis jetzt uns nur keiner gesagt.

8:05 Das Problem ist auch mit diesen Einschüchterungen, das ist eine Form der Propaganda. Man weiß, man kann gegen die Leute nichts machen, also schüchtert man sie ein. Weil dann sozusagen, oh, eine Hausdurchsuchung links oder rechts von einen. Es wird juristisch nichts passieren, aber was passiert sozial? Was passiert mit den Job? Also, bestrafe einen und züchtige Hunderte. Das ist ein reines Abschreckungsmittel, was eigentlich in diktatorischen Gefilden normalerweise angewendet wird, aber anscheinend ist unsere Politik so weit, dass sie in die Enge getrieben ist, sich von der Realität verabschiedet haben, um jetzt sozusagen auf, ich nenn es mal "alte Methoden" zurückgreift, um dort einfach an der Macht zu bleiben.

8:42 Weil das wissen wir, sei es die NGO Geschichten, sei es die vielen Skandale, die Masse wahrscheinlich von vielen vielen Amsträgern, die müssten wahrscheinlich auch im Knast landen. Ja, nur das kann man natürlich schön verheimlichen, indem man die Medien auf seiner Seite hat, die Richter, die alle auch politisch irgendwo ihre Pässe haben, ihre Parteibücher, und auf der anderen Seite mit den Medien. Also alles so ein Schornstein-Effekt, alle nutzen sich gegenseitig, und geben sich auch gegenseitig Autorität.

11:04 Vorsorgen kann bis zu einem gewissen Grad ja wirklich jeder, ne? Ja, und es geht auch nicht immer um materielle Sachen. Körperlich, Geist, Netzwerk, Austauschen. Alleine bist du in der Krise nichts. Egal, was du für ein Background hast, egal wie gut du bewaffnet bist, egal wie viel Essen du hast, jeder ist Mal krank oder müde oder angeschlagen oder verletzt. Man braucht eine Schichtfähigkeit. Man braucht vor allem spezialisierte Leute, die verschiedene Fähigkeiten machen können, sich ergänzen können als Team. Ja, was ursprünglich eigentlich so die Volksseele war. Das ist ja durch die Atomisierung, ist auch wieder so eine so eine Technik, ist ja das ausgetrieben worden, ne? Oder Entwurzelungstechniken. Damit ist natürlich die Bevölkerung komplett sozusagen, jeder gegen jeden, und nur noch Ellenbogengesellschaft, und dass man eigentlich zusammen gehört, auch dieses links und rechts, grün gegen sonst was, oben gegen unten, das sind alles Techniken, nur um eigentlich "die da oben", sage ich mal, zu schützen, dass das Volk nicht ein irgendwo vorgeht. Und du hast gefragt, wie lange geht's noch? Es geht so lange, wie wir uns das gefallen lassen, und irgendwann, irgendwann stehen Leute auf und sagen, jetzt reicht's.

12:10 Aber dieser Kippppunkt muss noch kommen, das ist das Problem an der deutschen Seele, ja, bei den Südländern ist es eher so eine Art "Tauziehen", sagt man in der Psychologie. Also, wenn sozusagen eine Reaktion kommt, Druck von Regierung, neue Steuern, dann wird direkt reagiert. Bei den Deutschen oder den, ich nenn es mal den Norddeuropäern, das ist eher so ein "Kipppunkt", da passiert nichts, passiert nichts, irgendwann reicht's und dann schnappt das um, und dann ist natürlich gleich wieder Volleskalation. Aber dieser Punkt ist noch nicht da. Wir haben noch Trinken, es gibt noch Bier, es kommt noch Fußball im Fernsehen.

13:42 190.000 zusätzliche Arbeitslose mehr als im selben Zeitpunkt im Jahr davor, aber 6,2% Arbeitslosenquote. Aber sind wir mal ehrlich, das ist ja nicht die Wahrheit. Die Wahrheit ist ja, wie viele sind in Maßnahmen, wie viele gehen im vorzeitigen Ruhstand, wenn man ehrlich ist, kann man das ja mindestens verdoppeln. Und dann hast du natürlich von den zusätzlichen Beamten, die geschaffen werden, sei es in Berlin, sei es aber auf kommunaler Ebene, ich kriege das bei mir auf kommunale Ebene mit, wie viele Menschen dort verbeamtet werden, die in der Verwaltung sitzen. Ist für mich immer unbegreiflich, weiß du. Also Beamte brauchst du maximal Richter, Staatsanwälte, Polizisten. Brauchst du keine Lehrer als Beamter in meinen Augen. Ist völliger Nonsens.

14:23 Aber es bläht sich halt komplett auf, dieser Wasserkopf, und diejenigen, die hier tatsächlich produktiv noch sind, die werden immer weniger, die werden immer mehr zur Kasse gebeten. Was habe ich mich gestern und heute mit Unternehmen unterhalten, die einfach die Schnauze voll haben und sagen, ich mach nicht mehr, ich hau ab, ihr könnt mich alle mal, und dann stehen wir da. Dann hast du eine extrem linke Bewegung. Ich glaube, gestern waren es ernsthaft die Linken in den Umfragen bei 16%, wo ich mir denke, sag mal, seid ihr alle nicht mehr ganz dicht oder was? Du kannst ja ne linke Einstellung haben. Die linke Einstellung endet für mich da, wenn man irgendwie das, weiß du, "Deutschland verrecke", "Alerta Alerta", die ganze Nummer, die ich da von morgens bis abends von irgendwelchen wirklich dummen Menschen höre, die aber auf meine Kosten leben, die vom Sozialstaat leben. Was glauben die denn, wo das herkommt?

19:42 Die sind nicht alle blöd. Das Problem ist, vielen fehlen die Fakten, vielen fehlen sachliche neutrale Fakten. Alles was, sei es über öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunk ist, oder über Fernsehen, Radio, sonst was, durchläuft mindestens fünf Filter. Also fünf Filter von "hier ist die Explosion", hier ist die Primärquelle, und ehe wir das sehen, lesen oder sonst was, muss es mindestens durch fünf Filter durchgehen, teilweise auch sechs oder sieben Filter, und somit ist natürlich klar, die Leute können bloß auf der Datenlage, die die bekommen, eine eine Reaktion bzw. eine Lagefeststellung, eine Entscheidung treffen. Wenn aber die Rohdaten nur Lügen sind, und die das aber nicht wissen, dann können die einfach das nicht machen. Die denken wirklich vielleicht "aus bestem Wissen und Gewissen wähle ich jetzt das", oder mache ich jetzt das, oder "die sind böse und die sind gut". Aber woher ziehen die ihre Daten? Ja, und das sind so die Sachen. Einfach mehr hinterfragen, mehr selber nachdenken. Am Ende wird man selber drauf kommen, ne? Es ist es ist nicht so komplex, nur dadurch dass jeder arbeiten ist, keine Zeit hat. Ja, und wenn er dann abends kaputt nach 10 Stunden Arbeit, vor allem die Selbständigen, das ja dann eher Halbzeit, dann fällt man nur noch ins Bett oder auf Sofa, schaut Netflix, trinkt nen Wein und dann dann fängt der nächste Tag wieder vor los, also diese Narkotisierung durch viele Informationen und aber auch Überschwemmung mit 1000 Fake News und Desinformation, dadurch können die Leute leider, muss man sagen, gar nicht so richtig das urteilen. Das ist das Problem. Diese, beim NLP heißt das ja "unbewusste Inkompetenz". Ja, sie wissen gar nicht, dass die dumm sind bzw. wissen gar nicht, dass denen irgendwas fehlt. Dazu müssten die sozusagen erstmal die richtigen Fragen stellen, um eine "bewusste Inkompetenz". "Oh, hier habe ich eine Lücke." Ja, deswegen sage ich immer, vielfältig informieren. Es es reicht heutzutage nicht einfach nur um 19 Uhr die Glotze anzumachen.

23:59 Also ich kann bloß das wiederholen, was einige Polizeipräsidenten zu mir gesagt haben, und da ging's ja einmal hier um das Beispiel Frankfurt, was sie gesagt hatten, dass die komplette Polizei und auch Bundeswehr nicht in der Lage wäre, allein gegen die Frankfurter Gangster und die Kriminellen anzugehen. Also das Gegenüber hat viel mehr Waffen, Munition, viel mehr Manpower. Von allen Behörden, die ich jemals getroffen und gesehen habe, seit 2004, sagen alle dasselbe. Sobald es kracht, nehmen Sie ihre Dienstwaffe und gehen nach Hause. Also, es ist kaum einer da, und auch viele Dienststellen sind schon infiltriert [Graue Wölfe, Bozkurt]. Auch da sind schon viele, ich sag mal, aus den Clans aus den Gangbereichen mit drin, die gezielt reingebracht wurden.

26:42 Jeder, der sich mit dieser ganzen Situation mal intensiv befasst hat, weiß das. In Deutschland denken da kaum Menschen drüber nach. Die Naivität in diesem Land ist bemerkenswert. Ich habe in meinem letzten Video das von dem Delta Force Operator eingespielt, weil er, wie er gesagt hat, die Brutalität bei unseren Menschen, und die sind ja in diesem Land, das sind nicht alle, ja, aber es sind genügend mit eingesickert, die vom islamischen Staat kommen, und so weiter. Und wenn die dann die "Leutnante" sind, sage ich mal, auf der Straße, du hast das letztes mal gesagt, da werden viele folgen, da werden viele mitmachen.

27:23 Ich habe eine Rede von dem ehemaligen Chef der Kommando Spezialkräfte, General Günzel, gehört, der gesagt hat, der Mensch ist von Natur aus schlecht und brutal. Geht es aber um religiöse Gründe, ist die Brutalität in keinster Weise in Worte zu fassen. "Dieses Bemühen um eine humane Kriegführung, wenn dieses Wort erlaubt ist, fiel jedoch regelmäßig und ironischerweise immer dann sofort wieder in sich zusammen, wenn das Volk im Namen Gottes zu den Waffen gerufen wurde. Glaubenskriege und Kreuzzüge waren die mit Abstand grausamsten der Menschheitsgeschichte."

28:52 Die iranische Führung hat jetzt offiziell den heiligen Krieg erklärt gegen Israel und Amerika.

29:36 Wann geht's hier richtig los? Wenn sozusagen der Heilige Krieg, also zwischen Christen und Juden gegen Muslime bzw. Muslime gegen die Christen und Juden, dann wird es hier verdammt eng.

33:26 Lass uns den Menschen noch ein bisschen Hoffnung machen. Dass es knallen wird, das ist klar. Aber wahrscheinlich brauchen wir so ein "Reinigungsgewitter" wie Marc Friedrich, ich habe mit dem auch gestern noch so ein Interview gemacht, ganz interessant, der beschrieben. Es geht immer in Zyklen, alle 80 Jahre, und ich glaube er hat einfach recht. Ja und wir sind jetzt einfach dran. Die Frage ist, wie schlimm wird's? Die Frage ist, wie kommen wir da durch, und dann wie kommen wir auch schnell wieder nach oben? Weil wirtschaftlich ist ist hat Deutschland fertig. Hat Deutschland wirklich fertig. Das ist einfach wahr. Und das das kommt auch nicht zurück. Die Firmen, die weg sind, kommen kommen nicht wieder. Die Facharbeiter, die weg sind, kommen nicht wieder. Und ich glaube ja, da hat das, was Marc Friedrich wahrscheinlich gemeint hat, ist "das Prinzip der vier Generation" [good times create weak men…], was einfach wiederkehrend in der Geschichte der Menschheit immer wieder da ist. Und ja, ich glaube, wir brauchen es, und ich hoffe einfach noch, dass ein bisschen Restfunke, sage ich mal, unsere Ahnen irgendwie in uns drin ist, zwischen Dichtern, Denkern und auch Kämpfern. Ja, die German waren ist nicht unbedingt nur Leute, die da ganze Zeit Gedichte geschrieben haben. Ja, also auch das Wehrhafte, hoffe ich, dass das irgendwann mal wieder zurückkommt, und dann werden wir das sehen. Also, ich denke, wir zwei sehen uns dann irgendwann mal auf der Straße wieder, an der Seite von denjenigen, die Schutz brauchen. Ja, aber ich weiß nicht, wer sonst noch da ist. Das das ist genau der Punkt. Einige Kämpfer gibt es in diesem Land noch, und ich weiß, wenn wir uns auf der Straße treffen sollten, dass ich mich auf dich verlassen kann. Mein Lieber, grüß bitte alle deine Mitstreiter, weil es gibt noch genügend in diesem Land, die dieses Land lieben und nicht zum Kotzen finden ("Warum bist denn du heute hier? - Alerta Alerta!") und Deutschland nicht den Tod wünschen ("Deutschland verrecke") und von daher glaube ich schon, dass wir am Ende irgendwie wieder vernünftig vorgehen können, mein Lieber. Vielen Dank, Andre.

35:22 "Glaubenskriege und Kreuzzüge waren die mit Abstand grausamsten der Menschheitsgeschichte. Denn hier kämpfte man ja nicht mehr gegen einen, wenn auch feindlich gesonnenen, aber doch immerhin menschlichen Gegner. Hier kämpfte man gegen den Leibhaftigen mit seinem gesamten höllischen Anhang. Hier ging es nicht mehr um irdische Güter, um Land, Macht oder Interessen. Hier ging es um das Wort und die Werke des wahren Gottes. Nicht um Sieg oder Niederlage, sondern um die Ausrottung des Bösen schlechthin. Und da aber natürlich auch jedes Mittel recht, denn wer mit Gott im Bunde war, der konnte ja nichts Unrechtes tun."

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the previous reviews

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Azlan et al. identified a novel maternal factor called Sakura that is required for proper oogenesis in Drosophila. They showed that Sakura is specifically expressed in the female germline cells. Consistent with its expression pattern, Sakura functioned autonomously in germline cells to ensure proper oogenesis. In sakura KO flies, germline cells were lost during early oogenesis and often became tumorous before degenerating by apoptosis. In these tumorous germ cells, piRNA production was defective and many transposons were derepressed. Interestingly, Smad signaling, a critical signaling pathway for the GSC maintenance, was abolished in sakura KO germline stem cells, resulting in ectopic expression of Bam in whole germline cells in the tumorous germline. A recent study reported that Bam acts together with the deubiquitinase Otu to stabilize Cyc A. In the absence of sakura, Cyc A was upregulated in tumorous germline cells in the germarium. Furthermore, the authors showed that Sakura co-immunoprecipitated Otu in ovarian extracts. A series of in vitro assays suggested that the Otu (1-339 aa) and Sakura (1-49 aa) are sufficient for their direct interaction. Finally, the authors demonstrated that the loss of otu phenocopies the loss of sakura, supporting their idea that Sakura plays a role in germ cell maintenance and differentiation through interaction with Otu during oogenesis.

Strengths:

To my knowledge, this is the first characterization of the role of CG14545 genes. Each experiment seems to be well-designed and adequately controlled

Weaknesses:

However, the conclusions from each experiment are somewhat separate, and the functional relationships between Sakura's functions are not well established. In other words, although the loss of Sakura in the germline causes pleiotropic effects, the cause-and-effect relationships between the individual defects remain unclear.

Comments on latest version:

The authors have attempted to address my initial concerns with additional experiments and refutations. Unfortunately, my concerns, especially my specific comments 1-3, remain unaddressed. The present manuscript is descriptive and fails to describe the molecular mechanism by which Sakura exerts its function in the germline. Nevertheless, this reviewer acknowledges that the observed defects in sakura mutant ovaries and the possible physiological significance of the Sakura-Out interaction are worth sharing with the research community, as they may lay the groundwork for future research in functional analysis.

We thank the reviewer for valuable comments. We would like to investigate the molecular mechanism by which Sakura exerts its function in the germline in near future studies. 

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

In this study, the authors identified CG14545 (named it sakura), as a key gene essential for Drosophila oogenesis. Genetic analyses revealed that Sakura is vital for both oogenesis progression and ultimate female fertility, playing a central role in the renewal and differentiation of germ stem cells (GSC).

The absence of Sakura disrupts the Dpp/BMP signaling pathway, resulting in abnormal bam gene expression, which impairs GSC differentiation and leads to GSC loss. Additionally, Sakura is critical for maintaining normal levels of piRNAs. Also, the authors convincingly demonstrate that Sakura physically interacts with Otu, identifying the specific domains necessary for this interaction, suggesting a cooperative role in germline regulation. Importantly, the loss of otu produces similar defects to those observed in sakura mutants, highlighting their functional collaboration.

The authors provide compelling evidence that Sakura is a critical regulator of germ cell fate, maintenance, and differentiation in Drosophila. This regulatory role is mediated through modulation of pMad and Bam expression. However, the phenotypes observed in the germarium appear to stem from reduced pMad levels, which subsequently trigger premature and ectopic expression of Bam. This aberrant Bam expression could lead to increased CycA levels and altered transcriptional regulation, impacting piRNA expression. In this revised manuscript, the authors further investigated whether Sakura affects the function of Orb, a binding partner they identified, in deubiquitinase activity when Orb interacts with Bam.

We appreciate the authors' efforts to address all our comments. While these revisions have greatly improved the clarity of certain sections, some of the concerns remain unclear, while details mentioned in the responses about these studies should be incorporated in the manuscript. Specifically, the manuscript still lacks the demonstration that Sakura co-localizes with Orb/Bam despite having the means for staining and visualization. This would bring insight into the selective binding of Orb with Bam vs. Sakura perhaps at different stages of oogenesis. Such analyses would allow for more specific conclusions, further alluding to the underlying mechanism, rather than the general observations currently presented.

This elaborate study will be embraced by both germline-focused scientists and the developmental biology community.

We thank the reviewer for valuable comments. We believe that the author meant Otu, not Orb, for the binding partner of Sakura that we identified. We would like to investigate the colocalization of Sakura with other proteins including Otu and the molecular mechanism by which Sakura exerts its function in the germline in near future studies. 

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

In this very thorough study, the authors characterize the function of a novel Drosophila gene, which they name Sakura. They start with the observation that sakura expression is predicted to be highly enriched in the ovary and they generate an anti-sakura antibody, a line with a GFP-tagged sakura transgene, and a sakura null allele to investigate sakura localization and function directly. They confirm the prediction that it is primarily expressed in the ovary and, specifically, that it is expressed in germ cells, and find that about 2/3 of the mutants lack germ cells completely and the remaining have tumorous ovaries. Further investigation reveals that Sakura is required for piRNA-mediated repression of transposons in germ cells. They also find evidence that sakura is important for germ cell specification during development and germline stem cell maintenance during adulthood. However, despite the role of sakura in maintaining germline stem cells, they find that sakura mutant germ cells also fail to differentiate properly such that mutant germline stem cell clones have an increased number of "GSC-like" cells. They attribute this phenotype to a failure in the repression of Bam by dpp signaling. Lastly, they demonstrate that sakura physically interacts with otu and that sakura and otu mutants have similar germ cell phenotypes. Overall, this study helps to advance the field by providing a characterization of a novel gene that is required for oogenesis. The data are generally high-quality and the new lines and reagents they generated will be useful for the field.

Comments on latest version:

With these revisions, the authors have addressed my main concerns.

We thank the reviewer for valuable comments.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

The manuscript is much improved based on the changes made upon recommendations from the reviewers.

Though most of our comments have been addressed, we have a few more we wish to recommend. For previous points we made, we replied with further clarification for the authors.

Figure 1

(1) B should be the supplemental figure.

We moved the former Fig 1B to Supplemental Figure 1.

• Previous Fig1B (sakura mRNA expression level) is now Fig S2, not S1. Please make this data as Fig S1.

We moved Fig S1 to main Fig7A and renumbered Fig S2-S16 to Fig S1-S15.

(2) C - How were the different egg chamber stages selected in the WB? Naming them 'oocytes' is deceiving. Recommend labeling them as 'egg chambers', since an oocyte is claimed to be just the one-cell of that cyst.

We changed the labeling to egg chambers.

• The labels on lanes for Stages 12-13 and Stage 14, still only say "chambers", not "egg chambers". Also there is no Stage 1-3 egg chamber. More accurately, the label should be "Germarium - Stage 11 egg chambers".

We updated the lables on lanes as suggested by the reviewer.

(3) Is the antibody not detecting Sakura in IF? There is no mention of this anywhere in the manuscript.

While our Sakura antibody detects Sakura in IF, it seems to detect some other proteins as well. Since we have Sakura-EGFP fly strain (which fully rescues sakuranull phenotypes) to examine Sakura expression and localization without such non-specific signal issues, we relied on Sakura-EGFP rather than anti-Sakura antibodies for IF.

• Please put this info into the Methods section.

We added this info into the Methods section.

(4) Expand on the reliance of the sakura-EGFP fly line. Does this overexpression cause any phenotypes?

sakura-EGFP does not cause any phenotypes in the background of sakura[+/+] and sakura[+/-].

• Please add this detail into the manuscript.

We added this info into the Methods section.

Figure 5

(1) D - It might make more sense if this graph showed % instead of the numbers.

We did not understand the reviewer's point. We think using numbers, not %, makes more sense.

• Having a different 'n' number for each experiment does not allow one to compare anything except numbers of the egg chambers. This must be normalized.

We still don’t agree with the reviewer. In Fig 5D, we are showing the numbers of stage 14 oocytes per fly (= per a pair of ovaries). ‘n’ is the number of flies (= number of a pair of ovaries) examined. We now clarified this in the figure legend. Different ‘n’ number does not prevent us from comparing the numbers of stage 14 oocytes per fly. Therefore, we would like to show as it is now.

(2) Line 213 - explain why RNAi 2 was chosen when RNAi 1 looks stronger.

Fly stock of RNAi line 2 is much healthier than RNAi line 1 (without being driven Gal4) for some reasons. We had a concern that the RNAi line 1 might contain an unwanted genetic background. We chose to use the RNAi 2 line to avoid such an issue.

• Please add this information to the manuscript.

We added this info into the Methods section.

Figure 7/8 - can go to Supplemental.

We moved Fig 8 to supplemental. However, we think Fig 7 data is important and therefore we would like to present them as a main figure.

• Current Fig S1 should go to Fig 7, to better understand the relationship between pMad and Bam expression.

We moved Fig S1 to main Fig7A and renumbered Fig S2-S16 to Fig S1-S15.

Figure 9C - Why the switch to S2 cells? Not able to use the Otu antibody in the IP of ovaries?

We can use the Otu antibody in the IP of ovaries. However, in anti-Sakura Western after anti Otu IP, antibody light chain bands of the Otu antibodies overlap with the Sakura band. Therefore, we switched to S2 cells to avoid this issue by using an epitope tag.

• Please add this info to the Methods section.

We added this info into the Methods section.

Figure 10- Some images would be nice here to show that the truncations no longer colocalize.

We did not understand the reviewer's points. In our study, even for the full-length proteins. We have not shown any colocalization of Sakura and Otu in S2 cells or in ovaries, except that they both are enriched in developing oocytes in egg chambers.

• Based on your binding studies, we would expect them to colocalize in the egg chamber, and since there are antibodies and a GFP-line available, it would be important to demonstrate that via visualization.

As we wrote in the response and now in the manuscript, our antibodies are not best for immunostaining. We will try to optimize the experimental conditions in the future studies.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

In this manuscript, Ross and Miscik et. al described the phenotypic discrepancies between F0 zebrafish mosaic mutant ("CRISPants") and morpholino knockdown (Morphant) embryos versus a set of 5 different loss-of-function (LOF) stable mutants in one particular gene involved in hepatic stellate cells development: podxl. While transient LOF and mosaic mutants induced a decrease of hepatic stellate cells number stable LOF zebrafish did not. The authors analyzed the molecular causes of these phenotypic differences and concluded that LOF mutants are genetically compensated through the upregulation of the expression of many genes. Additionally, they ruled out other better-known and described mechanisms such as the expression of redundant genes, protein feedback loops, or transcriptional adaptation.

While the manuscript is clearly written and conclusions are, in general, properly supported, there are some aspects that need to be further clarified and studied.

(1) It would be convenient to apply a method to better quantify potential loss-of-function mutations in the CRISPants. Doing this it can be known not only percentage of mutations in those embryos but also what fraction of them are actually generating an out-of-frame mutation likely driving gene loss of function (since deletions of 3-6 nucleotides removing 1-2 aminoacid/s will likely not have an impact in protein activity, unless that this/these 1-2 aminoacid/s is/are essential for the protein activity). With this, the authors can also correlate phenotype penetrance with the level of loss-of-function when quantifying embryo phenotypes that can help to support their conclusions.

(2) It is unclear that 4.93 ng of morpholino per embryo is totally safe. The amount of morpholino causing undesired effects can differ depending on the morpholino used. I would suggest performing some sanity check experiments to demonstrate that morpholino KD is not triggering other molecular outcomes, such as upregulation of p53 or innate immune response.

(3) Although the authors made a set of controls to demonstrate the specificity of the CRISPant phenotypes, I believe that a rescue experiment could be beneficial to support their conclusions. Injecting an mRNA with podxl ORF (ideally with a tag to follow protein levels up) together with the induction of CRISPants could be a robust manner to demonstrate the specificity of the approach. A rescue experiment with morphants would also be good to have, although these are a bit more complicated, to ultimately demonstrate the specificity of the approach.

(4) In lines 314-316, the authors speculate on a correlation between decreased HSC and Podxl levels. It would be interesting to actually test this hypothesis and perform RT-qPCR upon CRISPant induction or, even better and if antibodies are available, western blot analysis.

(5) Similarly, in lines 337-338 and 342-344, the authors discuss that it could be possible that genes near to podxl locus could be upregulated in the mutants. Since they already have a transcriptomic done, this seems an easy analysis to do that can address their own hypothesis.

(6) Figures 4 and 5 would be easier to follow if panels B-F included what mutants are (beyond having them in the figure legend). Moreover, would it be more accurate and appropriate if the authors group all three WT and mutant data per panel instead of showing individual fish? Representing technical replicates does not demonstrate in vivo variability, which is actually meaningful in this context. Then, statistical analysis can be done between WT and mutant per panel and per set of primers using these three independent 3-month-old zebrafish.

Author response:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Ross, Miscik, and others describes an intriguing series of observations made when investigating the requirement for podxl during hepatic development in zebrafish. Podxl morphants and CRISPants display a reduced number of hepatic stellate cells (HSCs), while mutants are either phenotypically wild type or display an increased number of HSCs.

The absence of observable phenotypes in genetic mutants could indeed be attributed to genetic compensation, as the authors postulate. However, in my opinion, the evidence provided in the manuscript at this point is insufficient to draw a firm conclusion. Furthermore, the opposite phenotype observed in the two deletion mutants is not readily explainable by genetic compensation and invokes additional mechanisms.

Major concerns:

(1) Considering discrepancies in phenotypes, the phenotypes observed in podxl morphants and CRISPants need to be more thoroughly validated. To generate morphants, authors use "well characterized and validated ATG Morpholino" (lines 373-374). However, published morphants, in addition to kidney malformations, display gross developmental defects including pericardial edema, yolk sack extension abnormalities, and body curvature at 2-3 dpf (reference 7 / PMID: 24224085). Were these gross developmental defects observed in the knockdown experiments performed in this paper? If yes, is it possible that the liver phenotype observed at 5 dpf is, to some extent, secondary to these preceding abnormalities? If not, why were they not observed? Did kidney malformations reproduce? On the CRISPant side, were these gross developmental defects also observed in sgRNA#1 and sgRNA#2 CRISPants? Considering that morphants and CRISPants show very similar effects on HSC development and assuming other phenotypes are specific as well, they would be expected to occur at similar frequencies. It would be helpful if full-size images of all relevant morphant and CRISPant embryos were displayed, as is done for tyr CRISPant in Figure S2. Finally, it is very important to thoroughly quantify the efficacy of podxl sgRNA#1 and sgRNA#2 in CRISPants. The HRMA data provided in Figure S1 is not quantitative in terms of the fraction of alleles with indels. Figure S3 indicates a very broad range of efficacies, averaging out at ~62% (line 100). Assuming random distribution of indels among cells and that even in-frame indels result in complete loss of function (possible for sgRNA#1 due to targeting the signal sequence), only ~38% (.62*.62) of all cells will be mutated bi-allelically. That does not seem sufficient to reliably induce loss-of-function phenotypes. My guess is that the capillary electrophoresis method used in Figure S3 underestimates the efficiency of mutagenesis, and that much higher mutagenesis rates would be observed if mutagenesis were assessed by amplicon sequencing (ideally NGS but Sanger followed by deconvolution analysis would suffice). This would strengthen the claim that CRISPant phenotypes are specific.

The reviewer points out some excellent caveats regarding the morphant experiments. We agree that at least some of the effects of the podxl morpholino may be related to its effects on kidney development and/or gross developmental defects that impede liver development. Because of these limitations, we focused our experiments on analysis of CRISPant and mutant phenotypes, including showing that podxl (Ex1(p)_Ex7Δ) mutants are resistant to CRISPant effects on HSC number when injected with sgRNA#1. We did not observe any gross morphologic defects in podxl CRISPants. Liver size was not significantly altered in podxl CRISPants (Figure 2A). We will add brightfield images of podxl CRISPant larvae to the supplemental data for the revised manuscript.

We agree with the reviewer that HRMA is not quantitative with respect to the fraction of alleles with indels and that capillary electrophoresis likely underestimates mutagenesis efficiency. Nonetheless, even with 100% mutation efficiency, podxl CRISPant knockdown, like most CRISPR knockdowns, would not represent complete loss of function:  ~1/3 of alleles will contain in-frame mutations and likely retain at least some gene function, so ~1/3*1/3 = 1/9 of cells will have no out-of-frame indels and contain two copies of at least partially functional podxl and ~2/3*2/3 = 4/9 of cells will have one out-of-frame indel and one copy of at least partially functional podxl. Thus, the decreased HSCs we observe with podxl CRISPant likely represents a partial loss-of-function phenotype in any case.

(2) In addition to confidence in morphant and CRISPant phenotypes, the authors' claim of genetic compensation rests on the observation that podxl (Ex1(p)_Ex7Δ) mutants are resistant to CRISPant effect when injected with sgRNA#1 (Figure 3L). Considering the issues raised in the paragraph above, this is insufficient. There is a very straightforward way to address both concerns, though. The described podxl(-194_Ex7Δ) and podxl(-319_ex1(p)Δ) deletions remove the binding site for the ATG morpholino. Therefore, deletion mutants should be refractive to the Morpholino (specificity assessment recommended in PMID: 29049395, see also PMID: 32958829). Furthermore, both deletion mutants should be refractive to sgRNA#1 CRISPant phenotypes, with the first being refractive to sgRNA#2 as well.

The reviewer proposes elegant experiments to address the specificity of the morpholino. For the revision, we plan to perform additional morpholino studies, including morpholino injections of podxl mutants and assessment of tp53 and other immune response/cellular stress pathway genes in podxl morphants.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

In this manuscript, Ross and Miscik et. al described the phenotypic discrepancies between F0 zebrafish mosaic mutant ("CRISPants") and morpholino knockdown (Morphant) embryos versus a set of 5 different loss-of-function (LOF) stable mutants in one particular gene involved in hepatic stellate cells development: podxl. While transient LOF and mosaic mutants induced a decrease of hepatic stellate cells number stable LOF zebrafish did not. The authors analyzed the molecular causes of these phenotypic differences and concluded that LOF mutants are genetically compensated through the upregulation of the expression of many genes. Additionally, they ruled out other better-known and described mechanisms such as the expression of redundant genes, protein feedback loops, or transcriptional adaptation.

While the manuscript is clearly written and conclusions are, in general, properly supported, there are some aspects that need to be further clarified and studied.

(1) It would be convenient to apply a method to better quantify potential loss-of-function mutations in the CRISPants. Doing this it can be known not only percentage of mutations in those embryos but also what fraction of them are actually generating an out-of-frame mutation likely driving gene loss of function (since deletions of 3-6 nucleotides removing 1-2 aminoacid/s will likely not have an impact in protein activity, unless that this/these 1-2 aminoacid/s is/are essential for the protein activity). With this, the authors can also correlate phenotype penetrance with the level of loss-of-function when quantifying embryo phenotypes that can help to support their conclusions.

Reviewer #2 raises an excellent point that is similar to Reviewer #1’s first concern. Please see our response above. In general, we agree that correlating phenotype penetrance with level of loss-of-function is a very good way to support conclusions regarding specificity in knockdown experiments. Unfortunately, because the phenotype we are examining (HSC number) has a relatively large standard deviation even in control/wildtype larvae (for example, 63 ± 19 (mean ± standard deviation) HSCs per liver in uninjected control siblings in Figure 1) it would be technically very difficult to do this experiment for podxl.

(2) It is unclear that 4.93 ng of morpholino per embryo is totally safe. The amount of morpholino causing undesired effects can differ depending on the morpholino used. I would suggest performing some sanity check experiments to demonstrate that morpholino KD is not triggering other molecular outcomes, such as upregulation of p53 or innate immune response.

Reviewer #2 raises an excellent point that is similar to Reviewer #1’s second concern. Please see our response above. We acknowledge that some of the effects of the podxl morpholino may be non-specific. To address this concern in the revised manuscript, we plan to perform additional morpholino studies, including morpholino injections of podxl mutants and assessment of tp53 and other immune response/cellular stress pathway genes in podxl morphants.

(3) Although the authors made a set of controls to demonstrate the specificity of the CRISPant phenotypes, I believe that a rescue experiment could be beneficial to support their conclusions. Injecting an mRNA with podxl ORF (ideally with a tag to follow protein levels up) together with the induction of CRISPants could be a robust manner to demonstrate the specificity of the approach. A rescue experiment with morphants would also be good to have, although these are a bit more complicated, to ultimately demonstrate the specificity of the approach.

(4) In lines 314-316, the authors speculate on a correlation between decreased HSC and Podxl levels. It would be interesting to actually test this hypothesis and perform RT-qPCR upon CRISPant induction or, even better and if antibodies are available, western blot analysis.

We appreciate the reviewer’s acknowledgement of the controls we performed to demonstrate the specificity of the CRISPant phenotypes. The proposed experiments (rescue, assessment of Podxl levels) would help bolster our conclusions but are technically difficult due to the relatively large standard deviation for the HSC number phenotype even in wildtype larvae and the lack of well-characterized zebrafish antibodies against Podxl.

(5) Similarly, in lines 337-338 and 342-344, the authors discuss that it could be possible that genes near to podxl locus could be upregulated in the mutants. Since they already have a transcriptomic done, this seems an easy analysis to do that can address their own hypothesis.

Thank you for this suggestion. We were referring in these sections to genes that are near the podxl locus with respect to three-dimensional chromatin structure; such genes would not necessarily be near the podxl locus on chromosome 4. We will clarify the text in this paragraph for the revised manuscript. At the same time, we will examine our transcriptomic data to check expression of mkln1, cyb5r3, and other nearby genes on chromosome 4 as suggested and include this analysis in the revised manuscript.

(6) Figures 4 and 5 would be easier to follow if panels B-F included what mutants are (beyond having them in the figure legend). Moreover, would it be more accurate and appropriate if the authors group all three WT and mutant data per panel instead of showing individual fish? Representing technical replicates does not demonstrate in vivo variability, which is actually meaningful in this context. Then, statistical analysis can be done between WT and mutant per panel and per set of primers using these three independent 3-month-old zebrafish.

Thank you for this suggestion. We will modify these figures to clarify our results.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Ross et al. show that knockdown of zebrafish podocalyxin-like (podxl) by CRISPR/Cas or morpholino injection decreased the number of hepatic stellate cells (HSC). The authors then generated 5 different mutant alleles representing a range of lesions, including premature stop codons, in-frame deletion of the transmembrane domain, and deletions of the promoter region encompassing the transcription start site. However, unlike their knockdown experiment, HSC numbers did not decrease in podxl mutants; in fact, for two of the mutant alleles, the number of HSCs increased compared to the control. Injection of podxl CRISPR/Cas constructs into these mutants had no effect on HSC number, suggesting that the knockdown phenotype is not due to off-target effects but instead that the mutants are somehow compensating for the loss of podxl. The authors then present multiple lines of evidence suggesting that compensation is not exclusively due to transcriptional adaptation - evidence of mRNA instability and nonsense-mediated decay was observed in some but all mutants; expression of the related gene endoglycan (endo) was unchanged in the mutants and endo knockdown had no effect on HSC numbers; and, expression profiling by RNA sequencing did not reveal changes in other genes that share sequence similarity with podxl. Instead, their RNA-seq data showed hundreds of differentially expressed genes, especially ECM-related genes, suggesting that compensation in podxl mutants is complex and multi-genic.

Strengths:

The data presented is impressively thorough, especially in its characterization of the 5 different podxl alleles and exploration of whether these mutants exhibit transcriptional adaptation.

Thank you very much for appreciating the hard work that went into this manuscript.

Weaknesses:

RNA sequencing expression profiling was done on adult livers. However, compensation of HSC numbers is apparent by 6 dpf, suggesting compensatory mechanisms would be active at larval or even embryonic stages. Although possible, it's not clear that any compensatory changes in gene expression would persist to adulthood.

This reviewer makes an excellent point. Our finding that the largest changes in gene expression were in extracellular matrix (ECM) genes and ECM modulation is a major function of HSCs supports the hypothesis that genetic compensation is occurring in adults. Nonetheless, we agree that compensatory changes in adults may not fully reflect the compensatory changes during development, so it would bolster the conclusions of the paper to perform the RNA sequencing and qPCR experiments on zebrafish larval livers.

We tried very hard to do this experiment proposed by Reviewer #3. In our hands, obtaining sufficient high-quality RNA for robust gene expression analysis typically requires pooling of ~10-15 larval livers. These larvae need to be obtained from a heterozygous in-cross in order to have matched wildtype sibling controls. Livers must be dissected from freshly euthanized (not fixed) zebrafish. Thus, this experiment requires genotyping live, individual larvae from a small amount of tissue (without sacrificing the larvae) before dissecting and pooling the livers. Unfortunately we were unable to confidently and reproducibly genotype individual live podxl larvae with these small amounts of tissue despite trying multiple approaches. Therefore we were not able to perform gene expression analysis on podxl mutant larval livers.

can we add a new tag called download disputes report?

Note: This response was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. The content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

Reply to the reviewers

Revision Plan

June 28, 2025

Manuscript number: RC-2025-02982

Corresponding author(s): Babita Madan, Nathan Harmston, David Virshup

General Statements In Wnt signaling, the relative contributions of ‘canonical (β-catenin dependent) and non- canonical (β-catenin independent) signaling remains unclear. Here, we exploited a unique and highly robust in vivo system to study this. Our study is therefore the first comprehensive analysis of the β-catenin independent arm of the Wnt signaling pathway in a cancer model and illustrates how a combination of cis-regulatory elements can determine Wnt-dependent gene regulation.

We are very pleased with the reviews; it appears we communicated our goal and our findings clearly, and in general the reviewers felt the study provided important information, was well planned and the results were “crystal clear”.

While more experiments could strengthen and extend the results, we feel our results are already very robust due to the use of multiple replicates in the in vivo system.

The Virshup lab in Singapore closed July 1, 2025 and so additional wet lab studies are not feasible.

1. Description of the planned revisions

Insert here a point-by-point reply that explains what revisions, additional experimentations and analyses are planned to address the points raised by the referees.

Below we address the points raised by the reviewers:

Reviewer #1 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

…

The article has the merit of addressing a yet-unsolved question in the field (if beta-catenin can also repress genes) that only a limited number of studies has tried to tackle, and provides useful datasets for the community. The system employed is elegant, and the PORCN-inhibition bypassed by a ____constitutively active beta-catenin is clean and ingenious. The manuscript is clearly written.

We thank the reviewers for their kind comments on the importance of the data. Our orthotopic model provides the opportunity to exploit robust Wnt regulated gene expression in a more responsive microenvironment than can be achieved in cell culture and simple flank xenograft models.

Here we propose a series of thoughts and comments that, if addressed, would in our opinion improve the study and its description.

1) We wonder why a xenograft model is necessary to induce a robust WNT response in these cells.

The authors describe this set-up as a strength, as it is supposed to provide physiological relevance, yet it is not clear to us why this is the case.

We welcome the opportunity to expand on our choice of an orthotopic xenograft model. It has been long established that cancer cells behave differently in different in vivo locations (Killion et al., 1998). Building on this, we confirmed this in our system that identical pancreatic cancer cells treated with the same PORCN inhibitor had very different responses in vitro, in the flank and in their orthotopic environment (Madan et al., 2018). To quote from our prior paper, “Looking only at genes decreasing more than 1.5-fold at 56 hours, we would have missed 817/1867 (44%) genes using a subcutaneous or 939/1867 (50%) using an in vitro model. Thus, the overall response to Wnt inhibition was reduced in the subcutaneous model and further blunted in vitro. An orthotopic model more accurately represents real biology.

The reason for this is presumably the very different orthotopic microenvironment, including tissue appropriate stroma-tumor, vascular-tumor, lymphatic-tumor, and humoral interactions.

Moreover, as the authors homogenize the tumour to perform bulk RNA-seq, we wonder whether they are not only sequencing mRNA from the cancer cells but also from infiltrating immune cells and/or from the surrounding connective tissue.

In experiments generating RNA-seq data from xenograft models, the resulting sequences can originate from either human (graft) or mouse (host). In order to account for this, following standard practice, we filtered reads prior to alignment using Xenome (Conway et al., 2012). We have added additional text to the methods to highlight this step in our pipeline.

2) If, as the established view implies, Wnt/beta-catenin only leads to gene activation, pathway

inhibition would free up the transcriptional machinery - there is evidence that some of its constituents are rate-limiting. The free machinery could now activate some other genes: the net effect observed would be their increased transcription upon Wnt inhibition, irrespective of beta-catenin's presence. Could this be considered as an alternative explanation for the genes that go up in both control and bcat4A lines upon ETC-159 administration? This, we think, is in part corroborated by the absence of enrichment of biological pathways in this group of genes. The genes that are beta-catenin-dependent and downregulated (D&R) are obviously not affected by this alternative explanation.

This is an interesting suggestion, and we will incorporate this thought into our discussion of potential mechanisms.

3) The authors mention that HPAF-II are Wnt addicted. Do they die upon ETC-159 administration, and is this effect rescued by exogenous WNT addition?

We and several others have previously reported that Wnt-addicted cells differentiate and/or senesce upon Wnt withdrawal in vivo but not in vitro. This is related to the broader changes in gene expression in the orthotopic tumors. The effect of PORCN inhibition has been demonstrated by us and others and is rescued by Wnt addition, downstream activation of Wnt signaling by e.g. APC mutation, and, as we show here, stabilized β-catenin.

4) Line 120: the authors write about Figure 1C: "This demonstrates that the growth of β-cat4A cells in vitro largely requires Wnts to activate β-catenin signaling." The opposite is true: control cells require WNT and form less colony with ETC159, while β-cat4A are independent from Wnt secretion.

We appreciate the reviewer pointing out our mis-statement. This error has now been corrected in the revised manuscript.

5) Lines 226-229: "The β-catenin independent repressed genes were notably enriched for motifs bound by homeobox factors including GSC2, POU6F2, and MSGN1. This finding aligns with the known role of non-canonical Wnt signaling in embryonic development" This statement assumes that target genes, or at least the beta-catenin independent ones, are conserved across tissues, including developing organs. This contrasts with the view that target genes in addition to the usual suspects (e.g., AXIN2, SP5 etc.) are modulated tissue-specifically - a view that the authors (and in fact, these reviewers) appear to support in their introduction.

We agree with the reviewer that a majority of Wnt-regulated genes are tissue specific. Indeed, the β-catenin independent Wnt-repressed genes may also be tissue specific. In other tissues, we speculate that other β-catenin independent Wnt-repressed genes may also have homeobox factor binding sites as well and so the general concept remains valid. We do not have sufficient data in other tissues to resolve this issue.

7) The luciferase and mutagenesis work presented in Figure 5 are crystal-clear. One important aspect that remains to be clarified is whether beta-catenin and/or TCF7L2 directly bind to the NRE sites. Or do the authors hypothesize that another factor binds here? We suggest the authors to show TCF7L2 binding tracks at the NRE/WRE motifs in the main figures.

A major question of the reviewers was, can we provide additional evidence that the NRE is bound by LEF/TCF family members. Our initial analysis of more datasets indicates TCF7L2 peaks are enriched on NREs in Wnt-β-catenin responsive cell lines like HCT116 and PANC1. These analyses appear to further support the model that the NRE binds TCF7L2, but we fully agree these analyses can neither prove nor disprove the model.

In our revision, we will analyze additional cut and run datasets as suggested and look at the HEPG2 datasets suggested by reviewer 1. We are concerned about tissue specificity as some of the genes are not expressed in e.g. HEPG2 or HEK293 cells where datasets are available. However, our data continues to support a functional role for the NRE in the modulation of β-catenin regulated genes. The best analysis would be more ChIP-Seq or Cut and Run assays on tissues, not cells, but these studies are beyond what we can do.

What about other TCF/LEFs and beta-catenin? Are there relevant datasets that could be explored to test whether all these bind here during Wnt activation?

As above, We will analyze additional ChIP and Cut & Run datasets to address this question looking at β-catenin and other LEF/TCF family members. We also reflect on the fact that ChIP-Seq does not necessarily imply that the targeted factor (e.g.,TCF7L2) is bound in the target site in all the cells.

The repression might be mediated by beta-catenin partnering with other factors that bind the NRE even by competing with TCF7L2.

We appreciate the insightful comments and now incorporate this into our discussion.

8) In general, while we greatly appreciate the github page to replicate the analysis, we feel that the methods' description is lacking, both concerning analytical details (e.g., the cutoff used for MACS2 peak calling) or basic experimental planning (e.g, how the luciferase assays were performed).

We thank reviewers for the suggestions and will add further details regarding the analysis

and experimental planning in the method sections.

9) The paper might benefit from the addition of quality metrics on the RNA-seq. Interesting for example would be to see a PCA analysis - as a more unbiased approach - rather than the kmeans clustering.

We have this data and will add it to the revised manuscript.

10) It seems that in Figure 3A the clusters are mislabelled as compared to Figure 3B and Figure 1. Here the repressor clusters are labelled DR5, DR6 and DN7 whereas in the rest of the paper they are labelled DR1, DR2 and DN1.

Thank you for pointing out this issue. This has now been corrected in Figure 3.

11) The siCTNNB1 in Figure 5E is described to be a significant effect in the text whereas in Figure 5E this has a p value of 0.075.

Thank you for pointing out the p value did not cross the 0.05 threshold. We have modified the text to remove the word ‘significant’.

12) Line 396: 'Here we confirm and extend the identification of a TCF-dependent negative regulatory element (NRE), where beta-catenin interacts with TCF to repress gene expression'. We suggest caution in stating that beta-catenin and TCF directly repress gene expression by binding to NRE. In the current state the authors do not show that TCF & beta-catenin bind to these elements. See our previous point 7.

We appreciate the suggestion of the reviewers. We will be more cautious in our interpretation.

Further suggestions - or food for thoughts:

13) A frequently asked question in the field concerns the off-target effects of CHIR treatment as opposed to exposure to WNT ligands. CHIR treatment - in parallel to bcat4A overexpression - would allow the authors to delineate WNT independent effects of CHIR treatment and settle this debate.

We thank the reviewers for suggesting this interesting experiment to sort out the non- Wnt effects of GSK3 inhibition. Such a study would require a new set of animal experiments and a different analysis; we think this is beyond the scope of this manuscript.

14) We think that Figure 4C could be strengthened by adding more public TCF-related datasets (e.g., from ENCODE) to confirm the observation across datasets from different laboratories. In particular, the HEPG2 could possibly be improved as there is an excellent TCF7L2 dataset available by ENCODE.

Many more datasets are easily searchable through: https://www.factorbook.org/.

As above, we will analyze the HEPG2 dataset. We plan on updating Fig 4 with data from analysis from different datasets such as (Blauwkamp et al., 2008; Zambanini et al., 2022).

15) The authors show that there is no specific spacing between NREs and WREs. This implies that it is not likely that TCF7L2 recognizes both at the same time through the C-clamp. Do the authors think that there might be a pattern discernible when comparing the location of WRE and NRE in relation to the TCF7L2 ChIP-seq peak summit? This would allow inferring whether TCF7L2 more likely directly binds the WRE (presumably) and if the NRE is bound by a cofactor.

This is an interesting suggestion and we will conduct this analysis as suggested on available datasets (as the result may be different in different tissue types with varying degrees of Wnt/β-catenin signaling).

Reviewer #2 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

Overall, the study provides a solid framework for understanding noncanonical transcriptional ____outputs of Wnt signaling in a cancer context. The majority of the conclusions are well supported by the data. However, there are a few substantive points that require clarification before the manuscript is ready for publication.

Major Comments

The authors' central claim-that their findings represent a comprehensive analysis of the β-catenin- independent arm of Wnt signaling and uncover a "cis-regulatory grammar" governing Wnt-dependent gene activation versus repression-is overstated based on the presented data.

We appreciate the reviewers concern and will temper our language.

Specifically:

• Figure 3B identifies TF-binding motifs enriched among different Wnt-responsive gene clusters, but the authors only functionally investigate the role of NRE in β-catenin-dependent repression, particularly in the context of TCF motif interaction.

• To support a broader claim regarding cis-regulatory grammar, additional analyses are required:

o What is the distribution of NREs across all clusters? Are they exclusive to β-catenin-dependent repressed clusters, or more broadly present?

The distribution of the NREs is a statistically significant enrichment; they are observed in the repressed clusters more frequently than expected by chance alone, but they are present elsewhere as well. We have tempered our language around the cis-regulatory grammar.

o Do NREs interact with other enriched motifs beyond TCF? Is this interaction specific to repression or also involved in activation?

This is an interesting question beyond the scope of this analysis. Our dataset uses multiple interventions; The NREs may interact with other motifs but we would need more transcriptional analysis data with biological intervention to assess this.

o A more comprehensive analysis of cis-element combinations is needed to draw conclusions about their collective influence on gene regulation across clusters.

We agree; This would be a great question if we had TCF binding data in our orthotopic xenograft model. It’s a dataset we do not have, nor do we have the resources to pursue this.

Other important clarifications:

• The use of the term "wild-type" to describe HPAF-II cells is potentially misleading. These cells are not genetically wild-type and harbor multiple oncogenic alterations.

Thank you for pointing this out. We will use the word “parental” in the text

• The manuscript does not clearly present the kinetics of Wnt target downregulation upon ETC-159 treatment of HPAF-II cells. Understanding whether repression mirrors activation dynamics (e.g., delay or persistence of Wnt effects) is essential to interpreting the system's temporal behavior.

We previously addressed the temporal dynamics of activation and repression in our more comprehensive time course papers (Harmston et al., 2020; Madan et al., 2018); there are differences in the dynamics that are difficult to tease out in this new dataset as the density of time points is less. Having said that, we will compare the time course and annotate the sets of genes identified in this current study with the data from our original study to provide more information on the temporal dynamics of this system.

Minor Comment

• The statement in Figure 1C (lines 119-120) that "growth of β-cat4A cells in vitro largely requires Wnts to activate β-catenin signaling" is inconsistent with the data. As the β-cat4A allele encodes a constitutively active form of β-catenin, Wnts should not be required. Please revise this conclusion for clarity.

We thank the reviewers for pointing out this mis-statement. We have corrected this.

Reviewer #2 (Significance (Required)):

This study offers a systematic classification of Wnt-responsive gene expression dynamics, differentiating between β-catenin-dependent and -independent mechanisms. The insights into temporal expression patterns and the potential role of the NRE element in transcriptional repression add depth to our understanding of Wnt signaling. These findings have relevance for developmental biology, stem cell biology, and cancer research-particularly in understanding how Wnt-mediated repression may influence tumor progression and therapeutic response.

Nice review; thank you.

Reviewer #3 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

… The work advances understanding of Wnt mediated repression via cis regulatory grammar.

Major Concerns

1) Statistical thresholds and clustering - The criteria for classifying β catenin-dependent versus - independent genes rely on FDR cutoffs above or below 0.1. If the more stringent cutoff of 0.05 was used, how many genes would still be considered Wnt regulated?

We can readily address this in a revised manuscript.

2) Validation of selected β catenin-dependent and -independent Wnt target genes - While the authors identify β catenin-dependent and -independent Wnt target genes (4 selected genes from different clusters in Fig.2), RT-qPCR based validation of Axin2 has been performed in Fig. S3. Authors should also validate other 3 genes as well.

We had considered performing qPCR to re-validate some of our gene-expression changes but qPCR analyses is intrinsically more error prone than RNAseq, and we believe the literature shows that qPCR from the same samples will not add any extra utility. Previous studies that have examined this question have reported excellent correlation between the RNAseq and pPCR (Asmann et al., 2009; Griffith et al., 2010; Wu et al., 2014).

3) NRE mechanistic insight - The most important contribution of this manuscript is the extension of the importance of the NRE motif in Wnt regulated enhancers. But the mutagenesis data provided is insufficient to conclusively nail down that the NREs are responsible for the repression. The effects in the synthetic reporters in Fig. 4D are small - it's not clear that there is much activity in the MimRep to be repressed by the NREs. The data in Fig. 5 is a better context to test the importance of the NREs, but the authors use deletion analysis which is too imprecise and settle for single nucleotide mutants in individual NREs in the ABHD11-AS1 reporter. In the Axin2 report, they mutate sequences outside of the NRE. It's too inconsistent. They should mutate 3 or 4 positions within the NRE in BOTH motifs in the context of the ABHD11-AS1 reporter. Same for the Axin2 reporter.

We feel our analysis, coupled with the Kim paper (Kim et al., 2017), support the role of the NRE. We agree that more data is always desirable, but in our current circumstances are we cannot add additional wetlab experiments.

Regarding Figure 4D, this is a synthetic system lacking the endogenous elements in the promoter. We agree with the reviewer that the effect is small but we would also like to point out that adding the well-established 2WRE in front of the MinRep increased the transcription activity to 1.5 fold, which is of similar magnitude change of the 2NRE deceasing the transcriptional activity 1/1.5 = 0.6.

In Kim et al, it was shown that mutating the 11st nucleotide of the NRE motif showed the strongest effect, so we followed their lead in only mutated the 11st nucleotide in ABHD11- AS1 NRE.

As for the putative NRE sequence present in AXIN2 promoter, its downstream sequence is polyT (__GTGTTTTTTTT__TTTTTTTTTT), if we only mutate 11st nucleotide to G/C, we could create similar sequence to NRE, so we mutated sequences outside of the NRE to fully disrupt it.

4) Even if the mutagenesis is done more completely, the results simply replicate that of the Goentoro group. In Kim et al 2017, they provide suggestive (not convincing) evidence that TCFs directly bind to the NRE. The authors of this manuscript should explore that in more detail, e.g., can purified TCF bind to the NRE sequence? Can the authors design experiments to directly test whether beta-catenin is acting through the NRE - their data currently only demonstrates that the NRE provide a negative input to the reporters - that's an important mechanistic difference.

We point out that our minimal reporter studies with the NRE showed a repressive effect in HCT116 (colorectal cancer cells with stabilized β-catenin) but not HT1080 (sarcoma cells with low Wnt) supporting the importance of β-catenin acting through the NRE (Figs. 4D, 4E).

We fully agree with the reviewers that additional study of TCF interaction with the NRE would be of value. While EMSA and culture-based ChIP assays would be of some value, the best study should be done in vivo where the system is most robust. We are not in a position to do these studies, but we will add in a discussion of this as a limitation of the current study.

5) In vertebrates, some TCFs are more repressive than others and TLEs have been implicated in repressive. Exploring these factors in the context of the NRE would increase the value of this story.

This is an interesting idea but beyond the scope of the current manuscript. It is likely this would be dependent on tissue specific expression, local expression levels, and local binding of co-factors. As we look at other TCF members in other datasets we may be able to address this. Further wetlab experiments are beyond the scope of this work.

**Referees cross-commenting**

I respectfully disagree that the luciferase assays are sufficient. Using deletion analysis to understand the function of specific binding sites is insufficient and the more specific mutations of NREs are incomplete. Regarding this paper extending our knowledge of direct transcriptional repression by Wnt/bcat signaling, I don't agree that it adds much - there are numerous datasets where Wnt signaling activates and represses genes - the trick is determining whether any of the repressed genes are the result and direct regulation by TCF/bcat. They don't explore that. The main finding is an extension of the work by Lea Goentoro on the importance of the NRE motif, but they don't address whether TCF directly associates with this sequence. Goentoro argued in the 2017 paper that it does, but that data is unconvincing to me. Can purified TCF bind the NRE? Without that information (done carefully) this manuscript is very limited.

We respectfully disagree with the reviewer regarding the contribution of this manuscript. There are certainly many datasets looking at Wnt-regulated genes in tissue culture, but these cell-based studies are underpowered to really understand Wnt biology. There are only two papers, ours and Cantú’s, that address Wnt repressed genes in any depth. No prior papers have differentiated β-catenin dependent from β-catenin independent genes before, and certainly not in an orthotopic animal model.

A major impact of our study is the finding that only 10% of Wnt regulated genes are independent of β-catenin, at least in pancreatic cancer. We feel this is a major contribution. We further add to this analysis by re-enforcing/extend the prior evidence on the NRE in humans (and correct the motif sequence!) for Wnt-repressed genes. Our data supports the fine-tuning of the Wnt/β-catenin regulated genes by a cis-regulatory grammar.

Reviewer #3 (Significance (Required)):

Overall, this study advances our understanding of the dual roles of Wnt signaling in gene activation and repression, highlighting the role of the NRE motif. But this is an extension of the original NRE paper (Kim et al 2017) with no mechanistic advance beyond that original work. The transcriptomics in the first part of the manuscript have some value, but similar data sets already exist.

We respectfully but strongly disagree with the reviewer. First, our work examines the NRE in a large-scale in vivo transcriptome dataset, significantly extending the candidate gene approach of Kim et al. Secondly, we disagree with the comment that “similar data sets already exist.” Indeed, reviewer 1 (C. Cantú) specifically pointed out we had addressed an “yet-unsolved question in the field” on whether and how β-catenin repressed genes.

__3. __Description of the revisions that have already been incorporated in the transferred manuscript

To date we have only corrected several typographical errors.

1. Description of analyses that authors prefer not to carry out

We fully agree with the reviewers that additional study of TCF interaction with the NRE would be of value. While EMSA and cell culture-based ChIP assays would be of some modest value, they have already been done in vitro by Kim et al. (Kim et al., 2017) and the best next study should be done in vivo in Wnt-responsive cancers or tissues where the biology is most robust (Madan et al., 2018) . We are not in a position to do these studies, but we will add this into the discussion as a limitation of the current study. We also acknowledge that the NRE may interact with other currently unidentified factors.

Reviewer 1 asked about considering experiments to determine non-Wnt effects of GSK3 inhibitors like CHIR. Such a study, while interesting, would require a new set of animal experiments and a different analysis; we think this is beyond the scope of this manuscript.

Finally, we note that the Virshup lab at Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore, where these in vivo studies were performed, has closed as of July 1, 2025 and the various lab members have moved on to new adventures. Because of this, we are unable to undertake new wet-lab studies.

Thank you for your consideration,

For the authors,

David Virshup

References:

Asmann YW, Klee EW, Thompson EA, Perez EA, Middha S, Oberg AL, Therneau TM, Smith DI,

Poland GA, Wieben ED, Kocher J-PA. 2009. 3’ tag digital gene expression profiling of human

brain and universal reference RNA using Illumina Genome Analyzer. BMC Genom 10:531–

1. doi:10.1186/1471-2164-10-531

Blauwkamp TA, Chang MV, Cadigan KM. 2008. Novel TCF-binding sites specify transcriptional

repression by Wnt signalling. The EMBO Journal 27:1436–1446. doi:10.1038/emboj.2008.80

Conway T, Wazny J, Bromage A, Tymms M, Sooraj D, Williams ED, Beresford-Smith B. 2012.

Xenome—a tool for classifying reads from xenograft samples. Bioinformatics 28:i172–i178.

doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bts236

Griffith M, Griffith OL, Mwenifumbo J, Goya R, Morrissy AS, Morin RD, Corbett R, Tang MJ, Hou

Y-C, Pugh TJ, Robertson G, Chittaranjan S, Ally A, Asano JK, Chan SY, Li HI, McDonald H,

Teague K, Zhao Y, Zeng T, Delaney A, Hirst M, Morin GB, Jones SJM, Tai IT, Marra MA.

1. Alternative expression analysis by RNA sequencing. Nat Methods 7:843–847.

doi:10.1038/nmeth.1503

Harmston N, Lim JYS, Arqués O, Palmer HG, Petretto E, Virshup DM, Madan B. 2020.

Widespread Repression of Gene Expression in Cancer by a Wnt/β-Catenin/MAPK Pathway.

Cancer Res 81:464–475. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.can-20-2129

Killion JJ, Radinsky R, Fidler IJ. 1998. Orthotopic models are necessary to predict therapy of

transplantable tumors in mice. Cancer metastasis reviews 17:279–284.

Kim K, Cho J, Hilzinger TS, Nunns H, Liu A, Ryba BE, Goentoro L. 2017. Two-Element

Transcriptional Regulation in the Canonical Wnt Pathway. Current Biology 27:2357-2364.e5.

doi:10.1016/j.cub.2017.06.037

Madan B, Harmston N, Nallan G, Montoya A, Faull P, Petretto E, Virshup DM. 2018. Temporal

dynamics of Wnt-dependent transcriptome reveals an oncogenic Wnt/MYC/ribosome axis. J

Clin Invest 128:5620–5633. doi:10.1172/jci122383

Wu AR, Neff NF, Kalisky T, Dalerba P, Treutlein B, Rothenberg ME, Mburu FM, Mantalas GL,

Sim S, Clarke MF, Quake SR. 2014. Quantitative assessment of single-cell RNA-sequencing

methods. Nat Methods 11:41–46. doi:10.1038/nmeth.2694

Zambanini G, Nordin A, Jonasson M, Pagella P, Cantù C. 2022. A new cut&run low volume-

urea (LoV-U) protocol optimized for transcriptional co-factors uncovers Wnt/b-catenin tissue-

specific genomic targets. Development 149. doi:10.1242/dev.201124

Note: This response was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. The content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

Reply to the reviewers

Reviewer #1 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

PAPS is required for all sulfotransferase reactions in which a sulfate group is covalently attached to amino acid residues of proteins or to side chains of proteoglycans. This sulfation is crucial for properly organizing the apical extracellular matrix (aECM) and expanding the lumen in the Drosophila salivary gland. Loss of Papss potentially leads to decreased sulfation, disorganizing the aECM, and defects in lumen formation. In addition, Papss loss destabilizes the Golgi structures.

In Papss mutants, several changes occur in the salivary gland lumen of Drosophila. The tube lumen is very thin and shows irregular apical protrusions. There is a disorganization of the apical membrane and a compaction of the apical extracellular matrix (aECM). The Golgi structures and intracellular transport are disturbed. In addition, the ZP domain proteins Piopio (Pio) and Dumpy (Dpy) lose their normal distribution in the lumen, which leads to condensation and dissociation of the Dpy-positive aECM structure from the apical membrane. This results in a thin and irregularly dilated lumen.

1. The authors describe various changes in the lumen in mutants, from thin lumen to irregular expansion. I would like to know the correct lumen diameter, and length, besides the total area, by which one can recognize thin and irregular.

We have included quantification of the length and diameter of the salivary gland lumen in the stage 16 salivary glands of control, Papss mutant, and salivary gland-specific rescue embryos (Figure 1J, K). As described, Papss mutant embryos have two distinct phenotypes, one group with a thin lumen along the entire lumen and the other group with irregular lumen shapes. Therefore, we separated the two groups for quantification of lumen diameter. Additionally, we have analyzed the degree of variability for the lumen diameter to better capture the range of phenotypes observed (Figure 1K'). These quantifications enable a more precise assessment of lumen morphology, allowing readers to distinguish between thin and irregular lumen phenotypes.

