Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors have undertaken an investigation of differences between two mammalian species, the brown rat and the crab-eating macaque, in the mechanisms supporting a well-established model of long-term Hebbian synaptic plasticity, Schaffer collateral to CA1 Long-term potentiation (LTP) in the hippocampus. LTP has been long-studied and deeply characterised due to its potential importance in modeling a strong candidate process for the central mechanism of learning and memory. LTP was first discovered in lagomorphs (rabbits), but has since been much more widely studied in rodents (mostly rats and mice), and there has been some complementary work revealing LTP in non-human primates and even in humans, revealing largely overlapping canonical mechanisms of induction, expression, and maintenance. More specifically, this study puts a particular focus on the fascinating associative features of this form of lasting synapse-specific modification, in which a synaptic input can be stimulated with a relatively weak induction protocol that will not produce lasting plasticity on its own, but can undergo lasting LTP if paired with stronger stimulation on a separate synaptic input to the same neuron. This associativity mechanism is particularly attractive within the Hebbian synaptic plasticity framework as it provides a candidate mechanism for associative forms of learning in which stimulus-stimulus, stimulus-reward, stimulus-punishment, or action-outcome associations are formed. A particularly attractive feature of this associative LTP is that there can also be a substantial time-lag between the strong stimulation of one pathway and the weaker stimulation of the other synaptic input, which only undergoes lasting LTP by hijacking the proteins synthesized as a result of strong stimulation elsewhere. This observation has led to the famous tagging and capture hypothesis as an explanation of how such synapse-specific change can be achieved on both stimulated inputs but not on other synaptic inputs, given the potential requirement for cell-wide protein synthesis. This theory, for which there is very strong experimental evidence, posits that a protein tag is left at synapses that have been stimulated with sufficient vigor in recent history, serving as a key mechanism to ensure that those weakly stimulated synapses will undergo change when a larger-scale LTP event occurs due to stronger stimulation elsewhere within a relevant time window. Again, this idea is attractive as it can explain how we might form associations between events that occur slightly separated in time. The manuscript goes on to show that an induction protocol that is particularly physiologically relevant, theta burst stimulation, produces this tag and capture associative effect in ex vivo slices of Macaque hippocampus, much more readily than in side-by-side ex vivo slices of rat hippocampus. Moreover, the manuscript delves into the importance of well-characterised LTP maintenance mechanisms, including PKMzeta and BDNF, which are key factors that ensure that altered synaptic change is maintained for long periods of time despite substantial molecular turnover in the neuron. The observation in this manuscript is that a degree of redundancy for these mechanisms exists in the primate species but not the rodent species, as both mechanisms need to be inhibited to return LTP to baseline in the Macaque, but only one needs to be inhibited to have that effect in the rat. A major emphasis of this study is that there may be a step-wise difference in associative learning mechanisms between rodents and primates that may contribute to their differing cognitive capacities, although I believe a lot more evidence would be required to reach that conclusion.

Strengths:

The strengths of this study are that it is technically very proficient and is from a laboratory that has a long history of seminal work on synaptic tagging and capture. The cross-species comparison, particularly involving non-human primates, is also very hard to achieve, and a major strength here is the side-by-side comparison of slices from rat and monkeys. Further strengths of the study are the use of a number of experimental strategies, including both observation and intervention, to demonstrate differential involvement of LTP maintenance mechanisms. A final major strength is conceptual, as it is undoubtedly useful not only to identify shared mechanisms of plasticity between commonly used model organisms and either humans or much more closely related species such as old world monkeys, but also to reveal differences that have the potential to contribute to differences in memory/cognition.

Weaknesses:

The findings of this study are a very useful building block for understanding how generalisable mechanisms of LTP are. However, arriving at really substantial conclusions from these findings is challenging, as there are a number of variables that are unaccounted for in this study that may explain the differences that have been observed between rats and monkeys. One example of a potential confound to these interpretations is that rats are nocturnal/crepuscular animals, and macaques are diurnal animals. Thus, to undertake a like-for-like comparison, it would be necessary for the rats to be on a reversed light-dark cycle to ensure that the wake cycle of the rat (dark) is being compared with the wake cycle of the monkey (light). It is possible that the authors have done this, but it is not mentioned in the methods section. The reason this is important is that there is a substantial body of work indicating that different mechanisms are at play in hippocampal LTP during wake and sleep. Transcripts and proteins related to synaptic function are dramatically differentially regulated during sleep-wake cycles, and phosphorylation states of key proteins involved in plasticity are also altered. Moreover, synaptic tagging and capture are specifically disrupted by sleep deprivation. Perhaps the authors have already considered this factor and appropriately reversed the light-dark cycle of their rat subjects, in which case a clarification in the manuscript would be useful. Nevertheless, I have used this as an example because there is a variety of potential confounds that may explain the difference between SC-CA1 TBS LTP in rats and monkeys, e.g., circadian rhythms, degree of enrichment, natural light vs indoor lighting, diet, degree of inbreeding, strain, etc. Thus, to make strong conclusions about the potential for differences in plasticity rules/mechanisms and how those may contribute to differences in cognition, I think it would be necessary to compare a wider variety of species, including a good representation of each order (e.g., nocturnal rats and diurnal squirrels, new and old world primates) and not just a single exemplar. I understand, of course, that this is really pushing the boundaries of practicality, but I see no other way to make a strong conclusion or to generalise to mechanisms or properties of plasticity in rodents vs primates. Thus, while I believe the manuscript presents really admirable work, I am not sure the findings are at all easy to interpret.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors conducted a large-scale replication effort of lab-based biomedical experiments with an emphasis on the country of origin and who conducted the replication experiments. The authors aimed to understand this context in both the outcomes produced, but also in the approach. Finally, the authors aimed to conduct multi-lab replications to provide richer data from the replications. Overall, the authors find replication rates that are like other large-scale replication efforts in the biomedical space. The authors provide rich detail into the three experimental techniques that were the focus of this effort, potential moderators of replication success, and challenges in conducting replications and coordinating a large-scale crowd-sourced effort.

Strengths:

The paper is outstanding in being transparent and calibrated in how the results are presented. While the authors were challenged by mundane aspects (e.g., difficulty with logistics), unexpected aspects (e.g., COVID pandemic), and very insightful aspects unique to conducting replications (e.g., experimental issues). The authors also provide variation in how they present the results, including confirmatory, multiverse, and exploratory analysis. A unique strength for this study is the rich in-depth insights about the process and interpretation of conducting replications, including predicting replication success in the lab-based biomedical space.

Weaknesses:

The study has weaknesses that the authors acknowledge in their discussion, such as lower number of replications than originally planned that limited the intended effort to compare multiple experiments with multiple attempts against a single original experiment. Another weakness is the limited discussion connecting these findings to the Brazilian research ecosystem.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Cotto and colleagues integrated data analysis with mathematical modeling to examine extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing E. coli in France. While ESBL prevalence has risen globally, it has stabilized at approximately 6-8% across Europe. Established risk factors for ESBL carriage include prior antibiotic exposure and travel to high-prevalence regions, most notably South-East Asia. The dataset incorporated information on ESBL-producing E. coli and travel history in young children, and the model was calibrated to ECDC surveillance data on ESBL across Europe, supplemented by literature-derived parameters on antibiotic use, E. coli biology, and transmission dynamics. The authors report that ESBL-carrying strains exhibit a 14% fitness cost in community transmission relative to susceptible bacteria, yet are cleared 23% less frequently. ESBL carriage was strongly associated with factors that prolong gut colonization. Both antibiotic treatment rates and transmission efficiency were identified as key determinants of community-level ESBL prevalence.

Strengths:

The study addresses a clinically and epidemiologically important topic. The integrated modeling approach is methodologically sound and well-suited to disentangling the relative contributions of transmission and antibiotic selection pressure.

Weaknesses:

Several concerns regarding the data used in this study warrant consideration. First, model calibration relied on ECDC surveillance data pooled across multiple European countries, several of which have substantially lower antibiotic consumption than France (ECDC ESAC-Net Annual Epidemiological Report, 2024). Given that antibiotic use is a primary driver of ESBL selection, ESBL prevalence is likely to be heterogeneous across these settings. Calibrating to a geographically diverse dataset risks introducing systematic bias into parameter estimates that may not be representative of the French context. The authors should repeat the analysis using France-specific data, or, where this is not feasible, restrict the calibration dataset to countries with comparable antibiotic consumption profiles. Second, the travel exposure data may be insufficient to adequately capture importation dynamics from South-East Asia, as the cohort consisted exclusively of young children, a demographic less likely to travel to high-prevalence regions than older age groups. This may result in an underestimation of travel-associated importation as a contributor to community ESBL prevalence, and the generalizability of these findings to the broader population should be interpreted with caution.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript reports that Yoda1 and Yoda2 agonize PIEZO2 in a manner similar to PIEZO1, increasing open probability and stretch sensitivity, but the mechanism underlying this sensitivity is incomplete. Mutagenesis was shown exclusively in PIEZO1, with no corresponding mutagenesis in PIEZO2, so the proposed mechanism in PIEZO2 is inferred by homology rather than directly tested. All experiments use mouse PIEZO2, and the human ortholog should be used before generalizing the proposed reinterpretation of the field.

Strengths:

The pressure-clamp electrophysiology demonstrating a shift in half-activation pressure for PIEZO2 is compelling evidence in support of the central claim.

Weaknesses:

(1) In the single-channel recordings (Figure 1a), it's unclear how many channels were present in those patches. After applying -60 mmHg pressure, multiple channels would be activated (as seen in Figure 1e). The number of channels in the patch and their inactivation rate could significantly influence the open probability in such experiments. To overcome this, in the original Yoda1 article (Syeda, Ruhma, et al. eLife 2015), no additional pressure was used. Additionally, the reported open probability comparison (n=7 Yoda1 vs n=17 DMSO patches) has an SEM nearly as large as the effect itself (0.30 {plus minus} 0.11), consistent with a small number of outliers driving this. The underlying mean open and shut times are reported without any statistical test; only the derived open probability receives a p-value. Additionally, in Figure 1a, the Yoda1 condition noise is different from the control. This should be stated if noise filtering was applied and how, given that this could affect open probability analysis.

(2) The calcium imaging data in Figure 2 raise significant concerns regarding the chemical activation claim. The calcium-boosted solution (30 mM Ca2+) is not physiological and appears to be generally stressing cells rather than specifically activating PIEZO2: the control condition under CBS already shows an elevated signal, consistent with cells being unwell at this calcium concentration, and adding Yoda1 on top of this shifted baseline raises further questions about specificity rather than confirming it. Separately, it is unclear why DMSO alone produces measurable PIEZO2-associated calcium influx in HBSS, a result that is not addressed in the text. Figure 2 should clearly indicate when DMSO/Yoda1 perfusion was initiated, and y-axis labels are missing from panels A and B.

(3) In the poke experiments, an activation threshold should be calculated and reported, and amplitude data (e.g., peak current versus indentation depth) should be shown rather than only inactivation tau values. It is also unclear why mClover3- and N-GFP-tagged constructs were used in these experiments, since electrophysiological recording already confirms channel expression without requiring a fluorescent tag.

(4) For inactivation kinetics (Figure 3b), the authors use unpaired comparisons across separate cells, whereas the deactivation experiments (Figure 3c) use paired; it should be applied to the inactivation experiments as well. Deactivation kinetics for PIEZO2 itself should be shown. If the claim is that Yoda1 acts on PIEZO2 through the same mechanism proposed for PIEZO1, then a PIEZO1/2 chimera should be expected to show a corresponding effect on deactivation tau; instead, this chimera is reported as completely Yoda1-insensitive despite both parental channels being Yoda1-sensitive, as shown in this study.

(5) Given that this reflects a different experimental paradigm for Yoda EC50, PIEZO1 should be included within Figure 4b. Additionally, EC50 bar plots should be present on this figure. The inactivation time constant for PIEZO2 without Yoda1 is inconsistent across figures, below 20 ms in Figure 3b but above 20 ms in Figure 4c.

(6) Finally, the modeling is performed exclusively on PIEZO1, whereas the manuscript's central focus is PIEZO2. It is therefore unclear whether the proposed structural mechanism, including the basis for Yoda2's reduced efficacy on PIEZO2, can be directly extrapolated to PIEZO2.

I Hate Modern Desks... So I Built This. by Morley Kert

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

This paper reveals that the neuronal protein PRRT2, previously known for its association with paroxysmal dyskinesia and infantile seizures, modulates the slow inactivation of voltage-gated sodium ion (Nav) channels, a gating process that limits excitability during prolonged activity. Using electrophysiology, molecular biology, and mouse models, the authors show that PRRT2 accelerates entry of Nav channels into the slow-inactivated state and slows their recovery, effectively dampening excessive excitability. The effect seems evolutionarily conserved, requires the C-terminal region of PRRT2, and is recapitulated in cortical neurons, where PRRT2 deficiency leads to hyper-responsiveness and reduced cortical resilience in vivo. These findings extend the functional repertoire of PRRT2, identifying it as a physiological brake on neuronal excitability. The work provides a mechanistic link between PRRT2 mutations and episodic neurological phenotypes.

Comments:

(1) The precise structural interface and the molecular basis of gating modulation remain inferred rather than demonstrated.

(2) The in vivo phenotype reflects a complex circuit outcome and does not isolate slow-inactivation defects per se.

(3) Expression of PRRT2 in muscle or heart is low, so the cross-isoform claims are likely of limited physiological significance.

(4) The mechanistic separation between trafficking of PRRT2 and its gating effects is not clearly resolved.

(5) Additional studies with Nav1.6 should be carried out.

Comments on revised version.

These comments have been addressed in the revised version.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

This paper tackles an underexplored dimension of whisker-based texture sensing: while surface coarseness encoding has been extensively characterized in rodents, the mechanical and neural basis for stickiness sensing has not previously been examined. The authors make two intertwined contributions that together represent a substantial advance: a methodological one - a 3D whisker tracking pipeline operating at 4000 fps, capable of capturing torsion, roll, and out-of-plane whisker motion - and a scientific one - a first characterization of how whisker mechanics and primary trigeminal afferent responses differ between surfaces of high and low stickiness. The work is technically solid, the dataset is large, and the question is well motivated both by the multidimensional nature of tactile texture perception and by the practical advantages of the whisker system for studying touch mechanics.

Strengths.:

The 3D tracking system is a timely advance over existing tools, particularly in its handling of non-planar whisker shapes and the full automation required for the sub-millisecond resolution needed to detect stick-slip events. The mechanical dataset is extensive. The finding that whisking against silicone expands the sampled whisker strain space and produces stronger but less frequent stick-slip events is clearly demonstrated and internally consistent with the proposed mechanism of greater strain accumulation before frictional release - a physically intuitive result. The open release of the tracking code considerably increases the value of this work to the broader community.

Weaknesses:

A few aspects of the paper, if sharpened, would considerably strengthen the evidence and the clarity of the conclusions.

The central claim - that "stickiness information is available to the whisker system" - does not capture the precision of what the paper demonstrates. As stated, the finding is close to guaranteed: any variation in surface friction will produce some change in whisker mechanics, so the presence of mechanical differences between materials is expected rather than surprising. The more valuable question the paper is well positioned to answer is which specific dimensions of the whisker mechanical response are most informative about surface stickiness. The paper reports effects on strain distribution breadth, stick-slip amplitude, and stick-slip rate, but does not synthesize which of these - or which sub-dimensions (bending, twisting, or rolling) - carry the most discriminating information. Identifying the salient dimensions of the mechanical response and relating them to the proposed frictional mechanism would sharpen the paper's conclusions substantially.

A related but distinct limitation is the absence of direct force measurements during whisker-surface contact. The authors acknowledge this openly, and I recognize it is not easily remedied within the current experimental setup. It does, however, constrain interpretation: without knowing the actual forces generated at the whisker-surface interface, the assumed stickiness ordering of the tested materials cannot be validated, and - importantly - the relative contribution of surface friction and material compliance to the observed mechanical differences cannot be determined. This is an important direction for future work in this area.

The paper argues carefully that 2D tracking is insufficient for capturing the full mechanical picture of whisker-surface interactions, and the figure currently in the supplementary material (Figure S2) makes this case convincingly through multiple analyses. This argument is the core justification for the paper's methodological contribution and deserves a place in the main manuscript. Furthermore, while the mechanical case for 3D over 2D tracking is well made, it has not yet been tested at the neural level: the regression model used to predict neural firing incorporates 3D variables, but its performance is not compared against an equivalent model restricted to 2D variables. Such a comparison would directly demonstrate whether torsion and roll - the signals inaccessible to 2D tracking - carry neural predictive value, and would elegantly unite the paper's methodological and scientific contributions.

Finally, the three-dimensional plots in Figure 3 are the paper's primary representation of its main mechanical result, and there is a real opportunity to make them considerably more informative. The whisker deformation probability distributions (panel B) are rendered in 3D from a single viewing angle, making it difficult to assess the shape or anisotropy of the distributions - and in particular to see which dimensions expand most for silicone relative to the other materials. This is precisely the information needed to identify the most salient dimensions of the stickiness signal, and two-dimensional representations would make it directly readable.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Elley and colleagues describes experiments on the effects of synthetic torpor on ex vivo heart ischemia. The key aspect of the study was the use of viral-vector mediated manipulation of the hypothalamic medial preoptic area (MPA) in rats. They used AAV-CaMKIIa-hM3D(Gq). The authors report that chemogenetic activation of the MPA prior to an ex vivo heart ischemia-reperfusion insult induces cardio protection against infarct size that is independent of prior in vivo hypothermia. Phosphoproteomic analysis of cardiac tissue suggested changes in cell survival and death pathways.

Strengths:

This study has important strengths. The idea is novel. The experimental design is appropriately rationalized and fascinating. The manuscript is written and presented concisely.

Weaknesses:

The study has important weaknesses in the experimental design and validation of the model.

(1) The study is based on the use of a DREADD-designed viral vector (AAV-CaMKIIa-hM3D(Gq) -mCherry) that is activated by 2 mg/kg IP injection of CNO. The rationale is to putatively activate the MPA. The authors show no evidence for chemogenetic activation of neurons in the MPA. This could be done using a variety of different approaches, even phosphoproteomics.

(2) The stereotaxic injections are difficult to precisely and locally place, particularly bilaterally. Figure 2F is only a schematic. It would be better to show actual low magnification brain sections (bregma +0.12 to -0.48) from a representative rat to show the placement of the AAV.

(3) The control rats were injected with AAV-CaMKIIa-EGFP. Why was EGFP used instead of mCherry for the control?

(4) Ideally, a mutant non-activatable variant of AAV-CaMKIIa-hM3D(Gq) should have been used for a better control.

(5) The authors should comment on whether there is any neurotoxicity in the MPA associated with the forced AAV expression of hM3D-Gq.

(6) Is there any inflammatory pathology seen in the MPA with AAV transduction?

(7) There are no experiments to show that the systemic torpor is specifically associated with the MPA region. Experiments should be done with injections of AAV-CaMKIIa-hM3D(Gq)-mCherry placed in other brain regions, for example, the nearby nucleus accumbens.

(8) The mapping of the distribution of neurons responsible for synthetic torpor is not mechanistic enough and is not directly to the point. While excitatory and inhibitory markers are examined, a more interesting and deeper approach would have been to use glutamate receptor antagonists to manipulate the torpor response.

