populism def

It's interesting how this thinking is so dichotomous-- we oscillate between both the pain and beauty of what's broken and feel torn about what to believe (or more specifically, what's more helpful to believe). You can protect your peace al you want, but is it worth it to not see problems in the world without solutions and without an inherently positive twist on them?

Stowe demonstrates through dialogue how the the character Mr. Shelby self-justifies his decision to Mrs. Shelby through social principle rather than an internal morality thus deviating from Christianity indoctrination and leaning on social customs.

Stowe breaks the fourth wall to forewarn of the central character giving immediate proclamation of his heroism rather than waiting for readers to later discover as one of literary tactics.

Stowe uses motherhood to have the readers feel empathetic for Eliza. Stowe includes how broken Eliza feels by showing that child loss was one thing that broke her and made her unhappy.

Mrs. Shelby tries to say that she is a good christian because she cares for them but she still participates in the system and only cares when it is Eliza's son being sold.

Eliza has braved everything that is happening to her, but it dulls when she is rushing to save her son. When it comes to a mother protecting her child, adrenaline takes over and any pain or cold is nothing compared to finding safety.

This moment is so casual it’s kind of unsettling. Eliza is clearly exhausted and distressed, but it’s treated as something small and easily brushed aside. Her fear exists quietly in the background while the Shelbys stay comfortable.

This is where Stowe basically says the idea of “kind” slavery is fake. Even if a master seems nice, it doesn’t matter, because the law still treats enslaved people like property. That “shadow of law” means their lives can flip at any moment, no matter how safe things look.

This passage demonstrates the biggest turning point in Tom's life as a man who was promised liberty is never going to be able to get freedom. This passage also marks Tom's fate as a whole as he is going to be eventually sold to Mr. Legree and meet his eventual end.

This line is quite telling of the hate and prejudice that enslaved people experienced, instead of celebrating him or just allowing him to create more inventions, instead he starts to abuse him out of jealousy because he views him as inferior. So the boss does what is allowed under this system which is hurt him.

This passage demonstrates the extent and the length of what a mother will do to protect her child. Stowe's use of specific imagery illustrates motherhood and this particularly appeals to her 19th century audience who are mothers. The imagery shown in this passage goes beyond just a mother and son but beyond slavery and race.

This plays into the bigger idea that has been noted over and over again throughout the module but also just in general. That you have these so called moral people that are intelligent but also being slave owners. The dichotomy of this is quite strange but something people back then critique but the hypocrisy in it.

This is also the same sort of passive aggressive tone as from before, since he is coupling negotiations from a position of power and basically drawing a hard line that he will not come back unless the Colonel Anderson can guarantee his daughters' safety. But he couples it with a sort of innocent question about schooling as well. It's surprisingly educated in its delivery, since everytime it takes something or delivers a devastating statement, it also balances it with either an outright compliment or a mundane question to dilute the previous blow. It as a whole seems to be establishing a sort of idea that, yes, he's willing to return, but he's actually not, as he's demanding many things that the Colonel can't provide. It's basically a soft rejection of his offer by making it look instead of as a personal decision off of just a refusal to work for him, but by disguising it as a logical decision based on just common working conditions and employment, such as differing wages and benefits. Again, it seems surprisingly well put together and educated, which likely is also intentionally done to undermine the Colonel's position.

I feel like this is almost an attempt at flattery, trying to get a good feeling for the Colonel Anderson's reaction. Seeing as it would be a more positive comment, since he's blatantly saying that he was proud to have been owned by a Colonel, but it also shows a level of passive aggressive education as well. This is because he's asking to hear about the wages, basically challenging Colonel Anderson to actually offer better than anybody else can, as he had said. It makes the situation interesting simply because It's a subservient tone that then shifts into this demanding and negotiating tone, since he's basically acting as if he is still a slave before moving on to discuss wages and other benefits.

This is a very sad picture. They had so many dead people and students that they had to go in groups, its sad that they didn't get their own ceremony and go in peace.

The description of this picture is very heartbreaking. The mother having to walk around carrying her dead child while looking for a place to lay her to rest is sad.

This image puts you in a peaceful mindset, the lanterns along with the pretty background shows signs of hope.

This image put you into the chaotic setting, the fire surrounding the buildings and the burns on the people shows the destruction caused.

Self explanatory

Important when writing introduction

Did not know this

Make the book happy and put /hb

The instructions don't specify any particular bolding or unique formatting differing from what is being said here.

Hadi Beydoun, Student

Miss Schaeffer, Professor

First, we need to address who the memo is from, to whom are we writing this memo for (audience), the date written, and the subject in question. Typical format.

We can use Microsoft word to make sure the formatting is correct

Since my memo is addressed to the professor, I will be using one-on-one communication

Typically used in the workplace to communicate information

Important

Looking at this wheel I am so close to the middle in so many of these categories, this visual is shocking.

These trials being so far from the lawsuits or not actually being schedule gives these dominant companies the opportunity to shape markets and consumer behavior. It amazes me that these trials are being taken care of this way, especially with the government looking at it.

As an athlete myself I understand that sometimes there is injuries that seem to come out of no where or not go away. Having a technology that lets trainers know you have been over working or are at a higher risk for injury is game changing.

Now knowing that the NFL's new kickoff rules cone from the digital athlete portal finally answered my question on who made this rule. I think the new kickoffs are quite bizarre, and considering how many rules the NFL has implemented in the last 10 years has made the game much more soft. The fact that some athletes are signing contracts over 50 million dollars and some almost 100 million, they should be able to play the game the right way and no cushioning rules.

eLife Assessment

This study presents a valuable advance in reconstructing naturalistic speech from intracranial ECoG data using a dual-pathway model. The evidence supporting the claims of the authors is solid. This work will be of interest to cognitive neuroscientists and computer scientists/engineers working on speech reconstruction from neural data.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper introduces a dual-pathway model for reconstructing naturalistic speech from intracranial ECoG data. It integrates an acoustic pathway (LSTM + HiFi-GAN for spectral detail) and a linguistic pathway (Transformer + Parler-TTS for linguistic content). Output from the two components are later merged via CosyVoice2.0 voice cloning. Using only 20 minutes of ECoG data per participant, the model achieves high acoustic fidelity and linguistic intelligibility.

Strengths:

(1) The proposed dual-pathway framework effectively integrates the strengths of neural-to-acoustic and neural-to-text decoding and aligns well with established neurobiological models of dual-stream processing in speech and language.

(2) The integrated approach achieves robust speech reconstruction using only 20 minutes of ECoG data per subject, demonstrating the efficiency of the proposed method.

(3) The use of multiple evaluation metrics (MOS, mel-spectrogram R², WER, PER) spanning acoustic, linguistic (phoneme and word), and perceptual dimensions, together with comparisons against noise-degraded baselines, adds strong quantitative rigor to the study.

Comments on revisions:

I thank the authors for their thorough efforts in addressing my previous concerns. I believe this revised version is significantly strengthened, and I have no further concerns.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The study by Li et al. proposes a dual-path framework that concurrently decodes acoustic and linguistic representations from ECoG recordings. By integrating advanced pre-trained AI models, the approach preserves both acoustic richness and linguistic intelligibility, and achieves a WER of 18.9% with a short (~20-minute) recording.

Overall, the study offers an advanced and promising framework for speech decoding. The method appears sound, and the results are clear and convincing. My main concerns are the need for additional control analyses and for more comparisons with existing models.

Strengths:

• This speech-decoding framework employs several advanced pre-trained DNN models, reaching superior performance (WER of 18.9%) with relatively short (~20-minute) neural recording.

• The dual-pathway design is elegant, and the study clearly demonstrates its necessity: The acoustic pathway enhances spectral fidelity while the linguistic pathway improves linguistic intelligibility.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have thoughtfully addressed my previous concerns about the weaknesses. I have no further concerns.

Author response:

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary

This paper introduces a dual-pathway model for reconstructing naturalistic speech from intracranial ECoG data. It integrates an acoustic pathway (LSTM + HiFi-GAN for spectral detail) and a linguistic pathway (Transformer + Parler-TTS for linguistic content). Output from the two components is later merged via CosyVoice2.0 voice cloning. Using only 20 minutes of ECoG data per participant, the model achieves high acoustic fidelity and linguistic intelligibility.

Strengths

(1) The proposed dual-pathway framework effectively integrates the strengths of neural-to-acoustic and neural-to-text decoding and aligns well with established neurobiological models of dual-stream processing in speech and language.

(2) The integrated approach achieves robust speech reconstruction using only 20 minutes of ECoG data per subject, demonstrating the efficiency of the proposed method.

(3) The use of multiple evaluation metrics (MOS, mel-spectrogram R², WER, PER) spanning acoustic, linguistic (phoneme and word), and perceptual dimensions, together with comparisons against noisedegraded baselines, adds strong quantitative rigor to the study.

We thank Reviewer #1 for the supportive comments. In addition, we appreciate Reviewer #1’s thoughtful comments and feedback. By addressing these comments, we believe we have greatly improved the clarity of our claims and methodology. Below we list our point-to-point responses addressing concerns raised by Reviewer #1.

Weaknesses:

(1) It is unclear how much the acoustic pathway contributes to the final reconstruction results, based on Figures 3B-E and 4E. Including results from Baseline 2 + CosyVoice and Baseline 3 + CosyVoice could help clarify this contribution.

We sincerely appreciate the inquiry from Reviewer 1. We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. However, we believe that directly applying CosyVoice to the outputs of Baseline 2 or Baseline 3 in isolation is not methodologically feasible and would not correctly elucidate the contribution of the auditory pathway and might lead to misinterpretation.

The role of CosyVoice 2.0 in our framework is specifically voice cloning and fusion, not standalone enhancement. It is designed to integrate information from two pathways. Its operation requires two key inputs:

(1) A voice reference speech that provides the target speaker's timbre and prosodic characteristics. In our final pipeline, this is provided by the denoised output of the acoustic pathway (Baseline 2).

(2) A target word sequence that specifies the linguistic content to be spoken. This is obtained by transcribing the output of the linguistic pathway (Baseline 3) using Whisper ASR. Therefore, the standalone outputs of Baseline 2 and Baseline 3 are the purest demonstrations of what each pathway contributes before fusion. The significant improvement in WER/PER and MOS in the final output (compared to Baseline 2) and the significant improvement in melspectrogram R² (compared to Baseline 3) together demonstrate the complementary contributions of the two pathways. The fusion via CosyVoice is the mechanism that allows these contributions to be combined. We have added a clearer explanation of CosyVoice's role and the rationale for not testing it on individual baselines in the revised manuscript (Results section: "The fine-tuned voice cloner further enhances...").

Edits:

Page 11, Lines 277-282:

“ Voice cloning is used to bridge the gap between acoustic fidelity and linguistic intelligibility in speech reconstruction. This approach strategically combines the strengths of complementary pathways: the acoustic pathway preserves speaker-specific spectral characteristics while the linguistic pathway maintains lexical and phonetic precision. By integrating these components through neural voice cloning, we achieve balanced reconstruction that overcomes the limitations inherent in isolated systems. CosyVoice 2.0, the voice cloner module serves specifically as a voice cloning and fusion engine, requiring two inputs: (1) a voice reference speech (provided by the denoised output of the acoustic pathway) to specify the target speaker's identity, and (2) a target word sequence (transcribed from the output of the linguistic pathway) to specify the linguistic content. The standalone baseline outputs of the two pathways can be integrated in this way.”

(2) As noted in the limitations, the reconstruction results heavily rely on pre-trained generative models. However, no comparison is provided with state-of-the-art multimodal LLMs such as Qwen3-Omni, which can process auditory and textual information simultaneously. The rationale for using separate models (Wav2Vec for speech and TTS for text) instead of a single unified generative framework should be clearly justified. In addition, the adaptor employs an LSTM architecture for speech but a Transformer for text, which may introduce confounds in the performance comparison. Is there any theoretical or empirical motivation for adopting recurrent networks for auditory processing and Transformer-based models for textual processing?

We thank the reviewer for the insightful suggestion regarding multimodal large language models (LLMs) such as Qwen3-Omni. It is important to clarify the distinction between general-purpose interactive multimodal models and models specifically designed for high-fidelity voice cloning and speech synthesis.

As for the comparison with the state-of-the-art multimodal LLMs:

Qwen3-Omni and GLM-4-Voice are powerful conversational agents capable of processing multiple modalities including text, speech, image, and video, as described in its documentation (see: https://help.aliyun.com/zh/model-studio/qwen-tts-realtime and https://docs.bigmodel.cn/cn/guide/models/sound-and-video/glm-4-voice). However, it is primarily optimized for interactive dialogue and multimodal understanding rather than for precise, speaker-adaptive speech reconstruction from neural signals. In contrast, CosyVoice 2.0, developed by the same team at Alibaba, is specifically designed for voice cloning and text-to-speech synthesis (see: https://help.aliyun.com/zh/model-studio/text-to-speech). It incorporates advanced speaker adaptation and acoustic modeling capabilities that are essential for reconstructing naturalistic speech from limited neural data. Therefore, our choice of CosyVoice for the final synthesis stage aligns with the goal of integrating acoustic fidelity and linguistic intelligibility, which is central to our study.

For the selection of LSTM and Transformer in the two pathways:

The goal of the acoustic adaptor is to reconstruct fine-grained spectrotemporal details (formants, harmonic structures, prosodic contours) with millisecond-to-centisecond precision. These features rely heavily on local temporal dynamics and short-to-medium range dependencies (e.g., within and between phonemes/syllables). In our ablation studies (to be added in the supplementary), we found that Transformer-based adaptors, which inherently emphasize global sentence-level context through self-attention, tended to oversmooth the reconstructed acoustic features, losing critical fine-temporal details essential for naturalness. In contrast, the recurrent nature of LSTMs, with their inherent temporal state propagation, proved more effective at modeling these local sequential dependencies without excessive smoothing, leading to higher mel-spectrogram fidelity. This aligns with the neurobiological observation that early auditory cortex processes sound with precise temporal fidelity. Moreover, from an engineering perspective, LSTM-based decoders have been empirically shown to perform well in sequential prediction tasks with limited data, as evidenced in prior work on sequence modeling and neural decoding (1).

The goal of the linguistic adaptor is to decode abstract, discrete word tokens. This task benefits from modeling long-range contextual dependencies across a sentence to resolve lexical ambiguity and syntactic structure (e.g., subject-verb agreement). The self-attention mechanism of Transformers is exceptionally well-suited for capturing these global relationships, as evidenced by their dominance in NLP. Our experiments confirmed that a Transformer adaptor outperformed an LSTM-based one in word token prediction accuracy.

While a unified multimodal LLM could in principle handle both modalities, such models often face challenges in modality imbalance and task specialization. Audio and text modalities have distinct temporal scales, feature distributions, and learning dynamics. By decoupling them into separate pathways with specialized adaptors, we ensure that each modality is processed by an architecture optimized for its inherent structure. This divide-and-conquer strategy avoids the risk of one modality dominating or interfering with the learning of the other, leading to more stable training and better final performance, especially important when adapting to limited neural data.

Edits:

Page 9, Lines 214-223:

“The acoustic pathway, implemented through a bi-directional LSTM neural adaptor architecture (Fig. 1B), specializes in reconstructing fundamental acoustic properties of speech. This module directly processes neural recordings to generate precise time-frequency representations, focusing on preserving speaker-specific spectral characteristics like formant structures, harmonic patterns, and spectral envelope details. Quantitative evaluation confirms its core competency: achieving a mel-spectrogram R² of 0.793 ± 0.016 (Fig. 3B) demonstrates remarkable fidelity in reconstructing acoustic microstructure. This performance level is statistically indistinguishable from original speech degraded by 0dB additive noise (0.771 ± 0.014, p = 0.242, one-sided t-test). We chose a bidirectional LSTM architecture for this adaptor because its recurrent nature is particularly suited to modeling the fine-grained, short- to medium-range temporal dependencies (e.g., within and between phonemes and syllables) that are critical for acoustic fidelity. An ablation study comparing LSTM against Transformerbased adaptors for this task confirmed that LSTMs yielded superior mel-spectrogram reconstruction fidelity (higher R²), as detailed in Table S1, likely by avoiding the oversmoothing of spectrotemporal details sometimes induced by the strong global context modeling of Transformers”.

“To confirm that the acoustic pathway’s output is causally dependent on the neural signal rather than the generative prior of the HiFi-GAN, we performed a control analysis in which portions of the input ECoG recording were replaced with Gaussian noise. When either the first half, second half, or the entirety of the neural input was replaced by noise, the melspectrogram R² of the reconstructed speech dropped markedly, corresponding to the corrupted segment (Fig. S5). This demonstrates that the reconstruction is temporally locked to the specific neural input and that the model does not ‘hallucinate’ spectrotemporal structure from noise. These results validate that the acoustic pathway performs genuine, input-sensitive neural decoding”.

Edits:

Page 10, Lines 272-277:

“We employed a Transformer-based Seq2Seq architecture for this adaptor to effectively capture the long-range contextual dependencies across a sentence, which are essential for resolving lexical ambiguity and syntactic structure during word token decoding. This choice was validated by an ablation study (Table S2), indicating that the Transformer adaptor outperformed an LSTM-based counterpart in word prediction accuracy”

(3) The model is trained on approximately 20 minutes of data per participant, which raises concerns about potential overfitting. It would be helpful if the authors could analyze whether test sentences with higher or lower reconstruction performance include words that were also present in the training set.

Thank you for raising the important concern regarding potential overfitting given the limited size of our training dataset (~20 minutes per participant). To address this point directly, we performed a detailed lexical overlap analysis between the training and test sets.

The test set contains 219 unique words. Among these:

127 words (58.0%) appeared in the training set (primarily high-frequency, common words).

92 words (42.0%) were entirely novel and did not appear in the training set. We further examined whether trials with the best reconstruction (WER = 0) relied more on training vocabulary. Among these top-performing trials, 55.0% of words appeared in the training set. In contrast, the worst-performing trials showed 51.9% overlap in words in the training set. No significant difference was observed, suggesting that performance is not driven by simple lexical memorization.

The presence of a substantial proportion of novel words (42%) in the test set, combined with the lack of performance advantage for overlapping content, provides strong evidence that our model is generalizing linguistic and acoustic patterns rather than merely memorizing the training vocabulary. High reconstruction performance on unseen words would be improbable under severe overfitting.

Therefore, we conclude that while some lexical overlap exists (as expected in natural language), the model’s performance is driven by its ability to decode generalized neural representations, effectively mitigating the overfitting risk highlighted by the reviewer.

(4) The phoneme confusion matrix in Figure 4A does not appear to align with human phoneme confusion patterns. For instance, /s/ and /z/ differ only in voicing, yet the model does not seem to confuse these phonemes. Does this imply that the model and the human brain operate differently at the mechanistic level?

We thank the reviewer for this detailed observation regarding the difference between our model's phoneme confusion patterns and typical human perceptual confusions (e.g., the lack of /s/-/z/ confusion).

The reviewer is correct in inferring a mechanistic difference. This divergence is primarily attributable to the Parler-TTS model acting as a powerful linguistic prior. Our linguistic pathway decodes word tokens, which Parler-TTS then converts to speech. Trained on massive corpora to produce canonical pronunciations, Parler-TTS effectively performs an implicit "error correction." For instance, if the neural decoding is ambiguous between the words "sip" and "zip," the TTS model's strong prior for lexical and syntactic context will likely resolve it to the correct word, thereby suppressing purely acoustic confusions like voicing.

This has important implications for interpreting our model's errors and its relationship to brain function. The phoneme errors in our final output reflect a combination of neural decoding errors and the generative biases of the TTS model, which is optimized for intelligibility rather than mimicking raw human misperception. This does imply our model operates differently from the human auditory periphery. The human brain may first generate a percept with acoustic confusions, which higher-level language regions then disambiguate. Our model effectively bypasses the "confused percept" stage by directly leveraging a pre-trained, high-level language model for disambiguation. This is a design feature contributing to its high intelligibility, not necessarily a flaw. This observation raises a fascinating question: Could a model that more faithfully simulates the hierarchical processing of the human brain (including early acoustic confusions) provide a better fit to neural data at different processing stages? Future work could further address this question.

Edits:

add another paragraph in Discussion (Page 14, Lines 397-398):

“The phoneme confusion pattern observed in our model output (Fig. 4A) differs from classic human auditory confusion matrices. We attribute this divergence primarily to the influence of the Parler-TTS model, which serves as a strong linguistic prior in our pipeline. This component is trained to generate canonical speech from text tokens. When the upstream neural decoding produces an ambiguous or erroneous token sequence, the TTS model’s internal language model likely performs an implicit ‘error correction,’ favoring linguistically probable words and pronunciations. This underscores that our model’s errors arise from a complex interaction between neural decoding fidelity and the generative biases of the synthesis stage”

(5) In general, is the motivation for adopting the dual-pathway model to better align with the organization of the human brain, or to achieve improved engineering performance? If the goal is primarily engineeringoriented, the authors should compare their approach with a pretrained multimodal LLM rather than relying on the dual-pathway architecture. Conversely, if the design aims to mirror human brain function, additional analysis, such as detailed comparisons of phoneme confusion matrices, should be included to demonstrate that the model exhibits brain-like performance patterns.

Our primary motivation is engineering improvement, to overcome the fundamental trade-off between acoustic fidelity and linguistic intelligibility that has limited previous neural speech decoding work. The design is inspired by the related works of the convergent representation of speech and language perception (2). However, we do not claim that our LSTM and Transformer adaptors precisely simulate the specific neural computations of the human ventral and dorsal streams. The goal was to build a high-performance, data-efficient decoder. We will clarify this point in the Introduction and Discussion, stating that while the architecture is loosely inspired by previous neuroscience results, its primary validation is its engineering performance in achieving state-of-the-art reconstruction quality with minimal data.

Edits:

Page 14, Line 358-373:

“In this study, we present a dual-path framework that synergistically decodes both acoustic and linguistic speech representations from ECoG signals, followed by a fine-tuned zero-shot text-to-speech network to re-synthesize natural speech with unprecedented fidelity and intelligibility. Crucially, by integrating large pre-trained generative models into our acoustic reconstruction pipeline and applying voice cloning technology, our approach preserves acoustic richness while significantly enhancing linguistic intelligibility beyond conventional methods. Our dual-pathway architecture, while inspired by converging neuroscience insights on speech and language perception, was principally designed and validated as an engineering solution. The primary goal to build a practical decoder that achieves state-of-theart reconstruction quality with minimal data. The framework's success is therefore ultimately judged by its performance metrics, high intelligibility (WER, PER), acoustic fidelity (melspectrogram R²), and perceptual quality (MOS), which directly address the core engineering challenge we set out to solve. Using merely 20 minutes of ECoG recordings, our model achieved superior performance with a WER of 18.9% ± 3.3% and PER of 12.0% ± 2.5% (Fig. 2D, E). This integrated architecture, combining pre-trained acoustic (Wav2Vec2.0 and HiFiGAN) and linguistic (Parler-TTS) models through lightweight neural adaptors, enables efficient mapping of ECoG signals to dual latent spaces. Such methodology substantially reduces the need for extensive neural training data while achieving breakthrough word clarity under severe data constraints. The results demonstrate the feasibility of transferring the knowledge embedded in speech-data pre-trained artificial intelligence (AI) models into neural signal decoding, paving the way for more advanced brain-computer interfaces and neuroprosthetics”.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The study by Li et al. proposes a dual-path framework that concurrently decodes acoustic and linguistic representations from ECoG recordings. By integrating advanced pre-trained AI models, the approach preserves both acoustic richness and linguistic intelligibility, and achieves a WER of 18.9% with a short (~20-minute) recording.

Overall, the study offers an advanced and promising framework for speech decoding. The method appears sound, and the results are clear and convincing. My main concerns are the need for additional control analyses and for more comparisons with existing models.

Strengths:

(1) This speech-decoding framework employs several advanced pre-trained DNN models, reaching superior performance (WER of 18.9%) with relatively short (~20-minute) neural recording.

(2) The dual-pathway design is elegant, and the study clearly demonstrates its necessity: The acoustic pathway enhances spectral fidelity while the linguistic pathway improves linguistic intelligibility.

We thank Reviewer #2 for supportive comments. In addition, we appreciate Reviewer #2’s thoughtful comments and feedback. By addressing these comments, we believe we have greatly improved the clarity of our claims and methodology. Below we list our point-to-point responses addressing concerns raised by Reviewer #2.

Weaknesses:

The DNNs used were pre-trained on large corpora, including TIMIT, which is also the source of the experimental stimuli. More generally, as DNNs are powerful at generating speech, additional evidence is needed to show that decoding performance is driven by neural signals rather than by the DNNs' generative capacity.

Thank you for raising this crucial point regarding the potential for pre-trained DNNs to generate speech independently of the neural input. We fully agree that it is essential to disentangle the contribution of the neural signals from the generative priors of the models. To address this directly, we have conducted two targeted control analyses, as you suggested, and have integrated the results into the revised manuscript (see Fig. S5 and the corresponding description in the Results section):

(1) Random noise input: We fed Gaussian noise (matched in dimensionality and temporal structure to real ECoG recordings) into the trained adaptors. The outputs were acoustically unstructured and linguistically incoherent, confirming that the generative models alone cannot produce meaningful speech without valid neural input.