The rescue is about 30%, which is not as good as expected. Maybe the wrong isoform was taken. Is it possible to find out which isoform is expressed in the salivary glands, e.g., by RNA in situ Hyb? This could then be used to analyze a more focused rescue beyond the paper.

Thank you for this point, but we do not agree that the rescue is about 30%. In Papss mutants, about 50% of the embryos show the thin lumen phenotype whereas the other 50% show irregular lumen shapes. In the rescue embryos with a WT Papss, few embryos showed thin lumen phenotypes. About 40% of the rescue embryos showed "normal, fully expanded" lumen shapes, and the remaining 60% showed either irregular (thin+expanded) or slightly overexpanded lumen. It is not uncommon that rescue with the Gal4/UAS system results in a partial rescue because it is often not easy to achieve the balance of the proper amount of the protein with the overexpression system.

To address the possibility that the wrong isoform was used, we performed in situ hybridization to examine the expression of different Papss spice forms in the salivary gland. We used probes that detect subsets of splice forms: A/B/C/F/G, D/H, and E/F/H, and found that all probes showed expression in the salivary gland, with varying intensities. The original probe, which detects all splice forms, showed the strongest signals in the salivary gland compared to the new probes which detect only a subset. However, the difference in the signal intensity may be due to the longer length of the original probe (>800 bp) compared to other probes that were made with much smaller regions (~200 bp). Digoxigenin in the DIG labeling kit for mRNA detection labels the uridine nucleotide in the transcript, and the probes with weaker signals contain fewer uridines (all: 147; ABCFG, 29; D, 36; EFH, 66). We also used the Papss-PD isoform, for a salivary gland-specific rescue experiment and obtained similar results to those with Papss-PE (Figure 1I-L, Figure 4D and E).

Furthermore, we performed additional experiments to validate our findings. We performed a rescue experiment with a mutant form of Papss that has mutations in the critical rescues of the catalytic domains of the enzyme, which failed to rescue any phenotypes, including the thin lumen phenotype (Figure 1H, J-L), the number and intensity of WGA puncta (Figure 3I, I'), and cell death (Figure 4D, E). These results provide strong evidence that the defects observed in Papss mutants are due to the lack of sulfation.

Crb is a transmembrane protein on the apicolateral side of the membrane. Accordingly, the apicolateral distribution can be seen in the control and the mutant. I believe there are no apparent differences here, not even in the amount of expression. However, the view of the cells (frame) shows possible differences. To be sure, a more in-depth analysis of the images is required. Confocal Z-stack images, with 3D visualization and orthogonal projections to analyze the membranes showing Crb staining together with a suitable membrane marker (e.g. SAS or Uif). This is the only way to show whether Crb is incorrectly distributed. Statistics of several papas mutants would also be desirable and not just a single representative image. When do the observed changes in Crb distribution occur in the development of the tubes, only during stage 16? Is papss only involved in the maintenance of the apical membrane? This is particularly important when considering the SJ and AJ, because the latter show no change in the mutants.

We appreciate your suggestion to more thoroughly analyze Crb distribution. We adapted a method from a previous study (Olivares-Castiñeira and Llimargas, 2017) to quantify Crb signals in the subapical region and apical free region of salivary gland cells. Using E-Cad signals as a reference, we marked the apical cell boundaries of individual cells and calculated the intensity of Crb signals in the subapical region (along the cell membrane) and in the apical free region. We focused on the expanded region of the SG lumen in Papss mutants for quantification, as the thin lumen region was challenging to analyze. This quantification is included in Figure 2D. Statistical analysis shows that Crb signals were more dispersed in SG cells in Papss mutants compared to WT.

A change in the ECM is only inferred based on the WGA localization. This is too few to make a clear statement. WGA is only an indirect marker of the cell surface and glycosylated proteins, but it does not indicate whether the ECM is altered in its composition and expression. Other important factors are missing here. In addition, only a single observation is shown, and statistics are missing.

We understand your concern that WGA localization alone may not be sufficient to conclude changes in the ECM. However, we observed that luminal WGA signals colocalize with Dpy-YFP in the WT SG (Figure 5-figure supplement 2C), suggesting that WGA detects the aECM structure containing Dpy. The similar behavior of WGA and Dpy-YFP signals in multiple genotypes further supports this idea. In Papss mutants with a thin lumen phenotype, both WGA and Dpy-YFP signals are condensed (Figure 5E-H), and in pio mutants, both are absent from the lumen (Figure 6B, D). We analyzed WGA signals in over 25 samples of WT and Papss mutants, observing consistent phenotypes. We have included the number of samples in the text. While we acknowledge that WGA is an indirect marker, our data suggest that it is a reliable indicator of the aECM structure containing Dpy.

Reduced WGA staining is seen in papss mutants, but this could be due to other circumstances. To be sure, a statistic with the number of dots must be shown, as well as an intensity blot on several independent samples. The images are from single confocal sections. It could be that the dots appear in a different Z-plane. Therefore, a 3D visualization of the voxels must be shown to identify and, at best, quantify the dots in the organ.

We have quantified cytoplasmic punctate WGA signals. Using spinning disk microscopy with super-resolution technology (Olympus SpinSR10 Sora), we obtained high-resolution images of cytoplasmic punctate signals of WGA in WT, Papss mutant, and rescue SGs with the WT and mutant forms of Papss-PD. We then generated 3D reconstructed images of these signals using Imaris software (Figure 3E-H) and quantified the number and intensity of puncta. Statistical analysis of these data confirms the reduction of the number and intensity of WGA puncta in Papss mutants (Figure 3I, I'). The number of WGA puncta was restored by expressing WT Papss but not the mutant form. By using 3D visualization and quantification, we have ensured that our results are not limited to a single confocal section and account for potential variations in Z-plane localization of the dots.

A colocalization analysis (statistics) should be shown for the overlap of WGA with ManII-GFP.

Since WGA labels multiple structures, including the nuclear envelope and ECM structures, we focused on assessing the colocalization of the cytoplasmic WGA punctate signals and ManII-GFP signals. Standard colocalization analysis methods, such as Pearson's correlation coefficient or Mander's overlap coefficient, would be confounded by WGA signals in other tissues. Therefore, we used a fluorescent intensity line profile to examine the spatial relationship between WGA and ManII-GFP signals in WT and Papss mutants (Figure 3L, L').

I do not understand how the authors describe "statistics of secretory vesicles" as an axis in Figure 3p. The TEM images do not show labeled secretory vesicles but empty structures that could be vesicles.

Previous studies have analyzed "filled" electron-dense secretory vesicles in TEM images of SG cells (Myat and Andrew, 2002, Cell; Fox et al., 2010, J Cell Biol; Chung and Andrew, 2014, Development). Consistent with these studies, our WT TEM images show these vesicles. In contrast, Papss mutants show a mix of filled and empty structures. For quantification, we specifically counted the filled electron-dense vesicles (now Figure 3W). A clear description of our analysis is provided in the figure legend.

1. The quality of the presented TEM images is too low to judge any difference between control and mutants. Therefore, the supplement must present them in better detail (higher pixel number?).

We disagree that the quality of the presented TEM images is too low. Our TEM images have sufficient resolution to reveal details of many subcellular structures, such as mitochondrial cisternae. The pdf file of the original submission may not have been high resolution. To address this concern, we have provided several original high-quality TEM images of both WT and Papss mutants at various magnifications in Figure 2-figure supplement 2. Additionally, we have included low-magnification TEM images of WT and Papss mutants in Figure 2H and I to provide a clearer view of the overall SG lumen morphology.

Line 266: the conclusion that apical trafficking is "significantly impaired" does not hold. This implies that Papss is essential for apical trafficking, but the analyzed ECM proteins (Pio, Dumpy) are found apically enriched in the mutants, and Dumpy is even secreted. Moreover, they analyze only one marker, Sec15, and don't provide data about the quantification of the secretion of proteins.

We agree and have revised our statement to "defective sulfation affects Golgi structures and multiple routes of intracellular trafficking".

DCP-1 was used to detect apoptosis in the glands to analyze acellular regions. However, the authors compare ST16 control with ST15 mutant salivary glands, which is problematic. Further, it is not commented on how many embryos were analyzed and how often they detect the dying cells in control and mutant embryos. This part must be improved.

Thank you for the comment. We agree and have included quantification. We used stage 16 samples from WT and Papss mutants to quantify acellular regions. Since DCP-1 signals are only present at a specific stage of apoptosis, some acellular regions do not show DCP-1 signals. Therefore, we counted acellular regions regardless of DCP-1 signals. We also quantified this in rescue embryos with WT and mutant forms of Papss, which show complete rescue with WT and no rescue with the mutant form, respectively. The graph with a statistical analysis is included (Figure 4D, E).

WGA and Dumpy show similar condensed patterns within the tube lumen. The authors show that dumpy is enriched from stage 14 onwards. How is it with WGA? Does it show the same pattern from stage 14 to 16? Papss mutants can suffer from a developmental delay in organizing the ECM or lack of internalization of luminal proteins during/after tube expansion, which is the case in the trachea.

Dpy-YFP and WGA show overlapping signals in the SG lumen throughout morphogenesis. Dpy-YFP is SG enriched in the lumen from stage 11, not stage 14 (Figure 5-figure supplement 2). WGA is also detected in the lumen throughout SG morphogenesis, similar to Dpy. In the original supplemental figure, only a stage 16 SG image was shown for co-localization of Dpy-YFP and WGA signals in the SG lumen. We have now included images from stage 14 and 15 in Figure 5-figure supplement 2C.

Given that luminal Pio signals are lost at stage 16 only and that Dpy signals appear as condensed structures in the lumen of Papss mutants, it suggests that the internalization of luminal proteins is not impaired in Papss mutants. Rather, these proteins are secreted but fail to organize properly.

Line 366. Luminal morphology is characterized by bulging and constrictions. In the trachea, bulges indicate the deformation of the apical membrane and the detachment from the aECM. I can see constrictions and the collapsed tube lumen in Fig. 6C, but I don't find the bulges of the apical membrane in pio and Np mutants. Maybe showing it more clearly and with better quality will be helpful.

Since the bulging phenotype appears to vary from sample to sample, we have revised the description of the phenotype to "constrictions" to more accurately reflect the consistent observations. We quantified the number of constrictions along the entire lumen in pio and Np mutants and included the graph in Figure 6F.

The authors state that Papss controls luminal secretion of Pio and Dumpy, as they observe reduced luminal staining of both in papss mutants. However, the mCh-Pio and Dumpy-YFP are secreted towards the lumen. Does papss overexpression change Pio and Dumpy secretion towards the lumen, and could this be another explanation for the multiple phenotypes?

Thank you for the comment. To clarify, we did not observe reduced luminal staining of Pio and Dpy in Papss mutants, nor did we state that Papss controls luminal secretion of Pio and Dpy. In Papss mutants, Pio luminal signals are absent specifically at stage 16 (Figure 5H), whereas strong luminal Pio signals are present until stage 15 (Figure 5G). For Dpy-YFP, the signals are not reduced but condensed in Papss mutants from stages 14-16 (Figure 5D, H).

It remains unclear whether the apparent loss of Pio signals is due to a loss of Pio protein in the lumen or due to epitope masking resulting from protein aggregation or condensation. As noted in our response to Comment 11 internalization of luminal proteins seems unaffected in Papss mutants; proteins like Pio and Dpy are secreted into the lumen but fail to properly organize. Therefore, we have not tested whether Papss overexpression alters the secretion of Pio or Dpy.

In our original submission, we incorrectly stated that uniform luminal mCh-Pio signals were unchanged in Papss mutants. Upon closer examination, we found these signals are absent in the expanded luminal region in stage 16 SG (where Dpy-YFP is also absent), and weak mCh-Pio signals colocalize with the condensed Dpy-YFP signals (Figure 5C, D). We have revised the text accordingly.

Regulation of luminal ZP protein level is essential to modulate the tube expansion; therefore, Np releases Pio and Dumpy in a controlled manner during st15/16. Thus, the analysis of Pio and Dumpy in NP overexpression embryos will be critical to this manuscript to understand more about the control of luminal ZP matrix proteins.

Thanks for the insightful suggestion. We overexpressed both the WT and mutant form of Np using UAS-Np.WT and UAS-Np.S990A lines (Drees et al., 2019) and analyzed mCh-Pio, Pio antibody, and Dpy-YFP signals. It is important to note that these overexpression experiments were done in the presence of the endogenous WT Np.

Overexpression of Np.WT led to increased levels of mCh-Pio, Pio, and Dpy-YFP signals in the lumen and at the apical membrane. In contrast, overexpression of Np.S990A resulted in a near complete loss of luminal mCh-Pio signals. Pio antibody signals remained strong at the apical membrane but was weaker in the luminal filamentous structures compared to WT.

Due to the GFP tag present in the UAS-Np.S990A line, we could not reliably analyze Dpy-YFP signals because of overlapping fluorescent signals in the same channel. However, the filamentous Pio signals in the lumen co-localized with GFP signals, suggesting that these structures might also include Dpy-YFP, although this cannot be confirmed definitively.

These results suggest that overexpressed Np.S990A may act in a dominant-negative manner, competing with endogenous Np and impairing proper cleavage of Pio (and mCh-Pio). Nevertheless, some level of cleavage by endogenous Np still appears to occur, as indicated by the residual luminal filamentous Pio signals. These new findings have been incorporated into the revised manuscript and are shown in Figure 6H and 6I.

Minor: Fig. 5 C': mChe-Pio and Dumpy-YFP are mixed up at the top of the images.

Thanks for catching this error. It has been corrected.

Sup. Fig7. A shows Pio in purple but B in green. Please indicate it correctly.

It has been corrected.

Reviewer #1 (Significance (Required)):

In 2023, the functions of Pio, Dumpy, and Np in the tracheal tubes of Drosophila were published. The study here shows similar results, with the difference that the salivary glands do not possess chitin, but the two ZP proteins Pio and Dumpy take over its function. It is, therefore, a significant and exciting extension of the known function of the three proteins to another tube system. In addition, the authors identify papss as a new protein and show its essential function in forming the luminal matrix in the salivary glands. Considering the high degree of conservation of these proteins in other species, the results presented are crucial for future analyses and will have further implications for tubular development, including humans.

Reviewer #2 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

Summary: There is growing appreciation for the important of luminal (apical) ECM in tube development, but such matrices are much less well understood than basal ECMs. Here the authors provide insights into the aECM that shapes the Drosophila salivary gland (SG) tube and the importance of PAPSS-dependent sulfation in its organization and function.

The first part of the paper focuses on careful phenotypic characterization of papss mutants, using multiple markers and TEM. This revealed reduced markers of sulfation (Alcian Blue staining) and defects in both apical and basal ECM organization, Golgi (but not ER) morphology, number and localization of other endosomal compartments, plus increased cell death. The authors focus on the fact that papss mutants have an irregular SG lumen diameter, with both narrowed regions and bulged regions. They address the pleiotropy, showing that preventing the cell death and resultant gaps in the tube did not rescue the SG luminal shape defects and discussing similarities and differences between the papss mutant phenotype and those caused by more general trafficking defects. The analysis uses a papss nonsense mutant from an EMS screen - I appreciate the rigorous approach the authors took to analyze transheterozygotes (as well as homozygotes) plus rescued animals in order to rule out effects of linked mutations.

The 2nd part of the paper focuses on the SG aECM, showing that Dpy and Pio ZP protein fusions localize abnormally in papss mutants and that these ZP mutants (and Np protease mutants) have similar SG lumen shaping defects to the papss mutants. A key conclusion is that SG lumen defects correlate with loss of a Pio+Dpy-dependent filamentous structure in the lumen. These data suggest that ZP protein misregulation could explain this part of the papss phenotype.

Overall, the text is very well written and clear. Figures are clearly labeled. The methods involve rigorous genetic approaches, microscopy, and quantifications/statistics and are documented appropriately. The findings are convincing, with just a few things about the fusions needing clarification.

minor comments 1. Although the Dpy and Qsm fusions are published reagents, it would still be helpful to mention whether the tags are C-terminal as suggested by the nomenclature, and whether Westerns have been performed, since (as discussed for Pio) cleavage could also affect the appearance of these fusions.

Thanks for the comment. Dpy-YFP is a knock-in line in which YFP is inserted into the middle of the dpy locus (Lye et al., 2014; the insertion site is available on Flybase). mCh-Qsm is also a knock-in line, with mCh inserted near the N-terminus of the qsm gene using phi-mediated recombination using the qsmMI07716 line (Chu and Hayashi, 2021; insertion site available on Flybase). Based on this, we have updated the nomenclature from Qsm-mCh to mCh-Qsm throughout the manuscript to accurately reflect the tag position. To our knowledge, no western blot has been performed on Dpy-YFP or mCh-Qsm lines. We have mentioned this explicitly in the Discussion.

The Dpy-YFP reagent is a non-functional fusion and therefore may not be a wholly reliable reporter of Dpy localization. There is no antibody confirmation. As other reagents are not available to my knowledge, this issue can be addressed with text acknowledgement of possible caveats.

Thanks for raising this important point. We have added a caveat in the Discussion noting this limitation and the need for additional tools, such as an antibody or a functional fusion protein, to confirm the localization of Dpy.

TEM was done by standard chemical fixation, which is fine for viewing intracellular organelles, but high pressure freezing probably would do a better job of preserving aECM structure, which looks fairly bad in Fig. 2G WT, without evidence of the filamentous structures seen by light microscopy. Nevertheless, the images are sufficient for showing the extreme disorganization of aECM in papss mutants.

We agree that HPF is a better method and intent to use the HPF system in future studies. We acknowledge that chemical fixation contributes to the appearance of a gap between the apical membrane and the aECM, which we did not observe in the HPF/FS method (Chung and Andrew, 2014). Despite this, the TEM images still clearly reveal that Papss mutants show a much thinner and more electron-dense aECM compared to WT (Figure 2H, I), consistent to the condensed WGA, Dpy, and Pio signals in our confocal analyses. As the reviewer mentioned, we believe that the current TEM data are sufficient to support the conclusion of severe aECM disorganization and Golgi defects in Papss mutants.

The authors may consider citing some of the work that has been done on sulfation in nematodes, e.g. as reviewed here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35223994/ Sulfation has been tied to multiple aspects of nematode aECM organization, though not specifically to ZP proteins.

Thank you for the suggestion. Pioneering studies in C. elegans have highlighted the key role of sulfation in diverse developmental processes, including neuronal organization, reproductive tissue development, and phenotypic plasticity. We have now cited several works.

Reviewer #2 (Significance (Required)):

This study will be of interest to researchers studying developmental morphogenesis in general and specifically tube biology or the aECM. It should be particularly of interest to those studying sulfation or ZP proteins (which are broadly present in aECMs across organisms, including humans).

This study adds to the literature demonstrating the importance of luminal matrix in shaping tubular organs and greatly advances understanding of the luminal matrix in the Drosophila salivary gland, an important model of tubular organ development and one that has key matrix differences (such as no chitin) compared to other highly studied Drosophila tubes like the trachea.

The detailed description of the defects resulting from papss loss suggests that there are multiple different sulfated targets, with a subset specifically relevant to aECM biology. A limitation is that specific sulfated substrates are not identified here (e.g. are these the ZP proteins themselves or other matrix glycoproteins or lipids?); therefore it's not clear how direct or indirect the effects of papss are on ZP proteins. However, this is clearly a direction for future work and does not detract from the excellent beginning made here.

My expertise: I am a developmental geneticist with interests in apical ECM

Reviewer #3 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

In this work Woodward et al focus on the apical extracellular matrix (aECM) in the tubular salivary gland (SG) of Drosophila. They provide new insights into the composition of this aECM, formed by ZP proteins, in particular Pio and Dumpy. They also describe the functional requirements of PAPSS, a critical enzyme involved in sulfation, in regulating the expansion of the lumen of the SG. A detailed cellular analysis of Papss mutants indicate defects in the apical membrane, the aECM and in Golgi organization. They also find that Papss control the proper organization of the Pio-Dpy matrix in the lumen. The work is well presented and the results are consistent.

Main comments

• This work provides a detailed description of the defects produced by the absence of Papss. In addition, it provides many interesting observations at the cellular and tissular level. However, this work lacks a clear connection between these observations and the role of sulfation. Thus, the mechanisms underlying the phenotypes observed are elusive. Efforts directed to strengthen this connection (ideally experimentally) would greatly increase the interest and relevance of this work.

Thank you for this thoughtful comment. To directly test whether the phenotypes observed in Papss mutants are due to the loss of sulfation activity, we generated transgenic lines expressing catalytically inactive forms of Papss, UAS-PapssK193A, F593P, in which key residues in the APS kinase and ATP sulfurylase domains are mutated. Unlike WT UAS-Papss (both the Papss-PD or Papss-PE isoforms), the catalytically inactive UAS-Papssmut failed to rescue any of the phenotypes, including the thin lumen phenotype (Figure 1I-L), altered WGA signals (Figure I, I') and the cell death phenotype (Figure 4D, E). These findings strongly support the conclusion that the enzymatic sulfation activity of Papss is essential for the developmental processes described in this study.

• A main issue that arises from this work is the role of Papss at the cellular level. The results presented convincingly indicate defects in Golgi organization in Papss mutants. Therefore, the defects observed could stem from general defects in the secretion pathway rather than from specific defects on sulfation. This could even underly general/catastrophic cellular defects and lead to cell death (as observed). This observation has different implications. Is this effect observed in SGs also observed in other cells in the embryo? If Papss has a general role in Golgi organization this would be expected, as Papss encodes the only PAPs synthatase in Drosophila. Can the authors test any other mutant that specifically affect Golgi organization and investigate whether this produces a similar phenotype to that of Papss?

Thank you for the comment. To address whether the defects observed in Papss mutants stem from general disruption of the secretory pathway due to Golgi disorganization, we examined mutants of two key Golgi components: Grasp65 and GM130.

In Grasp65 mutants, we observed significant defects in SG lumen morpholgy, including highly irregular SG lumen shape and multiple constrictions (100%; n=10/10). However, the lumen was not uniformly thin as in Papss mutants. In contrast, GM130 mutants-although this line was very sick and difficult to grow-showed relatively normal salivary glands morphology in the few embryos that survived to stage 16 (n=5/5). It is possible that only embryos with mild phenotypes progressed to this stages, limiting interpretation. These data have now been included in Figure 3-figure supplement 2. Overall, while Golgi disruption can affect SG morphology, the specific phenotypes seen in Papss mutants are not fully recapitulated by Grasp65 or GM130 loss.

• A model that conveys the different observations and that proposes a function for Papss in sulfation and Golgi organization (independent or interdependent?) would help to better present the proposed conclusions. In particular, the paper would be more informative if it proposed a mechanism or hypothesis of how sulfation affects SG lumen expansion. Is sulfation regulating a factor that in turn regulates Pio-Dpy matrix? Is it regulating Pio-Dpy directly? Is it regulating a product recognized by WGA? For instance, investigating Alcian blue or sulfotyrosine staining in pio, dpy mutants could help to understand whether Pio, Dpy are targets of sulfation.

Thank you for the comment. We're also very interested in learning whether the regulation of the Pio-Dpy matrix is a direct or indirect consequence of the loss of sulfation on these proteins. One possible scenario is that sulfation directly regulates the Pio-Dpy matrix by regulating protein stability through the formation of disulfide bonds between the conserved Cys residues responsible for ZP module polymerization. Additionally, the Dpy protein contains hundreds of EGF modules that are highly susceptible to O-glycosylation. Sulfation of the glycan groups attached to Dpy may be critical for its ability to form a filamentous structure. Without sulfation, the glycan groups on Dpy may not interact properly with the surrounding materials in the lumen, resulting in an aggregated and condensed structure. These possibilities are discussed in the Discussion.

We have not analyzed sulfation levels in pio or dpy mutants because sulfation levels in mutants of single ZP domain proteins may not provide much information. A substantial number of proteoglycans, glycoproteins, and proteins (with up to 1% of all tyrosine residues in an organism's proteins estimated to be sulfated) are modified by sulfation, so changes in sulfation levels in a single mutant may be subtle. Especially, the existing dpy mutant line is an insertion mutant of a transposable element; therefore, the sulfation sites would still remain in this mutant.

• Interpretation of Papss effects on Pio and Dpy would be desired. The results presented indicate loss of Pio antibody staining but normal presence of cherry-Pio. This is difficult to interpret. How are these results of Pio antibody and cherry-Pio correlating with the results in the trachea described recently (Drees et al. 2023)?

In our original submission, we stated that the uniform luminal mCh-Pio signals were not changed in Papss mutants, but after re-analysis, we found that these signals were actually absent from the expanded luminal region in stage 16 SG (where Dpy-YFP is also absent), and weak mCh-Pio signals colocalize with the condensed Dpy-YFP signals (Figure 5C, D). We have revised the text accordingly.

After cleavages by Np and furin, the Pio protein should have three fragments. The N-terminal region contains the N-terminal half of the ZP domain, and mCh-Pio signals show this fragment. The very C-terminal region should localize to the membrane as it contains the transmembrane domain. We think the middle piece, the C-terminal ZP domain, is recognized by the Pio antibody. The mCh-Pio and Pio antibody signals in the WT trachea (Drees et al., 2023) are similar to those in the SG. mCh-Pio signals are detected in the tracheal lumen as uniform signals, at the apical membrane, and in cytoplasmic puncta. Pio antibody signals are exclusively in the tracheal lumen and show more heterogenous filamentous signals.

In Papss mutants, the middle fragment (the C-terminal ZP domain) seems to be most affected because the Pio antibody signals are absent from the lumen. The loss of Pio antibody signals could be due to protein degradation or epitope masking caused by aECM condensation and protein misfolding. This fragment seems to be key for interacting with Dpy, since Pio antibody signals always colocalize with Dpy-YFP. The N-terminal mCh-Pio fragment does not appear to play a significant role in forming a complex with Dpy in WT (but still aggregated together in Papss mutants), and this can be tested in future studies.

In response to Reviewer 1's comment, we performed an additional experiment to test the role of Np in cleaving Pio to help organize the SG aECM. In this experiment, we overexpressed the WT and mutant form of Np using UAS-Np.WT and UAS-Np.S990A lines (Drees et al., 2019) and analyzed mCh-Pio, Pio antibody, and Dpy-YFP signals. Np.WT overexpression resulted in increased levels of mCh-Pio, Pio, and Dpy-YFP signals in the lumen and at the apical membrane. However, overexpression of Np.S990A resulted in the absence of luminal mCh-Pio signals. Pio antibody signals were strong at the apical membrane but rather weak in the luminal filamentous structures. Since the UAS-Np.S990A line has the GFP tag, we could not reliably analyze Dpy-YFP signals due to overlapping Np.S990A.GFP signals in the same channel. However, the luminal filamentous Pio signals co-localized with GFP signals, and we assume that these overlapping signals could be Dpy-YFP signals.

These results suggest that overexpressed Np.S990A may act in a dominant-negative manner, competing with endogenous Np and impairing proper cleavage of Pio (and mCh-Pio). Nevertheless, some level of cleavage by endogenous Np still appears to occur, as indicated by the residual luminal filamentous Pio signals. These new findings have been incorporated into the revised manuscript and are shown in Figure 6H and 6I.

A proposed model of the Pio-Dpy aECM in WT, Papss, pio, and Np mutants has now been included in Figure 7.

• What does the WGA staining in the lumen reveal? This staining seems to be affected differently in pio and dpy mutants: in pio mutants it disappears from the lumen (as dpy-YFP does), but in dpy mutants it seems to be maintained. How do the authors interpret these findings? How does the WGA matrix relate to sulfated products (using Alcian blue or sulfotyrosine)?

WGA binds to sialic acid and N-acetylglucosamine (GlcNAc) residues on glycoproteins and glycolipids. GlcNAc is a key component of the glycosaminoglycan (GAG) chains that are covalently attached to the core protein of a proteoglycan, which is abundant in the ECM. We think WGA detects GlcNAc residues in the components of the aECM, including Dpy as a core component, based on the following data. 1) WGA and Dpy colocalize in the lumen, both in WT (as thin filamentous structures) and Papss mutant background (as condensed rod-like structures), and 2) are absent in pio mutants. WGA signals are still present in a highly condensed form in dpy mutants. That's probably because the dpy mutant allele (dpyov1) has an insertion of a transposable element (blood element) into intron 11 and this insertion may have caused the Dpy protein to misfold and condense. We added the information about the dpy allele to the Results section and discussed it in the Discussion.

Minor points:

• The morphological phenotypic analysis of Papss mutants (homozygous and transheterozygous) is a bit confusing. The general defects are higher in Papss homozygous than in transheterozygotes over a deficiency. Maybe quantifying the defects in the heterozygote embryos in the Papss mutant collection could help to figure out whether these defects relate to Papss mutation.

We analyzed the morphology of heterozygous Papss mutant embryos. They were all normal. The data and quantifications have now been added to Figure 1-figure supplement 3.

• The conclusion that the apical membrane is affected in Papss mutants is not strongly supported by the results presented with the pattern of Crb (Fig 2). Further evidences should be provided. Maybe the TEM analysis could help to support this conclusion

We quantified Crb levels in the sub-apical and medial regions of the cell and included this new quantification in Figure 2D. TEM images showed variation in the irregularity of the apical membrane, even in WT, and we could not draw a solid conclusion from these images.

• It is difficult to understand why in Papss mutants the levels of WGA increase. Can the authors elaborate on this?

We think that when Dpy (and many other aECM components) are condensed and aggregated into the thin, rod-like structure in Papss mutants, the sugar residues attached to them must also be concentrated and shown as increased WGA signals.

• The explanation about why Pio antibody and mcherry-Pio show different patterns is not clear. If the antibody recognizes the C-t region, shouldn't it be clearly found at the membrane rather than the lumen?

The Pio protein is also cleaved by furin protease (Figure 5B). We think the Pio fragment recognized by the antibody should be a "C-terminal ZP domain", which is a middle piece after furin + Np cleavages.

• The qsm information does not seem to provide any relevant information to the aECM, or sulfation.

Since Qsm has been shown to bind to Dpy and remodel Dpy filaments in the muscle tendon (Chu and Hayashi, 2021), we believe that the different behavior of Qsm in the SG is still informative. As mentioned briefly in the Discussion, the cleaved Qsm fragment may localize differently, like Pio, and future work will need to test this. We have shortened the description of the Qsm localization in the manuscript and moved the details to the figure legend of Figure 5-figure supplement 3.

Reviewer #3 (Significance (Required)):

Previous reports already indicated a role for Papss in sulfation in SG (Zhu et al 2005). Now this work provides a more detailed description of the defects produced by the absence of Papss. In addition, it provides relevant data related to the nature and requirements of the aECM in the SG. Understanding the composition and requirements of aECM during organ formation is an important question. Therefore, this work may be relevant in the fields of cell biology and morphogenesis.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In the manuscript by Walter-McNeill, Kruglyak, and team, the authors provide solid evidence of another toxin-antidote (TA) system in C. elegans. Generally, TA systems involve selfish and linked genetic elements, one encoding a toxin that kills progeny inheriting it, unless an antidote (the second element) is also present. Currently, only two TA systems have been characterized in this species, pointing to the importance of identifying new instances of such systems to understand their transmission dynamics, prevalence, and functions in shaping worm populations.

Strengths:

This novel TA system (mll-1/smll-1) was identified on LGV in wild C. elegans isolates from the Hawaiian islands, by crossing divergent strains and observing allele frequency distortions by high-throughput genome sequencing after 10 generations. These allele frequency distortions were subsequently confirmed in another set of crosses with a separate divergent strain, and crosses of heterozygous males or hermaphrodites resulted in a pattern of L1 lethality in progeny (with a rod arrest phenotype) that suggested the maternal transmission of this TA system from the XZ1516 genetic background. By elegantly combining the use of near-isogenic lines, CRISPR editing to generate knock-outs, and a transgene rescue of the antidote gene, the authors identified the genes encoding the toxin and the antidote, which they refer to as mll-1 and smll-1. Moreover, the specific mll-1 isoform responsible for the production of the toxin was identified and mll-1 transcripts were observed by FISH in early and late embryos, as well as in larvae. Inducible expression of the toxin in various strains resulted in larval arrest and rod phenotypes. The authors then characterized the genetic variation of 550 wild isolates at the toxin/antidote region on LGV and distinguished three clades: (1) one with the conserved TA system, (2) one having lost the toxin and retaining a mostly functional antidote, and (3) one having lost the antidote and retaining a divergent yet coding toxin (this includes the reference strain Bristol N2, in which the homologous toxin gene has acquired mutations and is known as B0250.8). Further, the authors show that this region is under positive selection. These data are compelling and provide very strong evidence of a new TA system in this species.

Weaknesses:

The question remained as to how one clade, including N2, could retain the toxin gene but not possess a functional antidote. In the second part of the manuscript, the authors hypothesized that small RNA targeting (RNAi) of the toxin transcript could provide the necessary repression to allow worms to survive without the antidote. Through a meta-analysis of multiple small RNA datasets from the literature, the authors found evidence to support this idea, in which the toxin transcript is targeted by 22G siRNAs whose biogenesis is dependent on the Mutator foci protein, MUT-16. They note that from previous studies, mut-16 null mutants displayed a varied penetrance of larval arrest. In their own hands, mut-16 mutants displayed 15% varied larval arrest and 2% rod phenotypes. In an attempt to link B0250.8 to mut-16/siRNAs, they made a double mutant and examined body length as a proxy for developmental stage. Here, they observed a partial rescue of the mut-16 size defect by B0250.8 mutation. Finally, the authors also highlight data from further meta-analysis, which predicts the recognition of B0250.8 by several piRNAs. Also based on existing data from the literature, the authors link loss of Piwi (PRG-1), which binds piRNAs, to a depletion of 22G-RNAs targeting B0250.8 and an upregulation of B0250.8 expression in gonads, suggesting that piRNAs are the primary small RNAs that target B0250.8 for downregulation. The data in this portion of the manuscript are intriguing, but somewhat preliminary and incomplete, as they are based on little primary experimentation and a collection of different datasets (which have been acquired by slightly different methods in most cases). This portion of the study would require subsequent experimentation to firmly establish this mechanistic link. For example, to be able to claim that "the N2 toxin allele has acquired mutations that enable piRNA binding to initiate MUT-16-dependent 22G small RNA amplification that targets the transcript for degradation" the identified piRNA sites should be mutated and protein and transcript levels analysed in wild-type and in the strain with mutated piRNA sites. At a minimum, the protein levels in wild-type and mut-16, prg-1, and/or wago-1 mutants should be measured by western blot and/or by live imaging (introducing a GFP or some other tag to the endogenous protein via CRISPR editing) to show that the toxin is not accumulated as a protein in wt, but increases in levels in these mutants. mRNA levels in Figure S5A suggest there is still some expression of the B0250.8 transcript in a wild-type situation.

Hi Colleagues!

Highlight any part of the text to leave a comment, question, or insight. You can also reply to others’ annotations.

Tag your comments if needed, e.g., #question, #suggestion to help us filter key themes later.

Let’s use this space to: Clarify content Share reflections and experiences Suggest collaboration opportunities

for - example - importance of multiscale hierarchical intelligence and control - Michael Levin - high level instruction is issued and the multiscale structure ensures that all the lower level details are executed - like a software function call

new plexmark - person assigned to each comment in multiplayer conversational environment - have a way to - detect then - discriminate and finally - tag - each sequentially different conversant' s comments in the conversation - This will help with Indyweb provenance by attributing the person with each sentence

目的和上面的不一样

自带的标记，按比例，数据清洗的标记 数据处理和数据集管理逻辑明确

Author response:

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors present a novel CRISPR/Cas9-based genetic tool for the dopamine receptor dop1R2. Based on the known function of the receptor in learning and memory, they tested the efficacy of the genetic tool by knocking out the receptor specifically in mushroom body neurons. The data suggest that dop1R2 is necessary for longer-lasting memories through its action on ⍺/ß and ⍺'/ß' neurons but is dispensable for short-term memory and thus in ɣ neurons. The experiments impressively demonstrate the value of such a genetic tool and illustrate the specific function of the receptor in subpopulations of KCs for longer-term memories. The data presented in this manuscript are significant.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This manuscript examines the role of the dopamine receptor, Dop1R2, in memory formation. This receptor has complex roles in supporting different stages of memory, and the neural mechanisms for these functions are poorly understood. The authors are able to localize Dop1R2 function to the vertical lobes of the mushroom body, revealing a role in later (presumably middle-term) aversive and appetitive memory. In general, the experimental design is rigorous, and statistics are appropriately applied. While the manuscript provides a useful tool, it would be strengthened further by additional mechanistic studies that build on the rich literature examining the roles of dopamine signaling in memory formation. The claim that Dop1R2 is involved in memory formation is strongly supported by the data presented, and this manuscript adds to a growing literature revealing that dopamine is a critical regulator of olfactory memory. However, the manuscript does not necessarily extend much beyond our understanding of Dop1R2 in memory formation, and future work will be needed to fully characterize this reagent and define the role of Dop1R2 in memory.

Strengths:

(1) The FRT lines generated provide a novel tool for temporal and spatially precise manipulation of Dop1R2 function. This tool will be valuable to study the role of Dop1R2 in memory and other behaviors potentially regulated by this gene.

(2) Given the highly conserved role of Dop1R2 in memory and other processes, these findings have a high potential to translate to vertebrate species.

Weaknesses:

(1) The authors state Dop1R2 associates with two different G-proteins. It would be useful to know which one is mediating the loss of aversive and appetitive memory in Dop1R2 knockout flies.

We thank you for the insightful comment. We agree that it would be very useful to know which G-proteins are transmitting Dop1R2 signaling. To that extent, we examined single-cell transcriptomics data to check the level of co-expression of Dop1R2 with G-proteins that are of interest to us. (Figure 1 S1)

Lines 312-325

“Some RNA binding proteins and Immediate early genes help maintain identities of Mushroom body cells and are regulators of local transcription and translation (de Queiroz et al., 2025; Raun et al., 2025). So, the availability of different G-proteins may change in different lobes and during different phases of memory. The G-protein via which GPCRs signal, may depend on the pool of available G-proteins in the cell/sub-cellular region (Hermans, 2003)., Therefore, Dop1R2 may signal via different G-proteins in different compartments of the Mushroom body and also different compartments of the neuron. We looked at Gαo and Gαq as they are known to have roles in learning and forgetting (Ferris et al., 2006; Himmelreich et al., 2017). We found that Dop1R2 co-expresses more frequently with Gαo than with Gαq (Figure 1 S1). While there is evidence for Dop1R2 to act via Gαq (Himmelreich et al., 2017). It is difficult to determine whether this interaction is exclusive, or if Dop1R2 can also be coupled to other G-proteins. It will be interesting to determine the breadth of G-proteins that are involved in Dop1R2 signaling.”

(2) It would be interesting to examine 24hr aversive memory, in addition to 24hr appetitive memory.

This is indeed an important point and we agree that it will complete the assessment of temporally distinct memory traces. We therefore performed the Aversive LTM experiments and include them in the results.

Lines 208-228

“24h memory is impaired by loss of Dop1R2

Next, we wanted to see if later memory forms are also affected. One cycle of reward training is sufficient to create LTM (Krashes & Waddell, 2008), while for aversive memory, 5-6 cycles of electroshock-trainings are required to obtain robust long-term memory scores (Tully et al., 1994). So, we looked at both, 24h aversive and appetitive memory. For aversive LTM, the flies were tested on the Y-Maze apparatus as described in (Mohandasan et al., (2022).

Flipping out Dop1R2 in the whole MB causes a reduced 24h memory performance (Figure 4A, E). No phenotype was observed when Ddop1R2 was flipped out in the γ-lobe (Figure 4B, F). However, similar to 2h memory, loss of Ddop1R2 in the α/β-lobes (Figure 4C, G) or the α’/β’-lobes (Figure 4D, H) causes a reduction in memory performance. Thus, Dop1R2 seems to be involved in aversive and appetitive LTM in the α/β-lobes and the α’/β’-lobes.

Previous studies have shown mutation in the Dop1R2 receptor leads to improvement in LTM when a single shock training paradigm is used (Berry et al., 2012). As we found that it disrupts LTM, we wanted to verify if the absence of Dop1R2 outside the MB is what leads to an improvement in memory. To that extent, we tested panneuronal flip-out of Dop1R2 flies for 6hr and 24hr memory upon single shock using the elav-Gal4 driver. We found that it did not improve memory at both time points (Figure 4 S1). Confirming that flipping out Dop1R2 panneuronally does not improve LTM (Figure 4 S1C) and highlighting its irrelevance in memory outside the MB.”

(3) The manuscript would be strengthened by added functional analysis. What are the DANs that signal through Dop1R. How do these knockouts impact MBONs?

We thank you for this question. We indeed agree that it is a highly relevand and open question, how distinct DANs signal via distinct Dopamine receptors. Our work here uniquely focusses on Dop1R2 within the MB. We aim to investigate other DopRs and the connection between DANs in the future using similar approaches.

(4) Also in Figure 2, the lobe-specific knockouts might be moved to supplemental since there is no effect. Instead, consider moving the control sensory tests into the main figure.

We thank you for this suggestion and understand that in Figure 2 no significant difference is seen. However, we have emphasized in the text that the results from the supplementary figures are just to confirm that the modifications made at the Dop1R2 locus did not alter its normal function.

Lines 156-162

“We wanted to see if flipping out Dop1R2 in the MB affects memory acquisition and STM by using classical olfactory conditioning. In short, a group of flies is presented with an odor coupled to an electric shock (aversive) or sugar (appetitive) followed by a second odor without stimulus. For assessing their memory, flies can freely choose between the odors either directly after training (STM) or at a later timepoint.

To ensure that the introduced genetic changes to the Dop1R2 locus do not interfere with behavior we first checked the sensory responses of that line”

(5) Can the single-cell atlas data be used to narrow down the cell types in the vertical lobes that express Dop1R2? Is it all or just a subset?

This is indeed an interesting question, and we thank you for mentioning it. To address this as best as we could, we analyzed the single cell transcriptomic data from (Davie et al., 2018) and presented it in Figure 1 S1.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

Kaldun et al. investigated the role of Dopamine Receptor Dop1R2 in different types and stages of olfactory associative memory in Drosophila melanogaster. Dop1R2 is a type 1 Dopamine receptor that can act both through Gs-cAMP and Gq-ERCa2+ pathways. The authors first developed a very useful tool, where tissue-specific knock-out mutants can be generated, using Crispr/Cas9 technology in combination with the powerful Gal4/UAS gene-expression toolkit, very common in fruit flies.

They direct the K.O. mutation to intrinsic neurons of the main associative memory centre fly brain-the mushroom body (MB). There are three main types of MB-neurons, or Kenyon cells, according to their axonal projections: a/b; a'/b', and g neurons.

Kaldun et al. found that flies lacking dop1R2 all over the MB displayed impaired appetitive middle-term (2h) and long-term (24h) memory, whereas appetitive short-term memory remained intact. Knocking-out dop1R2 in the three MB neuron subtypes also impaired middle-term, but not short-term, aversive memory.

These memory defects were recapitulated when the loss of the dop1R2 gene was restricted to either a/b or a'/b', but not when the loss of the gene was restricted to g neurons, showcasing a compartmentalized role of Dop1R2 in specific neuronal subtypes of the main memory centre of the fly brain for the expression of middle and long-term memories.

Strengths:

(1) The conclusions of this paper are very well supported by the data, and the authors systematically addressed the requirement of a very interesting type of dopamine receptor in both appetitive and aversive memories. These findings are important for the fields of learning and memory and dopaminergic neuromodulation among others. The evidence in the literature so far was generated in different labs, each using different tools (mutants, RNAi knockdowns driven in different developmental stages...), different time points (short, middle, and long-term memory), different types of memories (Anesthesia resistant, which is a type of protein synthesis independent consolidated memory; anesthesia sensitive, which is a type of protein synthesis-dependent consolidated memory; aversive memory; appetitive memory...) and different behavioral paradigms. A study like this one allows for direct comparison of the results, and generalized observations.

(2) Additionally, Kaldun and collaborators addressed the requirement of different types of Kenyon cells, that have been classically involved in different memory stages: g KCs for memory acquisition and a/b or a'/b' for later memory phases. This systematical approach has not been performed before.

(3) Importantly, the authors of this paper produced a tool to generate tissue-specific knock-out mutants of dop1R2. Although this is not the first time that the requirement of this gene in different memory phases has been studied, the tools used here represent the most sophisticated genetic approach to induce a loss of function phenotypes exclusively in MB neurons.

Weaknesses:

(1) Although the paper does have important strengths, the main weakness of this work is that the advancement in the field could be considered incremental: the main findings of the manuscript had been reported before by several groups, using tissue-specific conditional knockdowns through interference RNAi. The requirement of Dop1R2 in MB for middle-term and long-term memories has been shown both for appetitive (Musso et al 2015, Sun et al 2020) and aversive associations (Plaçais et al 2017).

Thank you for this comment. We believe that the main takeaway from the paper is the elegant tool we developed, to study the role of Dop1R2 in fruit flies by effectively flipping it out spatio-temporally. Additionally, we studied its role in all types of olfactory associative memory to establish it as a robust tool that can be used for further research in place of RNAi knockouts which are shown to be less efficient in insects as mentioned in the texts in line 394-398.

“The genetic tool we generated here to study the role of the Dop1R2 dopamine receptor in cells of interest, is not only a good substitute for RNAi knockouts, which are known to be less efficient in insects (Joga et al., 2016), but also provides versatile possibilities as it can be used in combination with the powerful genetic tools of Drosophila.”

(2) The approach used here to genetically modify memory neurons is not temporally restricted. Considering the role of dopamine in the correct development of the nervous system, one must consider the possible effects that this manipulation can have in the establishment of memory circuits. However, previous studies addressing this question restricted the manipulation of Dop1R2 expression to adulthood, leading to the same findings than the ones reported in this paper for both aversive and appetitive memories, which solidifies the findings of this paper.

We thank you for this comment and we agree that it would be important to show a temporally restricted effect of Dop1R2 knockout. To assess this and rule out potential developmental defects we decided to restrict the knockout to the post-eclosion stage and to include these results.

Lines 230-250

“Developmental defects are ruled out in a temporally restricted Dop1R2 conditional knockout.

To exclude developmental defects in the MB caused by flip-out of Dop1R2, we stained fly brains with a FasII antibody. Compared to genetic controls, flies lacking Dop1R2 in the mushroom body had unaltered lobes (Figure 4 S2C).

Regardless, we wanted to control for developmental defects leading to memory loss in flip-out flies. So, we generated a Gal80ts-containing line, enabling the temporal control of Dop1R2 knockout in the entire mushroom body (MB). Given that the half-life of the receptor remains unknown, we assessed both aversive short-term memory (STM) and long-term memory (LTM) to determine whether post-eclosion ablation of Dop1R2 in the MB produced differences compared to our previously tested line, in which Dop1R2 was constitutively knocked out from fertilization. To achieve this, flies were maintained at 18°C until eclosion and subsequently shifted to 30°C for five to seven days. On the fifth day, training was conducted, followed by memory testing. Our results indicate that aversive STM was not significantly impaired in Dop1R2-deficient MBs compared to control flies (Figure 4 S3), consistent with our previous findings (Figure 2). However, aversive LTM was significantly impaired relative to control lines (Figure 4 S3), which also aligned with prior observations. These findings strongly indicate that memory loss caused by Dop1R2 flip-out is not due to developmental defects.”

(3) The authors state that they aim to resolve disparities of findings in the field regarding the specific role of Dop1R2 in memory, offering a potent tool to generate mutants and addressing systematically their effects on different types of memory. Their results support the role of this receptor in the expression of long-term memories, however in the experiments performed here do not address temporal resolution of the genetic manipulations that could bring light into the mechanisms of action of Dop1R2 in memory. Several hypotheses have been proposed, from stabilization of memory, effects on forgetting, or integration of sequences of events (sensory experiences and dopamine release).

We thank you for this comment. We agree that it would be interesting to dissect the memory stages by knocking out the receptor selectively in some of them (encoding, consolidation, retrieval). However, our tool irreversibly flips out Dop1R2 preventing us from investigating the receptor’s role in retrieval. Our results show that the receptor is dispensable for STM formation (Figure 2, Figure 4 Supplement 3), suggesting that it is not involved in encoding new information. On the other hand, it is instead involved in consolidation and/or retrieval of long-term and middle-term memories (Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5B).

Overall, the authors generated a very useful tool to study dopamine neuromodulation in any given circuit when used in combination with the powerful genetic toolkit available in Drosophila. The reports in this paper confirmed a previously described role of Dop1R2 in the expression of aversive and appetitive LTM and mapped these effects to two specific types of memory neurons in the fly brain, previously implicated in the expression and consolidation of long-term associative memories.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) On the first view, the results shown here are different from studies published earlier, while in the same line with others (e.g. Sun et al, for appetitive 24h memories). For example, Berry et al showed that the loss of dop1R2 impairs immediate memory, while memory scores are enhanced 3h, 6h, and 24h after training. Further, they showed data that shock avoidance, at least for higher shock intensities, is reduced in mutant (damb) flies. All in all, this favors how important it is to improve the genetic tools for tissue-specific manipulation. Despite the authors nicely discussing their data with respect to the previous studies, I wondered whether it would be suitable to use the new tool and knock out dop1R2 panneuronally to see whether the obtained data match the results published by Berry et al.. Further, as stated in line 105ff: "As these studies used different learning assays - aversive and appetitive respectively as well as different methods, it is unclear if Dop1R2 has different functions for the different reinforcement stimulus" I wondered why the authors tested aversive and appetitive learning for STM and 2h memory, but only appetitive memory for 24h.

Thank you for this comment. To that extent, as mentioned above in response to reviewer #2, we included in the results the aversive LTM experiment (Figure 4). Moreover, we performed experiments along the line of Berry et al. using our tool as shown in Figure 4 S1. Our results support that Dop1R2 is required for LTM, rather than to promote forgetting.

(2) Line 165ff: I can´t find any of the supplementary data mentioned here. Please add the corresponding figures.

Thank you for pointing this out. In that line we don’t refer to any supplementary data, but to the Figure 1F, showing the absence of the HA-tag in our MB knock-out line. We have clarified this in the text (lines 151-153)

(3) I can't imagine that the scale bar in Figure 1D-F is correct. I would also like to suggest to show a more detailed analysis of the expression pattern. For example, both anterior and posterior views would be appropriate, perhaps including the VNC. This would allow the expression pattern obtained with this novel tool to be better compared with previously published results. Also, in relation to my comment above (1), it may help to understand the functional differences with previous studies, especially as the authors themselves state that the receptor is "mainly" expressed in the mushroom body (line 99). It would be interesting to see where else it is expressed (if so). This would also be interesting for the panneuronal knockdown experiment suggested under (1). If the receptor is indeed expressed outside the mushroom body, this may explain the differences to Berry et al.

Thank you for noting this, there was indeed a mistake in the scale bar which we now fixed. Since with our HA-tag immunostaining we could not detect any noticeable signal outside of the MB, we decided to analyze previously existing single cell transcriptomics data that showed expression of the receptor in 7.99% of cells in the VNC and in 13.8% of cells outside the MB (lines 98-100) confirming its sparse expression in the nervous system. The lack of detection of these cells is likely due to the sparse and low expression of the protein. The HA-tag allows to detect the endogenous level of the locus (it is possible that a Gal4/UAS amplification of the signal might allow to detect these cells).

Regarding the panneuronal knockout, we decided to try to replicate the experiment shown in Berry et al. in Figure 4 S1 and found that Dop1R2 is required for LTM.

(4) Related to learning data shown in Figures 2-4, the authors should show statistical differences between all groups obtained in the ANOVA + PostHoc tests. Currently, only an asterisk is placed above the experimental group, which does not adequately reflect the statistical differences between the groups. In addition, I would like to suggest adding statistical tests to the chance level as it may be interesting to know whether, for example, scores of knockout flies in 3C and 3D are different from the chance level.

Many thanks for this correction, we agree with the fact that the way significance scores were shown was not informative enough. We fixed the point by now showing significance between all the control groups and the experimental ones. We also inserted the chance level results in the figure legends.

(5) Unfortunately, the manuscript has some typing errors, so I would like to ask the authors to check the manuscript again carefully.

Some Examples:

Line 31: the the

Line 56: G-Protein

Line 64: c-AMP

Line 68: Dopamine

Line 70: G-Protein (It alternates between G-protein and G-Protein)

Line 76: References are formatted incorrectly

Line 126: Ha-Tag (It alternates between Ha and HA)

Line 248: missing space before the bracket...is often found

Thank you for noticing these errors, we have now corrected the spelling throughout the manuscript.

(6) In the figures the axes are labelled Preference Index (Pref"I"). In the methods, however, the calculation formula is defined as "PREF".

We thank you for drawing attention to this. To avoid confusion, we changed the definition in the methods section so that it could be clear and coherent (“Memory tests” paragraph in the methods section).

“PREF = ((N_arm1 - N_arm2) 100) / N_total the two preference indices were calculated from the two reciprocal experiments. The average of these two PREFs gives a learning index (LI). LI = (PREF₁ + PREF₂) / 2.

In case of all Long-term Aversive memory experiments, Y-Maze protocol was adapted to test flies 24 hours post training. Testing using the Y-Maze was done following the protocol as described in (Mohandasan et al., 2022) where flies were loaded at the bottom of 20-minutes odorized 3D-printed Y-Mazes from where they would climb up to a choice point and choose between the two odors. The learning index was then calculated after counting the flies in each odorized vial as follows: LI = ((N_CS- - N_CS+) 100) / N_total. Where NCS- and NCS+ are the number of flies that were found trapped in the untrained and trained odor tube respectively.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) In Figures 2 and 3, the legends running two different subfigures is confusing. Would be helpful to find a different way to present.

Thank you for your suggestion. We modified how we present legends, placing them vertically so that it is clearer.

(2) Use additional drivers to verify middle and long-term memory phenotypes.

We agree that it would be interesting to see the role of Dop1R2 in other neurons. To that extent, we looked at long term aversive memory in flies where the receptor was panneuronaly flipped out, and did not find evidence that suggested involvement of Dop1R2 in memory processes outside the MB. (Figure 4 S1)

(3) Additional discussion of genetic background for fly lines would be helpful.

Thank you for your advice. We have mentioned the genetic background of flies in the key resources table of the methods sections. Additionally, we also included further explanation on how the lines were created and their genetic background (see “Fly Husbandry” paragraph in the methods section).

“UAS-flp;;Dop1R2 cko flies and Gal4;Dop1R2^cko flies were crossed back with ;;Dop^cko flies to obtain appropriate genetic controls which were heterozygous for UAS and Gal4 but not Dop1R2^cko.”

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Line 109 states that to resolve the problem a tool is developed to knock down Dop1R2 in s spatial and temporal specific manner- while I agree that this is within the potential of the tool, there is no temporal control of the flipase action in this study; at least I cannot find references to the use of target/gene switch to control stages of development or different memory phases. However the version available for download is missing supplementary information, so I did not have access to supplementary figures and tables.

Thank you for the comment, as mentioned before it would be great to be able to dissect the memory phases. We show in lines 232 – 250 and Figure 4 S3 that the temporally restricted flip-out to the post-eclosion life stage gave us coherent results with the previous findings, ruling out potential developmental defects.

In relation to my comment on the possible developmental effects of the loss of the gene, Figure 1F could showcase an underdeveloped g lobe when looking at the lobe profiles. I understand this is not within the scope of the figure, but maybe a different z projection can be provided to confirm there are no obvious anatomical alterations due to the loss of the receptor.

We understand the doubt about the correct development of the MB and we thank you for your insightful comment. To that extent we decided to perform a FasII immunostaining that could show us the MB in the different lines (Figure 4 S2) and it appears that there are no notable differences in the lobes development in our knockout line.

It seems that the obvious missing piece of the puzzle would be to address the effects of knocking out Dop1R2 in aversive LTM. The idea of systematically addressing different types of memory at different time points and in different KCs is the most attractive aspect of this study beyond the technical sophistication, and it feels that the aim of the study is not delivered without that component.

We agree and we thank you for the clarification. As mentioned above in response to Reviewer #2, we decided to test aversive LTM as described in lines –208-228, Figure 4, Figure 4 S1.

Some statements of the discussion seem too vague, and I think could benefit from editing:

Line 284 "however other receptors could use Gq and mediate forgetting"- does this refer to other dopamine receptors? Other neuromodulators? Examples?

Thank you for pointing this out. We Agree and therefore decided to omit this line.

Line 289 "using a space training protocol and a Dop1R2 line" - this refers to RNAi lines, but it should be stated clearly.

That is correct, we thank you for bringing attention to this and clarified it in the manuscript.

–Lines 329-330

“Interestingly, using a spaced training protocol and a Dop1R2 RNAi knockout line another study showed impaired LTM (Placais et al., 2017).”

The paragraph starting in line 305 could be re-written to improve clarity and flow. Some statements seem disconnected and require specific citations. For example "In aversive memory formation, loss of Dop1R2 could lead to enhanced or impaired memory, depending on the activated signaling pathways and the internal state of the animal...". This is not accurate. Berry et al 2012 report enhanced LTM performance in dop1R2 mutants whereas Plaçais et al 2017 report LTM defects in Dop1R2 knock-downs, but these different findings do not seem to rely on different internal states or signaling pathways. Maybe further elaboration can help the reader understand this speculation.

We agree and we thank you for this advice. We decided to add additional details and citations to validate our speculation

Lines 350-353

“In aversive memory formation, loss of Dop1R2 could lead to enhanced or impaired memory, depending on the activated signaling pathways. The signaling pathway that is activated further depends on the available pool of secondary messengers in the cell (Hermans, 2003) which may be regulated by the internal state of the animal.”

"...for reward memory formation, loss of Dop1R2 seems to impair memory", this seems redundant at this point, as it has been discussed in detail, however, citations should be provided in any case (Musso 2015, Sun 2020)

Thank you for noting this. We recognize the redundancy and decided to exclude the line.

Finally, it would be useful to additionally refer to the anatomical terminology when introducing neuron names; for example MBON MVP2 (MBON-g1pedc>a/b), etc.

Thank you for this suggestion. We understand the importance of anatomical terminologies for the neurons. Therefore, we included them when we introduce neurons in the paper.

We thank you for your observations. We recognize their value, so we have made appropriate changes in the discussion to sound less vague and more comprehensive.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:<br /> This manuscript describes the role of PRDM16 in modulating BMP response during choroid plexus (ChP) development. The authors combine PRDM16 knockout mice and cultured PRDM16 KO primary neural stem cells (NSCs) to determine the interactions between BMP signaling and PRDM16 in ChP differentiation.<br /> They show PRDM16 KO affects ChP development in vivo and BMP4 response in vitro. They determine genes regulated by BMP and PRDM16 by ChIP-seq or CUT&TAG for PRDM16, pSMAD1/5/8, and SMAD4. They then measure gene activity in primary NSCs through H3K4me3 and find more genes are corepressed than coactivated by BMP signaling and PRDM16 and focus on the 31 genes found to be co-repressed by BMP and PRDM16. Wnt7b is in this set and the authors then provide evidence that PRDM16 and BMP signaling together repress Wnt activity in the developing choroid plexus.

Strengths:<br /> Understanding context-dependent response to cell signals during development is an important problem. The authors use a powerful combination of in vivo and in vitro systems to dissect how PRDM16 may modulate BMP response in early brain development.

Main weakness of the experimental setup:<br /> (1) Because the authors state that primary NSCs cultured in vitro lose endogenous Prdm16 expression, they drive expression by a constitutive promoter. However, this means the expression levels is very different from endogenous levels (as explicitly shown in Supp. Fig. 2B) and the effect of many transcription factors is strongly dose-dependent, likely creating differences between the PRDM16-dependent transcriptional response in the in vitro system and in vivo. Although the authors combine in vitro and in vivo evidence on the role of PRDM16 as a co-factor for MBP signaling and verified that BMP induces quiescence in their NSC model in a PRDM16-dependent manner, this experimental setup remains a weakness and likely affects the results of the various genomics experiments.

Other experimental weaknesses that make the evidence less convincing:

(1) It seems that the authors compare Prdm16_KO cells to Prdm16 WT cells overexpressing flag_Prdm16. Aside from the possible expression of endogenous Prdm16, other cell differences may have arisen between these cell lines. A properly controlled experiment would compare Prdm16_KO ctrl (possibly infected with a control vector without Prdm16) to Prdm16_KO_E (i.e. the Prdm16_KO cells with and without Prdm16 overexpression.) The authors acknowledged this problem in their rebuttal, stating that they were unable to overexpress PRDM16 in KO cells.

(2) The authors show in Fig.2E that Ttr is not upregulated by BMP4 in PRDM16_KO NSCs. This appears inconsistent with the presence of Ttr expression in the PRDM16_KO brain in Fig.1C. The authors explained in their rebuttal that the Ttr protein levels are not detectable in the NSCs with antibodies but the effect is still visible at the level of mRNA. The dramatic difference in protein expression is curious.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript describes the role of PRDM16 in modulating BMP response during choroid plexus (ChP) development. The authors combine PRDM16 knockout mice and cultured PRDM16 KO primary neural stem cells (NSCs) to determine the interactions between BMP signaling and PRDM16 in ChP differentiation.

They show PRDM16 KO affects ChP development in vivo and BMP4 response in vitro. They determine genes regulated by BMP and PRDM16 by ChIP-seq or CUT&TAG for PRDM16, pSMAD1/5/8, and SMAD4. They then measure gene activity in primary NSCs through H3K4me3 and find more genes are co-repressed than co-activated by BMP signaling and PRDM16. They focus on the 31 genes found to be co-repressed by BMP and PRDM16. Wnt7b is in this set and the authors then provide evidence that PRDM16 and BMP signaling together repress Wnt activity in the developing choroid plexus.

Strengths:

Understanding context-dependent responses to cell signals during development is an important problem. The authors use a powerful combination of in vivo and in vitro systems to dissect how PRDM16 may modulate BMP response in early brain development.

We thank the reviewer for the thoughtful summary and positive feedback. We appreciate the recognition of our integrative in vivo and in vitro approach. We're glad the reviewer found our findings on context-dependent gene regulation and developmental signaling valuable.

Main weaknesses of the experimental setup:

(1) Because the authors state that primary NSCs cultured in vitro lose endogenous Prdm16 expression, they drive expression by a constitutive promoter. However, this means the expression levels are very different from endogenous levels (as explicitly shown in Supplementary Figure 2B) and the effect of many transcription factors is strongly dose-dependent, likely creating differences between the PRDM16-dependent transcriptional response in the in vitro system and in vivo.

We acknowledge that our in vitro experiments may not ideally replicate the in vivo situation, a common limitation of such experiments, our primary aim was to explore the molecular relationship between PRDM16 and BMP signaling in gene regulation. Such molecular investigations are challenging to conduct using in vivo tissues. In vitro NSCs treated with BMP4 has been used a model to investigate NSC proliferation and quiescence, drawing on previous studies (e.g., Helena Mira, 2010; Marlen Knobloch, 2017). Crucially, to ensure the relevance of our in vitro findings to the in vivo context, we confirmed that cultured cells could indeed be induced into quiescence by BMP4, and this induction necessitated the presence of PRDM16. Furthermore, upon identifying target genes co-regulated by PRDM16 and SMADs, we validated PRDM16's regulatory role on a subset of these genes in the developing Choroid Plexus (ChP) (Fig. 7 and Suppl.Fig7-8). Only by combining evidence from both in vitro and in vivo experiments could we confidently conclude that PRDM16 serves as an essential co-factor for BMP signaling in restricting NSC proliferation.