(9) The ischemia and reperfusion aspects of the Lagendorff method need to be clarified. The isolated hearts are already ischemic after their removal from the rat. The reperfusion aspect is caused by reflow of blood to generate oxidative stress, but in the ex vivo model, is there really reperfusion injury?

(10) The authors show that whole animal oxygen consumption is reduced in the torpor state. The measurement is crude and most likely reflects the inactivity of the animal's skeletal muscle in the torpor state. A more relevant and direct experiment would be to do oxygen consumption (or Seahorse) assays on extracts of the isolated hearts.

(11) The authors report that the synthetic torpor induces bradycardia. There is no follow-up on this important observation. The MPA-heart connection is not analyzed. (A) Is the link through cardiovascular centers in the brainstem? (B) Is the torpor-induced bradycardia mediated through increased parasympathetic or decreased sympathetic autonomic tone? Pharmacological experiments could also be done.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript combines widefield calcium imaging, electroencephalography, 2-photon imaging, and immunohistochemistry in mice to re-demonstrate that electroconvulsive stimulation (ECS) induces a seizure followed by cortical spreading depolarization, as previously shown. The putative novel finding - which is not unexpected - is that ECS is also correlated with increased expression of the immediate early gene cFOS, although this has also been shown previously. The authors speculate that CSD drives cFOS expression, which might contribute to the therapeutic effects of ECT; however, experiments performed do not provide causal evidence for this hypothesis. Instead, the authors use expression of cFOS - a nonspecific activity-dependent gene induced in various pathological and non-therapeutic contexts - as a proxy for plasticity and/or therapeutic effect. Hence, overall, the significance of the findings is limited and primarily serves to replicate prior work, with the evidence evaluated as incomplete.

Strengths:

The experiments are generally well executed from a technical perspective.

Main Weaknesses to be addressed in revision:

(1) The main findings of this paper are replication experiments of prior work, and thus, the novelty and significance of this manuscript are relatively limited.

- It is already known that the mean frequency of ECT-induced seizures decays between peak and offset in humans (Stuiver et al. Clin Neurophysiol. 2026 Jan:181:2111439. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2025.2111439) and mice (Murakami et al. J Pharmacol Sci 2008 Jan;106(1):78-83. 10.1254/jphs.FP0071453), which the authors re-demonstrate in Figure 1.

- It has already been demonstrated that ECT in mouse models induces lateralized CSD waves in a manner that depends on stimulation parameters and the initial evoked response during stimulation (Rosenthal et al. Nat Comm. 2025 May 18;16(1):4619. doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-59900-1); the authors replicate this in Figures 1, 2, 3, 6.

- It is already widely established that EEG and calcium signals are highly concordant in mouse brain physiology, as shown in Figure 1. It is already known that CSD propagates from supragranular to granular and infragranular layers (Zakharov et al. Epilepsia. 2019 Dec;60(12):2386-2397. doi: 10.1111/epi.16390) as shown in Figure 4.

- It is already known that CSD waves induce cFOS expression (e.g., Dell'Orco et al. Front Cell Neurosci. 2023 Dec 14:17:1292661. doi: 10.3389/fncel.2023.1292661; Hermann and Hossman. Neuroscience. 1999 Jan;88(2):599-608. doi: 10.1016/s0306-4522(98)00249-8) as the authors replicate in Figure 5.

Minimally, the authors should revise claims regarding novelty, as the manuscript, as written, is misleading to a reader not familiar with the field. There is limited innovation in re-demonstrating that these events are seizures and that they involve spreading depolarization.

(2) The authors frame their hypothesis that CSD could be a potential mediator of the therapeutic effects of ECT, but they do not measure therapeutic effects or directly test this hypothesis. The principal advancement of the paper is showing that ECT-induced CSD triggers hemisphere-specific cFOS expression as a proxy of plasticity. However, it is already known that CSD induces cFOS expression (as noted above). The observation that cFOS expression was induced only by CSD, not by the initial seizure, is likely a byproduct of the greater activity induced by CSD than by seizure. cFOS expression is nonspecific to plasticity or therapeutic effects and can be triggered by many non-therapeutic interventions. The cFOS data thus do not meaningfully measure therapeutic plasticity. The authors also selectively cite references suggesting that EEG metrics such as seizure duration predict positive therapeutic outcomes, but this link is controversial and not well established in the clinical literature.

Minor Weaknesses:

(3) For the n=3 mice used for concurrent 2P imaging with microprism implant, these animals also had ChrimsonR co-expression, but there are no optogenetic studies described in this paper, which is confusing. Yet, this co-expression introduces a significant confound, as GCaMP6 emission (525/50nm band in this study) will overlap substantially with the ChrimsonR excitation spectrum. Thus, the fluorescence emission used to image these neurons may be optogenetically activating them at the same time. Please explain.

(4) Incision of the cortex for implantation of a prism is a significant cortical injury that likely induces CSD instantaneously and may change the propensity for CSD in subsequent recordings. Please comment on this limitation and address how much time elapsed after surgery before imaging.

(5) Method details are missing or insufficiently described for location, titer, and injection strategy for 2-photon experiments.

(6) Given the wide range of parameters used for ECS in mice and ECT in humans, the authors should provide tables for what stimulation parameters were used for each recording. These protocols were chosen manually rather than randomly or systematically, which introduces confounding factors into analyses that use parameters as an independent variable.

(7) While much of the cFOS staining after unilateral CSD shows hemisphere-specific asymmetry, several regions (piriform cortex, amygdala, thalamus) do appear to have bilateral cFOS expression. Please comment on this.

(8) The discussion states: "If CSD accounts for plasticity effects, triggering a CSD in a non-seizure context may be sufficient to elicit therapeutic effects. This is supported by the clinical success of ultra-brief stimulation treatments that do not cause seizures, such as rTMS with accelerated protocols, which achieves treatment efficacy on par with ECT for major depressive disorder". Are the authors implying that TMS induces CSD? What evidence supports this idea?

(9) This statement - "Assuming psychosis is the result of thalamocortical coupling that is too weak in frontal areas of the cortex" (lines 583-585) - may be overly speculative.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

In the present study, the authors describe the development of new tools and imaging strategies to assess the concomitant development of excitatory and inhibitory synapses in dissociated neuron cultures. To this end, they generate fluorescently tagged constructs of excitatory and inhibitory synapse marker proteins using either conventional overexpression or CRISPR-based strategies. They then image these marker proteins over a timespan of 15 hours to assess synaptic dynamics at different developmental timepoints. Based on their data, they conclude that excitatory and inhibitory synapse development occur in concert to maintain a functional balance despite individual synapse turnover.

Overall, this study addresses an interesting question, i.e., the interplay between the development of excitatory and inhibitory synapses, which has important implications, particularly for neurodevelopmental disorders in which the balance of excitation and inhibition is disrupted. The experiments are technically solid and well-executed, and the individual images are highly compelling.

Comments on revised version:

The authors have fully addressed my concerns, and this is now a strong manuscript for the synaptic field.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Using fMRI, the authors demonstrate that human temporal voice areas (TVA) respond not only to human vocalizations but also to those of other primates, particularly chimpanzee calls, which share acoustic features with human voices. These findings provide compelling evidence for cross-species vocal processing in the human auditory system and carry important theoretical implications for understanding the evolutionary underpinnings of speech perception.

Strengths:

The study offers a valuable comparative design, rigorous acoustic and phylogenetic modeling, and consistent evidence that bilateral anterior TVA regions respond more strongly to chimpanzee vocalizations than to other species' calls. The inclusion of both great apes and monkeys provides a rare cross-species perspective.

Weaknesses:

Minor limitations include the acoustic-phylogenetic confound (which the authors partially address with additional analyses), the lack of non-vocal controls to establish true selectivity.

Overall, the methods, data, and analyses broadly support the claims, with only minor weaknesses that do not undermine the main conclusions. The findings are valuable for the subfield of auditory neuroscience and comparative cognition, with solid evidence supporting the primary claims.

Comments on revised version.

After revision, this work has shown great improvement in data analysis, figure organization, and writing. I have no further suggestions.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The work investigates how the foraging behaviour of Drosophila larvae depends on resource quality, valence, and heterogeneity in the foraging environment. A specific focus of the work was to study how foraging decisions depend on the prior experience of alternative resource patches in the same environment. Moreover, the work presents computational models (drift diffusion models) that recapitulate foraging decisions, and whose parameters appear to depend on resource quality and environment statistics, providing potential insights into the dynamics of the decision-making process.

I am not familiar with previous literature on foraging decisions in Drosophila, but I was specifically consulted to comment on the computational modelling. Therefore, my comments will mostly focus on the modelling aspects.

Strengths:

In my understanding, the two strengths of the current study are that:<br /> (1) it uses non-volatile resources, providing better control of the available cues that could guide foraging decisions, and<br /> (2) it tracks foraging behaviour over an extended period of time (3h), generating a rich dataset of foraging behaviour in the same environment.

Overall, the study appears to have been carefully conducted.

Weaknesses:

The computational modelling currently provides limited additional value beyond the empirical results. There are no prior hypotheses that are addressed by the computational models. Given the flexibility of DDMs, fitting foraging times is expected to be feasible. The question is whether the fits provide mechanistic insight. The main insight appears to be that describing foraging times in a homogeneous environment requires a single free parameter (drift rate), while the heterogenous environment requires a second parameter (leak). However, the effective complexity of the model is higher than the stated parameter count suggests, as each patch quality is fit with a different drift rate, which does not generalise across environments: in the heterogeneous environment, the drift rate differs substantially across fructose concentrations, whereas in the homogeneous environment, the same concentrations yield nearly identical drift rates. Counter their claims, the authors also do not systematically explore the effect of specific prior foraging experience on computational parameters, but only contrast model fits to environments with different statistics, in which prior experiences will be generally different. Overall, at the moment these modelling results have a rather descriptive character, and provide very little insight into the underlying computational principles that drive foraging decisions.

A second weakness is that the study does not report the detailed results of the statistical tests, and it seems that the authors interpret several differences that are not marked as statistically significant in the figures. Furthermore, the model comparisons do not account for different degrees of freedom of the models, and the goodness of fit values alone are insufficient to conclude that one model is better than the other (rather than overfitting).

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors optimize continuous-time linear recurrent networks driven by noisy input, computing the gradient of decoding performance numerically and analytically. Optimizing for stimulus discriminability after a delay, with a penalty on firing rate, they find networks that adopt what they call high-dimensional rotational dynamics. They argue that these outperform attractor and feedforward models on noise robustness and energetic cost, and resemble state-of-the-art state-space models. They then fit a targeted dimensionality reduction model to prefrontal recordings from monkeys performing a spatial working memory task and argue that the population structure matches the rotational solution.

Strengths:

The evolution of the dynamics throughout learning is a nice observation, as are the analytical calculations, although I am not sure they are new since there is a fair share of work on the learning dynamics of linear networks.

Weakness:

I see many weaknesses. I will classify them into five groups.

(1) Strawman comparison and no clear definition of what is rotational. The paper is centered on comparing a trained model with two models meant to represent "attractor dynamics" and non-normal dynamics. Both are picked as the weakest member of their class.

I use quotation marks for "attractor dynamics" because I am not sure a linear system with an eigenvalue equal to zero is a representative model for the class. This is a particular linear instantiation of the line attractor from Seung 1996, but most attractor models are nonlinear and far more robust to noise, and they are robust through error correction that this linear model does not have. Even modern continuous attractors (Rivkind and Darshan) are very robust to noise through multiple mechanisms. So what the authors picked as an "attractor model" is a limited zero-eigenvalue case that, of course, will drift. "Attractor networks are highly susceptible to noise" is therefore true only of the toy they built, not of the class.

Second, what they call a non-normal model is in fact a feedforward chain, the extreme of non-normality. There are degrees of non-normality in any matrix, and the homogeneous delay line is the corner that requires the largest firing rates. This is not representative. See Daie et al., which has a skip and recurrent structure, or Stroud, which is not a pure chain. So the feedforward chain was also picked as a strawman, chosen so that the energetic cost they then complain about is guaranteed.

This brings me to the real problem in this section. "Rotational" is never defined. If it means complex eigenvalues, then it is a spectral property of any non-normal matrix, and "rotational versus feedforward" is not a dichotomy; it is two regions of the same continuous space of non-normal connectivity. Their own Figure 2C shows the network passing continuously through an attractor, then feedforward, then rotational during optimization. If these are points on a continuum, then "rotational dynamics is optimal" is just a statement about where the optimizer lands under this particular loss and input normalization, not the discovery of a new dynamical class. They need to define the term operationally and show the solution is qualitatively, not just quantitatively, different from non-normal feedforward. I do not think it survives that test.

This brings me to the references.

(2) The dynamical mechanisms of working memory have been studied for more than two decades, and I am surprised how much directly relevant work is missing. First, Druckmann and Chklovskii 2012, where a linear system produces stable encoding from oscillating modes. This is essentially their result more than a decade earlier, and it is not cited. They also miss Murray et al. on stable encoding and heterogeneous timescales in data. They oversimplify the attractor picture; for example, Pereira-Obilinovic et al. 2023 show you can have genuinely stable attractors. They do cite Daie et al., but they ignore its central claim, that non-normality is the underlying mechanism, which is more troubling than not citing it because it means they read it and did not engage. Overall, the references are idiosyncratic, missing relevant work, and not engaging the results of papers they cite.

This brings me to the third point.

(3) Novelty and the relationship to Stroud and Orhan. Those papers take a similar optimization approach and find that, depending on the task parameters, the optimal solution is non-normal, non-normal plus attractor, or attractor. My impression is that what this work calls rotational is just the dynamics of a strongly non-normal A, selected here by the firing-rate regularizer. They never clarify the connection with Stroud. Is the only difference the energy penalty?

The way to settle this is quantitative, and they have the handle and do not use it: report the Henrici departure-from-normality of their optimized A and place the solution inside Stroud's regime structure.

There is also a tension they leave implicit. In Stroud, the early loading direction is orthogonal to the late persistent readout, and that orthogonality is the source of dynamic coding. This paper's subspace alignment result (Figure 5G, H) shows exactly this early-to-late orthogonalization in both model and data, and then presents it as evidence for the rotational account and against Stroud's hybrid. You cannot reproduce a Strout's stim vs. decoder orthogonality and claim it against Strout's without doing more work.

(4) I did not understand the SSM section, and I think it should be cut. Is this a result? Either "SSM" just means a linear dynamical system, in which case it is trivial since every linear network here, including the LMU is an SSM, or it means the network matches a fixed-connectivity model like the LMU, which it does not seem to either. So in what sense is it a result?

(5) The data analysis is one section, and the analysis could be described as feeling somewhat like an afterthought on a very rich dataset. The coding structure they show for the rotational model also looks like the Stroud non-normal-plus-attractor model to me. They even state that the hybrid reproduces the cross-temporal subspace. What are the quantitative, cross-session metric that discriminates rotational from the non-normal-plus-attractor hybrid? Is it eyeballed trajectories?

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The manuscript of Haertter and coworkers studied the variation of the length of a single sarcomere and the response of microfibrils made by sarcomeres of cardiomyocytes on soft gel substrates of varying stiffness.

The measurements at the level of a single sarcomere are an important new result of this manuscript. They are done by combining the labeling of the sarcomeres z line using genetic manipulation and a sophisticated tracking program using machine learning. This single sarcomere analysis shows strong heterogeneities of the sarcomeres that can show fast oscillations not synchronized with the average behavior of the cell and what the authors call popping events which are large amplitude oscillations. Another important result is the fact that cardiomyocyte contractility decreases with the substrate stiffness, although the properties of single sarcomeres do not seem to depend on substrate stiffness.

The authors suggest that the cardiomyocyte cell behavior is dominated by sarcomere heterogeneity. They show that the heterogeneity between sarcomere is stochastic and that the contribution of static heterogeneity (such as composition differences between sarcomeres) is small.

Strengths:

All the results are, to my knowledge, new and original. The authors also made a theoretical model where each sarcomere is described by a Langevin equation based on a non-linear coupling between force and velocity of the sarcomeres. This model accounts well for the experimental results including the observation of what the authors call popping events.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors developed a new Agbl5 KO allele by extending the deletion to the N-terminus of CCP5 to investigate its function in mouse ependymal cells and trachea.

Strengths:

They show that the KO mice exhibit severe hydrocephalus due to disorganized and mislocated basal bodies. Additionally, they present evidence of both impaired beating coordination and a reduction in ciliary beating.

The manuscript is well-written, and the experiments are convincing.

Comments on revised version.

The authors have taken all of my comments into account and have revised their manuscript to my satisfaction.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, Bonanno et al. show that after a lesion of the corticospinal tract (CST), rehabilitation running in a complex wheel drives improvement in skilled forelimb performance in mice. Mice with unilateral CST injury can perform gross motor tasks (locomotion) at the same level as the non-injured mice, but injured mice still have deficits in another task involving fine motor control. Thus, it is well-suited to test the efficacy of locomotion-based rehabilitation in fine motor control. Mice that voluntarily engaged in the rehabilitation protocol improved in the fine motor control task more than those mice that did not perform any rehabilitation. Highlighting the role of rehabilitation in the recovery of motor function after the lesion.

The authors aimed to study rehabilitation-driven intact CST sprouting to supraspinal areas. They identified one area in the motor medulla where rehabilitation significantly changes the projection density from the intact cortical spinal neurons. Interestingly, this area has ipsilateral connections and thus could be a pathway to convey motor commands from the intact corticospinal tract to the denervated area. However, as the authors acknowledge in the discussion, they only found a correlation between the change in the synaptic projections from intact CST to the medulla and the recovery. Future work should study if indeed the area of the motor medulla identified here increases its ipsilateral projections to the denervated area, confirming the re-routing of motor commands from the intact cortico spinal tract to the denervated area. The paper is strong and, in general, claims are supported by the data.

Strengths:

In this study, Bonanno et al. show that after a unilateral corticospinal tract lesion (CST), locomotion rehabilitation can improve motor function and improvements generalized to tasks that require fine motor control. Moreover, it identifies a potential pathway that could be used for the intact corticospinal tract to convey motor commands to the denervated area. The pathway identified here could become a target for rehabilitation therapies.

Weaknesses:

As the authors acknowledge in the discussion of the study, the main limitation of this study is that the reorganization observed at the motor medulla is only correlational. Thus, it is possible that the adaptation to running with an injured limb of the intact CST to adapt to an injured limb rather than a re-routing of the intact CST inputs to the denervated area underlies the synaptic changes observed in the motor medulla.

The statistical analysis could be better described.

The generalization of skilled movement is limited to only locomotion tasks.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors present an extensive review of the literature on normative grid cell theory, asking what kind of cost function might be minimized by the entorhinal grid cell code. The authors show which of the main features of grid cells emerge from combinations of terms in a cost function that optimizes for spatial fidelity, biological plausibility, and path integration. They conclude by outlining potential future directions for the field.

Strengths:

The structure of the review makes it particularly useful for researchers who are familiar with grid cells but not necessarily with normative models. Equations are kept to a minimum and are usually explained conceptually.

Weaknesses:

I identified one main weakness, related to the fact that the introduction to experimental results around grid cells and what they allow us to conclude is less nuanced than the rest of the review. However, since this is not the main focus of the manuscript, I consider this a secondary limitation.