(2) Partial sentence input (real + noise): For the acoustic pathway, we systematically replaced portions of the ECoG input with noise. The reconstruction quality (mel-spectrogram R²) dropped significantly in the corrupted segments, demonstrating that the decoding is temporally locked to the neural signal and does not “hallucinate” speech from noise.

These results provide strong evidence that our model’s performance is causally dependent on and sensitive to the specific neural input, validating that it performs genuine neural decoding rather than merely leveraging the generative capacity of the pre-trained DNNs.

The detailed edits are in the “recommendations” below. (See recommendations (1) and (2))

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) Clarify the results shown in Figure 4E. The integrated approach appears to perform comparably to Baseline 3 in phoneme class clarity. However, Baseline 3 represents the output of the linguistic pathway alone, which is expected to encode information primarily at the word level.

We appreciate the reviewer's observation and agree that clarification is needed. The phoneme class clarity (PCC) metric shown in Figure 4E measures whether mis-decoded phonemes are more likely to be confused within their own class (vowel-vowel or consonantconsonant) rather than across classes (vowel-consonant). A higher PCC indicates that the model's errors tend to be phonologically similar sounds (e.g., one vowel mistaken for another), which is a reasonable property for intelligibility.

We would like to clarify the nature of Baseline 3. As stated in the manuscript (Results section: "The linguistic pathway reconstructs high-intelligibility, higher-level linguistic information"), Baseline 3 is the output of our linguistic pathway. This pathway operates as follows: the ECoG signals are mapped to word tokens via the Transformer adaptor, and these tokens are then synthesized into speech by the frozen Parler-TTS model. Crucially, the input to Parler-TTS is a sequence of word tokens.

It is important to distinguish between the levels of performance measured: Word Error Rate (WER) reflects accuracy at the lexical level (whole words). The linguistic pathway achieves a low WER by design, as it directly decodes word sequences. Phoneme Error Rate (PER) reflects accuracy at the sublexical phonetic level (phonemes). A low WER generally implies a low PER, because robust word recognition requires reliable phoneme-level representations within the TTS model's prior. This explains why Baseline 3 also exhibits a low PER. However, acoustic fidelity (captured by metrics like mel-spectrogram R²) requires the preservation of fine-grained spectrotemporal details such as pitch, timbre, prosody, and formant structures, information that is not directly encoded at the lexical level and is therefore not a strength of the purely linguistic pathway.

While Parler-TTS internally models sub-word/phonetic information to generate the acoustic waveform, the primary linguistic information driving the synthesis is at the lexical (word) level. The generated speech from Baseline 3 therefore contains reconstructed phonemic sequences derived from the decoded word tokens, not from direct phoneme-level decoding of ECoG.

Therefore, the comparable PCC between our final integrated model and Baseline 3 (linguistic pathway) suggests that the phoneme-level error patterns (i.e., the tendency to confuse within-class phonemes) in our final output are largely inherited from the high-quality linguistic prior embedded in the pre-trained TTS model (Parler-TTS). The integrated framework successfully preserves this desirable property from the linguistic pathway while augmenting it with speaker-specific acoustic details from the acoustic pathway, thereby achieving both high intelligibility (low WER/PER) and high acoustic fidelity (high melspectrogram R²).

We will revise the caption of Figure 4E and the corresponding text in the Results section to make this interpretation explicit.

Edits:

Page 12, Lines 317-322:

“In addition to the confusion matrices, we categorized the phonemes into vowels and consonants to assess the phoneme class clarity. We defined "phoneme class clarity" (PCC) as the proportion of errors where a phoneme was misclassified within the same class versus being misclassified into a different class. The purpose of introducing PCC is to demonstrate that most of the misidentified phonemes belong to the same category (confusion between vowels or consonants), rather than directly comparing the absolute accuracy of phoneme recognition. For instance, a vowel being mistaken for another vowel would be considered a within-class error, whereas a vowel being mistaken for a consonant would be classified as a between-class error” 

(2) Add results from Baseline 2 + CosyVoice and Baseline 3 + CosyVoice to clarify the contribution of the auditory pathway.

Thank you for the suggestion. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify the role of CosyVoice in our framework.

As explained in our response to point (1), CosyVoice 2.0 is designed as a fusion module that requires two inputs: 1) a voice reference (from the acoustic pathway) to specify speaker identity, and 2) a word sequence (from the linguistic pathway) to specify linguistic content. Because it is not a standalone enhancer, applying CosyVoice to a single pathway output (e.g., Baseline 2 or 3 alone) is not quite feasible and would not reflect its intended function and could lead to misinterpretation of each pathway’s contribution.

Instead, we have evaluated the contribution of each pathway by comparing the final integrated output against each standalone pathway output (Baseline 2 and 3). The significant improvements in both acoustic fidelity and linguistic intelligibility demonstrate the complementary roles of the two pathways, which are effectively fused through CosyVoice.

(3) Justify your choice of using LSTM and Transformer architecture for the auditory and linguistic neural adaptors, respectively, and how your methods could compare to using a unified generative multimodal LLM for both pathways.

Thank you for revisiting this important point. We appreciate your interest in the architectural choices and their relationship to state-of-the-art multimodal models.

As detailed in our response to point (2), our choice of LSTM for the acoustic pathway and Transformer for the linguistic pathway is driven by task-specific requirements, supported by ablation studies (Supplementary Tables 1–2). The acoustic pathway benefits from LSTM’s ability to model fine-grained, local temporal dependencies without over-smoothing. The linguistic pathway benefits from Transformer’s ability to capture long-range semantic and syntactic context.

Regarding comparison with unified multimodal LLMs (e.g., Qwen3-Omni), we clarified that such models are optimized for interactive dialogue and multimodal understanding, while our framework relies on specialist models (CosyVoice 2.0, Parler-TTS) that are explicitly designed for high-fidelity, speaker-adaptive speech synthesis, a requirement central to our decoding task.

We have incorporated these justifications into the revised manuscript (Results and Discussion sections) and appreciate the opportunity to further emphasize these points.

Edits:

Page 9, Lines 214-223:

“The acoustic pathway, implemented through a bi-directional LSTM neural adaptor architecture (Fig. 1B), specializes in reconstructing fundamental acoustic properties of speech. This module directly processes neural recordings to generate precise time-frequency representations, focusing on preserving speaker-specific spectral characteristics like formant structures, harmonic patterns, and spectral envelope details. Quantitative evaluation confirms its core competency: achieving a mel-spectrogram R² of 0.793 ± 0.016 (Fig. 3B) demonstrates remarkable fidelity in reconstructing acoustic microstructure. This performance level is statistically indistinguishable from original speech degraded by 0dB additive noise (0.771 ± 0.014, p = 0.242, one-sided t-test). We chose a bidirectional LSTM architecture for this adaptor because its recurrent nature is particularly suited to modeling the fine-grained, short- to medium-range temporal dependencies (e.g., within and between phonemes and syllables) that are critical for acoustic fidelity. An ablation study comparing LSTM against Transformerbased adaptors for this task confirmed that LSTMs yielded superior mel-spectrogram reconstruction fidelity (higher R²), as detailed in Table S1, likely by avoiding the oversmoothing of spectrotemporal details sometimes induced by the strong global context modeling of Transformers”.

“To confirm that the acoustic pathway’s output is causally dependent on the neural signal rather than the generative prior of the HiFi-GAN, we performed a control analysis in which portions of the input ECoG recording were replaced with Gaussian noise. When either the first half, second half, or the entirety of the neural input was replaced by noise, the melspectrogram R² of the reconstructed speech dropped markedly, corresponding to the corrupted segment (Fig. S5). This demonstrates that the reconstruction is temporally locked to the specific neural input and that the model does not ‘hallucinate’ spectrotemporal structure from noise. These results validate that the acoustic pathway performs genuine, input-sensitive neural decoding”.

Page 10, Lines 272-277:

“We employed a Transformer-based Seq2Seq architecture for this adaptor to effectively capture the long-range contextual dependencies across a sentence, which are essential for resolving lexical ambiguity and syntactic structure during word token decoding. This choice was validated by an ablation study (Table S2), indicating that the Transformer adaptor outperformed an LSTM-based counterpart in word prediction accuracy”.

(4) Discuss the differences between the model's phoneme confusion matrix in Figure 4A and human phoneme confusion patterns. In addition, please clarify whether the adoption of the dual-pathway architecture is primarily intended to simulate the organization of the human brain or to achieve engineering improvements.

The observed difference between our model's phoneme confusion matrix and typical human perceptual confusion patterns (e.g., the noted lack of confusion between /s/ and /z/) is, as the reviewer astutely infers, likely attributable to the TTS model (Parler-TTS) acting as a powerful linguistic prior. The linguistic pathway decodes word tokens, and Parler-TTS converts these tokens into speech. Parler-TTS is trained on massive text and speech corpora to produce canonical, clean pronunciations. It effectively performs a form of "error correction" or "canonicalization" based on its internal language model. For example, if the neural decoding is ambiguous between "sip" and "zip", the TTS model's strong prior for lexical and syntactic context may robustly resolve it to the correct word, suppressing purely acoustic confusions like voicing. Therefore, the phoneme errors in our final output reflect a combination of neural decoding errors and the TTS model's generation biases, which are optimized for intelligibility rather than mimicking human misperception. We will add this explanation to the paragraph discussing Figure 4A.

Our primary motivation is engineering improvement, to overcome the fundamental tradeoff between acoustic fidelity and linguistic intelligibility that has limited previous neural speech decoding work. The design is inspired by the convergent representation of speech and language perception (1). However, we do not claim that our LSTM and Transformer adaptors precisely simulate the specific neural computations of the human ventral and dorsal streams. The goal was to build a high-performance, data-efficient decoder. We will clarify this point in the Introduction and Discussion, stating that while the architecture is loosely inspired by previous neuroscience results, its primary validation is its engineering performance in achieving state-of-the-art reconstruction quality with minimal data.

Edits:

Pages 2-3, Lines 74-85:

“Here, we propose a unified and efficient dual-pathway decoding framework that integrates the complementary strengths of both paradigms to enhance the performance of re-synthesized natural speech from the engineering performance. Our method maps intracranial electrocorticography (ECoG) signals into the latent spaces of pre-trained speech and language models via two lightweight neural adaptors: an acoustic pathway, which captures low-level spectral features for naturalistic speech synthesis, and a linguistic pathway, which extracts high-level linguistic tokens for semantic intelligibility. These pathways are fused using a finetuned text-to-speech (TTS) generator with voice cloning, producing re-synthesized speech that retains both the acoustic spectrotemporal details, such as the speaker’s timbre and prosody, and the message linguistic content. The adaptors rely on near-linear mappings and require only 20 minutes of neural data per participant for training, while the generative modules are pre-trained on large unlabeled corpora and require no neural supervision”.

Page 14, Lines 358-373:

“In this study, we present a dual-path framework that synergistically decodes both acoustic and linguistic speech representations from ECoG signals, followed by a fine-tuned zero-shot text-to-speech network to re-synthesize natural speech with unprecedented fidelity and intelligibility. Crucially, by integrating large pre-trained generative models into our acoustic reconstruction pipeline and applying voice cloning technology, our approach preserves acoustic richness while significantly enhancing linguistic intelligibility beyond conventional methods. Our dual-pathway architecture, while inspired by converging neuroscience insights on speech and language perception, was principally designed and validated as an engineering solution. The primary goal to build a practical decoder that achieves state-of-the-art reconstruction quality with minimal data. The framework's success is therefore ultimately judged by its performance metrics, high intelligibility (WER, PER), acoustic fidelity (mel-spectrogram R²), and perceptual quality (MOS), which directly address the core engineering challenge we set out to solve. Using merely 20 minutes of ECoG recordings, our model achieved superior performance with a WER of 18.9% ± 3.3% and PER of 12.0% ± 2.5% (Fig. 2D, E). This integrated architecture, combining pre-trained acoustic (Wav2Vec2.0 and HiFi-GAN) and linguistic (Parler-TTS) models through lightweight neural adaptors, enables efficient mapping of ECoG signals to dual latent spaces. Such methodology substantially reduces the need for extensive neural training data while achieving breakthrough word clarity under severe data constraints. The results demonstrate the feasibility of transferring the knowledge embedded in speech-data pre-trained artificial intelligence (AI) models into neural signal decoding, paving the way for more advanced brain-computer interfaces and neuroprosthetics”.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) My main question is whether any experimental stimuli overlap with the data used to pre-train the models. The authors might consider using pre-trained models trained on other corpora and training their own model without the TIMIT corpus. Additionally, as pretrained models were used, it might be helpful to evaluate to what extent the decoding is sensitive to the input neural recording or whether the model always outputs meaningful speech. The authors might consider two control analyses: a) whether the model still generates speech-like output if the input is random noise; b) whether the model can decode a complete sentence if the first half recording of a sentence is real but the second half is replaced with noise.

We thank the reviewer for raising this crucial point regarding potential data leakage and the sensitivity of decoding to neural input.

We confirm that the pre-training phase of our core models (Wav2Vec2.0 encoder, HiFiGAN decoder) was conducted exclusively on the LibriSpeech corpus (960 hours), which is entirely separate from the TIMIT corpus used for our ECoG experiments. The subsequent fine-tuning of the CosyVoice 2.0 voice cloner for speaker adaptation was performed on the training set portion of the entire TIMIT corpus. Importantly, the test set for all neural decoding evaluations was strictly held out and never used during any fine-tuning stage. This data separation is now explicitly stated in the " Methods" sections for the Speech Autoencoder and the CosyVoice fine-tuning.

Regarding the potential of training on other corpora, we agree it is a valuable robustness check. Previous work has demonstrated that self-supervised speech models like Wav2Vec2.0 learn generalizable representations that transfer well across domains (e.g., Millet et al., NeurIPS 2022). We believe our use of LibriSpeech, a large and diverse corpus, provides a strong, general-purpose acoustic prior.

We agree with the reviewer that control analyses are essential to demonstrate that the decoded output is driven by neural signals and not merely the generative prior of the models. We have conducted the following analyses and will include them in the revised manuscript (likely in a new Supplementary Figure or Results subsection):

(a) Random Noise Input: We fed Gaussian noise (matched in dimensionality and temporal length to the real ECoG input) into the trained acoustic and linguistic adaptors. The outputs were evaluated. The acoustic pathway generated unstructured, noisy spectrograms with no discernible phonetic structure, and the linguistic pathway produced either highly incoherent word sequences or failed to generate meaningful tokens. The fusion via CosyVoice produced unintelligible babble. This confirms that the generative models alone cannot produce structured speech without meaningful neural input.

(b) Partial Sentence Input (Real + Noise): In the acoustic pathway, we replaced the first half, the second half, and all the ECoG recording for test sentences with Gaussian noise. The melspectrogram R² showed a clear degradation in the reconstructed speech corresponding to the noisy segment. We did not do similar experiments in the linguistic pathway because the TTS generator is pre-trained by HuggingFace. We did not train any parameters of Parler-TTS. These results strongly indicate that our model's performance is contingent on and sensitive to the specific neural input, validating that it is performing genuine neural decoding.

Edits:

Page 19, Lines 533-538:

“The parameters in Wav2Vec2.0 were frozen within this training phase. The parameters in HiFi-GAN were optimized using the Adam optimizer with a fixed learning rate of 10_-5, 𝛽_! = 0.9, 𝛽₂ = 0.999. We trained this Autoencoder in LibriSpeech, a 960-hour English speech corpus with a sampling rate of 16kHz, which is entirely separate from the TIMIT corpus used for our ECoG experiments. We spent 12 days in parallel training on 6 Nvidia GeForce RTX3090 GPUs. The maximum training epoch was 2000. The optimization did not stop until the validation loss no longer decreased”.

Edits:

Page9, Lines214-223:

“The acoustic pathway, implemented through a bi-directional LSTM neural adaptor architecture (Fig. 1B), specializes in reconstructing fundamental acoustic properties of speech. This module directly processes neural recordings to generate precise time-frequency representations, focusing on preserving speaker-specific spectral characteristics like formant structures, harmonic patterns, and spectral envelope details. Quantitative evaluation confirms its core competency: achieving a mel-spectrogram R² of 0.793 ± 0.016 (Fig. 3B) demonstrates remarkable fidelity in reconstructing acoustic microstructure. This performance level is statistically indistinguishable from original speech degraded by 0dB additive noise (0.771 ± 0.014, p = 0.242, one-sided t-test). We chose a bidirectional LSTM architecture for this adaptor because its recurrent nature is particularly suited to modeling the fine-grained, short- to medium-range temporal dependencies (e.g., within and between phonemes and syllables) that are critical for acoustic fidelity. An ablation study comparing LSTM against Transformer-based adaptors for this task confirmed that LSTMs yielded superior mel-spectrogram reconstruction fidelity (higher R²), as detailed in Table S1, likely by avoiding the oversmoothing of spectrotemporal details sometimes induced by the strong global context modeling of Transformers”.

“To confirm that the acoustic pathway’s output is causally dependent on the neural signal rather than the generative prior of the HiFi-GAN, we performed a control analysis in which portions of the input ECoG recording were replaced with Gaussian noise. When either the first half, second half, or the entirety of the neural input was replaced by noise, the melspectrogram R² of the reconstructed speech dropped markedly, corresponding to the corrupted segment (Fig. S5). This demonstrates that the reconstruction is temporally locked to the specific neural input and that the model does not ‘hallucinate’ spectrotemporal structure from noise. These results validate that the acoustic pathway performs genuine, input-sensitive neural decoding”

(2) For BCI applications, the decoding speed matters. Please report the model's inference speed. Additionally, the authors might also consider reporting cross-participant generalization and how the accuracy changes with recording duration.

We thank the reviewer for these practical and important suggestions. 

Inference Speed: You are absolutely right. On our hardware (single NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 GPU), the current pipeline has an inference time that is longer than the duration of the target speech segment. The primary bottlenecks are the sequential processing in the autoregressive linguistic adaptor and the high-resolution waveform generation in CosyVoice 2.0. This latency currently limits real-time application. We have now added this in the Discussion acknowledging this limitation and stating that future work must focus on architectural optimizations (e.g., non-autoregressive models, lighter vocoders) and potential hardware acceleration to achieve real-time performance, which is critical for a practical BCI.

Cross-Participant Generalization: We agree that this is a key question for scalability. Our framework already addresses part of the cross-participant generalization challenge through the use of pre-trained generative modules (HiFi-GAN, Parler-TTS, CosyVoice 2.0), which are pretrained on large corpora and shared across all participants. Only a small fraction of the model, the lightweight neural adaptors, is subject-specific and requires a small amount of supervised fine-tuning (~20 minutes per participant). This design significantly reduces the per-subject calibration burden. As the reviewer implies, the ultimate goal would be pure zero-shot generalization. A promising future direction is to further improve cross-participant alignment by learning a shared neural feature encoder (e.g., using contrastive or self-supervised learning on aggregated ECoG data) before the personalized adaptors. We have added a paragraph in the Discussion outlining this as a major next step to enhance the framework’s practicality and further reduce calibration time.

Accuracy vs. Recording Duration: Thank you for this insightful suggestion. To systematically evaluate the impact of training data volume on performance, we have conducted additional experiments using progressively smaller subsets of the full training set (i.e., 25%, 50%, and 75%). When we used more than 50% of the training data, performance degrades gracefully rather than catastrophically with less data, which is promising for potential clinical scenarios where data collection may be limited. We add another figure (Fig. S4) to demonstrate this.

Edits:

Pages 15-16, Lines 427-452:

“There are several limitations in our study. The quality of the re-synthesized speech heavily relies on the performance of the generative model, indicating that future work should focus on refining and enhancing these models. Currently, our study utilized English speech sentences as input stimuli, and the performance of the system in other languages remains to be evaluated. Regarding signal modality and experimental methods, the clinical setting restricts us to collecting data during brief periods of awake neurosurgeries, which limits the amount of usable neural activity recordings. Overcoming this time constraint could facilitate the acquisition of larger datasets, thereby contributing to the re-synthesis of higher-quality natural speech. Furthermore, the inference speed of the current pipeline presents a challenge for real-time applications. On our hardware (a single NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 GPU), synthesizing speech from neural data takes approximately two to three times longer than the duration of the target speech segment itself. This latency is primarily attributed to the sequential processing in the autoregressive linguistic adaptor and the computationally intensive high-fidelity waveform generation in the vocoder (CosyVoice 2.0). While the current study focuses on offline reconstruction accuracy, achieving real-time or faster-than-real-time inference is a critical engineering goal for viable speech BCI prosthetics. Future work must therefore prioritize architectural optimizations, such as exploring non-autoregressive decoding strategies and more efficient neural vocoders, alongside potential hardware acceleration. Additionally, exploring non-invasive methods represents another frontier; with the accumulation of more data and the development of more powerful generative models, it may become feasible to achieve effective non-invasive neural decoding for speech resynthesis. Moreover, while our framework adopts specialized architectures (LSTM and Transformer) for distinct decoding tasks, an alternative approach is to employ a unified multimodal large language model (LLM) capable of joint acoustic-linguistic processing. Finally, the current framework requires training participant-specific adaptors, which limits its immediate applicability for new users. A critical next step is to develop methods that learn a shared, cross-participant neural feature encoder, for instance, by applying contrastive or selfsupervised learning techniques to larger aggregated ECoG datasets. Such an encoder could extract subject-invariant neural representations of speech, serving as a robust initialization before lightweight, personalized fine-tuning. This approach would dramatically reduce the amount of per-subject calibration data and time required, enhancing the practicality and scalability of the decoding framework for real-world BCI applications”

“In summary, our dual-path framework achieves high speech reconstruction quality by strategically integrating language models for lexical precision and voice cloning for vocal identity preservation, yielding a 37.4% improvement in MOS scores over conventional methods. This approach enables high-fidelity, sentence-level speech synthesis directly from cortical recordings while maintaining speaker-specific vocal characteristics. Despite current constraints in generative model dependency and intraoperative data collection, our work establishes a new foundation for neural decoding development. Future efforts should prioritize: (1) refining few-shot adaptation techniques, (2) developing non-invasive implementations, (3) expanding to dynamic dialogue contexts, and (4) cross-subject applications. The convergence of neurophysiological data with multimodal foundation models promises transformative advances, not only revolutionizing speech BCIs but potentially extending to cognitive prosthetics for memory augmentation and emotional communication. Ultimately, this paradigm will deepen our understanding of neural speech processing while creating clinically viable communication solutions for those with severe speech impairments”

Edits: 

add another section in Methods: Page 22, Line 681:

“Ablation study on training data volume”.

“To assess the impact of training data quantity on decoding performance, we conducted an additional ablation experiment. For each participant, we created subsets of the full training set corresponding to 25%, 50%, and 75% of the original data by random sampling while preserving the temporal continuity of speech segments. Personalized acoustic and linguistic adaptors were then independently trained from scratch on each subset, following the identical architecture and optimization procedures described above. All other components of the pipeline, including the frozen pre-trained generators (HiFi-GAN, Parler-TTS) and the CosyVoice 2.0 voice cloner, remained unchanged. Performance metrics (mel-spectrogram R², WER, PER) were evaluated on the same held-out test set for all data conditions. The results (Fig. S4) demonstrate that when more than 50% of the training data is utilized, performance degrades gracefully rather than catastrophically, which is a promising indicator for clinical applications with limited data collection time”.

(3) I appreciate that the author compared their model with the MLP, but more comparisons with previous models could be beneficial. Even simply summarizing some measures of earlier models, such as neural recording duration, WER, PER, etc., is ok.

Thank you for this suggestion. We agree that a broader comparison contextualizes our contribution. We also acknowledge that given the differences in tasks, signal modality, and amount of data, it’s hard to draw a direct comparison. The main goal of this table is to summarize major studies, their methods and results for reference. We have now added a new Supplementary Table that summarizes key metrics from several recent and relevant studies in neural speech decoding. The table includes:

- Neural modality (e.g., ECoG, sEEG, Utah array)

- Approximate amount of neural data used per subject for decoder training

- Primary task (perception vs. production)

-Decoding framework

-Reported Word Error Rate (WER) or similar intelligibility metrics (e.g., Character Error Rate)

-Reported acoustic fidelity metrics (if available, e.g., spectral correlation)

This table includes works such as Anumanchipalli et al., Nature 2019; Akbari et al., Sci Rep 2019; Willett et al., Nature 2023; and other contemporary studies. The table clearly shows that our dual-path framework achieves a highly competitive WER (~18.9%) using an exceptionally short neural recording duration (~20 minutes), highlighting its data efficiency. We will refer to this table in the revised manuscript.

Edits:

Page 14, Lines 374-376:

“Our framework establishes a framework for speech decoding by outperforming prior acousticonly or linguistic-only approaches (Table S3) through integrated pretraining-powered acoustic and linguistic decoding”

Minor:

(1) Some processes might be described earlier, for example, the electrodes were selected, and the model was trained separately for each participant. That information was only described in the Method section now.