(2) It seems that the authors compare Prdm16_KO cells to Prdm16 WT cells overexpressing flag_Prdm16. Aside from the possible expression of endogenous Prdm16, other cell differences may have arisen between these cell lines. A properly controlled experiment would compare Prdm16_KO ctrl (possibly infected with a control vector without Prdm16) to Prdm16_KO_E (i.e. the Prdm16_KO cells with and without Prdm16 overexpression.)

We agree that Prdm16 KO cells carrying the Prdm16-expressing vector would be a good comparison with those with KO_vector. However, despite more than 10 attempts with various optimization conditions, we were unable to establish a viable cell line after infecting Prdm16 KO cells with the Prdm16-expressing vector. The overall survival rate for primary NSCs after viral infection is low, and we observed that KO cells were particularly sensitive to infection treatment when the viral vector was large (the Prdm16 ORF is more than 3kb).

As an alternative oo assess vector effects, we instead included two other control cell lines, wt and KO cells infected with the 3xNLS_Flag-tag viral vector, and presented the results in supplementary Fig 2.  When we compared the responses of the four lines — wt, KO, wt infected with the Flag vector, KO infected with the Flag vector — to the addition and removal of BMP4, we confirmed that the viral infection itself has no significant impacts on the responses of these cells to these treatments regarding changes in cell proliferation and Ttr induction.

Given that wt cells and the KO cells, with or without viral backbone infection behave quite similarly in terms of cell proliferation, we speculate that even if we were successful in obtaining a cell line with Prdm16-expressing vector in the KO cells, it may not exhibit substantial differences compared to wt cells infected with Prdm16-expressing vector.

Other experimental weaknesses that make the evidence less convincing:

(1) The authors show in Figure 2E that Ttr is not upregulated by BMP4 in PRDM16_KO NSCs. Does this appear inconsistent with the presence of Ttr expression in the PRDM16_KO brain in Figure1C?

The reviwer’s point is that there was no significant increase in Ttr expression in Prdm16_KO cells after BMP4 treatment (Fig. 2E), but there remained residule Ttr mRNA signals in the Prdm16 mutant ChP (Fig. 1C). We think the difference lies in the measuable level of Ttr expression between that induced by BMP4 in NSC culture and that in the ChP. This is based on our immunostaining expreriment in which we tried to detect Ttr using a Ttr antibody. This antibody could not detect the Ttr protein in BMP4-treated Prdm16_expressing NSCs but clearly showed Ttr signal in the wt ChP. This means that although Ttr expression can be significantly increased by BMP4 in vitro to a level measurable by RT-qPCR, its absolute quantity even in the Prdm16_expressing condition is much lower compared to that in vivo. Our results in Fig 1C and Fig 2E, as well as Fig 7B, all consistently showed that Prdm16 depletion significantly reduced Ttr expression in in vitro and in vivo.

(2) Figure 3: The authors use H3K4me3 to measure gene activity. This is however, very indirect, with bulk RNA-seq providing the most direct readout and polymerase binding (ChIP-seq) another more direct readout. Transcription can be regulated without expected changes in histone methylation, see e.g. papers from Josh Brickman. They verify their H3K4me3 predictions with qPCR for a select number of genes, all related to the kinetochore, but it is not clear why these genes were picked, and one could worry whether these are representative.

H3K4me3 has widely been used as an indicator of active transcription and is a mark for cell identity genes. And it has been demonstrated that H3K4me3 has a direct function in regulating transciption at the step of RNApolII pausing release. As stated in the text, there are advantages and disadvantages of using H3K4me3 compared to using RNA-seq. RNA-seq profiles all gene products, which are affected by transcription and RNA stability and turnover. In contrast, H3K4me3 levels at gene promoter reflects transcriptional activity. In our case, we aimed to identify differential gene expression between proliferation and quiescence states. The transition between these two states is fast and dynamic. RNA-seq may not be able to identify functionally relevant genes but more likely produces false positive and negative results. Therefore, we chose H3K4me3 profiling.

We agree that transcription may change without histone methylation changes. This may cause an under-estimation of the number of changed genes between the conditions. 

We validated 7 out of 31 genes (Wnt7b, Id3, Mybl2, Spc24, Spc25, Ndc80 and Nuf2). We chose these genes based on two critira: 1) their function is implicated in cell proliferation and cell-cycle regulation based on gene ontology analysis; 2) their gene products are detectable in the developing ChP based on the scRNA-seq data. Three of these genes (Wnt7b, Id3, Mybl2) are not related to the kinetochore. We now clarify this description in the revised text.

(3) Line 256: The overlap of 31 genes between 184 BMP-repressed genes and 240 PRDM16-repressed genes seems quite small.

This result indicates that in addition to co-repressing cell-cycle genes, BMP and PRDM16 have independent fucntions. For example, it was reported that BMP regulates neuronal and astrocyte differentiation (Katada, S. 2021), while our previous work demonstrated that Prdm16 controls temporal identity of NSCs (He, L. 2021).

(4) The Wnt7b H3K4me3 track in Fig. 3G is not discussed in the text but it shows H3K4me3 high in _KO and low in _E regardless of BMP4. This seems to contradict the heatmap of H3K4me3 in Figure 3E which shows H3K4me3 high in _E no BMP4 and low in _E BMP4 while omitting _KO no BMP4. Meanwhile CDKN1A, the other gene shown in 3G, is missing from 3E.

The track in Fig 3G shows the absolute signal of H3K4me3 after mapping the sequencing reads to the genome and normaliz them to library size. Compare the signal in Prdm16_E with BMP4 and that in Prdm16_E without BMP4, the one with BMP4 has a lower peak. The same trend can be seen for the pair of Prdm16_KO cells with or without BMP4.  The heatmap in Fig. 3E shows the relative level of H3K4me3 in three conditions. The Prdm16_E cells with BMP4 has the lowest level, while the other two conditions (Prdm16_KO with BMP4 and Prdm16_E without BMP4) display higher levels. These two graphs show a consistent trend of H3K4me3 changes at the Wnt7b promoter across these conditions. Figure 3E only includes genes that are co-repressed by PRDM16 and BMP. CDKN1A’s H3K4me3 signals are consistent between the conditions, and thus it is not a PRDM16- or BMP-regulated gene. We use it as a negative control. 

(5) The authors use PRDM16 CUT&TAG on dissected dorsal midline tissues to determine if their 31 identified PRDM16-BMP4 co-repressed genes are regulated directly by PRDM16 in vivo. By manual inspection, they find that "most" of these show a PRDM16 peak. How many is most? If using the same parameters for determining peaks, how many genes in an appropriately chosen negative control set of genes would show peaks? Can the authors rigorously establish the statistical significance of this observation? And why wasn't the same experiment performed on the NSCs in which the other experiments are done so one can directly compare the results? Instead, as far as I could tell, there is only ChIP-qPCR for two genes in NSCs in Supplementary Figure 4D.

In our text, we indicated the genes containing PRDM16 binding peaks in the figures and described them as “Text in black in Fig. 6A and Supplementary Fig. 5A”. We will add the precise number “25 of these genes” in the main text to clarify it. We used BMP-only repressed 184-31 =153 genes (excluding PRDM16-BMP4 co-repressed) as a negative control set of genes. By computationally determine the nearest TSS to a PRDM16 peak, we identified 24/31 co-repressed genes and 84/153 BMP-only-repressed genes, containing PRDM16 peaks in the E12.5 ChP data. Fisher’s Exact Test comparing the proportions yields the P-value = 0.015.

We are confused with the second part of the comment “And why wasn't the same experiment performed on the NSCs in which the other experiments are done so one can directly compare the results? Instead, as far as I could tell, there is only ChIP-qPCR for two genes in NSCs in Supplementary Figure 4D.” If the reviewer meant why we didn’t sequence the material from sequential-ChIP or validate more taget genes, the reason is the limitation of the material. Sequential ChIP requires a large quantity of the antibodies, and yields little material barely sufficient for a few qPCR after the second round of IP. This yielded amount was far below the minimum required for library construction. The PRDM16 antibody was a gift, and the quantity we have was very limited. We made a lot of efforts to optimize all available commercial antibodies in ChIP and Cut&Tag, but none of them worked in these assays.

(6) In comparing RNA in situ between WT and PRDM16 KO in Figure 7, the authors state they use the Wnt2b signal to identify the border between CH and neocortex. However, the Wnt2b signal is shown in grey and it is impossible for this reviewer to see clear Wnt2b expression or where the boundaries are in Figure 7A. The authors also do not show where they placed the boundaries in their analysis. Furthermore, Figure 7B only shows insets for one of the regions being compared making it difficult to see differences from the other region. Finally, the authors do not show an example of their spot segmentation to judge whether their spot counting is reliable. Overall, this makes it difficult to judge whether the quantification in Figure 7C can be trusted.

In the revised manuscript we have included an individal channel of Wnt2b and mark the boundaries. We also provide full-view images and examples of spot segmentation in the new supplementary figure 8. 

(7) The correlation between mKi67 and Axin2 in Figure 7 is interesting but does not convincingly show that Wnt downstream of PRDM16 and BMP is responsible for the increased proliferation in PRDM16 mutants.

We agree that this result (the correlation between mKi67 and Axin2) alone only suggests that Wnt signaling is related to the proliferation defect in the Prdm16 mutant, and does not necessarily mean that Wnt is downstream of PRDM16 and BMP. Our concolusion is backed up by two additional lines of evidences:  the Cut&Tag data in which PRDM16 binds to regulatory regions of Wnt7b and Wnt3a; BMP and PRDM16 co-repress Wnt7b in vitro.

An ideal result is that down-regulating Wnt signaling in Prdm16 mutant can rescue Prdm16 mutant phenotype. Such an experiment is technically challenging. Wnt plays diverse and essential roles in NSC regulation, and one would need to use a celltype-and stage-specific tool to down-regulate Wnt in the background of Prdm16 mutation. Moreover, Wnt genes are not the only targets regulated by PRDM16 in these cells, and downregulating Wnt may not be sufficient to rescue the phenotype. 

Weaknesses of the presentation:

Overall, the manuscript is not easy to read. This can cause confusion.

We have revised the text to improve clarity.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) Overall, the manuscript is not easy to read. Here are some causes of confusion for which the presentation could be cleaned up:

We are grateful for the reviewer’s suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have made efforts to improve the clarity of the text.

(a) Part of the first section is confusing in that some statements seem contradictory, in particular:

"there is no overall patterning defect of ChP and CH in the Prdm16 mutant" (line 125)

"Prdm16 depletion disrupted the transition from neural progenitors into ChP epithelia" (line 144)

It would be helpful if the authors could reformulate this more clearly.

We modified the text to clarify that while the BMP-patterned domain is not affected, the transition of NSCs into ChP epithelial cells is compromised in the Prdm16 mutant.

(b) Flag_PRDM16, PRDM16_expressing, PRDM16_E, PRDM16 OE all seem to refer to the same PRDM16 overexpressing cells, which is very confusing. The authors should use consistent naming. Moreover, it would be good if they renamed these all to PRDM16_OE to indicate expression is not endogenous but driven by a constitutive promoter.

We appreciate the comment and agree that the use of multiple terms to refer to the same PRDM16-overexpressing condition was confusing. Our original intention in using Prdm16_E was to distinguish cells expressing PRDM16 from the two other groups: wild-type cells and Prdm16_KO cells, which both lack PRDM16 protein expression. However, we acknowledge that Prdm16_E could be misinterpreted as indicating expression from the endogenous Prdm16 promoter. To avoid this confusion and ensure consistency, we have now standardized the terminology and refer to this condition as Prdm16_OE, indicating Flag-tagged PRDM16 expression driven by a constitutive promoter.

(c) Line 179 states "generated a cell line by infecting Prdm16_KO cells with the same viral vector, expressing 3xNSL_Flag". Do the authors mean 3xNLS_Flag_Prdm16, so these are the Prdm16_KO_E cells by the notation suggested above? Or is this a control vector with Flag only? The following paragraph refers to Supplementary Figure 2C-F where the same construct is called KO_CDH, suggesting this was an empty CDH vector, without Flag, or Prdm16. This is confusing.

We appreciate the reviewer’s careful reading and helpful comment. We acknowledge the confusion caused by the inconsistent terminology. To clarify: in line 179, we intended to describe an attempt to generate a Prdm16_KO cell line expressing 3xNLS_Flag_Prdm16, not a control vector with Flag only. However, despite repeated attempts, we were unable to establish this line due to low viral efficiency and the vulnerability of Prdm16_KO cells to infection with the large construct. Therefore, these cells were not included in the subsequent analyses.

The term KO_CDH refers to Prdm16_KO cells infected with the empty CDH control vector, which lacks both Flag and Prdm16. This is the line used in the experiments shown in Supplementary Fig. 2C–F. We have revised the text throughout the manuscript to ensure consistent use of terminology and to avoid this confusion.

(2) The introductory statements on lines 53-54 could use more references.

Thanks for the suggestion. We have now included more references.

(3) It would be helpful if all structures described in the introduction and first section were annotated in Figure 1, or otherwise, if a cartoon were included. For example, the cortical hem, and fourth ventricle.

Thanks for the suggestion. We have now indicated the structures, ChP, CH and the fourth ventricle, in the images in Figure 1 and Supplementary Figure 1.

(4) In line 115, "as previously shown.." - to keep the paper self-contained a figure illustrating the genetics of the KO allele would be helpful.

Thanks for the suggestion. We have now included an illustration of the Prdm16 cGT allele in Figure 1B.

(5) In Figure 1D as costain for a ChP marker would be helpful because it is hard to identify morphologically in the Prdm16 KO.

Appoligize for the unclarity. The KO allele contains a b-geo reporter driven by Prdm16 endogenous promoter. The samples were co-stained for EdU, b-Gal and DAPI. To distingquish the ChP domain from the CH, we used the presence of b b-Gal as a marker. We indicated this in the figure legend, but now have also clarified this in the revised text.

(6) The details in Figure 1E are hard to see, a zoomed-in inset would help.

A zoomed-in inset is now included in the figure.

(7) Supplementary Figure 2A does not convincingly show that PRDM16 protein is undetectable since endogenous expression may be very low compared to the overexpression PRDM16_E cells so if the contrast is scaled together it could appear black like the KO.

We appreciate the reviewer’s point and have carefully considered this concern. We concluded that PRDM16 protein is effectively undetectable in cultured wild-type NSCs based on direct comparison with brain tissue. Both cultured NSCs and brain sections were processed under similar immunostaining and imaging conditions. While PRDM16 showed robust and specific nuclear localization in embryonic brain sections (Fig. 1B and Supplementary Fig. 1A), only a small subset of cultured NSCs exhibited PRDM16 signal, primarily in the cytoplasm (middle panel of Fig. 2A). This stark contrast supports our conclusion that endogenous PRDM16 protein is either absent or significantly downregulated in vitro. Because of this limitation, we turned to over-expressing Prdm16 in NSC culture using a constitutive promoter. 

(9) Line 182 "Following the washout step" - no such step had been described, maybe replace by "After washout of BMP".

Yes, we have revised the text.

(8) Line 214: "indicating a modest level" - what defines modest? Compared to what? Why is a few thousand moderate rather than low? Does it go to zero with inhibitors for pathways?

Here a modest level means a lower level than to that after adding BMP4. To clarify this, we revised the description to “indicating endogenous levels of …”

(9) The way qPCR data are displayed makes it difficult to appreciate the magnitude of changes, e.g. in Supplementary Figure 2B where a gap is introduced on the scale. Displaying log fold change / relative CT values would be more informative.

We used a segmented Y-axis in Supplementary Figure 2B because the Prdm16 overexpression samples exhibited much higher experssion levels compared to other conditions. In response to this suggestion, we explored alternative ways to present the result, including ploting log-transformed values and log fold changes. However, these methods did not enhance the clarity of the differences – in fact, log scaling made the magnitude of change appear less apparent. To address this, we now present the overexpression samples in a separate graph, thereby eliminating the need for a broken Y-axis and improving the overall readability of the data.

(10) Writing out "3 days" instead of 3D in Figure 2A would improve clarity. It would be good if the used time interval is repeated in other figures throughout the paper so it is still clear the comparison is between 0 and 3 days.

We have changed “3D” to “3 days”. All BMP4 treatments in this study were 3 days.

(11) Line 290: "we found that over 50% of SMAD4 and pSMAD1/5/8 binding peaks were consistent in Prdm16_E and Prdm16_KO cells, indicating that deletion of Prdm16 does not affect the general genomic binding ability of these proteins" - this only makes sense to state with appropriate controls because 50% seems like a big difference, what is the sample to sample variability for the same condition? Moreover, the next paragraph seems to contradict this, ending with "This result suggests that SMAD binding to these sites depends on PRDM16". The authors should probably clarify the writing.

We appreciate the reviwer’s comment and agree that clarification was needed. Our point was that SMAD4 and pSMAD1/5/8 retain the ability to bind DNA broadly in the Prdm16 KO cells, with more than half of the original binding sites still occupied. This suggests that deletion of Prdm16 does not globally impair SMAD genomic binding. Howerever, our primary interest lies in the subset of sites that show differential by SMAD binding between wt and Prdm16 KO conditions, as thse are likely to be PRDM16-dependent. 

In the following paragraph, we focused specifically on describing SMAD and PRDM16 co-bound sites. At these loci, SMAD4 and pSMAD1/5/8 showed reduced enrichment in the absence of PRDM16, suggesting PRDM16 facilitates SMAD binding at these particular regions. We have revised the text in the manuscript to more clearly distinguish between global SMAD binding and PRDM16-dependent sites.

(12) Much more convincing than ChIP-qPCR for c-FOS for two loci in Figures 5F-G would be a global analysis of c-FOS ChIP-seq data.

We agree that a global c-FOS ChIP-seq analysis would provide a more comprehensive view of c-FOS binding patterns. However, the primary focus of this study is the interaction between BMP signaling and PRDM16. The enrichment of AP-1 motifs at ectopic SMAD4 binding sites was an unexpected finding, which we validated using c-FOS ChIP-qPCR at selected loci. While a genome-wide analysis would be valuable, it falls beyond the current scope. We agree that future studies exploring the interplay among SMAD4/pSMAD, PRDM16, and AP-1 will be important and informative.

(13) Figure 6A is hard to read. A heatmap would make it much easier to see differences in expression. Furthermore, if the point is to see the difference between ChP and CH, why not combine the different subclusters belonging to those structures? Finally, why are there 28 genes total when it is said the authors are evaluating a list of 31 genes and also displaying 6 genes that are not expressed (so the difference isn't that unexpressed genes are omitted)?

For the scRNA-seq data, we chose violin plots because they display both gene expression levels and the number of cells that express each gene. However, we agree that the labels in Figure 6A were too small and difficult to read. We have revised the figure by increasing the font size and moved genes with low expression to  Supplementary Figure 5A. Figure 6A includes 17 more highly expressed genes together with three markers, and  Supplementary Figure 5A contains 13 lowly expressed genes. One gene Mrtfb is missing in the scRNA-seq data and thus not included. We have revised the description of the result in the main text and figure legends.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This article investigates the role of PRDM16 in regulating cell proliferation and differentiation during choroid plexus (ChP) development in mice. The study finds that PRDM16 acts as a corepressor in the BMP signaling pathway, which is crucial for ChP formation.

The key findings of the study are:

(1) PRDM16 promotes cell cycle exit in neural epithelial cells at the ChP primordium.

(2) PRDM16 and BMP signaling work together to induce neural stem cell (NSC) quiescence in vitro.

(3) BMP signaling and PRDM16 cooperatively repress proliferation genes.

(4) PRDM16 assists genomic binding of SMAD4 and pSMAD1/5/8.

(5) Genes co-regulated by SMADs and PRDM16 in NSCs are repressed in the developing ChP.

(6) PRDM16 represses Wnt7b and Wnt activity in the developing ChP.

(7) Levels of Wnt activity correlate with cell proliferation in the developing ChP and CH.

In summary, this study identifies PRDM16 as a key regulator of the balance between BMP and Wnt signaling during ChP development. PRDM16 facilitates the repressive function of BMP signaling on cell proliferation while simultaneously suppressing Wnt signaling. This interplay between signaling pathways and PRDM16 is essential for the proper specification and differentiation of ChP epithelial cells. This study provides new insights into the molecular mechanisms governing ChP development and may have implications for understanding the pathogenesis of ChP tumors and other related diseases.

Strengths:

(1) Combining in vitro and in vivo experiments to provide a comprehensive understanding of PRDM16 function in ChP development.

(2) Uses of a variety of techniques, including immunostaining, RNA in situ hybridization, RT-qPCR, CUT&Tag, ChIP-seq, and SCRINSHOT.

(3) Identifying a novel role for PRDM16 in regulating the balance between BMP and Wnt signaling.

(4) Providing a mechanistic explanation for how PRDM16 enhances the repressive function of BMP signaling. The identification of SMAD palindromic motifs as preferred binding sites for the SMAD/PRDM16 complex suggests a specific mechanism for PRDM16-mediated gene repression.

(5) Highlighting the potential clinical relevance of PRDM16 in the context of ChP tumors and other related diseases. By demonstrating the crucial role of PRDM16 in controlling ChP development, the study suggests that dysregulation of PRDM16 may contribute to the pathogenesis of these conditions.

We thank the reviewer for the thorough and thoughtful summary of our study. We’re glad the key findings and significance of our work were clearly conveyed, particularly regarding the role of PRDM16 in coordinating BMP and Wnt signaling during ChP development. We also appreciate the recognition of our integrated approach and the potential implications for understanding ChP-related diseases.

Weaknesses:

(1) Limited investigation of the mechanism controlling PRDM16 protein stability and nuclear localization in vivo. The study observed that PRDM16 protein became nearly undetectable in NSCs cultured in vitro, despite high mRNA levels. While the authors speculate that post-translational modifications might regulate PRDM16 in NSCs similar to brown adipocytes, further investigation is needed to confirm this and understand the precise mechanism controlling PRDM16 protein levels in vivo.

While mechansims controlling PRDM16 protein stability and nuclear localization in the developing brain are interesting, the scope of this paper is revealing the function of PRDM16 in the choroid plexus and its interaction with BMP signaling. We will be happy to pursuit this direction in our next study.

(2) Reliance on overexpression of PRDM16 in NSC cultures. To study PRDM16 function in vitro, the authors used a lentiviral construct to constitutively express PRDM16 in NSCs. While this approach allowed them to overcome the issue of low PRDM16 protein levels in vitro, it is important to consider that overexpressing PRDM16 may not fully recapitulate its physiological role in regulating gene expression and cell behavior.

As stated above, we acknowledge that findings from cultured NSCs may not directly apply to ChP cells in vivo. We are cautious with our statements. The cell culture work was aimed to identify potential mechanisms by which PRDM16 and SMADs interact to regulate gene expression and target genes co-regulated by these factors. We expect that not all targets from cell culture are regulated by PRDM16 and SMADs in the ChP, so we validated expression changes of several target genes in the developing ChP and now included the new data in Fig. 7 and Supplementary Fig. 7. Out of the 31 genes identified from cultured cells, four cell cycle regulators including Wnt7b, Id3, Spc24/25/nuf2 and Mybl2, showed de-repression in Prdm16 mutant ChP. These genes can be relevant downstream genes in the ChP, and other target genes may be cortical NSC-specific or less dependent on Prdm16 in vivo.

(3) Lack of direct evidence for AP1 as the co-factor responsible for SMAD relocation in the absence of PRDM16. While the study identified the AP1 motif as enriched in SMAD binding sites in Prdm16 knockout cells, they only provided ChIP-qPCR validation for c-FOS binding at two specific loci (Wnt7b and Id3). Further investigation is needed to confirm the direct interaction between AP1 and SMAD proteins in the absence of PRDM16 and to rule out other potential co-factors.

We agree that the finding of the AP1 motif enriched at the PRDM16 and SMAD co-binding regions in Prdm16 KO cells can only indirectly suggest AP1 as a co-factor for SMAD relocation. That’s why we used ChIP-qPCR to examine the presence of C-fos at these sites. Although we only validated two targets, the result confirms that C-fos binds to the sites only in the Prdm16 KO cells but not Prdm16_expressing cells, suggesting AP1 is a co-factor.  Our results cannot rule out the presence of other co-factors.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Minor typo: [7, page 3] "sicne" should be "since".

We appreciate the reviewer’s careful reading. We have now corrected the typo and revised some part of the text to improve clarity.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) signaling instructs multiple processes during development including cell proliferation and differentiation. The authors set out to understand the role of PRDM16 in these various functions of BMP signaling. They find that PRDM16 and BMP co-operate to repress stem cell proliferation by regulating the genomic distribution of BMP pathway transcription factors. They additionally show that PRDM16 impacts choroid plexus epithelial cell specification. The authors provide evidence for a regulatory circuit (constituting of BMP, PRDM16, and Wnt) that influences stem cell proliferation/differentiation.

Strengths:

I find the topics studied by the authors in this study of general interest to the field, the experiments well-controlled and the analysis in the paper sound.

We thank the reviewer for their positive feedback and thoughtful summary. We appreciate the recognition of our efforts to define the role of PRDM16 in BMP signaling and stem cell regulation, as well as the soundness of our experimental design and analysis.

Weaknesses:

I have no major scientific concerns. I have some minor recommendations that will help improve the paper (regarding the discussion).

We have revised the discussion according to the suggestions.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

Specific minor recommendations:

Page 18. Line 526: In a footnote, the authors point out a recent report which in parallel was investigating the link between PRDM16 and SMAD4. There is substantial non-overlap between these two papers. To aid the reader, I would encourage the authors to discuss that paper in the discussion section of the manuscript itself, highlighting any similarities/differences in the topic/results.

Thanks for the suggestion. We now included the comparison in the discussion. One conclusion between our study and this publication is consistent, that PRDM16 functions as a co-repressor of SMAD4. However, the mechanims are different. Our data suggests a model in which PRDM16 facilitates SMAD4/pSMAD binding to repress proliferation genes under high BMP conditions. However, the other report suggests that SMAD4 steadily binds to Prdm16 promoter and switches regulatory functions depending on the co-factors. Together with PRDM16, SMAD4 represses gene expression, while with SMAD3 in response to high levels of TGF-b1, it activates gene expression. These differences could be due to different signaling (BMP versus TGF-b), contexts (NSCs versus Pancreatic cancers) etc.

Page 3. Line 65: typo 'since'

We appreciate the reviewer’s careful reading. We have now corrected the typo and revised the text to improve clarity.

① Perform oral prophylaxis procedure using nonfluoridated and oil less prophylaxis pastes. ① Florürsüz ve yağsız profilaksi patları kullanarak ağız hijyen uygulaması yapın.

② Clean and wash the teeth with water. Isolate to prevent any contamination from saliva or gingival crevicular fluid ② Dişleri suyla temizleyip yıkayın. Tükürük veya diş eti oluğu sıvısından gelebilecek bulaşmaları önlemek için izolasyon sağlayın.

③ Apply acid etchant in the form of gel for 15 to 30 seconds. Deciduous teeth require longer time for etching than permanent teeth because of the presence of aprismatic enamel in deciduous teeth ③ Asit ajanı jel formunda 15 ila 30 saniye süreyle uygulayın. Süt dişlerinde aprismatik mine bulunduğu için, daimi dişlere göre daha uzun süre asitlenmeleri gerekir.

④ Wash the etchant continuously for 10 to 15 seconds ④ Asit ajanı sürekli şekilde 10 ila 15 saniye boyunca yıkayın.

⑤ Note the appearance of a properly etched surface. It should give a frosty white appearance on drying ⑤ Uygun şekilde asitlenmiş yüzeyin görünümüne dikkat edin. Kuruduğunda buzlu beyaz bir görünüm vermelidir.

⑥ If any sort of contamination occurs, repeat the procedure ⑥ Herhangi bir kontaminasyon meydana gelirse işlemi tekrarlayın.

⑦ Now apply bonding agent and low viscosity monomers over the etched enamel surface. ⑦ Şimdi, asitlenmiş mine yüzeyine bağlayıcı ajan ve düşük viskoziteli monomerleri uygulayın.

⑧ Generally, bonding agents contain Bis-GMA or UDMA with TEGDMA added to lower the viscosity of the bonding agent. ⑧ Genellikle bağlayıcı ajanlar, viskoziteyi azaltmak için TEGDMA ile birlikte Bis-GMA veya UDMA içerir.

⑨ The bonding agents due to their low viscosity, rapidly wet and penetrate the clean, dried, conditioned enamel into the microspaces forming resin tags. ⑨ Bağlayıcı ajanlar düşük viskoziteleri nedeniyle temizlenmiş, kurutulmuş ve hazırlanmış mineyi hızla ıslatır ve mikro boşluklara nüfuz ederek rezin çıkıntılar (resin tag) oluştururlar.

⑩ The resin tags which form between enamel prisms are known as Macrotags. ⑩ Mine prizmaları arasında oluşan rezin çıkıntılara makrotag (macrotag) adı verilir.

Author response:

Our response aims to address the following:

The lack of pleiotropy is an unconfirmable assumption of MR, and the addition of those models is therefore quite important, as this is a primary weakness of the MR approach. Given that concern, I read the sensitivity analyses using pleiotropy-robust models as the main result, and in that case, they can't test their hypotheses as these models do not show a BMI instrumental variable association. The other weakness, which might be remedied, is that the power of the tests here is not described. When a hypothesis is tested with an under-powered model, the apparent lack of association could be due to inadequate sample size rather than a true null. Typically, when a statistically significant association is reported, power concerns are discounted as long as the study is not so small as to create spurious findings. That is the case with their primary BMI instrumental variable model - they find an association so we can presume it was adequately powered. But the primary models they share are not the pleiotropy-robust methods MR-Egger, weighted median, and weighted mode. The tests for these models are null, and that could mean a couple of things: (1) the original primary significant association between the BMI genetic instrument was due to pleiotropy, and they therefore don't have a robust model to explore the effects of the tobacco genetic instrument. (2) The power for the sensitivity analysis models (the pleiotropy-robust methods) is inadequate, and the authors share no discussion about the relative power of the different MR approaches. If they do have adequate power, then again, there is no need to explore the tobacco instrument.

We would like to highlight that post-hoc power calculations are often considered redundant since the statistical power estimated for an observed association is directly related to its p-value[1]. In other words, the uncertainty of the association is already reflected in its 95% confidence interval. However, we understand power calculations may still be of interest to the reader, so we will incorporate them in the revised manuscript.

The reason we use inverse variance weighted (IVW) Mendelian randomization (MR) to obtain our main results rather than the pleiotropy-robust methods mentioned by the reviewer/editors (i.e., MR-Egger, weighted median and weighted mode) is that the former has greater statistical power than the latter[2]. Hence, instead of focussing on the statistical significance of the pleiotropy-robust analyses, we consider it is of more value to compare the consistency of the effect sizes and direction of the effect estimates across methods. Any evidence of such consistency increases our confidence in our main findings, since each method relies on different assumptions. As we cannot be sure about the presence and nature of horizontal pleiotropy, it is useful to compare results across methods even though they are not equally powered. It is true that our results for the genetically predicted effects of body mass index (BMI) on the risk of head and neck cancer (HNC) differ across methods. This is precisely what led us to question the validity of our main finding (suggesting a positive effect of BMI on HNC risk). We will clarify this in the discussion section of the revised manuscript as advised.

We understand that the reviewer/editors are concerned that we do not have a robust model to explore the role of tobacco consumption in the link between BMI and HNC. However, we have a different perspective on the matter. If indeed, the main IVW finding for BMI and HNC is due to pleiotropy (since some of the pleiotropy-robust methods suggest conflicting results), then the IVW multivariable MR method is a way to explore the potential source of this bias[3]. We were particularly interested in exploring the role of smoking in the observed association because smoking and adiposity are known to influence each other [4-9] and share a genetic basis[10, 11].

References:

(1) Heinsberg LW, Weeks DE: Post hoc power is not informative. Genet Epidemiol 2022, 46(7):390-394.

(2) Burgess S, Butterworth A, Thompson SG: Mendelian randomization analysis with multiple genetic variants using summarized data. Genet Epidemiol 2013, 37(7):658-665.

(3) Burgess S, Davey Smith G, Davies NM, Dudbridge F, Gill D, Glymour MM, Hartwig FP, Kutalik Z, Holmes MV, Minelli C et al: Guidelines for performing Mendelian randomization investigations: update for summer 2023. Wellcome Open Res 2019, 4:186.

(4) Morris RW, Taylor AE, Fluharty ME, Bjorngaard JH, Asvold BO, Elvestad Gabrielsen M, Campbell A, Marioni R, Kumari M, Korhonen T et al: Heavier smoking may lead to a relative increase in waist circumference: evidence for a causal relationship from a Mendelian randomisation meta-analysis. The CARTA consortium. BMJ Open 2015, 5(8):e008808.

(5) Taylor AE, Morris RW, Fluharty ME, Bjorngaard JH, Asvold BO, Gabrielsen ME, Campbell A, Marioni R, Kumari M, Hallfors J et al: Stratification by smoking status reveals an association of CHRNA5-A3-B4 genotype with body mass index in never smokers. PLoS Genet 2014, 10(12):e1004799.

(6) Taylor AE, Richmond RC, Palviainen T, Loukola A, Wootton RE, Kaprio J, Relton CL, Davey Smith G, Munafo MR: The effect of body mass index on smoking behaviour and nicotine metabolism: a Mendelian randomization study. Hum Mol Genet 2019, 28(8):1322-1330.

(7) Asvold BO, Bjorngaard JH, Carslake D, Gabrielsen ME, Skorpen F, Smith GD, Romundstad PR: Causal associations of tobacco smoking with cardiovascular risk factors: a Mendelian randomization analysis of the HUNT Study in Norway. Int J Epidemiol 2014, 43(5):1458-1470.

(8) Carreras-Torres R, Johansson M, Haycock PC, Relton CL, Davey Smith G, Brennan P, Martin RM: Role of obesity in smoking behaviour: Mendelian randomisation study in UK Biobank. BMJ 2018, 361:k1767.

(9) Freathy RM, Kazeem GR, Morris RW, Johnson PC, Paternoster L, Ebrahim S, Hattersley AT, Hill A, Hingorani AD, Holst C et al: Genetic variation at CHRNA5-CHRNA3-CHRNB4 interacts with smoking status to influence body mass index. Int J Epidemiol 2011, 40(6):1617-1628.

(10) Thorgeirsson TE, Gudbjartsson DF, Sulem P, Besenbacher S, Styrkarsdottir U, Thorleifsson G, Walters GB, Consortium TAG, Oxford GSKC, consortium E et al: A common biological basis of obesity and nicotine addiction. Transl Psychiatry 2013, 3(10):e308.

(11) Wills AG, Hopfer C: Phenotypic and genetic relationship between BMI and cigarette smoking in a sample of UK adults. Addict Behav 2019, 89:98-103.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Azlan et al. identified a novel maternal factor called Sakura that is required for proper oogenesis in Drosophila. They showed that Sakura is specifically expressed in the female germline cells. Consistent with its expression pattern, Sakura functioned autonomously in germline cells to ensure proper oogenesis. In Sakura KO flies, germline cells were lost during early oogenesis and often became tumorous before degenerating by apoptosis. In these tumorous germ cells, piRNA production was defective and many transposons were derepressed. Interestingly, Smad signaling, a critical signaling pathway for GSC maintenance, was abolished in sakura KO germline stem cells, resulting in ectopic expression of Bam in whole germline cells in the tumorous germline. A recent study reported that Bam acts together with the deubiquitinase Otu to stabilize Cyc A. In the absence of sakura, Cyc A was upregulated in tumorous germline cells in the germarium. Furthermore, the authors showed that Sakura co-immunoprecipitated Otu in ovarian extracts. A series of in vitro assays suggested that the Otu (1-339 aa) and Sakura (1-49 aa) are sufficient for their direct interaction. Finally, the authors demonstrated that the loss of otu phenocopies the loss of sakura, supporting their idea that Sakura plays a role in germ cell maintenance and differentiation through interaction with Otu during oogenesis.

Strengths:

To my knowledge, this is the first characterization of the role of CG14545 genes. Each experiment seems to be well-designed and adequately controlled.

Weaknesses:

However, the conclusions from each experiment are somewhat separate, and the functional relationships between Sakura's functions are not well established. In other words, although the loss of Sakura in the germline causes pleiotropic effects, the cause-and-effect relationships between the individual defects remain unclear.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

In this study, the authors identified CG14545 (and named it Sakura), as a key gene essential for Drosophila oogenesis. Genetic analyses revealed that Sakura is vital for both oogenesis progression and ultimate female fertility, playing a central role in the renewal and differentiation of germ stem cells (GSC).

The absence of Sakura disrupts the Dpp/BMP signaling pathway, resulting in abnormal bam gene expression, which impairs GSC differentiation and leads to GSC loss. Additionally, Sakura is critical for maintaining normal levels of piRNAs. Also, the authors convincingly demonstrate that Sakura physically interacts with Otu, identifying the specific domains necessary for this interaction, suggesting a cooperative role in germline regulation. Importantly, the loss of otu produces similar defects to those observed in Sakura mutants, highlighting their functional collaboration.

The authors provide compelling evidence that Sakura is a critical regulator of germ cell fate, maintenance, and differentiation in Drosophila. This regulatory role is mediated through the modulation of pMad and Bam expression. However, the phenotypes observed in the germarium appear to stem from reduced pMad levels, which subsequently trigger premature and ectopic expression of Bam. This aberrant Bam expression could lead to increased CycA levels and altered transcriptional regulation, impacting piRNA expression. Given Sakura's role in pMad expression, it would be insightful to investigate whether overexpression of Mad or pMad could mitigate these phenotypic defects (UAS-Mad line is available at Bloomington Drosophila Stock Center).

As suggested reviewer 1, we tested whether overexpression of Mad could rescue or mitigate the loss of sakura phenotypic defects, by using nos-Gal4-VP16 > UASp-Mad-GFP in the background of sakura^null. As shown in Fig S11, we did not observe any mitigation of defects.

Then, we also tested whether expressing a constitutive active form of Tkv, by using UAS-Dcr2, NGT-Gal4 > UASp-tkv.Q235D in the background of sakura^RNAi. As shown in Fig S12, we did not observe any mitigation of defects by this approach either.

A major concern is the overstated role of Sakura in regulating Orb. The data does not reveal mislocalized Orb; rather, a mislocalized oocyte and cytoskeletal breakdown, which may be secondary consequences of defects in oocyte polarity and structure rather than direct misregulation of Orb. The conclusion that Sakura is necessary for Orb localization is not supported by the data. Orb still localizes to the oocyte until about stage 6. In the later stage, it looks like the cytoskeleton is broken down and the oocyte is not positioned properly, however, there is still Orb localization in the ~8-stage egg chamber in the oocyte. This phenotype points towards a defect in the transport of Orb and possibly all other factors that need to localize to the oocyte due to cytoskeletal breakdown, not Orb regulation directly. While this result is very interesting it needs further evaluation on the underlying mechanism. For example, the decrease in E-cadherin levels leads to a similar phenotype and Bam is known to regulate E-cadherin expression. Is Bam expressed in these later knockdowns?

We examined Bam and DE-Cadherin expression in later RNAi knockdowns driven by ToskGal4. As shown in Fig S9, Bam was not expressed in these later knockdowns compared with controls. DE-Cadherin staining suggested a disorganized structure in late-stage egg chambers.

We agree that we overstated a role of Sakura in regulating Orb in the initial manuscript. We changed the text to avoid overstating.

The manuscript would benefit from a more balanced interpretation of the data concerning Sakura's role in Orb regulation. Furthermore, a more expanded discussion on Sakura's potential role in pMad regulation is needed. For example, since Otu and Bam are involved in translational regulation, do the authors think that Mad is not translated and therefore it is the reason for less pMad? Currently the discussion presents just a summary of the results and not an extension of possible interpretation discussed in context of present literature.

We changed the text to avoid overstating a role of Sakura in regulating Orb localization.

Based on our newly added results showing that transgenic overexpression of Mad could not rescue or mitigate the phenotypic defects of sakura^null mutant (Fig S11), we do not think the reason for less pMad is less translation of Mad.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

In this very thorough study, the authors characterize the function of a novel Drosophila gene, which they name Sakura. They start with the observation that sakura expression is predicted to be highly enriched in the ovary and they generate an anti-sakura antibody, a line with a GFP-tagged sakura transgene, and a sakura null allele to investigate sakura localization and function directly. They confirm the prediction that it is primarily expressed in the ovary and, specifically, that it is expressed in germ cells, and find that about 2/3 of the mutants lack germ cells completely and the remaining have tumorous ovaries. Further investigation reveals that Sakura is required for piRNA-mediated repression of transposons in germ cells. They also find evidence that sakura is important for germ cell specification during development and germline stem cell maintenance during adulthood. However, despite the role of sakura in maintaining germline stem cells, they find that sakura mutant germ cells also fail to differentiate properly such that mutant germline stem cell clones have an increased number of "GSC-like" cells. They attribute this phenotype to a failure in the repression of Bam by dpp signaling. Lastly, they demonstrate that sakura physically interacts with otu and that sakura and otu mutants have similar germ cell phenotypes. Overall, this study helps to advance the field by providing a characterization of a novel gene that is required for oogenesis. The data are generally high-quality and the new lines and reagents they generated will be useful for the field. However, there are some weaknesses and I would recommend that they address the comments in the Recommendations for the authors section below.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

General Comments:

(1) The gene nomenclature: As mentioned in the text, Sakura means cherry blossom and is one of the national flowers of Japan. I am not sure whether the phenotype of the CG14545 mutant is related to Sakura or not. I would like to suggest the authors reconsider the naming.

The striking phenotype of sakura mutant­ is tumorous and germless ovarioles. The tumorous phenotype, exhibiting lots of round fusome in germarium visualized by anti-Hts staining, looks like cherry blossom blooming to us. Also, the germless phenotype reminds us falling of the cherry blossom, especially considering that the ratio of tumorous phenotype decreases and that of germless decreases over fly age. Furthermore, “Sakura” symbolizes birth and renewal in Japanese culture (the last author of this manuscript is Japanese). Our findings indicated that the gene sakura is involved in regulation of renewal and differentiation of GSCs (which leads to birth). These are the reasons for the naming, which we would like to keep.

(2) In many of the microscopic photographs in the figures, especially for the merged confocal images, the resolution looks low, and the images appear blurred, making it difficult to judge the authors' claims. Also, the Alpha Fold structure in Figure 10A requires higher contrast images. The magnification of the images is often inadequate (e.g. Figures 3A, 3B, 5E, 7A, etc). The authors should take high-magnification images separately for the germarium and several different stages of the egg chambers and lay out the figures.

We are very sorry for the low-resolution images. This was caused when the original PDF file with high-resolution images was compressed in order to meet the small file size limit in the eLife submission portal. In the revised submission, we used high-resolution images.

Specific Comments

(1) How Sakura can cooperate with Otu remains unanswered. Sakura does not regulate deubiquitinase activity in vitro. Both sakura and otu appear to be involved in the Dpp-Smad signaling pathway and in the spatial control of Bam expression in the germarium, whereas Otu has been reported to act in concert with Bam to deubiquitinate and stabilize Cyc A for proper cystoblast differentiation. Therefore, it is plausible that the stabilization of Cyc A in the Sakura mutant is an indirect consequence of Bam misexpression and independent of the Sakura-Otu interaction. The authors may need to provide much deeper insight into the mechanism by which Sakura plays roles in these seemingly separable steps to orchestrate germ cell maintenance and differentiation during early oogenesis.

Yes, it is possible that the stabilization of CycA in the sakura mutant is an indirect consequence of Bam misexpression and independent of the Sakura-Otu interaction. To test the significance and role of the Sakura-Otu interaction, we have attempted to identify Sakura point mutants that lose interaction with Otu. If such point mutants were successfully obtained, we were planning to test if their transgene expression could rescue the phenotypes of sakura mutant as the wild-type transgene did. However, after designing and testing the interaction of over 30 point mutants with Otu, we could not obtain such mutant version of Sakura yet. We will continue making efforts, but it is beyond the scope of the current study. We hope to address this important point in future studies.

(2) Figure 3A and Figure 4: The authors show that piRNA production is abolished in Sakura KO ovaries. It is known that piRNA amplification (the ping-pong cycle) occurs in the Vasa-positive perinuclear nuage in nurse cells. Is the nuage normally formed in the absence of Sakura? The authors provide high-magnification images in the germarium expressing Vas-GFP. How does Sakura, and possibly Out, contribute to piRNA production? Are the defects a direct or indirect consequence of the loss of Sakura?

We provided higher magnification images of germarium expressing Vasa-EGFP in sakura mutant background (Fig 3A and 3B). The nuage formation does not seem to be dysregulated in sakura mutant. Currently, we do not know if the piRNA defects are direct or indirect consequence of the loss of Sakura. This question cannot be answered easily. We hope to address this in future studies.

(3) Figure 7 and Figure 12: The authors showed that Dpp-Smad signaling was abolished in Sakura KO germline cells. The same defects were also observed in otu mutant ovaries (Figure 12B). How does the Sakura-Otu axis contribute to the Dpp-Smad pathway in the germline?

As we mentioned in the response to comment (1), we attempted to test the significance and role of the Sakura-Otu interaction, including in the Dpp-Smad pathway in the germline, but we have not yet been able to obtain loss-of-interaction mutant(s) of Sakura. We hope to address this in future studies.

(4) Figure 9 and Fig 10: The authors raised antibodies against both Sakura and Otu, but their specificities were not provided. For Western blot data, the authors should provide whole gel images as source data files. Also, the authors argue that the Otu band they observed corresponds to the 98-kDa isoform (lines 302-304). The molecular weight on the Western blot alone would be insufficient to support this argument.

When we submitted the initial manuscript, we also submitted original, uncropped, and unmodified whole Western blot images for all gel images to the eLife journal, as requested. We did the same for this revised submission. I believe eLife makes all those files available for downloading to readers.

In the newly added Fig S13B, we used very young 2-5 hours ovaries and 3-7 days ovaries. 2-5 days ovaries contain only mostly pre-differentiated germ cells. Older ovaries (3-7 days in our case here) contain all 14 stages of oogenesis and later stages predominate in whole ovary lysates.

As reported in previous literature (Sass et al. 1995), we detected a higher abundance of the 104 kDa Otu isoform than the 98 kDa isoform in from 2-5 hours ovaries and predominantly the 98 kDa isoform in 3-7 days ovaries (Fig S13B). These results confirmed that the major Otu isoform we detected in Western blot, all of which uses old ovaries except for the 2-5 hours ovaries in Fig S13B, is the 98 kDa isoform.

(5) Otu has been reported to regulate ovo and Sxl in the female germline. Is Sakura involved in their regulation?

We examined sxl alternative splicing pattern in sakura mutant ovaries. As shown in Fig S6, we detected the male-specific isoform of sxl RNA and a reduced level of the female-specific sxl isoform in sakura mutant ovaries. Thus Sakura seems to be involved in sxl splicing in the female germline, while further studies will be needed to understand whether Sakura has a direct or indirect role here.

(6) Lines 443-447: The GSC loss phenotype in piwi mutant ovaries is thought to occur in a somatic cell-autonomous manner: both piwi-mutant germline clones and germline-specific piwi knockdown do not show the GSC-loss phenotype. In contrast, the authors provide compelling evidence that Sakura functions in the germline. Therefore, the Piwi-mediated GSC maintenance pathway is likely to be independent of the Sakura-Otu axis.

We changed the text accordingly.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Overall, this is a cleanly written manuscript, with some sentences/sections that are confusing the way they are constructed (i.e. Line 37-38, 334, section on Flp/FRT experiments).

We rewrote those sections to avoid confusion.

Comment for all merged image data: the quality of the merged images is very poor - the individual channels are better but should also be reprocessed for more resolved image data sets. Also, it would be helpful to have boundaries drawn in an individual panel to identify the regions of the germarium, as cartooned in Figure S1A (which should be brought into Figure 1) F-actin or Vsg staining would have helped throughout the manuscript to enhance the visualization of described phenotypes.

We are very sorry for the low-resolution images. This was caused when the original PDF file with high-resolution images was compressed in order to meet the small file size limit in the eLife submission portal. In the revised submission, we used high-resolution images.

We outlined the germarium in Fig 1E.

We brought the former FigS1 into Fig 1A.

We provided Phalloidin (F-Actin) staining images in Fig S7.

All p-values seem off. I recommend running the data through the student t-test again.

We used the student t-test to calculate p-values and confirmed that they are correct. We don’t understand why the reviewer thinks all p-values seem off.

In the original manuscript, as we mentioned in each figure legends, we used asterisk (*) to indicate p-value <0.05, without distinguishing whether it’s <0.001, <0.01< or <0.05.

Probably reviewer 2 is suggesting us to use ***, **, and *, to indicate p-value of <0.001, <0.01, and <0.05, respectively? If so, we now followed reviewer2’s suggestions.

Figure 1

(1) Within the text, C is mentioned before A.

We updated the text and now we mentioned Fig 1A before Fig 1C.

(2) B should be the supplemental figure.

We moved the former Fig 1B to Supplemental Figure 1.

(3) C - How were the different egg chamber stages selected in the WB? Naming them 'oocytes' is deceiving. Recommend labeling them as 'egg chambers', since an oocyte is claimed to be just the one-cell of that cyst.

We changed the labeling to egg chambers.

(4) Is the antibody not detecting Sakura in IF? There is no mention of this anywhere in the manuscript.

While our Sakura antibody detects Sakura in IF, it seems to detect some other proteins as well. Since we have Sakura-EGFP fly strain (which fully rescues sakura^null phenotypes) to examine Sakura expression and localization without such non-specific signal issues, we relied on Sakura-EGFP rather than anti-Sakura antibodies for IF.

(5) Expand on the reliance of the sakura-EGFP fly line. Does this overexpression cause any phenotypes?

sakura-EGFP does not cause any phenotypes in the background of sakura[+/+] and sakura[+/-].

(6) Line 95 "as shown below" is not clear that it's referencing panel D.

We now referenced Fig 1D.

(7) Re: Figures 1 E and F. There is no mention of Hts or Vasa proteins in the text.<br /> "Sakura-EGFP was not expressed in somatic cells such as terminal filament, cap cells, escort cells, or follicle cells (Figure 1E). In the egg chamber, Sakura-EGFP was detected in the cytoplasm of nurse cells and was enriched in developing oocytes (Figure 1F)". Outline these areas or label these structures/sites in the images. The color of Merge labels is confusing as the blue is not easily seen.

We mentioned Hts and Vasa in the text. We labeled the structures/sites in the images and updated the color labeling.

Figure 2

(1) Entire figure is not essential to be a main figure, but rather supplemental.

We don’t agree with the reviewer. We think that the female fertility assay data, where sakura null mutant exhibits strikingly strong phenotype, which was completely rescued by our Sakura-EGFP transgene, is very important data and we would like to present them in a main figure.

(2) 2A- one star (*) significance does not seem correct for the presented values between 0 and 100+.

In the original manuscript, as we mentioned in each figure legends, we used asterisk (*) to indicate p-value <0.05, without distinguishing whether it’s <0.001, <0.01< or <0.05.

Probably reviewer 2 is suggesting us to use ***, **, and *, to indicate p-value of <0.001, <0.01, and <0.05, respectively? If so, we now followed reviewer2’s suggestions.

(3) 2C images are extremely low quality. Should be presented as bigger panels.

We are very sorry for the low-resolution images. This was caused when the original PDF file with high-resolution images was compressed in order to meet the small file size limit in the eLife submission portal. In the revised submission, we used high-resolution images. We also presented as bigger panels.

Figure 3

(1) "We observed that some sakura^null /null ovarioles were devoid of germ cells ("germless"), while others retained germ cells (Fig 3A)" What is described is, that it is hard to see. Must have a zoomed-in panel.

We provided zoomed-in panels in Fig 3B

(2) C - The control doesn't seem to match. Must zoom in.

We provided matched control and also zoomed in.

(3) For clarity, separate the tumorous and germless images.

In the new image, only one tumorous and one germless ovarioles are shown with clear labeling and outline, for clarity.

(4) Use arrows to help clearly indicate the changes that occur. As they are presented, they are difficult to see.

We updated all the panels to enhance clarity.

(5) Line 158 seems like a strong statement since it could be indirect.

We softened the statement.

Figure 4

(1) Line 188-189 - Conclusion is an overstatement.

We softened the statement.

(2) Is the piRNA reduction due to a change in transcription? Or a direct effect by Sakura?

We do not know the answers to these questions. We hope to address these in future studies.

Figure 5

(1) D - It might make more sense if this graph showed % instead of the numbers.

We did not understand the reviewer’s point. We think using numbers, not %, makes more sense.

(2) Line 213 - explain why RNAi 2 was chosen when RNAi 1 looks stronger.

Fly stock of RNAi line 2 is much healthier than RNAi line 1 (without being driven Gal4) for some reasons. We had a concern that the RNAi line 1 might contain an unwanted genetic background. We chose to use the RNAi 2 line to avoid such an issue.

(3) In Line 218 there's an extra parenthesis after the PGC acronym.

We corrected the error.

(4) TOsk-Gal4 fly is not in the Methods section.

We mentioned TOsk-Gal4 in the Methods.

Figure 6:

(1) The FLP-FRT section must be rewritten.

We rewrote the FLP-FRT section.

(2) A - include statistics.

We included statistics using the chi-square test.

(3) B - is not recalled in the Results text.

We referred Fig 6B in the text.

(4) Line 232 references Figure 3, but not a specific panel.

We referred Fig 3A, 3C, 3D, and 3E, in the text.

Figure 7/8 - can go to Supplemental.

We moved Fig 8 to supplemental. However, we think Fig 7 data is important and therefore we would like to present them as a main figure.

(1) There should be CycA expression in the control during the first 4 divisions.

Yes, there is CycA expression observed in the control during the first 4 divisions, while it’s much weaker than in sakura^null clone.

(2) Helpful to add the dotted lines to delineate (A) as well.

We added a dotted outline for germarium in Fig 7A.

(3) Line 263 CycA is miswritten as CyA.

We corrected the typo.

Figure 9

(1) Otu antibody control?

We validated Otu antibody in newly added Fig 10C and Fig S13A.

(2) Which Sakura-EGFP line was used? sakura het. or null background? This isn't mentioned in the text, nor legend.

We used Sakura-EGFP in the background of sakura[+/+]. We added this information in the methods and figure legend.

(3) C - Why the switch to S2 cells? Not able to use the Otu antibody in the IP of ovaries?

We can use the Otu antibody in the IP of ovaries. However, in anti-Sakura Western after anti-Otu IP, antibody light chain bands of the Otu antibodies overlap with the Sakura band. Therefore, we switched to S2 cells to avoid this issue by using an epitope tag.

Figure 10

(1) A- The resolution of images of the ribbon protein structure is poor.

We are very sorry for the low-resolution images. This was caused when the original PDF file with high-resolution images was compressed in order to meet the small file size limit in the eLife submission portal. In the revised submission, we used high-resolution images.

(2) A table summarizing the interactions between domains would help bring clarity to the data presented.

We added a table summarizing the fragment interaction results.

(3) Some images would be nice here to show that the truncations no longer colocalize.

We did not understand the reviewer’s points. In our study, even for the full-length proteins.

We have not shown any colocalization of Sakura and Otu in S2 cells or in ovaries, except that they both are enriched in developing oocytes in egg chambers.

Figure 12

(1) A - control and RNAi lines do not match.

We provided matched images.

(2) In general, since for Sakura, only its binding to Otu was identified and since they phenocopy each other, doesn't most of the characterization of Sakura just look at Otu phenotypes? Does Sakura knockdown affect Otu localization or expression level (and vice versa)?

We tested this by Western (Fig S15) and IF (Fig 12). Sakura knockdown did not decrease Otu protein level, and Otu knockdown did not decrease Sakura protein level (Fig S15). In sakura^null clone, Otu level was not notably affected (Fig 12). In sakura^null clone, Otu lost its localization to the posterior position within egg chambers.

Figure S6

(1) It is Luciferase, not Lucifarase.

We corrected the typo.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) It is interesting that germless and tumorous phenotypes coexist in the same population of flies. Additional consideration of these essentially opposite phenotypes would significantly strengthen the study. For example, do they co-exist within the same fly and are the tumorous ovarioles present in newly eclosed flies or do they develop with age? The data in Figure 8 show that bam knockdown partially suppresses the germless phenotype. What effect does it have on the tumorous phenotype? Is transposon expression involved in either phenotype? Do Sakura mutant germline stem cell clones overgrow relative to wild-type cells in the same ovariole? Does sakura RNAi driven by NGT-Gal4 only cause germless ovaries or does it also cause tumorous phenotypes? What happens if the knockdown of Sakura is restricted to adulthood with a Gal80ts? It may not be necessary to answer all of these questions, but more insight into how these two phenotypes can be caused by loss of sakura would be helpful.

We performed new experiments to answer these questions.

do they co-exist within the same fly and are the tumorous ovarioles present in newly eclosed flies or do they develop with age?

Tumorous and germless ovarioles coexist in the same fly (in the same ovary). Tumorous ovarioles are present in very young (0-1 day old) flies, including newly eclosed (Fig S5). The ratio of germless ovarioles increases and that of tumorous ovarioles decreases with age (Fig S5).

The data in Figure 8 show that bam knockdown partially suppresses the germless phenotype. What effect does it have on the tumorous phenotype?

bam knockdown effect on tumorous phenotype is shown in Fig S10. bam knockdown increased the ratio of tumorous ovarioles and the number of GSC-like cells.

Is transposon expression involved in either phenotype?

Since our transposon-piRNA reporter uses germline-specific nos promoter, it is expressed only in germ line cells, so we cannot examine in germless ovarioles.

Do Sakura mutant germline stem cell clones overgrow relative to wild-type cells in the same ovariole?

Yes, Sakura mutant GSC clones overgrow. Please compare Fig 6C and Fig S8.

Does sakura RNAi driven by NGT-Gal4 only cause germless ovaries or does it also cause tumorous phenotypes?

Fig S10 and Fig S12 show the ovariole phenotypes of sakura RNAi driven by NGT-Gal4. It causes both germless and tumorous phenotypes.

What happens if the knockdown of Sakura is restricted to adulthood with a Gal80ts?

Our mosaic clone was induced at the adult stage, so we already have data of adulthood-specific loss of function. Gal80ts does not work well with nos-Gal4.

(2) The idea that the excessive bam expression in tumorous ovaries is due to a failure of bam repression by dpp signaling is not well-supported by the data. Dpp signaling is activated in a very narrow region immediately adjacent to the niche but the images in Figure 7A show bam expression in cells that are very far away from the niche. Thus, it seems more likely to be due to a failure to turn bam expression off at the 16-cell stage than to a failure to keep it off in the niche region. To determine whether bam repression in the niche region is impaired, it would be important to examine cells adjacent to the niche directly at a higher magnification than is shown in Figure 7A.

We provided higher magnification images of cells adjacent to the niche in new Fig 7A.

We found that cells adjacent to the niche also express Bam-GFP.

That said, we agree with the reviewer. A failure to turn bam expression off at the 16-cell stage may be an additional or even a main cause of bam misexpression in sakura mutant. We added this in the Discussion.

(3) In addition, several minor comments should be addressed:

a. Does anti-Sakura work for immunofluorescence?

While our Sakura antibody detects Sakura in IF, it seems to detect some other proteins as well. Since we have Sakura-EGFP fly strain to examine Sakura expression and localization without such non-specific signal issues, we relied on Sakura-EGFP rather than anti-Sakura antibodies.

b. Please provide insets to show the phenotypes indicated by the different color stars in Figure 3C more clearly.

We provided new, higher-magnification images to show the phenotypes more clearly.

c. Please indicate the frequency of the expression patterns shown in Figure 4D (do all ovarioles in each genotype show those patterns or is there variable penetrance?).

We indicated the frequency.

d. An image showing TOskGal4 driving a fluorophore should be provided so that readers can see which cells express Gal4 with this driver combination.

It has been already done in the paper ElMaghraby et al, GENETICS, 2022, 220(1), iyab179, so we did not repeat the same experiment.

Note: This response was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. The content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

Reply to the reviewers

Reviewer #1

Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

In their manuscript de las Mercedes Carro et al investigated the role of Ago proteins during spermatogenesis by producing a triple knockout of Ago 1, 3 and 4. They first describe the pattern of expression of each protein and of Ago2 during the differentiation of male germ cells, then they describe the spermatogenesis phenotype of triple knockout males, study gene deregulation by scRNA seq and identify novel interacting proteins by co-IP mass spectrometry, in particular BRG1/SMARCA4, a chromatin remodeling factor and ATF2 a transcription factor. The main message is that Ago3 and 4 are involved in the regulation of XY gene silencing during meiosis, and also in the control of autosomal gene expression during meiosis. Overall the manuscript is well written, the topic, very interesting and the experiments, well-executed. However, there are some parts of the methodology and data interpretation that are unclear (see below).

Major comments

1= Please clarify how the triple KO was obtained, and if it is constitutive or specific to the male germline. In the result section a Cre (which cre?) is mentioned but it is not mentioned in the M&M. On Figure S1, a MICER VECTOR is shown instead of a deletion, but nothing is explained in the text nor legend. Could the authors provide more details in the results section as well as in the M&M ? This is essential to fully interpret the results obtained for this KO line, and to compare its phenotype to other lines (such as lines 184-9 Comparison of triple KO phenotype with that of Ago4 KO). Also, if it is a constitutive KO, the authors should mention if they observed other phenotypes in triple KO mice since AGO proteins are not only expressed in the male germline.

Response: We apologize for omitting this vital information. We have now incorporated a more detailed description of how the Ago413 mutant was created in the results and M&M sections (line 120 and 686 respectively).

As mentioned in the manuscript, Ago4, Ago1 and Ago3 are widely expressed in mammalian somatic tissues. Mutations or deletions of these genes does not disrupt development; however, there is limited research on the impact of these mutations in mammalian models in vivo. In humans, mutations in Ago1 and Ago3 genes are associated with neurological disorders, autism and intellectual disability (Tokita, M.J.,et al. 2015- doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2014.202., Sakaguchi et al. 2019- doi: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2018.09.004, Schalk et al 2021- doi: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2021-107751). In mouse, global deletion of Ago1 and Ago3 simultaneously was shown to increase mice susceptibility to influenza virus through impaired inflammation responses (Van Stry et al 2012- doi.org/10.1128/jvi.05303-11). Studies performed in female Ago413 mutants (the same mutant line used herein) have shown that knockout mice present postnatal growth retardation with elevated circulating leukocytes (Guidi et al 2023- doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2023.113515). Other studies of double conditional knockout of Ago1 and Ago3 in the skin associated the loss of these Argonautes with decreased weight of the offspring and severe skin morphogenesis defects (Wang et al 2012- doi: 10.1101/gad.182758.111). In our study, we did not observe major somatic or overt behavioral phenotypes, and we did not observe statistical differences in body weights of null males compared to WT as shown in figure below.

2= The paragraph corresponding to G2/M analysis is unclear to me. Why was this analysis performed? What does the heatmap show in Figure S4? What is G2/M score? (Fig 2D). Lines 219-220, do the authors mean that Pachytene cells are in a cell phase equivalent to G2/M? All this paragraph and associated figures require more explanation to clarify the method and interpretation.

__Response: __We have modified the methods to include more information about how the cell cycle scoring used in Figures 2D and S4 were calculated and will add more information regarding the interpretation of these figures.

3= I have concerns regarding Fig2G: to be convincing the analysis needs to be performed on several replicates, and, it is essential to compare tubules of the same stage - which does not seem to be the case. This does not appear to be the case. Besides, co (immunofluorescent) staining with markers of different cell types should be shown to demonstrate the earlier expression of some markers and their colocalization with markers of the earlier stages.