The review organizes the current literature on the subject within a coherent conceptual framework, helping to define possible paths forward for the field.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors provide a highly valuable and thoroughly documented pipeline to accelerate the processing and spike sorting of high-density electrophysiology data, particularly from Neuropixels probes. The scale of data collection is increasing across the field, and processing times and data storage are a growing concern. This pipeline provides parallelization and benchmarking of performance after data compression that helps address these concerns. The authors also use their pipeline to benchmark different spike sorting algorithms, providing useful evidence that Kilosort4 performs the best of out the tested options. This work, and the ability to implement this pipeline with minimal effort to standardize and speed up data processing across the field, will be of great interest to many researchers in systems neuroscience.

Strengths:

The paper is very well written and clear. The accompanying GitHub and ReadTheDocs are well organized and thorough. Benchmarks are exceptionally well applied to support the authors' claims, and it is clear that the pipeline has been very thoroughly tested and optimized by users at the Allen Institute for Neural Dynamics. The pipeline incorporates existing software and platforms that have also been thoroughly tested (such as SpikeInterface), so the authors are not reinventing the wheel, but rather putting together the best of many worlds. In the latest revision, the authors add a nice analysis showing that compression mostly affects the lowest SNR units. This is a great contribution to the field and it is clear the authors have put a lot of thought into making the pipeline as accessible as possible.

Weaknesses:

None noted. The authors have addressed all previous questions and requests for clarification.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

SpeB is a cysteine protease secreted during infection by Streptococcus pyogenes (Spy). SpeB has been extensively investigated for its role in pathogenesis, which involves proteolytic processing of both Spy virulence factors and host proteins. Regulation of speB expression is complex and includes growth phase regulation, a quorum-sensing system, the transcription factor RopB, and the global regulatory system CovRS (CsrRS). Guerra et al now attempt to refine the current model of regulation of SpeB expression, focusing on the Spy protein Vfr, which has been suggested previously to act as a negative regulator of SpeB expression. In the current study, neutrophil lysates (representing proteases released during NETosis) are shown to degrade Vfr and to relieve repression of SpeB. At high cell density, SpeB itself also degrades Vfr, which may allow autoregulation of SpeB expression. These observations are unsurprising as the broad protease activities of both neutrophil proteases and SpeB are well known. Nonetheless, the data presented fill in additional details in our understanding of the complex regulation of an important Spy virulence factor.

Strengths:

(1) Construction of a GFP reporter strain provided a facile methodology for tracking speB promoter activity in a variety of experimental setups.

(2) A Vfr deletion mutant was a useful tool to investigate the role of Vfr in SpeB regulation, and mutants in speB and ropB were important controls.

(3) Experiments using neutrophil lysates in vitro, as well as in vivo studies of mice depleted of neutrophils with anti-Ly6G or in PAD4-/- mice (that cannot form NETs) support the hypothesis that neutrophil proteases derepress speB expression by degrading Vfr.

Weaknesses:

(1) The introduction and all the experiments in Figure 1 focus on CovRS, which turns out to be largely tangential to the overall story developed by the rest of the study. On the other hand, the complex and well-studied regulation of speB expression by RopB and the SIP quorum-sensing system is only minimally described. A better framing would be a more detailed introduction to the current model of speB/RopB/SIP/quorum sensing/growth phase regulation. CovRS could be introduced later as its relevance is really just to show that neutrophil lysates or NETs do more than simply providing LL-37, which signals through CsrS, as another regulator of speB expression.

(2) Vfr, as the central focus of the paper, also deserves a more thorough introduction to provide context for the study. For example, reference 19 (Shelburne et al, 2011) showed reduced transcription of speB in a vfr mutant, an effect that could be complemented by expressing vfr or a 39-aa N-terminal fragment in trans. That study presented evidence that the N-terminal peptide binds to RopB, which may prevent RopB from upregulating SpeB expression. Do the authors concur with that model? As it stands, the discussion and model in Figure 1A imply a direct regulatory effect of Vfr on speB expression rather than an indirect one through regulation of RopB. If direct regulation of speB by Vfr is a consideration, it should be investigated more thoroughly, e.g., by promoter-binding assays, CHIP-seq, etc.

(3) Use of single-cell flow cytometry generally confirmed results observed in batch culture. The authors also comment repeatedly on the heterogeneity of individual cell fluorescence representing both speB and has operon expression. However, the reason(s) for heterogeneity in gene expression are not explored, e.g., differences in individual cell growth rate in batch culture, variable loss of reporter plasmid during infection experiments, etc).

(4) Lines 116-118 and Figure 3C: Incubation of recombinant Vfr with Spy Dvfr reduced SpeB expression, but the degree of suppression is modest compared to that seen in wild-type Spy. How does the concentration of rVfr added compare to that present in the culture fluid of wild-type Spy? (Also, the concentration of rVfr used is unclear: the figure says 3 µg/ml and the legend says 0.3 mg/ml, i.e., 300 µg/ml).

(5) Lines 125-126: "...the Vfr structure contains several potential protease SpeB cleavage sites..." The role of Vfr in degrading SpeB could be clarified by identifying the predicted cleavage products, e.g., by mass spec, after co-incubation of the two recombinant proteins.

(6) Lines 122-124: "Notably, speB expression in Spy Dvfr is unaffected by LL-37 or MgCl2, further validating its [Vfr's?] dominance over CovRS regulation." This statement is an oversimplification and is potentially misleading: LL-37 is degraded by SpeB (Nyberg et al, JBC 2004), which likely explains why the addition of LL-37 fails to signal through CovRS to repress SpeB in Spy Dvfr since SpeB is produced continuously in that strain. By contrast, SpeB is only produced during the stationary phase in the wild type, so LL-37 remains active throughout the exponential phase and represses SpeB expression. The response to the CovRS ligand MgCl2 is similar (or greater) in Spy Dvfr compared to wild type (Figure S2C).

(7) Lines 153-154 and Figure 6E: Growing wild type Spy in the presence of neutrophil lysates with or without a protease inhibitor stimulated or repressed speB expression in a manner consistent with degradation (or not) of Vfr. It would be confirmatory and informative to do the same experiment with the Spy Dvfr strain.

(8) Clarity of writing could be improved, particularly by eliminating pronouns of indefinite reference (it, its, this) in contexts in which the subject is ambiguous (examples at lines 62, 89, 111, 114, 115, 123, 183, 190, 193, 204, 205, 210, 217, 221, 222, 224).

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors aimed to overcome the challenges associated with complex, conventional prokaryotic cell-free protein synthesis (CFPS) systems, which require up to thirty-five components, by developing a streamlined and efficient E. coli CFPS platform to encourage broader adoption. The main objective was to reduce the number of reaction components from thirty-five to seven, while also developing an accessible 'fast lysate' preparation protocol that eliminates time-consuming runoff and dialysis steps. The authors also sought to demonstrate the robustness and translational quality of this streamlined system by efficiently synthesising challenging functional proteins, including the cytotoxic restriction endonuclease BsaI and the self-assembling intermediate filament protein vimentin.

Strengths:

This study presents several key strengths of the optimised E. coli cell-free protein synthesis system in terms of its design, performance and accessibility.

- The reaction mixture has been dramatically simplified, with the number of essential core components successfully reduced from up to thirty-five in conventional systems to just seven.

- The "fast lysate" protocol is a significant advance in terms of procedure.

- The system's ability to synthesise challenging, functional proteins is evidence of its robustness.

Weaknesses:

(1) Title: "A simplified and highly efficient cell-free protein synthesis system for prokaryotes".

- This title is misleading since one would expect a simplified and highly efficient cell-free protein synthesis system to yield similar protein levels compared to current cell-free protein synthesis systems. What this study shows is that the composition of cell-free protein synthesis systems can be simplified while maintaining a certain level of protein synthesis. Here, optimisation does not involve maintaining protein synthesis yield while simplifying the cell-free protein synthesis system; rather, it involves developing a simplified cell-free protein synthesis system. As mentioned in my comments below, this study lacks a comparison of protein levels with a typical cell-free protein synthesis system.

- What do the authors mean by "highly efficient"? Highly efficient compared to what experimental conditions? If one is interested by the yield of protein synthesis, is this simplified system highly efficient compared to current systems?

(2) Figure 1, 3-5:

- What do relative luciferase units represent? How are these units calculated?

- In this system, the level of expression depends mainly on the level of NLuc transcripts and the efficiency of NLuc translation. How did the authors ensure that the chemical composition of the different eCFPS buffers only affected protein translation and not transcript levels? In other words, are luciferase units solely an indicator of protein synthesis efficiency, or do they also depend on transcription efficiency, which could vary depending on the experimental conditions?

- How long were the eCFPS reactions allowed to proceed before performing the luciferase activity measurement? Depending on the reaction time, the absence or presence of certain compounds may or may not impact NLuc expression. For example, it can be assumed that tRNA does not significantly affect NLuc levels over a short period of time, and that endogenous tRNA in the lysate is present at sufficient concentrations. However, over a longer period of time, the addition of tRNA could be essential to achieve optimal NLuc levels.

- The authors show that tRNA and amino acids are not strictly essential for the expression of NLuc, likely due to residual amounts within the cell lysate. However, are the protein levels achieved without added amino acids and tRNA sufficient for biochemical assays that require a certain amount of protein? It is important to note that the focus here is on optimising the simplicity of the buffer rather than the level of protein expression. In fact, the simplicity of the buffer is prioritised over the amount of protein produced. This should be made clear.

- How would the NLuc level compare if all the components were optimised individually and present in an optimised buffer, compared to a buffer optimised for simplicity as described by the authors?

(3) Line 71, Streamlining eCFPS: removal of dispensable components. This title is misleading because it creates the false impression that proteins can be produced in vitro without the addition of certain compounds. While this is true, the level of protein produced may not be sufficient for subsequent biochemical analyses. This should be made clear.

(4) Figure 2: In the legend, change "(A) Protein expression levels of the eCFPS system measured at varying concentrations of KGlu and MgGlu2" to "(A) Protein expression levels of the eCFPS system using an Nanoluciferase (NLuc) reporter DNA measured at varying concentrations of KGlu and MgGlu2".

(5) Lanes 302-303: "The thorough optimization of the seven core components was a critical step in achieving high protein expression levels". What are "high expression levels"? Compared to what?

Comments on revised version.

The authors have adequately addressed my previous concerns.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary and Overall Evaluation:

This is an elegant paper addressing an important question: whether spatial location is automatically activated during the recall of object memories. Building on prior work that relied on trained or repeated stimuli, the present study uses unique objects with one-time encoding across four spatial locations - a meaningful advance in ecological validity. The experimental design is clean, the data analysis is well-executed, and the reported effects, while small, are intriguing and open up interesting questions about the role of spatial structure in visual memory. Overall, this is a solid contribution, and my comments below are intended to help the authors strengthen the paper further.

Major Comments

(1) Incidental encoding.<br /> Was the memory task fully incidental - that is, were participants unaware that a subsequent memory test would follow encoding? This seems important for interpreting the automaticity claim that is central to the paper's contribution, and should be clarified explicitly.

(2) Spatial extent of the analysis - higher visual regions and negative pRFs.<br /> The analysis appears restricted to regions V1-V3. Have the authors examined higher visual areas as well? This seems like an important omission given that object memory likely engages regions well beyond the early visual cortex. Relatedly, recent work by Adam Steel and colleagues suggests that spatially tuned negative pRFs may play an important role in memory. Have the authors considered examining these? Expanding the analysis in these directions could substantially enrich the findings.

(3) Mechanism - retinotopic or spatiotopic?<br /> The paper makes a compelling case that spatial structure supports memory, but the nature of that spatial structure deserves more discussion. Are the effects retinotopic or spatiotopic in nature? The current design may not be able to fully dissociate these possibilities, but this distinction is theoretically important, and the authors should engage with it directly. Even a careful discussion of what the current data can and cannot tell us on this point would be valuable.

(4) Relationship between encoding failure and retrieval failure.<br /> For trials where memory performance is worse, and the encoding models fail, is there a systematic relationship between how the pRFs fail at object retrieval versus spatial retrieval? In other words, are the pRFs wrongly tuned in the same way at both stages? This analysis could provide meaningful insight into whether object and location retrieval draw on shared spatial representations.

(5) Object shape and spatial mapping.<br /> Real-world objects vary considerably in surface structure and shape, which may affect how cleanly they map onto a specific spatial location. Was this considered in the analysis? What was taken as the correct or peak location for each object, and how was this defined when objects extended across space? Apologies if this was addressed in the methods and I missed it.

(6) Time course of pRF activation.<br /> Is there a way to examine the time course of pRF activation within a trial? Do the spatially tuned responses arise immediately upon retrieval, or do they build up over time? Even a preliminary analysis of this would be of considerable theoretical interest, as it would speak to whether spatial reinstatement is an early automatic process or a later, more deliberate one.

(7) Effect size and functional significance.<br /> The authors acknowledge that the reported effects are very small, which I appreciate. However, this does raise genuine questions about functional significance that I think deserve a more direct response. One approach that would help contextualize the spatial effects would be to compare their magnitude to that of another feature - object identity, for example - to give readers a sense of the relative importance of spatial versus non-spatial information in memory representations. I recognize this may not be straightforward with the current design, but even a brief discussion of how one might benchmark the spatial effects would be helpful.

(8) The attention account.<br /> I found the discussion of attention less than fully convincing. The authors appear to argue against an attentional interpretation of the spatial effects, but it is not clear why participants wouldn't attend to the encoded location during retrieval - particularly in a design with relatively few retrieval cues, where spatial location may be one of the most useful available. The attention account thus seems difficult to rule out on the basis of the current data, and the discussion should engage more seriously with this alternative rather than setting it aside.

(9) Later-remembered versus later-forgotten objects - BOLD signal.<br /> Were later-remembered objects associated with stronger overall BOLD responses during encoding compared to later-forgotten objects, or was the effect specific to the pRF modelling? Clarifying this would help readers understand whether the spatial effects are part of a broader pattern of stronger encoding or something more specific to the spatial reinstatement mechanism.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

TDP-43 proteinopathy is broadly found in neurodegenerative diseases. This manuscript investigates how nuclear export influences the biophysical properties of TDP-43. The authors use a combination of chemical screening and genome-wide siRNA screening to identify pathways that modulate TDP-43 liquid-to-solid transitions. Overall, the study employs a broad array of approaches and addresses an important question in TDP-43 pathobiology. The identification of nuclear export as a central regulator is compelling and conceptually aligns with the emerging view that TDP-43 nucleocytoplasmic trafficking is a major defect in neurodegeneration.

Strengths:

This work integrates chemical and genetic screening to identify novel modifiers. The candidates were validated in both reporter cell lines and iPS-differentiated organoids. The findings support the nucleocytoplasmic transport is important for the biophysical properties of TDP-43.

Comments on revised version.

The manuscript has been improved with more data and clarification. The RNase T1 treatment experiment suggests that RNA is required for anisosome integrity. However, this does not directly demonstrate LMB increases nuclear RNA availability as changes in protein composition or other RNA-dependent mechanisms may also contribute. The conclusion and discussion need to be edited to consider these alternative scenarios. Overall, as most of the evidence remains indirect, the manuscript should avoid overinterpretation regarding the mechanisms underlying TDP-43 phase transition and aggregation.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This is a well-written manuscript that describes three robust and complementary computational approaches to unravel the sequence determinants of membrane insertion, specifically of intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs) containing aromatic-centered insertion motifs.

Strengths:

A robust, multifaceted computational approach employing aromatic-centered model membrane-insertion peptides, which provides critical insights into the determinants of membrane insertion.

Weaknesses:

I only have specific concerns about some of the models used for this purpose.

(1) Membrane composition and lipid shape characteristics: The authors chose to use a model membrane bilayer of a distinct lipid composition, POPC: POPS: PI4,5P2 (70:25:5 molar ratio), for their all-atom simulations of the various model peptides. While this may be pertinent for some of these peptides, it is not for many, such as sequence 2 derived from Drp1, which preferentially binds target conical lipids such as cardiolipin (CL) and phosphatidic acid (PA). The rationale behind using PI4,5P2, which can induce positive membrane curvature when sequestered, versus CL and PA, which both induce negative membrane curvature, is not explained.

(2) Parallel vs. perpendicular peptide orientation of sequence 2 in peripheral Drp1-lipid interactions: On page 11, the authors state that their simulation results of sequence 2 derived from Drp1 "contrasts with a transmembrane orientation proposed by Mahajan et al." However, upon review, a transmembrane orientation for this region has never been proposed anywhere. Drp1 is a peripheral membrane protein that reversibly binds CL- and PA-containing membranes via its intrinsically disordered variable domain containing an aromatic-centered WRG motif. Indeed, the model presented in Figure 9 of Mahajan et al. displays a peripheral and parallel orientation of the transiently helical WRG-containing motif rather than a transmembrane (i.e., across the bilayer) orientation. While the authors can distinguish between a parallel vs. perpendicular orientation of this sequence relative to the plane of the membrane bilayer surface from their simulations, suggesting that previous studies indicated a transmembrane orientation for Drp1 is disingenuous and misleading. The term "transmembrane" should be removed or replaced, as it presents a wrong image.

(3) Mutational analysis of W vs. F in membrane insertion of W-centered insertion motifs and vice versa: The PPM-based workflow suggests that F-centered sequences have the highest membrane insertion properties as opposed to W-centered ones. A W552F mutation in the WRGML sequence of Drp1 was, however, found to impair function. How do the authors rationalize this? A cross-mutational analysis of W vs. F in W-centered motifs and F-centered motifs is warranted.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Forbes et al. present a new approach for identifying cis-regulatory elements in large genomes. Using Parhyale hawaiensis, a crustacean with a large genome (~3.6 Gb, comparable in size to the human genome), the authors show that current methods for identifying cis-regulatory elements, effective in smaller genomes, are markedly inefficient in organisms with large genomes. To address this limitation, they combine bulk ATAC-seq and single-cell (sc) ATAC-seq to identify chromatin regions that are either ubiquitously accessible or specifically accessible in particular cell types. They further integrate comparative genomics across multiple Parhyale species (P. hawaiensis, P. aquilina, and P. darvishi), selected at appropriate phylogenetic distances (20-95 million years divergence), to pinpoint conserved open chromatin regions likely under functional constraint.

Using this strategy, the authors predict a set of ubiquitous and cell-type-specific cis-regulatory elements. Importantly, they validate these predictions using rigorous transgenic reporter assays, convincingly demonstrating that their approach can successfully identify functional regulatory elements where previous methods had failed.

Strengths:

The approach introduced by Forbes et al. is conceptually straightforward, efficient, and readily transferable to other organisms. The validation experiments show not only that a substantial proportion of the predicted elements are functional, but also that the method is capable of identifying both ubiquitous and cell-type-specific regulatory elements. Given that the identification of regulatory regions remains a major bottleneck in understanding the molecular mechanisms underlying processes of development and regeneration, this work has the potential to make a significant impact in developmental and regeneration biology, particularly for studies involving non-model organisms with large genomes.

An additional strength is the demonstration that only the genome of the focal species requires high-quality sequencing and assembly. In contrast, species used solely for comparative analysis can be sequenced at low coverage without assembly, substantially reducing costs and increasing the accessibility of the approach.