Thank you for catching these. We have revised the manuscript accordingly.

Edits:

Page4, Lines 89-95:

“Our proposed framework for reconstructing speech from intracranial neural recordings is designed around two complementary decoding pathways: an acoustic pathway focused on preserving low-level spectral and prosodic detail, and a linguistic pathway focused on decoding high-level textual and semantic content. For every participant, our adaptor is independently trained, and we select speech-responsive electrodes (selection details are provided in the Methods section) to tailor the model to individual neural patterns. These two streams are ultimately fused to synthesize speech that is both natural-sounding and intelligible, capturing the full richness of spoken language. Fig. 1 provides a schematic overview of this dual-pathway architecture”

(2) Line 224-228 Figure 2 should be Figure 3

Thank you for catching these. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. The information about participant-specific training and electrode selection is now briefly mentioned in the "Results" overview (section: "The acoustic and linguistic performance..."), with details still in the Methods. The figure reference error has been corrected.

Edits:

Page7, Lines 224-228:

“However, exclusive reliance on acoustic reconstruction reveals fundamental limitations. Despite excellent spectral fidelity, the pathway produces critically impaired linguistic intelligibility. At the word level, intelligibility remains unacceptably low (WER = 74.6 ± 5.5%, Fig. 3D), while MOS and phoneme-level precision fares only marginally better (MOS = 2.878 ± 0.205, Fig. 3C; PER = 28.1 ± 2.2%, Fig. 3E)”.

(3) For Figure 3C, why does the MOS seem to be higher for baseline 3 than for ground truth? Is this significant?

This is a detailed observation. Baseline 3 achieves a mean opinion score of 4.822 ± 0.086 (Fig. 3C), significantly surpassing even the original human speech (4.234 ± 0.097, p = 6.674×10⁻33). We believe this trend arises because the TIMIT corpus, recorded decades ago, contains inherent acoustic noise and relatively lower fidelity compared to modern speech corpus. In contrast, the Parler-TTS model used in Baseline 3 is trained on massive, highquality, clean speech datasets. Therefore, it synthesizes speech that listeners may subjectively perceive as "cleaner" or more pleasant, even if it lacks the original speaker's voice. Crucially, as the reviewer implies, our final integrated output does not aim to maximize MOS at the cost of speaker identity; it successfully balances this subjective quality with high intelligibility and restored acoustic fidelity. We will add a brief note explaining this possible reason in the caption of Figure 3C.

Edits:

Page9, Lines 235-245:

“The linguistic pathway reconstructs high-intelligibility, higher-level linguistic information”

“The linguistic pathway, instantiated through a pre-trained TTS generator (Fig. 1B), excels in reconstructing abstract linguistic representations. This module operates at the phonological and lexical levels, converting discrete word tokens into continuous speech signals while preserving prosodic contours, syllable boundaries, and phonetic sequences. It achieves a mean opinion score of 4.822 ± 0.086 (Fig. 3C) - significantly surpassing even the original human speech (4.234 ± 0.097, p = 6.674×10⁻33) in that the TIMIT corpus, recorded decades ago, contains inherent acoustic noise and relatively lower fidelity compared to modern speech corpus.  Complementing this perceptual quality, objective intelligibility metrics confirm outstanding performance: WER reaches 17.7 ± 3.2%, with PER at 11.0 ± 2.3%”.

Reference

(1) Chen M X, Firat O, Bapna A, et al. The best of both worlds: Combining recent advances in neural machine translation[C]//Proceedings of the 56th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (Volume 1: Long papers). 2018: 76-86

(2) P. Chen et al. Do Self-Supervised Speech and Language Models Extract Similar Representations as Human Brain? 2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP 2024). 2225–2229 (2024).

(3) H. Akbari, B. Khalighinejad, J. L. Herrero, A. D. Mehta, N. Mesgarani, Towards reconstructing intelligible speech from the human auditory cortex. Scientific reports 9, 874 (2019).

(4) S. Komeiji et al., Transformer-Based Estimation of Spoken Sentences Using Electrocorticography. Int Conf Acoust Spee, 1311-1315 (2022).

(5) L. Bellier et al., Music can be reconstructed from human auditory cortex activity using nonlinear decoding models. Plos Biology 21,  (2023).

(6) F. R. Willett et al., A high-performance speech neuroprosthesis. Nature 620,  (2023).

(7) S. L. Metzger et al., A high-performance neuroprosthesis for speech decoding and avatar control. Nature 620, 1037-1046 (2023).

(8) J. W. Li et al., Neural2speech: A Transfer Learning Framework for NeuralDriven Speech Reconstruction. Int Conf Acoust Spee, 2200-2204 (2024).

(9) X. P. Chen et al., A neural speech decoding framework leveraging deep learning and speech synthesis. Nat Mach Intell 6,  (2024).

(10) M. Wairagkar et al., An instantaneous voice-synthesis neuroprosthesis. Nature,  (2025).

Now we know its 100 percent confirmed that Omakakiins was the girl in the beginning

Social distancing hahaha

Noooooo

What does this mean?

Old Tallow just keeps expanding her greatness

Old Tallow the woman you are

noted it seems like this is gonna be a big thing going forward

I find this whole section intriguing because to this day, the Chinese government operates like this, having officials ranks, each based on seniority.

Harold left FB 2015, Twitter 2023. As ambivalent about LinkedIn as I am. Says his engagement there is down by a factor 30. Only one in 7 of his contacts even sees his post.

Vgl [[Early Adoption - Early Leaving]]

his ebooks as blogposts put together in a flow.

blogging as sense of wonder

I've come to the conclusion that touching individuals is most of all one can do. And then spread that wrt [[Effectief gedrag is besmettelijk 20200831071537]]

refs [[Dave Snowden p]] aporia, disorientation as trigger to get a sense of what it is you don't know, through exploration. To get to the point where your knowledge need becomes actionable

how Harold replaced the m in pkm for mastery. This comes very close to my [[Kenniswerk is ambacht 20040924200250]] artisanal view on knowledge work. The focus on practice in community, networks and on your own. Vgl [[% Practice Praktijk OP]]

Harold is working on a book on PKM. Seek and Share is working title.

Harold used his blog as source for creating ebooks on diff topics. #idea Vgl jaarboeken v blogarchief

Harold is nearing the end of his working life, what does it mean for his blogging? If it is a signboard more, or a professional writing outlet, then yes it may fall away. But if it is your primary space for expression, whatever the topic then the blog can morph with it, no?

signals the relative triviality of a lot of his writing in face of geopolitical upheaval. I feel him but also fully disagree, clearly signalling your humanity in the face of it all is key. vgl othering. life is 'small' by def. There is no 'need' to be part of the 'big' discussions for a blog to matter. Cat pictures ftw.

the groups are used for sharing drafts, meaning the blog contains more 'finished' writing in contrast. Imo this means the blog is less about wonder, curiosty and more about performance / presentation?

Harold in response: withdraws to closed / cosy spaces with group. Not on the open web it seems. Does that make his blog more a signboard than a conversational space?

question how to keep blog as authentic space, for sensemaking/learning. And if it changes writing in the context of ai slop

2026 decided to blog more again despite the aicrawlers. Can relate. I realised that my primary goal for blogging is distributed conversations as it was at the start, so whatever else happens is a 'don't care'.

Says his blogging peaked 5 yrs ago (2020-21, pandemic?) then saw enshittification impact traffic

Blogs as the original social software (before platforms became socmed)

[[Harold Jarche p]] describes how he came to blogging. He was in a place where there were no others to find. Blogging was finding the others. Early blogging scene was small and people helped eachother out. Did edutech first, then KM. Started in (early iirc) 2004.

n:: also important in transition / adaptation Vgl adopting new tool. Disorientation is not bc 'the tool is bad' it's bc you are learning #blogdit

[[Harold Jarche p]] motto

She is now beginning to think like the system that shapes their society and judge people/wish to change them.

This reminds me of what doctors used to teach mothers- to let the baby cry, don't coddle it which we ended up learning was actually more harmful than helpful.

Alice identifies herself as a little girl which seems weird to her as maybe much is expected of her?

eLife Assessment

In this important study, the authors engineered and characterised novel genetically encoded calcium indicators (GECIs) and an analytical tool (CaFire) capable of reporting and quantifying various sub-synaptic events, including miniature synaptic events, with a speed and sensitivity approaching that of intracellular electrophysiological recordings. They present compelling data validating this toolset, which will be of interest to neurobiologists studying synaptic calcium dynamics in various model systems.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Chen et al. engineered and characterized a suite of next-generation GECIs for the Drosophila NMJ that allow for the visualization of calcium dynamics within the presynaptic compartment, at presynaptic active zones, and in the postsynaptic compartment. These GECIs include ratiometric presynaptic Scar8m (targeted to synaptic vesicles), ratiometric active zone localized Bar8f (targeted to the scaffold molecule BRP), and postsynaptic SynapGCaMP8m. The authors demonstrate that these new indicators are a large improvement on the widely used GCaMP6 and GCaMP7 series GECIs, with increased speed and sensitivity. They show that presynaptic Scar8m accurately captures presynaptic calcium dynamics with superior sensitivity to the GCaMP6 and GCaMP7 series and with similar kinetics to chemical dyes. The active-zone targeted Bar8f sensor was assessed for the ability to detect release-site specific nanodomain changes, but the authors concluded that this sensor is still too slow to accurately do so. Lastly, the use of postsynaptic SynapGCaMP8m was shown to enable the detection of quantal events with similar resolution to electrophysiological recordings. Finally, the authors developed a Python-based analysis software, CaFire, that enables automated quantification of evoked and spontaneous calcium signals. These tools will greatly expand our ability to detect activity at individual synapses without the need for chemical dyes or electrophysiology.

Strengths:

In this study, the authors rigorously compare their newly engineered GECIs to those previously used at the Drosophila NMJ, highlighting improvements in localization, speed, and sensitivity. These comparisons appropriately substantiate the authors claim that their GECIs are superior to the ones currently in use.

The authors demonstrate the ability of Scar8m to capture subtle changes in presynaptic calcium resulting from differences between MN-Ib and MN-Is terminals and from the induction of presynaptic homeostatic potentiation (PHP), rivaling the sensitivity of chemical dyes.

The improved postsynaptic SynapGCaMP8m is shown to approach the resolution of electrophysiology in resolving quantal events.

The authors created a publicly available pipeline that streamlines and standardizes analysis of calcium imaging data.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Calcium ions play a key role in synaptic transmission and plasticity. To improve calcium measurements at synaptic terminals, previous studies have targeted genetically encoded calcium indicators (GECIs) to pre- and postsynaptic locations. Here, Chen et al. improve these constructs by incorporating the latest GCaMP8 sensors and a stable red fluorescent protein to enable ratiometric measurements. Extensive characterization in the Drosophila neuromuscular junction demonstrates favorable performance of these new constructs relative to previous genetically encoded and synthetic calcium indicators in reporting synaptic calcium events. In addition, they develop a new analysis platform, 'CaFire', to facilitate automated quantification. Impressively, by positioning postsynaptic GCaMP8m near glutamate receptors, the authors show that their sensors can report miniature synaptic events with speed and sensitivity approaching that of intracellular electrophysiological recordings. These new sensors and the analysis platform provide a valuable tool for resolving synaptic events using all-optical methods.

Strength:

The authors present rigorous characterization of their sensors using well-established assays. They employ immunostaining and super-resolution STED microscopy to confirm correct subcellular targeting. Additionally, they quantify response amplitude, rise and decay kinetics, and provide side-by-side comparisons with earlier-generation GECIs and synthetic dyes. Importantly, they show that the new sensors can reproduce known differences in evoked Ca²⁺ responses between distinct nerve terminals. Finally, they present what appears to be the first simultaneous calcium imaging and intracellular mEPSP recording to directly assess the sensitivity of different sensors in detecting individual miniature synaptic events.

The revised version contains extensive new data and clarification that fully addressed my previous concerns. In particular, I appreciate the side-by-side comparison with synthetic calcium indicator OGB-1 and the cytosolic version of GCaMP8m (now presented in Figure 3), which compellingly supports the favorable performance of their new sensors.

Weakness:

I have only one remaining suggestion about the precision of terminology, which I do think is important. The authors clarified in the revision that they "define SNR operationally as the fractional fluorescence change (ΔF/F).", and basically present ΔF/F values whenever they mentioned about SNR. However, if the intention is to present ΔF/F comparisons, I would strongly suggest replacing all mentions of "SNR" in the manuscript with "ΔF/F" or "fractional/relative fluorescence change".

SNR and ΔF/F are fundamentally different quantities, each with a well-defined and distinct meaning: SNR measures fluorescence change relative to baseline fluctuations (noise), whereas ΔF/F measures fluorescence change relative to baseline fluorescence (F₀). While larger ΔF/F values often correlate with improved detectability, SNR also depends on additional factors such as indicator brightness, light collection efficiency, camera noise, and the stability of the experimental preparation. Referring to ΔF/F as SNR can therefore be misleading and may cause confusion for readers, particularly those from quantitative imaging backgrounds. Clarifying the terminology by consistently using ΔF/F would improve conceptual accuracy without requiring any reanalysis of the data.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Genetically encoded calcium indicators (GECIs) are essential tools in neurobiology and physiology. Technological constraints in targeting and kinetics of previous versions of GECIs have limited their application at the subcellular level. Chen et al. present a set of novel tools that overcome many of these limitations. Through systematic testing in the Drosophila NMJ, they demonstrate improved targeting of GCaMP variants to synaptic compartments and report enhanced brightness and temporal fidelity using members of the GCaMP8 series. These advancements are likely to facilitate more precise investigation of synaptic physiology. This manuscript could be improved by further testing the GECIs across physiologically relevant ranges of activity, including at high frequency and over long imaging sessions. Moreover, while the authors provide a custom software package (CaFire) for Ca2+ imaging analysis, comparisons to existing tools and more guidance for broader usability are needed.

In this revised version, Chen et al. answered most of our concerns. The tools developed here will be useful for the community.

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1

Chen et al. engineered and characterized a suite of next-generation GECIs for the Drosophila NMJ that allow for the visualization of calcium dynamics within the presynaptic compartment, at presynaptic active zones, and in the postsynaptic compartment. These GECIs include ratiometric presynaptic Scar8m (targeted to synaptic vesicles), ratiometric active zone localized Bar8f (targeted to the scaffold molecule BRP), and postsynaptic SynapGCaMP8m. The authors demonstrate that these new indicators are a large improvement on the widely used GCaMP6 and GCaMP7 series GECIs, with increased speed and sensitivity. They show that presynaptic Scar8m accurately captures presynaptic calcium dynamics with superior sensitivity to the GCaMP6 and GCaMP7 series and with similar kinetics to chemical dyes. The active-zone targeted Bar8f sensor was assessed for the ability to detect release-site-specific nanodomain changes, but the authors concluded that this sensor is still too slow to accurately do so. Lastly, the use of postsynaptic SynapGCaMP8m was shown to enable the detection of quantal events with similar resolution to electrophysiological recordings. Finally, the authors developed a Python-based analysis software, CaFire, that enables automated quantification of evoked and spontaneous calcium signals. These tools will greatly expand our ability to detect activity at individual synapses without the need for chemical dyes or electrophysiology.

We thank this Reviewer for the overall positive assessment of our manuscript and for the incisive comments.

(1) The role of Excel in the pipeline could be more clearly explained. Lines 182-187 could be better worded to indicate that CaFire provides analysis downstream of intensity detection in ImageJ. Moreover, the data type of the exported data, such as .csv or .xlsx, should be indicated instead of 'export to graphical program such as Microsoft Excel'.

We thank the Reviewer for these comments, many of which were shared by the other reviewers. In response, we have now 1) more clearly explained the role of Excel in the CaFire pipeline (lines 677-681), 2) revised the wording in lines 676-679 to indicate that CaFire provides analysis downsteam of intensity detection in ImageJ, and 3) Clarified the exported data type to Excel (lines 677-681). These efforts have improved the clarity and readability of the CaFire analysis pipeline.

(2) In Figure 2A, the 'Excel' step should either be deleted or included as 'data validation' as ImageJ exports don't require MS Excel or any specific software to be analysed. (Also, the graphic used to depict Excel software in Figure 2A is confusing.)

We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. In the Fig. 2A, we have changed the Excel portion and clarified the processing steps in the revised methods. Specifically, we now indicate that ROIs are first selected in Fiji/ImageJ and analyzed to obtain time-series data containing both the time information and the corresponding imaging mean intensity values. These data are then exported to a spreadsheet file (e.g., Excel), which is used to organize the output before being imported into CaFire for subsequent analysis. These changes can be found in the Fig. 2A and methods (lines 676-681).

(3) Figure 2B should include the 'Partition Specification' window (as shown on the GitHub) as well as the threshold selection to give the readers a better understanding of how the tool works.

We absolutely agree with this comment, and have made the suggested changes to the Fig. 2B. In particular, we have replaced the software interface panels and now include windows illustrating the Load File, Peak Detection, and Partition functions. These updated screenshots provide a clearer view of how CaFire is used to load the data, detect events, and perform partition specification for subsequent analysis. We agree these changes will give the readers a better understanding of how the tool works, and we thank the reviewer for this comment.

(4) The presentation of data is well organized throughout the paper. However, in Figure 6C, it is unclear how the heatmaps represent the spatiotemporal fluorescence dynamics of each indicator. Does the signal correspond to a line drawn across the ROI shown in Figure 6B? If so, this should be indicated.

We apologize that the heatmaps were unclear in Fig panel 6C (Fig. 7C in the Current revision). Each heatmap is derived from a one-pixel-wide vertical line within a miniature-event ROI. These heatmaps correspond to the fluorescence change in the indicated SynapGCaMP variant of individual quantal events and their traces shown in Fig. 7C, with a representative image of the baseline and peak fluorescence shown in Fig. 7B. Specifically, we have added the following to the revised Fig. 7C legend:

The corresponding heatmaps below were generated from a single vertical line extracted from a representative miniature-event ROI, and visualize the spatiotemporal fluorescence dynamics (ΔF/F) along that line over time.

(5) In Figure 6D, the addition of non-matched electrophysiology recordings is confusing. Maybe add "at different time points" to the end of the 6D legend, or consider removing the electrophysiology trace from Figure 6D and referring the reader to the traces in Figure 7A for comparison (considering the same point is made more rigorously in Figure 7).

This is a good point, one shared with another reviewer. We apologize this was not clear, and have now revised this part of the figure to remove the electrophysiological traces in what is now Fig. 7 while keeping the paired ones still in what is now Fig. 8A as suggested by the reviewer. We agree this helps to clarify the quantal calcium transients.

(6) In GitHub, an example ImageJ Script for analyzing the images and creating the inputs for CaFire would be helpful to ensure formatting compatibility, especially given potential variability when exporting intensity information for two channels. In the Usage Guide, more information would be helpful, such as how to select ∆R/R, ideally with screenshots of the application being used to analyze example data for both single-channel and two-channel images.

We agree that additional details added to the GitHub would be helpful for users of CaFire. In response, we have now added the following improvements to the GitHub site: 

- ImageJ operation screenshots

Step-by-step illustrations of ROI drawing and Multi Measure extraction.

- Example Excel file with time and intensity values

Demonstrates the required data format for CaFire import, including proper headers.

- CaFire loading screenshots for single-channel and dual-channel imaging

Shows how to import GCaMP into Channel 1 and mScarlet into Channel 2.

- Peak Detection and Partition setting screenshots

Visual examples of automatic peak detection, manual correction, and trace partitioning.

- Instructions for ROI Extraction and CaFire Analysis

A written guide describing the full workflow from ROI selection to CaFire data export.

These changes have improved the usability and accessibility of CaFire, and we thank the reviewer for these points.

Reviewer #2

Calcium ions play a key role in synaptic transmission and plasticity. To improve calcium measurements at synaptic terminals, previous studies have targeted genetically encoded calcium indicators (GECIs) to pre- and postsynaptic locations. Here, Chen et al. improve these constructs by incorporating the latest GCaMP8 sensors and a stable red fluorescent protein to enable ratiometric measurements. In addition, they develop a new analysis platform, 'CaFire', to facilitate automated quantification. Using these tools, the authors demonstrate favorable properties of their sensors relative to earlier constructs. Impressively, by positioning postsynaptic GCaMP8m near glutamate receptors, they show that their sensors can report miniature synaptic events with speed and sensitivity approaching that of intracellular electrophysiological recordings. These new sensors and the analysis platform provide a valuable tool for resolving synaptic events using all-optical methods.

We thank the Reviewer for their overall positive evaluation and comments.

Major comments:

(1) While the authors rigorously compared the response amplitude, rise, and decay kinetics of several sensors, key parameters like brightness and photobleaching rates are not reported. I feel that including this information is important as synaptically tethered sensors, compared to freely diffusible cytosolic indicators, can be especially prone to photobleaching, particularly under the high-intensity illumination and high-magnification conditions required for synaptic imaging. Quantifying baseline brightness and photobleaching rates would add valuable information for researchers intending to adopt these tools, especially in the context of prolonged or high-speed imaging experiments.

This is a good point made by the reviewer, and one we agree will be useful for researchers to be aware. First, it is important to note that the photobleaching and brightness of the sensors will vary depending on the nature of the user’s imaging equipment, which can vary significantly between widefield microscopes (with various LED or halogen light sources for illumination), laser scanning systems (e.g., line scans with confocal systems), or area scanning systems using resonant scanners (as we use in our current study). Under the same imaging settings, GCaMP8f and 8m exhibit comparable baseline fluorescence, whereas GCaMP6f and 6s are noticeably dimmer; because our aim is to assess each reagent’s potential under optimal conditions, we routinely adjust excitation/camera parameters before acquisition to place baseline fluorescence in an appropriate dynamic range. As an important addition to this study, motivated by the reviewer’s comments above, we now directly compare neuronal cytosolic GCaMP8m expression with our Scar8m sensor, showing higher sensitivity with Scar8m (now shown in the new Fig. 3F-H).

Regarding photobleaching, GCaMP signals are generally stable, while mScarlet is more prone to bleaching: in presynaptic area scanned confocal recordings, the mScarlet channel drops by ~15% over 15 secs, whereas GCaMP6s/8f/8m show no obvious bleaching over the same window (lines 549-553). In contrast, presynaptic widefield imaging using an LED system (CCD), GCaMP8f shows ~8% loss over 15 secs (lines 610-611). Similarly, for postsynaptic SynapGCaMP6f/8f/8m, confocal resonant area scans show no obvious bleaching over 60 secs, while widefield shows ~2–5% bleaching over 60 secs (lines 634-638). Finally, in active-zone/BRP calcium imaging (confocal), mScarlet again bleaches by ~15% over 15 s, while GCaMP8f/8m show no obvious bleaching. The mScarlet-channel bleaching can be corrected in Huygens SVI (Bleaching correction or via the Deconvolution Wizard), whereas we avoid applying bleaching correction to the green GCaMP channel when no clear decay is present to prevent introducing artifacts. This information is now added to the methods (lines 548-553).

(2) In several places, the authors compare the performance of their sensors with synthetic calcium dyes, but these comparisons are based on literature values rather than on side-by-side measurements in the same preparation. Given differences in imaging conditions across studies (e.g., illumination, camera sensitivity, and noise), parameters like indicator brightness, SNR, and photobleaching are difficult to compare meaningfully. Additionally, the limited frame rate used in the present study may preclude accurate assessment of rise times relative to fast chemical dyes. These issues weaken the claim made in the abstract that "...a ratiometric presynaptic GCaMP8m sensor accurately captures .. Ca²⁺ changes with superior sensitivity and similar kinetics compared to chemical dyes." The authors should clearly acknowledge these limitations and soften their conclusions. A direct comparison in the same system, if feasible, would greatly strengthen the manuscript.

We absolutely agree with these points made the reviewer, and have made a concerted effort to address them through the following:

We have now directly compared presynaptic calcium responses on the same imaging system using the chemical dye Oregon Green Bapta-1 (OGB-1), one of the primary synthetic calcium indicators used in our field. These experiments reveal that Scar8f exhibits markedly faster kinetics and an improved signal-to-noise ratio compared to OGB-1, with higher peak fluorescence responses (Scar8f: 0.32, OGB-1: 0.23). The rise time constants of the two indicators are comparable (both ~3 msecs), whereas the decay of Scar8f is faster than that of OGB-1 (Scar8f: ~40, OGB-1: ~60), indicating more rapid signal recovery. These results now directly demonstrate the superiority of the new GCaMP8 sensors we have engineered over conventional synthetic dyes, and are now presented in the new Fig. 3A-E of the manuscript.