__Response: __We agree with the Reviewer. New images with staged tubules will be added to the analysis of Figure 2G.

4= one important question that I think the authors should discuss regarding their scRNAseq: clusters are defined using well characterized markers. But Ago triple KO appears to alter the timing of expression of genes... could this deregulation affects the interperetation of scRNAseq clusters and results?

__Response: __We thank the reviewer for this suggestion and agree that including this information is important. We expect that, at most, this dysregulation impacts the edges of these clusters slightly. Given that marker genes that have been used to define cell types in these data are consistently expressed between the knockout and wildtype mice (see Figure S4A), we do not think that the cells in these clusters have different identities, just dysregulated expression programs. We have added the relevant sentence to the discussion, and will include additional supplemental figure panels to document this point more comprehensively.

5= XY gene deregulation is mentioned throughout the result section but only X chromosome genes seem to have been investigated.... Even the gene content of the Y is highly repetitive, it would be very interesting to show the level of expression of Y single copy and Y multicopy genes in a figure 3 panel.

__Response: __We agree with the reviewer that including analysis of Y-linked genes is important. We will add a supplemental figure which includes the Y:Autosome ratio and differential expression analysis.

6= Can the authors elaborate on the observation that X gene upregulation is visible in the KO before MSCI; that is in lept/zygotene clusters (and in spermatogonia, if the difference visible in 3A is significant?)

Response: We do see that X gene expression is upregulated before pachynema. Previous scRNA-seq studies that have looked at MCSI have seen that silencing of genes on the X and Y chromosomes starts before the cell clusters that are defined as pachynema, though silencing is not fully completed until pachynema. We have clarified this point in the manuscript.

7 = miRNA analysis: could the authors indicate if X encoded miRNA were identified and found deregulated? Because Ago4 has been shown to lead to a downregulation of miRNA, among which many X encoded. It is therefore puzzling to see that the triple KO does not recapitulate this observation. Were the analyses performed differently in the present study and in Ago4 KO study?

__Response: __The analysis identifying downregulation of miRNA in the original Ago4 mutant analysis was conducted relative to total small RNA expression. Amongst those altered miRNA families in the Ago4 mutants, we demonstrated both upregulation and downregulation of miRNA. We agree that confirming a similar global downregulation of miRNA counts compared to other small RNAs is important. Therefore, in a revised manuscript, we will add this information to the miRNA analysis section, especially highlighting the X chromosome-associated miRNAs, as well as whether the ratios between other small RNA classes change.

8 = The last results paragraph would also benefit from some additional information. It is not clear why the authors focused on enhancers and did not investigate promoters (or maybe they were but it's unclear). Which regions (size and location from TSS) were investigated for motif enrichment analyses? To what correspond the "transcriptional regulatory regions previously identified using dREG" mentioned in the M&M? I understand it's based on a previous article, but more info in the present manuscript would be useful.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. The regions that were used for motif enrichment will be included as a supplementary information in the fully revised manuscript. We have also clarified in the methods that these transcriptional regulatory regions were downloaded from GEO and obtained from previous ChRO-seq data (from GEO) analysis. These data are run through the dREG pipeline that identifies regions predicted to contain transcription start sites, which include promoters and enhancers.

Minor comments

1) In the introduction: The sentence "Ago1 is not expressed in the germline from the spermatogonia stage onwards allowing us to use this model to study the roles of Ago4 and Ago3 in spermatogenesis." is misleading because Ago1 is expressed at least in spermatogonia; It would be more precise to write "after spermatogonia stage" and rephrase the sentence. Otherwise it is surprising to see AGO1 protein in testis lysate and it is not in line with the scRNA seq shown in figure 2.

__Response: __We agree with the Reviewers suggestion and have edited the sentence on line 100. This sentence now reads "Ago1 is not expressed in the germline after the spermatogonia stage allowing us to use this model to study the roles of Ago4 and Ago3 in spermatogenesis".

2) Could the authors precise if AGO proteins are expressed in other tissues? In somatic testicular cells?

__Response: __Expression patterns of mammalian AGOs have been described in somatic and testicular tissues for the mouse by Gonzales-Gonzales et al (2008) by qPCR. They found that Ago2 is expressed in all the somatic tissues analyzed (brain, spleen, heart, muscle and lung) as well as the testis, with the highest expression in brain and lowest in heart. Ago1 is highly expressed in spleen compared to all the tissues analyzed, while Ago3 and Ago4 showed highest expression in testis and brain. Within somatic tissues of the testis, the four argonautes are expressed in Sertoli cells, however, Ago1,3 and 4 expression is very low compared to Ago2, with the latter showing a 10-fold higher transcript level. We have included a sentence with this information in the introduction in line 89.

3) Pattern of expression: How do the authors explain that AGO3 disappears at the diplotene stage and reappears in spermatids?

__Response: __ Single cell RNAseq data in the germline shows reduced transcript for Ago3 from the Pachytene stage onwards, suggesting minimal if any new transcription in round spermatids. We hypothesize that the AGO3 protein present in the round spermatid stage is cytoplasmic, presumably coming from the pool of AGO3 in the chromatoid body, a cytoplasmic structure with functional association with the nucleus in round spermatids (Kotaja et al, 2003 doi: 10.1073/pnas.05093331).

4) It would be useful to show the timing of expression of AGO 1 to 4 throughout spermatogenesis in the first paragraph of the article. Maybe the authors could present data from fig2B earlier?

Response: We understand the Reviewers concern, however, given that Ago expression throughout spermatogenesis was obtained from scRNA seq, we consider that this data should be presented after introducing the Ago413 knockout and the scRNA seq experiment. As Ago1-4 expression was also described in an earlier manuscript by Gonzales-Gonzales et al in the mouse male germline, and our data aligns with this report, we included a sentence about these previous findings in the earlier results section.

5) Line 190: please modify the sentence "reveal no differences in cellular architecture of the seminiferous tubules when compared to wild-type males" to " reveal no gross differences..." since even without quantification of the different cell types it is visible that KO seminiferous tubules are different from WT tubules.

__Response: __We agree with the reviewer, and we modified line 190 (now 173) as suggested. Grossly, seminiferous tubules from Ago413 null males contain the same cell types as in wild type tubules, including spermatozoa. However, our studies show that the number and quality of germ cells is compromised in knockouts, as shown by sperm counts and TUNEL staining.

6) TUNEL analysis: please stage the tubules to determine the stage(s) at which apoptosis is the most predominant.

__Response: __We have complied with the reviewer suggestion. Figure 1G now shows staged seminiferous tubules, and we have replaced the wild type image for one where the staged tubules match the knockout image.

7) Figure S4B does not show an increase of cells at Pachytene stage but at Lepto/zygotene stage (as well as an increase of spermatogonia). Please comment this discrepancy with results shown in Fig2.

__Response: __Figures 2 and S4 show distribution of cells in different substages of spermatogenesis and prophase I measured with very different methods: a cytological approach using chromosome spreads cells vs a transcriptomic approach that involves clustering of cells. We attribute the differences in cell type distribution to differences in the sensitivity of the methods to identify each cell type and therefore identify differences between the number of cells for each group. Moreover, our scRNA-seq data groups the leptotene and zygotene stages together, while the cytological approach allows for separation of these two sub-stages. Importantly, both results show that Ago413 spermatocytes are progressing slower from pachynema into diplonema and/or are dying after pachynema, as stated in line 194 in our manuscript.

8) Fig5H and 5I are not mentioned in the result section. Also, it would be useful to label them with "all chromosomes" and "XY" to differentiate them easily

__Response: __We apologize for the omission and have now cited Figures 5H and 5I in the manuscript (line 453). We have added the suggested labels.

9) Line 530 "data provide further evidence for a functional association between AGO-dependent small RNAs and heterochromatin formation, maintenance and/or silencing." Please rephrase, the present article does not really show that AGO nuclear role depends on small RNAs.

__Response____: __We agree with the reviewer that these data do not directly show a dependence on small RNAs. As our identified localization of AGO proteins to the pericentric heterochromatin coincides with localization of DICER shown previously by Yadav and collaborators (2020, doi: 10.1093/nar/gkaa460), we do believe that our data further implicates small RNAs in the silencing of heterochromatin. Yadav et al shows that DICER localizes to pericentromeric heterochromatin and processes major satellite transcripts into small RNAs in mouse spermatocytes, and cKO germ cells have reduced localization of SUV39H2 and H3K9me3 to the pericentromeric heterochromatin. Given the colocalization of both small RNA producing machinery and AGOs at pericentromeric heterochromatin, the AGOs may bind these small RNAs, and the statement in line 530 refers to how our results provide evidence for the involvement of other RNAi machinery in the silencing of pericentromeric heterochromatin investigated by Yadav et al which likely includes small RNAs.

To clarify this point, we have modified the text accordingly.

10) Line 1256: replace "cite here " by appropriate reference

__Response: __The reference was added to line 1256.

11) Please use SMARCA4 instead of BRG1 name as it is its official name.

__Response: __We have replaced BRG1 with SMARCA4 in the text and figures.

Figures:

Figure 1: Are the pictures shown for Ago3-tagged and floxed from the same stages ? The leptotene stage in 1A looks like a zygotene, while some pachytene/diplotene stage pictures do not look alike.

__Response: __New representative images have been added to figure 1 to match the same substages across the figure.

Figure 1D, please label the Y scale properly (testis weight related to body weight)

__Response: __We have fixed this.

FigS1: Please comment the presence of non-specific bands in the figure legend

__Response: __We have added a sentence in Figure S1 Legend.

Fig 2E and F, please indicate on the figure (in addition to its legend), what are the X and Y axes respectively to facilitate its reading.

__Response: __X and Y axes are now labelled in Figure 2E and F.

2F: please use an easier abbreviation for Spermatocyte than Sp (which could spermatogonia, sperm etc..) such as Scyte I ? (same comment for Fig 3C)

Response: The abbreviation for spermatocyte was changed from Sp to Scyte I in Figures 2 and 3.

Overall, for all figures showing GSEA analyses, could the authors explain what a High positive NES and a High negative NES mean in the results section?

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have added this information where the GSEA score of the cell markers is initially introduced.

Significance

Ago proteins are known for their roles in post transcriptional gene regulation via small RNA mediated cleavage of mRNA, which takes places in the cytoplasm. Some Ago proteins have been shown to be also located in the nucleus suggesting other non-canonical roles. It is the case of Ago4 which has been shown to localize to the transcriptionally silenced sex chromosomes (called sex body) of the spermatocyte nucleus, where it contributes to regulate their silencing (Modzelewski et al 2012). Interestingly, Ago4 knockout leads to Ago3 upregulation, including on the sex body indicating that Ago3 and Ago4 are involved in the same nuclear process. In their manuscript, de las Mercedes Carro et al., investigate the consequences of loss of both Ago3 and Ago4 in the male germline by the production of a triple knockout of Ago1, 3 and 4 in the mouse. With this model, the authors describe the role of Ago3 and Ago4 during spermatogenesis and show that they are involved in sex chromosome gene repression in spermatocytes and in round spermatids, as well as in the control of autosomal meiotic gene expression. Triple KO males have impaired meiosis and spermiogenesis, with fewer and abnormal spermatozoa resulting in reduced fertility. Since Ago1 male germline expression is restricted to pre-meiotic germ cells, it is not expected to contribute to the meiotic and postmeiotic phenotypes observed in the triple KO. The strengths of the study are i) the thorough analyses of mRNA expression at the single cell level, and in purified spermatocytes and spermatids (bulk RNAseq), ii) the identification of novel nuclear partners of AGO3/4 relevant for their described nuclear role: ATF2, which they show to also co-localize with the sex body, and BRG1/SMARCA4, a SWI/SNF chromatin remodeler. The main limitation of the study is the lack of information in the method regarding the production of the triple KO, as well as some aspects of the transcriptome and motif analyses. It is also surprising to see that the triple KO does not recapitulate the miRNA deregulation observed in Ago4 KO. The characterization of a non-canonical role of AGO3/4 in male germ cells will certainly influence researchers of the field, and also interest a broader audience studying Argonaute proteins and gene regulation at transcriptional and posttranscriptional levels.

Reviewer #2

Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

In the manuscript titled "Argonaute proteins regulate the timing of the spermatogenic transcriptional program" by Carro et al., the authors present their findings on how Argonaute proteins regulate spermatogenic development. They utilize a mouse model featuring a deletion of the gene cluster on chromosome 4 that contains Ago1, Ago3, and Ago4 to investigate the cumulative roles of AGO3 and AGO4 in spermatogenic cells. The authors characterize the distribution of AGO proteins and their effects on key meiotic milestones such as synapsis, recombination, meiotic transcriptional regulation, and meiotic sex chromosome inactivation (MSCI). They analyze stage-specific transcriptomes in spermatogenic cells using single-cell and bulk RNA sequencing and determine the interactome of AGO3 and AGO4 through mass spectrometry to examine how AGO proteins may regulate gene expression in these cells during meiotic and post-meiotic development. The authors conclude that both AGO3 and AGO4 are essential for regulating the overall gene expression program in spermatogenic cells and specifically modulate MSCI to repress sex-linked genes in pachytene spermatocytes, which may be partially mediated by the proper distribution of DNA damage repair factors. Additionally, AGO3 is suggested to interact with the chromatin remodeler SWI/SNF factor BRG1, facilitating its removal from the sex-chromatin to enable the repression of sex-linked genes during MSCI.

Major Comments: 1. The study utilized a triple knockout mouse model to determine the effect of AGO3 on spermatogenesis, following up on their previous report about the role of AGO4 in spermatogenesis, which resulted from an upregulation of AGO3 in Ago4-/- spermatocytes. However, the results are more difficult to interpret and ascertain the role of AGO3 in these cells, given the absence of any observable phenotype from Ago3 interruption. AGO4 regulates sex body formation, meiotic sex chromosome inactivation (MSCI), and miRNA production in spermatocytes, all of which were noted in the absence of both AGO3 and AGO4, with only an increased incidence of cells containing abnormal RNAPII at the sex chromosomes. It will be necessary to characterize how AGO3 regulates spermatogenic development, including meiotic progression and the regulation of the meiotic transcriptome, and compare these findings with the current observations to determine if the proposed mechanism involving AGO3, BRG1, and possibly AP2 is relevant in this context.

__Response: __While we agree with Reviewer that a single Ago3 knockout will help understand distinct roles of AGO3 and AGO4 in spermatogenesis, the time and resources required to generate a new mouse model are substantial. The analysis included in this current manuscript has already taken over seven years, and with the lengthy production of a new single mutant mouse, validation of the new mouse, and then final analysis, we would be looking at another 3-5 years of analysis. In the current funding climate, and with strong concerns over ensuring reduction in utilization of laboratory mice, we consider this request to be far in excess of what is required to move this important story forward.

The Ago413-/- mouse model has allowed us to associate a nuclear role of Argonaute proteins with a strong reproductive phenotype in the mouse germline. Given the redundancy between Ago3 and Ago4, it is likely that a single Ago3 knockout would have a mild phenotype just like the Ago4 KO. All this said, we agree with the reviewer that analysis of an Ago3 knockout mouse is a valuable next step, just not within this chapter of the story.

1. Does Ago413-/- mice recapitulate the early meiotic entry phenotype observed in Ago4-/- mice? If not, could it be possible that AGO3 promotes meiotic entry, given its strong mRNA expression in spermatogonia according to the scRNAseq data (Fig. 2B)

Response: Our scRNA-seq data shows strong expression of Ago3 in spermatogonia, as mentioned by the Reviewer. Analysis of cell cycle marker expression also shows that the transcriptomic profile of spermatogonia is altered, with higher levels of transcripts corresponding to the later G2/M stages (Figure 2D). Moreover, Ago413 knockouts present an increase in the number of spermatogonial stem cells (Supplementary Figure S4B). However, this cluster represents a pool of quiescent and mitotically active cells entering meiosis, therefore interpretation of these data might be challenging. While specific experiments could be conducted to answer this question, this is outside of the scope of our manuscript. The manuscript as it stands is already rather large, and a full analysis of meiotic entry dynamics would dilute the core message relating to chromatin regulation in the sex body.

1. The authors suggested that the removal of BRG1 by AGO3 is necessary during sex body formation and the eventual establishment of MSCI. However, the BAF complex subunit ARID1A has been shown to facilitate MSCI by regulating promoter accessibility. It will be interesting to determine how BRG1 distribution changes across the genome in the absence of AGO proteins and how that correlates with alterations in sex-linked gene expression.

__Response: __We agree that changes in BRG1 distribution across the genome would be very interesting to identify. However, in this work we show that BRG1/SMARCA4 protein changes its localization in the sex body very rapidly between early to late pachynema. These two substages are only discernable by immunofluorescence using synaptonemal complex markers, as there are currently no available techniques to enrich for these subfractions. Therefore, study of genome occupancy of BRG1 in these specific substages by techniques such as CUT&Tag are not currently possible. However, we are currently working on new methods to distinguish these cell populations and hope eventually to use these purification strategies to perform the studies suggested by this reviewer. Alternatively, the hope is that single cell CUT&Tag methods will become more reliable, and will enable us to address these questions. Both of these options are not currently available to us. The studies by Menon et al (2024-doi:10.7554/eLife.88024.5) provide strong evidence to support that ARID1A is needed to reduce promoter accessibility of XY silenced genes in prophase I through modulation of H3.3 distribution. However, this mechanism and our identification of the removal of BRG1 between early and late pachytema are not inconsistent with one another, as either SMARCA4 or SMARCA2 can associate with ARID1A as part of the cBAF complex, and ARID1A is also not in all forms of the BAF complex which BRG1 are in. The difference between our results and those seen in Menon et al likely indicate that there are multiple forms of the BAF complex which are differentially regulated during MSCI and play different roles in silencing transcription. Further studies of specific BAF subunits are needed to elucidate how different flavors of the BAF complex act at specific genomic locations and meiotic time points.

1. The observations presented in this manuscript (Fig. 1D, 2C, 3D, and 4) suggest a haploinsufficiency of the deleted locus in spermatogenic development. How does this compare with the ablation of either Ago3 or Ago4? Please explain.

Response: Our previous studies in single Ago4 knockouts did not present a heterozygous phenotype (Modzelewski et al 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2012.07.003, data not shown). Triple Ago413 knockouts show a much stronger fertility phenotype than single Ago4 knockout. Testis weight of Ago413 homozygous null present a 30% reduction while heterozygous mice show a 15% reduction (Figure 1D), comparable to the 13% reduction previously observed in Ago4-/- males. Sperm counts of Ago413 null and heterozygous males are reduced by 60% and 39% compared to wild type (Figure 1E), respectively, whereas Ago4 null mice have a milder phenotype, with only a 22% reduction in sperm counts. At the MSCI level, both homozygous and heterozygous Ago413 mutant spermatocytes show a similar increase in pachytene spermatocytes with increased RNA pol II ingression into the sex body with respect to wild-type of 35% and 30%, respectively. Ago4 single knockouts show an almost 18% increase in Pol II ingression when compared to wild type. These comparisons are now included in our manuscript in lines 170, 172 and 288. A milder phenotype of the Ago4 knockout and haploinsufficiency in triple Ago413 knockouts but not in Ago4 single knockouts is likely a consequence of the overlapping functions of Ago3 and Ago4 in mammals (and/or overexpression of Ago3 in Ago4 knockouts). In the context of their role in RISC, Wang et al (doi: 10.1101/gad.182758.111) studied the effects of single and double conditional knockouts for Ago1 and Ago2 in miRNA-mediated silencing. They discovered that the interaction between miRNAs and AGOs is highly correlated with the abundance of each AGO protein, and only double knockouts presented an observable phenotype.

Minor Comments: Based on the interactome analysis, it was argued that AGO3 and AGO4 may function separately. Please discuss how AGO3 might compensate for AGO4 (Line 109).

Response: We hypothesize that the combined function of AGO3 and AGO4 is needed for proper sex chromosome inactivation during meiosis. We base this hypothesis on the facts that (i) both proteins localize to the sex body in pachytene spermatocytes, (ii) loss of Ago4 leads to upregulation of Ago3, and (iii) the MSCI phenotype of Ago413 knockout mice is much stronger than the single Ago4 knockout (see above). However, AGO3 and AGO4 might not induce silencing through the same mechanism or pathway. In this work, we observed that their temporal expression in prophase I is different; while AGO3 protein seems to disappear by the diplotene stage, AGO4 is present in the sex body of these cells. Moreover, the proteomic analysis revealed a very low number of common interactors, an observation which could support the idea of AGO3 and AGO4 acting by different (albeit perhaps related) mechanisms to achieve MSCI. It is also possible that common interactors were not identified in our proteomic analysis due to the low abundance of AGO3 and AGO4 in the germ cells, limiting the resolution of the proteomics analysis (note that in order to visualize AGO proteins in WB experiments, at least 60 μg of enriched germ cell lysate must be loaded per lane). Moreover, given the difficulty in obtaining enough isolated pachytene and diplotene spermatocytes to perform immunoprecipitation experiments, we performed IP experiments in whole germ cell lysates, which limits the interpretation of our analysis. If AGO3 and AGO4 protein interactors overlap, then AGO3 would directly substitute for AGO4 leading to silencing in single Ago4 knockouts. However, if AGO3 and AGO4 work together through different, complementary mechanisms, then Ago4 mutant mice likely compensates loss of Ago4 by upregulation of Ago3along with specific interactors of the given pathway. We have added a sentence addressing this matter in line 411 of the results section and lines 506 and 513 of the discussion in the revised manuscript.

In Line 221, it is unclear what is meant by 'cell cycle transcripts'. Does this refer to meiotic transcripts? It is also important to discuss the relevance of the G2/M cell cycle marker genes at later stages of meiotic prophase.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have changed the relevant text to remove redundancies and include more information. We agree that considering the importance of these genes across meiotic prophase is needed, as cells which are in the dividing stage will already have produced the proteins necessary for division. These cells likely correspond to the diplotene/M cluster cells that have a lower G2/M score, potentially causing the bimodal distribution seen in Figure 2D. We have added a sentence addressing this to the manuscript.

While identified as a common interactor of both AGO3 and AGO4 in lines 440-445, HNRNPD is not listed among AGO4 interactors in Table S6. Please correct or explain this discrepancy.

Response: HNRPD was originally identified as an AGO4 interactor using a less strict criteria than the one used in our manuscript: we required consistent enrichment in at least two rounds of IP MS experiments. This reference to HNRNPD was a mistake, given that HNRPD was only enriched in one of our three replicates. Thus, we apologize and have removed the sentence in lines 440-445.

It is unclear whether wild-type cell lysate or lysate containing FLAG-tagged AGO3 was used for BRG1 immunoprecipitation, and which antibody was used to detect AGO3 in the BRG1 IP sample. A co-IP experiment demonstrating interaction between BRG1 and wild-type AGO3 would be ideal in this context. Furthermore, co-localization by IF would be beneficial to determine the subcellular localization and the cell stages the interaction may be occurring. Additionally, co-IP and Western blot methodologies should be included in the methods section.

__Response: __MYC-FLAG tagged AGO3 protein lysates were used for BRG1 Co-Immunoprecipitation, along with an anti MYC antibody to detect AGO3. This is now detailed in the Methods section of our revised manuscript (line 1133).

Regarding BRG1 and AGO3 colocalization by IF, we can confidently show that both AGO3 and BRG1 localize to the sex chromosomes in early pachynema by comparing BRG1/SYCP3 and FLAG-AGO3/SYCP3 stained spreads. We were not able to show colocalization simultaneously on the same cells, given the lack of appropriate antibodies. Our anti FLAG antibody is raised in mouse, while anti BRG1 is raised in rabbit, therefore a non-rabbit, non-mouse anti SYCP3 would be needed to identify prophase I substages, and our lab does not possess such a validated antibody. However, we now have access to a multiplexing kit that allows to use same-species antibodies for immunofluorescence and we can perform these experiments for a revised manuscript.

__Response: __The methods section now includes description of co-IP methodologies (line 1132). Western Blot methodologies are explained in lane 718, under the "Immunoblotting" title.

In line 599, it is unclear what is meant by 'persistence of sex chromosome de-repression'. Please correct or clarify this.

Response: This sentence has been changed and reads: "The persistence of sex chromosome gene expression".

If possible, please add an illustration to summarize the findings together.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion, and have now added this in Figure 6

Significance

Overall, this study enhances the understanding of gene expression regulation by AGO proteins during spermatogenesis. Several approaches, including functional, histological, and molecular characterization of the triple knockout phenotype, were instrumental in elucidating the role of AGO proteins in MSCI and meiotic as well as postmeiotic gene regulation. The main limitation of the study is that it is challenging to appreciate the role of AGO3 in addition to the previously published role of AGO4 without the inclusion of necessary control groups. Furthermore, the mechanism of action for AGO proteins in meiotic gene regulation was left relatively unexplored. This study presents new findings that will be significant for the research community interested in gene regulation, chromatin biology, and reproductive biology with the above suggestions considered.

__Reviewer #3 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)): __

The authors characterize a CRISPR-Cas9 mouse mutant that targets 3 genes that encode AGO family proteins, 2 of which are expressed during spermatogenesis (AGO3 and AGO4) and one that is said is not expressed, AGO1. This mouse mutant showed that AGO3 and AGO4 both contribute to spermatogenesis success as the "Ago413" mutation gave rise to an additive reduction in testis weight, due to spermatocyte apoptosis, and reduction in sperm count. Furthermore, they use insertion mouse mutants for Ago3 and Ago2 that express tagged versions of their corresponding proteins, which they use in combination with pan-AGO antibodies and Ago mutants to show differential expression and localization properties of AGO2, AGO3, and AGO4 (and the absence of AGO1) during spermatogenesis with a particular focus on meiotic prophase. They perform single-cell RNAseq and intricate analyses to demonstrate a change in distribution of meiotic stages in Ago413 mutants, and the overall cell cycle in spermatogonia and spermatocytes is altered. This analysis shows that the mutation leads to an inability to downregulate prior spermatogonia/spermatocyte stage transcripts in a timely manner. On the other hand, later-stage spermatocytes are abnormally expressing spermiogenesis genes. Similar to the Ago4 mutant previously characterized MSCI is disrupted. The authors also show that AGO3 has different interaction partners compared to AGO4 and focus their final assessment on a novel interaction partner of AGO3, BRG1. They show that this factor, which is involved in chromatin remodeling, is aberrantly localized to the sex body during meiotic prophase and diplonema. As BRG1 is involved in open chromatin, it is proposed that AGO3 restricts BRG1 (and related proteins) from the XY chromosome to ensure MSCI. Overall, this paper is very well constructed with mechanistic insights that make this a very impactful contribution to the research community. Major Comments:

1. The abstract contains "Ago413-/- mouse" without any explanation of what that is. The abstract needs to be a stand-alone document that does not require any referencing for context.

Response: We have included a sentence describing Ago413 in line 27

Figure 2C. - The significance bars are confusing as they appear to overlap strangely.

Response: We have modified this figure and now present the significance bars are on top of the data points.

On line 235, the authors state that "we first identified the top non-overlapping upregulated genes for Ago413+/+ germ cells in each cluster. Why did the authors not also select down-regulated genes in each cluster to perform a similar analysis?

__Response: __Thank you for this question. As our goal was to identify genes that are markers of the transcriptional program in each cell type, we used only uniquely upregulated genes for each cluster. Genes that are downregulated for a cluster may be indicative of the transcription in several other cell types, which is not easily interpretable. For a revised manuscript, we will perform this analysis to determine if there is any specific alterations in these downregulated genes.

Their Ago413 mutant characterization does a good job of assessing meiotic prophase and spermatozoa. However, their assessment of the stages in between these is lacking (meiotic divisions and spermiogenesis).

Response: We understand the reviewer's concern, however, it is not usual to study stages between the first meiotic division and spermiogenesis because meiosis II is so rapid and thus we lack tools to dissect it. In general, any defect that impacts meiosis I (and particularly prophase I) leads to cell death during prophase I or at metaphase I due to strictly adhered checkpoints that eradicate defective cells. Thus, the increased TUNEL staining in prophase I indicates to us that defective cells are cleared before exit from meiosis I, and those cells progressing to the spermatid stage are "normal" for meiosis II progression. For these cells that did complete meiosis I and progressed normally through meiosis II, we analyzed their spermiogenic outcome extensively (see section entitled "Post-meiotic spermatids from Ago413-/- males exhibit defective spermiogenesis and poor spermatozoa function"). This section included extensive sperm morphology, sperm motility and sperm fertility through in vitro fertilization assays. That said, we have added a sentence on line 268 to explain the transit through meiosis II.

The discovery of the interaction between BRG1 and AGO3 is exciting. They should assess BRG1 localization in later sub-stages, including late diplonema and diakinesis.

__Response: __BRG1(SMARCA4) was analyzed throughout prophase I, as shown in image 5G, including quantification of fluorescence intensity included the analysis of diplonema (5H-I). However, diakinesis was not included here since there was no observable signal of BRG1 in these cells. We have explained this in lines 459.

ATF2 should have been assessed in more detail, as was done for BRG1 in Figure 5.

__Response: __We agree with the Reviewer, however, staining of chromosome spreads with the anti ATF2 antibody was not possible in our hands after several attempts and changes in staining conditions. However, as staining of sections was successful, we showed localization of ATF2 on spermatocytes by co staining sections with SYCP3 and ATF2.

Reviewer #3 (Significance (Required)): Overall, this paper is very well constructed with mechanistic insights, as described in my reviewer comments, that make this a very impactful contribution to the research community.

This isn't a sentence. Is it supposed to be?

what a mess!

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors have used full-length single-cell sequencing on a sorted population of human fetal retina to delineate expression patterns associated with the progression of progenitors to rod and cone photoreceptors. They find that rod and cone precursors contain a mix of rod/cone determinants, with a bias in both amounts and isoform balance likely deciding the ultimate cell fate. Markers of early rod/cone hybrids are clarified, and a gradient of lncRNAs is uncovered in maturing cones. Comparison of early rods and cones exposes an enriched MYCN regulon, as well as expression of SYK, which may contribute to tumor initiation in RB1 deficient cone precursors.

Strengths:

(1) The insight into how cone and rod transcripts are mixed together at first is important and clarifies a long-standing notion in the field.

(2) The discovery of distinct active vs inactive mRNA isoforms for rod and cone determinants is crucial to understanding how cells make the decision to form one or the other cell type. This is only really possible with full-length scRNAseq analysis.

(3) New markers of subpopulations are also uncovered, such as CHRNA1 in rod/cone hybrids that seem to give rise to either rods or cones.

(4) Regulon analyses provide insight into key transcription factor programs linked to rod or cone fates.

(5) The gradient of lncRNAs in maturing cones is novel, and while the functional significance is unclear, it opens up a new line of questioning around photoreceptor maturation.

(6) The finding that SYK mRNA is naturally expressed in cone precursors is novel, as previously it was assumed that SYK expression required epigenetic rewiring in tumors.

We thank the reviewer for describing the study’s strengths, reflecting the major conclusions of the initially submitted manuscript.  However, based on new analyses – including the requested analyses of other scRNA-seq datasets, our revision clarifies that:

-  related to point (1), cone and rod transcripts do not appear to be mixed together at first (i.e., in immediately post-mitotic immature cone and rod precursors) but appear to be coexpressed in subsequent cone and rod precursor stages; and 

- related to point (3), CHRNA1 appears to mark immature cone precursors that are distinct from the maturing cone and rod precursors that co-express cone- and rod-related RNAs (despite the similar UMAP positions of the two populations in our dataset). 

Weaknesses:

(1) The writing is very difficult to follow. The nomenclature is confusing and there are contradictory statements that need to be clarified.

(2) The drug data is not enough to conclude that SYK inhibition is sufficient to prevent the division of RB1 null cone precursors. Drugs are never completely specific so validation is critical to make the conclusion drawn in the paper.

We thank the reviewer for noting these important issues. Accordingly, in the revised manuscript:

(1) We improve the writing and clarify the nomenclature and contradictory statements, particularly those noted in the Reviewer’s Recommendations for Authors. 

(2) We scale back claims related to the role of SYK in the cone precursor response to RB1 loss, with wording changes in the Abstract, Results, and Discussion, which now recognize that the inhibitor studies only support the possibility that cone-intrinsic SYK expression contributes to retinoblastoma initiation, as detailed in our responses to Reviewer’s Recommendations for Authors. We agree and now mention that genetic perturbation of SYK is required to prove its role.  

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors used deep full-length single-cell sequencing to study human photoreceptor development, with a particular emphasis on the characteristics of photoreceptors that may contribute to retinoblastoma.

Strengths:

This single-cell study captures gene regulation in photoreceptors across different developmental stages, defining post-mitotic cone and rod populations by highlighting their unique gene expression profiles through analyses such as RNA velocity and SCENIC. By leveraging fulllength sequencing data, the study identifies differentially expressed isoforms of NRL and THRB in L/M cone and rod precursors, illustrating the dynamic gene regulation involved in photoreceptor fate commitment. Additionally, the authors performed high-resolution clustering to explore markers defining developing photoreceptors across the fovea and peripheral retina, particularly characterizing SYK's role in the proliferative response of cones in the RB loss background. The study provides an in-depth analysis of developing human photoreceptors, with the authors conducting thorough analyses using full-length single-cell RNA sequencing. The strength of the study lies in its design, which integrates single-cell full-length RNA-seq, longread RNA-seq, and follow-up histological and functional experiments to provide compelling evidence supporting their conclusions. The model of cell type-dependent splicing for NRL and THRB is particularly intriguing. Moreover, the potential involvement of the SYK and MYC pathways with RB in cone progenitor cells aligns with previous literature, offering additional insights into RB development.

We thank the reviewer for summarizing the main findings and noting the compelling support for the conclusions, the intriguing cell type-dependent splicing of rod and cone lineage factors, and the insights into retinoblastoma development.  

Weaknesses:

The manuscript feels somewhat unfocused, with a lack of a strong connection between the analysis of developing photoreceptors, which constitutes the bulk of the manuscript, and the discussion on retinoblastoma. Additionally, given the recent publication of several single-cell studies on the developing human retina, it is important for the authors to cross-validate their findings and adjust their statements where appropriate.

We agree that the manuscript covers a range of topics resulting from the full-length scRNAseq analyses and concur that some studies of developing photoreceptors were not well connected to retinoblastoma. However, we also note that the connection to retinoblastoma is emphasized in several places in the Introduction and throughout the manuscript and was a significant motivation for pursuing the analyses. We suggest that it was valuable to highlight how deep, fulllength scRNA-seq of developing retina provides insights into retinoblastoma, including i) the similar biased expression of NRL transcript isoforms in cone precursors and RB tumors, ii) the cone precursors’ co-expression of rod- and cone-related genes such as NR2E3 and GNAT2, which may explain similar co-expression in RB cells, and iii) the expression of  SYK in early cones and RB cells.  While the earlier version had mainly highlighted point (iii), the revised Discussion further refers to points (i) and (ii) as described further in the response to the Reviewer’s Recommendations for Authors. 

We address the Reviewer’s request to cross-validate our findings with those of other single-cell studies of developing human retina by relating the different photoreceptor-related cell populations identified in our study to those characterized by Zuo et al (PMID 39117640), which was specifically highlighted by the reviewer and is especially useful for such cross-validation given the extraordinarily large ~ 220,000 cell dataset covering a wide range of retinal ages (pcw 8–23) and spatiotemporally stratified by macular or peripheral retina location. Relevant analyses of the Zuo et al dataset are shown in Supplementary Figures S3G-H, S10B, S11A-F, and S13A,B. 

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors use high-depth, full-length scRNA-Seq analysis of fetal human retina to identify novel regulators of photoreceptor specification and retinoblastoma progression.

Strengths:

The use of high-depth, full-length scRNA-Seq to identify functionally important alternatively spliced variants of transcription factors controlling photoreceptor subtype specification, and identification of SYK as a potential mediator of RB1-dependent cell cycle reentry in immature cone photoreceptors.

Human developing fetal retinal tissue samples were collected between 13-19 gestational weeks and this provides a substantially higher depth of sequencing coverage, thereby identifying both rare transcripts and alternative splice forms, and thereby representing an important advance over previous droplet-based scRNA-Seq studies of human retinal development.

Weaknesses:

The weaknesses identified are relatively minor. This is a technically strong and thorough study, that is broadly useful to investigators studying retinal development and retinoblastoma.

We thank the reviewer for describing the strengths of the study. Our revision addresses the concerns raised separately in the Reviewer’s Recommendations for Authors, as detailed in the responses below.  

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewing Editor Comments:

The reviewers have completed their reviews. Generally, they note that your work is important and that the evidence is generally convincing. The reviewers are in general agreement that the paper adds to the field. The findings of rod/cone fate determination at a very early stage are intriguing. Generally, the paper would benefit from clarifications in the writing and figures. Experimentally, the paper would benefit from validation of the drug data, for example using RNAi or another assay. Alternatively, the authors could note the caveats of the drug experiments and describe how they could be improved. In terms of analysis, the paper would be improved by additional comparisons of the authors' data to previously published datasets.

We thank the reviewing editor for this summary. As described in the individual reviewer responses, we clarify the writing and figures and provide comparisons to previously published datasets (in particular, the large snRNA-seq dataset of Zuo et al., 2024 (PMID 39117640).  With regard to the drug (i.e., SYK inhibitor) studies, we opted to provide caveats and describe the need for genetic approaches to validate the role of SYK, owing to the infeasibility of completing genetic perturbation experiments in the appropriate timeframe.  We are grateful for the opportunity to present our findings with appropriate caveats. 

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

Shayler cell sort human progenitor/rod/cone populations then full-length single cell RNAseq to expose features that distinguish paths towards rods or cones. They initially distinguish progenitors (RPCs), immature photoreceptor precursors (iPRPs), long/medium wavelength (LM) cones, late-LM cones, short wavelength (S) cones, early rods (ER) and late rods (LR), which exhibit distinct transcription factor regulons (Figures 1, 2). These data expose expected and novel enriched genes, and support the notion that S cones are a default state lacking expression of rod (NRL) or cone (THRB) determinants but retaining expression of generic photoreceptor drivers (CRX/OTX2/NEUROD1 regulons). They identify changes in regulon activity, such as increasing NRL activity from iPRP to ER to LR, but decreasing from iPRP to cones, or increasing RAX/ISL2/THRB regulon activity from iPRP to LM cones, but decreasing from iPRP to S cones or rods.

They report co-expression of rod/cone determinants in LM and ER clusters, and the ratios are in the expected directions (NRLTHRB or RXRG in ER). A novel insight from the FL seq is that there are differing variants generated in each cell population. Full-length NRL (FL-NRL) predominates in the rod path, whereas truncated NRL (Tr-NRL) does so in the cone path, then similar (but opposite) findings are presented for THRB (Fig 3, 4), whereas isoforms are not a feature of RXRG expression, just the higher expression in cones.

The authors then further subcluster and perform RNA velocity to uncover decision points in the tree (Figure 5). They identify two photoreceptor precursor streams, the Transitional Rods (TRs) that provide one source for rod maturation and (reusing the name from the initial clustering) iPRPs that form cones, but also provide a second route to rods. TR cells closest to RPCs (immediately post-mitotic) have higher levels of the rod determinant NR2E3 and NRL, whereas the higher resolution iPRPs near RPCs lack NR2E3 and have higher levels of ONECUT1, THRB, and GNAT2, a cone bias. These distinct rod-biased TR and cone-biased high-resolution iPRPs were not evident in published scRNAseq with 3′ end-counting (i.e. not FL seq). Regulon analysis confirmed higher NRL activity in TR cells, with higher THRB activity in highresolution iPRP cells.

Many of the more mature high-resolution iPRPs show combinations of rod (GNAT1, NR2E3) and cone (GNAT2, THRB) paths as well as both NRL and THRB regulons, but with a bias towards cone-ness (Figure 6). Combined FISH/immunofluorescence in fetal retina uncovers cone-biased RXRG-protein-high/NR2E3-protein-absent cone-fated cells that nevertheless expressed NR2E3 mRNA. Thus early cone-biased iPRP cells express rod gene mRNA, implying a rod-cone hybrid in early photoreceptor development. The authors refer to these as "bridge region iPRP cells".

In Figure 7, they identify CHRNA1 as the most specific marker of these bridge cells (overlapping with ATOH7 and DLL3, previously linked to cone-biased precursors), and FISH shows it is expressed in rod-biased NRL protein-positive and cone-biased RXRG proteinpositive cones at fetal week 12.

Figure 8 outlines the graded expression of various lncRNAs during cone maturation, a novel pattern.

Finally (Figure 9), the authors identify differential genes expressed in early rods (ER cluster from Figure 1) vs early cones (LM cluster, excluding the most mature opsin+ cells), revealing high levels of MYCN targets in cones. They also find SYK expression in cones. SYK was previously linked to retinoblastoma, so intrinsic expression may predispose cone precursors to transformation upon RB loss. They finish by showing that a SYK inhibitor blocks the proliferation of dividing RB1 knockdown cone precursors in the human fetal retina.

Overall, the authors have uncovered interesting patterns of biased expression in cone/rod developmental paths, especially relating to the isoform differences for NRL and THRB which add a new layer to our understanding of this fate choice. The analyses also imply that very soon after RPCs exit the cell cycle, they generate post-mitotic precursors biased towards a rod or cone fate, that carry varying proportions of mixed rod/cone determinants and other rod/cone marker genes. They also introduce new markers that may tag key populations of cells that precede the final rod/cone choice (e.g. CHRNA1), catalogue a new lncRNA gradient in cone maturation, and provide insight into potential genes that may contribute to retinoblastoma initiation, like SYK, due to intrinsic expression in cone precursors. However, as detailed below, the text needs to be improved considerably, and overinterpretations need to be moderated, removed, or tested more rigorously with extra data.

Major Comments

The manuscript is very difficult to follow. The nomenclature is at times torturous, and the description of hybrid rod/cone hybrid cells is confusing in many aspects.

(1) A single term, iPRP, is used to refer to an initial low-resolution cluster, and then to a subset of that cluster later in the paper.

We agree that using immature photoreceptor precursor (iPRP) for both high-resolution and lowresolution clusters was confusing. We kept this name for the low-resolution cluster (which includes both immature cone and immature rod precursors), renamed the high-resolution iPRP cluster immature cone precursors (iCPs). and renamed their transitional rod (TR) counterparts immature rod precursors (iRPs). These designations are based on 

- the biased expression of THRB, ONECUT1, and the THRB regulon in iCPs (Fig. 5D,E);

- the biased expression of NRL, NR2E3, and NRL regulon iRPs (Fig. 5D,E);

- the partially distinct iCP and iRP UMAP positions (Figure 5C); and 

- the evidence of similar immature cone versus rod precursor populations in the Zuo et al 3’ snRNA-seq dataset, as noted below and described in two new paragraphs starting at the bottom of p. 12.

(2) To complicate matters further, the reader needs to understand the subset within the iPRP referred to as bridge cells, and we are told at one point that the earliest iPRPs lack NR2E3, then that they later co-express NR2E3, and while the authors may be referring to protein and RNA, it serves to further confuse an already difficult to follow distinction. I had to read and re-read the iPRP data many times, but it never really became totally clear.

We agree that the description of the high-resolution iPRP (now “iCP”) subsets was unclear, although our further analyses of a large 3’ snRNA-seq dataset in Figure S11 support the impression given in the original manuscript that the earliest iCPs lack NR2E3 and then later coexpress NR2E3 while the earliest iRPs lack THRB and then later express THRB. As described in new text in the Two post-mitotic immature photoreceptor precursor populations section (starting on line 7 of p. 13): 

When considering only the main cone and rod precursor UMAP regions, early (pcw 8 – 13) cone precursors expressed THRB and lacked NR2E3 (Figure S11D,E, blue arrows), while early (pcw 10 – 15) rod precursors expressed NR2E3 and lacked THRB (Figure S11D,E, red arrows), similar to RPC-localized iCPs and iRPs in our study (Figure 5D).

Next, as summarized in new text in the Early cone and rod precursors with rod- and conerelated RNA co-expression section (new paragraph at top of p. 16): 

Thus, a 3’ snRNA-seq analysis confirmed the initial production of immature photoreceptor precursors with either L/M cone-precursor-specific THRB or rod-precursor-specific NR2E3 expression, followed by lower-level co-expression of their counterparts, NR2E3 in cone precursors and THRB in rod precursors. However, in the Zuo et al. analyses, the co-expression was first observed in well-separated UMAP regions, as opposed to a region that bridges the early cone and early rod populations in our UMAP plots. These findings are consistent with the notion that cone- and rod-related RNA co-expression begins in already fate-determined cone and rod precursors, and that such precursors aberrantly intermixed in our UMAP bridge region due to their insufficient representation in our dataset.  

Importantly, and as noted in our ‘Public response’ to Reviewer 1, “CHRNA1 appears to mark immature cone precursors that are distinct from the maturing cone and rod precursors that coexpress cone- and rod-related RNAs (despite the similar UMAP positions of the two populations in our dataset).” In support of this notion, the immature cone precursors expressing CHRNA1  and other  populations did not overlap in UMAP space in the Zuo et al dataset. We hope the new text cited above along with other changes will significantly clarify the observations.

(3) The term "cone/rod precursor" shows up late in the paper (page 12), but it was clear (was it not?) much earlier in this manuscript that cone and rod genes are co-expressed because of the coexpressed NRL and THRB isoforms in Figures 3/4.

We thank the reviewer for noting that the differential NRL and THRB isoform expression already implies that cone and rod genes are co-expressed. However, as we now state, the co-expression of RNAs encoding an additional cone marker (GNAT2) and rod markers (GNAT1, NR2E3) was 

“suggestive of a proposed hybrid cone/rod precursor state more extensive than implied by the coexpression of different THRB and NRL isoforms” (first paragraph of “Early cone and rod …” section on p. 14; new text underlined). 

(4) The (incorrect) impression given later in the manuscript is that the rod/cone transcript mixture applies to just a subset of the iPRP cells, or maybe just the bridge cells (writing is not clear), but actually, neither of those is correct as the more abundant and more mature LM and ER populations analyzed earlier coexpress NRL and THRB mRNAs (Figures 2, 3). Overall, the authors need to vastly improve the writing, simplify/clarify the nomenclature, and better label figures to match the text and help the reader follow more easily and clearly. As it stands, it is, at best, obtuse, and at worst, totally confusing.

We thank the reviewer for bringing the extent of the confusing terminology and wording to our attention. We revised the terminology (as in our response to point 1) and extensively revised the text.  We also performed similar analyses of the Zuo et al. data (as described in more detail in our response to Reviewer 2), which clarifies the distinct status of cells with the “rod/cone transcript mixture” and cells co-expressing early cone and rod precursor markers.  

To more clearly describe data related to cells with rod- and cone-related RNA co-expression, we divided the former Figure 6 into two figures, with Figure 6 now showing the cone- and rodrelated RNA co-expression inferred from scRNA-seq and Figure 7 showing GNAT2 and NR2E3 co-expression in FISH analyses of human retina plus a new schematic in the new panel 7E.

To separate the conceptually distinct analyses of cone and rod related RNA co-expression and the expression of early photoreceptor precursor markers (which were both found in the so-called bridge region – yet now recognized to be different subpopulations), we separated the analyses of the early photoreceptor precursor markers to form a new section, “Developmental expression of photoreceptor precursor markers and fate determinants,” starting on p. 16. 

Additionally, we further review the findings and their implications in four revised Discussion paragraphs starting at the bottom of p. 23).

(5) The data showing that overexpressing Tr-NRL in murine NIH3T3 fibroblasts blocks FL-NRL function is presented at the end of page 7 and in Figure 3G. Subsequent analysis two paragraphs and two figures later (end page 8, Figure 5C + supp figs) reveal that Tr-NRL protein is not detectable in retinoblastoma cells which derive from cone precursors cells and express Tr-NRL mRNA, and the protein is also not detected upon lentiviral expression of Tr-NRL in human fetal retinal explants, suggesting it is unstable or not translated. It would be preferable to have the 3T3 data and retinoblastoma/explant data juxtaposed. E.g. they could present the latter, then show the 3T3 that even if it were expressed (e.g. briefly) it would interfere with FL-NRL. The current order and spacing are somewhat confusing.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion and moved the description of the luciferase assays to follow the retinoblastoma and explant data and switched the order of Figure panels 3G and 3H.  

(6) On page 15, regarding early rod vs early cone gene expression, the authors state: "although MYCN mRNA was not detected....", yet on the volcano plot in Figure S14A MYCN is one of the marked genes that is higher in cones than rods, meaning it was detected, and a couple of sentences later: "Concordantly, the LM cluster had increased MYCN RNA". The text is thus confusing.

With respect, we note that the original text read, “although MYC RNA was not detected,” which related to a statement in the previous sentence that the gene ontology analysis identified “MYC targets.” However, given that this distinction is subtle and may be difficult for readers to recognize, we revised the text (now on p. 19) to more clearly describe expression of MYCN (but not MYC) as follows:

“The upregulation of MYC target genes was of interest given that many MYC target genes are also targets of MYCN, that MYCN protein is highly expressed in maturing (ARR3+) cone precursors but not in NRL+ rods (Figure 10A), and that MYCN is critical to the cone precursor proliferative response to pRB loss8–10.  Indeed, whereas MYC RNA was not detected, the LM cone cluster had increased MYCN RNA …”

(7) The authors state that the SYK drug is "highly specific". They provide no evidence, but no drug is 100% specific, and it is possible that off-target hits are important for the drug phenotype. This data should be removed or validated by co-targeting the SYK gene along with RB1.

We agree that our data only show the potential for SYK to contribute to the cone proliferative response; however, we believe the inhibitor study retains value in that a negative result (no effect of the SYK inhibitor) would disprove its potential involvement. To reflect this, we changed wording related to this experiment as follows:

In the Abstract, we changed:

(1) “SYK, which contributed to the early cone precursors’ proliferative response to RB1 loss” To: “SYK, which was implicated in the early cone precursors’ proliferative response to RB1 loss.”  

(2) “These findings reveal … and a role for early cone-precursor-intrinsic SYK expression.” To:  “These findings reveal … and suggest a role for early cone-precursor-intrinsic SYK expression.”

In the last paragraph of the Results, we changed:

(1) “To determine if SYK contributes…” To:  “To determine if SYK might contribute…”

(2) “the highly specific SYK inhibitor” To:  “the selective SYK inhibitor”  

(3)  “indicating that cone precursor intrinsic SYK activity is critical to the proliferative response” To: “consistent with the notion that cone precursor intrinsic SYK activity contributes to the proliferative response.”

In the Results, we added a final sentence: 

“However, given potential SYK inhibitor off-target effects, validation of the role of SYK in retinoblastoma initiation will require genetic ablation studies.”

In the Discussion (2nd-to-last paragraph), we changed: 

“SYK inhibition impaired pRB-depleted cone precursor cell cycle entry, implying that native SYK expression rather than de novo induction contributes to the cone precursors’ initial proliferation.” To: “…the pRB-depleted cone precursors’ sensitivity to a SYK inhibitor suggests that native SYK expression rather than de novo induction contributes to the cone precursors’ initial proliferation, although genetic ablation of SYK is needed to confirm this notion.” In the Discussion last sentence, we changed:

“enabled the identification of developmental stage-specific cone precursor features that underlie retinoblastoma predisposition.” To: “enabled the identification of developmental stage-specific cone precursor features that are associated with the cone precursors’ predisposition to form retinoblastoma tumors.”

Minor/Typos

Figure 7 legend, H should be D.

We corrected the figure legend (now related to Figure 8).

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) The author should take advantage of recently published human fetal retina data, such as PMID:39117640, which includes a larger dataset of cells that could help validate the findings. Consequently, statements like "To our knowledge, this is the first indication of two immediately post-mitotic photoreceptor precursor populations with cone versus rod-biased gene expression" may need to be revised.

We thank the reviewer for noting the evidence of distinct immediately post-mitotic rod and cone populations published by others after we submitted our manuscript. In response, we omitted the sentence mentioned and extensively cross-checked our results including:

- comparison of our early versus late cone and rod maturation states to the cone and rod precursor versus cone and rod states identified by Zuo et al (new paragraph on the top half of p. 6 and new figure panels S3G,H);

- detection of distinct immediately post-mitotic versus later cone and rod precursor populations (two new paragraphs on pp. 12-13 and new Figures S10B and S11A-E); 

- identification of cone and rod precursor populations that co-express cone and rod marker genes (two new paragraphs starting at the bottom of p. 15 and new Figures S11D-F);

- comparison of expression patterns of immature cone precursor (iCP) marker genes in our and the Zuo et al dataset (new paragraph on top half of p. 17 and new Figure S13).

We also compare the cell states discerned in our study and the Zuo et al. study in a new Discussion paragraph (bottom of p. 23) and new Figure S17.

(2) The data generated comes from dissociated cells, which inherently lack spatial context. Additionally, it is unclear whether the dataset represents a pool of retinas from multiple developmental stages, and if so, whether the developmental stage is known for each cell profiled. If this information is available, the authors should examine the distribution of developmental stages on the UMAP and trajectory analysis as part of the quality control process. 

We thank the reviewer for highlighting the importance of spatial context and developmental stage. 

Related to whether the dataset represents a pool of retinae from multiple developmental stages, the different cell numbers examined at each time point are indicated in Figure S1A. To draw the readers’ attention to this detail, Figure S1A is now cited in the first sentence of the Results. 

Related to the age-related cell distributions in UMAP plots, the distribution of cells from each retina and age was (and is) shown in Fig. S1F. In addition, we now highlight the age distributions by segregating the FW13, FW15-17, and FW17-18-19 UMAP positions in the new Figure 1C. We describe the rod temporal changes in a new sentence at the top of  p. 5:

“Few rods were detected at FW13, whereas both early and late rods were detected from FW15-19 (Figure 1C), corroborating prior reports [15,20].”  

We describe the cone temporal changes and note the likely greater discrimination of cell state changes that would be afforded by separately analyzing macula versus peripheral retina at each age in a new sentence at the bottom of p. 5:

“L/M cone precursors from different age retinae occupied different UMAP regions, suggesting age-related differences in L/M cone precursor maturation (Figure 1C).”

Moreover, they should assess whether different developmental stages impact gene expression and isoform ratios. It is well established that cone and rod progenitors typically emerge at different developmental times and in distinct regions of the retina, with minimal physical overlap. Grouping progenitor cells based solely on their UMAP positioning may lead to an oversimplified interpretation of the data.

(2a) We agree that different developmental stages may impact gene expression and isoform ratios, and evaluated stages primarily based on established Louvain clustering rather than UMAP position. However, we also used UMAP position to segregate so-called RPC-localized and nonRPC-localized iCPs and iRPs, as well as to characterize the bridge region iCP sub-populations. In the revision, we examine whether cell groups defined by UMAP positions helped to identify transcriptomically distinct populations and further examine the spatiotemporal gene expression patterns of the same genes in the Zuo et al. 3’ snRNA-seq dataset. 

(2b) Related to analyses of immediately post-mitotic iRPs and iCPs, the new Figure S10A expanded the violin plots first shown in Figure 5D to compare gene expression in RPC-localized versus non-RPC-localized iCPs and iRPs and subsequent cone and rod precursor clusters (also presented in response to Reviewer 3). The new Figure S10C, shows a similar analysis of UMAP region-specific regulon activities. These figures support the idea that there are only subtle UMAP region-related differences in the expression of the selected gene and regulons. 

To further evaluate early cone and rod precursors, we compared expression patterns in our cluster- and UMAP-defined cell groups to those of the spatiotemporally defined cell groups in the Zuo et al. 3’ snRNA-seq study. The results revealed similar expression timing of the genes examined, although the cluster assignments of a subset of cells were brought into question, especially the assigned rod precursors at pcw 10 and 13, as shown in new Figures S10B (grey columns) and S11, and as described in two new paragraphs starting near the bottom of p.12. 

(2c) Related to analyses of iCPs in the so-called bridge region, our analyses of the Zuo et al dataset helped distinguish early cone and rod precursor populations (expressing early markers such as ATOH7 and CHRNA1) from the later stages exhibiting rod- and cone-related gene coexpression, which had intermixed in the UMAP bridge region in our dataset. Further parsing of early cone precursor marker spatiotemporal expression revealed intriguing differences as now described in the second half of a new paragraph at the top of p. 17, as follows:

“Also, different iCP markers had different spatiotemporal expression: CHRNA1 and ATOH7 were most prominent in peripheral retina with ATOH7 strongest at pcw 10 and CHRNA1 strongest at pcw 13; CTC-378H22.2 was prominently expressed from pcw 10-13 in both the macula and the periphery; and DLL3 and ONECUT1 showed the earliest, strongest, and broadest expression (Figure S13B). The distinct patterns suggest spatiotemporally distinct roles for these factors in cone precursor differentiation.”

(3) I would commend the authors for performing a validation experiment via RNA in situ to validate some of the findings. However, drawing conclusions from analyzing a small number of cells can still be dangerous. Furthermore, it is not entirely clear how the subclustering is done. Some cells change cell type identities in the high-resolution plot. For example, some iPRP cells from the low-resolution plots in Figure 1 are assigned as TR in high-resolution plots in Figure 5.

The authors should provide justification on the identifies of RPC localized iPRP and TR.

Comparison of their data with other publicly available data should strengthen their annotation

We agree that drawing conclusions from scRNA-seq or in situ hybridization analysis of a small number of cells can be dangerous and have followed the reviewer’s suggestion to compare our data with other publicly available data, focusing on the 3’ snRNA-seq of Zuo et al. given its large size and extensive annotation. Our analysis of  the Zuo et al. dataset helped clarify cell identities by segregating cone and rod precursors with similar gene expression properties in distinct UMAP regions. However, we noted that the clustering of early cone and rod precursors likely gave numerous mis-assigned cells (as noted in response 2b above and shown in the new Figure S11). It would appear that insights may be derived from the combination of relatively shallow sequencing of a high number of cells and deep sequencing of substantially fewer cells. 

Related to how subclustering was done, the Methods state, “A nearest-neighbors graph was constructed from the PCA embedding and clusters were identified using a Louvain algorithm at low and high resolutions (0.4 and 1.6)[70],” citing the Blondel et al reference for the Louvain clustering algorithm used in the Seurat package.  To clarify this, the results text was revised such that it now indicates the levels used to cluster at low resolution (0.4, p. 4, 2nd paragraph) and at high resolution (1.6, top of p. 11) .

Related to the assignment of some iPRP cells from the low-resolution plots in Figure 1 to the TR cluster (now called the ‘iRP’ ‘cluster) in the high-resolution plots in Figure 5, we suggest that this is consistent with Louvain clustering, which does not follow a single dendrogram hierarchy. 

The justification for referring to these groups as RPC-localized iCPs and iRPs relates to their biased gene and regulon expression in Fig. 5D and 5E, as stated on p. 12: 

“In the RPC-localized region, iCPs had higher ONECUT1, THRB, and GNAT2, whereas iRPs trended towards higher NRL and NR2E3 (p= 0.19, p=0.054, respectively).”

(4) Late-stage LM5 cluster Figure 9 is not defined anywhere in previous figures, in which LM clusters only range from 1 to 4. The inconsistency in cluster identification should be addressed.

We revised the text related to this as follows: 

“Indeed, our scRNA-seq analyses revealed that SYK RNA expression increased from the iCP stage through cluster LM4, in contrast to its minimal expression in rods (Figure 10E).  Moreover, SYK expression was abolished in the five-cell group with properties of late maturing cones (characterized in Figure 1E), here displayed separately from the other LM4 cells and designated LM5 (Figure 10E).”  (p. 19-20)

(5) Syk inhibitor has been shown to be involved in RB cell survival in previous studies. The manuscript seems to abruptly make the connection between the single-cell data to RB in the last figure. The title and abstract should not distract from the bulk of the manuscript focusing on the rod and cone development, or the manuscript should make more connection to retinoblastoma.

We appreciate the reviewer’s concern that the title may seem to over-emphasize the connection to retinoblastoma based solely on the SYK inhibitor studies. However, we suggest the title also emphasizes the identification and characterization of early human photoreceptor states, per se, and that there are a number of important connections beyond the SYK studies that could warrant the mention of cell-state-specific retinoblastoma-related features in the title.

Most importantly, a prior concern with the cone cell-of-origin theory was that retinoblastoma cells express RNAs thought to mark retinal cell types other than cones, especially rods. The evidence presented here, that cone precursors also express the rod-related genes helps resolve this issue. The issue is noted numerous times in the manuscript, as follows:  

In the Introduction, we write:

“However, retinoblastoma cells also express rod lineage factor NRL RNAs, which – along with other evidence – suggested a heretofore unexplained connection between rod gene expression and retinoblastoma development[12,13]. Improved discrimination of early photoreceptor states is needed to determine if co-expression of rod- and cone-related genes is adopted during tumorigenesis or reflects the co-expression of such genes in the retinoblastoma cell of origin.” (bottom, p. 2) And: 

“In this study, we sought to further define the transcriptomic underpinnings of human  photoreceptor development and their relationship to retinoblastoma tumorigenesis.” (last paragraph, p. 3)

The Discussion also alluded to this issue and in the revised Discussion, we aimed to make the connection clearer.  We previously ended the 3rd-to-last paragraph with,  

“iPRP [now iCP] and early LM cone precursors’ expression of NR2E3 and NRL RNAs suggest that their presence in retinoblastomas[12,13] reflects their normal expression in the L/M cone precursor cells of origin.” 

We now separate and elaborate on this point in a new paragraph as follows: 

“Our characterization of cone and rod-related RNA co-expression may help resolve questions about the retinoblastoma cell of origin. Past studies suggested that retinoblastoma cells co-express RNAs associated with rods, cones, or other retinal cells due to a loss of lineage fidelity[12]. However, the early L/M cone precursors’ expression of NR2E3 and NRL RNAs suggest that their presence in retinoblastomas[12,13] reflects their normal expression in the L/M cone precursor cells of origin. This idea is further supported by the retinoblastoma cells’ preferential expression of cone-enriched NRL transcript isoforms (Figure S5B).” (middle of p. 24) Based on the above, we elected to retain the title.  

Minor comments:

(1) It is difficult to see the orange and magenta colors in the Fig 3E RNA-FISH image. The colors should be changed, or the contrast threshold needs to be adjusted to make the puncta stand out more.

We re-assigned colors, with red for FL-NRL puncta and green for Tr-NRL puncta. 

(2) Figure 5C on page 8 should be corrected to Supplementary Figure 5C.

We thank the reviewer for noting this error and changed the figure citation.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) Minor concerns

a. Abbreviation of some words needs to be included, example: FW. 

We now provide abbreviation definitions for FW and others throughout the manuscript.  

b. Cat # does not matches with the 'key resource table' for many reagents/kits. Some examples are: CD133-PE mentioned on Page # 22 on # 71, SMART-Seq V4 Ultra Low Input RNA Kit and SMARTer Ultra Low RNA Kit for the Fluidigm C1 Sytem on Page # 22 on # 77, Nextera XT DNA Library preparation kit on Page # 23 on # 77.

We thank the reviewer for noting these discrepancies. We have now checked all catalog numbers and made corrections as needed.

c. Cat # and brand name of few reagents & kits is missing and not mentioned either in methods or in key resource table or both. Eg: FBS, Insulin, Glutamine, Penicillin, Streptomycin, HBSS, Quant-iT PicoGreen dsDNA assay, Nextera XT DNA LibraryPreparation Kit, 5' PCR Primer II A with CloneAmp HiFi PCR Premix. 

Catalog numbers and brand names are now provided for the tissue culture and related reagents within the methods text and for kits in the Key Resources Table. Additional descriptions of the primers used for re-amplification and RACE were added to the Methods (p. 28-29).

d. Spell and grammar check is needed throughout the manuscript is needed. Example. In Page # 46 RXRγlo is misspelled as RXRlo.

Spelling and grammar checks were reviewed.

(2) Methods & Key Resource table.

a. In Page # 21, IRB# needs to be stated.      