Weaknesses:

While the method is effective in identifying regulatory elements that are active ubiquitously or in differentiated cell types, it failed in detecting elements associated with developmentally regulated genes. This may be due to trivial reasons, such as a very low level of expression of the selected genes. However, as acknowledged by the authors, it may also indicate inherent challenges in identifying regulatory elements associated with developmentally dynamic gene regulation, compared to those associated with genes expressed in differentiated cell types.

A second limitation, also acknowledged by the authors, is the absence of chromatin conformation capture data, which would help link distal regulatory elements to their target genes. This limitation may be particularly relevant for developmentally regulated genes, where long-range regulatory interactions may be critical.

Addressing these limitations will be an important direction for future work. Nonetheless, the approach as presented in this manuscript represents a key contribution that sets the stage for further methodological advances in the identification of cis-regulatory elements in large genomes.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

This manuscript investigates computational mechanisms underlying increased risk-taking behavior in adolescent patients with suicidal thoughts and behaviors. Using a well-established gambling task that incorporates momentary mood ratings and previously established computational modeling approaches, the authors identify particular aspects of choice behavior (which they term approach bias) and mood responsivity (to certain rewards) that differ as a function of suicidality. The authors replicate their findings on both clinical and large-scale non-clinical samples.

The main problem, however, is that the results do not seem to support a specific conclusion with regard to suicidality. The S+ and S- groups differ substantially in the severity of symptoms, as can be seen by all symptom questionnaires and the baseline and mean mood, where S- is closer to HC than it is to S+. The main analyses control for illness duration and medication but not for symptom severity. The supplementary analysis in Figure S11 is insufficient as it mistakes the absence of evidence (i.e., p > 0.05) for evidence of absence. Therefore, the results do not adequately deconfound suicidality from general symptom severity.

The second main issue is that the relationship between an increased approach bias and decreased mood response to CR is conceptually unclear. In this respect, it would be natural to test whether mood responses influence subsequent gambling choices. This could be done either within the model by having mood moderate the approach bias or outside the model using model-agnostic analyses.

Additionally, there is a conceptual inconsistency between the choice and mood findings that partly results from the analytic strategy. The approach bias is implemented in choice as a categorical value-independent effect, whereas the mood responses always scale linearly with the magnitude of outcomes. One way to make the models more conceptually related would be to include a categorical value-independent mood response to choosing to gamble/not to gamble.

The manuscript requires editing to improve clarity and precision. The use of terms such as "mood" and "approach motivation" is often inaccurate or not sufficiently specific. There are also many grammatical errors throughout the text.

Claims of clinical relevance should be toned down, given that the findings are based on noisy parameter estimates whose clinical utility for the treatment of an individual patient is doubtful at best.

Comments on revisions:'

The authors adequately addressed my comments and I find the manuscript substantially strengthened.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this revised manuscript, White et al. aimed to understand the wound-induced syncytia formation behavior in wound repair of Drosophila melanogaster pupal notum. For this purpose, the authors characterized two different types of adherens junctions' outcomes during syncytia formation around the wound region - border breakdown versus apical shrinking which appear to happen in different time points and for different time durations. The authors characterized cell-cell fusion events using cytoplasmic, junctional and nuclear markers. They determined that about half of the cells within 70 um radii from the wound undergo cell-cell fusion. They studied wound induction on the border between control epithelia and pnr domain suggesting that Atg1 is required for post-wound syncytia formation and wound closure. They showed that during wound closure syncytia gradually invade the wound leading edge mostly by radial fusion events. The data suggests that intercalation of cells from the leading edge slows down the wound closure process. They propose that cell fluidity of syncytial cells plays a role in wound closure speed. Finally, the authors showed that actin is concentrated to the front edge of syncytia located in the wound leading edge. The authors described some aspects of syncytia formation during wound closure using different approaches. Some clarifications are needed as described below.

Major suggestions:

(1) Introduction, page 4. The examples of developmental syncytia formation of invertebrates and vertebrates are confusing. The authors may want to make the examples clear and add additional examples. Currently, readers may assume that C. elegans cell fusions occur only in the hypodermis - other structures can be mentioned like the vulva, pharyngeal muscles, glia, tail. In addition, the authors may want to add injury-induced fusions like the C. elegans' PLM and PVD neurons (Ghosh-Roy et al., 2010; Newman et al., 2015; Oren-Suissa et al., 2017).

(2) In cases where it is not clear whether fusion has occurred or whether mononucleated cells were ejected from the leading edge, membrane markers can be used. Page 6. Lines 96-99. The authors may want to use a membrane marker like RFP-PH driven by the epithelial cell promoter.

(3) Pages 8-10. The authors may want to clearly explain that apical junctions shrinking is a post fusion event. That the apical shrinking is caused by the expansion of fusion pores and the migration of apical junctions towards the basolateral domain. This is something that was clearly shown during physiological epidermal cell-cell fusion in C. elegans by Mohler et al., 1998 and 2002. A cartoon showing the process of cell-cell fusion, pore expansion and apical junction dynamics would make the manuscript much clearer.

(4) Page 9. Line 170. "...as these cells represent fusion initiation events (fusion pore) but were unable to productively stabilize and expand the site of fusion and so returned to the diploid state." The authors may want to make clear that this is an assumption that needs to be tested. Live imaging using a membrane marker may resolve whether a reversible fusion pore was generated.

(5) Page 11. It is not clear whether Atg1 is directly required for cell fusion, or that autophagy is required for efficient cell fusion or both Atg1 and autophagy participate in the fusion process.

(6) Page 12. Line 235. "Indeed, we observed that several hours after wounding, the entire leading edge was occupied by syncytia." This observation is based only on the adherens junction marker. Can they test basal cell membrane marker? Is it possible that the mononucleate cell in the leading edge is under the two syncytia?

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript describes the development of engineered NK-92-derived extracellular vesicles (EVs) displaying CD19scFv for targeted treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Using a CD19scFv-LAMP2B fusion strategy, the authors generated EVs intended to selectively target pathogenic B cells in the MRL/lpr lupus mouse model. The study reports reductions in CD19⁺CD20⁺ B-cell populations, improvements in proteinuria and renal histopathology, decreased inflammatory cytokines and autoantibody levels, reduced splenomegaly, and improved survival outcomes following treatment. The work aims to position engineered EVs as a cell-free alternative to CAR-T/CAR-NK therapies for autoimmune disease treatment. While the concept is interesting and potentially translational, the study currently lacks sufficient methodological rigor, EV purification standards, mechanistic validation, and comprehensive characterization to fully support many of the claims presented.

Strengths:

(1) The study addresses an important unmet clinical need in systemic lupus erythematosus and explores an innovative cell-free therapeutic strategy.

(2) The concept of combining CAR-like targeting approaches with engineered EVs is interesting and potentially translational.

(3) The manuscript includes both in vitro and in vivo experiments, including functional renal assessments, immune profiling, histopathology, and survival studies.

(4) The authors attempt to evaluate multiple disease-associated readouts, including proteinuria, cytokines, autoantibodies, splenomegaly, and survival outcomes, which strengthens the overall biological relevance of the work.

(5) The use of engineered NK92-derived vesicles as a scalable alternative to CAR-NK therapy represents a potentially attractive therapeutic platform.

(6) The in vivo therapeutic observations in the MRL/lpr lupus model are encouraging and warrant further mechanistic investigation.

Weaknesses:

(1) The EV isolation strategy is not sufficiently rigorous for defining the isolated particles as "exosomes" according to current International Society for Extracellular Vesicles/MISEV guidelines. The precipitation-based workflow without density gradient purification or SEC raises major concerns regarding EV purity and identity.

(2) No direct validation was provided demonstrating successful surface localization or functional accessibility of CD19scFv on EV membranes.

(3) The characterization of EVs is incomplete and insufficient. Additional positive/negative EV markers, purity metrics, and orthogonal characterization methods are required.

(4) The absence of density gradient ultracentrifugation is particularly concerning, given the systemic injection of EV preparations into mice, as contaminating soluble factors and non-vesicular particles may contribute to the observed therapeutic effects.

(5) The manuscript lacks adequate mechanistic studies explaining how engineered EVs mediate B-cell depletion or immune modulation.

(6) The in vitro functional assays are weakly designed, particularly the use of A549 cells for evaluating CD19-targeted vesicle function.

(7) Important methodological details are missing, including EV normalization strategies, flow cytometry gating controls, blinding procedures, and randomization approaches.

(8) Several figures, particularly TEM and western blot images, are of low quality and difficult to interpret.

(9) The study does not sufficiently exclude the possibility that observed therapeutic effects result from contaminating soluble immune mediators rather than EV-specific activity.

(10) Broader immune profiling is lacking despite the systemic immune complexity of SLE.

(11) The statistical analysis section includes tests that are not reflected in the Results section, creating concerns regarding data presentation and consistency.

(12) Overall, while the concept is interesting, the manuscript currently falls short of the experimental rigor expected for high-impact translational EV studies.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript presents a multimodal circadian intervention ("LiFE") that combines short photoperiod exposure, time-restricted feeding, and scheduled exercise and examines its effects on circadian activity structure, SCN rhythmicity, sleep, glucose regulation, cognition, and Alzheimer's disease-related phenotypes in mice. The study is ambitious in scope and conceptually appealing. In wild-type mice, the authors report that LiFE consolidates activity rhythms, enhances SCN PER2::LUC amplitude, increases sleep, lowers baseline glucose, reduces glycemic variability, and improves novel object recognition. They then extend the paradigm to 5xFAD and 5xFAD/PS19 mice, where the effects are more modest and mostly trend-level, with limited evidence for improved behavior or reduced pathology.

Strengths:

Overall, the work is interesting and potentially important because it moves beyond single-zeitgeber manipulations and tests the idea that combining multiple entrainment cues may produce broader physiological benefits than light, feeding, or exercise alone. The WT dataset is the strongest part of the paper and provides evidence that the combined intervention changes circadian organization and metabolic physiology.

Weaknesses:

Alzheimer's disease claims are considerably less convincing than the title and framing suggest. The manuscript would be stronger if the authors more clearly separated the robust conclusions in WT animals from the preliminary, underpowered, and largely non-significant findings in the disease models. In its current form, the paper contains substantial merit, but several interpretive and methodological issues should be addressed before publication.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The paper is titled "DUAL: Deep Unsupervised Simultaneous Simulation and Denoising for Cryo-Electron Tomography." The authors provided two closely related code branches: one for denoising and one for missing-wedge correction. However, I did not find the simulation component. This is important, as the authors state that "the simulation branch provides learning-based cryo-ET simulation to generate synthetic tomograms indistinguishable from experimental ones."

In addition, no pre-trained models were provided. Given that the authors indicate that all training data are publicly available, sharing trained models together with references to the corresponding datasets would significantly facilitate evaluation of the reported performance.

The provided instructions are quite minimal and do not currently support reproduction of the reported findings. Compared with other cryo-ET software packages, the documentation is insufficient for installation and practical use. The software also does not consistently support standard cryo-ET file formats, particularly during inference for denoising and missing-wedge correction. In particular, volume preparation (in the first notebook of either pipeline) expects MRC input, whereas inference requires NPZ input. This inconsistency makes me believe that the shared code is not tested, and likely is a new wrap up that does not correspond to the version used to generate the results in the paper.

I also found the denoising workflow difficult to interpret. The notebooks require a "clean" target volume as input, but it is not explained how such a volume should be obtained. It is unclear whether any clean volume may be used or whether this should be simulated based on what the user expects to contain in the input. The logic about this introduced prior is not clear. Additionally, it is not clear whether the default configuration parameters provided in the notebooks correspond to those used in the paper or are intended as illustrative examples. I had requested the exact configurations used to produce the reported results to avoid ambiguity.

After many hours of trial, debugging, and experimentation, I was able to train a model for missing-wedge correction using the default parameters, although the process was slow and memory-intensive. However, despite sustained effort over two days, I was not able to perform inference using the trained model. Full-volume inference fails due to shape mismatches, as the network is trained on fixed-size 3D patches but does not support whole-volume inputs. Patch-based inference also fails at the stitching stage due to incompatible output dimensions, even when using standard volume sizes (e.g., 1024 × 1024 × 400 voxels) that work correctly during patch preparation.

While less central, I also found the training time to be close to prohibitive. The notebook sets the number of epochs to two for a toy example and notes that more epochs are required for real experiments. In practice, training for a single tomogram required approximately 16 hours of computation on two high-end GPUs to reach only six epochs, and likely more would be required (100s?). Due to the inference issues described above, I was not able to evaluate the trained model.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The study demonstrates the effectiveness of a cost-effective closed-loop feedback system for modulating brain activity and behavior in head-fixed mice. Authors have tested real-time closed-loop feedback system in head-fixed mice two types of graded feedback: 1) Closed-loop neurofeedback (CLNF), where feedback is derived from neuronal activity (calcium imaging), and 2) Closed-loop movement feedback (CLMF), where feedback is based on observed body movement. It is a python based opensource system, and the authors call it CLoPy. Authors also claim to provide all software, hardware schematics, and protocols to adapt it to various experimental scenarios. This system is capable and can be adapted for a wide use case scenarios.

Authors have shown that their system can control both positive (water drop) and negative reinforcement (buzzer-vibrator). This study also shows that using the closed-loop system, mice have shown to better performance, learnt arbitrary tasks and can adapt to changes in the rules as well. By integrating real-time feedback based on cortical GCaMP imaging and behavior tracking authors have provided strong evidence that such closed-loop systems can be instrumental in exploring the dynamic interplay between brain activity and behavior.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This study investigates how phasic and tonic pain modulate behaviour in a free-operant foraging paradigm. The authors apply a computational modeling approach to the behavioural data to quantify the decision value of phasic pain, as well as the degree to which tonic pain reduces motivational vigour. EEG assessments showed, e.g., reduced signal power at alpha and beta frequencies in tonic pain conditions compared to no-tonic-pain conditions, but no association between these neural measures and motivational vigour. The authors conclude that tonic and phasic pain serve different motivational functions, with phasic pain acting as a punishment signal promoting avoidance and tonic pain reducing motivational vigour.

Strengths:

The experimental paradigm is highly innovative. Assessing human behaviour in a naturalistic yet highly controlled setting represents a promising approach to pain research. Notably, assessing pain magnitude implicitly, via its motivational value, offers insights about the overall pain experience that are not usually accessible via common pain ratings.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

These studies are based on previously published work that showed that deletion of expression of the Sox17 gene in the testis essentially deleted the formation of the Sertoli valve in the Rete testis. The authors extended this work by constructing a vector that resulted in increased Sox17 expression by Sertoli cells and enhanced formation of the Sertoli valve in both wild type and Sox17 knockout mice. The work provides strong evidence supporting the requirement for Sox17 expression to allow formation of the Sertoli valve.

Strengths: The general approach was to express Sox17 from a Tg mouse that expressed Sox17 from Sertoli cells. This Tg mouse was bred into both the WT and the Sox17 KO mouse. The Sertoli valve was enhanced in both the WT/Tg mouse and KO/Tg mouse, showing that ectopic Sox17 could compensate in the Sox17 Ko and act in a concentration-dependent manner in the WT mouse. The results are strong and support the conclusions from the authors. The results were as expected from the original paper describing the KO of Sox 17. These results strengthen these conclusions and provide ideas for additional conclusions. These studies were technically challenging, and the authors provided a very solid manuscript.

Weaknesses:

The authors refer several times to high or low expression, but it all appears to be based on immunohistochemistry, and there is no real quantification using PCR, for example. The process used for cell quantification lacks a rationale for why certain numbers were assigned.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors aimed at studying the genetics of interactions between individuals, notably the genetic architecture of indirect genetic effects. For that, they mobilized a technique known as "genome-wide association" study. GWASs are typically formalized as linear mixed models (LMMs) with fixed effects to identify the oligogenic component of the genetic architecture (usually SNPs tested one by one, as done here), and with random effects to quantify the overall contribution of the polygenic component of the genetic architecture (using a kinship matrix). They used an LMM with a few corrections and improvements from one of their already-published model, assessed it on data they had already simulated in a previous work, and applied it to three datasets generated and originally analyzed by others, focusing only on direct genetic effects. The results on simulated data confirmed that it was necessary to adapt their previous model. The results on real data confirmed the presence of negative correlation between direct and indirect genetic effects (for two out of three species), as was already known from other studies. They found a few SNPs with significant, indirect effects, which led them to identify candidate genes, but they did not validate them.

Strengths:

The main strength of the manuscript lies in the question tackled by the authors, i.e., related to indirect genetic effects, with the ambition to go beyond the estimation of overall effects towards the distinction between polygenic and oligogenic components of genetic architecture. They also found, in an apple dataset, a significant IGE SNP that also happens to be in a DGE-associated region.

Weaknesses:

(1) Overall, the authors do not engage sufficiently with the existing literature, and do not provide strong evidence that their approach is more powerful or more interpretable than others. Hence, this work seems rather incremental.

(2) The authors used an LMM that corresponds to a previous LMM they already published in 2021, with a few changes that appeared more like corrections than improvements. Their model raised several questions.

(3) First of all, their previous model included the polygenic component of direct genetic effects (modeled as random with a kinship matrix), but not the polygenic component of indirect genetic effects. As a consequence, the initial model did not allow both direct and indirect genetic effects to be correlated, although this correlation is the hallmark of the topic: a negative correlation can lead to selection on direct effects only to deliver a negative genetic gain (Griffing, 1967). This was corrected in their new model here, so that it is similar in this respect to the other models. They highlighted that, on simulated data, their new model could "infer a trade-off between DGEs and IGEs", but that was the very goal of introducing the correlation parameter, so it was reassuring at least to know that they could estimate it on simulated data. On real data, they found evidence for it being negative, which was already the case in Cappa and Cantet (2008) for a tree species, in Haug et al (2023) for annual crops, in Montazeaud et al (2023) for A. thaliana, etc. They tested for significativity but did not provide any confidence interval. They showed the proportion of variance explained by the covariance, but did not discuss the sign or magnitude of this correlation.

(4) Although the authors included a correlation parameter between DGE and IGE in their updated model, they did not specify if the residual errors were correlated, too. In fact, they did not even specify a distribution for them. It is already known that allowing for correlated errors may not change the estimates (Haug et al, 2021), but in some settings it can be important (Bergsma et al, 2008).

(5) In appendix S4, they say that the "ordinal" model (I am not sure of what they meant by this word) "defines polygenic DGE and IGE by random effects without fixed effects for each SNP". However, this is not correct; see Baud et al (2021), for instance. In any LMM, it is straightforward to include a single fixed effect for a given SNP, and to do it one SNP at a time. Moreover, they claimed that "compared to the ordinal model (Equation S4), the proposed model (Equation 1) is more extensible to incorporate SNP-wise fixed effects while distinguishing variance-covariance matrices", without providing more evidence than this statement.

(6) The authors seemed keen to convince us that the fact that their model is analogous to the Ising model of ferromagnetics was an advantage in itself. But why would it be? Beyond the mere analogy, it should be a matter of modelling choice, and thus be clearly motivated. For instance, they chose to assess the strength of the association between the trait in the focal individual (y_{k_i}) and the average (dis)similarity between the focal individual and all its neighbors (in neighborhood k), calling the latter "indirect genetic effect". Moreover, it is not clear if what they called "IGE" is \beta_{q,2}, u_2, both, or also \beta_{q,12}, etc? Furthermore, they should have used another term as this is not the same as the "indirect genetic effects" of the other models. In these models, what is called the indirect genetic effects can be modeled as depending on group size (see Hadfield and Wilson, 2007; Bijma, 2010). In which sense would the approach of the authors be better? How does it relate to the other models? Do they have more power? Is their term more interpretable?

