Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
The manuscript by Menon et al describes a set of simulations of alpha-Synuclein (aSYN) and analyses of these and previous simulations in the presence of a small molecule.
While I agree with the authors that the questions addressed are interesting, I am not sure how much we learn from the present simulations and analyses. In parts, the manuscript reads more like an attempt to apply a whole range of tools rather than with a goal of answering any specific questions.
There's a lot going on in this paper, and I am not sure it is useful for the authors, readers or me to spell out all of my comments in detail. But here are at least some points that I found confusing/etc
Major concerns
p. 5 and elsewhere:<br /> I lack a serious discussion of convergence and the statistics of the differences between the two sets of simulations. On p. 5 it is described how the authors ran multiple simulations of the ligand-free system for a total of 62 µs; that is about 25 times less than for the ligand system. I acknowledge that running 1.5 ms is unfeasible, but at a bare minimum the authors should discuss and analyse the consequences for the relatively small amount of sampling. Here it is important to say that while 62 µs may sound like a lot it is probably not enough to sample the relevant properties of a 140-residue long disordered protein.
p. 7:<br /> The authors make it sound like a bad thing than some methods are deterministic. Why is that the case? What kind of uncertainty in the data do they mean? One can certainly have deterministic methods and still deal with uncertainty. Again, this seems like a somewhat ad hoc argument for the choice of the method used.
p. 8:<br /> The authors should make it clear (i) what the reconstruction loss and KL is calculated over and (ii) what the RMSD is calculated over.
p. 9/figure 1:<br /> The authors select a beta value that may be the minimum, but then is just below a big jump in the cross-validation error. Why does the error jump so much and isn't it slightly dangerous to pick a value close to such a large jump.
p. 10:<br /> Why was a 2-dimensional representation used in the VAE? What evidence do the authors have that the representation is meaningful? The authors state "The free energy landscape represents a large number of spatially close local minima representative of energetically competitive conformations inherent in αS" but they do not say what they mean by "spatially close". In the original space? If so, where is the evidence.
p. 10:<br /> It is not clear from the text whether the VAEs are the same for both aSYN and aSYN-Fasudil. I assume they are. Given that the Fasudil dataset is 25x larger, presumably the VAE is mostly driven by that system. Is the VAE an equally good representation of both systems?
p. 10/11:<br /> Do the authors have any evidence that the latent space representation preserves relevant kinetic properties? This is a key point because the entire analysis is built on this. The choice of using z1 and z2 to build the MSM seems somewhat ad hoc. What does the auto-correlation functions of Z1 and Z2 look like? Are the related to dynamics of some key structural properties like Rg or transient helical structure.
p. 11:<br /> What's the argument for not building an MSM with states shared for aSYN +- Fasudil?
p. 12:<br /> Fig. 3b/c show quite clearly that the implied timescales are not converged at the chosen lag time (incidentally, it would have been useful with showing the timescales in physical time). The CK test is stated to be validated with "reasonable accuracy", though it is unclear what that means.
p. 12:<br /> In Fig. 3d, what are the authors bootstrapping over? What are the errors if the authors analyse sampling noise (e.g. bootstrap over simulation blocks)?
p. 13:<br /> I appreciate that the authors build an MSM using only a subset of the fasudil simulations. Here, it would be important that this analysis includes the entire workflow so that the VAE is also rebuilt from scratch. Is that the case?
p. 18:<br /> I don't understand the goal of building the CVAE and DCVAE. Am I correct that the authors are building a complex ML model using only 3/6 input images? What is the goal of this analysis. As it stands, it reads a bit like simply wanting to apply some ML method to the data. Incidentally, the table in Fig. 6C is somewhat intransparent.
p. 22:<br /> "Our results indicate that the interaction of fasudil with αS residues governs the structural features of the protein."<br /> What results indicate this?
p. 23:<br /> The authors should add some (realistic) errors to the entropy values quoted. Fig. 8 have some error bars, though they seem unrealistically small. Also, is the water value quoted from the same force field and conditions as for the simulations?
p. 23:<br /> Has PDB2ENTROPY been validated for use with disordered proteins?
p. 23/24:<br /> It would be useful to compare (i) the free energies of the states (from their populations), (ii) the entropies (as calculated) and (iii) the enthalpies (as calculated e.g. as the average force field energy). Do they match up?
p. 31:<br /> It is unclear which previous simulation the new aSYN simulations were launched from. What is the size of the box used?