The IRB protocols have been added, now at top of p. 26.

b. In Page # 21, Did the authors dissociate retinae in ice-cold phosphate-buffered saline or papain?   

The relevant sentence was corrected to “dissected while submerged in ice-cold phosphatebuffered saline (PBS) and dissociated as described10.” ( p. 26)

c. In Page # 21, How did the authors count or enumerate the cell count? Provide the details.

We now state, “… a 10 µl volume was combined with 10 µl trypan blue and counted using a hemocytometer” (top of p. 27)

d. Why did the authors choose to specifically use only 8 cells for cDNA preparation in Page # 22? State the reason and provide the details.

The reasons for using 8 cells (to prevent evaporation and to manually transfer one slide-worth of droplets to one strip of PCR tubes) and additional single cell collection details are now provided as follows (new text underlined): 

“Single cells were sorted on a BD FACSAria I at 4°C using 100 µm nozzle in single-cell mode into each of eight 1.2 µl lysis buffer droplets on parafilm-covered glass slides, with droplets positioned over pre-defined marks … .  Upon collection of eight cells per slide, droplets were transferred to individual low-retention PCR tubes (eight tubes per strip) (Bioplastics K69901, B57801) pre-cooled on ice to minimize evaporation. The process was repeated with a fresh piece of parafilm for up to 12 rounds to collect 96 cells). (p. 27, new text underlined)

e. Key resource table does not include several resources used in this study. Example - NR2E3 antibody.

We added the NR2E3 antibody and checked for other omissions.

(3) Results & Figures & Figure Legends

a. Regulon-defined RPC and photoreceptor precursor states

i. On page # 4, 1 paragraph - Clarify the sentence 'Exclusion of all cells with <100,000 cells read and 18 cells.........Emsembl transcripts inferred'. Did the authors use 18 cells or 18FW retinae? 

The sentence was changed to:

“After sequencing, we excluded all cells with <100,000 read counts and 18 cells expressing one or more markers of retinal ganglion, amacrine, and/or horizontal cells (POU4F1, POU4F2, POU4F3, TFAP2A, TFAP2B, ISL1) and concurrently lacking photoreceptor lineage marker OTX2. This yielded 794 single cells with averages of 3,750,417 uniquely aligned reads, 8,278 genes detected, and 20,343 Ensembl transcripts inferred (Figure S1A-C).” (p. 4, new words underlined)

To clarify that 18 retinae were used, the first sentence of the Results was revised as follows:

“To interrogate transcriptomic changes during human photoreceptor development, dissociated RPCs and photoreceptor precursors were FACS-enriched from 18 retinae, ages FW13-19 …” (p. 4).

Why did the authors 'exclude cells lacking photoreceptor lineage marker OTX2' from analysis especially when the purpose here was to choose photoreceptor precursor states & further results in the next paragraph clearly state that 5 clusters were comprised of cells with OTX2 and CRX expression. This is confusing.

We apologize for the imprecise diction. We divided the evidently confusing sentence into two sentences to more clearly indicate that we removed cells that did not express OTX2, as in the first response to the previous question.

ii. In Page # 5, the authors reported the number of cell populations (363 large and 5 distal) identified in the THRB+ L/M-cone cluster. What were the # of cell populations identified in the remaining 5 clusters of the UMAP space?

We added the cell numbers in each group to Fig. 1B. We corrected the large LM group to 366 cells (p. 5) and note 371 LM cells , which includes the five distal cells, in Figure 1B.

b. Differential expression of NRL and THRB isoforms in rod and cone precursors

i. In Figure 3B, the authors compare and show the presence of 5 different NRL isoforms for all the 6 clusters that were defined in 3A. However, in the results, the ENST# of just 2 highly assigned transcript isoforms is given. What are the annotated names of the three other isoforms which are shown in 3B? Please explain in the Results.

As requested, we now annotate the remaining isoforms as encoding full-length or truncated NRL in Fig. 3B and show isoform structures in new Supplementary Figure S4B.  We also refer to each transcript isoform in the Results (p. 7, last paragraph) and similarly evaluate all isoforms in RB31 cells (Fig. S5B).

ii. What does the Mean FPM in the y-axis of Fig 3C refer to?

Mean FPM represents mean read counts (fragments per million, FPM) for each position across Ensembl NRL exons for each cluster, as now stated in the 6th line of the Fig. 3 legend.

iii. A clear explanation of the results for Figures 3E-3F is missing.

We revised the text to more clearly describe the experiment as follows:

“The cone cells’ higher proportional expression of Tr-NRL first exon sequences was validated by RNA fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) of FW16 fetal retina in which NRL immunofluorescence was used to identify rod precursors, RXRg immunofluorescence was used to identify cone precursors, and FISH probes specific to truncated Tr-NRL exon 1T or FL-NRL exons 1 and 2 were used to assess Tr-NRL and FL-NRL expression (Figure 3E,F).” (p. 8, new text underlined).

c. Two post-mitotic photoreceptor precursor populations

i. Although deep-sequencing and SCENIC analysis clarified the identities of four RPC-localized clusters as MG, RPC, and iPRP indicative of cone-bias and TR indicative of rod-bias. It would be interesting to see the discriminating determinant between the TR and ER by SCENIC and deep-sequencing gene expression violin/box plots.

We agree it is of interest to see the discriminating determinant between the TR [now termed iRP] and ER clusters by SCENIC and deep-sequencing gene expression violin/box plots. We now provide this information for selected genes and regulons of interest in the new Supplementary Figures S10A and S10C, along with a similar comparison between the prior high-resolution iPRP (now termed iCP) cluster and the first high-resolution LM cluster, LM1, as described for gene expression on p. 12:

“Notably, THRB and GNAT2 expression did not significantly change while ONECUT1 declined in the subsequent non-RPC-localized iCP and LM1 stages, whereas NR2E3 and NRL dramatically increased on transitioning to the ER state (Figure S10A).”

And as described for regulon activities on pp. 13-14:

“Finally, activities of the cone-specific THRB and ISL2 regulons, the rod-specific NRL regulon, and the pan-photoreceptor LHX3, OTX2, CRX, and NEUROD1 regulons increased to varying extents on transitioning from the immature iCP or iRP states to the early-maturing LM1 or ER states (Figure 10C).”

We also show expression of the same genes for spatiotemporally grouped cells from the Zuo et al. dataset in the new Figure S10B, which displays a similar pattern (apart from the possibly mixed pcw 10 and pcw13 designated rod precursors).

d. Early cone precursors with cone- and rod-related RNA expression

i. On page #12, the last paragraph where the authors explain the multiplex RNA FISH results of RXRγ and NR2E3 by citing Figure S8E. However, in Fig S8E, the authors used NRL to identify the rods. Please clarify which one of the rod markers was used to perform RNA FISH?

Figure S8E (where NRL was used as a rod marker) was cited to remind readers that RXRg has low expression in rods and high expression in cones, rather than to describe the results of this multiplex FISH section. To avoid confusion on this point, Figure S8E is now cited using “(as earlier shown in Figure S8E).” With this issue clarified, we expect the markers used in the FISH + IF analysis will be clear from the revised explanation, 

“… we examined GNAT2 and NR2E3 RNA co-expression in RXRg+ cone precursors in the outermost NBL and in RXRg+ rod precursors in the middle NBL … .” (p. 14-15).

To provide further clarity, we provide a diagram of the FISH probes, protein markers, and expression patterns in the new Figure 7E.

ii. The Y-axis of Fig 6G-6H needs to be labelled.

The axes have been re-labeled from “Nb of cells” to “Number of RXRg+ outermost NBL cells in each region” (original Fig. 6G, now Fig. 7C) and “Number of RXRg+ middle NBL cells in each region” (original Fig. 6H, now Fig. 7D).

iii. The legends of Figures 6G and 6H are unclear. In the Figure 6G legend, the authors indicate 'all cells are NR2E3 protein-'. Does that imply the yellow and green bars alone? Similarly, clarify the Figure 6H legend, what does the dark and light magenta refer to? What does the light magenta color referring to NR2E3+/ NR2E3- and the dark magenta color referring to NR2E3+/ NR2E3+ indicate? 

We regret the insufficient clarity. We revised the Fig. 6G (now Fig. 7C) key, which now reads

“All outermost NBL cells are NR2E3 protein-negative.”  We added to the figure legend for panel 7C,D “(n.b., italics are used for RNAs, non-italics for proteins).”  The new scheme in Figure 7E shows the RNAs in italics proteins in non-italics. We hope these changes will clarify when RNA or protein are represented in each histogram category.

Overall, the results (on page # 13) reflecting Figures 6E-6H & Figure S11 are confusing and difficult to understand. Clear descriptions and explanations are needed.

We revised this results section described in the paragraph now spanning p. 14:

-  We now refer to the bar colors in Figures 7C and 7D that support each statement. 

-  We provide an illustration of the findings in Figure 7E.

iv. Previously published literature has shown that cells of the inner NBL are RXRγ+ ganglion cells. So, how were these RXRγ+ ganglion cells in the inner NBL discriminated during multiplex RNA FISH (in Fig 6E-6H and in Fig S11)?

We thank the reviewer for requesting this clarification. We agree that “inner NBL” is the incorrect term for the region in which we examined RXRg+ photoreceptor precursors, as this could include RXRγ+ nascent RGCs. We now clarify that 

“we examined GNAT2 and NR2E3 RNA co-expression in RXRg+ cone precursors in the outermost NBL and in RXRg+ rod precursors in the middle NBL … .”  (p. 14-15) We further state, 

“Limiting our analysis to the outer and middle NBL allowed us to disregard RXRγ+ retinal ganglion cells in the retinal ganglion cell layer or inner NBL (top of p. 15)”

Figure 7E is provided to further aid the reader in understanding the positions examined, and the legend states “RXRg+ retinal ganglion cells in the inner NBL and ganglion cell layer not shown. 

v. In Figure 6E, what marker does each color cell correspond to?

In this figure (now panel 7A), we declined to provide the color key since the image is not sufficiently enlarged to visualize the IF and FISH signals. The figure is provided solely to document the regions analyzed and readers are now referred to “see Figure S12 for IF + FISH images” (2nd line, p. 15), where the marker colors are indicated.

vi. In Figure S11 & 6E, Protein and RNA transcript color of NR2E3, GNAT2 are hard to distinguish. Usage of other colors is recommended.  

We appreciate the reviewer’s concern related to the colors (in the now redesignated Figure S12 and 7A); however, we feel this issue is largely mitigated by our use of arrows to point to the cells needed to illustrate the proposed concepts in Figure S12B. All quantitation was performed by examining each color channel separately to ensure correct attribution, which is now mentioned in the Methods (2nd-to-last line of Quantitation of FISH section, p. 35).

vii. 

With due respect, we suggest that labeling each box (now in Figure 8B) makes the figure rather busy and difficult to infer the main point, which is that boxed regions were examined at various distanced from the center (denoted by the “C” and “0 mm”) with distances periodically indicated. We suggest the addition of such markers would not improve and might worsen the figure for most readers.    

e. An early L/M cone trajectory marked by successive lncRNA expression

i. In Figure 8C - color-coded labelling of LM1-4 clusters is recommended.

We note Fig. 8C (now 9C) is intended to use color to display the pseudotemporal positions of each cell. We recognize that an additional plot with the pseudotime line imposed on LM subcluster colors could provide some insights, yet we are unaware of available software for this and are unable to develop such software at present. To enable readers to obtain a visual impression of the pseudotime vs subcluster positions, we now refer the reader to Figure 5A in the revised figure legend, as follows:  (“The pseudotime trajectory may be related to LM1-LM4 subcluster distributions in Figure 5A.”).

ii. In Figure 8G - what does the horizontal color-coded bar below the lncRNAs name refer to? These bars are similar in all four graphs of the 8G figure.

As stated in the Fig. 8G (now 9G) legend, “Colored bars mark lncRNA expression regions as described in the text.”  We revised the text to more clearly identify the color code. (p. 18-19)   

f. Cone intrinsic SYK contributions to the proliferative response to pRB loss

i. In Fig 9F - The expression of ARR3+ cells (indicated by the green arrow in FW18) is poorly or rarely seen in the peripheral retina.

We thank the reviewer for finding this oversight. In panel 9F (now 10F), we removed the green arrows from the cells in the periphery, which are ARR3- due to the immaturity of cones in this region. 

ii. In Figure 9F - Did the authors stain the FW16 retina with ARR3?

Unfortunately, we did not stain the FW16 retina for ARR3 in this instance.

iii. Inclusion of DAPI staining for Fig 9F is recommended to justify the ONL & INL in the images.

We regret that we are unable to merge the DAPI in this instance due to the way in which the original staining was imaged.  A more detailed analysis corroborating and extending the current results is in progress. 

iv. Immunostaining images for Figure 9G are missing & are required to be included. What does shSCR in Fig 9G refer to?

We now provide representative immunostaining images below the panel (now 10G). The legend was updated: “Bottom: Example of Ki67, YFP, and RXRg co-immunostaining with DAPI+ nuclei (yellow outlines). Arrows: Ki67+, YFP+, RXRg+ nuclei.”  The revised legend now notes that shSCR refers to the scrambled control shRNA.

v. For Figure 9H - Is the presence and loss of SYK activity consistent with all the subpopulations (S & LM) of early maturing and matured cones?

We appreciate the reviewer’s question and interest (relating to the redesignated Figure 10H); however, we have not yet completed a comprehensive evaluation of SYK expression in all the subpopulations (S & LM) of early maturing and matured cones and will reserve such data for a subsequent study. We suggest that this information is not critical to the study’s major conclusions.

vi. Figure 9A is not explained in the results. Why were MYCN proteins assessed along with ARR3 and NRL? What does this imply?

We thank the reviewer for noting that this figure (now Figure 10A) was not clearly described. 

As per the response to Reviewer 1, point 6 , the text now states,  

“The upregulation of MYC target genes was of interest given that many MYC target genes are also MYCN targets, that MYCN protein is highly expressed in maturing (ARR3+) cone precursors but not in NRL+ rods (Figure 10A), and that MYCN is critical to the cone precursor proliferative response to pRB loss [8–10].” (middle, p. 19, new text underlined).

Hence, the figure demonstrates the cone cell specificity of high MYCN protein.  This is further noted in the Fig. 10a legend: “A. Immunofluorescent staining shows high MYCN in ARR3+ cones but not in NRL+ rods in FW18 retina.”

This is a very intriguing idea linking TRPV1-mediated calpain activation to downregulation of TRPV1! While your engineered HEK and CHO cell systems work well, can you perform this assay in more biologically relevant cells, such as DRGs, or cells more closely related to neurons, like keratinocytes, and examine endogenous proteins?

The SBD program works!

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Hussain and collaborators aims at deciphering the microtubule-dependent ribbon formation in zebrafish hair cells. By using confocal imaging, pharmacology tools, and zebrafish mutants, the group of Katie Kindt convincingly demonstrated that ribbon, the organelle that concentrates glutamate-filled vesicles at the hair cell synapse, originates from the fusion of precursors that move along the microtubule network. This study goes hand in hand with a complementary paper (Voorn et al.) showing similar results in mouse hair cells.

Strengths:

This study clearly tracked the dynamics of the microtubules, and those of the microtubule-associated ribbons and demonstrated fusion ribbon events. In addition, the authors have identified the critical role of kinesin Kif1aa in the fusion events. The results are compelling and the images and movies are magnificent.

Weaknesses:

The lack of functional data regarding the role of Kif1aa. Although it is difficult to probe and interpret the behavior of zebrafish after nocodazole treatment, I wonder whether deletion of kif1aa in hair cells may result in a functional deficit that could be easily tested in zebrafish?

We have examined functional deficits in kif1aa mutants in another paper that was recently accepted: David et al. 2024. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39373584/

In David et al., we found that in addition to a subtle role in ribbon fusion during development, Kif1aa plays a major role in enriching glutamate-filled synaptic vesicles at the presynaptic active zone of mature hair cells. In kif1aa mutants, synaptic vesicles are no longer enriched at the hair cell base, and there is a reduction in the number of synaptic vesicles associated with presynaptic ribbons. Further, we demonstrated that kif1aa mutants also have functional defects including reductions in spontaneous vesicle release (from hair cells) and evoked postsynaptic calcium responses. Behaviorally, kif1aa mutants exhibit impaired rheotaxis, indicating defects in the lateral-line system and an inability to accurately detect water flow. Because our current paper focuses on microtubule-associated ribbon movement and dynamics early in hair-cell development, we have only discussed the effects of Kif1aa directly related to ribbon dynamics during this time window. In our revision, we have referenced this recent work. Currently it is challenging to disentangle how the subtle defects in ribbon formation in kif1aa mutants contribute to the defects we observe in ribbon-synapse function.

Added to results:

“Recent work in our lab using this mutant has shown that Kif1aa is responsible for enriching glutamate-filled vesicles at the base of hair cells. In addition this work demonstrated that loss of Kif1aa results in functional defects in mature hair cells including a reduction in evoked post-synaptic calcium responses (David et al., 2024). We hypothesized that Kif1aa may also be playing an earlier role in ribbon formation.”

Impact:

The synaptogenesis in the auditory sensory cell remains still elusive. Here, this study indicates that the formation of the synaptic organelle is a dynamic process involving the fusion of presynaptic elements. This study will undoubtedly boost a new line of research aimed at identifying the specific molecular determinants that target ribbon precursors to the synapse and govern the fusion process.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors set out to resolve a long-standing mystery in the field of sensory biology - how large, presynaptic bodies called "ribbon synapses" migrate to the basolateral end of hair cells. The ribbon synapse is found in sensory hair cells and photoreceptors, and is a critical structural feature of a readily-releasable pool of glutamate that excites postsynaptic afferent neurons. For decades, we have known these structures exist, but the mechanisms that control how ribbon synapses coalesce at the bottom of hair cells are not well understood. The authors addressed this question by leveraging the highly-tractable zebrafish lateral line neuromast, which exhibits a small number of visible hair cells, easily observed in time-lapse imaging. The approach combined genetics, pharmacological manipulations, high-resolution imaging, and careful quantifications. The manuscript commences with a developmental time course of ribbon synapse development, characterizing both immature and mature ribbon bodies (defined by position in the hair cell, apical vs. basal). Next, the authors show convincing (and frankly mesmerizing) imaging data of plus end-directed microtubule trafficking toward the basal end of the hair cells, and data highlighting the directed motion of ribbon bodies. The authors then use a series of pharmacological and genetic manipulations showing the role of microtubule stability and one particular kinesin (Kif1aa) in the transport and fusion of ribbon bodies, which is presumably a prerequisite for hair cell synaptic transmission. The data suggest that microtubules and their stability are necessary for normal numbers of mature ribbons and that Kif1aa is likely required for fusion events associated with ribbon maturation. Overall, the data provide a new and interesting story on ribbon synapse dynamics.

Strengths:

(1) The manuscript offers a comprehensive Introduction and Discussion sections that will inform generalists and specialists.

(2) The use of Airyscan imaging in living samples to view and measure microtubule and ribbon dynamics in vivo represents a strength. With rigorous quantification and thoughtful analyses, the authors generate datasets often only obtained in cultured cells or more diminutive animal models (e.g., C. elegans).

(3) The number of biological replicates and the statistical analyses are strong. The combination of pharmacology and genetic manipulations also represents strong rigor.

(4) One of the most important strengths is that the manuscript and data spur on other questions - namely, do (or how do) ribbon bodies attach to Kinesin proteins? Also, and as noted in the Discussion, do hair cell activity and subsequent intracellular calcium rises facilitate ribbon transport/fusion?

These are important strengths and as stated we are currently investigating what other kinesins and adaptors and adaptor’s transport ribbons. We have ongoing work examining how hair-cell activity impacts ribbon fusion and transport!

Weaknesses:

(1) Neither the data or the Discussion address a direct or indirect link between Kinesins and ribbon bodies. Showing Kif1aa protein in proximity to the ribbon bodies would add strength.

This is a great point. Previous immunohistochemistry work in mice demonstrated that ribbons and Kif1a colocalize in mouse hair cells (Michanski et al, 2019). Unfortunately, the antibody used in study work did not work in zebrafish. To further investigate this interaction, we also attempted to create a transgenic line expressing a fluorescently tagged Kif1aa to directly visualize its association with ribbons in vivo. At present, we were unable to detect transient expression of Kif1aa-GFP or establish a transgenic line using this approach. While we will continue to work towards understanding whether Kif1aa and ribbons colocalize in live hair cells, currently this goal is beyond the scope of this paper. In our revision we discuss this caveat.

Added to discussion:

“In addition, it will be useful to visualize these kinesins by fluorescently tagging them in live hair cells to observe whether they associate with ribbons.”

(2) Neither the data or Discussion address the functional consequences of loss of Kif1aa or ribbon transport. Presumably, both manipulations would reduce afferent excitation.

Excellent point. Please see the response above to Reviewer #1 public response weaknesses.

(3) It is unknown whether the drug treatments or genetic manipulations are specific to hair cells, so we can't know for certain whether any phenotypic defects are secondary.

This is correct and a caveat of our Kif1aa and drug experiments. In our recently published work, we confirmed that Kif1aa is expressed in hair cells and neurons, while kif1ab is present just is neurons. Therefore, it is likely that the ribbon formation defects in kif1aa mutants are restricted to hair cells. We added this expression information to our results:

“ScRNA-seq in zebrafish has demonstrated widespread co-expression of kif1ab and kif1aa mRNA in the nervous system. Additionally, both scRNA-seq and fluorescent in situ hybridization have revealed that pLL hair cells exclusively express kif1aa mRNA (David et al., 2024; Lush et al., 2019; Sur et al., 2023).”

Non-hair cell effects are a real concern in our pharmacology experiments. To mitigate this in our pharmacological experiments, we have performed drug treatments at 3 different timescales: long-term (overnight), short-term (4 hr) and fast (30 min) treatments. The fast experiments were done after 30 min nocodazole drug treatment, and after this treatment we observed reduced directional motion and fusions. This fast drug treatment should not incur any long-term changes or developmental defects as hair-cell development occurs over 12-16 hrs. However, we acknowledge that drug treatments could have secondary phenotypic effects or effects that are not hair-cell specific. In our revision, we discuss these issues.

Added to discussion:

“Another important consideration is the potential off-target effects of nocodazole. Even at non-cytotoxic doses, nocodazole toxicity may impact ribbons and synapses independently of its effects on microtubules. While this is less of a concern in the short- and medium-term experiments (30-70 min and 4 hr), long-term treatments (16 hrs) could introduce confounding effects. Additionally, nocodazole treatment is not hair cell-specific and could disrupt microtubule organization within afferent terminals as well. Thus, the reduction in ribbon-synapse formation following prolonged nocodazole treatment may result from microtubule disruption in hair cells, afferent terminals, or a combination of the two.”

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

The manuscript uses live imaging to study the role of microtubules in the movement of ribeye aggregates in neuromast hair cells in zebrafish. The main findings are that

(1) Ribeye aggregates, assumed to be ribbon precursors, move in a directed motion toward the active zone;

(2) Disruption of microtubules and kif1aa increases the number of ribeye aggregates and decreases the number of mature synapses.

The evidence for point 2 is compelling, while the evidence for point 1 is less convincing. In particular, the directed motion conclusion is dependent upon fitting of mean squared displacement that can be prone to error and variance to do stochasticity, which is not accounted for in the analysis. Only a small subset of the aggregates meet this criteria and one wonders whether the focus on this subset misses the bigger picture of what is happening with the majority of spots.

Strengths:

(1) The effects of Kif1aa removal and nocodozole on ribbon precursor number and size are convincing and novel.

(2) The live imaging of Ribeye aggregate dynamics provides interesting insight into ribbon formation. The movies showing the fusion of ribeye spots are convincing and the demonstrated effects of nocodozole and kif1aa removal on the frequency of these events is novel.

(3) The effect of nocodozole and kif1aa removal on precursor fusion is novel and interesting.

(4) The quality of the data is extremely high and the results are interesting.

Weaknesses:

(1) To image ribeye aggregates, the investigators overexpressed Ribeye-a TAGRFP under the control of a MyoVI promoter. While it is understandable why they chose to do the experiments this way, expression is not under the same transcriptional regulation as the native protein, and some caution is warranted in drawing some conclusions. For example, the reduction in the number of puncta with maturity may partially reflect the regulation of the MyoVI promoter with hair cell maturity. Similarly, it is unknown whether overexpression has the potential to saturate binding sites (for example motors), which could influence mobility.

We agree that overexpression of transgenes under using a non-endogenous promoter in transgenic lines is an important consideration. Ideally, we would do these experiments with endogenously expressed fluorescent proteins under a native promoter. However, this was not technically possible for us. The decrease in precursors is likely not due to regulation by the myo6a promoter. Although the myo6a promoter comes on early in hair cell development, the promoter only gets stronger as the hair cells mature. This would lead to a continued increase rather than a decrease in puncta numbers with development.

Protein tags such as tagRFP always have the caveat of impacting protein function. This is in partly why we complemented our live imaging with analyses in fixed tissue without transgenes (kif1aa mutants and nocodazole/taxol treatments).

In our revision, we did perform an immunolabel on myo6b:riba-tagRFP transgenic fish and found that Riba-tagRFP expression did not impact ribbon synapse numbers or ribbon size. This analysis argues that the transgene is expressed at a level that does not impact ribbon synapses. This data is summarized in Figure 1-S1.

Added to the results:

“Although this latter transgene expresses Riba-TagRFP under a non-endogenous promoter, neither the tag nor the promoter ultimately impacts cell numbers, synapse counts, or ribbon size (Figure 1-S1A-E).”

Added to methods:

“Tg(myo6b:ctbp2a-TagRFP)^idc11Tg reliably labels mature ribbons, similar to a pan-CTBP immunolabel at 5 dpf (Figure 1-S1B). This transgenic line does not alter the number of hair cells or complete synapses per hair cell (Figure 1-S1A-D). In addition, myo6b:ctbp2a-TagRFP does not alter the size of ribbons (Figure 1-S1E).”

(2) The examples of punctae colocalizing with microtubules look clear (Figures 1 F-G), but the presentation is anecdotal. It would be better and more informative, if quantified.

We did attempt a co-localization analysis between microtubules and ribbons but did not move forward with it due to several issues:

(1) Hair cells have an extremely crowded environment, especially since the nucleus occupies the majority of the cell. All proteins are pushed together in the small space surrounding the nucleus and ultimately, we found that co-localization analyses were not meaningful because the distances were too small.

(2) We also attempted to segment microtubules in these images and quantify how many ribbons were associated with microtubules, but 3D microtubule segmentation was not accurate in hair cells due to highly varying filament intensities, filament dynamics and the presence of diffuse cytoplasmic tubulin signal.

Because of these challenges we concluded the best evidence of ribbon-microtubule association is through visualization of ribbons and their association with microtubules over time (in our timelapses). We see that ribbons localize to microtubules in all our timelapses, including the examples shown (Movies S2-S10). The only instance of ribbon dissociation it when ribbons switch from one filament to another. We did not observe free-floating ribbons in our study.

(3) It appears that any directed transport may be rare. Simply having an alpha >1 is not sufficient to declare movement to be directed (motor-driven transport typically has an alpha approaching 2). Due to the randomness of a random walk and errors in fits in imperfect data will yield some spread in movement driven by Brownian motion. Many of the tracks in Figure 3H look as though they might be reasonably fit by a straight line (i.e. alpha = 1).

(4) The "directed motion" shown here does not really resemble motor-driven transport observed in other systems (axonal transport, for example) even in the subset that has been picked out as examples here. While the role of microtubules and kif1aa in synapse maturation is strong, it seems likely that this role may be something non-canonical (which would be interesting).

Yes, it is true, that directed transport of ribbon precursors is relatively rare. Only a small subset of the ribbon precursors moves directionally (α > 1, 20 %) or have a displacement distance > 1 µm (36 %) during the time windows we are imaging. The majority of the ribbons are stationary. To emphasize this result we have added bar graphs to Figure 3I,K to illustrate this result and state the numbers behind this result more clearly.

“Upon quantification, 20.2 % of ribbon tracks show α > 1, indicative of directional motion, but the majority of ribbon tracks (79.8 %) show α < 1, indicating confinement on microtubules (Figure 3I, n = 10 neuromasts, 40 hair cells, and 203 tracks).

To provide a more comprehensive analysis of precursor movement, we also examined displacement distance (Figure 3J). Here, as an additional measure of directed motion, we calculated the percent of tracks with a cumulative displacement > 1 µm. We found 35.6 % of tracks had a displacement > 1 µm (Figure 3K; n = 10 neuromasts, 40 hair cells, and 203 tracks).”

We cannot say for certain what is happening with the stationary ribbons, but our hypothesis is that these ribbons eventually exhibit directed motion sufficient to reach the active zone. This idea is supported by the fact that we see ribbons that are stationary begin movement, and ribbons that are moving come to a stop during the acquisition of our timelapses (Movies S4 and S5). It is possible that ribbons that are stationary may not have enough motors attached, or there may be a ‘seeding’ phase where Ribeye aggregates are condensing on the ribbon.

We also reexamined our MSD a values as the a values we observed in hair cells were lower than those seen canonical motor-driven transport (where a approaches 2). One reason for this difference may arise from the dynamic microtubule network in developing hair cells, which could affect directional ribbon movement. In our revision we plotted the distribution of a values which confirmed that in control hair cells, the majority of the a values we see are typically less than 2 (Figure 7-S1A). Interestingly we also compared the distribution a values between control and taxol-treated hair cells, where the microtubule network is more stable, and found that the distribution shifted towards higher a values (Figure 7-S1A). We also plotted only ‘directional’ tracks (with a > 1) and observed significantly higher a values in taxol-treated hair cells (Figure 7-S1B). This is an interesting result which indicates that although the proportion of directional tracks (with a > 1) is not significantly different between control and taxol-treated hair cells (which could be limited by the number of motor/adapter proteins), the ribbons that move directionally do so with greater velocities when the microtubules are more stable. This supports our idea that the stability of the microtubule network could be why ribbon movement does not resemble canonical motor transport. This analysis is presented as a new figure (Figure 7-S1A-B) and is referred to in the text in the results and the discussion.

Results:

“Interestingly, when we examined the distribution of α values, we observed that taxol treatment shifted the overall distribution towards higher α a values (Figure 7-S1A). In addition, when we plotted only tracks with directional motion (α > 1), we found significantly higher α values in hair cells treated with taxol compared to controls (Figure 7-S1B). This indicates that in taxol-treated hair cells, where the microtubule network is stabilized, ribbons with directional motion have higher velocities.”

Discussion:

“Our findings indicate that ribbons and precursors show directed motion indicative of motor-mediated transport (Figure 3 and 7). While a subset of ribbons moves directionally with α values > 1, canonical motor-driven transport in other systems, such as axonal transport, can achieve even higher α values approaching 2 (Bellotti et al., 2021; Corradi et al., 2020). We suggest that relatively lower α values arise from the highly dynamic nature of microtubules in hair cells. In axons, microtubules form stable, linear tracks that allow kinesins to transport cargo with high velocity. In contrast, the microtubule network in hair cells is highly dynamic, particularly near the cell base. Within a single time frame (50-100 s), we observe continuous movement and branching of these networks. This dynamic behavior adds complexity to ribbon motion, leading to frequent stalling, filament switching, and reversals in direction. As a result, ribbon transport appears less directional than the movement of traditional motor cargoes along stable axonal filaments, resulting in lower α values compared to canonical motor-mediated transport. Notably, treatment with taxol, which stabilizes microtubules, increased α values to levels closer to those observed in canonical motor-driven transport (Figure 7-S1). This finding supports the idea that the relatively lower α values in hair cells are a consequence of a more dynamic microtubule network. Overall, this dynamic network gives rise to a slower, non-canonical mode of transport.”

(5) The effect of acute treatment with nocodozole on microtubules in movie 7 and Figure 6 is not obvious to me and it is clear that whatever effect it has on microtubules is incomplete.

When using nocodazole, we worked to optimize the concentration of the drug to minimize cytotoxicity, while still being effective. While the more stable filaments at the cell apex remain largely intact after nocodazole treatment, there are almost no filaments at the hair cell base, which is different from the wild-type hair cells. In addition, nocodazole-treated hair cells have more cytoplasmic YFP-tubulin signal compared to wild type. We have clarified this in our results. To better illustrate the effect of nocodazole and taxol we have also added additional side-view images of hair cells expressing YFP-tubulin (Figure 4-S1F-G), that highlight cytoplasmic YFP-tubulin and long, stabilized microtubules after 3-4 hr treatment with nocodazole and taxol respectively. In these images we also point out microtubules at the apical region of hair cells that are very stable and do not completely destabilize with nocodazole treatment at concentrations that are tolerable to hair cells.

“We verified the effectiveness of our in vivo pharmacological treatments using either 500 nM nocodazole or 25 µM taxol by imaging microtubule dynamics in pLL hair cells (myo6b:YFP-tubulin). After a 30-min pharmacological treatment, we used Airyscan confocal microscopy to acquire timelapses of YFP-tubulin (3 µm z-stacks, every 50-100 s for 30-70 min, Movie S8). Compared to controls, 500 nM nocodazole destabilized microtubules (presence of depolymerized YFP-tubulin in the cytosol, see arrows in Figure 4-S1F-G) and 25 µM taxol dramatically stabilized microtubules (indicated by long, rigid microtubules, see arrowheads in Figure 4-S1F,H) in pLL hair cells. We did still observe a subset of apical microtubules after nocodazole treatment, indicating that this population is particularly stable (see asterisks in Figure 4-S1F-H).”

To further address concerns about verifying the efficacy of nocodazole and taxol treatment on microtubules, we added a quantification of our immunostaining data comparing the mean acetylated-a-tubulin intensities between control, nocodazole and taxol-treated hair cells. Our results show that nocodazole treatment reduces the mean acetylated-a-tubulin intensity in hair cells. This is included as a new figure (Figure 4-S1D-E) and this result is referred to in the text. To better illustrate the effect of nocodazole and taxol we have also added additional side-view images of hair cells after overnight treatment with nocodazole and taxol (Figure 4-S1A-C).

“After a 16-hr treatment with 250 nM nocodazole we observed a decrease in acetylated-a-tubulin label (qualitative examples: Figure 4A,C, Figure 4-S1A-B). Quantification revealed significantly less mean acetylated-a-tubulin label in hair cells after nocodazole treatment (Figure 4-S1D). Less acetylated-a-tubulin label indicates that our nocodazole treatment successfully destabilized microtubules.”

“Qualitatively more acetylated-a-tubulin label was observed after treatment, indicating that our taxol treatment successfully stabilized microtubules (qualitative examples: Figure 4-S1A,C). Quantification revealed an overall increase in mean acetylated-a-tubulin label in hair cells after taxol treatment, but this increase did not reach significance (Figure 4-S1E).”

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) The manuscript is fairly dense. For instance, some information is repeated (page 3 ribbon synapses form along a condensed timeline in zebrafish hair cells: 12-18 hrs, and on .page 5. These hair cells form 3-4 ribbon synapses in just 12-18 hrs). Perhaps, the authors could condense some of the ideas? The introduction could be shortened.

We have eliminated this repeated text in our revision. We have shortened the introduction 1275 to 1038 words (with references)

(2) The mechanosensory structure on page 5 is not defined for readers outside the field.

Great point, we have added addition information to define this structure in the results:

“We staged hair cells based on the development of the apical, mechanosensory hair bundle. The hair bundle is composed of actin-based stereocilia and a tubulin-based kinocilium. We used the height of the kinocilium (see schematic in Figure 1B), the tallest part of the hair bundle, to estimate the developmental stage of hair cells as described previously…”

(3) Figure 1E is quite interesting but I'd rather show Figure S1 B/C as they provide statistics. In addition, the authors define 4 stages : early, intermediate, late, and mature for counting but provide only 3 panels for representative examples by mixing late/mature.

We were torn about which ribbon quantification graph to show. Ultimately, we decided to keep the summary data in Figure 1E. This is primarily because the supplementary Figure will be adjacent to the main Figure in the Elife format, and the statistics will be easy to find and view.

Figure 1 now provides a representative image for both late and mature hair cells.

(4.) The ribbon that jumps from one microtubule to another one is eye-catching. Can the authors provide any statistics on this (e.g. percentage)?

Good point. In our revision, we have added quantification for these events. We observe 2.8 switching events per neuromast during our fast timelapses. This information is now in the text and is also shown in a graph in Figure 3-S1D.

“Third, we often observed that precursors switched association between neighboring microtubules (2.8 switching events per neuromast, n= 10 neuromasts; Figure 3-S1C-D, Movie S7).”

(5) With regard to acetyl-a-tub immunocytochemistry, I would suggest obtaining a profile of the fluorescence intensity on a horizontal plane (at the apical part and at the base).

(6) Same issue with microtubule destruction by nocodazole. Can the authors provide fluorescence intensity measurements to convince readers of microtubule disruption for long and short-term application.

Regarding quantification of microtubule disruption using nocodazole and taxol. We did attempt to create profiles of the acetylated tubulin or YFP-tubulin label along horizontal planes at the apex and base, but the amount variability among cells and the angle of the cell in the images made this type of display and quantification challenging. In our revision we as stated above in our response to Reviewer #1’s public comment, we have added representative side-view images to show the disruptions to microtubules more clearly after short and long-term drug experiments (Figure 4-S1A-C, F-H). In addition, we quantified the reduction in acetylated tubulin label after overnight treatment with nocodazole and found the signal was significantly reduced (Figure 3-S1D-E). Unfortunately, we were unable to do a similar quantification due to the variability in YFP-tubulin intensity due to variations in mounting. The following text has been added to the results:

“Quantification revealed significantly less mean acetylated-a-tubulin label in hair cells after nocodazole treatment (Figure 4-S1D).”

“Quantification revealed an overall increase in mean acetylated-a-tubulin label in hair cells after taxol treatment, but this increase did not reach significance (Figure 4-S1A,C,E).”

(7) It is a bit difficult to understand that the long-term (overnight) microtubule destabilization leads to a reduction in the number of synapses (Figure 4F) whereas short-term (30 min) microtubule destabilization leads to the opposite phenotype with an increased number of ribbons (Figure 6G). Are these ribbons still synaptic in short-term experiments? What is the size of the ribbons in the short-term experiments? Alternatively, could the reduction in synapse number upon long-term application of nocodazole be a side-effect of the toxicity within the hair cell?

Agreed-this is a bit confusing. In our revision, we have changed our analyses, so the comparisons are more similar between the short- and long-term experiments–we examined the number of ribbons and precursor per cells (apical and basal) in both experiments (Changed the panel in Figure 4G, Figure 4-S2G and Figure 5G). In our live experiments we cannot be sure that ribbons are synaptic as we do not have a postsynaptic co-label. Also, we are unable to reliably quantify ribbon and precursor size in our live images due to variability in mounting. We have changed the text to clarify as follows:

Results:

“In each developing cell, we quantified the total number of Riba-TagRFP puncta (apical and basal) before and after each treatment. In our control samples we observed on average no change in the number of Riba-TagRFP puncta per cell (Figure 6G). Interestingly, we observed that nocodazole treatment led to a significant increase in the total number of Riba-TagRFP puncta after 3-4 hrs (Figure 6G). This result is similar to our overnight nocodazole experiments in fixed samples, where we also observed an increase in the number of ribbons and precursors per hair cell. In contrast to our 3-4 hr nocodazole treatment, similar to controls, taxol treatment did not alter the total number of Riba-TagRFP puncta over 3-4 hrs (Figure 6G). Overall, our overnight and 3-4 hr pharmacology experiments demonstrate that microtubule destabilization has a more significant impact on ribbon numbers compared to microtubule stabilization.”

Discussion:

“Ribbons and microtubules may interact during development to promote fusion, to form larger ribbons. Disrupting microtubules could interfere with this process, preventing ribbon maturation. Consistent with this, short-term (3-4 hr) and long-term (overnight) nocodazole increased ribbon and precursor numbers (Figure 6AG; Figure 4G), suggesting reduced fusion. Long-term treatment (overnight) resulted in a shift toward smaller ribbons (Figure 4H-I), and ultimately fewer complete synapses (Figure 4F).”

Nocodazole toxicity: in response to Reviewer # 2’s public comment we have added the following text in our discussion:

Discussion:

“Another important consideration is the potential off-target effects of nocodazole. Even at non-cytotoxic doses, nocodazole toxicity may impact ribbons and synapses independently of its effects on microtubules. While this is less of a concern in the short- and medium-term experiments (30 min to 4 hr), long-term treatments (16 hrs) could introduce confounding effects. Additionally, nocodazole treatment is not hair cell-specific and could disrupt microtubule organization within afferent terminals as well. Thus, the reduction in ribbon-synapse formation following prolonged nocodazole treatment may result from microtubule disruption in hair cells, afferent terminals, or a combination of the two.”

(8) Does ribbon motion depend on size or location?

It is challenging to reliability quantify the actual area of precursors in our live samples, as there is variability in mounting and precursors are quite small. But we did examine the location of ribbon precursors (using tracks > 1 µm as these tracks can easily be linked to cell location in Imaris) with motion in the cell. We found evidence of ribbons with tracks > 1 µm throughout the cell, both above and below the nucleus. This is now plotted in Figure 3M. We have also added the following test to the results:

“In addition, we examined the location of precursors within the cell that exhibited displacements > 1 µm. We found that 38.9 % of these tracks were located above the nucleus, while 61.1 % were located below the nucleus (Figure 3M).”

Although this is not an area or size measurement, this result suggests that both smaller precursors that are more apical, and larger precursors/ribbons that are more basal all show motion.

(9) The fusion event needs to be analyzed in further detail: when one ribbon precursor fuses with another one, is there an increase in size or intensity (this should follow the law of mass conservation)? This is important to support the abstract sentence "ribbon precursors can fuse together on microtubules to form larger ribbons".

As mentioned above it is challenging accurately estimate the absolute size or intensity of ribbon precursors in our live preparation. But we did examine whether there is a relative increase in area after ribbon fuse. We have plotted the change in area (within the same samples) for the two fusion events in shown in Figure 8-S1A-B. In these examples, the area of the puncta after fusion is larger than either of the two precursors that fuse. Although the areas are not additive, these plots do provide some evidence that fusion does act to form larger ribbons. To accompany these plots, we have added the following text to the results:

“Although we could not accurately measure the areas of precursors before and after fusion, we observed that the relative area resulting from the fusion of two smaller precursors was greater than that of either precursor alone. This increase in area suggests that precursor fusion may serve as a mechanism for generating larger ribbons (see examples: Figure 8-S1A-B).”

Because we were unable to provide more accurate evidence of precursor fusion resulting in larger ribbons, we have removed this statement from our abstract and lessened our claims elsewhere in the manuscript.

(10) The title in Figure 8 is a bit confusing. If fusion events reflect ribbon precursors fusion, it is obvious it depends on ribbon precursors. I'd like to replace this title with something like "microtubules and kif1aa are required for fusion events"

We have changed the figure title as suggested, good idea.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) Figure 1C. The purple/magenta colors are hard to distinguish.

We have made the magenta color much lighter in the Figure 1C to make it easier to distinguish purple and magenta.

(2) There are places where some words are unnecessarily hyphenated. Examples: live-imaging and hair-cell in the abstract, time-course in the results.

In our revision, we have done our best to remove unnecessary hyphens, including the ones pointed out here.

(3) Figure 4H and elsewhere - what is "area of Ribeye puncta?" Related, I think, in the Discussion the authors refer to "ribbon volume" on line 484. But they never measured ribbon volume so this needs to be clarified.

We have done best to clarify what is meant by area of Ribeye puncta in the results and the methods:

Results:

“We also observed that the average of individual Ribeyeb puncta (from 2D max-projected images) was significantly reduced compared to controls (Figure 4H). Further, the relative frequency of individual Ribeyeb puncta with smaller areas was higher in nocodazole treated hair cells compared to controls (Figure 4I).”

Methods:

“To quantify the area of each ribbon and precursor, images were processed in a FIJI ‘IJMacro_AIRYSCAN_simple3dSeg_ribbons only.ijm’ as previously described (Wong et al., 2019). Here each Airyscan z-stack was max-projected. A threshold was applied to each image, followed by segmentation to delineate individual Ribeyeb/CTBP puncta. The watershed function was used to separate adjacent puncta. A list of 2D objects of individual ROIs (minimum size filter of 0.002 μm2) was created to measure the 2D areas of each Ribeyeb/CTBP puncta.”

We did refer to ribbon volume once in the discussion, but volume is not reflected in our analyses, so we have removed this mention of volume.

(4) More validation data showing gene/protein removal for the crispants would be helpful.

Great suggestion. As this is a relatively new method, we have created a figure that outlines how we genotype each individual crispant animal analyzed in our study Figure 6-S1. In the methods we have also added the following information:

“fPCR fragments were run on a genetic analyzer (Applied Biosystems, 3500XL) using LIZ500 (Applied Biosystems, 4322682) as a dye standard. Analysis of this fPCR revealed an average peak height of 4740 a.u. in wild type, and an average peak height of 126 a.u. in kif1aa F0 crispants (Figure 6-S1). Any kif1aa F0 crispant without robust genomic cutting or a peak height > 500 a.u. was not included in our analyses.”

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Lines 208-209--should refer to the movie in the text.

Movie S1 is now referenced here.

It would be helpful if the authors could analyze and quantify the effect of nocodozole and taxol on microtubules (movie 7).

See responses above to Reviewer #1’s similar request.

Figure 7 caption says "500 mM" nocodozole.

Thank you, we have changed the caption to 500 nM.

One problem with the MSD analysis is that it is dependent upon fits of individual tracks that lead to inaccuracies in assigning diffusive, restricted, and directed motion. The authors might be able to get around these problems by looking at the ensemble averages of all the tracks and seeing how they change with the various treatments. Even if the effect is on a subset of ribeye spots, it would be reassuring to see significant effects that did not rely upon fitting.

We are hesitant to average the MSD tracks as not all tracks have the same number of time steps (ribbon moving in and out of the z-stack during the timelapse). This makes it challenging for us to look at the ensembles of all averages accurately, especially for the duration of the timelapse. This is the main reason why added another analysis, displacements > 1µm as another readout of directional motion, a measure that does not rely upon fitting.

The abstract states that directed movement is toward the synapse. The only real evidence for this is a statement in the results: "Of the tracks that showed directional motion, while the majority move to the cell base, we found that 21.2 % of ribbon tracks moved apically." A clearer demonstration of this would be to do the analysis of Figure 2G for the ribeye aggregates.

If was not possible to do the same analysis to ribbon tracks that we did for the EB3-GFP analysis in Figure 2. In Figure 2 we did a 2D tracking analysis and measured the relative angles in 2D. In contrast, the ribbon tracking was done in 3D in Imaris not possible to get angles in the same way. Further the MSD analysis was outside of Imaris, making it extremely difficult to link ribbon trajectories to the 3D cellular landscape in Imaris. Instead, we examined the direction of the 3D vectors in Imaris with tracks > 1µm and determined the direction of the motion (apical, basal or undetermined). For clarity, this data is now included as a bar graph in Figure 3L. In our results, we have clarified the results of this analysis:

“To provide a more comprehensive analysis of precursor movement, we also examined displacement distance (Figure 3J). Here, as an additional measure of directed motion, we calculated the percent of tracks with a cumulative displacement > 1 µm. We found 35.6 % of tracks had a displacement > 1 µm (Figure 3K; n = 10 neuromasts, 40 hair cells and 203 tracks). Of the tracks with displacement > 1 µm, the majority of ribbon tracks (45.8 %) moved to the cell base, but we also found a subset of ribbon tracks (20.8 %) that moved apically (33.4 % moved in an undetermined direction) (Figure 3L).”

Some more detail about the F0 crispants should be provided. In particular, what degree of cutting was observed and what was the criteria for robust cutting?

See our response to Reviewer 2 and the newly created Figure 6-S1.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary

This work investigated the immune response in the murine retina after focal laser lesions. These lesions are made with close to 2 orders of magnitude lower laser power than the more prevalent choroidal neovascularization model of laser ablation. Histology and OCT together show that the laser insult is localized to the photoreceptors and spares the inner retina, the vasculature and the pigment epithelium. As early as 1-day after injury, a loss of cell bodies in the outer nuclear layer is observed. This is accompanied by strong microglial proliferation to the site of injury in the outer retina where microglia do not typically reside. The injury did not seem to result in the extravasation of neutrophils from the capillary network, constituting one of the main findings of the paper. The demonstrated paradigm of studying the immune response and potentially retinal remodeling in the future in vivo is valuable and would appeal to a broad audience in visual neuroscience.

Strengths

Adaptive optics imaging of murine retina is cutting edge and enables non-destructive visualization of fluorescently labeled cells in the milieu of retinal injury. As may be obvious, this in vivo approach is a benefit for studying fast and dynamic immune processes on a local time scale - minutes and hours, and also for the longer days-to-months follow-up of retinal remodeling as demonstrated in the article. In certain cases, the in vivo findings are corroborated with histology.

The analysis is sound and accompanied by stunning video and static imagery. A few different sets of mouse models are used: a) two different mouse lines, each with a fluorescent tag for neutrophils and microglia, b) two different models of inflammation - endotoxin-induced uveitis (EAU) and laser ablation are used to study differences in the immune interaction.

One of the major advances in this article is the development of the laser ablation model for 'mild' retinal damage as an alternative to the more severe neovascularization models. This model would potentially allow for controlling the size, depth and severity of the laser injury opening interesting avenues for future study.

The time-course, 2D and 3D spatial activation pattern of microglial activation are striking and provide an unprecedented view of the retinal response to mild injury.

Editor's note: The authors have addressed all the previous concerns raised by the reviewers.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the previous reviews

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This study uses in vivo multimodal high-resolution imaging to track how microglia and neutrophils respond to light-induced retinal injury from soon after injury to 2 months post-injury. The in vivo imaging finding was subsequently verified by ex vivo study. The results suggest that despite the highly active microglia at the injury site, neutrophils were not recruited in response to acute light-induced retinal injury.

Strengths:

An extremely thorough examination of the cellular-level immune activity at the injury site. In vivo imaging observations being verified using ex vivo techniques is a strong plus.

Thank you!

Weaknesses:

This paper is extremely long, and in the perspective of this reviewer, needs to be better organized. Update: Modifications have been made throughout, which has made the manuscript easier to follow.

Thank you!

Study weakness: though the finding prompts more questions and future studies, the findings discussed in this paper is potentially important for us to understand how the immune cells respond differently to different severity level of injury. The study also demonstrated an imaging technology which may help us better understand cellular activity in living tissue during earlier time points.

We agree that AOSLO has much to offer and this represents some of the earliest reports of its kind.  

Comments on revisions:

I appreciate the thorough clarification and re-organization by the authors, and the messages in the manuscript are now more apparent. I recommend also briefly discussing limitations/future improvements in the discussion or conclusion.

We have added a section to the discussion entitled “Limitations and future improvements”, please see lines 665 – 677.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary

This work investigated the immune response in the murine retina after focal laser lesions. These lesions are made with close to 2 orders of magnitude lower laser power than the more prevalent choroidal neovascularization model of laser ablation. Histology and OCT together show that the laser insult is localized to the photoreceptors and spares the inner retina, the vasculature and the pigment epithelium. As early as 1-day after injury, a loss of cell bodies in the outer nuclear layer is observed. This is accompanied by strong microglial proliferation to the site of injury in the outer retina where microglia do not typically reside. The injury did not seem to result in the extravasation of neutrophils from the capillary network, constituting one of the main findings of the paper. The demonstrated paradigm of studying the immune response and potentially retinal remodeling in the future in vivo is valuable and would appeal to a broad audience in visual neuroscience.

Strengths

Adaptive optics imaging of murine retina is cutting edge and enables non-destructive visualization of fluorescently labeled cells in the milieu of retinal injury. As may be obvious, this in vivo approach is a benefit for studying fast and dynamic immune processes on a local time scale - minutes and hours, and also for the longer days-to-months follow-up of retinal remodeling as demonstrated in the article. In certain cases, the in vivo findings are corroborated with histology.

Thank you!

The analysis is sound and accompanied by stunning video and static imagery. A few different sets of mouse models are used, a) two different mouse lines, each with a fluorescent tag for neutrophils and microglia, b) two different models of inflammation - endotoxin-induced uveitis (EAU) and laser ablation are used to study differences in the immune interaction.

Thank you!

One of the major advances in this article is the development of the laser ablation model for 'mild' retinal damage as an alternative to the more severe neovascularization models. This model would potentially allow for controlling the size, depth and severity of the laser injury opening interesting avenues for future study.

Thank you!

The time-course, 2D and 3D spatial activation pattern of microglial activation are striking and provide an unprecedented view of the retinal response to mild injury.

We agree that this more complete spatial and temporal evaluation made possible by in vivo imaging is novel.

Weaknesses

Generalization of the (lack of) neutrophil response to photoreceptor loss - there is ample evidence in literature that neutrophils are heavily recruited in response to severe retinal damage that includes photoreceptor loss. Why the same was not observed here in this article remains an open question. One could hypothesize that neutrophil recruitment might indeed occur under conditions that are more in line with the more extreme damage models, for example, with a stronger and global ablation (substantially more photoreceptor loss over a larger area). This parameter space is unwieldy and sufficiently large to address the question conclusively in the current article, i.e. how much photoreceptor loss leads to neutrophil recruitment? By the same token, the strong and general conclusion in the title - Photoreceptor loss does not recruit neutrophils - cannot be made until an exhaustive exploration be made of the same parameter space. A scaling back may help here, to reflect the specific, mild form of laser damage explored here, for instance - Mild photoreceptor loss does not recruit neutrophils despite...

We are striving for clarity and accuracy in our title without adding too many qualifiers.  At present, we feel that the title as submitted is consistent and aligned with the central finding of our manuscript.  The nuance that the reviewer points to is elaborated in the body of the manuscript and we hope the general readership appreciates the same level of detail as appreciated by reviewer #3.

EIU model - The EIU model was used as a positive control for neutrophil extravasation. Prior work with flow cytometry has shown a substantial increase in neutrophil counts in the EIU model. Yet, in all, the entire article shows exactly 2 examples in vivo and 3 ex vivo (Figure 7) of extravasated neutrophils from the EIU model (n = 2 mice). The general conclusion made about neutrophil recruitment (or lack thereof) is built partly upon this positive control experiment. But these limited examples, especially in the case where literature reports a preponderance of extravasated neutrophils, raise a question on the paradigm(s) used to evaluate this effect in the mild laser damage model.

This is a helpful suggestion. We agree that readers should see more evidence of the positive control. Therefore we have now included two more supplementary files that show that there is a strong neutrophil response to EIU.  In Figure 7 – supplementary figure 1, we show many Ly-6G-positive neutrophils in the retina seen with histology at the 24 hour time point. In Figure 7 – video 3, we show massive Catchup-positive neutrophil presence in vivo at 24hrs as well.  This aligns with our positive control and also the literature.

Overall, the strengths outweigh the weaknesses, provided the conclusions/interpretations are reconsidered.

With the added clarification about the magnitude of the neutrophil response in EIU, we feel that the conclusions presented in the manuscript as-is are valid and appropriate.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

The authors are applauded for embracing the reviewers' feedback and making substantial revisions. Some minor comments below:

The weakness noted in the public review encourages the authors to reconsider the interpretations drawn based on the results. One would have expected to see far more examples of extravasated neutrophils from the EIU model. That this was not seen weakens the neutrophil recruitment claim substantially. Even without this claim, the methods, laser damage model, time-course and spatial activation pattern of microglial activation are all striking and unprecedented. So, as stated in the public review, the strengths do indeed outweigh the weaknesses once the neutrophil claim is softened.

We address this in the response above. A strong neutrophil response was observed to EIU. This was confirmed with both histology and in vivo imaging.

This was alluded to by Reviewer 1 in the prior review - at times, there is an overemphasis on imaging technology that distracts from the scientific questions. The imaging is undoubtedly cutting-edge but also documented in prior work by the authors. Any efforts to reduce or balance the emphasis would help with the general flow.

Given that these discoveries are made possible partly through new technology, we prefer to keep the details of the innovation in the current manuscript. Given the exceptionally large readership of eLife, we feel some description of the AOSLO imaging is warranted in the manuscript.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Reviewer 1 (Public review):

Summary:

Gene transfer agent (GTA) from Bartonella is a fascinating chimeric GTA that evolved from the domestication of two phages. Not much is known about how the expression of the BaGTA is regulated. In this manuscript, Korotaev et al noted the structural similarity between BrrG (a protein encoded by the ror locus of BaGTA) to a well-known transcriptional anti-termination factor, 21Q, from phage P21. This sparked the investigation into the possibility that BaGTA cluster is also regulated by anti-termination. Using a suite of cell biology, genetics, and genome-wide techniques (ChIP-seq), Korotaev et al convincingly showed that this is most likely the case. The findings offer the first insight into the regulation of GTA cluster (and GTA-mediated gene transfer) particularly in this pathogen Bartonella. Note that anti-termination is a well-known/studied mechanism of transcriptional control. Anti-termination is a very common mechanism for gene expression control of prophages, phages, bacterial gene clusters, and other GTAs, so in this sense, the impact of the findings in this study here is limited to Bartonella.

Strengths:

Convincing results that overall support the main claim of the manuscript.

Weaknesses:

A few important controls are missing.

We sincerely appreciate reviewer #1's positive assessment of our manuscript. In response to the concern regarding control samples/experiments, we have addressed this issue in our revision, by providing data of the replicates of our experiments. We acknowledge that antitermination is a well-established mechanism of expression control in bacteria, including bacterial gene clusters, phages, prophages, and at least one other GTA. As reviewer #2 also noted, our study presents a unique example of phage co-domestication, where antitermination integrates both phage remnants at the regulatory level. We have emphasized this original aspect more clearly in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 1 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) Provide Rsmd and DALI scores to show how similar the AlphaFold-predicted structures of BrrG are to other anti-termination factors. This should be done for Fig1B and also for Suppl. Fig 1 to support the claim that BrrG, GafA, GafZ, Q21 share structural features.

In the revised manuscript we provide Rsmd and DALI scores in the supplementary Fig. 1A (Suppl. Fig. 1A). In Suppl. Fig. 1B we further include a heatmap of similiarity values.

(2) Throughout the manuscript, flow cytometry data of gfp expression was used and shown as single replicate. Korotaev et al wrote in the legends that error bars are shown (that is not true for e.g. Figs. 3, 4, and 5). It is difficult for reviewers/readers to gauge how reliable are their experiments.

In the revised manuscript we show all replicates for the flow cytometry histograms.

For Fig. 2C, all replicates are provided in Suppl. Fig. 3.

For Fig. 3B, all replicates are provided in Suppl. Fig. 4.

For Fig. 4B, all replicates are provided in Suppl. Fig. 5.

For Fig. 5B, all replicates are provided in Suppl. Fig. 6.

(3) I am unsure how ChIP-seq in Fig. 2A was performed (with anti-FLAG or anti-HA antibodies? I cannot tell from the Materials & Methods). More importantly, I did not see the control for this ChIP-seq experiment. If a FLAG-tagged BrrG was used for ChIP-seq, then a WT non-tagged version should be used as a negative control (not sequencing INPUT DNA), this is especially important for anti-terminator that can co-travel with RNA polymerase. Please also report the number of replicates for ChIP-seq experiments.

Fig. 2A presents the coverage plot from the ChIP-Seq of ∆brrG +pPtet:3xFLAG-brrG (N’ in green). As anticipated by the referee, we had used ∆brrG +pTet:brrG (untagged) as control (grey). Each strain was tested in a single replicate. The C-terminal tag produced results similar to the untagged version, suggesting it is non-functional. All tested tags are shown in Supplementary Figure 2.

(4) Korotaev et al mentioned that BrrG binds to DNA (as well as to RNA polymerase). With the availability of existing ChIP-seq data, the authors should be able to locate the DNA-binding element of BrrG, this additional information will be useful to the community.

We identified a putative binding site of BrrG using our ChIP-Seq data. The putative binding site is indicated in Fig. 2D of the revised manuscript.

(5) Mutational experiments to break the potential hairpin structure are required to strengthen the claim that this putative hairpin is the potential transcriptional terminator.

We did not claim the identified hairpin is a confirmed terminator, but proposed it as a candidate. We agree with the referee that the suggested experiment would be necessary to definitively establish its function. However, our main objective was to show that BrrG acts as a processive terminator, which we demonstrated by replacing the putative terminator with a well-characterized synthetic one that BrrG successfully bypassed. Therefore, we chose not to perform the proposed experiment and have accordingly softened our conclusions regarding the hairpin’s potential terminator function.

Reviewer 2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, the authors identified and characterized a regulatory mechanism based on transcriptional anti-termination that connects the two gene clusters, capsid and run-off replication (ROR) locus, of the bipartite Bartonella gene transfer agent (GTA). Among genes essential for GTA functionality identified in a previous transposon sequencing project, they found a potential antiterminatior of phage origin within the ROR locus. They employed fluorescence reporter and gene transfer assays of overexpression and knockout strains in combination with ChiPSeq and promoter-fusions to convincingly show that this protein indeed acts as an antiterminator counteracting attenuation of the capsid gene cluster expression.

Impact on the field:

The results provide valuable insights into the evolution of the chimeric BaGTA, a unique example of phage co-domestication by bacteria. A similar system found in the other broadly studied Rhodobacterales/Caulobacterales GTA family suggests that antitermination could be a general mechanism for GTA control.

Strengths:

Results of the selected and carefully designed experiments support the main conclusions.

Weaknesses:

It remains open why overexpression of the antiterminator does not increase the gene transfer frequency.

We are grateful for reviewer #2's thoughtful and encouraging feedback on our manuscript. The reviewer raises an important question about why overexpression of the antiterminator does not increase gene transfer frequency. While we acknowledge this point, we consider it beyond the scope of the current study. Our findings clearly demonstrate that the antiterminator induces capsid component expression in a large proportion of cells. However, the fact that this expression plateaus at high levels rather than exhibiting a transient peak, as seen in the wild type, suggests that antiterminators do not regulate GTA particle release via lysis. We are actively investigating this further through additional experiments, which we plan to publish separately from this study.

Reviewer 2 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) The authors wrote "GTAs are not self-transmitting because the DNA packaging capacity of a GTA particle is too small to package the entire gene cluster encoding it" (page 3). I thought that at least the Bartonella capsid gene cluster should be self-transmissible within the 14 kb packaged DNA (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003393, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000546). This was also concluded by Lang et al (https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-virology-101416-041624). In this case the presented results would have important implications. As the gene cluster and the anti-terminator required for its expression are separated on the chromosome, it would not be possible to transfer an active GTA gene cluster, although the DNA coding for the genes required for making the packaging agent itself, theoretically fits into a BaGTA particle. Could the authors comment on that? I think it would be helpful to add the sizes of the different gene clusters and the distance between them in Fig. 2A. The ROR amplified region spans 500kb, is the capsid gene cluster within this region?

We thank the reviewer for bringing up this interesting point. The ror gene cluster, which encodes the antiterminator BrrG, is approximately 9.2 kb in size and could feasibly be packaged in its entirety into a GTA particle. In contrast, the bgt cluster (capsid cluster) is approximately 20 kb in size —exceeding the packaging limit of GTA particles—and is separated from the bgt cluster by approximately 35 kb. Consequently, if the ror cluster is transferred via a GTA particle into a recipient host that does not encode the bgt gene cluster, the ror cluster would not be expressed.

We added the sizes of the gene clusters to Fig. 1A.

(2) Another side-note regarding the introduction: On page three the authors write: "GTAs encode bacteriophage-like particles and in contrast to phages transfer random pieces of host bacterial DNA". While packaging is not specific, certain biases in the packaging frequency are observed in both studied GTA families. For Bartonella this is ROR. In the two GTA-producing strains D. shibae and C. crescentus origin and terminus of replication are not packaged and certain regions are overrepresented (https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evy005, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001790). Furthermore, D. shibae plasmids are not packaged but chromids are. I think the term "random" does not properly describe these observations. I would suggest using "not specific" instead.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion and adjusted the wording on p. 3 accordingly.