(7) Another way in which the authors' model may be different from the other models is in the way it models interactions between direct genetic effects and aggregate (dis)similarity between focal and neighbors. At the level of the polygenic components, other models simply have a (DGExIGE) term capturing the deviations from the additivity of DGE + IGE (e.g., Wright, 1985, in the multispecific context). Here, the authors indeed mentioned "interactions between polygenic DGEs and IGEs" and introduced the K_12 matrix, but it is not clear how different (or similar) it is from the more classical (DGExIGE) term. At the level of the oligogenic component, the authors introduced \beta_{q,12}, but it is not clear, to me at least, how it relates to K_12 and K_21.

(8) The authors checked their model on simulated data for various levels of correlation between u_1 (GE) and u_2.

(9) It is not clear why they have higher absolute errors with negative covariance than with a positive one.

(10) As a causative IGE SNP, the authors considered one with a beta_{q,2} significantly different from 0. However, they also have two other coefficients, beta{q,_}1 and beta_{q,12}, for each SNP q. How is the FDR in RAINBOW controlled in such a case? This is not detailed.

(11) In their simulations, the causative IGE SNPS were also causative DGE SNPs. However, this may increase power. From the manuscript title, one could assume that the authors' goal was to distinguish between the SNPs that are both DGE and IGE, versus the ones that are IGEs only.

(12) From what I understood, the authors first estimated the (co)variance components once and for all on the model without any SNP, and they then used the values to fit the GWAS model one SNP at a time. This assumes that the inclusion of SNP effects modeled as fixed would not change anything regarding the (co)variance components, but this is not warranted.

(13) The authors applied their model to three datasets of perennial plants.

(14) They only used their model and did not provide evidence that their model gave a significant improvement compared to other models, such as the one of Baud et al (2021).

(15) In Figures 3, 4 and 5, having an indication of which cases have a significant correlation between u1 and u2 would have helped.

(16) Concerning the Aspen dataset, it is not clear why the authors claimed that "the negative effects of neighboring genotypes were amplified as trees matured" as the PVE_cov in Figure 3 in 2015 are not systematically more negative than those of Figure 3 in 2014.

(17) When discussing their results, the authors should engage more with the literature estimating DGE-IGE correlations (see some of the references above).

(18) Concerning the apple dataset, they mentioned that "metabolite accumulation in ripening fruits may be facilitated by volatile chemicals, such as ethylene", but they did not find any evidence for significant IGE SNPs localized close to a gene involved in ethylene production. Claiming that these are testable hypotheses should have been made earlier, in the introduction, than a posteriori in the discussion.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

This study addresses a fundamental and long-standing question in neurotrophin biology, how cellular context shapes the interpretation of a single trophic message, and tackles it with a technically demanding and well-executed single-cell mass cytometry approach. By simultaneously measuring 19 signaling effectors and 18 identity markers across a developmental gradient of spinal cord cell types, the authors substantially expand our understanding of BDNF signaling and provide a compelling demonstration of the limitations inherent to bulk biochemical readouts, which average across heterogeneous populations and obscure the discrete subpopulation behavior that the present data reveal.

The finding that only 47-75% of cells respond at peak activation, that maturation state dictates both the magnitude and the qualitative "signature" of the response, and that identical receptor stoichiometries can yield divergent outcomes across cell types collectively constitute an important conceptual advance. The proposed framework of "prepared competence" is thought-provoking and likely to stimulate follow-up work.

That said, several aspects of the data interpretation deserve more critical discussion. My specific comments are detailed below.

(1) Interpretation of TrkB-independent ERK activation (lines 194-196).

The authors state that the residual pERK induction observed in TrkB-negative ("None") cells and the incomplete suppression of pERK by K252a support the established notion that BDNF signaling is not mediated solely through TrkB. This interpretation is presented without sufficient mechanistic detail and, in its current form, is difficult to follow. If BDNF-induced ERK activation is not mediated by TrkB, which alternative receptors could account for it? Does this reflect signaling through p75NTR, transactivation of other receptor tyrosine kinases, or another mechanism altogether? Likewise, the partial resistance of pERK to K252a is interpreted as evidence of an additional regulatory layer, but the underlying activity is not specified. Is the authors' hypothesis that a distinct pool of ERK is engaged independently of Trk activity? If so, what kinase activity is proposed to drive it? These results are intriguing yet puzzling and merit a more critical and explicit discussion of the candidate mechanisms.

(2) The "progenitor paradox" in light of prior work on PC12 cells (lines 207-208).

The observation that TrkB-expressing progenitors remain insensitive to BDNF is presented as a paradox and interpreted through the lens of impaired internalization. This interpretation would benefit from explicit discussion in the context of the classical work on PC12 cells (Segal and colleagues, among others), which established that plasma membrane-restricted Trk receptors engage the Ras-MAPK pathway with rapid, short-duration kinetics that drive proliferation rather than differentiation, whereas internalized Trk receptors sustain MAPK signaling and promote differentiation. Under this framework, the apparent signaling silence of progenitors could, in fact, reflect transient plasma membrane signaling that the time points sampled in the present study (5 min onward) may not capture. The single-cell mass cytometry approach used here is, in principle, well-suited to resolving such rapid kinetics, and the authors are encouraged to address this possibility, both as an alternative interpretation of their data and as a potential extension of the study.

(3) Astrocyte responsiveness and the TrkB isoform issue.

The authors report that astrocytes are highly responsive to BDNF and exhibit robust ligand-induced depletion of surface TrkB, which they interpret as evidence of signaling-competent full-length TrkB (TrkB-FL) on these cells. However, it is well established that astrocytes predominantly express the truncated isoform TrkB-T1, which lacks the intracellular kinase domain and is thought to function in BDNF capture, clearance, and recycling at synapses rather than in canonical downstream signaling. The robust phosphorylation events observed in astrocytes are therefore difficult to reconcile with TrkB-T1-mediated signaling alone. Could these responses instead reflect transactivation of other receptors through neuron-astrocyte crosstalk, for instance, via ligands released by neurons in response to BDNF? Because the authors explicitly state that their antibody cannot distinguish TrkB-FL from TrkB-T1, this limitation directly impacts the interpretation of the astrocyte data and of the proposed isoform-switch hypothesis for progenitors. This caveat is briefly acknowledged but deserves more thorough discussion, ideally with explicit consideration of the alternative interpretations outlined above.

(4) Pathways resistant to K252a inhibition.

The authors note that K252a fails to fully abolish pERK induction in several lineages, but the specific pathways, differentiation states, and receptor stoichiometries that remain K252a-resistant are currently insufficiently described. A more systematic description would strengthen this section. In addition, it would be helpful to discuss whether the residual signal could reflect the proximity of the response to the detection threshold rather than a genuinely K252a-insensitive pool of activity. More broadly, K252a is a broad-spectrum tyrosine kinase inhibitor with well-documented off-target effects, and the present study relies on this single pharmacological tool to define Trk-dependence. The limitations of this approach, and the desirability of complementary inhibitors or genetic perturbations in future studies, should be acknowledged in the Discussion.

(5) The 12-hour trophic deprivation paradigm as a potential confounder.

All cells in the present study are trophically deprived for 12 hours prior to stimulation. This is a methodologically convenient choice, but sustained deprivation is not a neutral starting point: it activates stress-responsive pathways (JNK, p38, autophagy), alters receptor surface trafficking, and can sensitize cells to subsequent stimulation. Several of the reported observations - including the apparent synergy of p75NTR with TrkB on stress markers (p-c-Jun, p38) and the strong induction of trophic effectors immediately upon BDNF addition - could be amplified, or qualitatively altered, by the prior deprivation state, which does not reflect baseline in vivo physiology. The Rescue control, with complete medium, partially addresses this concern but is non-specific. The authors should explicitly acknowledge this limitation and, ideally, discuss the extent to which their conclusions about cell-type-specific signaling competence depend on the deprivation paradigm.

(6) Direct comparison of pseudobulk data with conventional bulk biochemistry.

The pseudobulk reconstruction of the single-cell data is presented as recapitulating canonical BDNF responses, but this comparison relies on general agreement with the published literature rather than on a direct, parallel measurement in the same cultures. Given that the central conceptual contribution of the manuscript rests precisely on departures from the bulk biochemical view of BDNF signaling, an explicit side-by-side comparison of the pseudobulk profile against a parallel bulk Western blot from sister cultures - for at least a subset of key markers such as pERK, pAkt, and pCREB - would substantially strengthen the validation of the platform. Such a comparison would reassure the reader that the discrete subpopulation behavior reported here is genuinely biological, and not in part a consequence of methodological differences between mass cytometry and conventional biochemistry (e.g., differences in fixation kinetics, epitope accessibility, or sensitivity to low-abundance phosphoproteins).

(7) Manuscript organization and balance between main and supplementary figures.

The manuscript presents an exceptionally rich dataset, but the current organization - seven main figures supported by thirteen supplementary figures, several of which are explicitly labeled as extensions of main-text figures - makes it difficult to follow the argument without continuous cross-referencing between documents. I would encourage the authors to consider a substantive reorganization with the following suggestions: (i) Figure S2 and Figure S3, which respectively define the threshold-based "responsiveness" criterion and assess its robustness, are foundational to the central 47-75% responsiveness claim and would be better integrated into the main text, for example as additional panels of Figure 2; (ii) the methodological and quality-control components of Figure S1 and Figure S2 would be more naturally placed within the Methods section; and (iii) the four "Extension" figures (S4, S7, S12, S13) contain considerable redundancy with the corresponding main figures and could be consolidated, with only the most diagnostic panels retained. Concurrent trimming of the denser main figures (Fig. 4, 5, and 6 each carry six or seven panels) would further improve readability.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This narrative review provides a clear, well-structured, and comprehensive synthesis of intracerebral recording work on the neural correlates of consciousness. It is written in an accessible manner that will be useful to a broad community of researchers, from those new to iEEG to specialists in the field.

Strengths:

The manuscript successfully integrates methodological and theoretical perspectives and offers a balanced overview of current sometimes contradicting evidence. As such, the manuscript is important as call for a concernted better exploration of NCCs using iEEG in the future.

Comments on latest version:

The current version of the manuscript is clear and complete. Kudos to the authors for their thorough revisions.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This work shows experimentally and computationally that single CA1 neurons can perform mismatch detection on patterned CA3 inputs and that STP and EI balance underlie this detection.

Strengths:

It has been known that STP can enhance the EPSP when the corresponding presynaptic input exhibits abrupt changes in firing rate. This work provides experimental evidence and further computational support for the hypothesis that the basic computation through STP is useful for detecting abrupt changes in the spatial pattern of synaptic inputs at the Schaffer collaterals. Further, their results indicate the novel view that mismatch detection is most efficient when gamma-frequency bursting inputs exhibit mismatches between theta cycles. The authors included novel results in the revised manuscript to show that the effective frequency range of gamma oscillation is broad, including both slow and fast gamma bands.

In the initial submission, the dependence of mismatch detection performance on model parameters and experimental settings, such as pattern overlaps and other network parameters, was not sufficiently explored. In the revised manuscript, the authors extensively studied these points and summarized the novel results in Fig. 9. Furthermore, the authors clarified that jitters in input spikes can improve detection performance in some cases. These results show the robustness of their results against variations in external and internal conditions.

Weaknesses:

While this study shows an intriguing example of combined experimental and computational studies, some analytic results, for instance, regarding the complex contributions of jitters to detection performance, could have clarified the underlying mechanism deeper and further strengthened the manuscript.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper describes new insights into the effects of type-I and type-II LRRK2 inhibitors on HEK293T cells that over-express GFP-labeled LRRK2-I2020T. Using correlative light microscopy and cryo-electron tomography, a type-I inhibitor leads to the extensive decoration of microtubules with LRRK2, which is not seen for a type-II inhibitor. Subtomogram averaging reveals that LRRK2 binds to the microtubules in a closed-kinase conformation, with density for the N-terminal arms.

Strengths:

The paper is well written; the CLEM and cryo-ET appear to be done to a high standard. Consequently, I have only minor comments.

Weaknesses:

The resolution of the subtomogram averages is somewhat limited, but the authors have adequately limited the number of degrees of freedom in the fitting of their atomic models by only allowing rigid-body transformations of separate parts of LRRK2.

The authors should include FSC curves between the rigid-body fitted atomic models and the various sub-tomogram average maps.

Comment on the current version from the Reviewing Editor:

I do note that Ext Data Fig 8 does not yet contains the requested model-vs-map FSC curves. I guess this is an oversight and trust that the authors will remedy this during the production process. They might also want to explain what the black, red, green and blue FSC curves are in the current figure (or only show the black (solvent-corrected FSC) curve, together with the requested model-vs-map curve.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

This manuscript examines how locus coeruleus (LC) activity relates to hippocampal ripple events across behavioral states in freely moving rats. Using multi-site electrophysiological recordings, the authors report that LC activity is suppressed prior to ripple events, with the magnitude of suppression depending on ripple subtype. Suppression is stronger during wakefulness than during NREM sleep and least pronounced for ripples coupled to spindles.

The study is technically sound and addresses a timely and important question regarding how LC activity interacts with hippocampal and thalamocortical network events across vigilance states. While the findings are interesting, they remain observational in nature.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This novel study asks whether meaning-based guidance of overt attention, well-established in humans through the "meaning map" framework, extends to non-human primates. The authors recorded eye movements from two rhesus macaques freely viewing naturalistic indoor scenes and modeled fixation selection using DeepMeaning maps, Itti-Koch salience maps, and center proximity. They report that scene meaning robustly predicts fixation selection after controlling for salience and center bias, that meaning and salience interact competitively rather than additively, and that the influence of meaning is modulated by scene familiarity and attentional engagement. The cross-species extension of the meaning map approach is a valuable contribution, and the Bayesian GLMM framework with variance partitioning is well-suited to the question.

Strengths:

(1) The cross-species extension itself is novel and well-motivated. Nobody has applied the meaning map framework to NHP gaze behavior before. Even with the interpretive caveats I raise below, creating this methodological bridge between human scene perception research and NHP circuit neuroscience is a valuable contribution.

(2) The statistical framework is strong. The Bayesian GLMM with posterior distributions, HDIs, and probability of direction is more informative than frequentist alternatives. The variance partitioning with ΔR² is the right approach for disentangling predictor contributions. Random intercepts for scene are appropriate. The convergence diagnostics (R-hat = 1.00, ESS > 8000 across all models) are exemplary.

(3) Transparent individual-subject reporting. With N = 2, reporting each monkey separately rather than pooling or averaging is the correct choice, and the authors do this consistently. The individual differences are visible because the reporting is honest.

(4) The experimental design is excellent. 200 scenes is a substantial stimulus set by NHP standards. The inclusion of both familiar and unfamiliar environments, the repeated-viewing design for reliability estimation, and the 5-second free viewing window that yields ~15 fixations per trial all reflect thoughtful design.

(5) The familiarity and engagement analyses go beyond the basic demonstration. Even with the limitations we identified, asking how behavioral context modulates the meaning-gaze relationship is more ambitious than simply showing that the correlation exists. These analyses generate testable predictions for future work.

(6) Data and code sharing commitment. The authors plan to release raw data, preprocessing, and analysis code on OSF and GitHub.

Weaknesses:

(1) The authors' central claim is that meaning-based attentional guidance is an "evolutionarily conserved component of primate vision." This claim rests on the finding that macaque fixation patterns correlate with DeepMeaning maps. However, DeepMeaning is trained on human ratings of local scene meaning using a vision-language transformer (CoCa) pretrained on billions of human image-text pairs. What the model captures, then, is the spatial distribution of visual structure that humans judge to be semantically informative. The authors acknowledge that DeepMeaning represents "structured visual representations of scene regions containing identifiable objects and informative relationships" (lines 261-262), but this acknowledgment actually highlights the problem: regions containing identifiable objects and informative spatial relationships would plausibly attract fixations in any visual system with object-selective neurons and a bias toward structured content, regardless of whether the observer is processing "meaning" in any semantic sense. That is, the correlation between macaque gaze and DeepMeaning maps is consistent with shared object-level visual processing, but doesn't uniquely implicate shared semantic processing. The critical adversarial test from Hayes & Henderson (2022a)-where meaning maps detected the removal of semantic content via diffeomorphic scrambling while deep saliency models did not-has not been applied to macaque viewing behavior. Importantly, such a test would require new data collection (showing monkeys scrambled scenes), which may not be feasible. A more tractable approach with the existing data would be to compare DeepMeaning against some other model that captures mid-level visual structure without semantic supervision, though this would be a weaker test. Given these constraints, I would ask the authors to (a) acknowledge this limitation explicitly and temper the evolutionary conservation claim accordingly-for example, framing the result as evidence that macaques and humans share attentional biases toward visually structured scene regions, with the semantic interpretation remaining an open question-and (b) note the diffeomorphic scrambling experiment as an important future direction for establishing whether macaque attention is guided by semantic content per se.

(2) The familiar/unfamiliar scene comparison confounds long-term familiarity with systematic differences in scene content. Familiar scenes are photographs of the vivarium and laboratory; unfamiliar scenes are restaurants, bedrooms, kitchens, and offices. These two categories almost certainly differ in visual complexity, object density, spatial layout, clutter, and the types of objects present. The familiar environments (vivarium caging, lab equipment) are likely more spatially repetitive and lower in object diversity than, say, a restaurant or residential kitchen. Any difference attributed to "familiarity" could therefore reflect these systematic content differences. The negative interaction between meaning and familiarity (Monkey V: β = −0.19; Monkey I: β = −0.19), which the authors interpret as familiarity broadening exploration, could instead reflect the fact that vivarium/lab scenes have a different distribution of meaning values or a different relationship between meaning and salience than human domestic environments. The authors should address this confound directly. At minimum, comparing the distributions of meaning and salience values across the two scene categories would help the reader evaluate whether the familiarity effect can be separated from content effects. Ideally, the authors would include a subset analysis using only scenes matched on feature distributions or include scene-level summary statistics of the meaning and salience maps as covariates in the familiarity model.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

I believe that the paper is excellent and very well executed. I have several reservations about the meaning of the tonic component of the feedback responses and about the more general interpretation from a computational standpoint. These aspects may not require extensive adjustments, but some key points could be discussed or better justified:

(1) It is true that most papers view adaptation as a trial-by-trial update and that several models summarise motor errors by a scalar quantity for a model fit. The importance of feedback control in visuomotor control has also been overlooked, as several studies explicitly instructed not to correct. I also agree about the fact that the temporal aspects of sensory encoding and control are often neglected in motor adaptation studies. However, there have been some developments about adaptive control in the context of force field learning to express the error signal and learning rule based on continuously evolving state variables as those formulated in online control models (Crevecoeur et al., 2020, eNeuro 7(1); Kalidindi and Crevecoeur, 2023, Curr Opin Neurobiol, 83, 102810). Could the authors consider discussing whether this framework could or not be consistent with the current dataset?