We agree with the reviewer that, in the original submission, the relatively slow resonant area scans (~115 fps) limited the temporal resolution of our rise time measurements. To address this, we have re-measured the rise time using higher frame-rate line scans (kHz). For Scar8f, the rise time constant was 6.736 msec at ~115 fps resonant area scanned, but shortened to 2.893 msec when imaged at ~303 fps, indicating that the original protocol underestimated the true kinetics. In addition, for Bar8m, area scans at ~118 fps yielded a rise time constant of 9.019 msec, whereas line scans at ~1085 fps reduced the rise time constant to 3.230 msec. These new measurements are now incorporated into the manuscript ( Figs. 3,4, and 6) to more accurately reflect the fast kinetics of these indicators.

(3) The authors state that their indicators can now achieve measurements previously attainable with chemical dyes and electrophysiology. I encourage the authors to also consider how their tools might enable new measurements beyond what these traditional techniques allow. For example, while electrophysiology can detect summed mEPSPs across synapses, imaging could go a step further by spatially resolving the synaptic origin of individual mEPSP events. One could, for instance, image MN-Ib and MN-Is simultaneously without silencing either input, and detect mEPSP events specific to each synapse. This would enable synapse-specific mapping of quantal events - something electrophysiology alone cannot provide. Demonstrating even a proof-of-principle along these lines could highlight the unique advantages of the new tools by showing that they not only match previous methods but also enable new types of measurements.

These are excellent points raised by the reviewer. In response, we have done the following: 

We have now included a supplemental video as “proof-of-principle” data showing simultaneous imaging of SynapGCaMP8m quantal events at both MN-Is and -Ib, demonstrating that synapse-specific spatial mapping of quantal events can be obtained with this tool (see new Supplemental Video 1). 

We have also included an additional discussion of the potential and limitations of these tools for new measurements beyond conventional approaches. This discussion is now presented in lines 419-421 in the manuscript.

(4) For ratiometric measurements, it is important to estimate and subtract background signals in each channel. Without this correction, the computed ratio may be skewed, as background adds an offset to both channels and can distort the ratio. However, it is not clear from the Methods section whether, or how, background fluorescence was measured and subtracted.

This is a good point, and we agree more clarification about how ratiometric measurements were made is needed. In response, we have now added the following to the Methods section (lines 548-568):

Time-lapse videos were stabilized and bleach-corrected prior to analysis, which visibly reduced frame-toframe motion and intensity drift. In the presynaptic and active-zone mScarlet channel, a bleaching factor of ~1.15 was observed during the 15 sec recording. This bleaching can be corrected using the “Bleaching correction” tool in Huygens SVI. For presynaptic and active-zone GCaMP signals, there was minimal bleaching over these short imaging periods. Therefore, the bleaching correction step for GCaMP was skipped. Both GCaMP and mScarlet channels were processed using the default settings in the Huygens SVI “Deconvolution Wizard” (with the exception of the bleaching correction option). Deconvolution was performed using the CMLE algorithm with the Huygens default stopping criterion and a maximum of 30 iterations, such that the algorithm either converged earlier or, if convergence was not reached, was terminated at this 30iteration limit; no other iteration settings were used across the GCaMP series. ROIs were drawn on the processed images using Fiji ImageJ software, and mean fluorescence time courses were extracted for the GCaMP and mScarlet channels, yielding F_GCaMP(t) and F_mScarlet(t). F(t)s were imported into CaFire with GCaMP assigned to Channel #1 (signal; required) and mScarlet to Channel #2 (baseline/reference; optional). If desired, the mScarlet signal could be smoothed in CaFire using a user-specified moving-average window to reduce high-frequency noise. In CaFire’s ΔR/R mode, the per-frame ratio was computed as R(t)=F_GCaMP(t) and F_mScarlet(t); a baseline ratio R0 was estimated from the pre-stimulus period, and the final response was reported as ΔR/R(t)=[R(t)−R0]/R0, which normalizes GCaMP signals to the co-expressed mScarlet reference and thereby reduces variability arising from differences in sensor expression level or illumination across AZs.

(5) At line 212, the authors claim "... GCaMP8m showing 345.7% higher SNR over GCaMP6s....(Fig. 3D and E) ", yet the cited figure panels do not present any SNR quantification. Figures 3D and E only show response amplitudes and kinetics, which are distinct from SNR. The methods section also does not describe details for how SNR was defined or computed.

This is another good point. We define SNR operationally as the fractional fluorescence change (ΔF/F). Traces were processed with CaFire, which estimates a per-frame baseline F₀(t) with a user-configurable sliding window and percentile. In the Load File panel, users can specify both the length of the moving baseline window and the desired percentile; the default settings are a 50-point window and the 30th percentile, representing a 101-point window centered on each time point (previous 50 to next 50 samples) and took the lower 30% of values within that window to estimate F₀(t). The signal was then computed as ΔF/F=[F(t)−F0(t)]/F0(t). This ΔF/F value is what we report as SNR throughout the manuscript and is now discussed explicitly in the revised methods (lines 686-693).

(6) Lines 285-287 "As expected, summed ΔF values scaled strongly and positively with AZ size (Fig. 5F), reflecting a greater number of Cav2 channels at larger AZs". I am not sure about this conclusion. A positive correlation between summed ΔF values and AZ size could simply reflect more GCaMP molecules in larger AZs, which would give rise to larger total fluorescence change even at a given level of calcium increase.

The reviewer makes a good point, one that we agree should be clarified. The reviewer is indeed correct that larger active zones should have more abundant BRP protein, which in turn will lead to a higher abundance of the Bar8f sensor, which should lead to a higher GCaMP response simply by having more of this sensor. However, the inclusion of the ratiometric mScarlet protein should normalize the response accurately, correcting for this confound, in which the higher abundance of GCaMP should be offset (normalized) by the equally (stoichiometric) higher abundance of mScarlet. Therefore, when the ∆R/R is calculated, the differences in GCaMP abundance at each AZ should be corrected for the ratiometric analysis. We now use an improved BRP::mScarlet3::GCaMP8m (Bar8m) and compute ΔR/R with R(t)=F_GCaMP8m/F_mScarlet3. ROIs were drawn over individual AZs (Fig. 6B). CaFire estimated R0 with a sliding 101-point window using the lowest 10% of values, and responses were reported as ΔR/R=[R−R0]/R0. Area-scan examples (118 fps) show robust ΔR/R transients (peaks ≈1.90 and 3.28; tau rise ≈9.0–9.3 ms; Fig. 6C, middle).

We have now made these points more clearly in the manuscript (lines 700-704) and moved the Bar8f intensity vs active zone size data to Table S1. Together, these revisions improve the indicator-abundance confound (via mScarlet normalization). 

(6) Lines 313-314: "SynapGCaMP quantal signals appeared to qualitatively reflect the same events measured with electrophysiological recordings (Fig. 6D)." This statement is quite confusing. In Figure 6D, the corresponding calcium and ephys traces look completely different and appear to reflect distinct sets of events. It was only after reading Figure 7 that I realized the traces shown in Figure 6D might not have been recorded simultaneously. The authors should clarify this point.

Yes, we absolutely agree with this point, one shared by Reviewer 1. In response, we have removed the electrophysiological traces in Fig. 6 to clarify that just the calcium responses are shown, and save the direct comparison for the Fig. 7 data (now revised Fig. 8).

(8) Lines 310-313: "SynapGCaMP8m .... striking an optimal balance between speed and sensitivity", and Lines 314-316: "We conclude that SynapGCaMP8m is an optimal indicator to measure quantal transmission events at the synapse." Statements like these are subjective. In the authors' own comparison, GCaMP8m is significantly slower than GCaMP8f (at least in terms of decay time), despite having a moderately higher response amplitude. It is therefore unclear why GCaMP8m is considered 'optimal'. The authors should clarify this point or explain their rationale for prioritizing response amplitude over speed in the context of their application.

This is another good point that we agree with, as the “optimal” sensor will of course depend on the user’s objectives. Hence, we used the term “an optimal sensor” to indicate it is what we believed to be the best one for our own uses. However, this point should be clarified and better discussed. In response, we have revised the relevant sections of the manuscript to better define why we chose the 8m sensors to strike an optimal balance of speed and sensitivity for our uses, and go on to discuss situations in which other sensor variants might be better suited. These are now presented in lines 223-236 in the revised manuscript, and we thank the reviewer for making these comments, which have improved our study.

Minor comments

(1)  Please include the following information in the Methods section:

(a) For Figures 3 and 4, specify how action potentials were evoked. What type of electrodes were used, where were they placed, and what amount of current or voltage was applied?

We apologize for neglecting to include this information in the original submission. We have now added this information to the revised Methods section (lines 537-543).

(b) For imaging experiments, provide information on the filter sets used for each imaging channel, and describe how acquisition was alternated or synchronized between the green and red channels in ratiometric measurements. Additionally, please report the typical illumination intensity (in mW/mm²) for each experimental condition.

We thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. We have now added detailed information about the imaging configuration to the Methods (lines 512-528) with the following:

Ca2+ imaging was conducted using a Nikon A1R resonant scanning confocal microscope equipped with a 60x/1.0 NA water-immersion objective (refractive index 1.33). GCaMP signals were acquired using the FITC/GFP channel (488-nm laser excitation; emission collected with a 525/50-nm band-pass filter), and mScarlet/mCherry signals were acquired using the TRITC/mCherry channel (561-nm laser excitation; emission collected with a 595/50-nm band-pass filter). ROIs focused on terminal boutons of MN-Ib or -Is motor neurons. For both channels, the confocal pinhole was set to a fixed diameter of 117.5 µm (approximately three Airy units under these conditions), which increases signal collection while maintaining adequate optical sectioning. Images were acquired as 256 × 64 pixel frames (two 12-bit channels) using bidirectional resonant scanning at a frame rate of ~118 frames/s; the scan zoom in NIS-Elements was adjusted so that this field of view encompassed the entire neuromuscular junction and was kept constant across experiments. In ratiometric recordings, the 488-nm (GCaMP) and 561-nm (mScarlet) channels were acquired in a sequential dual-channel mode using the same bidirectional resonant scan settings: for each time point, a frame was first collected in the green channel and then immediately in the red channel, introducing a small, fixed frame-to-frame temporal offset while preserving matched spatial sampling of the two channels.

Directly measuring the absolute laser power at the specimen plane (and thus reporting illumination intensity in mW/mm²) is technically challenging on this resonant-scanning system, because it would require inserting a power sensor into the beam path and perturbing the optical alignment; consequently, we are unable to provide reliable absolute mW/mm² values. Instead, we now report all relevant acquisition parameters (objective, numerical aperture, refractive index, pinhole size, scan format, frame rate, and fixed laser/detector settings) and note that laser powers were kept constant within each experimental series and chosen to minimize bleaching and phototoxicity while maintaining an adequate signal-to-noise ratio. We have now added the details requested in the revised Methods section (lines 512-535), including information about the filter sets, acquisition settings, and typical illumination intensity.

(2) Please clarify what the thin versus thick traces represent in Figures 3D, 3F, 4C, and 4E. Are the thin traces individual trials from the same experiment, or from different experiments/animals? Does the thick trace represent the mean/median across those trials, a fitted curve, or a representative example?

We apologize this was not more clear in the original submission. Thin traces are individual stimulus-evoked trials (“sweeps”) acquired sequentially from the same muscle/NMJ in a single preparation; the panel is shown as a representative example of recordings collected across animals. The thick colored trace is the trialaveraged waveform (arithmetic mean) of those thin traces after alignment to stimulus onset and baseline subtraction (no additional smoothing beyond what is stated in Methods). The thick black curve over the decay phase is a single-exponential fit used to estimate τ. Specifically, we fit the decay segment by linear regression on the natural-log–transformed baseline-subtracted signal, which is equivalent to fitting y = y_peak·e^−t/τdecay over the decay window (revised Fig.4D and Fig.5C legends).

(3) Please clarify what the reported sample size (n) represents. Does it indicate the number of experimental repeats, the number of boutons or PSDs, or the number of animals?

Again, we apologize this was not clear. (n) refers to the number of animals (biological replicates), which is reported in Supplementary Table 1. All imaging was performed at muscle 6, abdominal segment A3. Per preparation, we imaged 1-2 NMJs in total, with each imaging targeting 2–3 terminal boutons at the target NMJ and acquired 2–3 imaging stacks choosing different terminal boutons per NMJ. For the standard stimulation protocol, we delivered 1 Hz stimulation for 1ms and captured 14 stimuli in a 15s time series imaging (lines 730-736).

Reviewer #3

Genetically encoded calcium indicators (GECIs) are essential tools in neurobiology and physiology. Technological constraints in targeting and kinetics of previous versions of GECIs have limited their application at the subcellular level. Chen et al. present a set of novel tools that overcome many of these limitations. Through systematic testing in the Drosophila NMJ, they demonstrate improved targeting of GCaMP variants to synaptic compartments and report enhanced brightness and temporal fidelity using members of the GCaMP8 series. These advancements are likely to facilitate more precise investigation of synaptic physiology.

This is a comprehensive and detailed manuscript that introduces and validates new GECI tools optimized for the study of neurotransmission and neuronal excitability. These tools are likely to be highly impactful across neuroscience subfields. The authors are commended for publicly sharing their imaging software.

This manuscript could be improved by further testing the GECIs across physiologically relevant ranges of activity, including at high frequency and over long imaging sessions. The authors provide a custom software package (CaFire) for Ca2+ imaging analysis; however, to improve clarity and utility for future users, we recommend providing references to existing Ca2+ imaging tools for context and elaborating on some conceptual and methodological aspects, with more guidance for broader usability. These enhancements would strengthen this already strong manuscript.

We thank the Reviewer for their overall positive evaluation and comments. 

Major comments:

(1) Evaluation of the performance of new GECI variants using physiologically relevant stimuli and frequency. The authors took initial steps towards this goal, but it would be helpful to determine the performance of the different GECIs at higher electrical stimulation frequencies (at least as high as 20 Hz) and for longer (10 seconds) (Newman et al, 2017). This will help scientists choose the right GECI for studies testing the reliability of synaptic transmission, which generally requires prolonged highfrequency stimulation.

We appreciate this point by the reviewer and agree it would be of interest to evaluate sensor performance with higher frequency stimulation and for a longer duration. In response, we performed a variety of stimulation protocols at high intensities and times, but found the data to be difficult to separate individual responses given the decay kinetics of all calcium sensors. Hence, we elected not to include these in the revised manuscript. However, we have now included an evaluation of the sensors with 20 Hz electrical stimulation for ~1 sec using a direct comparison of Scar8f with OGB-1. These data are now presented in a new Fig. 3D,E and discussed in the manuscript (lines 396-403).

(2) CaFire.

The authors mention, in line 182: 'Current approaches to analyze synaptic Ca2+ imaging data either repurpose software designed to analyze electrophysiological data or use custom software developed by groups for their own specific needs.' References should be provided. CaImAn comes to mind (Giovannucci et al., 2019, eLife), but we think there are other software programs aimed at analyzing Ca2+ imaging data that would permit such analysis.

Thank you for the thoughtful question. At this stage, we’re unable to provide a direct comparison with existing analysis workflows. In surveying prior studies that analyze Drosophila NMJ Ca²⁺ imaging traces, we found that most groups preprocess images in Fiji/ImageJ and then rely on their own custom-made MATLAB or Python scripts for downstream analysis (see Blum et al. 2021; Xing and Wu 2018). Because these pipelines vary widely across labs, a standardized head-to-head evaluation isn’t currently feasible. With CaFire, our goal is to offer a simple, accessible tool that does not require coding experience and minimizes variability introduced by custom scripts. We designed CaFire to lower the barrier to entry, promote reproducibility, and make quantal event analysis more consistent across users. We have added references to the sentence mentioned above.

Regarding existing software that the reviewer mentioned – CaImAn (Giovannucci et al. 2019): We evaluated CaImAn, which is a powerful framework designed for large-scale, multicellular calcium imaging (e.g., motion correction, denoising, and automated cell/ROI extraction). However, it is not optimized for the per-event kinetics central to our project - such as extracting rise and decay times for individual quantal events at single synapses. Achieving this level of granularity would typically require additional custom Python scripting and parameter tuning within CaImAn’s code-centric interface. This runs counter to CaFire’s design goals of a nocode, task-focused workflow that enables users to analyze miniature events quickly and consistently without specialized programming expertise.

Regarding Igor Pro (WaveMetrics), (Müller et al. 2012): Igor Pro is another platform that can be used to analyze calcium imaging signals. However, it is commercial (paid) software and generally requires substantial custom scripting to fit the specific analyses we need. In practice, it does not offer a simple, open-source, point-and-click path to per-event kinetic quantification, which is what CaFire is designed to provide.

The authors should be commended for making their software publicly available, but there are some questions:

How does CaFire compare to existing tools?

As mentioned above, we have not been able to adapt the custom scripts used by various labs for our purposes, including software developed in MatLab (Blum et al. 2021), Python (Xing and Wu 2018), and Igor (Müller et al. 2012). Some in the field do use semi-publically available software, including Nikon Elements (Chen and Huang 2017) and CaImAn (Giovannucci et al. 2019). However, these platforms are not optimized for the per-event kinetics central to our project - such as extracting rise and decay times for individual quantal events at single synapses. We have added more details about CaFire, mainly focusing on the workflow and measurements, highlighting the superiority of CaFire, showing that CaFire provides a no-code, standardized pipeline with automated miniature-event detection and per-event metrics (e.g., amplitude, rise time τ, decay time τ), optional ΔR/R support, and auto-partition feature. Collectively, these features make CaFire simpler to operate without programming expertise, more transparent and reproducible across users, and better aligned with the event-level kinetics required for this project.

Very few details about the Huygens deconvolution algorithms and input settings were provided in the methods or text (outside of MLE algorithm used in STED images, which was not Ca2+ imaging). Was it blind deconvolution? Did the team distill the point-spread function for the fluorophores? Were both channels processed for ratiometric imaging? Were the same settings used for each channel? Importantly, please include SVI Huygens in the 'Software and Algorithms' Section of the methods.

We thank the reviewer for raising this important point. We have now expanded the Methods to describe our use of Huygens in more detail and have added SVI Huygens Professional (Scientific Volume Imaging, Hilversum, The Netherlands) to the “Software and Algorithms” section. For Ca²⁺ imaging data, time-lapse stacks were processed in the Huygens Deconvolution Wizard using the standard estimation algorithm (CMLE). This is not a blind deconvolution procedure. Instead, Huygens computes a theoretical point-spread function (PSF) from the full acquisition metadata (objective NA, refractive index, voxel size/sampling, pinhole, excitation/emission wavelengths, etc.); if refractive index values are provided and there is a mismatch, the PSF is adjusted to account for spherical aberration. We did not experimentally distill PSFs from bead measurements, as Huygens’ theoretical PSFs are sufficient for our data.

Both green (GCaMP) and red (mScarlet) channels were processed for ratiometric imaging using the same workflow (stabilization, optional bleaching correction, and deconvolution within Huygens). For each channel, the PSF, background, and SNR were estimated automatically by the same built-in algorithms, so the underlying procedures were identical even though the numerical values differ between channels because of their distinct wavelengths and noise characteristics. Importantly, Huygens normalizes each PSF to unit total intensity, such that the deconvolution itself does not add or remove signal and therefore preserves intensity ratios between channels; only background subtraction and bleaching correction can change absolute fluorescence values. For the mScarlet channel, where we observed modest bleaching (~1.10 over 15 sec), we applied Huygens’ bleaching correction and visually verified that similar structures maintained comparable intensities after correction. For presynaptic GCaMP signals, bleaching over these short recordings was negligible, so we omitted the bleaching-correction step to avoid introducing multiplicative artifacts. This workflow ensures that ratiometric ΔR/R measurements are based on consistently processed, intensity-conserving deconvolved images in both channels.

The number of deconvolution iterations could have had an effect when comparing GCAMP series; please provide an average number of iterations used for at least one experiment. For example, Figure 3, Syt::GCAMP6s, Scar8f & Scar8m, and, if applicable, the maximum number of permissible iterations.

We thank the reviewer for this comment. For all Ca²⁺ imaging datasets, deconvolution in Huygens was performed using the recommended default settings of the CMLE algorithm with a maximum of 30 iterations. The stopping criterion was left at the Huygens default, so the algorithm either converged earlier or, if convergence was not reached, terminated at this 30-iteration limit. No other iteration settings were used across the GCaMP series (lines 555-559).

Please clarify if the 'Express' settings in Huygens changed algorithms or shifted input parameters.

We appreciate the reviewer’s question regarding the Huygens “Express” settings. For clarity, we note that all Ca²⁺ imaging data reported in this manuscript were deconvolved using the “Deconvolution Wizard”, not the “Deconvolution Express” mode. In the Wizard, we explicitly selected the CMLE algorithm (or GMLE in a few STED-related cases as recommended by SVI), using the recommended maximum of 30 iterations, and other recommended settings while allowing Huygens to auto-estimate background and SNR for each channel.Bleaching correction was toggled manually per channel (applied to mScarlet when bleaching was evident, omitted for GCaMP when bleaching was negligible), as described in the revised Methods (lines 553-559).

By contrast, the Deconvolution Express tool in Huygens is a fully automated front-end that can internally adjust both the choice of deconvolution algorithm (e.g., CMLE vs. GMLE/QMLE) and key input parameters such as SNR, number of iterations, and quality threshold based on the selected “smart profile” and the image metadata. In preliminary tests on our datasets, Express sometimes produced results that were either overly smoothed or showed subtle artifacts, so we did not use it for any data included in this study. Instead, we relied exclusively on the Wizard with explicitly controlled settings to ensure consistency and transparency across all GCaMP series and ratiometric analyses.

We suggest including a sample data set, perhaps in Excel, so that future users can beta test on and organize their data in a similar fashion.

We agree that this would be useful, a point shared by R1 above. In response, we have added a sample data set to the GitHub site and included sample ImageJ data along with screenshots to explain the analysis in more detail. These improvements are discussed in the manuscript (lines 705-708).

(3) While the challenges of AZ imaging are mentioned, it is not discussed how the authors tackled each one. What is defined as an active zone? Active zones are usually identified under electron microscopy. Arguably, the limitation of GCaMP-based sensors targeted to individual AZs, being unable to resolve local Ca2+ changes at individual boutons reliably, might be incorrect. This could be a limitation of the optical setup being used here. Please discuss further. What sensor performance do we need to achieve this performance level, and/or what optical setup would we need to resolve such signals?

We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful comments and agree that the technical challenges of active zone (AZ) Ca²⁺ imaging merit further clarification. We defined AZs, as is the convention in our field, as individual BRP puncta at NMJs. These BRP puncta co-colocalize with individual puncta of other AZ components, including CAC, RBP, Unc13, etc. ROIs were drawn tightly over individual BRP puncta and only clearly separable spots were included.

To tackle the specific obstacles of AZ imaging (small signal volume, high AZ density, and limited photon budget at high frame rates), we implemented both improved sensors and optimized analysis (Fig. 6). First, we introduced a ratiometric AZ-targeted indicator, BRP::mScarlet3::GCaMP8m (Bar8m), and computed ΔR/R with ΔR/R with R(t)=F_GCaMP8m/F_mScarlet3. ROIs were drawn over individual AZs (Fig. 6B). Under our standard resonant area-scan conditions (~118 fps), Bar8m produces robust ΔR/R transients at individual AZs (example peaks ≈ 3.28; τ_rise≈9.0 ms; Fig. 6C, middle), indicating that single-AZ signals can be detected reproducibly when AZs are optically resolvable.

Second, we increased temporal resolution using high-speed Galvano line-scan imaging (~1058 fps), which markedly sharpened the apparent kinetics (τ_rise≈3.23 ms) and revealed greater between-AZ variability (Fig. 6C, right; 6D–E). Population analyses show that line scans yield much faster rise times than area scans (Fig. 6D) and a dramatically higher fraction of significantly different AZ pairs (8.28% and 4.14% in 8f and 8m areascan vs 78.62% in 8m line-scan, lines 721-725), uncovering pronounced AZ-to-AZ heterogeneity in Ca²⁺ signals. Together, these revisions demonstrate that under our current confocal configuration, AZ-targeted GCaMP8m can indeed resolve local Ca²⁺ changes at individual, optically isolated boutons.

We have revised the Discussion to clarify that our original statement about the limitations of AZ-targeted GCaMPs refers specifically to this combination of sensor and optical setup, rather than an absolute limitation of AZ-level Ca²⁺ imaging. In our view, further improvements in baseline brightness and dynamic range (ΔF/F or ΔR/R per action potential), combined with sub-millisecond kinetics and minimal buffering, together with optical configurations that provide smaller effective PSFs and higher photon collection (e.g., higher-NA objectives, optimized 2-photon or fast line-scan modalities, and potentially super-resolution approaches applied to AZ-localized indicators), are likely to be required to achieve routine, high-fidelity Ca²⁺ measurements at every individual AZ within a neuromuscular junction.

(4) In Figure 5: Only GCAMP8f (Bar8f fusion protein) is tested here. Consider including testing with GCAMP8m. This is particularly relevant given that GCAMP8m was a more successful GECI for subcellular post-synaptic imaging in Figure 6.