(3) Page 5: Remove "To address this". It is not needed as you already state "To test this hypothesis" in the previous sentence.

We adjusted the working on p.5 accordingly.

(4) I think the manuscript would greatly benefit from a summary figure to visualize the Q-like antiterminator-dependent regulatory circuit for GTA control and its four components described on pages 15 and 16.

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. We included a summary figure (Fig. 6) in the discussion section of the revised manuscript.

(5) Page 17: It might be worth noting that GafA is highly conserved along GTAs in Rhodobacterales (https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.662907) and so is probably regulatory integration into the ctrA network (https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.00803). It's an old mechanism. It would be also interesting to know if it is a common feature of the two archetypical GTAs that the regulator is not part of the cluster itself.

We agree with the reviewer’s comments and have revised the wording to state that GafA is highly conserved.

This seems mostly due to the methylcellulose, correct? I'm wondering if there is a way to determine the actual number of anchor points in the liposome? Perhaps some staining against the His tag? It might be interesting to see where deformations lie in relation to clusters of anchor points.

Do you also have the Kd of untagged actinin for F-actin? It could be nice to know if the tag has any impact on binding. I'm also curious if the membrane tethered actinin has a different affinity for actin filaments compared to free-floating actinin.

Peergos Sync

This image lacks a descriptive alt tag. According to the WCAG guidelines and our course, this makes the content inaccessible to users relying on screen readers, a violation of the Perceivable principle.

Consequences

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, Kito et al follow up on previous work that identified Drosophila GCL as a mitotic substrate recognition subunit of a CUL3-RING ubiquitin ligase (CRL3) complex.

Here they characterize mutants of the human ortholog of GCL, GMCL1, that disrupt the interaction with CUL3 (GMCL1E142K) and that lack the substrate interaction domain (GMCL1 BBO). Immunoprecipitation followed by mass spectrometry identified 9 proteins that interacted with wild-type FLAG-GMCL1 and GMCL1 EK but not GMCL1 BBO. These proteins included 53BP1, which plays a well-characterized role in double-strand break repair but also functions in a USP28-p53-53BP1 "mitotic stopwatch" complex that arrests the cell cycle after a substantially prolonged mitosis. Consistent with the IP-MS results, FLAG-GMCL1 immunoprecipitated 53BP1. Depletion of GMCL1 during mitotic arrest increased protein levels of 53BP1, and this could be rescued by wild-type GMCL1 but not the E142K mutant or a R433A mutant that failed to immunoprecipitate 53BP1.

Using a publicly available dataset, the authors identified a relatively small subset of cell lines with high levels of GMCL1 mRNA that were resistant to the taxanes paclitaxel, cabazitaxel, and docetaxel. This type of analysis is confounded by the fact that paclitaxel and other microtubule poisons accumulate to substantially different levels in various cell lines (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.90.20.9552 , DOI: 10.1091/mbc.10.4.947 ), so careful follow-up experiments are required to validate results. The correlation between increased GMCL1 mRNA and taxane resistance was not observed in lung cancer cell lines. The authors propose this was because nearly half of lung cancers harbor p53 mutations, and lung cancer cell lines with wild-type but not mutant p53 showed the correlation between increased GMCL1 mRNA and taxane resistance. However, the other cancer cell types in which they report increased GMCL1 expression correlates with taxane sensitivity also have high rates of p53 mutation. Furthermore, p53 status does not predict taxane response in patients (DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(20000815)89:4<769::aid-cncr8>3.0.co;2-6 , DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19960915)78:6<1203::AID-CNCR6>3.0.CO;2-A , PMID: 10955790).

The authors then depleted GMCL1 and reported that it increased apoptosis in two cell lines with wild-type p53 (MCF7 and U2OS) due to activation of the mitotic stopwatch. This is surprising because the mitotic stopwatch paper they cite (DOI: 10.1126/science.add9528 ) reported that U2OS cells have an inactive stopwatch and that activation of the stopwatch results in cell cycle arrest rather than apoptosis in most cell types, including MCF7. Beyond this, it has recently been shown that the level of taxanes and other microtubule poisons achieved in patient tumors is too low to induce mitotic arrest (DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3007965 , DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.abd4811 , DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002339 ), raising concerns about the relevance of prolonged mitosis to paclitaxel response in cancer. The findings here demonstrating that GMCL1 mediates degradation of 53BP1 during mitotic arrest are solid and of interest to cell biologists, but it is unclear that these findings are relevant to paclitaxel response in patients.

Strengths:

This study identified 53BP1 as a target of CRL3GMCL1-mediated degradation during mitotic arrest. AlphaFold3 predictions of the binding interface, followed by mutational analysis, identified mutants of each protein (GMCL1 R433A and 53BP1 IEDI1422-1425AAAA) that disrupted their interaction. Knock-in of a FLAG tag into the C-terminus of GMCL1 in HCT116 cells, followed by FLAG immunoprecipitation, confirmed that endogenous GMCL1 interacts with endogenous CUL3 and 53BP1 during mitotic arrest.

Weaknesses:

The clinical relevance of the study is overinterpreted. The authors have not taken relevant data about the clinical mechanism of taxanes into account. Supraphysiologic doses of microtubule poisons cause mitotic arrest and can activate the mitotic stopwatch. However, in physiologic concentrations of clinically useful microtubule poisons, cells proceed through mitosis and divide their chromosomes on mitotic spindles that are at least transiently multipolar. Though these low concentrations may result in a brief mitotic delay, it is substantially shorter than the arrest caused by high concentrations of microtubule poisons, and the one mimicked here by 16 hours of 0.4 mg/mL nocodazole, which is not used clinically and does not induce multipolar spindles. Resistance to mitotic arrest occurs through different mechanisms than resistance to multipolar spindles. No evidence is presented in the current version of the manuscript that GMCL1 affects cellular response to clinically relevant doses of paclitaxel.

3:43 wir haben jetzt den Beginn der Massenarbeitlosigkeit, und das war in jeder einzelnen Revolution immer die allerwichtigste Komponente, weil wenn die Leute nichts mehr zu essen haben und sich auch nicht mehr ihr Netflix Abo leisten können, dann gehen sie auf die Straße. diese Rekordsarbeitslosigkeit, das wird das Todesurteil der neuen Regierung sein, und ab jetzt geht es Berg ab, vor allem es ist ja auch kein Ende in Sicht, jeden Tag haben wir neue Schocknachrichten.

7:29 und deswegen könnte man jetzt sagen, naja die werden schon nicht auf die Straße gehen, die bekommen ja schließlich Bürgergeld und Sozialhilfe, aber nichts da, wie vorher gesagt implodiert jetzt ja gerade alles gleichzeitig, also auch der ganze Staatshaushalt, weil immer mehr Arbeitslose bedeutet auch weniger Steuereinnahmen und immer mehr Sozialkosten, und mit der Geschwindigkeit wie es gerade ansteigt ist das irgendwann nicht mehr zu bezahlen. und wenn unsere "Goldstücke" dann irgendwann kein Geld mehr bekommen dann geht's richtig Ramba Zamba.

Author Response

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

eLife assessment

This important study combines a range of advanced ultrastructural imaging approaches to define the unusual endosomal system of African trypanosomes. Compelling images show that instead of a distinct set of compartments, the endosome of these protists comprises a continuous system of membranes with functionally distinct subdomains as defined by canonical markers of early, late and recycling endosomes. The findings suggest that the endocytic system of bloodstream stages has evolved to facilitate the extraordinarily high rates of membrane turnover needed to remove immune complexes and survive in the blood, which is of interest to anyone studying infectious diseases.

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Bloodstream stages of the parasitic protist, Trypanosoma brucei, exhibit very high rates of constitutive endocytosis, which is needed to recycle the surface coat of Variant Surface Glycoproteins (VSGs) and remove surface immune complexes. While many studies have shown that the endo-lysosomal systems of T. brucei BF stages contain canonical domains, as defined by classical Rab markers, it has remained unclear whether these protists have evolved additional adaptations/mechanisms for sustaining these very high rates of membrane transport and protein sorting. The authors have addressed this question by reconstructing the 3D ultrastructure and functional domains of the T. brucei BF endosome membrane system using advanced electron tomography and super-resolution microscopy approaches. Their studies reveal that, unusually, the BF endosome network comprises a continuous system of cisternae and tubules that contain overlapping functional subdomains. It is proposed that a continuous membrane system allows higher rates of protein cargo segregation, sorting and recycling than can otherwise occur when transport between compartments is mediated by membrane vesicles or other fusion events.

Strengths:

The study is a technical tour-de-force using a combination of electron tomography, super-resolution/expansion microscopy, immune-EM of cryo-sections to define the 3D structures and connectivity of different endocytic compartments. The images are very clear and generally support the central conclusion that functionally distinct endocytic domains occur within a dynamic and continuous endosome network in BF stages.

Weaknesses:

The authors suggest that this dynamic endocytic network may also fulfil many of the functions of the Golgi TGN and that the latter may be absent in these stages. Although plausible, this comment needs further experimental support. For example, have the authors attempted to localize canonical makers of the TGN (e.g. GRIP proteins) in T. brucei BF and/or shown that exocytic carriers bud directly from the endosomes?

We agree with the criticism and have shortened the discussion accordingly and clearly marked it as speculation. However, we do not want to completely abandon our hypothesis.

The paragraph now reads:

Lines 740 – 751:

“Interestingly, we did not find any structural evidence of vesicular retrograde transport to the Golgi. Instead, the endosomal ‘highways’ extended throughout the posterior volume of the trypanosomes approaching the trans-Golgi interface. It is highly plausible that this region represents the convergence point where endocytic and biosynthetic membrane trafficking pathways merge. A comparable merging of endocytic and biosynthetic functions has been described for the TGN in plants. Different marker proteins for early and recycling endosomes were shown to be associated and/ or partially colocalized with the TGN suggesting its function in both secretory and endocytic pathways (reviewed in Minamino and Ueda, 2019). As we could not find structural evidence for the existence of a TGN we tentatively propose that trypanosomes may have shifted the central orchestrating function of the TGN as a sorting hub at the crossroads of biosynthetic and recycling pathways to the endosome. Although this is a speculative scenario, it is experimentally testable.”

Furthermore, we removed the lines 51 - 52, which included the suggestion of the TGN as a master regulator, from the abstract.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors suggest that the African trypanosome endomembrane system has unusual organisation, in that the entire system is a single reticulated structure. It is not clear if this is thought to extend to the lysosome or MVB. There is also a suggestion that this unusual morphology serves as a trans-(post)Golgi network rather than the more canonical arrangement.

The work is based around very high-quality light and electron microscopy, as well as utilising several marker proteins, Rab5A, 11 and 7. These are deemed as markers for early endosomes, recycling endosomes and late or pre-lysosomes. The images are mostly of high quality but some inconsistencies in the interpretation, appearance of structures and some rather sweeping assumptions make this less easy to accept. Two perhaps major issues are claims to label the entire endosomal apparatus with a single marker protein, which is hard to accept as certainly this reviewer does not really even know where the limits to the endosomal network reside and where these interface with other structures. There are several additional compartments that have been defined by Rob proteins as well, and which are not even mentioned. Overall I am unconvinced that the authors have demonstrated the main things they claim.<br /> The endomembrane system in bloodstream form T. brucei is clearly delimited. Compared to mammalian cells it is tidy and confined to the posterior part of the spindleshaped cell. The endoplasmic reticulum is linked to one side of the longitudinal cell axis, marked by the attached flagellum, while the mitochondrion locates to the opposite side. Glycosomes are easily identifiable as spheres, as are acidocalcisomes, which are smaller than glycosomes and – in electron micrographs – are characterized by high electron density. All these organelles extend beyond the nucleus, which is not the case for the endosomal compartment, the lysosome and the Golgi. The vesicles found in the posterior half of the trypanosome cell are quantitatively identifiable as COP1, CCVI or CCVII vesicles, or exocytic carriers. The lysosome has a higher degree of morphological plasticity, but this is not topic of the present work. Thus, the endomembrane system in T. brucei is comparatively well structured and delimited, which is why we have chosen trypanosomes as cell biological model.

We have published EP1::GFP as marker for the endosome system and flagellar pocket back in 2004. We have defined the fluid phase volume of the trypanosome endosome in papers published between 2002 and 2007. This work was not intended to represent the entirety of RAB proteins. We were only interested in 3 canonical markers for endosome subtypes. We do not claim anything that is not experimentally tested, we have clearly labelled our hypotheses as such, and we do not make sweeping assumptions.

The approaches taken are state-of-the-art but not novel, and because of the difficulty in fully addressing the central tenet, I am not sure how much of an impact this will have beyond the trypanosome field. For certain this is limited to workers in the direct area and is not a generalisable finding.

To the best of our knowledge, there is no published research that has employed 3D Tokuyasu or expansion microscopy (ExM) to label endosomes. The key takeaway from our study, which is the concept that "endosomes are continuous in trypanosomes" certainly is novel. We are not aware of any other report that has demonstrated this aspect.

The doubts formulated by the reviewer regarding the impact of our work beyond the field of trypanosomes are not timely. Indeed, our results, and those of others, show that the conclusions drawn from work with just a few model organisms is not generalisable. We are finally on the verge of a new cell biology that considers the plethora of evolutionary solutions beyond ophistokonts. We believe that this message should be widely acknowledged and considered. And we are certainly not the only ones who are convinced that the term "general relevance" is unscientific and should no longer be used in biology.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

As clearly highlighted by the authors, a key plank in the ability of trypanosomes to evade the mammalian host’s immune system is its high rate of endocytosis. This rapid turnover of its surface enables the trypanosome to ‘clean’ its surface removing antibodies and other immune effectors that are subsequently degraded. The high rate of endocytosis is likely reflected in the organisati’n and layout of the endosomal system in these parasites. Here, Link et al., sought to address this question using a range of light and three-dimensional electron microscopy approaches to define the endosomal organisation in this parasite.

Before this study, the vast majority of our information about the make-up of the trypanosome endosomal system was from thin-section electron microscopy and immunofluorescence studies, which did not provide the necessary resolution and 3D information to address this issue. Therefore, it was not known how the different structures observed by EM were related. Link et al., have taken advantage of the advances in technology and used an impressive combination of approaches at the LM and EM level to study the endosomal system in these parasites. This innovative combination has now shown the interconnected-ness of this network and demonstrated that there are no ‘classical’ compartments within the endosomal system, with instead different regions of the network enriched in different protein markers (Rab5a, Rab7, Rab11).

Strengths:

This is a generally well-written and clear manuscript, with the data well-presented supporting the majority of the conclusions of the authors. The authors use an impressive range of approaches to address the organisation of the endosomal system and the development of these methods for use in trypanosomes will be of use to the wider parasitology community.

I appreciate their inclusion of how they used a range of different light microscopy approaches even though for instance the dSTORM approach did not turn out to be as effective as hoped. The authors have clearly demonstrated that trypanosomes have a large interconnected endosomal network, without defined compartments and instead show enrichment for specific Rabs within this network.

Weaknesses:

My concerns are:

i) There is no evidence for functional compartmentalisation. The classical markers of different endosomal compartments do not fully overlap but there is no evidence to show a region enriched in one or other of these proteins has that specific function. The authors should temper their conclusions about this point.

The reviewer is right in stating that Rab-presence does not necessarily mean Rabfunction. However, this assumption is as old as the Rab literature. That is why we have focused on the 3 most prominent endosomal marker proteins. We report that for endosome function you do not necessarily need separate membrane compartments. This is backed by our experiments.

ii) The quality of the electron microscopy work is very high but there is a general lack of numbers. For example, how many tomograms were examined? How often were fenestrated sheets seen? Can the authors provide more information about how frequent these observations were?

The fenestrated sheets can be seen in the majority of the 37 tomograms recorded of the posterior volume of the parasites. Furthermore, we have randomly generated several hundred tiled (= very large) electron micrographs of bloodstream form trypanosomes for unbiased analyses of endomembranes. In these 2D-datasets the “footprint” of the fenestrated flat and circular cisternae is frequently detectable in the posterior cell area.

We now have included the corresponding numbers in all EM figure legends.

iii) The EM work always focussed on cells which had been processed before fixing. Now, I understand this was important to enable tracers to be used. However, given the dynamic nature of the system these processing steps and feeding experiments may have affected the endosomal organisation. Given their knowledge of the system now, the authors should fix some cells directly in culture to observe whether the organisation of the endosome aligns with their conclusions here.

This is a valid criticism; however, it is the cell culture that provides an artificial environment. As for a possible effect of cell harvesting by centrifugation on the integrity and functionality of the endosome system, we consider this very unlikely for one simple reason. The mechanical forces acting in and on the parasites as they circulate in the extremely crowded and confined environment of the mammalian bloodstream are obviously much higher than the centrifugal forces involved in cell preparation. This becomes particularly clear when one considers that the mass of the particle to be centrifuged determines the actual force exerted by the g-forces. Nevertheless, the proposed experiment is a good control, although much more complex than proposed, since tomography is a challenging technique. We have performed the suggested experiment and acquired tomograms of unprocessed cells. The corresponding data is now included as supplementary movie 2, 3 and 4. We refer to it in lines 202 – 206: To investigate potential impacts of processing steps (cargo uptake, centrifugation, washing) on endosomal organization, we directly fixed cells in the cell culture flask, embedded them in Epon, and conducted tomography. The resulting tomograms revealed endosomal organization consistent with that observed in cells fixed after processing (see Supplementary movie 2, 3, and 4).

We furthermore thank the reviewer for the experiment suggestion in the acknowledgments.

iv) The discussion needs to be revamped. At the moment it is just another run through of the results and does not take an overview of the results presenting an integrated view. Moreover, it contains reference to data that was not presented in the results.

We have improved the discussion accordingly.

Recommendations for the authors:

The reviewers concurred about the high calibre of the work and the importance of the findings.

They raised some issues and made some suggestions to improve the paper without additional experiments - key issues include

(1) Better referencing of the trypanosome endocytosis/ lysosomal trafficking literature.

The literature, especially the experimental and quantitative work, is very limited. We now provide a more complete set of references. However, we would like to mention that we had cited a recent review that critically references the trypanosome literature with emphasis on the extensive work done with mammalian cells and yeast.

(2) Moving the dSTORM data that detracts from otherwise strong data in a supplementary figure.

We have done this.

(3) Removal of the conclusion that the continuous endosome fulfils the functions of TGN, without further evidence.

As stated above, this was not a conclusion in our paper, but rather a speculation, which we have now more clearly marked as such. Lines 740 to 751 now read:

“Interestingly, we did not find any structural evidence of vesicular retrograde transport to the Golgi. Instead, the endosomal ‘highways’ extended throughout the posterior volume of the trypanosomes approaching the trans-Golgi interface. It is highly plausible that this region represents the convergence point where endocytic and biosynthetic membrane trafficking pathways merge. A comparable merging of endocytic and biosynthetic functions was already described for the TGN in plants. Different marker proteins for early and recycling endosomes were shown to be associated and/ or partially colocalized with the TGN suggesting its function in both secretory and endocytic pathways (reviewed in Minamino and Ueda, 2019). As we could not find structural evidence for the existence of a TGN we tentatively propose that trypanosomes may have shifted the central orchestrating function of the TGN as a sorting hub at the crossroads of biosynthetic and recycling pathways to the endosome. Although this is a speculative scenario, it is experimentally testable.”

(4) Broader discussion linking their findings to other examples of organelle maturation in eukaryotes (e.g cisternal maturation of the Golgi)

We have improved the discussion accordingly.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

What are the multi-vesicular vesicles that surround the marked endosomal compartments in Fig 1. Do they become labelled with fluid phase markers with longer incubations (e.g late endosome/ lysosomal)?

The function of MVBs in trypanosomes is still far from being clear. They are filled with fluid phase cargo, especially ferritin, but are devoid of VSG. Hence it is likely that MVBs are part of the lysosomal compartment. In fact, this part of the endomembrane system is highly dynamic. MVBs can be physically connected to the lysosome or can form elongated structures. The surprising dynamics of the trypanosome lysosome will be published elsewhere.

Figure 2. The compartments labelled with EP1::Halo are very poorly defined due to the low levels of expression of the reporter protein and/or sensitivity of detection of the Halo tag. Based on these images, it would be hard to conclude whether the endosome network is continuous or not. In this respect, it is unclear why the authors didn't use EP1-GFP for these analyses? Given the other data that provides more compelling evidence for a single continuous compartment, I would suggest removing Fig 2A.

We have used EP1::GFP to label the entire endosome system (Engstler and Boshart, 2004). Unfortunately, GFP is not suited for dSTORM imaging. By creating the EP1::Halo cell line, we were able to utilize the most prominent dSTORM fluorescent dye, Alexa 647. This was not primarily done to generate super resolution images, but rather to measure the dynamics of the GPI-anchored, luminal protein EP with single molecule precision. The results from this study will be published separately. But we agree with the reviewer and have relocated the dSTORM data to the supplementary material.

The observation that Rab5a/7 can be detected in the lumen of lysosome is interesting. Mechanistically, this presumably occurs by invagination of the limiting membrane of the lysosome. Is there any evidence that similar invagination of cytoplasmic markers occurs throughout or in subdomains of the endocytic network (possibly indicative of a 'late endosome' domain)?

So far, we have not observed this. The structure of the lysosome and the membrane influx from the endosome are currently being investigated.

The authors note that continuity of functionally distinct membrane compartments in the secretory/endocytic pathways has been reported in other protists (e.g T. cruzi). A particular example that could be noted is the endo-lysosomal system of Dictyostelium discoideum which mediates the continuous degradation and eventual expulsion of undigested material.

We tried to include this in the discussion but ultimately decided against it because the Dictyostelium system cannot be easily compared to the trypanosome endosome.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Abstract

Not sure that 'common' is the correct term here. Frequent, near-universal..... it would be true that endocytosis is common across most eukaryotes.

We have changed the sentence to “common process observed in most eukaryotes” (line 33).

Immune evasion - the parasite does not escape the immune system, but does successfully avoid its impact, at least at the population level.

We have replaced the word “escape” with “evasion” (line 35).

The third sentence needs to follow on correctly from the second. Also, more than Igs are internalised and potentially part of immune evasion, such as C3, Factor H, ApoL1 etcetera.

We believe that there may be a misunderstanding here. The process of endocytic uptake and lysosomal degradation has so far only been demonstrated in the context of VSGbound antibodies, which is why we only refer to this. Of course, the immune system comprises a wide range of proteins and effector molecules, all of which could be involved in immune evasion.

I do not follow the logic that the high flux through the endocytic system in trypanosomes precludes distinct compartmentalisation - one could imagine a system where a lot of steps become optimised for example. This idea needs expanding on if it is correct.

Membrane transport by vesicle transfer between several separate membrane compartments would be slower than the measured rate of membrane flux.

Again I am not sure 'efficient' on line 40. It is fast, but how do you measure efficiency? Speed and efficiency are not the same thing.

We have replaced the word “efficient” with “fast” (line 42).

The basis for suggesting endosomes as a TGN is unclear. Given that there are AP complexes, retromer, exocyst and other factors that are part of the TGN or at least post-G differentiation of pathways in canonical systems, this seems a step too far. There really is no evidence in the rest of the MS that seems to support this.

Yes, we agree and have clarified the discussion accordingly. We have not completely removed the discussion on the TGN but have labelled it more clearly as speculation.

I am aware I am being pedantic here, but overall the abstract seems to provide an impression of greater novelty than may be the case and makes several very bold claims that I cannot see as fully valid.

We are not aware of any claim in the summary that we have not substantiated with experiments, or any hypothesis that we have not explained.

Moreover, the concept of fused or multifunctional endosomes (or even other endomembrane compartments) is old, and has been demonstrated in metazoan cells and yeast. The concept of rigid (in terms of composition) compartments really has been rejected by most folks with maturation, recycling and domain structures already well-established models and concepts.

We agree that the (transient) presence of multiple Rab proteins decorating endosomes has been demonstrated in various cell types. This finding formed the basis for the endosomal maturation model in mammals and yeast, which has replaced the previous rigid compartment model.

However, we do not appreciate attempts to question the originality of our study by claiming that similar observations have been made in metazoans or yeast. This is simply wrong. There are no reports of a functionally structured, continuous, single and large endosome in any other system. The only membrane system that might be similar was described in the American parasite Trypanosoma cruzi, however, without the use of endosome markers or any functional analysis. We refer to this study in the discussion.

In summary, the maturation model falls short in explaining the intricacies of the membrane system we have uncovered in trypanosomes. Therefore, one plausible interpretation of our data is that the overall architecture of the trypanosome endosomes represents an adaptation that enables the remarkable speed of plasma membrane recycling observed in these parasites. In our view, both our findings and their interpretation are novel and worth reporting. Again, modern cell biology should recognize that evolution has developed many solutions for similar processes in cells, about whose diversity we have learned almost nothing because of our reductionist view. A remarkable example of this are the Picozoa, tiny bipartite eukaryotes that pack the entire nutritional apparatus into one pouch and the main organelles with the locomotor system into the other. Another one is the “extreme” cell biology of many protozoan parasites such as Giardia, Toxpoplasma or Trypanosoma.

Higher plants have been well characterised, especially at the level of Rab/Arf proteins and adaptins.

We now mention plant endosomes in our brief discussion of the trypanosome TGN. Lines 744 – 747:

“A comparable merging of endocytic and biosynthetic functions was already described for the TGN in plants. Different marker proteins for early and recycling endosomes were shown to be associated and/ or partially colocalized with the TGN suggesting its function in both secretory and endocytic pathways (reviewed in Minamino and Ueda, 2019).”

The level of self-citing in the introduction is irritating and unscholarly. I have no qualms with crediting the authors with their own excellent contributions, but work from Dacks, Bangs, Field and others seems to be selectively ignored, with an awkward use of the authors' own publications. Diversity between organisms for example has been a mainstay of the Dacks lab output, Rab proteins and others from Field and work on exocytosis and late endosomal systems from Bangs. These efforts and contributions surely deserve some recognition?

This is an original article and not a review. For a comprehensive overview the reviewer might read our recent overview article on exo- and endocytic pathways in trypanosomes, in which we have extensively cited the work of Mark Field, Jay Bangs and Joel Dacks. In the present manuscript, we have cited all papers that touch on our results or are otherwise important for a thorough understanding of our hypotheses. We do not believe that this approach is unscientific, but rather improves the readability of the manuscript. Nevertheless, we have now cited additional work.

For the uninitiated, the posterior/anterior axis of the trypanosome cell as well as any other specific features should be defined.

In lines 102 - 110 we wrote:

“This process of antibody clearance is driven by hydrodynamic drag forces resulting from the continuous directional movement of trypanosomes (Engstler et al., 2007). The VSG-antibody complexes on the cell surface are dragged against the swimming direction of the parasite and accumulate at the posterior pole of the cell. This region harbours an invagination in the plasma membrane known as the flagellar pocket (FP) (Gull, 2003; Overath et al., 1997). The FP, which marks the origin of the single attached flagellum, is the exclusive site for endo- and exocytosis in trypanosomes (Gull, 2003; Overath et al., 1997). Consequently, the accumulation of VSG-antibody complexes occurs precisely in the area of bulk membrane uptake.”

We think this sufficiently introduces the cell body axes.

I don't understand the comment concerning microtubule association. In mammalian cells, such association is well established, but compartments still do not display precise positioning. This likely then has nothing to do with the microtubule association differences.

We have clarified this in the text (lines 192 – 199). There is no report of cytoplasmic microtubules in trypanosomes. All microtubules appear to be either subpellicular or within the flagellum. To maintain the structure and position of the endosomal apparatus, they should be associated either with subpellicular microtubules, as is the case with the endoplasmic reticulum, or with the more enigmatic actomyosin system of the parasites. We have been working on the latter possibility and intend to publish a follow-up paper to the present manuscript.

The inability to move past the nucleus is a poor explanation. These compartments are dynamic. Even the nucleus does interesting things in trypanosomes and squeezes past structures during development in the tsetse fly.

The distance between the nucleus and the microtubule cytoskeleton remains relatively constant even in parasites that squeeze through microfluidic channels. This is not unexpected as the nucleus can be highly deformed. A structure the size of the endosome will not be able to physically pass behind the nucleus without losing its integrity. In fact, the recycling apparatus is never found in the anterior part of the trypanosome, most probably because the flagellar pocket is located at the posterior cell pole.

L253 What is the evidence that EP1 labels the entire FP and endosomes? This may be extensive, but this claim requires rather more evidence. This is again suggested at l263. Again, please forgive me for being pedantic, but this is an overstatement unless supported by evidence that would be incredibly difficult to obtain. This is even sort of acknowledged on l271 in the context of non-uniform labelling. This comes again in l336.

The evidence that EP1 labels the entire FP and endosomes is presented here: Engstler and Boshart, 2004; 10.1101/gad.323404).

Perhaps I should refrain from comments on the dangers of expansion microscopy, or asking what has actually been gained here. Oddly, the conclusion on l290 is a fair statement that I am happy with.

An in-depth discussion regarding the advantages and disadvantages of expansion microscopy is beyond the manuscript's intended scope. Our approach involved utilizing various imaging techniques to confirm the validity of our findings. We appreciate that our concluding sentence is pleasing.

F2 - The data in panel A seem quite poor to me. I also do not really understand why the DAPI stain in the first and second columns fails to coincide or why the kinetoplast is so diffuse in the second row. The labelling for EP1 presents as very small puncta, and hence is not evidence for a continuum. What is the arrow in A IV top? The data in panel B are certainly more in line with prior art, albeit that there is considerable heterogeneity in the labelling and of the FP for example. Again, I cannot really see this as evidence for continuity. There are gaps.... Albeit I accept that labelling of such structures is unlikely to ever be homogenous.

We agree that the dSTORM data represents the least robust aspect of the findings we have presented, and we concur with relocating it to the supplementary material.

F3 - Rather apparent, and specifically for Rab7, that there is differential representation - for example, Cell 4 presents a single Rab7 structure while the remaining examples demonstrate more extensive labelling. Again, I am content that these are highly dynamic strictures but this needs to be addressed at some level and commented upon. If the claim is for continuity, the dynamics observed here suggest the usual; some level of obvious overlap of organellar markers, but the representation in F3 is clever but not sure what I am looking at. Moreover, the title of the figure is nothing new. What is also a bit odd is that the extent of the Rab7 signal, and to some extent the other two Rabs used, is rather variable, which makes this unclear to me as to what is being detected. Given that the Rab proteins may be defining microdomains or regions, I would also expect a region of unique straining as well as the common areas. This needs to at least be discussed.

The differences in the representation result from the dynamics of the labelled structures. Therefore, we have selected different cells to provide examples of what the labelling can look like. We now mention this in the results section.

The overlap of the different Rab signals was perhaps to be expected, but we now have demonstrated it experimentally. Importantly, we performed a rigorous quantification by calculating the volume overlaps and the Pearson correlation coefficients.

In previous studies the data were presented as maximal intensity projections, which inherently lack the complete 3D information.

We found that Rab proteins define microdomains and that there are regions of unique staining as well as common areas, as shown in Figure 3. The volumes do not completely overlap. This is now more clearly stated in lines 315 – 319:

“These objects showed areas of unique staining as well as partially overlapping regions. The pairwise colocalization of different endosomal markers is shown in Figure 3 A, XI - XIII and 3 B. The different cells in Figure 3 B were selected to represent the dynamic nature of the labelled structures. Consequently, the selected cells provide a variety of examples of how the labelling can appear.”

This had already been stated in lines 331 – 336:

“In summary, the quantitative colocalization analyses revealed that on the one hand, the endosomal system features a high degree of connectivity, with considerable overlap of endosomal marker regions, and on the other hand, TbRab5A, TbRab7, and TbRab11 also demarcate separated regions in that system. These results can be interpreted as evidence of a continuous endosomal membrane system harbouring functional subdomains, with a limited amount of potentially separated early, late or recycling endosomes.”

F4-6 - Fabulous images. But a couple of issues here; first, as the authors point out, there is distance between the gold and the antigen. So, this of course also works in the z-plane as well as the x/y-planes and some of the gold may well be associated with membraneous figures that are out of the plane, which would indicate an absence of colinearity on one specific membrane. Secondly, in several instances, we have Rab7 essentially mixed with Rab11 or Rab5 positive membrane. While data are data and should be accepted, this is difficult to reconcile when, at least to some level, Rab7 is a marker for a late-endosomal structure and where the presence of degradative activity could reside. As division of function is, I assume, the major reason for intracellular compartmentalisation, such a level of admixture is hard to rationalise. A continuum is one thing but the data here seem to be suggesting something else, i.e. almost complete admixture.

We are grateful for the positive feedback regarding the image quality. It is true that the "linkage error," representing the distance between the gold and the antigen, also functions to some extent in the z-axis. However, it's important to note that the zdimension of the section in these Figures is 55 nm. Nevertheless, it's interesting to observe that membranes, which may not be visible within the section itself but likely the corresponding Rab antigen, is discernible in Figure 4C (indicated by arrows).

We have clarified this in lines 397 – 400:

“Consequently, gold particles located further away may represent cytoplasmic TbRab proteins or, as the “linkage error” can also occur in the z-plane, correspond to membranes that are not visible within the 55 nm thickness of the cryosection (Figure 4, panel C, arrows). “

The coexistence of different Rabs is most likely concentrated in regions where transitions between different functions are likely. Our focus was primarily on imaging membranes labelled with two markers. We wanted to show that the prevailing model of separate compartments in the trypanosome literature is not correct.

F7 - Not sure what this adds beyond what was published by Grunfelder.

First, this figure is an important control that links our results to published work (Grünfelder et al. (2003)). Second, we include double staining of cargo with Rab5, Rab7, and Rab11, whereas Grünfelder focused only on Rab11. Therefore, our data is original and of such high quality that it warrants a main figure.

F8 - and l583. This is odd as the claim is 'proof' which in science is a hard thing to claim (and this is definitely not at a six sigma level of certainty, as used by the physics community). However, I am seeing structures in the tomograms which are not contiguous - there are gaps here between the individual features (Green in the figure).

We have replaced the term "proof". It is important to note that the structures in individual tomograms cannot all be completely continuous because the sections are limited to a thickness of 250 nm. Therefore, it is likely that they have more connectivity above and below the imaged section. Nevertheless, we believe that the quality of the tomograms is satisfactory, considering that 3D Tokuyasu is a very demanding technique and the production of serial Tokuyasu tomograms is not feasible in practice.

Discussion - Too long and the self-citing of four papers from the corresponding author to the exclusion of much prior work is again noted, with concerns about this as described above. Moreover, at least four additional Rab proteins are known associated with the trypanosome endosomal system, 4, 5B, 21 and 28. These have been completely ignored.

We have outlined our position on referencing in original articles above. We also explained why we focused on the key marker proteins associated with early (Rab5), late (Rab7) and recycling endosomes (Rab11). We did not ignore the other Rabs, we just did not include them in the present study.

Overall this is disappointing. I had expected a more robust analysis, with a clearer discussion and placement in context. I am not fully convinced that what we have here is as extreme as claimed, or that we have a substantial advance. There is nothing here that is mechanistic or the identification of a new set of gene products, process or function.

We do not think that this is constructive feedback.

This MS suggests that the endosomal system of African trypanosomes is a continuum of membrane structures rather than representing a set of distinct compartments. A combination of light and electron microscopy methods are used in support. The basic contention is very challenging to prove, and I'm not convinced that this has been. Furthermore, I am also unclear as to the significance of such an organisation; this seems not really addressed.

We acknowledge and respect varying viewpoints, but we hold a differing perspective in this matter. We are convinced that the data decisively supports our interpretation. May future work support or refute our hypothesis.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Line 81 - delete 's

Done.

Generally, the introduction was very well written and clearly summarised our current understanding but the paragraph beginning line 134 felt out of place and repeated some of the work mentioned earlier.

We have removed this paragraph.

For the EM analysis throughout quantification would be useful as highlighted in the public review. How many tomograms were examined, and how often were types of structures seen? I understand the sample size is often small but this would help the reader appreciate the diversity of structures seen.

We have included the numbers.

Following on from this how were the cells chosen for tomogram analysis? For example, the dividing cell in 1D has palisades associating with the new pocket - is this commonly seen? Does this reflect something happening in dividing cells. This point about endosomal division was picked up in the discussion but there was little about in the main results.

This issue is undoubtedly inherent to the method itself, and we have made efforts to mitigate it by generating a series of tomograms recorded randomly. We have refrained from delving deeper into the intricacies of the cell cycle in this manuscript, as we believe that it warrants a separate paper.

As the authors prosecute, the co-localisation analysis highlights the variable nature of the endosome and the overlap of different markers. When looking at the LM analysis, I was struck by the variability in the size and number of labelled structures in the different cells. For example, in 3A Rab7 is 2 blobs but in 3B Cell 1 it is 4/5 blobs. Is this just a reflection of the increase in the endosome during the cell cycle?

The variability in representation is a direct consequence of the dynamic nature of the labelled structures. For this reason, we deliberately selected different cells to represent examples of how the labelling can look like. We have decided not to mention the dynamics of the endosome during the cell cycle. This will be the subject of a further report.

Moreover, Rab 11 looks to be the marker covering the greatest volume of the endosomal system - is this true? I think there's more analysis of this data that could be done to try and get more information about the relative volumes etc of the different markers that haven't been drawn out. The focus here is on the co-localisation.

Precisely because we recognize the importance of this point, we intend to turn our attention to the cell cycle in a separate publication.

I appreciate that it is an awful lot of work to perform the immuno-EM and the data is of good quality but in the text, there could be a greater effort to tie this to the LM data. For example, from the Rab11 staining in LM you would expect this marker to be the most extensive across the networks - is this reflected in the EM?

For the immuno-EM there were no numbers, the authors had measured the position of the gold but what was the proportion of gold that was in/near membranes for each marker? This would help the reader understand both the number of particles seen and the enrichment of the different regions.

Our original intent was to perform a thorough quantification (using stereology) of the immuno-EM data. However, we later realized that the necessary random imaging approach is not suitable for Tokuyasu sections of trypanosomes. In short, the cells are too far apart, and the cell sections are only occasionally cut so that the endosomal membranes are sufficiently visible. Nevertheless, we continue to strive to generate more quantitative data using conventional immuno-EM.

The innovative combination of Tokuyasu tomograms with immuno-EM was great. I noted though that there was a lack of fenestration in these models. Does this reflect the angle of the model or the processing of these samples?

We are grateful to the referee, as we have asked ourselves the same question. However, we do not attribute the apparent lack of fenestration to the viewing angle, since we did not find fenestration in any of the Tokuyasu tomograms. Our suspicion is more directed towards a methodological problem. In the Tokuyasu workflow, all structures are mainly fixed with aldehydes. As a result, lipids are only effectively fixed through their association with membrane proteins. We suggest that the fenestration may not be visible because the corresponding lipids may have been lost due to incomplete fixation.

We now clearly state this in the lines 563 – 568.

“Interestingly, these tomograms did not exhibit the fenestration pattern identified in conventional electron tomography. We suspect that this is due to methodological reasons. The Tokuyasu procedure uses only aldehydes to fix all structures. Consequently, effective fixation of lipids occurs only through their association with membrane proteins. Thus, the lack of visible fenestration is likely due to possible loss of lipids during incomplete fixation.”

The discussion needs to be reworked. Throughout it contains references to results not in the main results section such as supplementary movie 2 (line 735). The explicit references to the data and figures felt odd and more suited to the results rather than the discussion. Currently, each result is discussed individually in turn and more effort needs to be made to integrate the results from this analysis here but also with previous work and the data from other organisms, which at the moment sits in a standalone section at the end of the discussion.

We have improved the discussion and removed the previous supplementary movies 2 and 3. Supplementary movie 1 is now mentioned in the results section.

Line 693 - There was an interesting point about dividing cells describing the maintenance of endosomes next to the old pocket. Does that mean there was no endosome by the new pocket and if so where is this data in the manuscript? This point relates back to my question about how cells were chosen for analysis - how many dividing cells were examined by tomography?

The fate of endosomes during the cell cycle is not the subject of this paper. In this manuscript we only show only one dividing cell using tomography. An in-depth analysis focusing on what happens during the cell cycle will be published separately.

Line 729 - I'm unclear how this represents a polarization of function in the flagellar pocket. The pocket I presume is included within the endosomal system for this analysis but there was no specific mention of it in the results and no marker of each position to help define any specialisation. From the results, I thought the focus was on endosomal co-localisation of the different markers. If the authors are thinking about specialisation of the pocket this paper from Mark Field shows there is evidence for the exocyst to be distributed over the entire surface of the pocket, which is relevant to the discussion here. Boehm, C.M. et al. (2017) The trypanosome exocyst: a conserved structure revealing a new role in endocytosis. PLoS Pathog. 13, e1006063

We have formulated our statement more cautiously. However, we are convinced that membrane exchange cannot physically work without functional polarization of the pocket. We know that Rab11, for example, is not evenly distributed on the pocket. By the way, in Boehm et al. (2017) the exocyst is not shown to cover the entire pocket (as shown in Supplementary Video 1).

We now refer to Boehm et al. (Lines 700 – 703):

“Boehm et al (2017) report that in the flagellar pocket endocytic and exocytic sites are in close proximity but do not overlap. We further suggest that the fusion of EXCs with the flagellar pocket membrane and clathrin-mediated endocytosis take place on different sites of the pocket. This disparity explains the lower colocalization between TbRab11 and TbRab5A.”

Line 735 - link to data not previously mentioned I think. When I looked at this data I couldn't find a key to explain what all the different colours related to.

We have removed the previous supplementary movies 2 and 3. We now reference supplementary movie 1 in the results section.

Annotation by: Samuel Godinho CC License: CC- BY-NC Tag: #SP2025-LIT211

I find the religious tension within the poem to be very interesting. The narrator and Beowulf frequently reference God and divine justice, but the poem still upholds Paganism and pagan ideals like fate and blood vengeance. This also shows the transitional period in which it was written, showing a cultural tug of war with the merging of old beliefs and emerging Christian values. The original poem shows many pagan values but once it was transcribed and translated it took on more Christian characteristics. This is an example of how religious values influenced this text.

Annotation by: Jatnna Sanchez CC License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Tag: #SP2025-Lit211

Linguistic and Cultural Context: Hall’s translation is from the 1800s, so it uses older and fancier words to describe Beowulf and how his characteristics make him a hero. Gummere’s translation is from the early 1900s and is easier to read using more of modern texts and descriptions. These differences show how ideas of heroism and masculinity can change over time, even though Beowulf is always a strong, brave hero.

Annotation by: Jatnna Sanchez CC License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Tag: #SP2025-Lit211

Comparative Insight: Both versions show Beowulf as a brave and respectful hero, but Hall’s version is more poetic, which makes Beowulf seem like a legendary figure. Gummere’s version is simpler and makes Beowulf seem more like a real person narrating the story. Both connect to gender politics by highlighting how a hero must be strong but also respectful.

Annotation by: Jatnna Sanchez CC License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Tag: #SP2025-Lit211

Analysis: In this version, Beowulf is shown as a respectful hero where we can see here how he talks to the king to get approval before taking action. This shows male characteristics that are liked such as polite, honarable and being loyal. These connect to political gender as it emphasizes the qualities of traditional male characteristics.

These two headings and generally all other headings on the page are using appropriate HTML tags to signify their semantic order and flow on the page. "Renewal for children under 15 and 1/2" is using an h2 tag while the sub-heading "Submit your renewal application online" is using an appropriate semantically correct h3 tag, which was found on inspection using dev tools. This allows screen readers to properly parse the page and also gives proper visual indication that one is a heading and the other is a sub-heading. This corresponds to the principle of "perceivable" because information is clearly being presented to users in a way they can perceive whether via the screen reader correctly parsing the text, or by visually with clear visual differences indicating the semantics and order of the content.

(Reference to the image to the right of this text) The image of the Ontario Health Card on the top of the page has an alt attribute (inspected using dev tools) less than 125 characters that reads "Ontario health card" which is concise and describes the image. (Screen readers will detect it is an img tag and say something along the lines of "image of" and then read the alt attribute text). This corresponds to the web accesibility principle of "robust" as the descriptive and concise alt attribute allows the image to be interpreted by a wide variety of assistive technologies.

Annotation about josey's favoritism towards him by his father. Author: David Sanchez CC License: CC BY-NC Tag: #SP2025-Lit211

The story of Joseph in the book of Genesis shows us some of the aspects that marked the present and future of his life. The book of Genesis tells us about the favoritism and devotion that his father Jacob always had towards him, being the favorite son of 12 brothers. “Israel (another name for Jacob) loved Joseph more than all his sons since he was a child of his old age” (Genesis 37:3). This favoritism towards Joseph on the part of Jacob was because Joseph was the firstborn of the woman that Jacob had loved the most, who was Rachel. As a sign of his love and affection, Jacob gave him a colorful tonic (ketones passim), which symbolized a gesture of favoritism towards Joseph and aroused the anger and fury of his brothers. These texts show us how favoritism towards certain members of a family is something bad and unnecessary, even for the beneficiary who in this case was Joseph, because this blatant favoritism on the part of Jacob was what somehow caused Joseph to be sold by his brothers to the Ishmaelites, thus causing a very tragic situation for Jacob's family.

References: The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. Genesis 37:3.

Roth, Elana. “The Story of Joseph.” My Jewish Learning, 20 June 2023, www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-story-of-joseph/.

Annotation about josey's favoritism towards him by his father. Author: David Sanchez CC License: CC BY-NC Tag: #SP2025-Lit211

The story of Joseph in the book of Genesis shows us some of the aspects that marked the present and future of his life. The book of Genesis tells us about the favoritism and devotion that his father Jacob always had towards him, being the favorite son of 12 brothers. “Israel (another name for Jacob) loved Joseph more than all his sons since he was a child of his old age” (Genesis 37:3). This favoritism towards Joseph on the part of Jacob was because Joseph was the firstborn of the woman that Jacob had loved the most, who was Rachel. As a sign of his love and affection, Jacob gave him a colorful tonic (ketones passim), which symbolized a gesture of favoritism towards Joseph and aroused the anger and fury of his brothers. These texts show us how favoritism towards certain members of a family is something bad and unnecessary, even for the beneficiary who in this case was Joseph, because this blatant favoritism on the part of Jacob was what somehow caused Joseph to be sold by his brothers to the Ishmaelites, thus causing a very tragic situation for Jacob's family.

References: The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. Genesis 37:3.

Roth, Elana. “The Story of Joseph.” My Jewish Learning, 20 June 2023, www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-story-of-joseph/.

test 2

Not the Magnificent Montgue

Note: This response was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. The content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

Reply to the reviewers

Manuscript number: RC-2025-02887

Corresponding author(s): Philippe Bastin

1. General Statements [optional]

• *

We thank the reviewers for their constructive suggestions. We are delighted to see that they appreciated our work and its interest for the broad cell biology community, as well as the potential impact of the inducible expression of tagged tubulin as a new tool to investigate microtubule assembly at large.

We are now providing a full revision that contains two major modifications and that addresses all the minor points detailed below. The two major modifications are:

• A simplification and a shortening of the text as requested by reviewers 1 and 3
• The addition of a new experiment evaluating the role of the locking protein CEP164C to gain insight into the mechanism, as suggested by reviewers 1 and 2 Briefly, CEP164C is a protein localised to the transition fibres (structures that dock the basal body of the flagellum to the membrane) of only the old flagellum. Its depletion leads to an excessive elongation of the old flagellum and the production of a shorter new flagellum, suggesting competition between the two flagella for tubulin incorporation (Atkins et al., 2021). In the new figure 5, we have expressed tagged tubulin in the CEP164CRNAi cell line and formally demonstrated simultaneous incorporation in both flagella. Unexpectedly, the new flagellum incorporated more tubulin than the old one, suggesting a bias of tubulin targeting in favour of the new flagellum and the existence of additional contributors to the Grow-and-Lock model.

2. Point-by-point description of the revisions

This section is mandatory. *Please insert a point-by-point reply describing the revisions that were already carried out and included in the transferred manuscript. *

• *

Reviewer #1

Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

The manuscript by Daniel Abbühl on "A novel approach to tagging tubulin reveals MT assembly dynamics of the axoneme in Trypanosoma brucei" uses an innnovative approach to label tubulin, which allows the authors to unveil new mechanisms in flagellar length regulation.

The manuscript is very nice and will be very interesting for the cell biology community and therefore should be accepted. In some parts it becames a bit complex with all the models and complex phrasing, I wonder whether the text could be simplified to be more appealing. I have a few minor comments:

We agree that some of the explanations are lengthy and complex. We have simplified the explanations and hopefully made the models more accessible. Complexity comes from the fact that trypanosomes do not have a synchronized cell cycle.

-From the model the authors show in Figure 8- there should be a way of pulsing the cells in G1 for a short amount of time -2 hours- and getting both flagella tips labelled. But the authors seem to require longer labelling to get that result. This should be better explained.

We are not quite sure what is meant here with both flagella as in G1-phase, all cells are mono-flagellated. We do see mono-flagellated cells with a labelled tip after 2 hours, both with the HALO-tag or the Ty-1-tubulin system.

In regard to bi-flagellate cells, we believe that incorporation in the OF happened at the beginning of G1-phase when the cell was mono-flagellated. If tubulin is present at that point, it will be incorporated at the tip. This cell then approaches the end of G1-phase and starts to initiate NF assembly. Since tagged tubulin is already present it will be incorporated along the whole length of the NF.

A short induction of 2h would not suffice as it wouldn't cover the duration of the G1-phase and the initiation of a NF (duration of G1-phase is ~4h). We attempted to explain this in Fig. 4 and reworked the text to make this clearer.

-Why do some cells not express the construct? Weren´t they all selected?

We never managed to get a cell line where inducible expression is present in 100% of cells. Here, around 95% of cells were positive for Ty-1-tubulin after 24h of induction. Non-expression is not a phenomenon restricted to this tubulin cell line but also observed with other ectopically expressed proteins (e.g. Sunter et al. JCS 2015, Bastin et al. MCB 1999). All these cell lines represent clonal populations and are resistant to antibiotic treatment, however not all cells express the respective protein. For each experiment where we believed the number of expressing cells matter (for example the washout), we quantified in how many cells Ty-1-tubulin was present in the cell body microtubules.

-"The linear regression line in Fig. 3C was corrected by subtracting 45 minutes from each timepoint due to the previously reported delay between addition of tetracycline and the expression of the respective protein". However, in the authors data the delay may amount to one hour (western analysis- S4). Shouldn´t they use their data.

Indeed, the western blot shows expression after 1-hour, however we did not take a 45-minute timepoint, so we don't know if the protein was detectable at that time. In addition, IFA is more sensitive than western blot. We cannot say exactly when the average cell starts to express the induced protein.

-Fig 3: To measure the timepoints of flagella growth, wouldn´t it be better to do it with NF that started to grow before induction, rather than starting to grow after induction, to be sure that the timing of incorporation is fully accounted for?

We indeed did consider only NFs, which started to grow before induction, as suggested by the reviewer. In the revised version the description of the experiment can be found on page 9 line 22 - 28.

-Although it is not the focus of the manuscript it would have been very interesting to use the CEP164C mutant to see whether it would change the dynamics of incorporation and fully test their model and discussion.

This is a great suggestion, so we performed some experiments to address this issue. When CEP164C was knocked down before Ty-1-tubulin expression, integration is seen at the distal tip of both NF and OF. This is coherent with the idea of removal of the locking protein from the OF. However, lengths of the green segments in NF and OF do not have the same length (NF ~6 µm, OF ~2 µm), which indicates that CEP164C might not be the only protein involved in regulating flagellum length. A new figure explaining this experiment was added (Fig. 5, Fig. S6). We believe this data provides novel insight on the locking mechanism and strengthens the manuscript.

-In some parts of the manuscript/supplemental material the authors say they insert the Ty-1- tag one aminoacid after the acetylated lysine- other parts they say two aminoacids after- this should be consistent.

We thank the reviewer for spotting these mistakes, we have changed the text accordingly.

-Fig. S1: 'Binding epitope of the TAT-1 antibody is highlighted in red'. There is no highlighting in red in this figure?

This sentence was removed.

-Fig. S2: Western blots are not very clear. What is the 'X' present in the C (first lane)? Weight of markers should be shown also in S4.

Molecular weight markers have been added. X is an empty lane, we have now indicated this in the figure legend.

-Fig 5: 'C: Frequency of bi-flagellated cells grouped by the different types of' The authors didn't finish the sentence.

Previous Fig. 5 is now Fig. 6. Sentence has been completed. "Frequency of bi-flagellated cells grouped by different types of old flagella"

-Fig. S7: The 'B' is missing in both picture and legend.

This has been added

Significance

This study advances our knowledge of flagellar length regulation and maintenance. Moreover, the tools designed in this work will be very useful for the cell biology community in general.

---

Reviewer #2

Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

Summary: The length of the old flagellum of Trypanosome is constant during G1 phase as well as during cell cycle progression when the new flagellum is assembled. The authors have previously proposed a "Grow and Lock" model for the flagellar length control in which no flagellar building blocks are incorporated. To test this hypothesis, the authors used a tagging strategy for alpha-tubulin and tracking its incorporation. The authors showed that the new flagellum incorporates new tubulins, as is expected. For the mature flagellum, tubulins are incorporated at the flagellar tip and only when the cells start to assemble the new flagellum. Thus, it shows that old flagellum is stable but not completely locked for the incorporation of tubulins.

Major comments: The study is methodologically rigorous, integrating fluorescence microscopy, biochemical approaches, and proteomic analyses to validate the functionality of the tagged tubulin. The use of both inducible expression and endogenous protein tagging (HaloTag) strengthens the conclusions. This study has supported the "Grow-and-Lock" model" that the authors previously proposed. In addition, they have revealed that the stability of the old flagellum is temporally controlled.

The data showed that brief incorporation of tubulins at the tip of the old flagellum occurs when the cells start to form the new flagellum. I thought the assembly of the new flagellum occurs during the cell division. However, in the abstract, it says that "The restriction is lifted briefly after the bi-flagellated cell has divided." Is my understanding wrong?

We believe incorporation at the tip of the "OF" occurred after the cell has divided, when the OF daughter is mono-flagellated. It happens before this daughter cells starts assembling its new flagellum is formed. Of course, when looking at biflagellated cells, the NF as well as the tip of the OF will be green, but our data supports that incorporation happened in G1-phase and not during the biflagellated stage as the lock seals the OF before the NF emerges. To clarify on terminology: The bi-flagellate stage begins when basal bodies are duplicated, shortly after the beginning of S-phase and ends with cytokinesis. This means G1-phase and the mono-flagellated stage are nearly the same (Woodward and Gull, JCS1990) and occupy ~40% of the cell cycle.

P12, "The cartoon in Fig. 5A illustrates the progression of the cells in scenario 2 (Fig. 4A) over the duration of one cell cycle (~9 hours)" I thought that one cell cycle should start with cell with only one flagellum, followed by assembly of a new flagellum during cell division, the cell then divides when the new flagellum is almost completely assembled. If my understanding is correct, perhaps the cartoon should be modified accordingly.

Indeed, the cell cycle starts with a cell in G1-phase. Here, we have chosen the initiation of a NF assembly as our starting point because we focused the investigation on bi-flagellated cells. We have now illustrated the cell cycle (adapted from Woodward and Gull 1990) and when cells are biflagellated in Fig. 6A (revised version).

Minor comments:

1) Several references are not correctly formatted. P3: (Flavin and Slaughter, 1974) (Rosenbaum 1969). P10, (Sherwin et al., 1987)(Sheriff et al., 2014) 2) In several places there are no space between the number and the unit. For eample, P3, 9 - 24µm/h. 7, 1μg/m; P8, 50kDa; P9, 1M; 8-9h; P11, 2.9µm/h and etc. 3) P11, Flagella were extracted. I thought the cells were extracted.

Thank you for pointing these out, we have changed these in the text.

Significance

Cilia and eukaryotic flagella are considered dynamic structures in which the flagellar components especially tubulins under constant turnovers even in steady state. This work demonstrates that in Trypanosome the stable old flagellum is temporally controlled for tubulin turnovers, suggesting a tight regulation of microtubule dynamics. Future elucidation of the regulatory mechanism will be more interesting. This work will be interesting to the field of cilia and microtubules. In addition, the new technique used for tracking tubulins will also be interesting.

I am an expert on ciliary biology.

Reviewer #3 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

Summary:

This study seeks to investigate the mechanism by which the length of an eukaryotic cilium is set and maintained in a constant state. The flagellated protist Trypanosoma brucei serves as the study model and the authors take advantage of the genetic tools that allow precise modification and tagging of flagellar proteins and they build on prior knowledge about the well-characterised flagellar assembly cycle, which allows tracking the assembly of a new flagellum alongside an existing old one in the course of one cell cycle. The group of Bastin has previously reported a very interesting "Grow-and-Lock Model for the Control of Flagellum Length in Trypanosomes" and this current manuscript provides a test of this model, and a refinement. Key to this is an advance in technique, reported here, namely expression of an epitope tagged version of alpha tubulin. The epitope is inserted in an internal loop, which apparently for the first time provides a traceable tubulin that is reliably incorporated into the cytoskeleton (subpellicular array, spindle and cilium). Expressing an inducible version of this Ty-1-tubulin allows for a set of experiments that measure the place and timing of tubulin incorporation into cilia. The results are largely confirmatory of previous findings (incorporation exclusively into the new flagellum, at the distal end, linear growth rate that matches previous estimates). Examination of tubulin incorporation patterns then reveal additional information about the old flagellum: evidence from Ty-1-tubulin labelling, corroborated by incorporation patterns of another ciliary protein (RSP 4/6) suggest that the "lock" on the old flagellum is relieved for short periods after cell division, leading to a refined model presented in Figure 8.

Major comments:

This study provides an elegant test of the grow-and-lock model and the major conclusions are supported by the data. I have no major concerns.

Minor comments:

There are several minor points that could be addressed to make the manuscript easier to follow (and adding line numbers to the manuscript would help with reviewing).

The introduction is quite long. Some of the well-established background information on the T. brucei cell cycle could be shortened. If the paper is intended for a broader audience, it would be valuable instead to cite studies that have succeeded in tagging tubulin and tracing its incorporation in other cilia. Could the Ty-1-tubulin approach be relevant more broadly or are simpler methods already established?

The introduction has been shortened, we now also cite two published studies that tracked tubulin integration in Chlamydomonas and C. elegans respectively.

On p.6 the rationale for endogenous tagging was to "reduce the risk of artifacts portentially due to untimely expression or unnatural protein levels". However most of the experiments were done with ectopically expressed inducible Ty-1-tubulin. For the experiments it is crucial to use an inducible system but the authors may wish to comment why the risk of artifacts was no longer a concern.

The reasoning here was that in case the Ty-1-tubulin would not have been incorporated into MTs, we could have attributed it solely to the presence of the tag and no other factors, but this was not the case. This therefore allowed us to move to the inducible expression system.

On p.7 / Fig S2A-B there appears to be a mistake in the presentation. Spindles are mentioned in the text - I can't see any in the figure. Fig S2A and B both show cytoskeletons, but the text suggests only B is about cytoskeletons. None of the blot shows BB2 staining of different cell fractions, contrary to statements in the text. The letter codes in the panel (T, C, D) don't match the codes in the legend (T, P, S).

We thank the reviewer for spotting the mistakes. A panel with the spindle was added in Fig. S2. We did not stain fraction blots of the in-situ tagged cell lines with BB2. However, this was done with the inducible cell line and is shown in Fig. 1D. Letter code in the legend was adapted to match the figure.

Figure 1. The evidence for incorporation into spindles is not strong. The structure indicated by the arrive could be a spindle but it's not very clear. There is a great example of a labelled spindle only in figure S5A. Here, at the start, it would be good to show a panel of cells in successive cell cycle stages (best, whole cells and cytoskeletons) to clearly show the structures that are labelled with Ty-1-tubulin.

The current Fig. 1B (Fig. 1A before) depicts whole cells of an induced and a non-induced culture; we show whole cells to provide a complete picture of tubulin integration. A panel with detergent extracted cytoskeletons from the in situ tagged cell line has been added to Fig. 1A. We chose to show cytoskeletons or isolated flagella instead of whole cells because (1) the flagella are easier to see and (2) it formally demonstrates that tagged tubulin is incorporated in MTs.

In general, tubulin labelling of the spindle was more consistently observed in whole cells as we did not use spindle preserving extraction buffers when preparing cytoskeletons. However, we did observe clear spindles in cytoskeletons as well (see Fig. S5 for example). The same was observed for the beta-tubulin specific KMX1 antibody in the past which is the gold standard to visualize the spindle (Sasse and Gull JCS1988). Regardless, a panel depicting spindle progression through mitosis using staining of Ty-1-tubulin has been added in Fig. S2 (The panel is a mix of whole cells and cytoskeletons).

On p.8 (end of first paragraph) there is reference to cell cycle analyses, but no data is shown. Also on p.8, please clarify what the evidence is that "a fraction of cells did not respond to tetracycline". The fact that they remain unstained by Ty-1-tubulin is not in itself evidence they did not respond to tetracycline.

We did not show the cell cycle data as it was similar to non-induced and does not provide any new information in our opinion. Hence, the sentence has been removed.

The reviewer is correct that we do not have evidence that these cells did not respond to tetracycline. Some cells remained completely devoid of Ty-1-tubulin even after multiple days of induction. This was typically between 5-10% of cells. In experiments where the exact number is important, we counted the amount of "non-expressers" in whole cells.

Figure S4A. The blot for the soluble fraction is not of great quality. I don't see how the conclusion was reached that the Ty-1-tubulin bands were faint.

The blot of the soluble fraction that was stained with BB2 had to be exposed a lot longer compared to the blot stained with TAT-1. The soluble blots were repeated with the same result (lots of background noise when using BB2, a clear blot with TAT-1). In the TAT-1 blot only the endogenous tubulin band is clearly visible, with some very faint signal above corresponding to the Ty-1-tubulin. Soluble Ty-1-tubulin with BB2 or TAT-1 is visible in Fig. 1D after longer inductions.

On p.11, it would be interesting to compare measured elongation rates with previously measured estimates for flagellum growth, comparing the growth rates, and relating them to cell cycle times in the corresponding experiments (which vary slightly between labs and studies).

We attempted to address this in the discussion by comparing our experiments to the assembly rate measured with the PFR as reporter (Bastin et al. 1999). We could mention the corresponding doubling times in correlation to how many cells are bi-flagellated, but this was only done with the Ty-1-tubulin cell line and not with the PFR. In our experiments the average doubling time was ~9 hours with 52% of cells being bi-flagellated. This was measured with FTZC (marker of the transition zone at the base of the flagellum) and Mab25 (marker of the axoneme of the flagellum) which will lead to a slight underestimate of the real number of bi-flagellated cells, as the NF is initially very close which makes it difficult to notice/differentiate from the old one.

Figure S6. I find the presentation of this figure confusing. It should be revised with clearer labelling of "cell cycle 1", "cell cycle 2", and the precise meaning of "type 3" should be clarified. There are two instances of "type 1" in the drawing, but one of these seems to fulfil the criteria of "type 3" (OF 1-4µm).

We agree with the reviewer and therefore decided to remove this figure. We also considered the comments of the other two reviewers about complexity of the manuscript and changed the text of figure 5 to make it more approachable. This includes a simpler explanation for the expected amounts of flagella.

Figure 7. In panel A, the absence of label at the NF distal end is not total, a purple line is still visible. Was any quantitation attempted (signal intensity, changes in length of labelled fragments over time?). Minimally, say how many cells were analysed for the numbers in panels D and E, and how many times this experiment was done.