(2) The choice of a cursor jump may require more in-depth justification. From an experimental standpoint, it is clear from the authors' data that a cursor jump does evoke an aftereffect and hence the developments are clearly validated empirically. The nature of the adaptive response is less clear: indeed, cursor jumps can be represented as an external perturbation to a variable that may be independent of the hand (e.g. Kasuga et al., 2022, J Neurophysiol, 127 (2), 354-372). In contrast, a visuomotor rotation requires a change in state space representation parameters (it is not clear which ones) that is more closely related to the update of an internal model. Could the authors explain why they believe that a learning response to a cursor jump is consistent with adaptation in general?

(3) The relationship between the tonic component of the feedback response and the learning response is very clear from an experimental perspective again. However, I would suggest being very cautious about the interpretation of this effect. My concern is that it is not clear that this tonic response is irrelevant from a behavioural standpoint, and I am left wondering what the correlation with the learning response truly means. Indeed, in real-life conditions, there should be no net force produced in the end during a static phase, as the force during stabilisation is by definition zero; only the net force produced against constant external loads is required. There can be co-contraction but not net resultant force, unless external forces are applied. So if the tonic response vanishes in real conditions, should there be no learning response? This aspect is also relevant if one attempts to generalise the findings to force field learning: since velocity-dependent force fields vanish during stabilisation, how can there be a tonic component?

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors used a gene regulatory network inference-based clustering approach with existing scRNAseq data sets from cadaveric donors with T1D, auto-antibody positive, and non-diabetic donors and found a regulatory network associated with b-cell survival that is associated with increased expression of genes controlled by interferon regulatory factor 1.

Strengths:

Using established data sets of RNAseq previously performed, the authors identify an interesting population of surviving b-cells in T1D that express a key antiviral transcription factor (IRF1), antiviral genes such as GBPs and iFIT, and decreased expression of a limited number of genes that have been associated with the identity of b-cells.

Selective expression in T1D and not observed in islets from control or auto-antibody positive donors.

Expression changes, TFs identified are also identified in human islets treated with cytokines.

The lack of changes in genes associated with ER stress or the response of endocrine cells to ER stress.

Weaknesses:

The authors do an excellent job of identifying characteristics of the donors/islets in the methods; however, this needs to be addressed in the Figure Legends and Results. Specifically, the length of exposure to cytokines is critical in evaluating the comparisons made in this study.

Is it possible to evaluate sex as a variable in this analysis, and if yes, does one still observe similar changes in identity gene expression and IRF1-dependent gene expression?

Length of disease and evidence for the C3 populations? Does one observe the C3 population in alpha cells of islets with long-standing disease or in the samples that had too few b-cells to perform the analysis? Temporally, 24 h was used for ATACseq and 48 h for cytokine treatment. These are very late exposures, suggesting that secondary and tertiary effects are being compared.

Activation of stress response genes has been correlated with impaired cytokine signaling in islets (human and rodents), limiting the number of endocrine cells that are cytokine responsive. Was this observed in the authors' analysis?

Recent studies have identified induction of antiviral and antibacterial genes in islets in response to short exposures to IL-1, TNF, IFN's that are consistent with the C3 expression profile observed by the authors. While this work has mostly been performed in rodent islets, it has also been observed in human islets, and may be useful in comparing additional transcripts that may contribute to the observed profiles.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Through micro-electroencephalography, Hight and colleagues studied how the auditory cortex in its ensemble respond to cochlear implant stimulation compared to the classic pure tones. Taking advantage of a double implanted rat model (Micro-ECoG and Cochlear Implant), they tracked and analyzed changes happening in the temporal and spatial aspects of the cortical evoked responses in both normal hearing and cochlear-implanted animals. After establishing that single trial responses were sufficient to encode the stimuli properties, the authors then explored several decoder architectures to study the cortex ability to encode each stimuli modality in a similar or different manner. They conclude that a) intracranial EEG evoked responses can be accurately recorded and did not differed between normal hearing and cochlear-implanted rats; b) Although coarsely spatially organized, CI-evoked responses had higher trial-by-trial variability than pure tones; c) Stimulus identity is independently represented by temporal and spatial aspect of cortical representations and can be accurately decoded by various means from single trials; d) and that Pure tones trained decoder can't decode CI-stimulus identity accurately.

Strength:

The model combining micro-eCoG and cochlear implantation and the methodology to extract both the Event Related Potentials (ERPs) and High-Gammas (HGs) is very well designed and appropriately analyzed. Likewise, the PCA-LDA and TCA-LDA are powerful tools that take full advantage of the information provided by the cortical ensembles.

The overall structure of the paper, with a paced and exhaustive progress through each step and evolution of the decoder is very appreciable and easy to follow. The exploration of single trial encoding and stimulus identity through temporal and spatial domains is providing new avenues to characterize the cortical responses CI stimulations and their central representation. The fact that single trials suffice to decode the stimulus identity regardless of their modality is of great interest and noteworthy. Although the authors confirm that iEEG remains difficult to transpose in clinic, the insights provided by the study confirm the potential benefit of using central decoders to help in clinic settings.

Weakness:

The conclusion of the paper, especially the concept of distinct cortical encoding for each modality, is unfortunately partially supported by the results as the authors ignored fundamental limitations of CI related stimulation.

First, the authors stimulated in a Monopolar mode which, albeit being clinically relevant, notoriously generates a high current spread in rodent models. Comparing the averaged BF maps for iEEG (Fig-2A, C), BFs ranged from 4 to 16kHz with a predominance of 4kHz BFs. The lack of BFs at higher frequencies might reveal a potential location mismatch between the frequency range sampled at the level of the cortex (low to medium frequencies) and the frequency range covered by the CI inserted mostly in the first turn-and-a-half of the cochlea (high to medium frequencies). Looking at Fig-2F (and to some extend 2A) most of CI electrodes elicited responses around the 4kHz regions and averaged maps show a predominance of CI-3-4 across cortex (Fig-2C, H and Sup Fig. 3) from areas with 4kHz BF to areas with 16kHz BF. It is doubtful that CI-3-4 are located near the 4kHz region based on Müller's work (1991) on the frequency representation in the rat cochlea. Moreover, Supplemental figure 3 shows that only a couple of CI electrodes are predominately represented at the level of the cortex. Thus, it seems possible that current spread ended stimulating indistinctly higher turns of the cochlea or even the modiolus in a non-specific manner, greatly reducing (or smearing) the place-coding/frequency resolution of each electrode, which in turn could explain the coarse topographic (or coarsely tonotopic according to the manuscript) organization of the cortical responses.

Second, although the authors acknowledge that post-lingual CI users always have an adaptation period, their conclusion is based on measurements that are relatively "early" in the CI-use timeline so to speak since iEEG were collected a) acutely right after mono-aural implantation and stimulation, b) under anesthesia, c) using unmodulated pulse train fixed at 900pps regardless of the electrode used and thus lacking any temporal information shifts in relationship to electrode cochleotopic placement. Basically, all CI electrodes had the same rate whereas you would expect basal CI electrodes to be amplitude modulated at higher frequencies than apical electrodes.

As much as the reviewer likes the overall approach with the use of PCA-LDA and TCA, and agrees that information transfer seems inexistant at time of measurement, authors should be more careful in their strong conclusion that two distinct encoding exist. The non-overlapping between sound and electric stimulation representations might exist only transiently and this should be acknowledged a bit more in the discussion. Without repetition of iEEG measurement at later period with chronic use of the CI, it is not possible to definitively claim that two distinct, non-overlapping coding co-exist at all times.

Nevertheless, the reviewer wants to reiterate that the study proposed by Hight et al. is well constructed, relevant to the field and that the overall proposal of improving patient performances and help their adaptation in the first months of CI use by studying central responses should be pursued as it might help establish new guidelines or create new clinical tools.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Programmed DNA elimination (PDE) is a process that removes a substantial amount of genomic DNA during development. While it contradicts the genome constancy rule, an increasing number of organisms have been found to undergo PDE, indicating its potential biological function. Single-cell ciliates have been used as a prominent model system for studying PDE, providing important mechanistic insights into this process. Many of those studies have focused on the excision of internally eliminated sequences (IES) and the subsequent repair using non-homologous end joining (NHEJ). These studies have led to the identification of small RNAs that mark retained or eliminated regions and the transposons that generate double-strand breaks.

In this manuscript, Nagao and Mochizuki examined the other type of breaks in ciliates that are healed with telomere addition. They specifically focused on the sequences at the ends of the germline (MIC) chromosomes, which have received relatively less attention due to the technical challenges associated with the highly repetitive nature of the sequences. The authors used the Tetrahymena model and developed a set of new tools. They used a novel FISH strategy that enables the distinction between germline and somatic telomeres, as well as the retained and eliminated DNA near the chromosome ends. This allows them to track these sequences at the cellular level throughout the development process, where PDE occurs. They also analyzed the more comprehensive germline and somatic genomes and determined at the sequence level the loss of subtelomeric and telomere sequences at all chromosome ends. Their result is reminiscent of the PDE observed in nematodes, where all germline chromosome ends are removed and remodeled. Thus, the finding connects two independent PDE systems, a protozoan and a metazoan, and suggests the convergent evolution of chromosome end removal and remodeling in PDE.

The majority of sites (8/10) at the junctions of retained and eliminated DNA at the chromosome ends contain a chromosome breakage sequence (CBS). The authors created a set of mutants that modify the CBS at the ends of chromosome 4R. CBS regions are challenging for CRISPR due to their AT-rich sequences, making the creation of the 4R-CBS mutants a significant breakthrough. They used the FISH assay to determine if PDE still occurs in these mutant strains with compromised CBS. Surprisingly, they found that instead of blocking PDE, its adjacent retained DNA is now eliminated, suggesting a co-elimination event when the breakage is impaired. Furthermore, in biparental mutant crosses, no PDE occurred, and no viable progeny were produced, indicating that the removal of chromosome ends is crucial for proper PDE and sexual progeny development. Overall, the work demonstrates a critical role for 4R-CBS in separating retained and eliminated DNA.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/137381943497

Sticker underneath lid of 3x5" card index (recipe-type) box:

Main section:

"Jogger 'Trade mark'<br /> No. 2<br /> 3 x 5 - closed<br /> Sectionets 'Finger-Tip' Office Systems<br /> Sectionuls Vertical Files of Big Capacity<br /> Sectionups Four Drawer Vertical Letter Files<br /> Shaw-Walker"

Advertising text:

"No matter how small your business you should have Shaw-Walker Systems and Filing Devices to help make it grow larger---systematically. When it is larger Shaw-Walker equipment will take care of it.

With Shaw-Walker Modern files your work is methodical and systematic; you obtain the best results in the shortest time; they are to your office what modern machinery is to your factory. Ask for our Big Catalog."

via photos at https://www.ebay.com/itm/137381943497 which sold for $25.00

This really stood out to me because of how important it is to have a good relationship with your professor. In high school most students only talk to teachers during class but in college it is important to build connections with professors. Those relationships can help with internships, recommendations, and future career opportunities.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper describes new insights into the effects of type-I and type-II LRRK2 inhibitors on HEK293T cells that over-express GFP-labeled LRRK2-I2020T. Using correlative light microscopy and cryo-electron tomography, a type-I inhibitor leads to the extensive decoration of microtubules with LRRK2, which is not seen for a type-II inhibitor. Subtomogram averaging reveals that LRRK2 binds to the microtubules in a closed-kinase conformation, with density for the N-terminal arms.

Strengths:

The paper is well written; the CLEM and cryo-ET appear to be done to a high standard. Consequently, I have only minor comments.

Weaknesses:

The resolution of the subtomogram averages is somewhat limited, but the authors have adequately limited the number of degrees of freedom in the fitting of their atomic models by only allowing rigid-body transformations of separate parts of LRRK2.

The authors should include FSC curves between the rigid-body fitted atomic models and the various sub-tomogram average maps.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript, "Estimating bone marrow adiposity from head MRI and identifying its genetic 2 architecture", brings together the groups of Drs. Kaufmann and Hughes in a tour de force work to develop an artificial neural network that localizes calvaria bone marrow in T1-weighted MRI head scans, with the goal of studying its composition in several large MRI datasets, and to model sex-dimorphic age trajectories, including the effect of menopause.

Strengths:

Bone marrow adiposity is a very active tissue with far-reaching implications for tissue crosstalk and human health than we had initially recognized. Although MRI has been used to measure BM, studies such as the one by these two groups are still lacking whereas very large datasets are analyzed using advanced AI machine learning tools coupled with genetic studies and a specific pathology. The groups had to develop new methods and new AI machine-learning tools for the imaging analyses.

Weaknesses:

Some aspects of the work that authors could add additional clarification.

(1) Imaging Limitations: The authors provide an excellent overview and references supporting the use of MRI as a method for assessing marrow fat, particularly with some specific modifications. However, MRI images can be affected by various factors, including the presence of other tissues as well as specific MRI settings, which are much harder to precisely control when using different datasets.

(2) The specific density of cranial bones as it relates to the types of bone marrow: Cranial bones are extremely dense structures, which naturally interfere with MRI imaging. While it is thought that cranial bones have mostly "red bone marrow", this is only true for a short time in humans. How sensitive is their system in differentiating between red and yellow BM?

(3) Both items above are further complicated by aging, but aging is not a linear event as we have learned. There are specific bursts of aging in humans around the age of 45 and early 60s. How do the system and model predict or incorporate these peaks of aging? It seems from the data shown that aging is reflected more as a linear phenomenon. Is this because additional aging datasets are needed?

(4) The authors describe in richness of detail their AI learning programming and how it extracted the data from datasets. The authors also show some important correlations with specific genes, SNPs. What is not clear is how conditions such as anemia for example. An expected finding would be that patients with chronic anemia have lower bone marrow (BM) signal intensity on MRI scans than healthy people. This is because the signal intensity of BM depends on the fat-to-cell ratio in the tissue. Furthermore, patients with a host of musculoskeletal disorders ranging from osteopenia to osteoporosis, sarcopenia, and osteosarcopenia will also have altered MRI scans. When using such large datasets how did the authors control or exclude these pathological conditions, or were all these conditions likely present?

(5) Some of the genes and SNPs although significant showed very small correlations. What is their likely physiological significance?

(6) The authors could use this excellent manuscript to expand their discussion to include the need for studies like theirs to be also complemented by multi-OMICS studies that will include proteomics and lipidomics of BM, bones, and muscles.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This study examines the role of RNF25 in translational quality control. Previous work indicated that RNF25 is activated by ribosomes stalled with defective elongation or termination factors bound in the A-site. Here, the authors provide evidence that RNF25 is activated by other treatments that evoke ribosome stalling, including amino acid starvation, where the A-site may be empty, leading to ubiquitination of RPS27A in a manner requiring the ISR collision sensor Gcn1, but not EDF1 and ZAKα, involved in the RQC and RSR surveillance pathways. They present some evidence from polysome profiling that RNF25 and its ubiquitination of RPS7A help resolve ribosome collisions and support translation elongation in basal conditions. They further show that KO of Gcn2 increases RPS27A ubiquitination in basal conditions, but not in amino acid-starved cells, and that RPS27A ubiquitination was reduced on overexpressing the WT RWD domain of Gcn2 but not a variant harboring substitutions of residues predicted to bind Gcn1. Based on these findings, they propose a model that, in response to ribosome stalling induced by various stresses, Gcn1 recruits RNF25 via the latter's RWD domain to ubiquitinate RPS27A and thereby resolve ribosome stalling and promote continued elongation. If collisions increase even further, GCN1 recruits GCN2 instead of RNF25 to elicit the ISR.

Strengths:

The data is convincing that a variety of triggers leading to diverse stalled ribosomal states, including amino acid limitation, can activate RNF25, suggesting that activation of this pathway does not require the presence of trapped protein factors in the ribosomal A-site but is a more general response to ribosome collisions. It is also convincing that Gcn1 is required for RNF25 activation under all of these conditions, which is consistent with previous findings that Gcn1 is required for RNF25 function in the presence of trapped elongation or termination factors. The finding that EDF1 and ZAK are not needed for RNF25 activation in amino acid starvation conditions is of interest for EDF1, given the recent claim that it is required for full ISR activation.

Weaknesses:

The evidence presented from polysome profiling that RNF25 helps resolve naturally occurring ribosome collisions in basal conditions is not compelling, as eliminating RNF25 could be increasing the rate of initiation rather than increasing stalled ribosomes as the means of increasing the P/M ratio. The Rps27A-K113R mutation could have the same effect of increasing initiation, which could have been obscured by inhibiting the ISR with ISRIB.

The evidence that RNF25 competes with Gcn2 for Gcn1 binding is also not compelling. While it's convincing that Rps27A-Ubi is elevated in basal conditions on eliminating Gcn2, loss of GCN2 would be expected to increase ribosome loading on mRNAs, potentially elevating the frequency of collisions and thereby stimulating RNF25 activity indirectly.

It's also quite puzzling and left unexplained why they observed no further increase in Rps27A-Ubi on -Arg/-Lys starvation in the cells lacking Gcn2. Why wouldn't -Arg/-Lys starvation lead to further stalling and RNF25 activation in the absence of Gcn2? (Since Gcn2 KO increases Rps27A-Ubi in the presence +Arg/+Lys conditions, it can't be that Gcn2 is required for RNF25 function.) The same puzzling and unresolved observation was made in the cells lacking DRG2. One possible explanation for this conundrum is that low-level RNF25 abundance limits further activation.