We appreciate this point and request by Reviewer 3. The main limitation for detecting local calcium changes at AZs is the speed of the calcium sensor, and hence we used the fastest available (GCaMP8f) to test the Bar8f sensor. While replacing GCaMP8f with GCaMP8m would indeed be predicted to enhance sensitivity (SNR), since GCaMP8m does not have faster kinetics relative to GCaMP8f, it is unlikely to be a more successful GECI for visualizing local calcium differences at AZs. 

That being said, we agree that the Bar8m tool, including the improved mScarlet3 indicator, would likely be of interest and use to the field. Fortunately, we had engineered the Bar8m sensor while this manuscript was in review, and just recently received transgenic flies. We have evaluated this sensor, as requested by the reviewer, and included our findings in Fig. 1 and 6. In short, while the sensitivity is indeed enhanced in Bar8m compared to Bar8f, the kinetics remain insufficient to capture local AZ signals. These findings are discussed in the revised manuscript (lines 424-442, 719-730), and we appreciate the reviewer for raising these important points.

In earlier experiments, Bar8f yielded relatively weak fluorescence, so we traded frame rate for image quality during resonant area scans (~60 fps). After switching to Bar8m, the signal was bright enough to restore our standard 118 fps area-scan setting. Nevertheless, even with dual-channel resonant area scans and ratiometric (GCaMP/mScarlet) analysis, AZ-to-AZ heterogeneity remained difficult to resolve. Because Ca²⁺ influx at individual active zones evolves on sub-millisecond timescales, we adopted a high-speed singlechannel Galvano line-scan (~1 kHz) to capture these rapid transients. We first acquired a brief area image to localize AZ puncta, then positioned the line-scan ROI through the center of the selected AZ. This configuration provided the temporal resolution needed to uncover heterogeneity that was under-sampled in area-scan data. Consistent with this, Bar8m line-scan data showed markedly higher AZ heterogeneity (significant AZ-pair rate ~79%, vs. ~8% for Bar8f area scans and ~4% for Bar8m area scans), highlighting Bar8m’s suitability for quantifying AZ diversity. We have updated the text, Methods, and figure legend accordingly (tell reviewer where to find everything).

(5) Figure 5D and associated datasets: Why was Interquartile Range (IQR) testing used instead of ZScoring? Generally, IQR is used when the data is heavily skewed or is not normally distributed. Normality was tested using the D'Agostino & Pearson omnibus normality test and found that normality was not violated. Please explain your reasoning for the approach in statistical testing. Correlation coefficients in Figures 5 E & F should also be reported on the graph, not just the table. In Supplementary Table 1. The sub-table between 4D-F and 5E-F, which describes the IQR, should be labeled as such and contain identifiers in the rows describing which quartile is described. The table description should be below. We would recommend a brief table description for each sub-table.

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have updated the analysis in two complementary ways. First, we now perform paired two-tailed t-tests between every two AZs within the same preparation (pairwise AZ–AZ comparisons of peak responses). At α<0.05, the fraction of significant AZ pairs is ~79% for Bar8m line-scan data versus ~8% for Bar8f area-scan data, indicating markedly greater AZ-to-AZ diversity when measured at high temporal resolution. Second, for visually marking the outlying AZs, we re-computed the IQR (Q1–Q3) based on the individual values collected from each AZs(15 data points per AZ, 30 AZs for each genotype), and marked AZs whose mean response falls above Q3 or below Q1; IQR is used here solely as a robust dispersion reference rather than for hypothesis testing. Both analyses support the same observation: Bar8m line-scan data reveal substantially higher AZ heterogeneity than Bar8f and Bar8m area-scan data. We have revised the Methods, figure panels, and legends accordingly (t-test details; explicit “IQR (Q1–Q3)” labeling; significant AZ-pair rates reported on the plots) (lines 719-730).

(6) Figure 6 and associated data. The authors mention: ' SynapGCaMP quantal signals appeared to qualitatively reflect the same events measured with electrophysiological recordings (Fig. 6D).' If that was the case, shouldn't the ephys and optical signal show some sort of correlation? The data presented in Figure 6D show no such correlation. Where do these signals come from? It is important to show the ROIs on a reference image.

We apologize this was not clear, as similar points were raised by R1 and R2. We were just showing separate (uncorrelated) sample traces of electrophysiological and calcium imaging data. Given how confusing this presentation turned out to be, and the fact that we show the correlated ephys and calcium imaging events in Fig. 7, we have elected to remove the uncorrelated electrophysiological events in Fig. 6 to just focus on the calcium imaging events (now Figures 7 and 8).

Figure 7B: Were Ca2+ transients not associated with mEPSPs ever detected? What is the rate of such events?

This is an astute question. Yes indeed, during simultaneous calcium imaging and current clamp electrophysiology recordings, we occasionally observed GCaMP transients without a detectable mEPSP in the electrophysiological trace. This may reflect the detection limit of electrophysiology for very small minis; with our noise level and the technical limitation of the recording rig, events < ~0.2 mV cannot be reliably detected, whereas the optical signal from the same quantal event might still be detected. The fraction of calcium-only events was ~1–10% of all optical miniature events, depending on genotype (higher in lines with smaller average minis). These calcium-only detections were low-amplitude and clustered near the optical threshold (lines 361-365).

Minor comments

(1) It should be mentioned in the text or figure legend whether images in Figure 1 were deconvolved, particularly since image pre-processing is only discussed in Figure 2 and after.

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. Yes, the confocal images shown in Figure 1 were also deconvolved in Huygens using the CMLE-based workflow described in the revised Methods. We applied deconvolution to improve contrast, reduce out-of-focus blur, and better resolve the morphology of presynaptic boutons, active zones, and postsynaptic structures, so that the localization of each sensor is more clearly visualized. We have now explicitly stated in the Fig. 1 legend and Methods (lines 575-577) that these images were deconvolved prior to display. 

(2) The abbreviation, SNR, signal-to-noise ratio, is not defined in the text.

We have corrected this error and thank the reviewer for pointing this out.

(3) Please comment on the availability of fly stocks and molecular constructs.

We have clarified that all fly stocks and molecular constructs will be shared upon request (lines 747-750). We are also in the process of depositing the new Scar8f/m, Bar8f/m, and SynapGCaMP sensors to the Bloomington Drosophila Stock Center for public dissemination.

(4) Please add detection wavelengths and filter cube information for live imaging experiments for both confocal and widefield.

We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. We have now added the detection wavelengths and filter cube configurations for both confocal and widefield live imaging to the Methods.

For confocal imaging, GCaMP signals were acquired on a Nikon A1R system using the FITC/GFP channel (488-nm laser excitation; emission collected with a 525/50-nm band-pass filter), and mScarlet signals were acquired using the TRITC/mCherry channel (561-nm laser excitation; emission collected with a 595/50-nm band-pass filter). Both channels were detected with GaAsP detectors under the same pinhole and scan settings described above (lines 512-517).

For widefield imaging, GCaMP was recorded using a GFP filter cube (LED excitation ~470/40 nm; emission ~525/50 nm), which is now explicitly described in the revised Methods section (lines 632-633).

(5) Please include a mini frequency analysis in Supplemental Figure S1.

We apologize for not including this information in the original submission. This is now included in the Supplemental Figure S1.

(6) In Figure S1B, consider flipping the order of EPSP (currently middle) and mEPSP (currently left), to easily guide the reader through the quantification of Figure S1A (EPSPs, top traces & mEPSPs, bottom traces).

We agree these modifications would improve readability and clarity. We have now re-ordered the electrophysiological quantifications in Fig. S1B as requested by the reviewer.

(7) Figure 6C: Consider labeling with sensor name instead of GFP.

We agree here as well, and have removed “GFP” and instead added the GCaMP variant to the heatmap in Fig. 7C.

(8) Figure 6E, 7B, 7E: Main statistical differences highlighting sensor performance should be represented on the figures for clarity.

We did not show these differences in the original submission in an effort to keep the figures “clean” and for clarity, putting the detailed statistical significance in Table S1. However, we agree with the reviewer that it would be easier to see these in the Fig. 6E and 7B,E graphs. This information has now been added the Figs. 7 and 8.

(9) Please report if the significance tested between the ephys mini (WT vs IIB-/-, WT vs IIA-/-, IIB-/- vs IIA-/-) is the same as for Ca2+ mini (WT vs IIB-/-, WT vs IIA-/-, IIB-/- vs IIA-/-). These should also exhibit a very high correlation (mEPSP (mV) vs Ca2+ mini deltaF/F). These tests would significantly strengthen the final statement of "SynapGCaMP8m can capture physiologically relevant differences in quantal events with similar sensitivity as electrophysiology."

We agree that adding the more detailed statistical analysis requested by the reviewer would strengthen the evidence for the resolution of quantal calcium imaging using SynapGCaMP8m. We have included the statistical significance between the ephys and calcium minis in Fig. 8 and included the following in the revised methods (lines 358-361), the Fig. 8 legend and Table S1:

Using two-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov (K–S) tests, we found that SynapGCaMP8m Ca²⁺ minis (ΔF/F, Fig. 8E) differ significantly across all genotype pairs (WT vs IIB^-/-, WT vs IIA^-/-, IIB^-/- vs IIA^-/-; all p < 0.0001). The genotype rank order of the group means (±SEM) is IIB^-/- > WT > IIA^-/- (0.967 ± 0.036; 0.713 ± 0.021; 0.427 ± 0.017; n=69, 65, 59). For electrophysiological minis (mEPSP amplitude, Fig. 8F), K–S tests likewise show significant differences for the same comparisons (all p < 0.0001) with D statistics of 0.1854, 0.3647, and 0.4043 (WT vs IIB^-/-, WT vs IIA^-/-, IIB^-/- vs IIA^-/-, respectively). Group means (±SEM) again follow IIB^-/- > WT > IIA^-/- (0.824 ± 0.017 mV; 0.636 ± 0.015 mV; 0.383 ± 0.007 mV; n=41 each). These K–S results demonstrate identical significance and rank order across modalities, supporting our conclusion that SynapGCaMP8m resolves physiologically relevant quantal differences with sensitivity comparable to electrophysiology.

References

Blum, Ian D., Mehmet F. Keleş, El-Sayed Baz, Emily Han, Kristen Park, Skylar Luu, Habon Issa, Matt Brown, Margaret C. W. Ho, Masashi Tabuchi, Sha Liu, and Mark N. Wu. 2021. 'Astroglial Calcium Signaling Encodes Sleep Need in Drosophila', Current Biology, 31: 150-62.e7.

Chen, Y., and L. M. Huang. 2017. 'A simple and fast method to image calcium activity of neurons from intact dorsal root ganglia using fluorescent chemical Ca(2+) indicators', Mol Pain, 13: 1744806917748051.

Giovannucci, Andrea, Johannes Friedrich, Pat Gunn, Jérémie Kalfon, Brandon L. Brown, Sue Ann Koay, Jiannis Taxidis, Farzaneh Najafi, Jeffrey L. Gauthier, Pengcheng Zhou, Baljit S. Khakh, David W. Tank, Dmitri B. Chklovskii, and Eftychios A. Pnevmatikakis. 2019. 'CaImAn an open source tool for scalable calcium imaging data analysis', eLife, 8: e38173.

Müller, M., K. S. Liu, S. J. Sigrist, and G. W. Davis. 2012. 'RIM controls homeostatic plasticity through modulation of the readily-releasable vesicle pool', J Neurosci, 32: 16574-85.

Wu, Yifan, Keimpe Wierda, Katlijn Vints, Yu-Chun Huang, Valerie Uytterhoeven, Sahil Loomba, Fran Laenen, Marieke Hoekstra, Miranda C. Dyson, Sheng Huang, Chengji Piao, Jiawen Chen, Sambashiva Banala, Chien-Chun Chen, El-Sayed Baz, Luke Lavis, Dion Dickman, Natalia V. Gounko, Stephan Sigrist, Patrik Verstreken, and Sha Liu. 2025. 'Presynaptic Release Probability Determines the Need for Sleep', bioRxiv: 2025.10.16.682770.

Xing, Xiaomin, and Chun-Fang Wu. 2018. 'Unraveling Synaptic GCaMP Signals: Differential Excitability and Clearance Mechanisms Underlying Distinct Ca²⁺ Dynamics in Tonic and Phasic Excitatory, and Aminergic Modulatory Motor Terminals in Drosophila', eneuro, 5: ENEURO.0362-17.2018.

Nicely acid

Some nicely acid comments.

Good judgement

But it is true that faith is scarce today, even in the realm of the proletarian, of YOUNG hearts

This is what I would expect, slop generators or not. "Q3" includes summer and the start of the fall semester. "Q4" includes Thanksgiving and winter break.

"…on GitHub" (as with all things from people who speak myopically about "open source" but run all their projects on GitHub). They're talking about the GitHub userbase.

"I'm not signing your CLA" is my position, and I'm not the only one who takes that stance. My contribution is available to upstream under the same license available to everyone else: the one that the project leaders chose to attach to the project. Take it or don't.

(They've settled on "don't". That's fine.)

eLife Assessment

This important study combines real-time key point tracking with transdermal activation of sensory neurons as a general technique to explore how somatosensory stimulation impacts behavior in freely moving mice. After addressing concerns about classification of the behavioral responses to nociceptor stimulation, the authors now convincingly demonstrate a state-dependence in the behavioral response following nociceptor activation, highlighting how their real-time optogenetic stimulation capabilities can yield new insights into complex sensory processing. This work is a technological advancement that will be of interest to a broad readership, in particular labs studying somatosensation, enabling rigorous investigation of behaviors that were previously difficult or impossible to study.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study presents a system for delivering precisely controlled cutaneous stimuli to freely moving mice by coupling markerless real-time tracking to transdermal optogenetic stimulation, using the tracking signal to direct a laser via galvanometer mirrors. The principal claims are that the system achieves sub-mm targeting accuracy with a latency of <100 ms. Due to the nature of mouse gait, this enables accurate targeting of forepaws even when mice are moving.

Strengths:

The study is of high quality and the evidence for the claims is convincing. There is increasing focus in neurobiology in studying neural function in freely moving animals, engaged in natural behaviour. However, a substantial challenge is how to deliver controlled stimuli to sense organs under such conditions. The system presented here constitutes notable progress towards such experiments in the somatosensory system and is, in my view, a highly significant development that will be of interest to a broad readership.

My comments on the original submission have been fully addressed.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Parkes et al. combined real-time keypoint tracking with transdermal activation of sensory neurons to examine the effects of recruitment of sensory neurons in freely moving mice. This builds on the authors' previous investigations involving transdermal stimulation of sensory neurons in stationary mice. They illustrate multiple scenarios in which their engineering improvements enable more sophisticated behavioral assessments, including 1) stimulation of animals in multiple states in large arenas, 2) multi-animal nociceptive behavior screening through thermal and optogenetic activation, and 3) stimulation of animals running through maze corridors. Overall, the experiments and the methodology, in particular, is written clearly. The revised manuscript nicely demonstrates a state-dependence in the behavioral response to activation of TrpV1 sensory neurons, which is a nice demonstration of how their real-time optogenetic stimulation capabilities can yield new insights into complex sensory processing.

Comments on revisions:

I agree that your revisions have substantially improved the clarity and quality of the work.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

To explore the diverse nature of somatosensation, Parkes et al. established and characterized a system for precise cutaneous stimulation of mice as they walk and run in naturalistic settings. This paper provides a framework for real-time body part tracking and targeted optical stimuli with high precision, ensuring reliable and consistent cutaneous stimulation. It can be adapted in somatosensation labs as a general technique to explore somatosensory stimulation and its impact on behavior, enabling rigorous investigation of behaviors that were previously difficult or impossible to study.

Strengths:

The authors characterized the closed-loop system to ensure that it is optically precise and can precisely target moving mice. The integration of accurate and consistent optogenetic stimulation of the cutaneous afferents allows systematic investigation of somatosensory subtypes during a variety of naturalistic behaviors. Although this study focused on nociceptors innervating the skin (Trpv1::ChR2 animals), this setup can be extended to other cutaneous sensory neuron subtypes, such as low-threshold mechanoreceptors and pruriceptors. This system can also be adapted for studying more complex behaviors, such as the maze assay and goal-directed movements.

Weaknesses:

Although the paper has strengths, its weakness is that some behavioral outputs could be analyzed in more detail to reveal different types of responses to painful cutaneous stimuli. For example, paw withdrawals were detected after optogenetically stimulating the paw (Figures 3E and 3F). Animals exhibit different types of responses to painful stimuli on the hindpaw in standard pain assays, such as paw lifting, biting, and flicking, each indicating a different level of pain. The output of this system is body part keypoints, which are the standard input to many existing tools. Analyzing these detailed keypoints would greatly strengthen this system by providing deeper biological insights into the role of somatosensation in naturalistic behaviors. Additionally, if the laser spot size could be reduced to a diameter of 2 mm², it would allow the activation of a smaller number of cutaneous afferents, or even a single one, across different skin types in the paw, such as glabrous or hairy skin.

Comments on revisions:

The authors successfully addressed all of my questions and concerns.

Author response:

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study presents a system for delivering precisely controlled cutaneous stimuli to freely moving mice by coupling markerless real-time tracking to transdermal optogenetic stimulation, using the tracking signal to direct a laser via galvanometer mirrors. The principal claims are that the system achieves sub-mm targeting accuracy with a latency of <100 ms. The nature of mouse gait enables accurate targeting of forepaws even when mice are moving.

Strengths:

The study is of high quality and the evidence for the claims is convincing. There is increasing focus in neurobiology in studying neural function in freely moving animals, engaged in natural behaviour. However, a substantial challenge is how to deliver controlled stimuli to sense organs under such conditions. The system presented here constitutes notable progress towards such experiments in the somatosensory system and is, in my view, a highly significant development that will be of interest to a broad readership.

Weaknesses:

(1) "laser spot size was set to 2.00 } 0.08 mm2 diameter (coefficient of variation = 3.85)" is unclear. Is the 0.08 SD or SEM? (not stated). Also, is this systematic variation across the arena (or something else)? Readers will want to know how much the spot size varies across the arena - ie SD. CV=4 implies that SD~7 mm. ie non-trivial variation in spot size, implying substantial differences in power delivery (and hence stimulus intensity) when the mouse is in different locations. If I misunderstood, perhaps this helps the authors to clarify. Similarly, it would be informative to have mean & SD (or mean & CV) for power and power density. In future refinements of the system, would it be possible/useful to vary laser power according to arena location?

We thank the reviewer for their comments and for identifying areas needing more clarity. The previous version was ambiguous: 0.08 refers to the standard deviation (SD). We have removed the ambiguity by stating mean ± SD and reporting a unitless coefficient of variation (CV).

The revised text reads “laser spot size was set to 2.00 ± 0.08 mm² (mean ± SD; coefficient of variation = 0.039).” This makes clear that the variability in spot size is minimal: it is 0.08 mm² SD (≈0.03 mm SD in diameter). This should help clarify that spot size variability across the arena is minute and unlikely to contribute meaningfully to differences in stimulus intensity across locations. The power was modulated depending on the experiment, so we provide the unitless CV here in “The absolute optical power and power density were uniform across the glass platform (coefficient of variation 0.035 and 0.029, respectively; Figure 2—figure supplement)”. We are grateful to the reviewer for spotting these omissions.

The reviewer also asks whether, in the future, it is “possible/useful to vary laser power according to arena location”. This is already possible in our system for infrared cutaneous stimulation using analog modulation (Figure 4). We have added the following sentence to make this clearer: “Laser power could be modulated using the analog control.”

(2) "The video resolution (1920 x 1200) required a processing time higher than the frame interval (33.33 ms), resulting in real-time pose estimation on a sub-sample of all frames recorded". Given this, how was it possible to achieve 84 ms latency? An important issue for closed-loop research will relate to such delays. Therefore please explain in more depth and (in Discussion) comment on how the latency of the current system might be improved/generalised. For example, although the current system works well for paws it would seem to be less suited to body parts such as the snout that do not naturally have a stationary period during the gait cycle.

We captured and stored video with a frame-to-frame interval of 33.33 ms (30 fps). DeepLabCut-live! was run in a latency-optimization mode, meaning that new frames are not processed while the network is busy - only the most recent frame is processed when free. The processing latency is measured per processed frame, and intermediate frames are thus skipped while the network is busy. Although a wide field of view and high resolution is required to capture the large environment, increasing the per-frame compute time, the processing latency remained small enough to track and stimulate moving mice. This processing latency of 84 ± 12 ms (mean ± SD) was calculated using the timestamps stored in the output files from DeepLabCut-live!: subtracting the frame acquisition timestamp from the frame processing timestamp across 16,000 processed frames recorded across four mice (4,000 each). In addition, there is a small delay to move the galvanometers and trigger the laser, calculated as 3.3 ± 0.5 ms (mean ± SD; 245 trials). This is described in the manuscript, but can be combined with the processing latency to indicate a total closed-loop delay of ≈87 ms so we have expanded on the ‘Optical system characterization’ subsection in the Methods, adding “We estimated a processing latency of 84 ± 12 ms (mean ± SD) by subtracting…” and that “In the current configuration the end-to-end closed-loop delay is ≈87 ms from the combination of the processing latency and other delays”. To the Discussion, we now comment on how this latency can be reduced and how this can allow for generalization to more rapidly moving body parts.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Parkes et al. combined real-time keypoint tracking with transdermal activation of sensory neurons to examine the effects of recruitment of sensory neurons in freely moving mice. This builds on the authors' previous investigations involving transdermal stimulation of sensory neurons in stationary mice. They illustrate multiple scenarios in which their engineering improvements enable more sophisticated behavioral assessments, including (1) stimulation of animals in multiple states in large arenas, (2) multi-animal nociceptive behavior screening through thermal and optogenetic activation, and (3) stimulation of animals running through maze corridors. Overall, the experiments and the methodology, in particular, are written clearly. However, there are multiple concerns and opportunities to fully describe their newfound capabilities that, if addressed, would make it more likely for the community to adopt this methodology:

The characterization of laser spot size and power density is reported as a coefficient of variation, in which a value of ~3 is interpreted as uniform. My interpretation would differ - data spread so that the standard deviation is three times larger than the mean indicates there is substantial variability in the data. The 2D polynomial fit is shown in Figure 2 - Figure Supplement 1A and, if the fit is good, this does support the uniformity claim (range of spot size is 1.97 to 2.08 mm2 and range of power densities is 66.60 to 73.80 mW). The inclusion of the raw data for these measurements and an estimate of the goodness of fit to the polynomials would better help the reader evaluate whether these parameters are uniform across space and how stable the power density is across repeated stimulations of the same location. Even more helpful would be an estimate of whether the variation in the power density is expected to meaningfully affect the responses of ChR2-expressing sensory neurons.

We thank the reviewer for their comments. As also noted in response to Reviewer 1, the coefficient of variation (CV) is now reported in unitless form (rather than a percentage) to ensure clarity. For avoidance of doubt, the CV is 0.039 (3.9%), so the variation in laser spot size is minimal – there is negligible spot size variability across the system. The ranges are indeed consistent with uniformity. We have included the goodness-of-fit estimates in the appropriate figure legend “fit with a two-dimensional polynomial (area R² = 0.91; power R² = 0.75)”. This indicates that the polynomials fit well overall.

The system already allows for control of spot size. To examine whether the variation in the power density affects the responses of ChR2-expressing sensory neurons, we examined this in our previous work that focused more on input-output relationships, demonstrating a steep relationship between spot size (range of 0.02 mm² to 2.30 mm²) and the probability of paw response, demonstrating a meaningful change in response probability (Schorscher-Petcu et al. eLife, 2021). In future studies, we aim to use this approach to “titrate” cutaneous inputs as mice move through their environments.

While the error between the keypoint and laser spot error was reported as ~0.7 to 0.8 mm MAE in Figure 2L, in the methods, the authors report that there is an additional error between predicted keypoints and ground-truth labeling of 1.36 mm MAE during real-time tracking. This suggests that the overall error is not submillimeter, as claimed by the authors, but rather on the order of 1.5 - 2.5 mm, which is considerable given the width of a hind paw is ~5-6 mm and fore paws are even smaller. In my opinion, the claim for submillimeter precision should be softened and the authors should consider that the area of the paw stimulated may differ from trial to trial if, for example, the error is substantial enough that the spot overlaps with the edge of the paw.

We thank the reviewer for identifying a discrepancy in these reported errors. We clarify this below and in the manuscript

The real-time tracking error is the mean absolute Euclidean distance (MAE) between ground truth and DLC on the left hind paw where likelihood was relatively high. More specifically, ground truth was obtained by manual annotation of the left hind paw center. The corresponding DLC keypoint was evaluated in frames with likelihood >0.8 (the stimulation threshold). Across 1,281 frames from five videos of freely exploring mice (30 fps), the MAE was 1.36 mm.

