Reviewer #3 (Public Review):
In this work, Dumrongprechachan et al. impressively expanded their earlier work on the identification of cell type-specific subcellular proteomes from mouse brain by APEX2 proximity labeling. Instead of using viral expression of APEX2, the authors now created a Cre-dependent APEX2 reporter mouse line using CRISPR knock-in, which can be combined with multiple Cre-driver lines for proteomic applications. Using this novel tool in combination with sophisticated mass spectrometry and elegant bioinformatics, they mapped the temporal dynamics of the axonal proteome in corticostriatal projections (instead of only identifying a static cell type- and compartment-specific proteome) together with its phosphorylation status (instead of only looking at protein abundance). The data will provide a valuable resource on developmental trajectories at the proteomic and phosphoproteomic level, and will allow for pathway- and phosphosite-centric systems-level analyses as exemplified by the identification of proline-directed protein kinases as major regulators of corticostriatal projection development.
Strengths:<br /> The key tool developed in this work is the APEX2 reporter mouse line as it enables capturing of early postnatal time points, which was not possible before due to the time window of 2-4 weeks required for viral APEX expression. Thus, this tool puts the authors into position to access the temporal dynamics of the developing axon at time points spanning from neonate (as early as P5) to young adult (P50). Within this complex experimental design, the authors even managed to introduce a crucial compartment control at least for the time point P18, in which APEX expression is restricted to nucleus and soma upon viral expression. The resulting resource will be of high value as the data are derived from advanced mass spectrometric methods and stringent data handling. Examples of this high level of scrutiny include the use of MS3 methodology for the acquisition of TMT data to address the ratio distortion issues typically seen with isobaric labeling and thereby increase the quantification accuracy and the limitation to proteins quantified in all biological replicates.
Weaknesses:<br /> As to sample preparation for mass spectrometry, the authors follow the interesting concept of first enriching the phosphopeptides from the pool of TMT-labeled tryptic peptides and then using the unbound fraction from that step for further peptide fractionation, followed by mass spectrometric protein quantification. While this strategy sounds very straightforward in principle, one would expect that the phosphopeptide enrichment comes with an unspecific loss of other peptides in general, and with a semi-specific loss of acidic peptides in particular. Was this potential issue investigated by comparison with samples that were fractionated directly without prior phosphopeptide enrichment? Or with other words: the rationale for this sequential procedure is compelling - quantification of both protein and phosphopeptide abundance from the same (limited) sample, but what is the price for it as to peptide loss?
The APEX2 reporter mouse line is a novel tool with broad applicability for proximity labeling approaches and, understandably, the authors advertise its advantages, mainly via the suitability for short temporal windows. However, the discussion on the limitations of the approach falls short. The authors should make clear that the APEX method in general is limited to ex vivo approaches such as the acute brain slices used here due to the limitation that potentially toxic reagents (i.e. low membrane-permeable biotin-phenol and H2O2) have to be delivered to the target tissue. Although treatment with H2O2 is rather short, undesired oxidative stress signaling may have to be taken into account, particularly when protein phosphorylation rather than protein abundance is assessed. It would also be interesting to discuss the pros and cons of perfusing the mice prior to preparation of brain slices; e.g., in the context of removal of catalases/endogenous peroxidases or potential for substrate delivery (like recently shown in heart, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-1947-z). Another issue with the Discussion is that the authors do not properly reflect the involvement of proline-directed kinases in the development of corticostriatal projections, which stands in contrast to the fact that they sell this as one of their major findings throughout the manuscript, including the Abstract.

Screen capture from the movie