The quantitative effects of overexpressing the Gcn2 RWD domain on Rps27A-Ubi, constituting their other evidence presented to support the competition model, are quite small in magnitude.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Significance of the findings and the strength of evidence:

The article presented by Yang et al. describes the development of protein binders targeting the C-terminal domain of the protein DELE1, which is involved in the mitochondrial integrated stress response (mitoISR) pathway. It was shown earlier that DELE1 is imported into the mitochondria and cleaved by the inner mitochondrial membrane protease OMA1, resulting in an N-terminal and C-terminal domain, the latter being transported back into the cytosol, where it interacts and activates the kinase HRI. HRI, in turn, phosphorylates eIF2α, resulting in selective translation of mRNAs encoding proteins involved in stress signalling, such as the transcription factor ATF4. ATF4 activates expression of genes involved in amino acid balance, redox homeostasis and proteostasis. The C-terminal domain of DELE1 (DELE1CTD) was structurally and functionally characterized by earlier by cryo-EM by Jie Yang and co-workers. These studies suggest that it forms an octamer with D4 symmetry consisting of two tetramers arranged in a tail-to-tail arrangement. In this octamers two interfaces were identified, one between the monomers in the tetramers and one connecting the tetramers to form the octamer. In this earlier work, it was also shown by mutational studies that interrupting the first interface has an impact on the OMA1-DELE1-HRI-eIF2α-ATF4 pathway upon mitochondrial stress in human cells. To this end, the authors concluded in the current manuscript that it might be interesting and also of therapeutic interest to develop a protein binder that binds DELE1 and disrupts oligomer formation. The authors set up a de novo protein design approach using RFdiffusion to design a protein scaffold and ProteinMPNN to design the side chains to create protein binders targeting the α-helix α1 in DELE1CTD that is directly involved in the formation of the first interface forming the tetramer. As I am not an expert in protein design, I cannot judge the quality of this data. The candidates were evaluated by AlphaFold3 to confirm complexes formed between the designs and DELE1CTD. In the end, 12 designed protein binders were selected for further analyses. These proteins were recombinantly produced in E. coli and purified. The proteins DELE1 full-length (DELE1fl) and DELE1CTD were produced as MBP-fusion proteins to improve solubility and stability. Co-expression studies with mbp-delet1CTD revealed that 11 out of the 12 binders co-eluted with MBP-DELE1CTD from a size-exclusion chromatography column, indicating complex formation. Without the presence of the binders, MBP-DELE1CTD elutes as a higher oligomer, suggesting that the binders interfere with oligomerisation. Further analyses included the impact of the presence of selected binders on stress-induced ISR. The authors found that different binders had a slightly different impact on the outcome upon treatment with stressors, and also compared two different stressors. This was concluded by assessing the ATP4 protein level by immunoblotting. The interaction of selected binders with DELE1CTD was subsequently confirmed by co-immunoprecipitation experiments. To evaluate whether the impact of the binders is restricted to mitochondrial stress studies, eliciting endoplasmic reticulum stress showed no effect on ATF4 levels. The presence of the binders furthermore impaired recovery of tubulated mitochondria following mitochondrial stress induction, resulting in more fragmented mitochondria. The authors determined a crystal structure of one binder at a resolution of 2.6 Å and performed AlphaFold3 predictions to model the complex between binders and DELE1CTD. The interface is characterized by many hydrophobic residues. From this data, they concluded some interface mutants and tested those concerning their impact on the interaction. Indeed, mutation of these hydrophobic side chains to charged residues interfered with complex formation. Finally, the authors show that binder binding to DELE1CTD does not interfere with the binding of HRI kinase. Overall, the methodology applied is state-of-the-art, and the manuscript is well-written. The design of protein binders targeting DELE1 involved in mitochondrial stress signalling is interesting for basic science to study stress signalling, but also therapeutically. However, as ISR has a positive impact on disease development and ageing, but also a negative one, depending on the degree of activated ISR, a therapeutic use would need to be precisely applied. The study has some weaknesses, and particularly the structural data seems to have severe issues.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors track cortical activity across the dorsal cortex of head-fixed mice for up to ten weeks following bilateral eye removal, asking how the cortex reorganizes over an extended period after vision loss. They report a rapid and long-lasting reversal of the normal relationship between movement and visual cortex activity, together with a delayed, weeks-long window of enhanced slow-wave activity during rest and a persistent reorganization of large-scale cortical correlations.

Strengths:

The longitudinal scope is the work's strength. Tracking the same animals over a ten-week window after sensory loss is technically demanding and rarely done, and it yields a temporal picture that short studies cannot provide. The observation that the movement-related activation of the visual cortex inverts within a day and only partially recovers over weeks is striking and has not been documented at this timescale. The analysis is internally consistent across two protocols (short- and long-term) and frames the changes by behavioral state, focusing on rest versus movement. This is a useful analysis that the field has not systematically applied to studies of deprivation.

Weaknesses:

The manipulation is unusually severe: removing both eyes eliminates patterned vision, non-image-forming light input, and all residual retinal signals abruptly and irreversibly, in contrast to the milder and often reversible manipulations the discussion draws on. Without a sham-surgery control, the early effects cannot be cleanly separated from the surgery itself.

The language of "plasticity" runs ahead of what the data actually measure, since the study quantifies spontaneous activity and pairwise correlations but does not assess receptive fields, evoked responses, synaptic changes, or the causal manipulation of any candidate circuit. The discussion nevertheless attributes findings to specific interneuron circuits, molecular pathways, and thalamocortical reorganization, none of which are tested in this study.

The imaging method also constrains what can be claimed: widefield calcium signals are dominated by superficial-layer and excitatory output and cannot resolve the cell-type-specific mechanisms invoked in the discussion. Because the key findings lie in the low-frequency band where vascular contamination is greatest, the hemodynamic correction, particularly in the deprived state, where vascular tone itself may be altered, deserves more validation than it currently receives.

Finally, the presentation relies heavily on group-level heatmaps in the main figures, with raw traces, spectrograms, and per-animal trajectories at the key inflection points (day 1, week 1, week 10) largely absent. This makes it difficult to judge whether the reported patterns are coherent across animals.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary

In this paper, the authors have 5 human subjects learn to play Super Mario Bros while undergoing fMRI for 15 hrs each. They compare a reinforcement learning (RL) model (PPO), an imitation learning (IL) model, and a vision model (ResNet) in their ability to play the game, match human behavior, and, critically, explain human brain activity.

The key findings can be summarized as follows:

(1) RL, IL, and vision models explain similar amounts of variance in the BOLD signal (Fig 2a), with a significant but small trend of RL > IL > ResNet (Tab 1).

(2) Untrained models with the same architecture explain a smaller but very similar amount of variance (Figure 2a, Table 1).

(3) The brain maps across all models (and layers) are strikingly similar, with the strongest effects in visual, parietal, and motor regions (Figures 2b, 2d; Supplementary Material II).

(4) Behavioral and neural performance are correlated across model checkpoints (but not levels), such that later checkpoints in training have better behavioral and neural encoding performance (Figures 3 & 4), although the neural effect plateaus pretty quickly.

(5) Out-of-distribution performance is quite poor, both behaviorally (Figure 5a) and neurally (Figure 5b).

I believe this work will be of interest to neuroscientists, cognitive scientists, and AI researchers alike. There has been a growing trend in neuroscience to adopt AI models as cognitive models of complex perception and action, while at the same time, AI researchers are increasingly looking at the brain for inspiration. The key finding of this paper -- that these models fail to generalize to out-of-distribution levels -- questions the core assumptions of this whole enterprise.

Strengths:

Unlike previous studies applying machine learning to naturalistic game-play, the authors take great care to make sure their models are evaluated on an equal footing, using equivalent or similar architectures/number of parameters and training data.

While the number of subjects (5) is relatively small, the amount of data per subject (15 hours) is impressive, which is important for fitting the imitation learning & ResNet models and for obtaining reliable encoding performance for each individual subject. The authors employed a train/val/test split and held out sets, the gold standard in the literature.

Overall, the paper was well-written and easy to follow. The figures clearly illustrate the main findings.

Weaknesses:

(1) Missing statistical tests

I think the main weakness of the paper is that many of the claims are qualitative in nature and lack appropriate statistical tests, for example:

- "The conv3 layer has the highest brain encoding score";<br /> - "Robust association between task performance and brain encoding" ;<br /> - "Level patterns strongly predict brain encoding";<br /> - "Brain encoding performance was severely degraded";<br /> - "Effect of training on brain encoding was apparent".

While these effects are indeed qualitatively visible in the figures, it is unclear which of these differences are significant (with the notable exception of Table 1). I believe the paper would benefit substantially if these effects were quantified and every claim were supported by the appropriate statistical tests. As an example, with the exception of Table 1 and the corresponding paragraph, I could not find any p-values in the results section.

(2) Missing model performance and human-likeness

Also absent from the results is an assessment of model performance on the task and similarity to human performance/behavior. From Figures 3 and 4, we can see that the game score of PPO is around 500-1000 - how does that compare to the humans? We can also see that the imitation scores for IL are around 0.4-0.7, but what does that mean? Such results would be crucial to assess if the models have indeed learned to play the games and/or imitate the humans, and therefore, whether they would be good candidates as cognitive models (before even looking at brain activity). At minimum, plotting the human versus model game scores (see e.g. Tomov et al. 2023 Neuron, Figure 2) would be helpful; or, if you'd like to dig deeper, showing that human actions are more valuable or more likely under those models (see e.g. Cross et al. 2022 Neuron, Figure 2). It might also be helpful to look at imitation scores for the RL model and game performance of the imitation model -- I suspect they will both be bad, but they can at least serve as informative baselines for their counterparts.

(3) Possible undertraining

Relatedly, one possible explanation for why the Untrained model does so well is that all the models may be effectively undertrained. For example, while there are no training curves in the paper, it seems from the spacing of the checkpoint game scores (x-axis on Figure 3c) that the RL model may not have converged yet (it would be helpful if those were somehow colored by training epoch). Showing training curves would be helpful (i.e., something similar to Figure 3a, except with performance on the y-axis).

Additionally, it would be great to provide more details regarding the PPO training protocol. How many episodes? How many steps per episode? How many steps for all of the training? Similarly, for the imitation learning model: batch size, number of epochs, optimizer, scheduler, etc.

(4) Mysterious poor encoding performance of Untrained and ResNet models on the held-out set

Critically, and related to that, I'm a little confused about the Untrained model results on the held-out set (Figure 5b, top row on the right). Why should those be any different from the test set results with the Untrained model (Figure 2a, right, fourth row from the top)? It makes sense why the other models are worse on the held-out set -- they have never been trained on any frames from those levels. However, the untrained model has not been trained on *any* frames from *any* levels, including the test set and the held-out set.

The same is true for the ResNet model, which is pre-trained on a completely separate data set and yet similarly shows worse performance on the held-out set compared to the test set.

This cannot be explained by the ridge regression, which has no parameters or hyperparameters fitted on either the test set or the held-out set.

The big discrepancy in the untrained model & ResNet results between the test and the held-out set makes think that there is something substantially different about the levels in that held-out set; that they are truly out of distribution compared to the other 20 levels (e.g., maybe they're the last 2 hardest levels and look completely differently? e.g. ResNet proxy in Fig 5c shows worse performance than the mean, which is indicative of an anti-correlation). Alternatively, it may be some issue with the analysis pipeline. The poor generalization results are central to the claims of the paper, so I believe this should be clarified.

(4) Brittleness conclusion rationale

I'm not quite on board with the author's rationale that "[poor model performance on the out-of-distribution levels] demonstrates that the models we tested are limited in scope and may not provide a valid inference of brain-like processing, as human behavior remains robust and generalizable across levels".

For one, unlike the models, humans were actually trained on those levels, so it would not be surprising if they perform just as well on them as on the other levels (but do they? Again, it would be great to see some behavioral data from the humans and the models).

Second, as the authors themselves show, task performance and human-likeness do not really correlate with neural encoding across levels (Fig 4a & b, respectively), so even if model performance remained "robust and generalizable" on the held-out levels, that will not necessarily translate to good neural encoding.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, unless the test set and held-out set were sampled exclusively from the practice phase when the subjects have mastered all the levels (that doesn't seem to be the case, but the authors should clarify), then the humans are continuously learning, which means that their own internal representations of the game are evolving. That's not the case for the models, which I assume are in "inference mode" when their representations are extracted for neural encoding. That is, their weights are frozen. So there's a fundamental mismatch between the mode in which humans are operating (continuously learning and executing) and the mode in which the models are operating (just executing). While this is true for all the levels, it may partially account for the discrepancy in the held-out set specifically.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors describe a mathematical and computational approach used to compute stresses and cellular deformations in a multicellular spheroid embedded in a fiber network. This approach is then used to predict stress and cellular anisotropy distributions in "solid-like" and "fluid-like" spheroids. Simulations show that shear stresses in solid-like spheroids are large and concentrated at the boundary of the spheroid, yet cells do not align with the direction of the largest shear. Conversely, shear stresses in fluid-like spheroids are smaller and uniformly distributed in the spheroid. In this case, cellular elongation is more likely to be aligned with the direction of the largest shear stress. The model and simulations also predict a nonlinear stress-strain relationship that is indicative of strain stiffening. This strain-stiffening is more pronounced in fluid-like spheroids. In an extension of the preliminary polyhedral vertex model, in which cellular interfaces are shared, the authors incorporate mechanical cell-cell interactions via adhesion springs between neighboring vertices. Using this extension, they show that cell breakout is more likely to occur in fluid-like spheroids, where cells are more likely to elongate and stiffen, allowing for larger forces to be exerted on the surrounding fiber network. Furthermore, the authors state that anisotropic cell-cell adhesion is required for multicell streaming during breakout.

Strengths:

The modeling and computational approach used in this research is this work's biggest strength. Treating the embedded spheroid as a set of polyhedra, where each polyhedron represents a single cell, is a mechanically robust, yet still tractable way to model multicellular spheroids in three dimensions. Starting with expressions for constraining cell volume and surface area as well as a surface energy term, the authors derive an expression for an averaged stress tensor for each polyhedron. This allows the authors to approximate the stress in each polyhedral cell that is caused by cellular deformations during mechanical interactions with the extracellular fiber matrix. This is a clever and robust approach that is based on fundamental mechanical principles that allow one to make reasonable predications about the mechanical state of the spheroid under a variety of conditions.

Weaknesses:

The weakness of the manuscript is the exposition. There are significant pieces of critical information missing from the manuscript that would make the presented work significantly more understandable and better support the authors' claims. Most importantly, many necessary details of the model are missing. I was able to get a better understanding of some of these details by reading the authors' earlier work (ref [10] in the submitted manuscript), and for this reason, I do feel that this work has value. However, several descriptions must be added for the paper to be more readily understandable. These include (1) a better explanation of what drives motion, in particular in the case where no external fiber network is present. (2) What physically distinguishes fluid-like spheroids from solid-like spheroids? Simply stating the value of the parameters s0 with no explanation is not sufficient. (3) An explanation of how histograms in Figure 2 are calculated is necessary. Are these histograms based on one simulation or several simulations? (4) The experimental results are briefly mentioned, but significantly more connection between these results and the numerical results of the cell breakout model is needed. (5) The description of the model that incorporates variable cell-cell attachments and cell breakout is very terse and needs more detail. Moreover, while the description of the results of this model is strong, the figure that illustrates cell breakout (Figure 5) is difficult to interpret. Addressing these and other issues will make the current manuscript, which presents an interesting model and result, much stronger and easier to read.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, the authors explore a molecular basis for hypermethylation of histones in epithelial cells infected with the obligate intracellular bacterial pathogen Chlamydia trachomatis. This is of particular interest given that Chlamydia is known to drastically alter host cell gene transcription, and histone hypermethylation would suggest a new way by which Chlamydia interferes with gene expression of its host. Histone methylation was previously implicated in the introduction of dsDNA breaks in infected cells, and the chlamydial effector NUE was reported to methylate histones, but the role of this modification in dictating host cell gene transcription has been unexplored. The authors use a suite of tools to approach this question, including various -omics techniques, genetic approaches, and biochemical assays. Overall, the manuscript provides many interesting pieces of data, though some of them are difficult to reconcile, which may reflect methodological hurdles that are not fully addressed in the current version of the manuscript. My major concerns regard the rationale/interpretation for various mechanistic experiments and that the heterogeneity of the histone hypermethylation phenotype is not addressed which I believe may explain some apparent inconsistencies in the results.

Using an immunofluorescent approach, the authors show that a subpopulation of the nuclei in Chlamydia-infected cells (~10-20%) exhibit high amounts of methylated histone species. This occurs during the late stages of infection, near the time when Chlamydia would lyse the host cell and positively correlates with bacterial burden. Accordingly, halting chlamydial growth blocks the onset of histone hypermethylation. Exogenously supplying cofactors for histone demethylases, the low activity of which is implicated in the histone hypermethylation phenotype, reduces histone hypermethylation. In general, these data are compelling and raise interesting questions about the role of histone methylation in governing chlamydial egress from infected cells. Interestingly, these behaviors seem to arise independently of NUE, the secreted chlamydial histone methyltransferase, supporting the notion that a metabolic reprogramming may underlie the hypermethylation phenomenon.

As noted above, the authors propose that hypermethylation arises due to decreased demethylase activity in infected cells. However, the data do not conclusively support this interpretation. For example, the approaches used to probe demethylase activity rely on (i) a direct biochemical measure of demethylase activity, (ii), pharmacological inhibition of demethylase, and (iii) heterologous expression of a specific demethylase. With the exception of (i), these approaches would be expected to alter histone methylation regardless of the source. That is, inhibition of demethylases should increase histone methylation regardless of whether the source of methylation is increased methylase or decreased demethylase activity. Similarly, overexpression of a demethylase would be expected to reduce cognate histone methylation arising either from increased methylase or decreased demethylase activity.

Moreover, the authors report that the effect of the demethylase inhibitor on histone hypermethylation is significantly potentiated by infection, suggesting that infected cells have greater methylase activity than uninfected cells, because the latter barely respond to the presence of demethylase inhibitor. In other words, a dramatic increase in histone methylation in the presence of demethylase inhibitor is most parsimoniously explained by increased methylation (no longer being removed by demethylase), not decreased demethylation (which would be analogous to treatment with demethylase inhibitor). The authors do not directly assay methylase activity. These concerns extend to the rationale used to justify experiments with infected mice, which the authors treat with the demethylase inhibitor.

The authors perform experiments to characterize the consequence of hypermethylation genome-wide. Because the authors do not enrich for those cells which exhibit histone hypermethylation, the results reflect the mixed population, and therefore presumably dilute out important signal related to the phenomena under investigation. For example, the proteomic analysis of post-translational modifications identifies only one methylated histone species, whereas the immunofluorescent approach shows consistent effects across five different methylated histone species. Moreover, the chromatin immunoprecipitation analysis indicates that there is unexpectedly a lower density of methylated histones at regions which are also enriched in uninfected cells. The authors argue that this suggests increased methylation is happening "outside" of these histone-dense regions, but direct evidence in support of this claim is lacking.

In sum, this paper provides compelling evidence in support of the notion that histones are hypermethylated at various residues late in chlamydial infection, that this process is modulated by known cofactors of demethylases, and is the result of high levels of bacterial replication in the cell. That histone hypermethylation governs host gene transcription during chlamydial infection suggests a relatively novel mechanism by which Chlamydia subverts the host cell to establish a replicative niche or egress to infect a new cell. The information obtained regarding the methylation status of host proteins and host gene transcription controlled by a metabolic cofactor during infection will be a useful resource for other researchers. However, in the current version of the manuscript, the mechanistic basis for these behaviors is relatively unclear.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Comay, Solovey, and Barttfeld aim to provide a unified computational account of confidence in reinforcement learning by distinguishing value confidence-the certainty associated with latent value estimates-from decision confidence-the confidence that a particular choice is correct. Across new experiments and reanalyses of previously published datasets, they argue that value confidence is best described by Bayesian posterior precision, that this form of confidence adaptively reduces decision noise as learning progresses, and that decision confidence is better captured by a hybrid model combining Bayesian probability correct with a more global estimate of value certainty. They further propose that individual differences in the relative weighting of these components define "confidence phenotypes" that predict task performance, exploration-exploitation behavior, and metacognitive accuracy.

Strengths:

A major strength of the study is that it addresses an important conceptual distinction that is often blurred in the confidence literature. The paper usefully separates uncertainty about latent environmental states from confidence in an action derived from those latent beliefs. This distinction is especially important in reinforcement learning, where uncertainty is not merely a retrospective judgment about accuracy but can directly shape future sampling, learning, and action selection. The manuscript is therefore well positioned to bridge work on Bayesian confidence in perceptual decision-making with work on uncertainty-guided learning and exploration.

A second strength is the authors' use of multiple datasets and model comparisons. The claim that value confidence tracks Bayesian uncertainty is supported across tasks in which participants explicitly report confidence in value estimates, including datasets where reward variance is manipulated. The latter manipulation is particularly useful because it helps distinguish a Bayesian uncertainty account from simpler models based only on the number of observations. The finding that value confidence modulates the softmax slope and thereby promotes more exploitative choices as uncertainty decreases is also theoretically coherent and supported across several datasets, including a preregistered replication.