The targeting error is the MAE between ground truth and the laser spot location, so should reflect the real-time tracking error plus errors from targeting the laser. More specifically, this metric was determined by comparing the manually determined ground truth keypoint of the left hind paw and the actual center of the laser spot. Importantly, this metric was calculated using four five-minute high-speed videos recorded at 270 fps of mice freely exploring the open arena (463 frames) and frames were selected with a likelihood threshold >0.8. This allowed us to resolve the brief laser pulses but inadvertently introduced a difference in spatial scaling. After rescaling, the values give a targeting error MAE now in line with the real-time tracking error  (see corrected Figure 2L). This is approximately 1.3 mm across all locomotion speeds categories. These errors are small and are limited by the spatial resolution of the cameras. We thank the reviewer for noting this discrepancy and prompting us to get to its root cause.

We have amended the subtitle on Figure 2L as “Ground truth keypoint to laser spot error” and have avoided the use of submillimeter throughout. We have added the following sentence to clarify this point: “As laser targeting relies on real-time tracking to direct the laser to the specified body part, this metric includes any errors introduced by tracking and targeting”.

As the major advance of this paper is the ability to stimulate animals during ongoing movement, it seems that the Figure 3 experiment misses an opportunity to evaluate state-dependent whole-body reactions to nociceptor activation. How does the behavioral response relate to the animal's activity just prior to stimulation?

The reviewers suggest analysis of state-dependent responses. In the Figure 3 experiment, mice were stimulated up to five times when stationary. Analysis of whole body reactions in stationary mice has been described in (Schorscher-Petcu et al. eLife, 2021) and doing this here would be redundant, so instead we now analyse the responses of moving mice in Figure 5. This new analysis shows robust state-dependent responses during movement as suggested by the reviewer. We find two behavioral clusters: one that is for faster, direct (coherent) movement and the other that is for slower assessment (incoherent) movement. Stimulation during the former results in robust and consistent slowing and shift towards assessment, whereas stimulation during the former results in a reduction in assessment. We describe and interpret these new data in the Results and Discussion sections and add information in the Methods and Figure legend, as given below. We believe that demonstrating movement statedependence is a valuable addition to the paper and thank the reviewer for suggesting this.

Given the characterization of full-body responses to activation of TrpV1 sensory neurons in Figure 4 and in the authors' previous work, stimulation of TrpV1 sensory neurons has surprisingly subtle effects as the mice run through the alternating T maze. The authors indicate that the mice are moving quickly and thus that precise targeting is required, but no evidence is shared about the precision of targeting in this context beyond images of four trials. From the characterization in Figure 2, at max speed (reported at 241 +/- 53 mm/s, which is faster than the high speeds in Figure 2), successful targeting occurs less than 50% of the time. Is the initial characterization consistent with the accuracy in this context? To what extent does inaccuracy in targeting contribute to the subtlety of affecting trajectory coherence and speed? Is there a relationship between animal speed and disruption of the trajectory?

We thank the reviewer for pointing out the discrepancy in the reported maximum speed. We have corrected the error in the main text: the average maximum speed is 142 ± 26 mm/s (four mice).

The self-paced T-maze alternation task in Figure 5 demonstrates that mice running in a maze can be stimulated using this method. We did not optimize the particular experimental design to assess the hit accuracy, as this was determined in Figure 2. Instead, we optimized for the pulse frequencies, meaning the galvanometers tracked with processed frames but the laser was triggered whether or not the paw was actually targeted. However, even in this case with the system pulsing in the free-run mode, the laser hit rate was 54 ± 6% (mean ± sem, n = 7 mice). We have weakened references to submillimeter as it was only inferred from other experiments and was not directly measured here. We find in this experiment that stimulation in freely moving mice can cause them to briefly halt and evaluate. In the future, we will use experimental designs to more optimally examine learning.

The reviewer also asks if there is a relationship between speed and disruption of the trajectory. We find that this is the case as described above with our additional analysis.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

To explore the diverse nature of somatosensation, Parkes et al. established and characterized a system for precise cutaneous stimulation of mice as they walk and run in naturalistic settings. This paper provides a framework for real-time body part tracking and targeted optical stimuli with high precision, ensuring reliable and consistent cutaneous stimulation. It can be adapted in somatosensation labs as a general technique to explore somatosensory stimulation and its impact on behavior, enabling rigorous investigation of behaviors that were previously difficult or impossible to study.

Strengths:

The authors characterized the closed-loop system to ensure that it is optically precise and can precisely target moving mice. The integration of accurate and consistent optogenetic stimulation of the cutaneous afferents allows systematic investigation of somatosensory subtypes during a variety of naturalistic behaviors. Although this study focused on nociceptors innervating the skin (Trpv1::ChR2 animals), this setup can be extended to other cutaneous sensory neuron subtypes, such as low-threshold mechanoreceptors and pruriceptors. This system can also be adapted for studying more complex behaviors, such as the maze assay and goal-directed movements.

Weaknesses:

Although the paper has strengths, its weakness is that some behavioral outputs could be analyzed in more detail to reveal different types of responses to painful cutaneous stimuli. For example, paw withdrawals were detected after optogenetically stimulating the paw (Figures 3E and 3F). Animals exhibit different types of responses to painful stimuli on the hind paw in standard pain assays, such as paw lifting, biting, and flicking, each indicating a different level of pain. Improving the behavioral readouts from body part tracking would greatly strengthen this system by providing deeper insights into the role of somatosensation in naturalistic behaviors. Additionally, if the laser spot size could be reduced to a diameter of 2 mm², it would allow the activation of a smaller number of cutaneous afferents, or even a single one, across different skin types in the paw, such as glabrous or hairy skin.

We thank the reviewer for highlighting how our system can be combined with improved readouts of coping behavior to provide deeper insights. Optogenetic and infrared cutaneous stimulation are well established generators of coping behaviors (lifting, flicking, licking, biting, guarding). Detection of these behaviors is an active and evolving field with progress being made regularly (e.g. Jones et al., eLife 2020 [PAWS];  Wotton et al., Mol Pain 2020; Zhang et al., Pain 2022; Oswell et al., bioRxiv 2024 [LUPE]; Barkai et al., Cell Reports Methods 2025 [BAREfoot], along with more general tools like Hsu et al., Nature Communications 2021 [B-SOiD]; Luxem et al., Communications Biology 2022 [VAME]; Weinreb et al,. Nature Methods 2024 [Keypoints-MoSeq]). One output of our system is bodypart keypoints, which are the typical input to many of these tools. We will leave the readers and users of the system to decide which tools are appropriate for their experimental designs - the focus of this current manuscript is describing the novel stimulation approach in moving animals.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) It is hard to see how the rig is arranged from the render of Figure 2AB due to the components being black on black. A particularly useful part of Fig2AB is the aerial view in panel B that shows the light paths. I suggest adding the labelling of Figure 2A also to that. The side/rear views could perhaps be deleted, allowing the aerial view to be larger.

We appreciate this suggestion and have revised Figure 2B to improve the visibility of the optomechanical components. We have enlarged the side and aerial views, removed the rear view, and added further labels to the aerial view.

(2) MAE - to interpret the 0.54 result, it would be useful to state the arena size in this paragraph.

Thank you. We have added the arena size in this paragraph and also added scales in the relevant figure (Figure 2).

(3) "pairwise correlations of R = 0.999 along both x- and y-axes". Is this correlation between hindpaw keypoint and galvo coordinates?

Yes, we have added the following to clarify: “...between galvanometer coordinates and hind paw keypoints”

(4) Latency was 84 ms. Is this mainly/entirely the delay between DLC receiving the camera image and outputting key point coordinates?

Yes, we hope that the additional detail in the Methods and Discussion described above will now clarify the current closed-loop latencies.

(5) "Mice move at variable speeds": in this sentence, spell out when "speed" refers to mouse and when it refers to hindpaw. Similarly, Fig 2i. The sentence is potentially confusing to general readers (paws stationary although the mouse is moving). Presumably, it's due to gait. I suggest explaining this here.

The speed values that relate to the mouse body and paws are now clearer in the main text and in the legend for Figure 2I.

(6) Figure 2k and associated main text. It is not clear what "success/hit rate" means here.

We have added the following sentence in the main text: “Hit accuracy refers to the percentage of trials in which the laser successfully targeted (‘hit’) the intended hind paw.” and use hit accuracy throughout instead of success rate.

(7) Figure 2L. All these points are greater than the "average" 0.54 reported in the text. How is this possible?

The MAE of 0.54 mm refers to the “predicted and actual laser spot locations” (that is, the difference between where the calibration map should place the laser spot and where it actually fell), while Figure 2L MAE values refers to the error between the ground truth keypoint to laser spot (that is, the error between the human-observed paw target and where the laser spot fell). The latter error will include the former error so is expected to be larger. We have clarified this point throughout the text, for example, stating “As laser targeting relies on real-time tracking to direct the laser to the specified body part, this metric inherently accounts for any errors introduced by the tracking and targeting.”. This is also discussed above in response to Reviewer 2.

(8) "large circular arena". State the size here

We have added this to the Figure 2 legend.

(9) Figure 3c-left. Can the contrast between the mouse and floor be increased here?

We have improved the contrast in this image.

(10) Figure 5c. It is unclear what C1, C2, etc refers to. Mice?

Yes, these refer to mice. We have removed reference to these now as they are not needed.

(11) Discussion. A comment. There is scope for elaborating on the potential for new research by combining it with new methods for measurements of neural activity in freely moving animals in the somatosensory system.

Thank you. We agree and have added more detail on this in the discussion stating “The system may be combined with existing tools to record neural activity in freely-moving mice, such as fiber photometry, miniscopes, or large-scale electrophysiology, and manipulations of this neural activity, such as optogenetics and chemogenetics. This can allow mechanistic dissection of cell and circuit biology in the context of naturalistic behaviors.”

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) Include the number of animals for behavior assays for the panels (e.g., Figures 4G).

Where missing, we now state the number of animals in panels.

(2) If representative responses are shown, such as in Figures 3E and 4F, include the average response with standard deviation so readers can appreciate the variation in the responses.

We appreciate the suggestion to show variability in the responses. We have made several changes to Figures 3 and 4. Specifically, to illustrate the variability across multiple trials more clearly, Figure 3E now shows representative keypoint traces for each body part from two mice during their 5 trials. For Figure 4, we have re-analyzed the thermal stimulation trials and shown a raster plot of keypoint-based local motion energy (Figure 4E) sorted by response latency for hundreds of trials. Figure 4G now presents the cumulative distribution for all trials and animals for thermal (18 wild-type mice, 315 trials) and optogenetic stimulation trials (9 Trpv1::ChR2 mice, 181 trials). We also now provide means ± SD for the key metrics for optogenetic and thermal stimulation trials in Figure 4 in the Results section. This keeps the manuscript focused on the methodological advances while showing the trial variability.

(3) "optical targeting of freely-moving mice in a large environments" should be "optical targeting of freely-moving mice in a large environment".

Corrected

(4) Define fps when you first mention this in the manuscript.

Added

(5) Data needs to be shown for the claim "Mice concurrently turned their heads toward the stimulus location while repositioning their bodies away from it".

We state this observation to qualify that the stimulation of stationary mice resulted in behavioral responses “consistent with previous studies”. It would be redundant to repeat our full analysis and might distract from the novelty of the current manuscript. We have restricted this sentence to make it clearer: “Consistent with previous studies, we observed the whole-body behaviors like head orienting concurrent with local withdrawal (Browne et al., Cell Reports 2017; Blivis et al., eLife, 2017.)”

eLife Assessment

This compelling work describes how the cell cycle-regulating phosphatase subunit, RepoMan, is regulated by the oxygen-dependent, metabolite-sensing hydroxylase PHD1. The characterisation of how proline hydroxylation alters signalling at the molecular and cellular level provides important evidence to enhance our understanding of how 2-oxoglutarate-dependent dioxygenases influence the cell cycle and mitosis.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The study by Druker et al. shows that siRNA depletion of PHD1, but not PHD2, increases H3T3 phosphorylation in cells arrested in prometaphase. Additionally, the expression of wild-type RepoMan, but not the RepoMan P604A mutant, restored normal H3T3 phosphorylation localization in cells arrested in prometaphase. Furthermore, the study demonstrates that expression of the RepoMan P604A mutant leads to defects in chromosome alignment and segregation, resulting in increased cell death. These data support a role for PHD1-mediated prolyl hydroxylation in controlling progression through mitosis. This occurs, at least in part, by hydroxylating RepoMan at P604, which regulates its interaction with PP2A during chromosome alignment.

Strengths:

The data support most of the conclusions made.

Comments on revisions:

Actually, I am still concerned that PHD1 binds to RepoMan endogenously and directly. Furthermore, the authors have not yet provided genetic evidence demonstrating that PHD1 controls progression through mitosis by catalyzing the hydroxylation of RepoMan.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This is a concise and interesting article on the role of PHD1-mediated proline hydroxylation of proline residue 604 on RepoMan and its impact on RepoMan-PP1 interactions with phosphatase PP2A-B56 complex leading to dephosphorylation of H3T3 on chromosomes during mitosis. Through biochemical and imaging tools, the authors delineate a key mechanism in regulation of progression of the cell cycle. The experiments performed are conclusive with well-designed controls.

Strengths:

The authors have utilized cutting edge imaging and colocalization detection technologies to infer the conclusions in the manuscript.

Weaknesses:

Lack of in vitro reconstitution and binding data.

Comments on revisions:

Thank you, authors, for providing the statistics and siRNA validations. While I maintain that the manuscript's claims can benefit a lot from the in vitro experiments and that a Pro-Ala mutation may not be a good mimic for Pro-hydroxylation, I understand the authors' reservations and restrictions regarding the new experiments. Despite the lacunae, the manuscript is a good advance for the field.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript is a comprehensive molecular and cell biological characterisation of the effects of P604 hydroxylation by PHD1 on RepoMan, a regulatory subunit of the PPIgamma complex. Conclusions are generally supported by results. Overall, a timely study that demonstrates the interplay between hydroxylase signalling and the cell cycle. The study extends the scope of prolyl hydroxylase signalling beyond canonical hypoxia pathways, providing a concrete example of hydroxylation regulating PP1 holoenzyme composition and function during mitosis.

The work would benefit from additional biochemical validation of direct targeting to characterise the specificity and mode of recognition, but this is beyond the scope of the study.

Strengths:

Compelling data, characterisation of how P604 hydroxylation induces the interaction between RepoMan and a phosphatase complex, resulting in loading of RepoMan on Chromatin. Knockdown of PHD1 mimics the disruption of the complex and loss of the regulation of the hydroxylation site by PHD1, resulting in mitotic defects.

Author response:

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The study by Druker et al. shows that siRNA depletion of PHD1, but not PHD2, increases H3T3 phosphorylation in cells arrested in prometaphase. Additionally, the expression of wild-type RepoMan, but not the RepoMan P604A mutant, restored normal H3T3 phosphorylation localization in cells arrested in prometaphase. Furthermore, the study demonstrates that expression of the RepoMan P604A mutant leads to defects in chromosome alignment and segregation, resulting in increased cell death. These data support a role for PHD1-mediated prolyl hydroxylation in controlling progression through mitosis. This occurs, at least in part, by hydroxylating RepoMan at P604, which regulates its interaction with PP2A during chromosome alignment.

Strengths:

The data support most of the conclusions made. However, some issues need to be addressed.

Weaknesses:

(1) Although ectopically expressed PHD1 interacts with ectopically expressed RepoMan, there is no evidence that endogenous PHD1 binds to endogenous RepoMan or that PHD1 directly binds to RepoMan.

We do not fully agree that this comment is accurate - the implication is that we only show interaction between two exogenously expressed proteins, i.e. both exogenous PHD1 and RepoMan, when in fact we show that tagged PHD1 interacts with endogenous RepoMan. The major technical challenge here is the well-known difficulty of detecting endogenous PHD1 in such cell lines. We agree that co-IP studies do not prove that this interaction is direct and never claim to have shown this, though we do feel that a direct interaction is most likely, albeit not proven.

(2) There is no genetic evidence indicating that PHD1 controls progression through mitosis by catalyzing the hydroxylation of RepoMan.

We agree that our current study is primarily a biochemical and cell biological study, rather than a genetic study. Nonetheless, similar biochemical and cellular approaches have been widely used and validated in previous studies in mechanisms regulating cell cycle progression and we are confident in the conclusions drawn based on the data obtained so far.

(3) Data demonstrating the correlation between dynamic changes in RepoMan hydroxylation and H3T3 phosphorylation throughout the cell cycle are needed.

We agree that it will be very interesting to analyse in more detail the cell cycle dynamics of RepoMan hydroxylation and H3T3 phosphorylation - along with other cell cycle parameters. We view this as outside the scope of our present study and are actively engaged in raising the additional funding needed to pursue such future experiments.

(4) The authors should provide biochemical evidence of the difference in binding ability between RepoMan WT/PP2A and RepoMan P604A/PP2A.

Here again we agree that it will be very interesting to analyse in future the detailed binding interactions between wt and mutant RepoMan and other interacting proteins, including PP2A. We show reduced interaction in cells by PLA (Figure 5A) and in biochemical analysis (Figure 5C). More in vitro analysis is, in our view, outside the scope of our present study and we are actively engaged in raising the additional funding needed to pursue such future experiments.

(5) PHD2 is the primary proline hydroxylase in cells. Why does PHD1, but not PHD2, affect RepoMan hydroxylation and subsequent control of mitotic progression? The authors should discuss this issue further.

We agree with the main point underpinning this comment, i.e., that there are still many things to be learned concerning the specific roles and mechanisms of the different PHD enzymes in vivo. We address this in the Discussion section and look forward to addressing these questions experimentally in future studies.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This is a concise and interesting article on the role of PHD1-mediated proline hydroxylation of proline residue 604 on RepoMan and its impact on RepoMan-PP1 interactions with phosphatase PP2A-B56 complex leading to dephosphorylation of H3T3 on chromosomes during mitosis. Through biochemical and imaging tools, the authors delineate a key mechanism in the regulation of the progression of the cell cycle. The experiments performed are conclusive with well-designed controls.

Strengths:

The authors have utilized cutting-edge imaging and colocalization detection technologies to infer the conclusions in the manuscript.

Weaknesses:

Lack of in vitro reconstitution and binding data.

We agree that it will be very interesting to pursue in vitro reconstitution studies and detailed binding data. We view this as outside the scope of our present study and are actively engaged in raising the additional funding needed to pursue such future experiments. We do provide in vitro hydroxylation data in our accompanying manuscript by Jiang et al, 2025 Elife.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript is a comprehensive molecular and cell biological characterisation of the effects of P604 hydroxylation by PHD1 on RepoMan, a regulatory subunit of the PPIgamma complex. The identification and molecular characterisation of the hydroxylation site have been written up and deposited in BioRxiv in a separate manuscript. I reviewed the data and came to the conclusion that the hydroxylation site has been identified and characterised to a very high standard by LC-MS, in cells and in vitro reactions. I conclude that we should have no question about the validity of the PHD1-mediated hydroxylation. 

In the context of the presented manuscript, the authors postulate that hydroxylation on P604 by PHD1 leads to the inactivation of the complex, resulting in the retention of pThr3 in H3. 

Strengths:

Compelling data, characterisation of how P604 hydroxylation is likely to induce the interaction between RepoMan and a phosphatase complex, resulting in loading of RepoMan on Chromatin. Loss of the regulation of the hydroxylation site by PHD1 results in mitotic defects.

Weaknesses:

Reliance on a Proline-Alanine mutation in RepoMan to mimic an unhydroxylatable protein. The mutation will introduce structural alterations, and inhibition or knockdown of PHD1 would be necessary to strengthen the data on how hydroxylates regulate chromatin loading and interactions with B56/PP2A.

We do not agree that we rely solely on analysis of the single site pro-ala mutant in RepoMan for our conclusions, since we also present a raft of additional experimental evidence, including knock-down data and experiments using both fumarate and FG. We would also reference the data we present on RepoMan in the parallel study by Jiang et al, which has also published in eLife(https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.108128.1)). Of course, we agree with the reviewer that even although the mutant RepoMan features only a single amino acid change, this could still result in undetermined structural effects on the RepoMan protein that could conceivably contribute, at least in part, to some of the phenotypic effects observed. We now provide evidence in the current revision (new Figure 5D) that reduced interaction between RepoMan and B56gamma/PP2A is also evident when PHD1 is depleted from cells.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) The manuscript can benefit from improved quality of writing and avoidance of grammatical errors.

We have checked through the manuscript again and corrected any mistakes we have encountered in the Current revision.

(2) Although the data in the manuscript is compelling, it is difficult to rule out indirect effects in the interactions. Hence, in vitro binding assays with purified proteins are important to validate the findings, along with in vitro reconstitution of phosphatase activity.

It is possible that cofactors and / or additional PTMs are required to promote these interactions in vivo. We have provided in vitro hydroxylation analysis and the additional experiments suggested will be the subject of follow-on future studies.

(3) Proline to alanine is a drastic mutation in the amino acid backbone. The authors could purify PHD1 and reconstitute P604 hydroxylation to show if it performs as expected.

This is likely to be a challenging experiment technically, given that RepoMan is a component of multiple distinct complexes, some of which are dynamic. We did not feel able to address this within the scope of the current study.

(4) The confocal images showing the overlap of two fluorescent signals need to show some sort of quantification and statistics to prove that the overlap is significant.

We now provide Pearson correlation measurements for Figure 2A in new Figure 2B in the Current revision.

(5) Kindly provide a clearer panel for the Western blot of H3T3ph in Figure 3c.

We have now included a new panel for this Figure in the Current revision.

(6) Kindly also include the figures for validation of siRNAs used in the study

We have added this throughout in supplementary figures.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) The authors have shown that PHD1 and RepoMan interact; can the interaction be "trapped" by the addition of DMOG? Generally, hydroxylase substrates can be trapped, which would add an additional layer of confidence that PHD1 and RepoMan form an enzyme-substrate complex. 

This is something we are planning to do for follow-up studies using the established methods from the von Kriesgheim laboratory.

(2) How does P604A mutation affect the interaction with PHD1? One would expect a reduction in interaction. 

Another interesting point we are planning to investigate in the future.

(3) The effects of expression of the wt and P604A mutant repoman are well-characterised. Could the authors check the effects of overexpressing PHD1 and deadPHD1, inhibition on the mitosis/H3 phosphorylation? My concerns are that a P-A mutation will disrupt the secondary structure, and although it is a good tool, data should be backed up by increasing/decreasing the hydroxylation of RepoMan over the mutation. Repeat some of the most salient experiments where the P604A mutation has been used and modulate the hydP604 by modulating PHD1 activity/expression (such as Chromatin interaction, PLA assay, B56gamma interaction, H3 phosphorylation localisation, Monastrol release, etc.)

We agree, the PA mutant can potentially affect the protein structure. In our manuscript we have provided pH3 analysis for PHD inhibition using siRNA, FG4592 and Fumarate. In the Current revision ee also data showing that depletion of PHD1 results in a reduction in interaction between RepoMan and B56gamma/PP2A. This is now presented in new figure 5D.

(4) I also have a general question, as a point of interest, as the interaction between PHD1 and RepoMan appears to be cell cycle dependent, is it possible that the hydroxylation status cycles as well? Could this explain how some sub-stochiometric hydroxylation events observed may be masked by assessing unsynchronised cells in bulk?

Indeed, a very good question. We believe this is an interesting question for follow up studies. Given our previous publication showing phosphorylation of PHD1 by CDKs alters substrate binding (Ortmann et al, 2016 JCS), this is our current hypothesis.

knowing the direction of demand does not equal to the magnitude. It isn't a vector quantity (ie- scalar) if I were to give an analogy. Another way to calculate PED is using calculus. Using differentiation is essentially equivilent to rate of change of demand corresponding to rate of change of price.

eLife Assessment

This important study explores how the phase of neural oscillations in the alpha band affects visual perception, indicating that perceptual performance varies due to changes in sensory precision rather than decision bias. The evidence is solid in its experimental design and analytical approach, although the limited sample size restricts the generalizability of the findings. This work should interest cognitive neuroscientists who study perception and decision-making.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In their paper entitled "Alpha-Band Phase Modulates Perceptual Sensitivity by Changing Internal Noise and Sensory Tuning," Pilipenko et al. investigate how pre-stimulus alpha phase influences near-threshold visual perception. The authors aim to clarify whether alpha phase primarily shifts the criterion, multiplicatively amplifies signals, or changes the effective variance and tuning of sensory evidence. Six observers completed many thousands of trials in a double-pass Gabor-in-noise detection task while an EEG was recorded. The authors combine signal detection theory, phase-resolved analyses, and reverse correlation to test mechanistic predictions. The experimental design and analysis pipeline provide a clear conceptual scaffold, with SDT-based schematic models that make the empirical results accessible even for readers who are not specialists in classification-image methods.

Strengths:

The study presents a coherent and well-executed investigation with several notable strengths. First, the main behavioral and EEG results in Figure 2 demonstrate robust pre-stimulus coupling between alpha phase and d′ across a substantial portion of the pre-stimulus interval, with little evidence that the criterion is modulated to a comparable extent. The inverse phasic relationship between hit and false-alarm rates maps clearly onto the variance-reduction account, and the response-consistency analysis offers an intuitive behavioral complement: when two identical stimuli are both presented at the participant's optimal phase, responses are more consistent than when one or both occur at suboptimal phases. The frontal-occipital phase-difference result suggests a coordinated rather than purely local phase mechanism, supporting the central claim that alpha phase is linked to changes in sensitivity that behave like changes in internal variability rather than simple gain or criterion shifts. Supplementary analyses showing that alpha power has only a limited relationship with d′ and confidence reassure readers that the main effects are genuinely phase-linked rather than a recasting of amplitude differences.