We agree with the reviewer that the decrease in the TMR signal in the NF of the cell in the original Fig. 7A (currently Fig. 8A) is gradual and not abrupt. Similarly to the Ty-1-tubulin experiments where the tagged protein becomes progressively more available (increasing intensity), the intensity of TMR-ligand becomes progressively less abundant (gradually decreasing intensity) as new (not TMR labelled) protein gets synthesized during the period of NF construction, progressively diluting the initially fully labeled population of RSP4/6. The slope of the gradient may differ between axonemal constituents, as it reflects the kinetics of protein synthesis, degradation, its incorporation into the axoneme, as well as the size of the soluble protein pool in the cytosol. We classify this type of signal as gradients, as opposed to the sharp decrease. At initial times after TMR-ligand washout (e.g. 4 hours in Fig. 8C), this long gradient is observed at the distal end of NFs and in some uniflagellated cells (NF-inheriting daughters). The distal ends of OFs in these experiments (if not fully labelled) display a sharp decrease, as do frequent uniflagellated cells, likely OF-inheriting daughters. The existence of these two different patterns demonstrates that two different mechanisms are responsible for incorporation of fresh RSP4/6 into the NF and OF axoneme, respectively. While incorporation into the NF is gradual, incorporation into the distal region of the OF is stepwise (restricted in time). Numbers of cells quantified for the table in Fig. 8 have been added. The NFs and OFs displaying the patterns of the gradient and sharp decrease, respectively, were observed in multiple experiments.

Reviewer #3 (Significance (Required)):

• General assessment: strengths and limitations

Strengths: Trypanosoma brucei is a powerful model system in which to ask detailed questions about the assembly dynamics and hierarchy of microtubule-based cytoskeletal structures in general and cilia in particular. This elegant and well-designed study overcomes a previous technical limitation by allowing for the direct labelling of alpha tubulin, one of the main building blocks of the ciliary axoneme. The study sets out to test a specific hypothesis (grow-and-lock model) and provides evidence in support, leading to a refined model for cilia length regulation in trypanosomes.

Limitations: With this system, visualisation of new tubulin incorporation requires de novo synthesis. There is a time lag between inducing expression of Ty-1-tubulin with tetracycline and being able to visualize the tagged proteins that needs to be taken into consideration. This time lag was estimated based on previous studies and the relatively quick appearance of Ty-1-tubulin on Western blots (within hours). This inevitably creates a situation where levels of tagged tubulin change rapidly, creating gradients of signal intensity (and variations in levels) that lead to some uncertainty in estimations of length of labelled microtubule fragments. Furhtermore, the epitope label is not compatible with live cell imaging, restricting analyses to fixed cells. The Ty-1-tubulin data is well ducmented; the RSP4/6 data appear to corroborate these findings but are less extensively documented.

• Advance: The results succeed in integrating several recent findings from different research groups into a refined coherent model about cilia length regulation in trypanosomes. The tubulin tagging method could be gainfully transferred to other systems (although the state of the field in tubulin tagging in other systems is not clearly laid out in the paper).

This paper could be of interest to a broad cell biology community interested in cilia and cytoskeletal dynamics.

Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

Referee #1

Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

The manuscript by Daniel Abbühl on "A novel approach to tagging tubulin reveals MT assembly dynamics of the axoneme in Trypanosoma brucei" uses an innnovative approach to label tubulin, which allows the authors to unveil new mechanisms in flagellar length regulation.

The manuscript is very nice and will be very interesting for the cell biology community and therefore should be accepted. In some parts it becames a bit complex with all the models and complex phrasing, I wonder whether the text could be simplified to be more appealing. I have a few minor comments:

• From the model the authors show in Figure 8- there should be a way of pulsing the cells in G1 for a short amount of time -2 hours- and getting both flagella tips labelled. But the authors seem to require longer labelling to get that result. This should be better explained.
• Why do some cells not express the construct? Weren´t they all selected?
• "The linear regression line in Fig. 3C was corrected by subtracting 45 minutes from each timepoint due to the previously reported delay between addition of tetracycline and the expression of the respective protein". However, in the authors data the delay may amount to one hour (western analysis- S4). Shouldn´t they use their data.
• Fig 3: To measure the timepoints of flagella growth, wouldn´t it be better to do it with NF that started to grow before induction, rather than starting to grow after induction, to be sure that the timing of incorporation is fully accounted for?
• Although it is not the focus of the manuscript it would have been very interesting to use the CEP164C mutant to see whether it would change the dynamics of incorporation and fully test their model and discussion.
• In some parts of the manuscript/supplemental material the authors say they insert the Ty-1- tag one aminoacid after the acetylated lysine- other parts they say two aminoacids after- this should be consistent.
• Fig. S1: 'Binding epitope of the TAT-1 antibody is highlighted in red'. There is no highlighting in red in this figure?
• Fig. S2: Western blots are not very clear. What is the 'X' present in the C (first lane)? Weight of markers should be shown also in S4.
• Fig 5: 'C: Frequency of bi-flagellated cells grouped by the different types of' The authors didn't finish the sentence.
• Fig. S7: The 'B' is missing in both picture and legend.

Significance

This study advances our knowledge of flagellar length regulation and maintenance. Moreover the tools designed in this work will be very useful for the cell biology community in general.

Annotation by: [Your Full Name] CC License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Tag: #SP2025-Lit211

Linguistic and Cultural Context: Aphrodite talks in a super fancy way here. She talks and acts like a queen to make herself sound more powerful. This is because she’s a goddess, and in Greek plays, gods were always shown as being really important. The way she talks is all about showing off her power. She says she can help people who respect her or destroy people who don’t. This kind of serious, dramatic language is normal for Greek gods in plays because it makes them seem way bigger and more important than normal people.

Annotation by: Jatnna Sanchez CC License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Tag: #SP2025-Lit211

Comparative Insight: In this quote, Aphrodite declares her vast influence over both mortals and gods, emphasizing that she rewards those who honor her and punishes those who don't. This showcases her as a powerful female deity who demands respect and can control the fates of individuals. Her power over love and desire contrasts with Hippolytus' self-control and rejection of passion, highlighting the different ways power is portrayed in the play.

Annotation by: Jatnna Sanchez CC License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Tag: #SP2025-Lit211

Analysis: In this quote, Aphrodite talks about how powerful she is. She controls love and desire everywhere, and she makes it clear that if people respect her, she will help them. But if they ignore her or disrespect her, she will punish them. This shows that even though she is a goddess of love, she is not just kind and gentle but that she can also be dangerous if people make her angry. This makes her a really powerful female character in the story because she can control people’s feelings and lives.

Annotation by: Jatnna Sanchez CC License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Tag: #SP2025-Lit211

Analysis: In this quote, Aphrodite talks about how she rewards people who respect her but punishes anyone who disrespects her. This shows how powerful she is because everyone has to listen to her, even though she’s a goddess of love. It also shows how women, especially goddesses, were expected to be respected but could also be blamed if something went wrong.

Annotation by: Jatnna Sanchez CC License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Tag: #SP2025-Lit211

Linguistic and Cultural Context: Kovacs’ version is written in modern and clear English, which makes it easy to understand and focuses on Gilgamesh’s journey. Sandars’ version is written in a more poetic style, making him look like a hero. These two styles show how translators can change the way we see a character, depending on whether they want him to look like a brave man or a famous hero.

Annotation by: Jatnna Sanchez CC License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Tag: #SP2025-Lit211

Comparative Insight: Both versions show Gilgamesh as a hero, but they focus on different things. Kovacs’ version shows him as someone who goes on a tough journey and learns a lot, while Sandars’ version makes him look like a famous legend whose story should be told to everyone. This connects to gender politics because it shows two ways of being a "great man", first is about bravery and wisdom, and the other is about being remembered.

Annotation by: Jatnna Sanchez CC License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Tag: #SP2025-Lit211

Analysis: In this version, Gilgamesh is shown as a hero who had come back from a journey and shares his stories from these adventures. This connects to gender politics because it shows how men were expected to be strong leaders who were remembered for their work and achievements.

Annotation by: Jatnna Sanchez CC License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Tag: #SP2025-Lit211

Linguistic and Cultural Context: Kovacs’ version is written in modern and clear English, which makes it easy to understand and focuses on Gilgamesh’s journey. Sandars’ version is written in a more poetic style, making him look like a hero. These two styles show how translators can change the way we see a character, depending on whether they want him to look like a brave man or a famous hero.

Annotation by: Jatnna Sanchez CC License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Tag: #SP2025-Lit211

Comparative Insight: Both versions show Gilgamesh as a hero, but they focus on different things. Kovacs’ version shows him as someone who goes on a tough journey and learns a lot, while Sandars’ version makes him look like a famous legend whose story should be told to everyone. This connects to gender politics because it shows two ways of being a "great man", first is about bravery and wisdom, and the other is about being remembered.

Annotation by: Jatnna Sanchez CC License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Tag: #SP2025-Lit211 In this version, Gilgamesh is shown as a hero who goes on a long journey, learns a lot, and brings back stories from the past. This makes him look like the a good hero where he has characteristics of someone who is brave, curious, and always trying to learn more. This connects to gender politics because it shows how men were expected to be strong, adventurous, and wise.

Annotation by: Jatnna Sanchez CC License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Tag: #SP2025-Lit211

Linguistic and Cultural Context: Hall’s translation is from the 1800s, so it uses older and fancier words to describe Beowulf and how his characteristics make him a hero. Gummere’s translation is from the early 1900s and is easier to read using more of modern texts and descriptions. These differences show how ideas of heroism and masculinity can change over time, even though Beowulf is always a strong, brave hero.

Annotation by: Jatnna Sanchez CC License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Tag: #SP2025-Lit211

Comparative Insight: Both versions show Beowulf as a brave and respectful hero, but Hall’s version is more poetic, which makes Beowulf seem like a legendary figure. Gummere’s version is simpler and makes Beowulf seem more like a real person narrating the story. Both connect to gender politics by highlighting how a hero must be strong but also respectful.

Annotation by: Jatnna Sanchez CC License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Tag: #SP2025-Lit211

Analysis: In this quote, Beowulf shows his bravery by talking about how he and his men sailed across the sea to help Hrothgar and his people, knowing that they might die. This is a big part of gender politics because it shows the traditional idea of masculinity of being strong, fearless, and willing to sacrifice yourself for honor.

Annotation by: Jatnna Sanchez CC License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Tag: #SP2025-Lit211

Linguistic and Cultural Context: Potter's version is more descriptive in her feelings of her son's departure. It shows more of an emotional side of the story. Smyth's version tells the story like a book where it does not show as much emotion and gets to the point. These two stories show how different emotions can be shown of the same character based on different writing.

Annotation by: Jatnna Sanchez CC License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Tag: #SP2025-Lit211

Comparative Insight: Both versions show Atossa being upset, but in different ways. In Potter’s version, she’s emotional and scared, which makes her seem vulnerable. In Smyth’s version, she’s more controlled, which makes her look strong.

Annotation by: Jatnna Sanchez CC License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Tag: #SP2025-Lit211

Analysis: This version of Atossa is different. She’s still worried, but instead of showing it publicly, she keeps her feelings inside. She instead tells us about the dreams she has about her son. This connects to the view of women as she is showing us a different version of her being more strong as she isn't showing her emotions publically but has dreams instead.

Annotation by: Jatnna Sanchez CC License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Tag: #SP2025-Lit211

Linguistic and Cultural Context: Potter's version is more descriptive in her feelings of her son's departure. It shows more of an emotional side of the story. Smyth's version tells the story like a book where it does not show as much emotion and gets to the point. These two stories show how different emotions can be shown of the same character based on different writing.

Annotation by: Jatnna Sanchez CC License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Tag: #SP2025-Lit211

Analysis: In this version, Atossa is emotional as she talks about nightmares that keep haunting her, and it shows how worried she is for her son and the Persian army. It shows a traditional view of women that show emotions as she shows her emotions of sad, fear, anxious, etc when it comes to her son and the people.

Annotation by: Jatnna Sanchez CC License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Tag: #SP2025-Lit211

Comparative Insight: Both versions show Atossa being upset, but in different ways. In Potter’s version, she’s emotional and scared, which makes her seem vulnerable. In Smyth’s version, she’s more controlled, which makes her look strong.

eLife Assessment

TDP-43 mislocalization is a key feature of some neurodegenerative diseases, but cellular models are lacking. The authors endogenously-tagged TDP-43 with a C-terminal GFP tag in human iPSCs, followed by expression of an intrabody-NES that targeted GFP to the cytosol. They convincingly report physical mislocalization and functional depletion of TDP-43, as measured by microscopy and RNAseq. This method will be valuable to investigators studying the biological consequences of TDP-43 mislocalization and the methodology is in line with the current state-of-the-art.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

TDP-43 mislocalization occurs in nearly all of ALS, roughly half of FTD, and as a co-pathology in roughly half of AD cases. Both gain of function and loss of function mechanisms associated with this mislocalization likely contribute to disease pathogeneisis.

Here, the authors describe a new method to induce TDP-43 mislocalization in cellular models. They endogenously-tagged TDP-43 with a C-terminal GFP tag in human iPSCs. They then expressed an intrabody - fused with a nuclear export signal (NES) - that targeted GFP to the cytosol. Expression of this intrabody-NES in human iPSC derived neurons induced nuclear depletion of homozygous TDP-43-GFP, caused its mislocalization to the cytosol, and at least in some cells appeared to cause cytosolic aggregates. This mislocalization was accompanied by induction of cryptic exons in well characterized transcripts known to be regulated by TDP-43, a hallmark of functional TDP-43 loss and consistent with pathological nuclear TDP-43 depletion. Interestingly, in heterozygous TDP-43-GFP neurons, expression of intrabody-NES appeared to also induce the mislocalization of untagged TDP-43 in roughly half of the neurons, suggesting that this system can also be used to study effects on untagged endogenous TDP-43 as well as TDP-43-GFP fusion protein.

Strengths:

A clearer understanding of how TDP-43 mislocalization alters cellular function, as well as pathways that mitigate clearance of TDP-43 aggregates, is critical. But modeling TDP-43 mislocalization in disease-relevant cellular systems has proven to be challenging. High levels of overexpression of TDP-43 lacking an NES can drive endogenous TDP-43 mislocalization, but such overexpression has direct and artificial consequences on certain cellular features (e.g. altered exon skipping) not seen in diseased patients. Toxic small molecules such as MG132 and arsenite can induce TDP-43 mislocalization, but co-induce myriad additional cellular dysfunctions unrelated to TDP-43 or ALS. TDP-43 binding oligonucleotides can cause cytosolic mislocalization as well. Each system has pros and cons, and additional ways to induce TDP-43 mislocalization would be useful for the field. The method described in this manuscript could provide researchers with a powerful way to study the combined biology of cytosolic TDP-43 mislocalization and nuclear TDP-43 depletion, with additional temporal control that is lacking in current method. Indeed, the author see some evidence of differences in RNA splicing caused by pure TDP-43 depletion versus their induced mislocalization model. Finally, their method may be especially useful in determining how TDP-43 aggregates are cleared by cells, potentially revealing new biological pathways that could be therapeutically targeted.

Weaknesses:

The method and supporting data have some limitations.

• Tagging of TDP-43 with a bulky GFP tag may alter its normal physiological functions, for example, phase separation properties and functions within complex ribonucleoprotein complexes. The authors show that normal splicing function of GFP-TDP-43 is maintained, suggesting that physiology is largely preserved, but other functions and properties of TDP-43 that were not directly tested could be altered.

• Potential differences in splicing and micro RNAs between TDP-43 knockdown and TDP-43 mislocalization are potentially interesting. However, different patterns of dysregulated RNA splicing can occur at different levels of TDP-knockdown and can differ in different batches of experiments, thus it is difficult to asses whether the changes observed in this paper are due to mislocalization per se, or rather just reflect differences in nuclear TDP-43 abundance or batch effects.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the previous reviews

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Nuclear depletion and cytoplasmic mislocalization/aggregation of the DNA and RNA binding protein TDP-43 are pathological hallmarks of multiple neurodegenerative diseases. Prior work has demonstrated that depletion of TDP-43 from the nucleus leads to alterations in transcription and splicing. Conversely, cytoplasmic mislocalization/aggregation can contribute to toxicity by impairing mRNA transport and translation as well as miRNA dysregulation. However, to date, models of TDP-43 proteinopathy rely on artificial knockdown- or overexpression-based systems to evaluate either nuclear loss or cytoplasmic gain of function events independently. Few model systems authentically reproduce both nuclear depletion and cytoplasmic miscloalization/aggregation events. In this manuscript, the authors generate novel iPSC-based reagents to manipulate the localization of endogenous TDP-43. This is a valuable resource for the field to study pathological consequences of TDP-43 proteinopathy in a more endogenous and authentic setting. However, in the current manuscript, there are a number of weaknesses that should be addressed to further validate the ability of this model to replicate human disease pathology and demonstrate utility for future studies.

Strengths:

The primary strength of this paper is the development of a novel in vitro tool.

Weaknesses:

There are a number of weaknesses detailed below that should be addressed to thoroughly validate these new reagents as more authentic models of TDP-43 proteinopathy and demonstrate their utility for future investigations.

(1) The authors should include images of their engineered TDP-43-GFP iPSC line to demonstrate TDP-43 localization without the addition of any nanobodies (perhaps immediately prior to addition of nanobodies). Additionally, it is unclear whether simply adding a GFP tag to endogenous TDP-43 impact its normal function (nuclear-cytoplasmic shuttling, regulation of transcription and splicing, mRNA transport etc).

We have included images of the untransduced day 20 MNs derived from the engineered TDP43-GFP iPSC lines and the unedited line (Supplementary Fig. 1B).

We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern about the potential impact of the GFP tag on TDP43's normal function. To address this, we have validated the functionality of TDP43 by assessing the inclusion of cryptic exons in highly sensitive targets such as UNC13A and STMN2, both of which are known to be directly regulated by TDP43.

We compared MNs derived from the unedited parent line with the TDP43-GFP MNs prior to nanobody addition. As measured by qPCR, cryptic exon inclusion in UNC13A and STMN2 was not observed in the unedited or edited TDP43-GFP MNs (Supplementary Fig.1C), confirming that the tagging does not induce splicing defects by itself. The cryptic exon inclusion in UNC13A and STMN2 were only observed in TDP43-GFP MNs expressing the NES nanobody (Supplementary Fig. 2D). These findings were further supported by our next-generation sequencing data, which also showed that cryptic exon inclusion was specific to the TDP43 mislocalization condition (Supplementary Fig.3 and 4).

Thus, we have strong evidence that the GFP-tagged TDP43 behaves similarly to the wild-type protein and does not interfere with its function in our model.

(2) Can the authors explain why there is a significant discrepancy in time points selected for nanobody transduction and immunostaining or cell lysis throughout Figure 1 and 2? This makes interpretation and overall assessment of the model challenging.

For the phenotypic data shown in Fig.1, we added the AAVs at day 18 or 20 and analyzed the cells at day 40. For the phosphorylated TDP43 western blot (revised Fig. 3D), cells were treated with doxycycline at day 20 to induce nanobody expression and samples were harvested at day 40. Thus, cells were harvested between days 20 or 22 after adding the nanobodies. The onset of transgene expression when using AAVs in neurons typically display slow kinetics. We observed TDP43 mislocalization in less than 50% of the neurons after 7 days post-transduction that peaked at 10-12 days after addition of the nanobodies, when more than 80% of the cells displayed TDP43 mislocalization. Hence, we do not believe that a two-day difference significantly alters the interpretation of the data.

The decision to harvest neurons at day 30 for the qPCR data was taken to investigate whether the splicing changes seen at day 40 from the transcriptomics analysis can be detected well before the phenotypes observed at day 40.

(3) The authors should further characterize their TDP-43 puncta. TDP-43 immunostaining is typically punctate so it is unclear if the puncta observed are physiologic or pathologic based on the analyses carried out in the current version of this manuscript. Additionally, do these puncta co-localize with stress granule markers or RNA transport granule markers? Are these puncta phosphorylated (which may be more reminiscent of end-stage pathologic observations in humans)?

We have tried immunostaining neurons for phosphorylated TDP43. However, our immunostaining attempts were unsuccessful. Depending on the antibody, we either saw no signal (antibody from Cosmo Bio, TIP-PTD-M01A) or even the control neurons displayed detectable phosphorylation within the nucleus (antibody from Proteintech 22309-1-AP). Consequently, we performed western blot analysis using an antibody from Cosmo Bio, (TIP-PTD-M01A) that clearly shows hyperphosphorylation of TDP43 in whole cell lysates (Fig. 3D, E). Hence, we have referred to these structures as puncta and not aggregates (Page 4).

To assess co-localization of the puncta with stress granules, we immunostained for the stress granule marker G3BP1. This was done in MNs that were treated with sodium arsenite (SA) or PBS as a control. In the PBS treated control MN cultures, TDP43 mislocalization alone did not induce stress granule formation. G3BP1+ stress granules were only observed following SA stress (0.5 mM, 60 minutes). Further, only a subset of TDP43 puncta overlapped with these stress granules (Supplementary Fig. 7) (Page 6).

(4) The authors should include multiple time points in their evaluation of TDP-43 loss of function events and aggregation. Does loss of function get worse over time? Is there a time course by which RNA misprocessing events emerge or does everything happen all at once? Does aggregation get worse over time? Do these neurons die at any point as a result of TDP-43 proteinopathy?

We agree that a time course to analyze TDP43 mislocalization and its consequences would be ideal. However, the mislocalization of TDP43 across neurons is not a coordinated process. At each given time instance, neurons display varying levels of TDP43 mislocalization. Answering the questions raised by the reviewer would require tracking individual neurons in real time in a controlled environment over weeks. Unfortunately, we currently do not have the hardware to run these experiments. However, we do observe increased levels of cleaved caspase 3 in MNs expressing the NES nanobody, indicating that these neurons indeed undergo apoptosis by day 40 (Fig.1).

We have, however, analyzed changes in splicing using qPCR for 12 genes over a time course starting as early as 4 hours after inducing mislocalization. We detect time-dependent cryptic splicing events in all genes as early as 8 hours after doxycycline addition, coinciding with the appearance TDP43 mislocalization (Fig. 4A, B).

(5) Can the authors please comment on whether or not their model is "tunable"? In real human disease, not every neuron displays complete nuclear depletion of TDP-43. Instead there is often a gradient of neurons with differing magnitudes of nuclear TDP-43 loss. Additionally, very few neurons (5-10%) harbor cytoplasmic TDP-43 aggregates at end-stage disease. These are all important considerations when developing a novel authentic and endogenous model of TDP-43 proteinopathy which the current manuscript fails to address.

As shown in Fig .1, the neurons expressing the NES-nanobody display a wide range of mislocalization as assessed by the % of nuclear TDP43 present. By titrating the amount of AAVs added to the culture, the model can be tuned to achieve a wide gradient of TDP43 mislocalization.

We calculated the size and percentage of neurons displaying TDP43 puncta. The size and the number of aggregates varies across the neurons that display TDP43 mislocalization. Around 50% of the neurons displayed small (1  um²) puncta while large puncta (> 5  um²) were observed in <10% of the cells, similar to observations in patient tissue (Fig. 1F).

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

TDP-43 mislocalization occurs in nearly all of ALS, roughly half of FTD, and as a co-pathology in roughly half of AD cases. Both gain-of-function and loss-of-function mechanisms associated with this mislocalization likely contribute to disease pathogeneisis.

Here, the authors describe a new method to induce TDP-43 mislocalization in cellular models. They endogenously tagged TDP-43 with a C-terminal GFP tag in human iPSCs. They then expressed an intrabody - fused with a nuclear export signal (NES) - that targeted GFP to the cytosol. Expression of this intrabody-NES in human iPSC-derived neurons induced nuclear depletion of homozygous TDP-43-GFP, caused its mislocalization to the cytosol, and at least in some cells appeared to cause cytosolic aggregates. This mislocalization was accompanied by induction of cryptic exons in well characterized transcripts known to be regulated by TDP-43, a hallmark of functional TDP-43 loss and consistent with pathological nuclear TDP-43 depletion. Interestingly, in heterozygous TDP-43-GFP neurons, expression of intrabody-NES appeared to also induce the mislocalization of untagged TDP-43 in roughly half of the neurons, suggesting that this system can also be used to study effects on untagged endogenous TDP-43 as well as TDP-43-GFP fusion protein.

Strengths:

A clearer understanding of how TDP-43 mislocalization alters cellular function, as well as pathways that mitigate clearance of TDP-43 aggregates, is critical. But modeling TDP-43 mislocalization in disease-relevant cellular systems has proven to be challenging. High levels of overexpression of TDP-43 lacking an NES can drive endogenous TDP-43 mislocalization, but such overexpression has direct and artificial consequences on certain cellular features (e.g. altered exon skipping) not seen in diseased patients. Toxic small molecules such as MG132 and arsenite can induce TDP-43 mislocalization, but co-induce myriad additional cellular dysfunctions unrelated to TDP-43 or ALS. TDP-43 binding oligonucleotides can cause cytosolic mislocalization as well. Each system has pros and cons, and additional ways to induce TDP-43 mislocalization would be useful for the field. The method described in this manuscript could provide researchers with a powerful way to study the combined biology of cytosolic TDP-43 mislocalization and nuclear TDP-43 depletion, with additional temporal control that is lacking in current method. Indeed, the authors see some evidence of differences in RNA splicing caused by pure TDP-43 depletion versus their induced mislocalization model. Finally, their method may be especially useful in determining how TDP-43 aggregates are cleared by cells, potentially revealing new biological pathways that could be therapeutically targeted.

Weaknesses:

The method and supporting data have limitations in its current form, outlined below, and in its current form the findings are rather preliminary.

(1) Tagging of TDP-43 with a bulky GFP tag may alter its normal physiological functions, for example phase separation properties and functions within complex ribonucleoprotein complexes. In addition, alternative isoforms of TDP-43 (e.g. "short" TDP-43, would not be GFP tagged and therefore these species would not be directly manipulatable or visualizable with the tools currently employed in the manuscript.

With reference to our answer above, we have confirmed using qPCR and RNA-seq analysis that adding a GFP tag to the C-terminus of TDP43 does not result in an appreciable loss of functionality. We do not observe any cryptic exon inclusion in STMN2 and UNC13A. Cryptic exon inclusion in these genes, especially STMN2, has been recognized as a very sensitive indicator of TDP43 loss of function (Supplementary Fig 1C, Supplementary 2D, Fig. 3, Fig.4)

We acknowledge that truncated alternatively spliced versions of TDP43 will lose the GFP-tag and cannot be manipulated with our system. Since our GFP tag is positioned on the C-terminus, our system cannot manipulate these truncated fragments as the tag is lost in these isoforms. But these isoforms, if present, should be detectable using the Proteintech antibody against total TDP43, which recognizes N-terminal TDP43 epitopes. However, western blot analysis, even 20 days after inducing TDP43 mislocalization, showed no truncated fragments. This suggests that TDP43 mislocalization alone is insufficient to generate significant levels of truncated isoforms. We have added this section to the Limitations paragraph (page 9).

(2) The data regarding potential mislocalization of endogenous TDP-43 in the heterozygous TDP-43-GFP lines is especially intriguing and important, yet very little characterization was done. Does untagged TDP-43 co-aggregate with the tagged TDP-43? Is localization of TDP-43 immunostaining the same as the GFP signal in these cells?

The purpose of the heterozygous experiments was to see whether mislocalized TDP43 could potentially trap the untagged TDP43. If this was not the case, we would have seen a maximum of 50% of the TDP43 signal mislocalized to the cytoplasm. The fact that a sizeable proportion of cells had significantly higher levels of TDP43 loss from the nucleus, indicates that mislocalized TDP43 can indeed trap the untagged protein fraction. We used GFP immunostaining to identify the tagged TDP43 while an antibody against the endogenous TDP43 protein was used to detect total TDP43 levels. In the cells that show near complete loss of nuclear TDP43, the total TDP43 signal coincides with the GFP (tagged TDP43) signal. We are unable to distinguish the untagged fraction selectively as we do not have an antibody that can detect this directly.  

But we agree with the reviewer that these observations need further detailed follow-up that we are unable to provide currently. Hence, we have removed this figure from the manuscript.

(3) The experiments in which dox was used to induce the nanobody-NES, then dox withdrawn to study potential longer-lasting or self-perpetuating inductions of aggregation is potentially interesting. However, the nanobody was only measured at the RNA level. We know that protein half lives can be very long in neurons, and therefore residual nanobody could be present at these delayed time points. The key measurement to make would be at the protein level of the nanobody if any conclusions are be made from this experiment.

The reviewer has highlighted an important point. To address this issue, we tagged the nanobodies with a V5 tag that allowed us to directly measure nanobody levels within cells. After Dox withdrawal, we indeed observed significant expression of the nanobody within cells even after two weeks of Dox withdrawal. Extending the time point to three weeks allowed complete loss of the nanobody in most neurons. However, in contrast to our observations at two weeks, this was accompanied by a reversal of TDP43 mislocalization in these neurons at three weeks (Fig. 5).

Surprisingly, in less than 10% of the neurons, we observed >80% of the total TDP43 still mislocalized to the cytoplasm, despite nearly undetectable levels of the nanobody. Super-resolution microscopy further revealed persistent cytoplasmic TDP43 in these neurons that did not overlap with residual nanobody signal. This suggests that in these neurons, the nanobody was no longer required to maintain TDP43 mislocalization (Fig. 5, page 7)

(4) Potential differences in splicing and microRNAs between TDP-43 knockdown and TDP-43 mislocalization are potentially interesting. However, different patterns of dysregulated RNA splicing can occur at different levels of TDP-knockdown, thus it is difficult to assess whether the changes observed in this paper are due to mislocalization per se, or rather just reflect differences in nuclear TDP-43 abundance.

This a fair point. It is possible that microRNA dysregulation might require a greater loss of nuclear TDP43 and maybe more resilient to TDP43 loss as compared to splicing. We have acknowledged this in the discussion section (page 9).

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) It would be helpful to include nuclear vs cytoplasmic ratios of TDP-43 instead of simply "% nuclear TDP-43"

We have used % nuclear TDP43 as these values have biologically meaningful upper and lower bounds, which makes it easier to compare across experiments. We found that using a ratio of nuclear vs cytoplasmic TDP43 intensities displayed higher variability and a wider range.

We have re-labelled the y-axis as “% Nuclear TD43 / soma TDP43” to make our quantification clearer. The conversion from % nuclear TDP43 to N/C is straightforward. If the % nuclear TDP43 is X, then the N/C ratio can be calculated as X / (100-X). For example, a % nuclear TDP43 of 80% would amount to an N/C ratio of 80/20 = 4.

(2) The axis descriptions in Figure 1D are very unclear. While this is described better in the figure legend, it would be beneficial to have a more descriptive y-axis title in the figure (which may mean increasing the number of graphs).

Axis descriptions and figures changed as recommended.

(3) In Figure 1, the time points at which iPSNs were transduced with nanobody and/or fixed for immunostaining is somewhat inconsistent across all panels. This hinders interpretation of the figure as a whole. The authors should use same transduction and immunostaining time points for consistency or demonstrate that the same phenotype is observed regardless of transduction and immunostaining day as long as the time in between (time of nano body expression) is consistent. Subsequently, in Figure 2, a different set of time points is used.

Please see our response in the public comments above

(4) In Figure 1, please show individual data points for each independent differentiation to demonstrate the level of reproducibility from batch to batch.

Data points have been shown per replicate (Supplementary Fig. 2)

We have refined our approach for phenotypic analysis to improve consistency across different clones. Previously, we set thresholds on % nuclear TDP43 to distinguish MNs with nuclear versus mislocalized TDP43. This was done by ranking all cells based on % nuclear TDP43 and applying quantile-based thresholds—designating the top 25% as control and the bottom 25% as mislocalized, ensuring equal number of cells per category. However, we observed significant variability in thresholds across clones. For instance, the E8 clone had thresholds of 96% and 29%, while the E5 clone had 93% and 40%.

To address this, we reanalysed the data using a standardized three-bin approach:

(1) Control: MNs expressing the control nanobody.

(2) Low-Moderate Mislocalization: MNs expressing the NES nanobody with > 40% nuclear TDP43.

(3) Severe Mislocalization: MNs expressing the NES nanobody with < 40% nuclear TDP43.

This approach ensured a more reliable comparison of TDP43 mislocalization effects across experiments. The conclusions remain the same.

(5) In Figure 2, please show individual data points.

Data points for all the qPCR analyses in the paper have been included as a supplementary text file.

(6) In Figure 3, please show individual data points.

Data points for the western blot data have been included as a supplementary data file.

All other comments are within the public review.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) In general more robust quantification of many of the described phenotypes are necessary. In particular, no apparent quantification of cytosolic mislocalization was performed in Figure 1, or quantification of mislocalization of Figure 3F. It is unclear in the western blot in Fig 1G if TDP-43 signal were normalized to total protein, and of note it seems that expression of the intrabody-NES reduced total proteins in the western blots that were shown. No quantification or measurement of the insoluble material was done or shown.

We have quantified cytosolic mislocalization of TDP43 (Fig. 1C). The y-axis indicates the total TDP43 signal observed in the nucleus as a percentage of the total signal observed in the soma (including the nucleus). This value has the advantage of ranging between 100% (perfectly nuclear) to 0% (complete nuclear loss). The boxplots indicate that expression of the NES-nanobody results in a range of cytosolic mislocalization with a median value around 40% of the TDP43 remaining in the nucleus.

Western blot data in previous Fig. 1G was normalized to alpha-tubulin. We were unable to get a good signal for the insoluble fraction. From the alpha-tubulin alone, it cannot be concluded that NES-nanobody results in a decrease in total protein levels. In the revised western blot for phosphorylated TDP43 (Fig. 3D, E), we have quantified total and phosphorylated TDP43. Here, we observe a six-fold increase in the levels of phosphorylated TDP43 without a significant change in total TDP43 protein levels.

To avoid potential mis-interpretation of our results, we have now removed the previous Fig. 1G.

(2) Additional images of nearly all microscopy data at higher magnifications would be required to better evaluate TDP-43 localization. Ideally including images for each channel in addition to merged images, and especially for key figures such as Figure 1B, 3B, 3F.

Better images have been provided.

(3) No control images were shown for Figure 1F and 3F. It is unclear what the bright punctate spots of cytoplasmic TDP-43 GFP signal represent. Are these true aggregates? If so, additional characterization would be required before such conclusions can be made, beyond the relatively superficial western blot analysis that was done in Figure 1.

Control images have now been provided (Figure 1E). As we mentioned above, immunostaining analysis to characterize whether the aggregates are phosphorylated failed to provide a clear signal. However, we have now confirmed that the mislocalized TDP43 is indeed hyper-phosphorylated (Figure 3D, E). We have acknowledged this in the main text, and have referred to these as puncta reminiscent of aggregates (Page 4, Page 6).

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Wang et al. identify Hamlet, a PR-containing transcription factor, as a master regulator of reproductive development in Drosophila. Specifically, the fusion between the gonad and genital disc that is necessary for development of a continuous testes and seminal vesicle tissue essential for fertility. To do so, the authors generate novel Hamlet null mutants by CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing and characterize the morphological, physiological, and gene expression changes of the mutants using immunofluorescence, RNA-seq, cut-tag, and in-situ analysis. Thus, Hamlet is discovered to regulate a unique expression program, which includes Wnt2 and Tl, that is necessary for testis development and fertility.

Strengths:

This is a rigorous and comprehensive study that identifies the Hamlet dependent gene expression program mediating reproductive development in Drosophila. The Hamlet transcription targets are further characterized by Gal4/UAS-RNAi confirming their role in reproductive development. Finally, the study points to a role for Wnt2 and Tl as well as other Hamlet transcriptionally regulated genes in epithelial tissue fusion.

Weaknesses:

None noted.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Strengths:

Wang and colleagues successfully uncovered an important function of the Drosophila PRDM16/PRDM3 homolog Hamlet (Ham) - a PR domain containing transcription factor with known roles in the nervous system in Drosophila. To do so, they generated and analyzed new mutants lacking the PR domain, and also employed diverse preexisting tools. In doing so, they made a fascinating discovery: They found that PR-domain containing isoforms of ham are crucial in the intriguing development of the fly genital tract. Wang and colleagues found three distinct roles of Ham: (1) Specifying the position of the testis terminal epithelium within the testis, (2) allowing normal shaping and growth of the anlagen of the seminal vesicles and paragonia and (3) enabling the crucial epithelial fusion between the seminal vesicle and the testis terminal epithelium. The mutant blocks fusion even if the parts are positioned correctly. The last finding is especially important, as there are few models allowing one to dissect the molecular underpinnings of heterotypic epithelial fusion in development. Their data suggest that they found a master regulator of this collective cell behavior. Further, they identified some of the cell biological players downstream of Ham, like for example E-Cadherin and Crumbs. In a holistic approach, they performed RNAseq and intersected them with the CUT&TAG-method, to find a comprehensive list of downstream factors directly regulated by Ham. Their function in the fusion process was validated by a tissue-specific RNAi screen. Meticulously, Wang and colleagues performed multiplexed in situ hybridization and analyzed different mutants, to gain a first understanding of the most important downstream-pathways they characterized - which are Wnt2 and Toll.

This study pioneers a completely new system. It is a model for exploring a process crucial in morphogenesis across animal species, yet not well-understood. Wang and colleagues not only identified a crucial regulator of heterotypic epithelial fusion but took on the considerable effort of meticulously pinning down functionally important downstream effectors by using many state-of-the-art methods. This is especially impressive, as dissection of pupal genital discs before epithelial fusion is a time-consuming and difficult task. This promising work will be the foundation future studies build on, to further elucidate how this epithelial fusion works, for example on a cell biological and biomechanical level.

Weaknesses:

The developing testis-genital disc system has many moving parts. Myotube migration was previously shown to be crucial for testis shape. This means, that there is the potential of non-tissue autonomous defects upon knockdown of genes in the genital disc or the terminal epithelium, affecting myotube behavior which in turn affects epithelial fusion, as myotubes might create the first "bridge" bringing the two epithelia together. Nevertheless, this is outside the scope of this work and could be addressed in the future.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Reviewer #1 (Public review): 

Summary: 

Wang et al. identify Hamlet, a PR-containing transcription factor, as a master regulator of reproductive development in Drosophila. Specifically, the fusion between the gonad and genital disc is necessary for the development of continuous testes and seminal vesicle tissue essential for fertility. To do this, the authors generate novel Hamlet null mutants by CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing and characterize the morphological, physiological, and gene expression changes of the mutants using immunofluorescence, RNA-seq, cut-tag, and in-situ analysis. Thus, Hamlet is discovered to regulate a unique expression program, which includes Wnt2 and Tl, that is necessary for testis development and fertility. 

Strengths: 

This is a rigorous and comprehensive study that identifies the Hamlet-dependent gene expression program mediating reproductive development in Drosophila. The Hamlet transcription targets are further characterized by Gal4/UAS-RNAi confirming their role in reproductive development. Finally, the study points to a role for Wnt2 and Tl as well as other Hamlet transcriptionally regulated genes in epithelial tissue fusion. 

We appreciate that the reviewer thinks our study is rigorous.

Weaknesses: 

The image resolution and presentation of figures is a major issue in this study. As a nonexpert, it is nearly impossible to see the morphological changes as described in the results. Quantification of all cell biological phenotypes is also lacking therefore reducing the impact of this study to those familiar with tissue fusion events in Drosophila development. 

In the revised version, we have improved the image presentation and resolution. For all the images with more than two channels, we included single-channel images, changed the green color to lime and the red to magenta, highlighted the testis (TE) and seminal vescicles to make morphological changes more visible.  

We had quantification for marker gene expression in the original version, and now also included quantification for cell biological phenotypes which are generally with 100% penetrance.  

Reviewer #2 (Public review): 

Strengths: 

Wang and colleagues successfully uncovered an important function of the Drosophila PRDM16/PRDM3 homolog Hamlet (Ham) - a PR domain-containing transcription factor with known roles in the nervous system in Drosophila. To do so, they generated and analyzed new mutants lacking the PR domain, and also employed diverse preexisting tools. In doing so, they made a fascinating discovery: They found that PR-domain containing isoforms of ham are crucial in the intriguing development of the fly genital tract. Wang and colleagues found three distinct roles of Ham: (1) specifying the position of the testis terminal epithelium within the testis, (2) allowing normal shaping and growth of the anlagen of the seminal vesicles and paragonia and (3) enabling the crucial epithelial fusion between the seminal vesicle and the testis terminal epithelium. The mutant blocks fusion even if the parts are positioned correctly. The last finding is especially important, as there are few models allowing one to dissect the molecular underpinnings of heterotypic epithelial fusion in development. Their data suggest that they found a master regulator of this collective cell behavior. Further, they identified some of the cell biological players downstream of Ham, like for example E-Cadherin and Crumbs. In a holistic approach, they performed RNAseq and intersected them with the CUT&TAG-method, to find a comprehensive list of downstream factors directly regulated by Ham. Their function in the fusion process was validated by a tissue-specific RNAi screen. Meticulously, Wang and colleagues performed multiplexed in situ hybridization and analyzed different mutants, to gain a first understanding of the most important downstream pathways they characterized, which are Wnt2 and Toll. 

This study pioneers a completely new system. It is a model for exploring a process crucial in morphogenesis across animal species, yet not well understood. Wang and colleagues not only identified a crucial regulator of heterotypic epithelial fusion but took on the considerable effort of meticulously pinning down functionally important downstream effectors by using many state-of-the-art methods. This is especially impressive, as the dissection of pupal genital discs before epithelial fusion is a time-consuming and difficult task. This promising work will be the foundation future studies build on, to further elucidate how this epithelial fusion works, for example on a cell biological and biomechanical level. 

We appreciate that the reviewer thinks our study is orginal and important.

Weaknesses: 

The developing testis-genital disc system has many moving parts. Myotube migration was previously shown to be crucial for testis shape. This means, that there is the potential of non-tissue autonomous defects upon knockdown of genes in the genital disc or the terminal epithelium, affecting myotube behavior which in turn affects fusion, as myotubes might create the first "bridge" bringing the epithelia together. The authors clearly showed that their driver tools do not cause expression in myoblasts/myotubes, but this does not exclude non-tissue autonomous defects in their RNAi screen. Nevertheless, this is outside the scope of this work. 

We thank the reviewer’s consideration of non-tissue autonomous defects upon gene knockdown. The driver, hamRSGal4, drives reporter gene expression mainly in the RS epithelia, but we did observe weak expression of the reporter in the myoblasts before they differentiate into myotubes. Thus, we could not rule out a non-tissue autonomou effect in the RNAi screen. So we now included a statement in the result, “Given that the hamRSGal4 driver is highly expressed in the TE and SV epithelia, we expect highly effective knockdown occurs only in these epithelial cells. However, hamRSGal4 also drives weak expression in the myoblasts before they differentiated into myotubes (Supplementary Fig. 5B), which may result in a non-tissue autonomous effect when knocking down the candidate genes expressed in myoblasts.”

However, one point that could be addressed in this study: the RNAseq and CUT&TAG experiments would profit from adding principal component analyses, elucidating similarities and differences of the diverse biological and technical replicates. 

Thanks for the suggestion. We now have included the PCA analyses in supplementary figure 6A-B and the corresponding description in the text. The PCA graphs validated the consistency between biological replicates of the RNA-seq samples. The Cut&Tag graphs confirm the consistency between the two biological replicates from the GFP samples, but show a higher variability between the w1118 replicates. Importantly, we only considered the overlapped peaks pulled by the GFP antibody from the ham_GFP genotype and the Ham antibody from the wildtype (w1118) sample as true Ham binding sites. 

Recommendations for the authors:  

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors): 

Major Concern: 

(1) The image resolution and presentation of figures (Figures 2, 5, 6, and 7) is a major issue in this study. As a non-expert, it is nearly impossible to see the morphological changes as described in the results. Images need to be captured at higher resolution and zoomed in with arrows denoting changes as described. Individual channels, particularly for intensity measurement need to be shown in black and white in addition to merged images. Images also need pseudo-colored for color-blind individuals (i.e. no red-green staining). 

The images were captured at a high resolution, but somehow the resolution was drammaticlly reduced in the BioRxiv PDF. We try to overcome this by directly submitting the PDF in the Elife submission system. In the revised version, we have included single-channel images, changed the green and red colors to lime and magenta for color blindness. We also highlighted the testis (TE) and seminal vescicle structures in the images to make morphological changes more visible.  

(2) The penetrance of morphological changes observed in RT development is also unclear and needs to be rigorously quantified for data in Figures 2, 5, and 7. 

We now included quantification for cell biological phenotypes which are generally with 100% penetrance. The percentage of the penetrance and the number of animals used are indicated in each corresponding image.  

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors): 

Major Points 

(1) Lines 193- 220 I would strongly suggest pointing out the obvious shape defects of the testes visible in Figure 2A ("Spheres" instead of "Spirals"). These are probably a direct consequence of a lack in the epithelial connection that myotubes require to migrate onto the testis (in a normal way) as depicted in the cartoons, allowing the testis to adopt a spiral shape through myotube-sculpting (Bischoff et al., 2021), further confirming the authors' findings! 

Good point. In the revised text, we have added more description of the testis shape defects and pointed out a potential contribution from compromised myotube migration.   

(2) Line 216: "Often separated from each other". Here it would be important to mention how often. If the authors cannot quantify that from existing data, I suggest carrying it out in adult/pharate adult genital tracts (if there is no strong survivor bias due to the lethality of stronger affected animals), as this is much easier than timing prepupae. This should be a quick and easy experiment. 

Because it is hard to tell whether the separation of the SV and TE was caused by developmental defects or sometimes could be due to technical issues (bad dissection), we now change the description to, “control animals always showed connected TE and SV, whereas ham mutant TE and SV tissues were either separated from each other, or appeared contacted but with the epithelial tubes being discontinuous (Fig. 2B).” Additionally, we quantified the disconnection phenotype, which is 100% penetrance in 18 mutant animals. This quantification is now included in the figure. 

(3) Lines 289-305, Figure 3. I could only find how many replicates were analyzed in the RNAseq/CUT&Tag experiments in the Material & Methods section. I would add that at least in the figure legends, and perhaps even in the main text. Most importantly, I would add a Principal Component Analysis (one for RNAseq and one for the CUT&TAG experiment), to demonstrate the similarity of biological replicates (3x RNaseq, 4x Cut&Tag) but also of the technical replicates (RNAseq: wt & wt/dg, ham/ham & ham/df, GD & TE; CUT&TAG: Antibody & GFP-Antibody, TG&TE...). This should be very easy with the existing data, and clearly demonstrate similarities & differences in the different types of replicates and conditions. 

Principle component analysis and its description are now added to Supplementary Fig 6 and the main text respectively. 

(4) Line 321; Supplementary Table 1: In the table, I cannot find which genes are down- or upregulated - something that I think is very important. I would add that, and remove the "color" column, which does not add any useful information. 

In Supplementary table 1, the first sheet includes upregulated genes while the second sheet includes downregulated genes. We removed the column “color” as suggested.  

(5) Line 409: SCRINSHOT was carried out with candidate genes from the screen. One gene I could not find in that list was the potential microtubule-actin crosslinker shot. If shot knockdown caused a phenotype, then I would clearly mention and show it. If not, I would mention why a shot is important, nonetheless. 

shot is one of the candidate target genes selected from our RNA-seq and Cut&Tag data. However, in the RNAi screen, knocking down shot with the available RNAi lines did not cause any obvious phenotype. These could be due to inefficient RNAi knockdown or redundancy with other factors. We anyway wanted to examine shot expression pattern in the developing RS, give the important role of shot in epithelial fusion (Lee S., 2002). Using SCRINSHOT, we could detect epithelial-specific expression of shot, implying its potential function in this context. We now revised the text to clarify this point. 

Minor points 

(1) Cartoons in Figure 1: The cartoons look like they were inspired by the cartoon from Kozopas et al., 1998 Fig. 10 or Rothenbusch-Fender et al., 2016 Fig 1. I think the manuscript would greatly profit from better cartoons, that are closer to what the tissue really looks like (see Figure 1H, 2G), to allow people to understand the somewhat complicated architecture. The anlagen of the seminal vesicles/paragonia looks like a butterfly with a high columnar epithelium with a visible separation between paragonia/seminal vesicles (upper/lower "wing" of the "butterfly"). Descriptions like "unseparated" paragonia/seminal vesicle anlagen, would be much easier to understand if the cartoons would for example reflect this separation. It would even be better to add cartoons of the phenotypic classes too, and to put them right next to the micrographs. (Another nitpick with the cartoons: pigment cells are drastically larger and fewer in number (See: Bischoff et al., 2021 Figure 1E & MovieM1).) 

Thanks for the suggestion. We have updated Figure 1 by adding additional illustrations showing the accessory gland and seminal vesicle structures in the pupal stage and changing the size of pigment cells.

(2) Line 95-121 I would also briefly introduce PR domains, here. 

We have added a brief descripition of the PR domains.

(3) Line 152, 158, 160, 162. When first reading it, I was a bit confused by the usage of the word sensory organ. I would at least introduce that bristles are also known as external mechanosensory organs. 

We have now revised the description to “mechano-sensory organ”.

eg. Line 184, 194, and many more. Most times, the authors call testis muscle precursors "myoblasts". This is correct sometimes, but only when referring to the stage before myoblast-fusion, which takes place directly before epithelial fusion (28 h APF). Postmyoblast-fusion (eg. during migration onto the testis), these cells should be called myotubes or nascent myotubes, as the fly muscle community defined the term myoblast as the singlenuclei precursors to myotubes. 

We have now revised the description accordingly.  

(4) Line 217/Figure 2B. It looks like there is a myotube bridge between the testis and the genital disc. I would point that out if it's true. If the authors have a larger z-stack of this connection, I suggest creating an MIP, and checking if there are little clusters of two/three/four nuclei packed together. This would clearly show that the cells in between are indeed myotubes (granted that loss of ham does not introduce myoblast-fusion-defects). 

We do not have a Z-stack of this connection, and thus can not confirm whether the cells in this image are myotubes. However, we found that mytubes can migrate onto the testis and form the muscular sheet in the ham mutant despite reduced myotube density. At the junction there are myotubes, suggesting that loss of ham does not introduce myoblast-fusion defects. These results are now included in the revised manuscript, supplementary Fig. 5 C-D.

(5) Line 231/Supplementary Fig. 3C-G: I would add to the cartoons, where the different markers are expressed. 

We have added marker gene expression in the cartoons.

(6) Line 239. I don't see what Figure 1A/1H refers to, here. I would perhaps just remove it. 

Yes, we have removed it.

(7) Line 232. I would rephrase the beginning of the sentence to: Our data suggest Ham to be... 

Yes, we have revised it.

(8) Line 248-250/Figure 2F. Clonal analyses are great, but I think single channels should be shown in black and white. Also, a version without the white dashed line should be shown, to clearly see the differences between wt and ham-mutant cells. 

Now single channel images from the green and red images are presented in Supplementary Figures. This particular one is in Supplementary Figure 3B. 

(9) Line 490. The Toll-9 phenotype was identified on the sterility effect/lack-of-spermphenotype alone, and it was deduced, that this suggests connection defects. By showing the right focus plane in Fig S8B (lower right), it should be easy to directly show whether there is a connection defect or not. Also, one would expect clearer testis-shaping defects, like in ham-mutants, as a loss of connection should also affect myotube migration to shape the testis. This is just a minor point, as it only affects supplementary data with no larger impact on the overall findings, even if Toll-9 is shown not to have a defect, after all. 

We find that scoring defects at the junction site at the adult stage is difficult and may not be always accurate. Instead, we score the presence of sperms in the SV, which indirectly but firmly suggests successful connection between the TE and SV. We have now included a quantification graph, showing the penetrance of the phentoype in the new Supplementary Fig.14C. There were indeed morphological defects of TE in Toll-9 RNAi animals. We now included the image and quantification in the new Supplementary Fig.14B.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Public Reviews: 

Reviewer #1 (Public Review): 

This study investigates the role of microtubules in regulating insulin secretion from pancreatic islet beta cells. This is of great importance considering that controlled secretion of insulin is essential to prevent diabetes. Previously, it has been shown that KIF5B plays an essential role in insulin secretion by transporting insulin granules to the plasma membrane. High glucose activates KIF5B to increase insulin secretion resulting in the cellular uptake of glucose. In order to prevent hypoglycemia, insulin secretion needs to be tightly controlled. Notably, it is known that KIF5B plays a role in microtubule sliding. This is important, as the authors described previously that beta cells establish a peripheral sub-membrane microtubule array, which is critical for the withdrawal of excessive insulin granules from the secretion sites. At high glucose, the sub-membrane microtubule array is destabilized to allow for robust insulin secretion. Here the authors aim to answer the question of how the peripheral array is formed. Based on the previously published data the authors hypothesize that KIF5B organizes the sub-membrane microtubule array via microtubule sliding. 

General comment: 

This manuscript provides data that indicate that KIF5B, like in many other cells, mediates microtubule sliding in beta cells. This study is limited to in vitro assays and one cell line. Furthermore, the authors provide no link to insulin secretion and glucose uptake and the overall effects described are moderate. Finally, the overall effect of microtubule sliding upon glucose stimulation is surprisingly low considering the tight regulation of insulin secretion. Moreover, the authors state "the amount of MT polymer on every glucose stimulation changes only slightly, often undetectable…. In fact, we observe a prominent effect of peripheral MT loss only after a long-term kinesin depletion (three-four days)". This challenges the view that a KIF5Bdependent mechanism regulating microtubule sliding plays a major role in controlling insulin secretion. 

(1) Our initial study was indeed done in a cell line, which is a normal approach to addressing molecular mechanisms of a phenomenon in a challenging cell model: primary pancreatic beta cells are prone to rapidly dedifferentiate outside of the organism and are hard to genetically modify. To address this reviewer’s comment, in the revised manuscript we now confirm the phenotype in beta cells within intact pancreatic islets from a KIF5B KO mouse model (New Figure 2 – Supplemental Figure 1).

(2) We agree that testing the effect of microtubule sliding on insulin secretion is an important question. Unfortunately, the experimental design needed to accomplish this task is not straighDorward. Importantly, besides microtubule sliding, KIF5B is heavily engaged in insulin granule transport, and GSIS deficiency upon KIF5B inactivation is well documented (e.g. Varadi et al 2002). In this study, we choose not to repeat this GSIS assay because of ample existing data. However, this reported GSIS deficiency could result from a combination of lack of insulin granule delivery to the periphery (previous data) and from the depletion of insulin granules from the periphery due to the loss of the submembrane MT bundle (this study and Bracey et al 2020).  In order to exclusively test the role of MT sliding in secretion, a significant investment in mutant tool development would be needed. Ideally, a new mutant mouse model where insulin granule transport is allowed by MT sliding in blocked must be developed to specifically address this question. To conclude, answering this question will be the subject for another, follow-up study. 

(3) We respecDully disagree with the reviewer’s opinion that the effect of MT sliding in beta cells is moderate. As MT networks go, even a slight change in MT configuration often has dramatic consequences. For example, in mitotic spindles, a tiny overgrowth of microtubule ends during metaphase, which causes them to attach to both kinetochores rather than just one, is very significant for the efficiency of chromosome segregation, causing aneuploidy and cancer. The changes in beta-cell MT networks that we are reporting are much stronger: the effect on the peripheral MT network accumulated over three days of KIF5B depletion is dramatic (Fig 2 B, C). Short-term gross MT network configurations after a single glucose stimulation are harder to detect, but MTs at the cell periphery are, in fact, destabilized and fragmented, as we and others have previously reported (Ho et al 2020, Mueller et al 2021). Preventing this MT rearrangement completely blocks GSIS (Zhu et al 2015, Ho et al 2020). 

One of the most fascinating features of insulin secretion regulation is that the amount of generated insulin granules significantly exceeds the normal physiological needs for insulin secretion (~100 times more than needed). At the same time, even slightly facilitated glucose depletion can be devastating. Accordingly, the excessive insulin content of a beta cell resulted in the development of multiple levels of control, preventing excessive secretion. Our previous data suggest that the peripheral MT array provides one of those mechanisms. This study indicates that microtubule sliding is necessary to form the proper peripheral network in the long term. Short-term glucose-induced changes in the peripheral MT array likely need to be subtle to prevent over-secretion. Thus, we are not surprised that a dramatic effect of sliding inhibition is only detectable by our approaches after the changes in the MT network accumulate over time. In the revised paper, we now discuss the potential impact of peripheral MT sliding on positive and negative regulation of secretion and add a schematic model illustrating these processes.

Specific comments: 

(1) Notably, the authors have previously reported that high glucose-induced remodeling of microtubule networks facilitates robust glucose-stimulated insulin secretion. This remodeling involves the disassembly of old microtubules and the nucleation of new microtubules. Using real-time imaging of photoconverted microtubules, they report that high levels of glucose induce rapid microtubule disassembly preferentially in the periphery of individual β-cells, and this process is mediated by the phosphorylation of microtubule-associated protein tau. Here, they state that the sub-membrane microtubule array is destabilized via microtubule sliding. What is the relevance of the different processes? 

In this comment, the summary of our previous conclusions is correct, but the conclusion of this current study is re-stated incorrectly. Indeed, we have previously shown that in high glucose, MTs are destabilized at the cell periphery and nucleated in the cell interior. However, this current paper does not state that “the sub-membrane microtubule array is destabilized via microtubule sliding”. To answer this reviewer’s question, our data support a model where, during glucose stimulation, MT sliding within the peripheral bundle might move fragments of MTs severed by other mechanisms. Importantly, we propose that MT sliding restores the partially destabilized peripheral bundle by delivery of MTs that are nucleated at the cell interior and incorporating them into that bundle. In our overall model, three processes (destabilization, nucleation, and sliding to restore the bundle) are coordinated to maintain beta cell fitness on each GSIS cycle.

(2) On one hand the authors describe how KIF5B depletion prevents sliding and the transport of microtubules to the plasma membrane to form the sub-membrane microtubule array. This indicates KIF5B is required to form this structure. On the other hand, they describe that at high glucose concentration, KIF5B promotes microtubule sliding to destabilize the sub-membrane microtubule array to allow robust insulin secretion. This appears contradictory. 

We never intended to make an impression that MT sliding destabilized the sub-membrane bundle. Apologies if there was a reason in our wording that caused this misunderstanding of our model. We propose that while the bundle is destabilized downstream of glucose signaling (e.g. due to tau phosphorylation, please see Ho et al Diabetes 2020), MT sliding remodels the bundle and thereafter rebuilds it to prevent over-secretion. In the revised manuscript, we have doublechecked the whole text to make sure that such misunderstanding is avoided. 

(3) Previously, it has been shown that KIF5B induces tubulin incorporation along the microtubule shaft in a concentration-dependent manner. Moreover, running KIF5B increases microtubule rescue frequency and unlimited growth of microtubules. Notably, KIF5B regulates microtubule network mass and organization in cells (PMID: 34883065). Consequently, it appears possible that the here observed phenomena of changes in the microtubule network might be due to alterations in these processes. 

We thank the reviewer for proposing this alternative explanation to the observed change in microtubule networks after KIF5B depletion. We have now directly tested this possibility. Namely, we have re-expressed the kinesin-1 motor domain in MIN6 cells depleted of KIF5B. This motor domain construct by itself is not capable of driving microtubule sliding because it lacks the tail domain. At the same time, it is known to move very efficiently at microtubules and should provide the effects as reported in the article cited by the reviewer. We found that the reexpression of the kinesin motor domain does not rescue microtubule network defects in beta cells (see new Figure 2 – Supplemental Figure 2). Thus, we conclude that the effects of kinesin depletion on the microtubule network in beta cells are due to the lack of microtubule sliding, as reported here.

(4) The authors provide data that indicate that microtubule sliding is enhanced upon glucose stimulation. They conclude that these data indicate that microtubule sliding is an integral part of glucose-triggered microtubule remodeling. Yet, the authors fail to provide any evidence that this process plays a role in insulin secretion or glucose uptake. 

We would like to point out that we do not “fail” but rather choose not to overload our study by repeating insulin secretion assays in KIF5B-inactivated cells because this would not have been very informative. It has been found previously that kinesin-1 inactivation or knockout significantly attenuates insulin secretion because kinesin-1 is actively transporting insulin granules and kinesin-1 activity is enhanced under high glucose conditions (e.g. Varadi et al 2002, Cui et al., 2011, Donelan et al, 2002). That said, our current finding is very much in line with these previous data. When kinesin is depleted, two things would be happening at the same time: in the absence of sub-membrane microtubule bundle pre-existing insulin granules would be over-secreted, and new insulin would not be delivered to the periphery, both decreasing GSIS. Unfortunately, we do not have tools yet that would allow us to dissect which part of the insulin secretion defect is due to prior over-secretion (the consequence of deficient MT sliding) and which part is due to the lack of new granule delivery. We plan to develop such tools in the future and elaborate on them in a follow-up study. Here, our goal is to understand microtubule organization principles in beta cells, and we choose not to extend the scope of the current study to metabolic assays.  

(5) The authors speculate that the sub-membrane microtubule array prevents the over-secretion of insulin. Would one not expect in this case a change in the distribution of insulin granules at the plasma membrane when this array is affected? Or after glucose stimulation? Notably, it has been reported that "the defects of β-cell function in KIF5B mutant mice were not coupled with observable changes in islet morphology, islet cell composition, or β-cell size" and "the subcellular localization of insulin vesicles was found to not be affected significantly by the decreased Kif5b level. The cytoplasm of both wild-type and mutant β-cells was filled with insulin vesicles. Insulin vesicle numbers per square μm were determined by counting all insulin vesicles in randomly photographed β-cells. More insulin granules were found in Kif5b knockout β-cells compared with control cells. This phenomenon is consistent with the observation that insulin secretion by β-cells is affected" whereby "Insulin vesicles (arrowheads) were distributed evenly in both mutant and control cells" (PMID: 20870970).  

Quantitative analyses in the study cited by the reviewer do not include assays that would be relevant to our study. Particularly, in that study neither the amount of insulin granules at the cell periphery nor the ratio between the number of granules at the periphery and the beta cell interior has been analyzed. In addition, in our preliminary observations not shown here, insulin content in beta cells in KIF5B KO mice is highly heterogeneous, with a subpopulation of cells severely depleted of insulin. This opens a new avenue of investigation into beta cell heterogeneity, which is out of the scope of this current study. Thus, we chose to restrict this current study to microtubule organization data.   

(6) Does the sub-membrane microtubule array exist in primary beta cells (in vitro and/or in vivo) and how it is affected in KIF5B knockout mice?  

Yes, it does exist. In fact, we have first reported it in mouse islets (Bracey et al 2020, Ho et al 2020). Now, we report that the sub-membrane bundle is defective, and microtubules are misaligned in KIF5B KO mice (new Figure 2 – Supplemental Figure 1).

Reviewer #2 (Public Review): 

In this article, Bracey et al. provide insights into the factors contributing to the distinct arrangement observed in sub-membrane microtubules (MTs) within mouse β-cells of the pancreas. Specifically, they propose that in clonal mouse pancreatic β-cells (MIN6), the motor protein KIF5B plays a role in sliding existing MTs towards the cell periphery and aligning them with each other along the plasma membrane. Furthermore, similar to other physiological features of β-cells, this process of MTs sliding is enhanced by a high glucose stimulus. Because a precise alignment of MTs beneath the cell membrane in β-cells is crucial for the regulated secretion of pancreatic enzymes and hormones, KIF5B assumes a significant role in pancreatic activity, both in healthy conditions and during diseases. 