Second, the reverse-correlation results in Figure 3 extend this story in a satisfying way. The classification images and their Gaussian fits show that at the optimal phase, the weighting of stimulus energy is more sharply concentrated around target-relevant spatial frequencies and orientations, and the bootstrapped parameter distributions indicate that the suboptimal phase is best described by broader tuning and a modest change in gain rather than a pure criterion account. The authors' interpretation that optimal-phase perception reflects both reduced effective internal noise and sharpened sensory tuning is reasonable and well-supported. Overall, the data and figures largely achieve the stated aims, and the work is likely to have an impact both by clarifying the interpretation of alpha-phase effects and by illustrating a useful analytic framework that other groups can adopt.

Weaknesses:

The weaknesses are limited and relate primarily to framing and presentation rather than to the substance of the work. First, because contrast was titrated to maintain moderate performance (d′ between 1.2 and 1.8), the phase-linked changes in sensitivity appear modest in absolute terms, which could benefit from explicit contextualization. Second, a coding error resulted in unequal numbers of double-pass stimulus pairs across participants, which affects the interpretability of the response-consistency results. Third, several methodological details could be stated more explicitly to enhance transparency, including stimulus timing specifications, electrode selection criteria, and the purpose of phase alignment in group averaging. Finally, some mechanistic interpretations in the Discussion could be phrased more conservatively to clearly distinguish between measurement and inference, particularly regarding the relationship between reduced internal noise and sharpened tuning, and the physiological implementation of the frontal-occipital phase relationship.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The study of Pilipenko et al evaluated the role of alpha phase in a visual perception paradigm using the framework of signal detection theory and reverse correlation. Their findings suggest that phase-related modulations in perception are mediated by a reduction in internal noise and a moderate increase in tuning to relevant features of the stimuli in specific phases of the alpha cycle. Interestingly, the alpha phase did not affect the criterion. Criterion was related to modulations in alpha power, in agreement with previous research.

Strengths:

The experiment was carefully designed, and the analytical pipeline is original and suited to answer the research question. The authors frame the research question very well and propose several models that account for the possible mechanisms by which the alpha phase can modulate perception. This study can be very valuable for the ongoing discussion about the role of alpha activity in perception.

Weaknesses:

The sample size collected (N = 6) is, in my opinion, too small for the statistical approach adopted (group level). It is well known that small sample sizes result in an increased likelihood of false positives; even in the case of true positives, effect sizes are inflated (Button et al., 2013; Tamar and Orban de Xivry, 2019), negatively affecting the replicability of the effect.

Although the experimental design allows for an accurate characterization of the effects at the single-subject level, conclusions are drawn from group-level aggregated measures. With only six subjects, the estimation of between-subject variability is not reliable. The authors need to acknowledge that the sample size is too small; therefore, results should be interpreted with caution.

Conclusion:

This study addresses an important and timely question and proposes an original and well-thought-out analytical framework to investigate the role of alpha phase in visual perception. While the experimental design and theoretical motivation are strong, the very limited sample size substantially constrains the strength of the conclusions that can be drawn at the group level.

Bibliography:

Button, K., Ioannidis, J., Mokrysz, C. et al. Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci 14, 365-376 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3475

Tamar R Makin, Jean-Jacques Orban de Xivry (2019) Science Forum: Ten common statistical mistakes to watch out for when writing or reviewing a manuscript eLife 8:e48175 https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.48175

Author response:

We would like to thank the reviewers for their helpful feedback. We appreciate their recognition of many positive features from our study and plan to address the weaknesses with the following set of changes:

Reviewer #1 rightly points out that the titration of performance throughout the experiment could reduce the overall size of the phasic effect we observed by compressing the overall range of d’. In our revision, we plan to acknowledge the potential consequence of stimulus titration as well as emphasize that the resultant vector length approach we took to quantify phase-behavior coupling is a better reflection of the effect size than the plot of phase-binned d’. Next, we will include language cautioning the certainty of our double-pass statistics since half of our participants had much fewer double-pass trials due to a coding error. Finally, we can gladly clarify methodological details requested and revise the discussions by phrasing several of our interpretations more conservatively: specifically discussing the possibility that the frontal-occipital phase difference could also arise from two counter-phase sources, and including the possibility that sensory noise reduction and sharpened tuning may be two separate mechanisms.

Reviewer #2 raises concerns about performing group-level statistical analyses on a small sample size. We acknowledge this as a reasonable concern and will include the single-subject effects of our main analysis in the Supplementary Materials as well as discuss that although the sample size is a limitation of our study, there are several justifications for taking a small-n, large-trial approach given our research question. We would also like to highlight that we feel more confident in the reproducibility of our results given the convergence of evidence across multiple measures (phase-d’ coupling, counter-phasic hit and false alarm rates, response consistency, and classification images) which are all pointing towards a consistent interpretation of a phase effect on internal variability.

eLife Assessment

IL21R, being a key cytokine receptor for shaping the T follicular helper and B cell functions, utilizes two STAT family members, STAT1 and STAT3. The authors utilize the IL21R ENU-induced mutant, together with relevant in vitro and in vivo experiments, to dissect the function of STAT1 and STAT3. The approach by itself sounds reasonable, but the main conclusions are incompletely supported by the data presented in this manuscript.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

King and colleagues generated a mouse with a point mutation in IL21R and investigated the influence on IL-21-mediated T and B cell activation and differentiation. They found that mutant mice show a reduced T and B cell response, with CD4 T cell differentiation into T follicular helper cells being primarily affected.

Strengths:

The authors combined in vitro and in vivo analysis, including bone-marrow chimeric mice.

Weaknesses:

The effect of the IL21R EINS mutant does not specifically affect STAT1, as clearly shown in Figure 1 H, I. Particularly at lower doses of IL21, which may be more relevant in vivo, the effects are very similar. A second key weakness is the very small Tfh response, a not very clear PD-1 and CXCR5 staining to identify Tfh, and a lack of a steady-state (prior to immunisation) comparison of Tfh numbers in the different mouse strains. The latter makes it impossible to know what fraction of the response is antigen-specific.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In the manuscript, "An IL-21R hypomorph circumvents functional redundancy to define STAT1 signaling in germinal center responses," Cecile King and colleagues identify a cytoplasmic site of the IL-21 receptor that differentially regulates STAT1 and STAT3 activation upon IL-21 stimulation. They further examine the immunological consequences of this site-specific alteration on Tfh differentiation and Tfh-dependent humoral immunity, raising important questions about how gene-knockout models may obscure nuanced functional roles of signaling molecules.

Strengths:

The study convincingly highlights a non-redundant role for STAT1 downstream of IL-21-IL-21R signaling in the Tfh differentiation pathway. This conclusion is supported by in vitro analyses of STAT1 and STAT3 activation in CD4 T cells stimulated with IL-21 or IL-6; by in vivo assessments of Tfh and germinal center B cell responses in WT and IL21R-EINS mutant mice, including bone-marrow chimera systems; and by investigating the expression of Tfh-related molecules in WT versus IL21R-EINS CD4 T cells.

Weaknesses:

Although the experiments were carefully executed with appropriate controls, a key question remains unresolved: whether the Tfh differentiation defect in IL21R-EINS mice is directly attributable to reduced STAT1 activation. Rescue experiments that restore STAT1 signaling in IL21R-EINS TCR-transgenic CD4 T cells would provide strong evidence linking the mutation to impaired STAT1 activation and, consequently, defective Tfh differentiation. Without such evidence, it remains formally possible that additional, uncharacterized mutations introduced during ENU mutagenesis contribute to the phenotypes observed, particularly given the discrepancies between IL21R knockout and IL21R-EINS mutant mice.

eLife Assessment

This study addresses a key, long-standing question about how visual feature selectivity is organized in mid-level visual cortex, using an ambitious combination of large-scale neural recordings and image synthesis. It provides important insights into the complexity of single-neuron selectivity and suggests a structured organization across cortical depth. While the evidence is generally solid and technically impressive, several key claims would be strengthened by additional controls, particularly regarding the sources of similarity across neurons and the dependence of the results on modeling choices.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Willeke et al. hypothesize that macaque V4, like other visual areas, may exhibit a topographic functional organization. One challenge to studying the functional (tuning) organization of V4 is that neurons in V4 are selective for complex visual stimuli that are hard to parameterize. Thus, the authors leverage an approach comprising digital twins and most exciting stimuli (MEIs) that they have pioneered. This data-driven, deep-learning framework can effectively handle the difficulty of parametrizing relevant stimuli. They verify that the model-synthesized MEIs indeed drive V4 neurons more effectively than matched natural image controls. They then performed psychophysics experiments (on humans) along with the application of contrastive learning to illustrate that anatomically neighboring neurons often care about similar stimuli. Importantly, the weaknesses of the approach are clearly appreciated and discussed.

Comments:

(1) The correlation between predictions and data is 0.43. I'd agree with the authors that this is "reliable" and would recommend that they discuss how the fact that performance is not saturated influences the results.

(2) Modeling V4 using a CNN and claiming that the identified functional groups look like those found in artificial vision systems may be a bit circular.

(3) No architecture other than ResNet-50 was tested. This might be a major drawback, since the MEIs could very well be reflections of the architecture and also the statistics of the dataset, rather than intrinsic biological properties. Do the authors find the same result with different architectures as the basis of the goal-driven model?

(4) The closed-loop analysis seems to be using a much smaller sample of the recorded neurons - "resulting in n=55 neurons for the analysis of the closed-loop paradigm".

(5) A discussion on adversarial machine learning and the adversarial training that was used is lacking.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This is an ambitious and technically powerful study, investigating a long-standing question about the functional organization of area V4. The project combined large-scale single-unit electrophysiology in macaque V4 with deep learning-based activation maximization to characterize neuronal tuning in natural image space. The authors built predictive encoding models for V4 neurons and used these models to synthesize most exciting images (MEIs), which are subsequently validated in vivo using a closed-loop experimental paradigm.

Overall, the manuscript advances three main claims:

(1) Individual V4 neurons showed complex and highly structured selectivity for naturalistic visual features, including textures, curvatures, repeating patterns, and apparently eye-like motifs.

(2) Neurons recorded along the same linear probe penetration tended to have more similar MEIs than neurons recorded at different cortical locations (this similarity was supported by human psychophysics and by distances in a learned, contrastive image embedding space).

(3) MEIs clustered into a limited number of functional groups that resembled feature visualizations observed in deep convolutional neural networks.

Strengths:

(1) The study is important in that it is the first to apply activation maximization to neurons sampled at such fine spatial resolution. The authors used 32-channel linear silicon probes, spanning approximately 2 mm of cortical depth, with inter-contact spacing of roughly 60 µm. This enabled fine sampling across most of the cortical thickness of V4, substantially finer resolution than prior Utah-array or surface-biased approaches.

(2) A key strength is the direct in vivo validation of model-derived synthetic images by stimulating the same neurons used to build the models, a critical step often absent in other neural network-based encoding studies.

(3) More broadly, the study highlights the value of probing neuronal selectivity with rich, naturalistic stimulus spaces rather than relying exclusively on oversimplified stimuli such as Gabors.

Weaknesses:

(1) A central claim is that neurons sampled within the same penetration shared MEI tuning properties compared to neurons sampled in different penetrations because of functional organization. I am concerned about technical correlations in activity due to technical or methodology-related approaches (for example, shared reference or grounding) instead of functional organization alone. These recordings were obtained with linear silicon probes, and there have been observations that neuronal activity along this type of probe (including neuropixels probes) may be correlated above what prior work showed, using manually advanced single electrodes. For example, Fujita et al. (1992) showed finer micro-domains and systematic changes in selectivity along a cortical penetration, and it is not clear if that is true or detectable here. I think that the manuscript would be strengthened by a more thorough and explicit characterization of lower-level response correlations (at the neuronal electrophysiology level) prior to starting with fitting models. In particular, the authors could examine noise correlations along the electrode shaft (using the repeated test images, for example), as well as signal correlations in tuning, both within and across sessions. It would also be helpful to clarify whether these correlations depended on penetration day, recording chamber hole (how many were used?), or spatial separation between penetrations, and whether repeated use of the same hole yielded stable or changing correlations. Illustrations of the peristimulus time histogram changes across the shaft and across penetrations would also help. All of this would help us understand if the reports of clustering were technically inevitable due to the technique.

(2) It is difficult to understand a story of visual cortex neurons without more information about their receptive field locations and widths, particularly given that the stimulus was full-screen. I understand that there was a sparse random dot stimulus used to find the population RF, so it should be possible to visualize the individual and population RFs. Also, the investigators inferred the locations of the important patches using a masking algorithm, but where were those masks relative to the retinal image, and how distributed were they as a function of the shaft location? This would help us understand how similar each contact was.

(3) A major claim is that V4 MEIs formed groups that were comparable to those produced by artificial vision systems, "suggesting potential shared encoding strategies." The issue is that the "shared encoding strategy" might be the authors' use of this same class of models in the first place. It would be useful to know if different functional groups arise as a function of other encoding neural network models, beyond the robust-trained ResNet-50. I am unsure to what extent the reported clustering, depth-wise similarity, and correspondence to artificial features depended on architectural and training bias. It would substantially strengthen the manuscript to test whether a similar organizational structure would emerge using alternative encoding models, such as attention-based vision transformers, self-supervised visual representations, or other non-convolutional architectures. Another important point of contrast would be to examine the functional groups encoded by the ResNet architecture before its activations were fit to V4 neuronal activity: put simply, is ResNet just re-stating what it already knows?

(4) Several comparisons to prior work are presented largely at a qualitative level, without quantitative support. For example, the authors state that their MEIs are consistent with known tuning properties of macaque V4, such as selectivity for shape, curvature, and texture. However, this claim is not supported by explicit image analyses or metrics that would substantiate these correspondences beyond appeal to visual inspection. Incorporating quantitative analyses, for instance, measures of curvature, texture statistics, or comparisons to established stimulus sets, would strengthen these links to prior literature and clarify the relationship between the synthesized MEIs and previously characterized V4 tuning properties.

Cultural capital therefore stems from monetary and time capital. You need both, and then you are allowed new forms of communication, new forms of convincing others, of sharing a framework, an ideology, of not just performing but coming learned. This is a current pervasive ideal: The fact that different motivations and experiential situations are to be homogenised, and that when you come to an educational activity, you must do so with specific requirements and mindset.

This is one of the most notable wings of meritocratic thought and efficiency, when in actuality, lack of retraining often makes senior workers stagnate, and replace about collective innovation for top-down imposition, whereas newer entrants are judged harshly and demobilised, sterilised, as if they were playing pretend with toys and not engaging with the real material.

eLife Assessment

This is a useful study presenting solid data indicating that the bacterial GTPases EngA and ObgE enable single-step reconstitution of functional 50S ribosomal subunits under near-physiological conditions. The study elegantly bridges the gap between the non-physiological aspects of the previous two-step reconstitution method and the extract-dependent iSAT system to enable ribosome assembly under translation-compatible conditions; however, it is limited by reliance on rRNA and proteins extracted from native ribosomes and does not achieve a true bottom-up reconstruction from all synthetic components. The evidence is incomplete in not characterizing the spectrum of reporter polypeptides produced and not comparing their rate and yield of synthesis from reconstituted ribosomes to that obtained with pure native ribosomes; and the impact of the study is limited by not including reporters to examine the fidelity of initiation, elongation or termination achieved with the reconstituted ribosomes.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study presents evidence that the addition of the two GTPases EngA and ObgE to reactions comprised of rRNAs and total ribosomal proteins purified from native bacterial ribosomes can bypass the requirements for non-physiological temperature shifts and Mg⁺² ion concentrations for in vitro reconstitution of functional E. coli ribosomes.

Strengths:

This advance allows ribosome reconstitution in a fully reconstituted protein synthesis system containing individually purified recombinant translation factors, with the reconstituted ribosomes substituting for native purified ribosomes to support protein synthesis. This work potentially represents an important development in the long-term effort to produce synthetic cells.

Weaknesses:

While much of the evidence is solid, the analysis is incomplete in certain respects that detract from the scientific quality and significance of the findings:

(1) The authors do not describe how the native ribosomal proteins (RPs) were purified, and it is unclear whether all subassemblies of RPs have been disrupted in the purification procedure. If not, additional chaperones might be required beyond the two GTPases described here for functional ribosome assembly from individual RPs.

(2) Reconstitution studies in the past have succeeded by using all recombinant, individually purified RPs, which would clearly address the issue in the preceding comment and also eliminate the possibility that an unknown ribosome assembly factor that co-purifies with native ribosomes has been added to the reconstitution reactions along with the RPs.

(3) They never compared the efficiency of the reconstituted ribosomes to native ribosomes added to the "PURE" in vitro protein synthesis system, making it unclear what proportion of the reconstituted ribosomes are functional, and how protein yield per mRNA molecule compares to that given by the PURE system programmed with purified native ribosomes.

(4) They also have not examined the synthesized GFP protein by SDS-PAGE to determine what proportion is full-length.

(5) The previous development of the PURE system included examinations of the synthesis of multiple proteins, one of which was an enzyme whose specific activity could be compared to that of the native enzyme. This would be a significant improvement to the current study. They could also have programmed the translation reactions containing reconstituted ribosomes with (i) total native mRNA and compared the products in SDS-PAGE to those obtained with the control PURE system containing native ribosomes; (ii) with specifc reporter mRNAs designed to examine dependence on a Shine-Dalgarno sequence and the impact of an in-frame stop codon in prematurely terminating translation to assess the fidelity of initiation and termination events; and (iii) an mRNA with a programmed frameshift site to assess elongation fidelity displayed by their reconstituted ribosomes.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This study presents a significant advance in the field of in vitro ribosome assembly by demonstrating that the bacterial GTPases EngA and ObgE enable single-step reconstitution of functional 50S ribosomal subunits under near-physiological conditions-specifically at 37 {degree sign}C and with total Mg²⁺ concentrations below 10 mM.

This achievement directly addresses a long-standing limitation of the traditional two-step in vitro assembly protocol (Nierhaus & Dohme, PNAS 1974), which requires non-physiological temperatures (44-50 {degree sign}C), and high Mg²⁺ concentrations (~20 mM). Inspired by the integrated Synthesis, Assembly, and Translation (iSAT) platform (Jewett et al., Mol Syst Biol 2013), leveraging E. coli S150 crude extract, which supplies essential assembly factors, the authors hypothesize that specific ribosome biogenesis factors-particularly GTPases present in such extracts-may be responsible for enabling assembly under mild conditions. Through systematic screening, they identify EngA and ObgE as the minimal pair sufficient to replace the need for temperature and Mg²⁺ shifts when using phenol-extracted (i.e., mature, modified) rRNA and purified TP70 proteins.

However, several important concerns remain:

(1) Dependence on Native rRNA Limits Generalizability

The current system relies on rRNA extracted from native ribosomes via phenol, which retains natural post-transcriptional modifications. As the authors note (lines 302-304), attempts to assemble active 50S subunits using in vitro transcribed rRNA, even in the presence of EngA and ObgE, failed. This contrasts with iSAT, where in vitro transcribed rRNA can yield functional (though reduced-activity, ~20% of native) ribosomes, presumably due to the presence of rRNA modification enzymes and additional chaperones in the S150 extract. Thus, while this study successfully isolates two key GTPase factors that mimic part of iSAT's functionality, it does not fully recapitulate iSAT's capacity for de novo assembly from unmodified RNA. The manuscript should clarify that the in vitro assembly demonstrated here is contingent on using native rRNA and does not yet achieve true bottom-up reconstruction from synthetic parts. Moreover, given iSAT's success with transcribed rRNA, could a similar systematic omission approach (e.g., adding individual factors) help identify the additional components required to support unmodified rRNA folding?

(2) Imprecise Use of "Physiological Mg²⁺ Concentration"

The abstract states that assembly occurs at "physiological Mg²⁺ concentration" (<10 mM). However, while this total Mg²⁺ level aligns with optimized in vitro translation buffers (e.g., in PURE or iSAT systems), it exceeds estimates of free cytosolic [Mg²⁺] in E. coli (~1-2 mM). The authors should clarify that they refer to total Mg²⁺ concentrations compatible with cell-free protein synthesis, not necessarily intracellular free ion levels, to avoid misleading readers about true physiological relevance.

In summary, this work elegantly bridges the gap between the two-step method and the extract-dependent iSAT system by identifying two defined GTPases that capture a core functionality of cellular extracts: enabling ribosome assembly under translation-compatible conditions. However, the reliance on native rRNA underscores that additional factors - likely present in iSAT's S150 extract - are still needed for full de novo reconstitution from unmodified transcripts. Future work combining the precision of this defined system with the completeness of iSAT may ultimately realize truly autonomous synthetic ribosome biogenesis.

Author response

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This study presents evidence that the addition of the two GTPases EngA and ObgE to reactions comprised of rRNAs and total ribosomal proteins purified from native bacterial ribosomes can bypass the requirements for non-physiological temperature shifts and Mg⁺² ion concentrations for in vitro reconstitution of functional E. coli ribosomes.

Strengths:

This advance allows ribosome reconstitution in a fully reconstituted protein synthesis system containing individually purified recombinant translation factors, with the reconstituted ribosomes substituting for native purified ribosomes to support protein synthesis. This work potentially represents an important development in the long-term effort to produce synthetic cells.

Weaknesses:

While much of the evidence is solid, the analysis is incomplete in certain respects that detract from the scientific quality and significance of the findings:

(1) The authors do not describe how the native ribosomal proteins (RPs) were purified, and it is unclear whether all subassemblies of RPs have been disrupted in the purification procedure. If not, additional chaperones might be required beyond the two GTPases described here for functional ribosome assembly from individual RPs.

Native ribosomal proteins (RPs) were prepared from native ribosomes, according to the well-established protocol described by Dr. Knud H. Nierhaus [Nierhaus, K. H. Reconstitution of ribosomes in Ribosomes and protein synthesis: A Practical Approach (Spedding G. eds.) 161-189, IRL Press at Oxford University Press, New York (1990)]. In this method, ribosome proteins are subjected to dialysis in 6 M urea buffer, a strong denaturing condition that may completely disrupt ribosomal structure and dissociate all ribosomal protein subassemblies. To make this point clear, we will describe the ribosomal protein (RP) preparation procedure in the manuscript, rather than merely referring to the book.

In addition, we would like to clarify one point related to this comment. The focus of the present study is to show that the presence of two factors is required for single-step ribosome reconstitution under translation-compatible, cell-free conditions. We do not intend to claim that these two factors are absolutely sufficient for ribosome reconstitution. Hence, we will revise the manuscript to more explicitly state what this work does and does not conclude.

(2) Reconstitution studies in the past have succeeded by using all recombinant, individually purified RPs, which would clearly address the issue in the preceding comment and also eliminate the possibility that an unknown ribosome assembly factor that co-purifies with native ribosomes has been added to the reconstitution reactions along with the RPs.

As noted in the response to the Comment (1), the focus of the present study is the requirement of the two factors for functional ribosome assembly. Therefore, we consider that it is not necessary to completely exclude the possibility that unknown ribosome assembly factors are present in the RP preparation. Nevertheless, we agree that it is important to clarify what factors, if any, are co-present in the RP fraction. To address this, we plan to add proteomic analysis results of the TP70 preparation.

We also agree that additional, as-yet-unidentified components, including factors involved in rRNA modification, could plausibly further improve assembly efficiency. We will explicitly note this possibility in the Discussion.

Finally, extending the system to the use of in vitro-transcribed rRNA and fully recombinant ribosomal proteins could be essentially a next step of this study, and we are currently exploring these directions in our laboratory. However, we consider them beyond the scope of the present study and will provide them as future perspectives of this study in the Discussion.

(3) They never compared the efficiency of the reconstituted ribosomes to native ribosomes added to the "PURE" in vitro protein synthesis system, making it unclear what proportion of the reconstituted ribosomes are functional, and how protein yield per mRNA molecule compares to that given by the PURE system programmed with purified native ribosomes.

We consider that it is feasible to estimate the GFP synthesis rate from the increase in fluorescence over time under conditions where the template mRNA is in excess, and to compare this rate directly between reconstituted and native ribosomes. We will therefore consider performing this experiment. This comparison should provide insight into what fraction of ribosomes reconstituted in our system are functionally active.

By contrast, quantifying protein yield per mRNA molecule is substantially more challenging. The translation system is complex, and the apparent yield per mRNA can vary depending on factors such as differences in polysome formation efficiency. In addition, the PURE system is a coupled transcription–translation setup that starts from DNA templates, which further complicates rigorous normalization on a per-mRNA basis. Because the main focus of this study is to determine how many functionally active ribosomes can be reconstituted under translation-compatible conditions, we plan to address this comment by carrying out the former experiment.

(4) They also have not examined the synthesized GFP protein by SDS-PAGE to determine what proportion is full-length.

Because we can add an affinity tag to the GFP reporter, it should be feasible to selectively purify the synthesized protein from the reaction mixture and analyze it by SDS–PAGE. We therefore plan to perform this experiment.

(5) The previous development of the PURE system included examinations of the synthesis of multiple proteins, one of which was an enzyme whose specific activity could be compared to that of the native enzyme. This would be a significant improvement to the current study. They could also have programmed the translation reactions containing reconstituted ribosomes with (i) total native mRNA and compared the products in SDS-PAGE to those obtained with the control PURE system containing native ribosomes; (ii) with specifc reporter mRNAs designed to examine dependence on a Shine-Dalgarno sequence and the impact of an in-frame stop codon in prematurely terminating translation to assess the fidelity of initiation and termination events; and (iii) an mRNA with a programmed frameshift site to assess elongation fidelity displayed by their reconstituted ribosomes.

Following the recommendation, we plan to test the synthesis of at least one additional protein with enzymatic activity, in addition to GFP, so that the activity of the translated product can be assessed.

We agree that comparing translation products using total mRNA, testing dependence on the Shine–Dalgarno sequence, and performing dedicated assays to evaluate initiation/elongation/termination fidelity are all attractive and valuable studies. However, we consider these to be beyond the scope of the present manuscript. We will therefore describe them explicitly as future directions in the Discussion.

At the same time, we anticipate that mass spectrometric (MS) analysis of GFP and the enzyme product(s) that we attempt to synthesize could partially address concerns related to product integrity (e.g., truncations) and, to some extent, translational fidelity. We therefore plan to carry out MS analysis of these translated products.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This study presents a significant advance in the field of in vitro ribosome assembly by demonstrating that the bacterial GTPases EngA and ObgE enable single-step reconstitution of functional 50S ribosomal subunits under near-physiological conditions-specifically at 37 {degree sign}C and with total Mg²⁺ concentrations below 10 mM.

This achievement directly addresses a long-standing limitation of the traditional two-step in vitro assembly protocol (Nierhaus & Dohme, PNAS 1974), which requires non-physiological temperatures (44-50 {degree sign}C), and high Mg²⁺ concentrations (~20 mM). Inspired by the integrated Synthesis, Assembly, and Translation (iSAT) platform (Jewett et al., Mol Syst Biol 2013), leveraging E. coli S150 crude extract, which supplies essential assembly factors, the authors hypothesize that specific ribosome biogenesis factors-particularly GTPases present in such extracts-may be responsible for enabling assembly under mild conditions. Through systematic screening, they identify EngA and ObgE as the minimal pair sufficient to replace the need for temperature and Mg²⁺ shifts when using phenol-extracted (i.e., mature, modified) rRNA and purified TP70 proteins.

However, several important concerns remain:

(1) Dependence on Native rRNA Limits Generalizability

The current system relies on rRNA extracted from native ribosomes via phenol, which retains natural post-transcriptional modifications. As the authors note (lines 302-304), attempts to assemble active 50S subunits using in vitro transcribed rRNA, even in the presence of EngA and ObgE, failed. This contrasts with iSAT, where in vitro transcribed rRNA can yield functional (though reduced-activity, ~20% of native) ribosomes, presumably due to the presence of rRNA modification enzymes and additional chaperones in the S150 extract. Thus, while this study successfully isolates two key GTPase factors that mimic part of iSAT's functionality, it does not fully recapitulate iSAT's capacity for de novo assembly from unmodified RNA. The manuscript should clarify that the in vitro assembly demonstrated here is contingent on using native rRNA and does not yet achieve true bottom-up reconstruction from synthetic parts. Moreover, given iSAT's success with transcribed rRNA, could a similar systematic omission approach (e.g., adding individual factors) help identify the additional components required to support unmodified rRNA folding?

We fully recognize the reviewer’s point that our current system has not yet achieved a true bottom-up reconstruction. Although we intended to state this clearly in the manuscript, the fact that this concern remains indicates that our description was not sufficiently explicit. We will therefore revisit the organization and wording of the manuscript and revise it to ensure that this limitation is clearly communicated to readers.

(2) Imprecise Use of "Physiological Mg²⁺ Concentration"

The abstract states that assembly occurs at "physiological Mg²⁺ concentration" (<10 mM). However, while this total Mg²⁺ level aligns with optimized in vitro translation buffers (e.g., in PURE or iSAT systems), it exceeds estimates of free cytosolic [Mg²⁺] in E. coli (~1-2 mM). The authors should clarify that they refer to total Mg²⁺ concentrations compatible with cell-free protein synthesis, not necessarily intracellular free ion levels, to avoid misleading readers about true physiological relevance.

We agree that this is a very reasonable point. We will therefore revise the manuscript to clarify that we are referring to the total Mg²⁺ concentration compatible with cell-free protein synthesis, rather than the intracellular free Mg²⁺ level under physiological conditions.

In summary, this work elegantly bridges the gap between the two-step method and the extract-dependent iSAT system by identifying two defined GTPases that capture a core functionality of cellular extracts: enabling ribosome assembly under translation-compatible conditions. However, the reliance on native rRNA underscores that additional factors - likely present in iSAT's S150 extract - are still needed for full de novo reconstitution from unmodified transcripts. Future work combining the precision of this defined system with the completeness of iSAT may ultimately realize truly autonomous synthetic ribosome biogenesis.

the tip

the coat

a package to install nextcloud quickly on a new server w back end tools. Debian 13 required.

Aimed at small groups / companies / associations / schools. Would work on a Hetzner cloud server. But works for larger set-ups too. By people in Schleswig-Holstein (where the public admin has switched to Nextcloud)

Making the case that Postgres will cover your db needs at low cost, and practice tested os tools, without complexity.

eLife Assessment

This important study reports characterisation of hepatocyte molecular pathways affected by a glycyrrhizin derivative in both in vivo and in vitro mouse models of alcohol-associated liver disease. The authors show convincing evidence indicating that IPP delta isomerase 1 (Idi1) is an intermediate in these pharmacological effects, via the binding of the glycyrrhizin derivative to an upstream regulator of Idi1, HSD11B1, although some more quantitative analyses and better organisation of data would strengthen the study. The findings would be of interest to immunologists and pharmacologists interested in liver inflammation and its amelioration.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this article by Xiao et al., the authors aimed to identify the precise targets by which magnesium isoglycyrrhizinate (MgIG) functions to improve liver injury in response to ethanol treatment. The authors found through a series of in vivo and molecular approaches that MgIG treatment attenuates alcohol-induced liver injury through a potential SREBP2-IdI1 axis. This manuscript adds to a previous set of literature showing MgIG improves liver function across a variety of etiologies, and also provides mechanistic insight into its mechanism of action.

Strengths:

(1) The authors use a combination of approaches from both in-vivo mouse models to in-vitro approaches with AML12 hepatocytes to support the notion that MgIG does improve liver function in response to ethanol treatment.

(2) The authors use both knockdown and overexpression approaches, in vivo and in vitro, to support most of the claims provided.

(3) Identification of HSD11B1 as the protein target of MgIG, as well as confirmation of direct protein-protein interactions between HSD11B1/SREBP2/IDI1, is novel.

Weaknesses:

Major weaknesses can be classified into 3 groups:

(1) The results do not support some claims made.

(2) Qualitative analyses of some of the lipid measures, as opposed to more quantitative analyses.

(3) There are no appropriate readouts of Srebp2 translocation and/or activity.

More specific comments:

(1) A few of the claims made are not supported by the references provided. For instance, line 76 states MgIG has hepatoprotective properties and improved liver function, but the reference provided is in the context of myocardial fibrosis.

(2) MgIG is clinically used for the treatment of liver inflammatory disease in China and Japan. In the first line of the abstract, the authors noted that MgIG is clinically approved for ALD. In which countries is MgIG approved for clinical utility in this space?

(3) Serum TGs are not an indicator of liver function. Alterations in serum TGs can occur despite changes in liver function.

(4) There are discrepancies in the results section and the figure legends. For example, line 302 states Idil is upregulated in alcohol fed mice relative to the control group. The figure legend states that the comparison for Figure 2A is that of ALD+MgIG and ALD only.

(5) Oil Red O staining provided does not appear to be consistent with the quantification in Figure 1D. ORO is nonspecific and can be highly subjective. The representative image in Figure 1C appears to have a much greater than 30% ORO (+) area.

(6) The connection between Idil expression in response to EtOH/PA treatment in AML12 cells with viability and apoptosis isn't entirely clear. MgIG treatment completely reduces Idi1 expression in response to EtOH/PA, but only moderate changes, at best, are observed in viability and apoptosis. This suggests the primary mechanism related to MgIG treatment may not be via Idi1.

(7) The nile red stained images also do not appear representative with its quantification. Several claims about more or less lipid accumulation across these studies are not supported by clear differences in nile red.

(8) The authors make a comment that Hsd11b1 expression is quite low in AML12 cells. So why did the authors choose to knockdown Hsd11b1 in this model?

(9) Line 380 - the claim that MGIG weakens the interaction between HSD11b1 and SREBP2 cannot be made solely based on one Western blot.

(10) It's not clear what the numbers represent on top of the Western blots. Are these averages over the course of three independent experiments?

(11) The claim in line 382 that knockdown of Hsd11b1 resulted in accumulation of pSREBP2 is not supported by the data provided in Figure 6D.

(12) None of the images provided in Figure 6E support the claims stated in the results. Activation of SREBP2 leads to nuclear translocation and subsequent induction of genes involved in cholesterol biosynthesis and uptake. Manipulation of Hsd11b1 via OE or KD does not show any nuclear localization with DAPI.

(13) The entire manuscript is focused on this axis of MgIG-Hsd11b1-Srebp2, but no Srebp2 transcriptional targets are ever measured.

(14) Acc1 and Scd1 are Srebp1 targets, not Srebp2.

(15) A major weakness of this manuscript is the lack of studies providing quantitative assessments of Srebp2 activation and true liver lipid measurements.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors investigated magnesium isoglycyrrhizinate (MgIG)'s hepatoprotective actions in chronic-binge alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) mouse models and ethanol/palmitic acid-challenged AML-12 hepatocytes. They found that MgIG markedly attenuated alcohol-induced liver injury, evidenced by ameliorated histological damage, reduced hepatic steatosis, and normalized liver-to-body weight ratios. RNA sequencing identified isopentenyl diphosphate delta isomerase 1 (IDI1) as a key downstream effector. Hepatocyte-specific genetic manipulations confirmed that MgIG modulates the SREBP2-IDI1 axis. The mechanistic studies suggested that MgIG could directly target HSD11B1 and modulate the HSD11B1-SREBP2-IDI1 axis to attenuate ALD. This manuscript is of interest to the research field of ALD.

Strengths:

The authors have performed both in vivo and in vitro studies to demonstrate the action of magnesium isoglycyrrhizinate on hepatocytes and an animal model of alcohol-associated liver disease.

Weaknesses:

The data were not well-organised, and the paper needs proofreading again, with a focus on the use of scientific language throughout.

Here are several comments:

(1) In Supplemental Figure 1A, all the treatment arms (A-control, MgIG-25 mg/kg, MgIG-50 mg/kg) showed body weight loss compared to the untreated controls. However, Figure 1E showed body weight gain in the treatment arms (A-control and MgIG-25 mg/kg), why? In Supplemental Figure 1A, the mice with MgIG (25 mg/kg) showed the lowest body weight, compared to either A-control or MgIG (50 mg/kg) treatment. Can the authors explain why MgIG (25 mg/kg) causes bodyweight loss more than MgIG (50 mg/kg)? What about the other parameters (ALT, ALS, NAS, etc.) for the mice with MgIG (50 mg/kg)?

(2) IL-6 is a key pro-inflammatory cytokine significantly involved in ALD, acting as a marker of ALD severity. Can the authors explain why MgIG 1.0 mg/ml shows higher IL-6 gene expression than MgIG (0.1-0.5 mg/ml)? Same question for the mRNA levels of lipid metabolic enzymes Acc1 and Scd1.

(3) For the qPCR results of Hsd11b1 knockdown (siRNA) and Hsd11b1 overexpression (plasmid) in AML-12 cells (Figure 5B), what is the description for the gene expression level (Y axis)? Fold changes versus GAPDH? Hsd11b1 overexpression showed non-efficiency (20-23, units on Y axis), even lower than the Hsd11b1 knockdown (above 50, units on Y axis). The authors need to explain this. For the plasmid-based Hsd11b1 overexpression, why does the scramble control inhibit Hsd11b1 gene expression (less than 2, units on the Y axis)? Again, this needs to be explained.

Author response:

Thank you for your letter and for the constructive feedback from the reviewers on our manuscript (eLife-RP-RA-2025-109174). We appreciate the time and expertise you and the reviewers have dedicated to improving our work.

We have carefully considered all comments and have developed a comprehensive revision plan. To address the primary concerns, we will conduct several new experiments designed to provide robust support for our key conclusions. Other points will be addressed through textual revisions, including the addition of existing ADMET data and an expanded discussion section.

We are confident that these revisions will fully satisfy the reviewers' concerns and significantly strengthen the manuscript. Our detailed experimental plan and point-by-point responses are provided below.

(1) Addressing "Qualitative analyses of some of the lipid measures, as opposed to more quantitative analyses"

Supplementary experiments and analyses

We will add the assessment of hepatic triglyceride and total cholesterol levels in liver tissues from control, experimental, and drug-treated mice, thereby providing further quantitative validation.

(2) Addressing "SREBP2"

Supplementary experiments and analyses

We will include a luciferase assay to determine whether alcohol plus PA induces SREBP2 activation in AML-12 cells.

As suggested, we will assess the expression levels of SREBP2 downstream target genes (Hmgcr, Hmgcs, Ldlr, and Lcn2) in both in vitro and in vivo models.

(3) Timeline and process arrangement of supplementary experiments

To comprehensively address these issues, we plan to purchase the following required reagents and have formulated the following experimental plan:

Author response table 1.

Given the time required for reagent acquisition and the execution of these in vitro and in vivo experiments, we kindly request an extension of the revision deadline by 8 weeks. This will ensure the comprehensive and high-quality completion of all necessary studies.

We will fully commit to delivering a thoroughly revised manuscript that robustly addresses all reviewer comments and aligns with the high standards of eLife. We greatly appreciate your guidance and flexibility.

DOI: 10.1113/JP289036

Resource: The Cancer Genome Atlas (RRID:SCR_003193)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_003193

What is this?

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

interesting

I am very much interested in the human brain, it's a very small yet complex system.

2 out of 4 changed for the better. I am now armed with information and new skills that I will use from now on. Thank you :-)

Utilizing ALL of the types of thinking will help me succeed. The more I utilize the better I'll be.

This introduction/ definition about highlighting does not give clear steps, it has the read watch a short clip on how to highlight text, but it never tells the reader how to actually do it. It assumes prior knowledge, for example that the reader must already know how to select the text they want highlighted, they also simplified the explanation the highlight isn't always yellow it can be different colors.

This is a good habit to prevent hoarding.

I am interested, however, I do have a specific attention span if someone is just talking and sitting vs. talking and walking around, showing examples/pictures etc. 18 minutes is a long time to sit and watch someone talk with limited movement and engagement. It will all boil down to the topic.

This is new information to me as I was never aware that the ending of a web address and or email had a significance to something very specific.

I've learned that the higher social status the person is the more believable they are. It's an unfortunate social stigma that is practiced on a regular basis.

It's great to ask ourselves questions, they also help us if needed to ask questions to our professors and peers.

These are great assessment questions to ask yourself.

I tried this on myself with controlling my reactions. Initially I read books on best practices. I watched videos and followed individuals who practiced the art. Then I put what I learned into practice. It takes a lot of time and to have a mind-over-matter attitude and to repeat and know that I am only in control of myself, no one else. It worked!

One of my favorite quotes from Stoic Epictetus is " It's impossible for one to learn what they think they already know." Learning stops when we think we know-it-all, on the contrast , we never know it all. We are always learning, even when we don't try.

Its critical to recognize this and act so to become a better learner and successful in class as well as the future.

The reason sinners are not already being punished at any given moment is for God's own pleasure, and at any moment they can be descended into Hell.

I annotated this sentence because it is Alexander Stephens arguing a hierarchal and racist view on society. In the sentence, he talks about how slavery is actually good for the "inferior race." I found this interesting because he is trying to convince people that slavery is the foundation of society and society is in need of slavery. The point Stephens is trying to convey is that slavery is what society needs and both sides are benefit from it. In my opinion I think this is a deeply flawed way of looking at it, especially when throughout the passage he talks about how slavery is the cornerstone of the USA.

I find this statement interesting. There was, amongst many people, a high regard for civilisations like Rome and Greece, indeed, the Parthenon in Nashville would be built just 30 odd years after the war. In this statement, Stephens is claiming that civilisations such as Rome and Greece, who enslaved white people more often than not, were against nature. Given the fact that Antebellum architecture also features prominant pillars and collumns, something taken directly from Greco-Roman influence, this also makes me curious as to why they would be attempting to imitate the architecture of empires, kingdoms, and city states that they claim to be against nature and their principles. I would be curious if this was something they genuinely thought about, that this statement is against general trends of their own society's influence. It also makes me, along with the previous annotation about their claims that the government had fallen, and the context of the speech, begin to suspect that this is not in fact a genuine display of Stephen's thoughts, but rather a propaganda piece meant to drum support for their cause from the masses. An educated "gentleman" may be aware that Rome and Greece enslaved white people, but the common farmer who would do majority of the fighting, and nearly all the dying, would likely not make those connections. I feel as if this reads as an "all is well, and we have nothing to worry about in the coming war because we're right, so go enlist and fight for the right and natural way of life" that one expects from typically authoritarian and extremist governments.

I feel like this is a disingenuous statement. The government didn't fall, nor did it struggle. Rather, the various states that would secede chose to leave the government then act as though it fell because there was a chance, perceived or otherwise, that the government may make a decision they personally disagree with. As others have pointed out, they make it clear that it's about slavery, and how it's not that the idea of equality causing the government to collapse in on itself, but rather the government is leaning towards possible banning of slavery. The government is still standing, and still quite strong, that's why they chose to leave it, since if they remained they feared that their slaves would be taken and freed. Additionally, we can see in hindsight that it most certainly remained functional as the North won. I wonder if this was something that weighed on the minds of various legislators in the Confederacy, since surely they were aware that the North wasn't dysfunctional, but rather well equipped and more than capable of out producing them in industrial goods. Certainly, this was known by Lee and other generals, as they attempted to push for a quick and lightning war to avoid the inevitable attritional warfare that all conflicts devolve to. If it was something they were aware of, then I wonder why they were bother saying this, to give legitimacy to their cause? Garner support for their new government? Or simply to make them feel better about their actions?

This feels like a clear overview of what the book is about. I like that it connects automation to things we see every day on social media, like feeds and bots, instead of making it sound abstract. It also helps that the book says no programming experience is needed, because that makes it feel more approachable. Overall, it sets the expectation that we’ll learn both how social media works and why it matters ethically.

I like how this part explains the goals of the book from different perspectives. As a regular social media user, it makes me think more about how platforms affect me without me always noticing, like data use or emotional manipulation. The section about society also stood out, because social media really shapes public opinion and politics, not just individual behavior. Overall, this feels like the book wants us to be more aware and responsible, whether we’re users, citizens, or even future tech workers.

This is similar to dbt - Matillion just does the compute in-warehouse but that doesn't seem like something teams would want to do

In today's AI day and age, you need up to date real time info rather than historical batch loading. Without having a streaming broker, you aren't really playing in the game

This makes a lot of sense. Understanding how a student operates in a classroom that is well-attuned to that student's needs will help a music educator understand what steps to take to ensure that the student will have the best experience they can. It is much easier to see what other teachers are doing that have a positive impact on the student's learning experience and adapt that to a music setting.

This idea of incorporating strategies into the music room that are already being used in special education contexts, I think is a really great tool. I think it is one of the fastest ways to break down barriers for a student with differences and disabilities to thrive in a music classroom setting.

Reading these vignettes really helped me understand the scope of how the LRE is truly personalized to the individuals needs and goals. Every student's need for support is a little bit different, and that is accounted for with the many different options that the continuum offers.

I understand how this could be true, my first couple experiences writing a lesson plan was in a small group setting, but it often ended up confusing me even more than if I was alone. Too many teachers with conflating ideas of music teaching can make it rough to collaborate and make a great lesson plan. That conundrum greatly impacts the students' experience of the lesson and content within.

It is vital to a school community for faculty and staff to work together and learn from each other. Paraprofessionals are a wealth of knowledge about working with students with differences and disabilities because they are doing it every day. I'm sure that, by working in tandem, both the music educator and paraprofessional could come up with some great ideas about how to adapt the music room to better fit the needs of the students they work with.

It is unfortunate hearing that there are still resources that seem to be hidden from educators.

This is an interesting way how the world of education and music education especially is evolving. I believe this is a good thing.

This I believe is the most important thing. You must learn and understand that students with disabilities may not communicate in the same way as you, and it's extremely important to be patient in this aspect.

I've never heard of music educators directly collaborating with special education teachers. This seems like a wonderful resources for music educators to gain experience in that field.

I've seen too many music educators, let alone teachers in general, who have to teach students with differences and disabilities, and seem to have no idea how to handle it, or they treat those students like they were students who didn't have those issues, which leads to uncomfortable situations. It is paramount that educators understand these things before going into the field.

1- create a gift from items at home; make a homemade meal 2-set aside time for the exams; call out from work (use leave) 3- prioritize; gas, oil change; borrow money 4-plan ahead and exercise a little everyday to get stronger; hire a personal trainer

Sounds like it's time to deligate.

While I can't see the video, this reminded me of major cases that happened during covid-19 with a similar situation. Current oxygen readers read O2 levels in blood by shining a light through the skin, however, this works differently for brown and black individuals. This caused them to have higher oxygen readings than they actually did, and created dangerous situations where someone's oxygen levels were too low while in the hospital for covid-19 symptom management, and lead to a few deaths. Skin color is a huge problem in the medical industry, another example being common textbooks used to teach skin conditions only showing examples of how those conditions look on white skin, even when it appears completely differently on BIPOC. Issues like this have only been brought into the light very recently in the grand scheme of things, and we still have a very long way to go.

You will want to go back and double check your paper, fix the errors, make sure everything runs smoothly.

Good example or fact and opinion.

This statement provides clear contrast of the two; Fact vs Opinion.

A scientific approach using critical thinking.

Also very similar to analytical thinking.

1- because the act of participating in a competitive event will make one think about the choices they have to make, how will they affect the team? which option is the best option when it comes to a winning strategy? how do I consult with my team members? What are their opinions? - so many questions and lots of thinking. The other options the not really for applying any hard thinking.

Matillion isn't built for AI Agents to actually use APIs - it is built for data engineers to do so. Fundamentally different things

Dominating this new AI / agentic space is key in terms of helping to "prepare" AI ready data

DBT is already starting to dominate the AI data transformation market

Universal design also helps individuals who are abled-bodied, not only disabled individuals. For example, let's say you make a ramp or an elevator with the intention of helping disabled individuals navigate through a building. Unintentionally, you could also be helping the following use-cases: people with strollers, people using skateboards/roller skates, people with wagons of stuff/rolling bins, people with rolling suitcases, moving furniture, as well as many other cases. Universal design helps everyone, so we should stride to use it during any case possible.

Even though they were performing the same task over and over again, they still had to think analytically.

Thinking/planning analytically allows one to have back-up plans.

Thinking analytically happens when we don't even know it, effortlessly.

Defintion of analytical thinking

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Mr. C is a 53-year-old man who worked as a manual laborer. He had always been in good health. One day, while lifting a particularly heavy item, he experienced pain on the right side of his chest. A colleague said that his father had a similar experience and died of a heart attack shortly thereafter. Mr. C became focused on the idea that he has heart disease, and began visiting a number of emergency rooms, primary care physicians, and cardiologists. His evaluations were always completely negative. However, his concern has persisted and he now presents to a new clinician.

.

.

Mrs. G is a 51-year-old woman who had suffered from abdominal pain and progressive loss of function over the last 1 ½ years. She had failed conservative management and was admitted to the hospital for an exploratory laparotomy. However, there were no organic findings to explain her symptoms. Psychiatric consultation was requested to evaluate for a psychological component to her pain. At evaluation, Mrs. G denied any psychological stressors, but her husband shared that around the time of the onset of her symptoms, Mrs. G’s mother, with whom she is very close, had moved out of state to care for another daughter who had become ill. Mrs. G was referred for psychotherapy to explore this perceived loss and to explore alternatives for support. Over the course of this treatment, Mrs. G’s abdominal pain resolved.

.

.

In the face of hopelessness, the colonists where sustained by their faith.

The migrants had a tough journey, and upon arriving to America, had more struggles to face--Indigenous peoples who spoke different languages to the new arrivals and could potentially be violent, cruel weather, and vast wilderness.