The authors provide evidence in support of their model by demonstrating that the levels of KIF5B mRNA in MIN6 cells are higher compared to other known KIFs. They further show that when KIF5B is genetically silenced using two different shRNAs, the MT sliding becomes less efficient. Additionally, silencing of KIF5A in the same cells leads to a general reorganization of MTs throughout the cell. Specifically, while control cells exhibit a convoluted and non-radial arrangement of MTs near the cell membrane, KIF5B-depleted cells display a sparse and less dense sub-membrane array of MTs. Based on these findings, the Authors conclude that the loss of KIF5B strongly affects the localization of MTs to the periphery of the cell. Using a dominant-negative approach, the authors also demonstrate that KIF5B facilitates the sliding of MTs by binding to cargo MTs through the kinesin-1 tail binding domain. Additionally, they present evidence suggesting that KIF5B-mediated MT sliding is dependent on glucose, similar to the activity levels of kinesin-1, which increase in the presence of glucose. Notably, when the glucose concentrations in the culturing media of MIN6 cells are reduced from 20 mM to 5 mM, a significant decrease in MT sliding is observed. 

Strengths:

This study unveils a previously unexplained mechanism that regulates the specific rearrangement of MTs beneath the cell membrane in pancreatic β-cells. The findings of this research have implications and are of significant interest because the precise regulation of the MT array at the secretion zone plays a critical role in controlling pancreatic function in both healthy and diseased states. In general, the author's conclusions are substantiated by the provided data, and the study demonstrates the utilization of state-of-the-art methodologies including quantification techniques, and elegant dominant-negative experiments. 

Weaknesses:

A few relatively minor issues are present and related to data interpretation and the conclusions drawn in the study. Namely, some inconsistencies between what appears to be the overall and sub-membrane MT array in scramble vs. KIF5B-depleted cells, the lack of details about the sub-cellular localization of KIF5B in these cells and the physiological significance of the effect of glucose levels in beta-cells of the pancreas. 

We thank the reviewer for this insighDul review. In the revised version, we provided re-worded and extended interpretations and conclusions to prevent any issues or misunderstandings.  We trust that while some noted apparent inconsistencies may reflect the intrinsic heterogeneity of the beta cell population, all data presented here indicate the same trend in phenotypes.  In the revised version, we have provided additional cell views and, in places, alternative representative images and videos, to clear out any apparent inconsistencies. We also would like to point out that we in fact reported KIF5B localization: not surprisingly, KIF5B predominantly localized to insulin granules and the punctate staining fills the whole cytoplasm (Figure 2A, bottom panel). However, as pointed out in detail in our response to reviewer 1, we choose to leave out an extensive study of the physiological and metabolic consequences of the reported microtubule network dynamics to a follow-up study. 

Reviewer #3 (Public Review): 

Prior work from the Kaverina lab and others had determined that beta-cells build a microtubule network that differs from the canonical radial organization typical in most mammalian cell types and that this organization facilitates the regulated secretion of insulin-containing secretory granules (IGs). In this manuscript, the authors tested the hypothesis that kinesin-driven microtubule sliding is an underlying mechanism that establishes a sub-membranous microtubule array that regulates IG secretion. They employed knock-down and dominant-negative strategies to convincingly show microtubule sliding does, in fact, drive the assembly of the sub-membranous microtubule band. They also used live cell imaging assays to demonstrate that kinesin-mediated microtubule sliding in beta-cells is triggered by extracellular high glucose. Overall, this is an interesting and important study that relates microtubule dynamics to an important physiological process. The experiments were rigorous and well-controlled. 

We truly appreciate this reviewer’ opinion. 

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors): 

Figures: 

(1) Figure 1: 

a) Why can one not see here, and in most following images, the peripheral sub-membrane microtubule array? One can also not see an accumulation of microtubules in the cell interior. 

Microtubule pattern in beta cells is variable, and the sub-membrane array is seen in the whole population to a variable extent (see directionality histogram in Figure 2E for statistics). In fact, an array of peripheral MTs parallel to the cell border is present in the example shown in Figure 1 and in all following control images. To make it clearer, we now show the pre-bleach images in Figure 1 D-F at a lower magnification, so that the differences in MT density at the cell periphery and cell center are more clearly seen: MTs lack at the periphery in KF5B-depleted but not the control cells.  

b) 5 min appears to be a long time and enough time to polymerize a significant number of new microtubules. 

We interpret this comment as the reviewer’s concern that in FRAP assays, fluorescently-labeled MTs moving into the bleached area might be newly polymerizing MTs rather than preexisting MT relocated into that area. However, this is not the case because newly polymerized MTs contain predominantly quenched “dark” tubulin molecules and only a small percent of fluorescent tubulin. These dim MTs are not included in MT sliding assay analysis, where a threshold for bright MTs is introduced. Now, we added more details for the quantification of these data to Materials and Methods section.

c) The overall effects appear minor. It is unclear how Fig. 1-Suppl-Fig.1, where no significant difference is shown, is translated into Figure 1 J and K showing a significant difference. 

With all due respect, we do not agree that the effect is minor. Please see our response to the Public Review where we discuss the major consequences of MT defects in detail. 

To answer this specific comment, we show that there are significant differences in the number of rapidly moving MTs (5-sec displacement over 0.3 µm) and in the amount of stationary MTs (5sec displacement is below 0.15 µm). There is no significant difference in the amount of slightly displaced MTs (displacements between 0.15 and 0.3 µm; the central part of the histogram). This might indicate that these slight displacements do not depend on kinesin-1 motor but rather are caused by experimental noise, pushing by moving organelles, and/or myosin-dependent forces in the cell. In the revised manuscript, we have this quantification more clearly detailed in Methods and included in Figure legends.

d) The authors utilize single molecule tracking to further strengthen their conclusion that KIF5B promotes microtubule sliding. The observed effects are weaker than the data obtained from photobleaching experiments. The videos clearly show that there is still significant movement also in KIF5B-depleted cells. If K560RigorE236A binds irreversibly to a microtubule and this microtubule is growing (not only by the addition of tubulin dimers to the plus end; see PMID: 34883065) wouldn't that also result in movement of the tagged K560RigorE236A? As KIF5B is also required in the transport of insulin granules, it should also label "interior microtubules". And in Video 2 it appears that pretty much all "labeled" microtubules are moving. 

K560RigorE236A forms fiducial marks along the whole MTs lattice, as previously shown in (Tanenbaum et al., 2014). When it is bound to MT lattice, K560RigorE236A moves with the whole MT if it is being relocated. The mechanism described in (PMID: 34883065) appears to be absent or minor in beta cells (see Figure 2- Supplemental Figure 2), thus, even if this mechanism would displace already polymerized MTs, this is not happening in this cell type.

The reviewer is correct, K560RigorE236A does mark all MTs throughout a beta cell. All MTs are moving slightly in a living cell because they are pushed around by moving organelles, actin contractility, etc. MTs may also be slid by other MT-dependent motors (dynein against the membrane and such). So, it is not surprising that the MT network is “breezing,” and kinesindependent sliding is only a part of MT movement. What we show here is that the KIF5Bdependent MT sliding is responsible for a relatively “long-distance” relocation of MTs manifested in long, directional displacement of fiducial marks.  This does not exclude other movements. This makes extraction of kinesin-dependent MT movements somewhat challenging, of course, that is why we needed to do those extensive analyses. 

e) Figure 1 G to K is misleading, at least in the context of the provided videos. There are several microtubules that move extensively in shRNA#2-treated cells and overall there appears more movement in this cell as in the control cell. Figure 1I is clearly not representative of the movement shown in Video 2. 

We apologize if our selection of representative movies/figures for this experiment was imperfect. Indeed, in all depleted cells, SunTag puncta still move to a certain extent, either due to incomplete depletion or to alternative intracellular forces dislocating microtubules. However, there is a clear difference in the fraction of persistently moving puncta (please see Figure 1K and  histogram in Figure 1 - Supplemental Figure 1B). Unfortunately, when the number of SunTag puncta per a cell is variable, it sometimes prevents a good visual perception of the actual distribution of moving versus stationary microtubules. We now show an alternative representative movie for the Figure 1I and the corresponding Video 2, with a goal to compare cells with more consistent numbers of Sun-Tag puncta.

(2) Figure 2A. 

a) This is the only image that clearly shows the existence of a sub-membrane microtubule array and the concentration of microtubules in the cell interior. The differences are unclear between the experimental setups including the length of cultivation and knockdown of KIF5B or expression of mutants. 

We now provide a more detailed description of each image acquisition and processing in Materials and Methods. In brief, while the morphology of MT patterns is intrinsically variable in beta cells, all control cells have populated peripheral MTs that exhibit a more parallel configuration as compared to depletions and mutants.

b) The authors state "While control cells had convoluted non-radial MTs with a prominent sub-membrane array, typical for beta cells (Fig. 2A), KIF5B-depleted cells featured extra-dense MTs in the cell center and sparse reseeding MTs at the periphery (Fig. 2B, C)". Could that not be explained with the observation that "Kinesin-1 controls microtubule length" (PMID: 34883065)? 

Thank you for this interesting alternative idea. It does not appear to be the case for beta cells.

Please see Figure 2-Supplemental Figure 2  and our response to Public Review Comment #3.

Also, our apologies for the typo in the original manuscript: this is “receding” nor “reseeding”.

(3) Figure 3: 

a) This is an elegant way to determine whether KIF5B is involved in microtubule sliding independent of the fact that the effect appears very small. 

Thank you!            

b) The assay depends on ectopic expression of a dominant negative mutant. It appears important to show that KIFDNwt is high enough expressed to indeed block the binding of endogenous KIF5B. The authors need to provide a control for this. Furthermore, authors need to provide evidence that other functions of KIF5B are not impaired such as transport of insulin granules and tubulin incorporation or microtubule stability and length.

Expression of cargo-binding motor domains routinely causes a dominant-negative effect of their cargo transport. This exact construct has been used for the purpose of dominant-negative action previously (Ravindran et al., 2017). It does prevent the membrane cargo binding of KIF5B (Ravindran et al., 2017), thus the transport of insulin granules is also impaired in overexpression cells. Confirming this fact would not influence our study conclusions, so we chose not to repeat these assays for the sake of time.

c) N-numbers should be similar. The data for KIFDNmut are difficult to interpret with possibly 2 experiments showing little to no displacement and 3 showing displacement. 

In the revised manuscript, additional data have been added to increase N-numbers.

(4) Figure 4 and supplements: The morphology of the KIFDNwt cells is greatly affected and this makes it difficult to say whether the effect on microtubules at the cell periphery is a direct or indirect effect. 

Yes, these cells often have less spread appearance, obscuring visual perception of MT distribution. We have now replaced the image of KIFDNwt cell (Figure 4, Supplemental Figure 1 A) to a more visually representative example.

Things to do: 

(1) Notably, the authors have previously reported that high glucose-induced remodeling of microtubule networks facilitates robust glucose-stimulated insulin secretion. This remodeling involves the disassembly of old microtubules and the nucleation of new microtubules. Here, they state that the sub-membrane microtubule array is destabilized via microtubule sliding. What is the relevance of the different processes? Please discuss these in the manuscript. 

Thank you, we have now extended our discussion of these points and our prior findings. We have also added a schematic model figure for clarity (Figure 7).  

(2) 5 min appears to be a long time and enough time to polymerize a significant number of new microtubules. Do the authors have any information about the speed of MT formation in MIN6 cells? Can the authors repeat this experiment by preventing MT polymerization? Or repeat the experiment with EB1/EB3 reporter to visualize microtubule growth in the same experimental setting? 

While some MT polymerization will happen in this timeframe, newly polymerized MTs contain predominantly quenched “dark” tubulin molecules and only a small percent of fluorescent tubulin. These dim MTs are not included in MT sliding assay analysis, where a threshold for bright MTs is introduced. We apologize for initially omitting certain details from the FRAP assay analysis. Now these details have been added.   

Are the microtubules shown on the cell surface (TIRF microscopy) or do we see here all microtubules? 

Please see Materials and Methods for microscopy methods and image processing for each figure. Specifically, FRAP assays show a maximum intensity projection of spinning disk confocal stacks over 2.4µm in height (approximately the ventral half of a cell).

(3) Previously, it has been shown that KIF5B induces tubulin incorporation along the microtubule shaft in a concentration-dependent manner. Moreover, running KIF5B increases microtubule rescue frequency and unlimited growth of microtubules. Notably, KIF5B regulates microtubule network mass and organization in cells (PMID: 34883065). Consequently, it appears possible that the here observed phenomena of changes in the microtubule network might be due to alterations in these processes. Authors need to exclude these possibilities and discuss them. 

Thank you for this interesting alternative idea. It does not appear to be the case for beta cells. Please see Figure 2-Supplemental Figure 2  and our response to Public Review Comment #3.

(4) It is important that the authors describe in the text and possibly in the figure legends the differences between the experimental set-ups including the length of cultivation and knock down of KIF5B or expression of mutants. 

Thank you, please see these details in the text (Materials and Methods section).

(5) Figure 5: Does KIF5B depletion rescue the kinesore-induced defects 

Thank you for suggesting this control. We have now conducted corresponding experiments. The answer is yes, it does. Kinesore does not induce detectable changes in MT patterns in KIF5Bdepleted cells (new Figure 5-Supplemental Figure 2). 

(6) Can the authors block kinesin-1 resulting in microtubule accumulation in the cell center and then release the block, and best inhibiting microtubule formation, to see whether the microtubules accumulated in the cell center will be transported to the periphery? 

This proposed experiment would have been a nice illustration to the study, however it has proven to be too challenging. Unfortunately we have to leave it for the future studies. However,  the experiments already included in the paper are sufficient to prove our conclusions. 

Minor comments: 

(1) The English needs to be improved. Oaen it is unclear what the authors try to convey. The manuscript is difficult to read and contains several overstatements. 

The revised manuscript has been through several rounds of proof-reading for clarity.

(2) It is important to describe in more detail in the introduction what is known about KIF5B in beta cells. Previously, it has been demonstrated that silencing, or inactivation by a dominant negative form of KIF5B, blocks the sustained phase of glucose-stimulated insulin secretion (PMID: 9112396, PMID: 12356920, PMID: 20870970). 

Yes, this is of course very important and have been cited in the original manuscript. Now, we have expanded the discussion on the matter.

(3) Figure 1B and Fig. 1 Suppl Fig.1: Please provide band sizes and provide information on the size of KIF5B. 

We have replaced Fig. 1B and Suppl Fig 1A with quantitative analysis of KIF5B depletion, not found in new Fig. 1B and Suppl Fig. 1A-C. 

(4) It is important to state the used glucose concentrations in Figure 1D (based on the methods section it is probably 25 mM glucose) and all subsequent experiments. Is this correct and comparable to Figure 6A or B? For the non-specialized reader, more information should be provided on why initial glucose starvation is performed.  

Cell culture models of pancreatic beta cells are routinely maintained at glucose levels that at considered “high”, or stimulatory for secretion. This is needed to prevent the loss of cells’ capacity to respond to glucose stimulation over generations. In order to test GSIS, cells need to be equilibrated at low (fasting, standardly 2.8mM) glucose levels for several hours, so that they are capable of secreting insulin upon glucose addition. 25mM glucose is normally used to stimulate GSIS in cell culture models of beta cells, like MIN6. This is a higher concentration as compared to what is needed to stimulate primary beta cells in islets.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors): 

I have the following specific questions that pertain to data interpretation and the conclusions drawn.

(1) The morphology of the overall MT array before the bleach treatment in both control cells and KIF5B-KD cells depicted in Figure 1D-F and Figure 2A-C appears to be distinct. In Figure 1, it seems that the absence of KIF5B results in a general augmentation of MT mass, whereas the arrangement presented in Figure 2 indicates the contrary. Even in the sub-membrane areas, this phenomenon appears to hold true. However, the images used in this study, which depict entire cells or a significant portion of cells, may not be ideal for visualizing the sub-membrane regions.

It would be beneficial if the author could offer some explanations for this apparent inconsistency. 

While beta cell population is intrinsically heterogeneous, all data presented here indicate the same trend in phenotypes. Possibly, some apparent inconsistency between figure 1 and 2 appeared because in the original manuscript we did not show the pre-bleach whole-cell overview in Figure 1. In the revised version, we now show the whole cells for pre-bleach so that MT organization at the cell periphery can be assessed. Please note that in the control cell, MTs are more or less equally distributed over the cell, while in KIF5B depletions the cell periphery is significantly less populated than the cell center. Furthermore, we did not detect MT mass augmentation or increase in KIF5B depletions. One possible explanation for such reviewer’s impression from Figure 2 is that Figure 2 F-H shows thresholded images where threshold was adjusted to highlight peripheral MTs in each cell. Please note that this is not the same threshold for each cell (see Figure 2 - Supplemental Figure 2 and 3). Thus, KIF5B-depleted cells that have fewer MTs at the periphery appear brighter in these thresholded images. For the true comparison of MT intensity, please see Figure 2 A-C (grayscale image, not the threshold).

(2) It would be helpful if the author could provide a visual representation or comment on the sub-cellular localization of KIF5B in MIN6 cells. Is it predominantly localized in the submembrane region, or is it more evenly distributed throughout the cytoplasm? 

Please see Fig 2A, lower panel. KIF5B is seen across the cell as a punctate staining, in agreement with previous findings that it mostly localize at IGs.

(3) The alteration in microtubule (MT) organization and sliding in the absence of KIF5B seems to initiate in proximity to the apparent microtubule organizing center (MTOC) depicted in Figure 2A, and then "simply" extends towards the sub-membrane region. Although the authors acknowledge it, it would be advantageous for the readers to have a clearer indication that the sub-membrane microtubule (MT) reorganization in the absence of KIF5B is a result of a broader MT reorganization rather than a specific occurrence restricted to the sub-membrane regions. 

Thank you for this comment. We now extend our discussion to clearer state our conclusions and interpretations of this point. We also have added a schematic Figure 7 as an illustration. 

(4) Regarding the "glucose experiments," it is common to add 20-25 mM glucose to culture media, but physiological concentrations of glucose typically hover around 5 mM. Therefore, it is somewhat unclear what the implications are when investigating the impact of KIF5B depletion on MT sliding at 2.8 mM of glucose. It would be helpful if the authors could provide some commentary on this matter, particularly in relation to physiological and pathological conditions. 

2.8 mM glucose is a standard low glucose condition used to model glucose deprivation/fasting. For functional primary beta cells within pancreatic islets, GSIS can be triggered by glucose stimulation as low as 8-12 mM glucose. However, for glucose stimulation of cultured beta cells such as MIN6 used in this paper, 20-25 mM glucose is standardly used because these cell lines have a higher threshold of stimulation compared to primary beta cells and whole islets.

(5) In supplementary Figure 1A, it would be helpful if the lanes in the WB were marked indicating what is what. In my observation, it appears that Supplementary Figure 1A, particularly lanes #2, 3, and 4, display the GAPDH protein (MW 36 kDa) (or is it alpha-tubulin, as mentioned in the Material and Methods section and indicated in lane #409?) relative to Figure 1A. I am curious about KIF5B (MW 108 kDa). Is it represented by the upper band? Did the author probe the same membrane simultaneously with two different primary antibodies? This should be clarified, and the author should indicate the molecular weight of the ladder. 

Indeed, in the original WB two antibodies have been used together, due to a challenge in collecting a sufficient number of shRNA-expressing beta cells. It caused a confusion and improper interpretation of the loading control. We thank the reviewer for catching this.  We have now replaced old Fig. 1B and Suppl. Fig. 1A with quantitative analysis of KIF5B depletion based on single-cell immunofluorescent staining. It is now found in new Fig. 1B and Suppl Fig. 1A-C.  

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors): 

In all of the figures that present microtubule orientations (e.g. Figure 2E) the error bars obscure the vertical bins making them difficult to read or interpret. If they were rendered at a larger scale, it would be easier to read and interpret these results. 

Thank you pointing this out. We now show these histograms with a different format of error bars and without outliers that obscure the view. A variant with outliers is now shown in the supplement. 

Some of the callouts to the videos in the paper are inaccurate. Perhaps the authors reordered sections of the paper but failed to correctly renumber the video citations? 

Thank you for this comment, we have corrected all callouts now.

Note: This response was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. The content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

Reply to the reviewers

Reviewer #1 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):*

Summary: Chitin is a critical component of the extracellular matrix of arthropods and plays an essential role in the development and protection of insects. There are two chitin synthases in insects: Type A (exoskeletons) and Type B (for the peritrophic matrix in the gut). The study aims to investigate the specificity and mechanisms of the two chitin synthases in D. melanogaster and to clarify whether they are functionally interchangeable. Various genetic manipulations and fluorescence-based labeling were used to analyze the expression, localization, and function of Kkv and Chs2 in different tissues. Chs2 is expressed in the PR cells of the proventriculus and is required for chitin deposition in the peritrophic matrix. Kkv can deposit chitin in ectodermal tissues but not in the peritrophic matrix, whereas Chs2 can deposit chitin in the peritrophic matrix but not in ectodermal tissues. The subcellular localization of chitin synthases is specific to the tissues in which they are expressed. Kkv localizes apically in ectodermal tissues, whereas Chs2 localizes apically in the PR cells of the proventriculus. Altogether, Kkv and Chs2 cannot replace each other. The specificity of chitin synthases in D. melanogaster relies on distinct cellular and molecular mechanisms, including intracellular transport pathways and the specific molecular machinery for chitin deposition.*

• *

Congratulations on this incredible story and manuscript, which is straightforward and well-written. However, I have some comments that may help to improve it.

We thank the reviewer for this very positive comment. We have addressed all comments to clarify and improve our manuscript.

Major comments: 1.) Funny thing: the Chs2 mutant larva shows a magenta staining below the chitin accumulation of the esophagus, which looks like a question mark in 1H but cannot be found in control. Is that trachea reaching the pv?

We assume that the reviewer refers to Fig 1N. As the reviewer suspects, this corresponds to a piece of trachea. Figure 1N shows a single section, making it difficult to identify what this staining corresponds to. We are providing below a projection of several sections where it is easier to identify the staining as tracheal tissue (arrow).

We are now marking this pattern as trachea (tr) in the manuscript Figure 1N

2.) Also, though it is evident that the PM chitin is lost in Ch2 mutants, could it be that the region is disturbed and cells express somewhere else chitin? There are papers by Fuß and Hoch (e.g., Mech of Dev, 79, 1998; Josten, Fuß et al., Dev. Biol.267, 2004) using markers such as Dve, Fkh, Wg, Delta, and Notch, etc. for precisely marking the endodermal/ectodermal region in the embryonic foregut/proventriculus. It would be beneficial to show, along with chitin and Chs expression patterns, the ectoderm/endoderm cells. This is particularly important as the authors report endodermal expression of Chs2 in embryos but don't use co-markers of the endodermal cells.

We agree with the reviewer that this is an important issue and we note that Reviewer 2 also raised the same point. Therefore, we have addressed this issue.

We obtained an antibody against Dve, kindly provided by Dr. Hideki Nakagoshi. Dve marks the endodermal region in the proventriculus (Fuss and Hoch, 1998, Fuss et al., 2004, Nakagoshi et al., 1998).This antibody worked nicely in our dissected L3 digestive tracts and allowed us to mark the endodermal region. We also obtained an antibody against Fkh, kindly provided by Dr. Pilar Carrera. Fkh marks the ectodermal foregut cells (Fuss and Hoch, 1998, Fuss et al., 2004). While, in our hands, this antibody performed well in embryonic tissues, we observed no staining in our dissected L3 digestive tracts. The reason for this is unclear, but we suspect technical limitations may be responsible (the ectodermal region of the proventriculus is very internal, potentially hindering antibody penetration). To circumvent this inconvenience, we tested a FkhGFP tagged allele available in Bloomington Stock Center. Fortunately, we were able to detect GFP in ectodermal cells of L3 carrying this allele. Using this approach, we conducted experiments to detect Fkh and Dve in the wild type or in Df(Chs2) conditions (Fig S1). In addition, we used these markers to map the expression of Kkv and Chs2 in the proventriculus (Fig 4).

Altogether the results using these endodermal/ectodermal markers confirmed the presence of a cuticle adjacent to the FkhGFP-positive cells and a PM adjacent to the PR cells, marked by Dve. This PM is absent in Df(Chs2) L3 escapers, however, the general pattern of Fkh/Dve expression is not affected. Finally, we show that Chs2-expressing cells are positive for Dve while Kkv-expressing cells are not. We were unable to conduct an experiment demonstrating Kkv and Fkh co-expression due to technical incompatibilities, as both genes require the use of GFP-tagged alleles to visualise their expression. However, we believe that our imaging of Dve/Kkv clearly shows that Kkv expressing cells lack Dve expression and are localised in the internal (ectodermal) region of the proventriculus (Fig 4E).

3.) The origin of midgut chitin accumulation is unclear. Chitin can come from yeast paster. Can the authors check kkv and chs2 mutants for food passage and test starving L1 larvae to detect chitin accumulation in the midgut without feeding them?

This is a very interesting point that has also intrigued us.

We observed that, in addition to the PM layer lining the midgut epithelium, CBP staining also revealed a distinct luminal pattern. Our initial hypothesis was that this pattern corresponded to the PM. However, its presence in Df(Chs2) larval escapers clearly indicates that this is not the case. Unfortunately, we cannot assess this pattern in kkv mutants, as these die at eclosion and do not proceed to larva stages.

As the reviewer suggests, a likely possibility is that the luminal pattern originates from components in the food. These could correspond to yeast, as suggested by the reviewer, or possibly remnants of dead larvae present in the media (although Drosophila is considered herbivore in absence of nutritional stress).

To assess whether the luminal pattern originates from the food we conducted two independent experiments. In experiment 1, we collected larvae reared under normal food conditions. Newly emerged L3 larvae were transferred in small numbers to minimise cannibalism (Ahmad et al., 2015) to new Petri plates containing moist paper. Larvae were starved for 3,4 or 5 days. Larvae starved for more than 5 days did not survive. We then dissected the guts and analysed CBP staining. We observed the presence of luminal CBP staining in these larvae, along with the typical PM signal in the proventriculus and along the midgut. In experiment 2, we collected larvae directly on agar plates containing only agar (without yeast or any other nutrients). We allowed the larvae to develop. These larvae showed minimal growth. We dissected the guts of these small larvae (which were challenging to dissect) and analysed CBP staining. Again, we detected presence of luminal CBP staining.

These experiments indicate that, despite starvation, a luminal chitin pattern is still detected, suggesting that it is unlikely to originate from food. However, we cannot unequivocally rule out the possibility that the cannibalistic, detrivorous or carnivorous behavior of the nutrionally stressed larvae (Ahmad et al., 2015) in our experiments may influence the results. Therefore, more experiments would be required to address this point.

In summary, while we cannot provide a definitive answer to the reviewer's question, nor fully satisfy our own curiosity, we would like to note that this specific observation is unrelated to the main focus of our study, as we have confirmed that the luminal pattern is not dependent on Chs2 function.

Portions of midgut of starved larvae under the regimes indicated, stained for chitin (CBP, magenta). Note the presence of the luminal chitin pattern in the midgut

4.) Subcellular localization assays require improved analysis, such as a co-marker for the apical membrane and statistical analysis with co-localization tools, showing the overlap at the membrane and intracellularly with membrane co-markers and KDEL.

We have addressed the point raised by the reviewer. To analyse and quantify Chs2 subcellular localisation, particularly considering the observed pattern, we decided to use both a membrane and an ER marker. As a membrane marker we used srcGFP expressed in tracheal cells (see answer to point 7 of Reviewer 1) and as an ER marker we used KDEL. In this analysis, tracheal cells also expressed Chs2, which was visualised using the Chs2 antibody generated in the lab.

To assess the colocalisation of Chs2 with each marker we used the JaCop pluggin in Fiji. We analysed individual cells from different embryos stained for membrane/ER/Chs2 using single confocal sections (to avoid artificial colocalisation). Images were processed as described in Materials and Methods. We obtained the Pearson's correlation coefficient (r), which measures the degree of colocalisation, for Chs2/srcGFP and Chs2/KDEL, n=36 cells from 9 different embryos. The average r value for Chs2/srcGFP was 0,064, while the average for Chs2/KDEL was around 0,7. r ranges between -1 and 1, where 1 indicates perfect correlation, 0 no correlation, and -1 perfect anti-correlation. Typically, an r value of 0.7 and above is considered a strong positive correlation, whereas a value below 0,1 is regarded as very weak or no correlation. Thus, our colocalisation analysis supports the hypothesis that Chs2 is primarily retained in the ER when expressed in non-endogenous tissues, likely unable to reach the membrane.

We have reorganised the figures and now present an example of Chs2/srcGFP/KDEL subcellular localisation in tracheal cells and the colocalisation analysis in Fig 5H. The colocalisation analysis is described in the Materials and Methods section.

Minor comments:

5.) The authors used "L3 larval escapers." It would be interesting to know if the lack of Chs2 and the peritrophic matrix cause any physiological defects or lethality.

The point raised by the reviewer is very interesting and relevant. The peritrophic matrix is proposed to play several important physiological roles, including the spatial organisation of the digestive process, increasing digestive efficiency, protection against toxins and pathogens, and serving as a mechanical barrier. Therefore, it is expected that the absence of chitin in the PM of the Df(Chs2) larval escapers may cause various physiological effects.

Analysing these effects is a complex task, and it constitutes an entire research project on its own. In addressing the physiological requirements of the PM, we aim to analyse adult flies and assess various parameters, including viability, digestive transit dynamics, gut integrity, resistance to infections, fitness and fertility.

A critical initial challenge in conducting a comprehensive analysis of the physiological requirements of the PM is identifying a suitable condition to evaluate the absence of Chs2. In this work we are using a combination of two overlapping deficiencies that uncover Chs2, along with a few additional genes (as indicated in Fig S1F). This deficiency condition presents two major inconveniences: first, the observed defects could be caused or influenced by the absence of genes other than Chs2, preventing us from conclusively attributing the defects to Chs2 loss (unless we rescued the defects by adding Chs2 back as we did in the manuscript). Second, the larva escapers, which are rare, do not survive to adulthood (indicating lethality but preventing us from analysing specific physiological aspects).

To overcome these limitations, we are currently working to identify a genetic condition in which we can specifically analyse the absence of Chs2. We have identified several available RNAi lines and we are testing their efficiency in preventing chitin deposition in the PM. Additionally, we are characterising a putative null Chs2 allele, Chs2CR60212-TG4.0. This stock contains a Trojan-GAL4 gene trap sequence in the third intron, inserted via CRISPR/Cas9. As described in Flybase (https://flybase.org/), the inserted cassette contains a 'Trojan GAL4' gene trap element composed of a splice acceptor site followed by the T2A peptide, the GAL4 coding sequence and an SV40 polyadenylation signal. When inserted in a coding intron in the correct orientation, the cassette should result in truncation of the trapped gene product and expression of GAL4 under the control of the regulatory sequences of the trapped gene. We already know that, when crossed to a reporter line (e.g. UAS-GFP or UAS-nlsCherry) this line reproduces the Chs2 expression pattern, suggesting that the insertion may generate a truncated Chs2 protein. This line would represent an ideal tool to assess the absence of Chs2, and we are currently characterising it for further analysis

In summary, we fully agree with the reviewer that investigating the physiological requirements of the PM is a compelling area of research, and we are actively addressing this question. However, this investigation constitutes a substantial and independent research effort that we believe is beyond the scope of the current manuscript at this stage.

6.) The order identifiers are missing for materials and antibodies, e.g., anti-GFP (Abcam), but Abcam provides several ant-GFP; which was used? Please provide order numbers that guarantee the repeatability for others.

We have now added all identifiers for materials and reagents used, in the materials and methods section.

7.) Figure S5C, C', what marks GFP (blue) in the trachea? Maybe I have overlooked the description. What is UASsrcGFP? What is the origin of this line?

We apologise for not providing a more detailed description of the UASsrcGFP line. This line corresponds to RRID BDSC#5432, as now indicated in Materials and Methods section.

In this transgene, the UAS regulatory sequences drive the expression of GFP fused to Tag:Myr(v-src). As described in Flybase (https://flybase.org/), the P(UAS-srcEGFP) construct contains the 14 aa myristylation domain of v-src fused to EGFP. This tag is commonly used to target proteins of interest to the plasma membrane. The construct was generated by Eric Spana and is available in Drosophila stock centers.

We typically use this transgene as a plasma membrane marker to outline cell membrane contours. In our experiments, srcGFP, under the control of the btlGal4 promoter, was used to visualise the membrane of tracheal cells in relation to Chs2 accumulation. As indicated in point 4, we have now transferred the images of srcGFP/Chs2/KDEL to the main Figures and used it for colocalisation analyses.

8.) The authors claim that they validated the anti-Chs2 antibody. However, they show only that it recognizes a Cht2 epitope via ectopic expression. For more profound validation, immune staining is required in deletion mutants, upon knockdown, or upon expression of recombinant proteins, which is not shown.

We generated an antibody against Chs2. We found that the antibody does not reliably detect the endogenous Chs2 protein, and so we find no pattern in the proventriculus or any other tissue in our immunostainings. It is very possible that the combination of low endogenous levels of Chs2 with a sub-optimal antibody (or low titer) leads to this result. In any case, as the antibody does not detect endogenous Chs2, it cannot be validated by analysing the expression upon Chs2 knockdown. In contrast, our antibody clearly detects specific staining in various tissues (e.g. trachea, salivary glands, gut) when Chs2 is expressed using the Gal4/UAS system, confirming its specificity for Chs2. It is worth to point that it is not unusual to find antibodies that are not sensitive enough to detect endogenous proteins but can detect overexpressed proteins (e.g

(Lebreton and Casanova, 2016)).

As an additional way to validate the specificity of our antibody, we have used the chimeras generated, as suggested by the reviewer. As indicated in the Materials and Methods section, the Anti-Chs2 was generated against a region comprising 1222-1383 aa in Chs2, with low homology to Kkv. This region is present in the kkv-Chs2GFP chimera but absent in Chs2-KkvGFP (see Fig 7A). Accordingly, our antibody recognises kkv-Chs2GFP but does not recognise Chs2-KkvGFP (Fig S7).

We have revised the text in chapter 6 (6. Subcellular localisation of Chs2 in endogenous and ectopic tissues) to clarify these points and we have added the validation of the antibody using the chimeras in chapter 8 (8. Analysis of Chs2-Kkv chimeras) and Fig S7

9) The legend and text explaining Fig. 4 D-E' can be improved. The authors used the Crimic line, which is integrated into the third ("coding") intron. This orientation can lead to the expression of Gal4 and cause a truncated version of the protein (according to Flybase). Is Chs2 expression reduced in the crimic mutant? If the mutation causes expression of a truncated version, the Chs2 antibody may not be able to detect it as it recognizes a fragment between 1222 and 1383 aa? Also, I'm unsure whether the Chs2 antibody or GFP was used to detect expression in PR cells. The authors describe using Ch2CR60212>SrcGFP together with Chs2+ specific antibodies.

We apologise for the confusion.

As the reviewer points, Chs2CR60212-TG4.0 contains a Trojan-GAL4 gene trap sequence in the third intron, inserted via CRISPR/Cas9. As described in Flybase (https://flybase.org/), the inserted cassette contains a 'Trojan GAL4' gene trap element composed of a splice acceptor site followed by the T2A peptide, the GAL4 coding sequence and an SV40 polyadenylation signal. When inserted in a coding intron in the correct orientation, the cassette should result in truncation of the trapped gene product and expression of GAL4 under the control of the regulatory sequences of the trapped gene.

We found that when crossed to UAS-GFP or UAS-nlsCherry, this line reproduces a expression pattern that must correspond to Chs2. As the antibody that we generated is not suitable for detecting Chs2 endogenous expression, we resorted to using this combination, Chs2CR60212-TG4.0 crossed to a reporter line (such asUAS-GFP or UAS-nlsCherry), to visualise Chs2 expression by staining for GFP/Cherry in the intestinal tract and in the embryo (Figures 4 and S4).

We realise that the Figure labelling we used in our original submission is very misleading, and we apologise for this. In the original figures we had labelled the staining combination with Kkv, Chs2, Exp as if we had used these antibodies. However, in all cases, we used GFP to visualise the pattern of these proteins in the genetic combinations indicated in the figures. We have corrected this in our revised version. We have also updated the text (Chapter 5), figures and figure legends.

As the reviewer points, the insertion in Chs2CR60212-TG4.0 is likely to generate a truncated Chs2 protein. We cannot confirm this using the Chs2 antibody we generated because it does not recognise the endogenous Chs2 pattern. Nevertheless, as indicated in point 5, we are currently characterising this line. Our preliminary results indicate a high complexity of effects from this allele that require thorough analysis, as it may be acting as a dominant negative.

Reviewer #1 (Significance (Required)):

Significance: The manuscript's strength and most important aspects are the genetic analysis, expression, and localization studies of the two Chitin synthases in Drosophila embryos and larvae. However, beyond this manuscript, the development of mechanistic details, such as interaction partners that trigger secretion and action at the apical membranes and the role of the coiled-coil domain, will be interesting.

The manuscript uses "first-class" genetics to describe the different roles of the two Chitin synthases in Drosophila, comparing ectodermal chitin (tracheal and epidermal chitin) with endodermal (midgut) chitin. Such a precise analysis has not been investigated before in insects. Therefore, the study deeply extends knowledge about the role of Chitin synthases in insects.

The audience will specialize in basic research in zoology, developmental biology, and cell biology regarding - how the different Chitin synthases produce chitin. Nevertheless, as chitin is relevant to material research and medical and immunological aspects, the manuscript will be fascinating beyond the specific field and thus for a broader audience.

I'm working on chitin in the tracheal system and epidermis in Drosophila.

__Reviewer #2 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)): __ Drosophila have two different chitin synthase enzymes, Kkv and Chs2, and due to unique expression patterns and mutant phenotypes, it is relatively clear that they have different functions in producing either the cuticle-related chitin network (Kkv) or the chitin associated with the peritrophic matrix (PM). However, what is unknown is whether the different functions in making cuticle vs PM chitin is related to differences in cellular expression and/or enzyme properties within the cell. The authors exploit the genetic tractability of Drosophila and their ability to image cuticle vs PM chitin production to examine whether these 2 enzymes can substitute each other. They conclude that these two proteins are not equivalent in their capacity to generate chitin. The data are convincing; however, it is currently presented in a subjective fashion, which makes it difficult to interpret. Additionally, in my opinion there is some interpretation that requires softening or alternatively interpreted.

We are pleased that the reviewer finds our data convincing. However, we acknowledge the reviewer's concern that our data was presented in a subjective manner, and we apologise for this. In response, we have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript and revised our data presentation to ensure a more objective tone. Numerous changes (including additional quantifications, new experiments and clarifications) have been incorporated throughout the text. These revisions are highlighted in the marked-up version. We hope that this revision provides a more accurate and objective presentation of our work.

Major Comments:

1- While the imaging is lovely, there are some things that are difficult to see in the figures. For example, the "continuous, thin and faint 'chitin' layer that lined the gut epithelium" is very difficult to visualise in the control images. Can they increase the contrast to help the reader appreciate this layer? This is particularly important as we are asked to appreciate a loss of this layer in the absence of Chs2.

We have tried to improve the figures so that the PM layer in the midgut region is more clearly visible. We have added magnifications of small sections at the midgut lumen/epithelium border in grey to help visualise the PM. These improvements have been made in Figures 1,2,S1,S2,S3 and we believe that they better illustrate our results.

2- All the mutant analysis is presented subjectively. For example, the authors state that they "found a consistent difference of CBP staining when they compared the 'Chs2' escapers to the controls". How consistent is consistent? Can this be quantified? What is the penetrance of this phenotype? They say that the thin layer is absent in the midgut and the guts are thinner. Could they provide more concrete data?

As indicated above, we have reviewed the text to provide a more objective description of the phenotypes.

We have quantified the defects in the Df(Chs2) mutant conditions. For this quantification we dissected intestinal tracts of control and Df(Chs2) larva escapers. We fixed, stained and mounted them together. The control guts expressed GFP in the midgut region as a way to distinguish control from mutants. We analysed the presence or absence of chitin in the PM. We found absence of chitin in the proventricular lumen and in the midgut in all Df(Chs2) guts and presence of chitin there in all control ones (n=12 Df(Chs2) guts, n=9 control guts, from 5 independent experiments). The results indicate a fully penetrant phenotype of lack of chitin in Df(Chs2) larva escapers (100% penetrance). We have added this quantification in the text, chapter 2 (2. Chs2 deposits chitin in the PM).

To quantify the thickness of the guts, we took measurements of the diameter in control and Df(Chs2) guts at two comparable distance positions from the proventriculus (position 1, position 2, see image). Our quantifications indicated thinner tubes in mutant conditions.

Image shows the anterior part of the intestinal tract, with the proventriculus encircled in white. Positions 1 and 2 indicate where the diameter quantifications were taken. Scatter plots quantifying the diameter at the two different positions in control and Chs2 larval escapers. Bars show mean {plus minus} SD. p=p value of unpaired t test two-tailed with Welch's correction.

However, we are aware that our analysis of the thickness of the gut is not accurate, because we have not used markers to precisely measure at the same position in all guts and because we have not normalised the measurement position in relation to the whole intestinal tract (mainly due to technical issues).

In relation to the fragility, we noticed that the guts of Chs2 larval escapers tended to break more easily during dissection than control guts, however, we have not been able to quantify this parameter in a reliable and objective manner.

Since we consider that the requirement of Chs2 for PM deposition is sufficiently demonstrated, and that aspects such as gut morphology or fragility relate to the physiological requirements of the PM, which we are beginning to address as a new independent project (see our response to point 5 of Reviewer 1), we have decided to remove the sentence 'We also noticed that the guts of L3 escapers were thinner and more fragile at dissection." from the manuscript to avoid subjectivity.

3- They state that Chs2 was able to restore accumulation of chitin in the PM of the proventriculus and the midgut. Please quantify. Additionally, does this restore the morphology of the guts (related to the comment above on the thinner guts in the absence of Chs2)?

We have quantified the rescue of chitin deposition in the PM when Chs2 is expressed in PR cells in a Df(Chs2) mutant background. For this quantification we used the following genetic cross: PRGal4/Cyo; Df(Chs2)/TM6dfdYFP (females) crossed to UASChs2GFP or UASChs2/Cyo; Df(Chs2)/TM6dfdYFP. We selected Df(Chs2) larval escapers by the absence of TM6 (recognisable by the body shape). Among these larval escapers, we identified the presence of Chs2 in PR cells by the expression of GFP or Chs2. We found absence of chitin in the proventriculus and in the midgut in all Df(Chs2) guts that did not express Chs2 in PR cells (n=8/8 Df(Chs2)). In contrast, chitin was present in those intestinal tracts where Chs2 expression was detected in PR cells (n=8/8 PRGal4-UASChs2; Df(Chs2) guts, from 5 independent experiments). The results indicate a full rescue of chitin deposition by Chs2 expression in PR cells in Df(Chs2) mutant larvae. We have added this quantification in the text, chapter 2 (2. Chs2 deposits chitin in the PM).

As requested by the reviewer, we have also conducted measurements to quantify gut thickness. We performed an analysis similar to the one described in point 2, this time comparing the diameter of Df(Chs2) and PRGal4-UASChs2;Df(Chs2) guts at positions 1 and 2 (see image in point 2 of Reviewer 2). Our quantifications indicated that guts were thicker when Chs2 is expressed in the PR region in Df(Chs2) larval escapers.

As discussed in point 2, we have decided not to include these results in the manuscript, as this type of analysis requires a more comprehensive investigation.

Scatter plots quantifying the diameter at the two different positions in Chs2 larval escapers and Chs2 larval escapers expressing Chs2 in PR cells. Bars show mean {plus minus} SD. p=p value of unpaired t test two-tailed with Welch's correction.

4- This may be beyond the scope of this paper, but I find it interesting that the PM chitin is deposited in the proventricular lumen. Yet it forms a thin layer that lines the entire midgut? Any idea how this presumably dense chitin network gets transported throughout the midgut to line the epithelium? I imagine that this is unlikely due to diffusion, especially if they see an even distribution across the midgut. Do they see any evidence of a graded lining (i.e. is it denser in the midgut towards the proventriculus and does this progressively decrease as you look through the midgut?)?

Insect peritrophic matrices have been classified into Type I and II (with some variations) depending on their origin (extensively reviewed in (Peters, 1992, Hegedus et al., 2019). Type I PMs are typically produced by delamination as concentric lamellae along the length of the midgut. Type II PMs, in contrast, are produced in a specialised region of the midgut that corresponds to the proventriculus and are typically more organised than Type I. In Type II PMs, distinct layers originate from distinct cell clusters in the proventriculus. It has been proposed that as food passes, it becomes encased by the extruded PM, which then slides down to ensheath the midgut. Drosophila larvae have been proposed to secrete a type II PM: through PM implantation experiments, Rizki proposed that the proventriculus is required to generate the PM in Drosophila larvae (Rizki, 1956). Our experiments confirmed this hypothesis: we show that expressing Chs2 exclusively in PR cells is sufficient to produce a PM along the midgut. Furthermore, we also show that expressing Chs2 in the midgut is not sufficient to produce a PM layer lining the midgut, at least at larval stages.

The type II PM in Drosophila is proposed to be fully organised into four layers in the proventricular region (also referred as PM formation zone) before reaching the midgut (Peters, 1992, King, 1988, Rizki, 1956, Zhu et al., 2024). However, the mechanism by which the PM is subsequently transported into the midgut remains unclear. PM movement posteriorly is thought to depend on to the pressure exerted by continuous secretion of PM material (Peters, 1992). Early work by Wigglesworth (1929, 1930) proposed that the PM is secreted into the proventricular lumen, becomes fully organised, and is then pushed down by a press mechanism involving the aposed ectodermal/endodermal walls of the proventriculus. Rizki suggested that muscular contractions of the proventriculus walls may play a role, and that peristaltic movements of the gut add a pulling force to push the PM into the midgut (Rizki, 1956). Nevertheless, to our knowledge, the exact mechanism is still not fully understood.

In response to the reviewer's question, the level of resolution of our analysis does not allow us to determine whether there is a graded PM lining along the midgut. However, available data using electron microscopy approaches suggest that the PM is a fully organised structure composed of four layers that is secreted and transported to line the midgut (King, 1988, Zhu et al., 2024).

5- The authors state that expression of kkv in tracheal cells of kkv mutants perfectly restores accumulation of chitin in the luminal filaments. Is this really 100% restoration? They also reference a paper here, which may have quantified this result.

We previously reported that the expression of kkv in tracheal cells restores chitin deposition in kkv mutants (Moussian et al,2015). However, our previous study did not quantify this rescue. As requested by the reviewer, we have now quantified the extent of the rescue.

To perform this quantification, we used the following genetic cross:

btlGa4/(Cyo); kkv/TM6dfdYFP (females) crossed to +/+; kkv UASkkvGFP/TM6dfdYFP (males)

We stained the resulting embryos with CBP (to detect chitin) and GFP. GFP staining allowed us to identify the kkv mutants (by the absence of dfdYFP marker) and to simultaneously identify the embryos that expressed kkvGFP in tracheal cells (through btlGal4-driven expression). Since btlGal4 is homozygous viable, most females carried two copies of btlGal4.

We compared the following embryo populations across 4 independent experiments:

1. Cyo/+; kkv/kkv UASkkvGFP (kkv mutants not expressing kkv in the trachea)

2. btlGal4/+; kkv/kkv UASkkvGFP (kkv mutants expressing kkv in the trachea) Results:

3. Cyo/+; kkv/kkv UASkkvGFP ---- 0/6 embryos deposited chitin in trachea

4. btlGal4/+; kkv/kkv UASkkvGFP ---- 27/27 embryos deposited chitin in trachea These results indicate complete restauration of chitin deposition in kkv mutants when kkv is expressed in tracheal cells (100% rescue).

To further investigate whether Chs2 can compensate for kkv function in ectodermal tissues, we performed a similar quantification using the following genetic cross:

btlGa4/(Cyo); kkv/TM6dfdYFP (females) crossed to UASChs2GFP/UASChs2GFP; kkv UASkkvGFP/TM6dfdYFP (males)

We compared the following embryo populations across 2 independent experiments:

1. Cyo/UASChs2GFP; kkv/kkv (kkv mutants not expressing Chs2 in the trachea)

2. btlGal4/ UASChs2GFP; kkv/kkv (kkv mutants expressing Chs2 in the trachea) Results:

3. Cyo/UASChs2GFP; kkv/kkv ---- 0/4 embryos deposited chitin in trachea

4. btlGal4/ UASChs2GFP; kkv/kkv ---- 0/16 embryos deposited chitin in trachea These results indicate no restauration of chitin deposition in kkv mutants expressing Chs2 in the trachea (0% rescue).

We have now incorporated these quantifications in the text, chapter 4 (4. Chs2 cannot replace Kkv and deposit chitin in ectodermal tissues.)

6- They ask whether Kkv overexpression in the proventriculus can rescue Chs2 mutants... and vice versa, whether Chs2 overexpression in ectodermal cells can rescue kkv mutants. They show that kkv overexpression leads to an intracellular accumulation of chitin in the proventriculus. However, Chs2 overexpression in the trachea did not lead to any accumulation of chitin in the cells. They tailored their experiments and the associated discussion to address the hypothesis that there is potentially some difference in trafficking of these components. However, another possibility, which they have not ruled out, is that the different ability of kkv and Chs2 to produce chitin inside cells of the proventriculus and ectoderm, respectively, is potentially related to different enzymatic activities and cofactors required for chitin formation in these different cell types. Is this another potential explanation for the differences that they observe?

We note that Kkv overexpression in any cell type (e.g. ectoderm, endoderm) consistently leads to chitin polymerisation. In ectodermal tissues, Kkv expression, in combination with Exp/Reb activity, results in extracellular chitin deposition. In the absence of Exp/Reb, Kkv expression leads to the accumulation of intracellular chitin punctae (De Giorgio et al., 2023, Moussian et al., 2015); this work). This correlates with the accumulation of Kkv at the apical membrane and presence of Kkv-containing vesicles, regardless of the presence of Exp/Reb (De Giorgio et al., 2023, Moussian et al., 2015); Figure 6, S6). In endodermal tissues, regardless of the presence of Exp/Reb, Kkv cannot deposit chitin extracellularly and instead produces intracellular chitin punctae. This correlates with a diffuse accumulation of Kkv in the endodermal cells (PR cells, or gut cells in the embryo) but presence of Kkv-containing vesicles (Figure 6, S6).

In previous work we showed that Kkv's ability to polymerise chitin is completely abolished when it is retained in the ER. Indeed, we found that a mutation in a conserved WGTRE region leads to ER retention, the absence of Kkv-containing vesicles in the cell, and absence of intracellular chitin punctae or chitin deposition (De Giorgio et al., 2023).

These findings indicate a correlation between Kkv subcellular localisation and chitin polymerisation/extrusion. Therefore, we hypothesise that intracellular trafficking and subsequent subcellular localisation play a crucial role in regulating Kkv activity (De Giorgio et al., 2023; this work).

We find that Chs2 is expressed in PR cells (Figure 4) and observe that only in these PR cells does Chs2 localise apically (Fig 5A-D, S5A,B). This localisation correlates with the ability of Chs2 to deposit chitin in the PM and the presence of intracellular chitin punctae in PR cells (Fig 1F). When Chs2 is expressed in other cells types, we detect it primarily in the ER and observed no Chs2-containing vesicles (vesicles are suggestive of trafficking). This localisation correlates with the inability of Chs2 to produce intracellular chitin punctae or extracellular chitin deposition.

Again, these results suggest a correlation between Chs2 subcellular localisation and chitin polymerisation/extrusion, aligning with the results observed for Kkv. Therefore, we hypothesise in this work that the intracellular trafficking and subsequent subcellular localisation of Chs2 play a crucial role in regulating its activity.

Our hypothesis is consistent with seminal work in yeast chitin synthases, which has demonstrated the critical role of intracellular trafficking, and particularly ER exit, in regulating chitin synthase activity (reviewed in (Sanchez and Roncero, 2022).

That said, we cannot exclude other explanations that are also compatible with the observed results. As pointed out by the reviewer, it is possible that Chs2 and Kkv require different enzymatic activities and/or cofactors for chitin polymerisation/deposition, which may be specific to different cell types. Indeed, we know that the auxiliary proteins Exp/Reb are specifically expressed in certain ectodermal tissues (Moussian et al., 2015). These mechanisms could act jointly or in parallel with the regulation of intracellular trafficking, or could even regulate this intracellular trafficking itself.

Identifying the exact mechanisms controlling Kkv and Chs2 intracellular trafficking would be necessary to determine whether additional mechanisms (specific cofactors or enzymatic activities) are also involved or even serve as the primary regulatory elements.

We have introduced these additional possibilities in the discussion section.

7- They co-express Chs2 and Reb and show that this does not lead to chitin production or secretion. In the discussion they conclude that Chs2 does not "seem to be dependent on 'Reb' activity". I think that this statement potentially needs softening. They show that Reb is not sufficient in to induce Chs2 chitin production in cells that do not normally make a PM. However, they do not show that it is not essential in cells that normally express Chs2 and make PM.

We fully agree with the reviewer's observation and thank her/him for pointing it out.

As indicated by the reviewer, we show that co-expression of Reb and Chs2 in different tissues does not lead to an effect distinct from that observed with Chs2 expression alone. In addition, in the discussion we mention that we could not detect expression of reb/exp in PR cells, which aligns with the findings from Zhu et al, 2024, indicating no expression of reb/exp in the midgut cells of the adult proventriculus, as assessed by scRNAseq. We found that exp is expressed in the ectodermal cells of the larval proventriculus (Fig S4D), correlating with kkv expression in this region and cuticle deposition. These findings led us to propose that Chs2 does not seem to be dependent on Exp/Reb activity.

However, in our original manuscript, we did not directly address whether Exp/Reb are required in the cells that normally express Chs2. As a result, we could not conclude that Chs2 relies on a set of auxiliary proteins different from Exp/Reb, and therefore a different molecular mechanism to that of Kkv in regulating chitin deposition.

To address this specific point, we have conducted a new experiment to test Exp/Reb requirement in PR cells. We co-expressed RNAi lines for Exp/Reb in these cells and found that chitin deposition in the PM was not prevented. This further supports the hypothesis that Exp/Reb activity is not necessary for Chs2 function. We have added this experiment to Chapter 4 and Fig S3I,J.

8- They looked at the endogenous expression pattern of kkv and Chs2 and say that they found accumulation of Kkv in the proventriculus and no accumulation in the midgut. Siimilarly, they look at the expression of Chs2 and detect it in cells of the proventriculus. Are there markers of these different cell types that they could use to colocalize these enzymes?

We agree with the reviewer that this is an important issue and we note that Reviewer 1 also raised the same point. Therefore, we have addressed this issue.

We obtained an antibody against Dve, kindly provided by Dr. Hideki Nakagoshi. Dve marks the endodermal region in the proventriculus (Fuss and Hoch, 1998, Fuss et al., 2004, Nakagoshi et al., 1998).This antibody worked nicely in our dissected L3 digestive tracts and allowed us to mark the endodermal region. We also obtained an antibody against Fkh, kindly provided by Dr. Pilar Carrera. Fkh marks the ectodermal foregut cells (Fuss and Hoch, 1998, Fuss et al., 2004, Nakagoshi et al., 1998). While, in our hands, this antibody performed well in embryonic tissues, we observed no staining in our dissected L3 digestive tracts. The reason for this is unclear, but we suspect technical limitations may be responsible (the ectodermal region of the proventriculus is very internal, potentially hindering antibody penetration). To circumvent this inconvenience, we tested a FkhGFP tagged allele available in Bloomington Stock Center. Fortunately, we were able to detect GFP in ectodermal cells of L3 carrying this allele. Using this approach, we conducted experiments to detect Fkh and Dve in relation to chitin accumulation in the wild type (Fig S1). In addition, we used these markers to map the expression of Kkv and Chs2 in the proventriculus (Fig 4). Our results using these endodermal/ectodermal markers confirmed the presence of a cuticle adjacent to the FkhGFP-positive cells and a PM adjacent to the PR cells, marked by Dve. Additionally, we show that Chs2-expressing cells are positive for Dve while Kkv-expressing cells are not. We could not conduct an experiment showing Kkv and Fkh co-expression due to technical incompatibilities, as we have to use GFP tagged alleles for both Kkv and Fkh to reveal their expression. However, we believe that our imaging of Dve/Kkv clearly shows that Kkv expressing cells lack Dve expression and localise in the internal (ectodermal) region of the proventriculus (Fig 4E).

9- They overexpress Chs2 in cells of the midgut and see that it colocalises with an ER marker. They conclude that it is retained in the ER, which again, for them suggests that it has a trafficking problem in these cells. However, they are overexpressing it in these cells and this strong accumulation that they observe in the ER could simply be due to the massive expression levels. Additionally, they cannot conclude that it doesn't get out of the ER at all. They could be correct in thinking that there may be a trafficking issue, but this experiment does not conclusively show that Chs2 is entirely retained in the ER when expressed in ectopic tissues. I wonder if their interpretation needs softening or whether they should potentially address alternative hypotheses.

The reviewer raises two distinct issues: 1) the localisation of overexpressed proteins 2) Chs2 ER retention.

We agree that massive overexpression can lead to artifactual subcellular localisation due to saturation of the secretory pathway, causing ER accumulation. In our experiments, we overexpressed Kkv and Chs2 in different tissues (trachea, salivary glands, embryonic gut, and larval proventriculus), inducing high levels of both chitin synthases.

For Kkv, we observed distinct subcellular localisation patterns in ectodermal versus endodermal tissues (illustrated in new Fig S6). In ectodermal tissues such as the trachea, large amounts of KkvGFP were detected, most of it localising apically. We also detected a more general KkvGFP distribution throughout the cell, including the ER, particularly at early stages. Additionally, we observed many KkvGFP-positive vesicles, reflecting exocytic and endocytic trafficking, as described previously (De Giorgio et al., 2023). The presence of these vesicles (as well as the apical localisation) indicates that KkvGFP is able to exit the ER. Indeed, our previous work demonstrated that when Kkv is retained in the ER, it does not localise apically or appear in vesicles (De Giorgio et al, 2023). In endodermal tissues, as described in our manuscript, KkvGFP did not exhibit polarised apical localisation and instead showed a diffuse pattern with some cortical enrichment. However, the presence of KkvGFP-containing vesicles still suggests that the protein is capable of exiting the ER also in these endodermal tissues.

We observed a different subcellular pattern when we overexpressed Chs2GFP. In tissues where Chs2 is not normally expressed (e.g., trachea, salivary gland, embryonic gut), we did not detect apical or membrane accumulation (see Fig. 5,S5, S6 and response to point 4 of Reviewer #1). Nor did we observe accumulation of Chs2GFP in intracellular vesicles. Instead, Chs2GFP showed strong colocalisation with an ER marker (see Fig. 5,S5, S6 and response to point 4 of Reviewer #1). In contrast, when overexpressed in PR cells, we detected apical enrichment (Fig 5A-D, S5A,B). This indicates that despite massive expression levels, Chs2 can exit the ER in particular tissues.

Taken together, our results strongly suggest that overexpressed Kkv can exit the ER in the different tissues analysed, whereas most Chs2GFP is retained in the ER in tissues other than PR cells. This correlates with the ability of overexpressed KkvGFP to polymerise chitin (either in intracellular puncta or deposited extracellularly depending on the presence of Exp/Reb) in all analysed tissues. Conversely, Chs2 was unable to polymerise chitin (either in intracellular puncta or extracellularly regardless of Exp/Reb presence) in tissues other than PR cells.

Nevertheless, we acknowledge that we cannot definitively conclude that all Chs2 protein is entirely retained in the ER. We have included this caveat in our revised manuscript (Chapter 6 and Discussion section).

Minor Comments: - No mention of Fig 3I in the results section and the order discussed in the results does not match the order in the figure.

We apologise for these inconsistencies. We have addressed this issue in the text, figure legend, and the image order in Figure 3 and Figure S3.

• In the results please provide some information on what the CRIMIC collection is and how it allows you to see Chs2 expression for non-experts.

We have addressed this point in chapter 5 in the revised version, and we now provide a more detailed explanation of the CRIMIC Chs2CR60212-TG4.0 allele.

Further details of this allele are also provided in our responses to points 5 and 9 of Reviewer 1.

Reviewer #2 (Significance (Required)):

Drosophila produce different types of chitinous structures that are required for either the exoskeleton of the animal or for proper gut function (peritrophic matrix). Additionally, most insects have two enzymes involved in the production of chitin and current data suggests that they have unique roles in producing either the exoskeleton or the peritrophic matrix. However, it is unclear whether their different functions are due to differences in cell type expression or differences in physiological activity of the enzymes. The authors exploit Drosophila to drive these 2 enzymes in different cell types that are known to produce the exoskeleton or the peritrophic matrix to determine whether they can functionally substitute mutant backgrounds. Their results give us a hint that these enzymes are not equivalent. What the authors were unable to address is why they are not equivalent. They hypothesise that the different physiological functions of the enzymes may be related to trafficking differences within their respective cell types. While this is an interesting hypothesis, the date are not really clear yet to make this conclusion.

This work will be of interest to anyone interested in chitinous structures in insects and the cell biology of chitin-related enzymes.

Literature

---

AHMAD, M., CHAUDHARY, S. U., AFZAL, A. J. & TARIQ, M. 2015. Starvation-Induced Dietary Behaviour in Drosophila melanogaster Larvae and Adults. Sci Rep, 5__,__ 14285.

DE GIORGIO, E., GIANNIOS, P., ESPINAS, M. L. & LLIMARGAS, M. 2023. A dynamic interplay between chitin synthase and the proteins Expansion/Rebuf reveals that chitin polymerisation and translocation are uncoupled in Drosophila. PLoS Biol, 21__,__ e3001978.

FUSS, B. & HOCH, M. 1998. Drosophila endoderm development requires a novel homeobox gene which is a target of Wingless and Dpp signalling. Mech Dev, 79__,__ 83-97.

FUSS, B., JOSTEN, F., FEIX, M. & HOCH, M. 2004. Cell movements controlled by the Notch signalling cascade during foregut development in Drosophila. Development, 131__,__ 1587-95.

HEGEDUS, D. D., TOPRAK, U. & ERLANDSON, M. 2019. Peritrophic matrix formation. J Insect Physiol, 117__,__ 103898.

KING, D. G. 1988. Cellular organization and peritrophic membrane formation in the cardia (proventriculus) of Drosophila melanogaster. J Morphol, 196__,__ 253-82.

LEBRETON, G. & CASANOVA, J. 2016. Ligand-binding and constitutive FGF receptors in single Drosophila tracheal cells: Implications for the role of FGF in collective migration. Dev Dyn, 245__,__ 372-8.

MOUSSIAN, B., LETIZIA, A., MARTINEZ-CORRALES, G., ROTSTEIN, B., CASALI, A. & LLIMARGAS, M. 2015. Deciphering the genetic programme triggering timely and spatially-regulated chitin deposition. PLoS Genet, 11__,__ e1004939.

NAKAGOSHI, H., HOSHI, M., NABESHIMA, Y. & MATSUZAKI, F. 1998. A novel homeobox gene mediates the Dpp signal to establish functional specificity within target cells. Genes Dev, 12__,__ 2724-34.

PETERS, W. 1992. Peritrophic Membranes, Springer Berlin, Heidelberg.

RIZKI, M. T. M. 1956. The secretory activity of the proventriculus of Drosophila melanogaster. Journal of Experimental Zoology, 131__,__ 203-221.

SANCHEZ, N. & RONCERO, C. 2022. Chitin Synthesis in Yeast: A Matter of Trafficking. Int J Mol Sci, 23.

ZHU, H., LUDINGTON, W. B. & SPRADLING, A. C. 2024. Cellular and molecular organization of the Drosophila foregut. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 121__,__ e2318760121.