The manuscript's most interesting and potentially impactful contribution is the hybrid model of decision confidence. The authors show that a model based only on Bayesian probability correct captures confidence on correct trials better than on incorrect trials, whereas adding an "overall value confidence" term improves the fit. This is a useful result because it suggests that confidence reports in reinforcement learning may not be a pure readout of decision-level discriminability, but instead may combine decision-specific evidence with more global latent-state uncertainty. This could help explain why human confidence often deviates from ideal Bayesian predictions, especially on error trials.

Weaknesses:

However, the interpretation of the hybrid model remains the main weakness of the paper. The second term, overall value confidence, is not equivalent to the precision of the decision variable. It can dissociate from decision difficulty: two options can be far apart but individually uncertain, or nearly identical but individually well estimated. The authors appear to recognize this issue and have reframed the term as "overall value confidence" rather than decision-variable precision. This is a useful clarification, but the conceptual role of the term still requires sharper treatment. In its current form, it is sometimes described as part of a unified confidence computation, but it may be more accurately understood as a biasing or contextual signal that modulates reported confidence without necessarily improving decision calibration.

A related concern is model identifiability. In many reinforcement-learning tasks, probability correct and overall value confidence both change systematically over the course of learning. As a result, the hybrid model may gain predictive power partly because it captures generic time-on-task or learning-progress effects, rather than because participants explicitly combine two separable uncertainty signals. The manuscript would be stronger if it more clearly demonstrated that the two latent variables are distinguishable in the behavioral data, for example, through model recovery, parameter recovery, cross-validated prediction, and analyses of the correlation between latent regressors across task conditions and individuals.

The link between the decision rule and confidence model also deserves more scrutiny. The authors use value confidence to modulate decision noise in the choice model, and then use a related global value-confidence term in the confidence-report model. This creates an appealing unified architecture, but it also raises the possibility that the same latent variable is doing multiple kinds of explanatory work. The paper would benefit from a clearer separation between uncertainty as a driver of choices, uncertainty as a determinant of confidence reports, and uncertainty as an inferred latent variable extracted from the same behavioral data.

From a computational neuroscience perspective, the manuscript would also benefit from a more explicit discussion of how these confidence quantities might be represented neurally. The current model treats value confidence, probability correct, and overall value confidence as scalar latent variables available to the observer. Yet uncertainty-related computations may be represented nonlinearly in neural population activity rather than as explicit scalar readouts. Work on nonlinear neural decoding and population codes has shown that task-relevant variables can be carried by nonlinear statistics of neural activity, especially when nuisance variables obscure mean tuning, and that behavioral choices can reveal whether such nonlinear information is efficiently decoded. This literature provides a useful framework for connecting the present behavioral model to possible neural implementations of value and decision confidence.

Overall, the authors largely achieve their goal of demonstrating that value confidence and decision confidence are computationally dissociable in reinforcement learning. The evidence for Bayesian value confidence is strong, and the evidence that confidence-guided exploitation improves the account of choice behavior is convincing. The evidence for the hybrid account of decision confidence is promising but would be strengthened by additional analyses clarifying model identifiability, the interpretation of the overall value-confidence term, and the conditions under which the model makes distinct predictions from simpler time-, value-, or evidence-based alternatives. The paper is likely to be useful for researchers interested in computational models of confidence, metacognition, and adaptive behavior under uncertainty.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, the authors focused on the CA1 region of the hippocampus to compare Ca2+ dynamics in astrocytes, pyramidal neurons, and interneurons in response to optogenetic stimulation of locus coeruleus-triggered noradrenaline (NA) release, or movement (natural arousal)-triggered NA release. The most striking finding is that all studied cell types responded differently to LC stimulation compared to natural arousal. The description of these findings is important as a resource for further mechanistic studies on how multiple neuromodulator systems may interact or for predicting the consequences of the selective impairment of the noradrenergic system.

Strengths:

The technical design and conduct of the experiments, analysis including statistics, as well as the presentation of the results, are timely and very solid.

Weaknesses:

The identity and localization of NA receptors responsible for effects on neurons are less clear, and therefore, the difference between LC stimulation and natural arousal is less surprising. However, the presented data are consistent with the established finding that astrocytes directly sense NA mainly through α1 adrenergic receptors, yet in this study, astrocytes that responded strongest to LC stimulation did not respond strongest to natural arousal, and vice versa for other astrocytes.

The authors seem to favor diversity of astrocyte responsiveness as an explanation, but also mention differences in LC activation pattern and distance of individual astrocytes to NAergic nerve terminals. Therefore, this warrants a careful consideration of a critical aspect of the experimental design. The authors delivered Ca2+/NA sensors as well as the optogenetic tools via AAV. While Figure 1 Supplement 3 suggests that most LC neurons were transduced, AAV transduction will almost certainly lead to a diversity in copy numbers per cell. On the receptor side, this can lead to an artificial diversity in Ca2+ response detection sensitivity among individual cells, but more importantly, for the LC, this could account for a different pattern of activation by optogenetic stimulation compared to activation by natural arousal. Such a problem would remain unnoticed with the currently presented matching of optogenetic and natural arousal stimulations of LC using population NA sensor signals (Figure 1, fiber photometry).

Major suggestion:

A critical experiment to test for this caveat would be to ideally express the NA sensor in astrocytes (due to their space-filling process arborizations and direct response to NA; but expression in neurons, as present, would work as well) and study the spatial pattern of NA release using two-photon microscopy, comparing multiple days and LC stimulation by optogenetics versus natural arousal. In case these experiments revealed nonuniform NA signal patterns, stable over days, but different when caused by optogenetic stimulation versus natural arousal, it would possibly shift the interpretation of the astrocyte response patterns towards depending mainly on NA release rather than diversity in NA responsiveness. Such a finding would be consistent with studies that compared arousal-mediated Ca2+ dynamics in NAergic terminals and Bergmann glia in the cerebellum (PMID: 36790089). On the other hand, in case these added experiments revealed similar NA release patterns in response to optogenetic stimulation versus natural arousal, then the presented findings would convincingly represent a biological phenomenon.

Minor suggestion:

Using "movement" as a proxy for arousal is very appropriate. To avoid the misunderstanding that different phenomena have been studied, it may be useful to acknowledge that early studies of noradrenergic signaling to astrocytes have found that speed of locomotion does not correlate well with astrocyte Ca2+ responses, and electromyographic signals have been used as a "proxy for movement" (PMID: 24945771).

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors investigate whether the brain's predictive representation of observed biological motion depends on holistic priors about body structure or on kinematic priors about motion continuity. The manuscript applies dynamic representational similarity analysis to MEG data from a large number of participants viewing ballet sequences under three conditions: normal, upside-down inverted, and temporally scrambled into short epochs.

Strengths:

The study reports that inversion selectively attenuates predictions of view-invariant body motion and enhances predictions of view-dependent body motion, while leaving low-level pixel-wise motion prediction unaffected. Further, scrambling eliminates predictive motion representations at every level and instead produces stronger post-stimulus representations of body posture, with view-invariant posture also delayed. The pattern across the two manipulations is internally consistent, holds across both peak magnitude and peak latency measures, and is also supported by a neural-to-neural dynamic representational similarity analysis (dRSA) analysis between normal and inverted conditions. The principal component regression pipeline is validated through simulations showing that it recovers the model of interest while suppressing covarying models. In particular, the inversion result provides strong evidence that high-level predictions of biological motion depend on holistic priors while predictions at lower levels do not, and the finding that disruption at the top of the hierarchy does not propagate down is informative for predictive processing accounts that assume a more cascading architecture.

Weaknesses:

The interpretation of the scrambling result is the main caveat of the manuscript. The claim that low-level motion prediction depends on kinematic continuity rests on the absence of pixelwise motion prediction in the scrambled condition, but the 200 to 500-ms segments may not be sufficient for prediction to develop, as the authors also point out. Without a parametric manipulation of segment length, it is difficult to distinguish a genuine dependence on kinematic priors from a floor. The interpretation of increased post-stimulus posture representations as prediction errors is also somewhat indirect, since a positive latency does not rule out potential top-down modulation/factor.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Previous work from the Cahalan lab used fluorescent Genetically Encoded Ca2+ Indicators (GECI), like GCaMP6f, tethered to the N- or C- terminus of Orai1 to monitor CRAC channel optical signals (Dynes et al., PNAS 2016 PMID: 26712003; J Gen Physiol 2020 PMID: 32589186; PNAS 2023 PMID: 37729200). In this study from the Lewis lab, the HaloTag system enables C-terminal labeling of Orai1 with a reactive JF646-BAPTA loaded into cells. The article raises two key issues with the Ca2+ indicator probe that may limit potential applications: probe loading conditions and blinking.

Making Sense of Probe Probe-lems:

This is a three-component system: the hexameric Orai1 channel, the Halo tag, and the Ca2+ indicator (four components if you count the GFP- or mCherry-tagged STIM1 in the endoplasmic reticulum membrane that activates the plasma membrane Orai1 channel). The Orai1 channel, tagged with the Halo protein, appears to function normally, judging from the characteristic inwardly rectifying Ca2+ current first observed in T lymphocytes (Lewis and Cahalan, Cell Regulation 1989 PMID: 2519622). One problem is to find a condition for indicator dye loading that results in complete and uniform labeling with the covalently linked JF646 indicator. JF646-BAPTA is a far-red fluorescent indicator related to BAPTA, with a Kd of ~150 nM. The esterified form can be loaded into cells, as is routinely done for Ca2+ indicators like fura-2 or fluo-4. Ideally, to monitor local Ca2+ in the cytosolic nanodomain of the Orai1 channel, the indicator should react with each and every Halo tag of the hexameric channel. The authors assessed published methods by varying the exposure time to the JF646-BAPTA-esterified probe. The authors then used green JF552 labeling following red JF646-BAPTA loading to assess the completeness of labeling. Even overnight incubation of Halo-tagged cells was not sufficient. The addition of Pluronic treatment for 1 hr improved labeling, and a standard condition was adopted. Under this condition, no additional labeling with the green JF552 was seen, implying complete labeling with JF646-BAPTA. However, even with complete labeling, several additional effects might reduce the effective signal-to-noise, which is lower in these studies than expected from in vitro measurements - for example, if the JF646-BAPTA molecules are incompletely de-esterified, or if there is quenching between the closely spaced probes attached to the channel hexamer.

A second, more serious problem analyzed by this article is that the JF646-BAPTA probe blinks on and off spontaneously, making it problematic to monitor true single-channel events in which the channel open state is assessed by the fluorescent probe. The authors distinguish blinking from channel-gating events by carefully noting the residual level of fluorescence in the absence of Ca2+ influx. Blinking events occur in bursts that reduce fluorescence transiently to zero, whereas the closed channel labeled with JF646-BAPTA retains a low level of fluorescence (~20%). To circumvent the blinking issue, the authors use whole-cell patch recording, in conjunction with optical recording (Patch-TIRF). This allows channel-gating events to be identified by step-wise changes in fluorescence due to Ca2+ entry upon hyperpolarization to -100 mV, above a baseline level of fluorescence at +30 mV, which the authors presume represents the closed channel level of fluorescence. Irreversible photobleaching is an additional issue, limiting the recording times to less than 1 minute.

Visualizing Orai1 Single-Channels:

With the blinking problem circumvented, at least in part, the authors uncovered a wide variety of single-channel events. Cells with low expression levels of Orai1 revealed 0-3 active Orai1 channels per STIM1 puncta. The range of gating behavior at the single-channel level is one of the revelations in this study. A substantial fraction (11%) of puncta contained "silent" channels that did not open (detected by the non-zero level of baseline fluorescence for closed channels). At the other extreme, some channels remained open for tens of seconds. On average, channels that opened and closed stochastically exhibited a bi-exponential distribution of bright states (open channels), with a major component of fast events (92 ms) and a minor component of slower ones (1190 ms), as well a single-exponential distribution of dark states (closed channels), and open probabilities >0.7. Channel open/closed times and the high open probability of active Orai1 channels seen here reinforce previous work based on analysis of CRAC current fluctuations in whole-cell recording, and optical single-channel recording using a different genetically encoded Ca2+ indicator, G-GECO1, tethered to Orai1 (Prakriya and Lewis, J Gen Physiol 2006 PMID: 16940559; Dynes et al., PNAS 2016 PMID: 26712003).

Expression levels for single-channel optical recording must be low; accordingly, puncta contained only 0-3 active channels. However, under conditions of high STIM1 and Orai1 expression, conventionally used to investigate channel function, as in Figure 1, cells with large currents express many thousands of active channels. The number of active channels per cell can be calculated by dividing the peak current (~-100 pA) by the voltage (-100 mV); this corresponds to a whole-cell conductance (G) of ~1 nS (conductance is measured in Siemens). The single channel conductance (gamma, too low to detect electrically) is estimated by noise analysis to be 20-40 fS. Thus, the number of active channels is given by G / gamma corresponding to a range of > 25,000 - 50,000 open channels per cell. Under similar conditions of high STIM1/Orai1 co-expression in HEK cells, individual Orai1 channels were visualized at high density in puncta by freeze-fracture electron microscopy (Perni et al., PNAS 2015 PMID: 26351694), revealing puncta packed with Orai1 particles corresponding to hundreds to >1000 channels per punctum. Measuring the center-to-center distances between particles in puncta revealed two peaks in a distribution of inter-particle lengths: 9 nm (consistent with the approximate width of the Orai1 channel hexamer) and 15 nm (possibly due to two adjacent Orai1 channels held together by intervening STIM1 dimers).

Strengths:

The authors do an excellent job of analyzing and discussing probe artifacts that can confound measurements at the single-channel level. On the technical side, we thank the authors for including a photon 'budget' for their imaging experiments by including: the conversion factor from camera intensity units (c.u.) to photoelectrons, cell background fluorescence levels, and nominally Ca2+ free single channel fluorescence levels. One parameter missing from the list is the size of the region of interest used for channel recording. We expect the intensity measurements provided in the channel traces to correspond to mean ROI intensity levels. Upon knowing the ROI size in pixels, the magnitude of fluorescent signals could then be calculated in photons. Taken together, these values will aid comparisons to previous work and help guide subsequent researchers doing their own optical recording.

The most important finding of this study is the ability to analyze single-channel properties of active Orai1 channels using the HaloTag approach. By direct measurement, the authors confirm previous work that there are at least two open states and that the CRAC channel open probability is greater than 0.7.

Like any good study, this work suggests opportunities for further work. At the chemistry level, one focus should be the development of new probes that don't blink and have lower affinity for Ca2+ to circumvent unwanted responses to global Ca2+ signaling. Far-red probes like JF646-BAPTA have the advantage of reduced scattering for in vivo imaging applications. At the level of channel molecular function, the results pave the way for unraveling mechanisms of channel gating, such as the requirement for STIM1 binding to activate sub-states of Orai1, and how the channel undergoes Ca2+-dependent inactivation. At the cellular physiology level, localized Ca2+ probes should help to clarify mechanisms that couple to changes in gene expression and reveal Ca2+ signaling in subcellular structures, including dendritic spines. As a nice proof of principle, Halo-tagging enabled Ca2+ signals to be measured in primary cilia (Deo et al., J Am Chem Soc 2019 PMID: 31430138). Future users of HaloTag and GECI Ca2+ indicators will need to confront the issues (probe-lems) at the single-channel level that are carefully raised and analyzed in this article.

Weaknesses:

The major confounding issue identified here is probe blinking. The authors find a way to circumvent the issue, but not to prevent it. Is it triggered by high laser light intensity? Do the six JF646-BAPTA molecules tagging a single Orai1 channel exhibit quenching or correlated blinking?

Which type of probe is better for understanding more about the CRAC channel function? It is difficult to evaluate the pros and cons of the HaloTag and GECI approaches without a side-by-side comparison under identical conditions (except for the probe, obviously). With respect to Ca2+ affinities, higher Kd values (lower affinity) are probably better. JF646-BAPTA has a relatively low Kd value (150 nm) compared to Orai1-GCaMP6f (620 nM in situ), which may account for the saturation of optical signals at potentials more negative than -75 mV in this study. In contrast, saturation did not occur at negative potentials with Orai1-GCaMP6f in the study by Dynes et al., 2020. Lower affinity also makes the probe more resistant to unwanted signals from global increases in Ca2+. With respect to response kinetics, the finding that JF646-BAPTA has faster Ca2+ binding and unbinding kinetics than GECIs in Deo et al., 2019, occurred before publication of the jGCaMP8 series indicators in Y. Zhang et al., Nature 2023. Kinetic measurement of Orai1-jGCaMP8f fusions was reported in Dynes et al., PNAS 2023, and these measurements were performed using the same patch-TIRF approach as the present manuscript. While photoinactivation of jGCaMP8f fused to Orai1 interfered with kinetic measurements, Orai1-jGCaMP8f V203Y (a mutant with greatly reduced photoinactivation) exhibited a tauon of 10 ms and tauoff of 15 ms, roughly twice as fast as the values reported for Orai1-HaloTag-JF646-BAPTA in the present manuscript. The manuscript text comparing Halo-Tag kinetics with GECI should be revised accordingly.

The authors suggest that single-channel events reported previously for Piezo1 channels (Bertaccini et al., Nat Comm 2025 PMID: 40593468) may be due to probe blinking. However, that study included two critical controls that demonstrate that signals reflect bona fide channel activity rather than blinking artifacts. Notably: (1) treatment with channel activator Yoda1 increased bright-state occupancy (Figure 3C - 3G), and (2) increasing channel open probability by administering a mechanical stimulus increased bright-state occupancy (Supplementary Figure 13).

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This work presents a new hypothesis for why dopamine signals have sometimes been observed to "ramp up" in spatial tasks as rodents approach a location associated with reward. In essence, the hypothesis is that value estimates (i.e., predictions about future rewards) from a model-based system, which may be able to more quickly form such estimates via an inference-like process, can be used to speed up the (relatively slow) learning of such estimates by a model-free system. This is suggested to occur by including the model-based estimate as part of the target towards which model-free estimates are updated in the course of temporal-difference (TD) learning. The early discrepancy between these estimates can be expected to give rise to systematic TD errors - putatively represented in dopaminergic activity - that give rise to dopamine ramps, which are expected to diminish over time as the estimates of both systems converge. The authors show that a model that implements this idea makes predictions about dopamine activity that are a good qualitative match to data from a number of recent experimental studies.

Strengths:

The work suggests a normative account for a phenomenon that has persistently troubled the canonical theory of dopamine function. The account is appealing in its elegance and simplicity, and the authors present compelling evidence that it can capture the empirical observations of key recent papers. Another strength of the account is that it readily suggests avenues for future theory development and experimental test, including what the 'best' target estimate should be at any given time, how rapidly one might expect ramps to develop or diminish, and the neural implementation of the proposed algorithm. This is likely to stimulate further theoretical and experimental work in the field.

Weaknesses:

One aspect of dopamine "ramps" that was troubling from a theoretical standpoint was their apparent persistence over time. Given the authors' prediction that these would disappear over time in a stable environment and the supporting evidence they cite (from Guru et al., 2000), the reader might be left confused about the state of evidence about whether dopamine ramps persist or not. Perhaps relatedly, the issue of how the activity of dopamine cells and dopamine release are related is not discussed, which may be relevant given that early studies (e.g., Howe et al., 2013) used voltammetry to measure extracellular dopamine concentrations.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

This paper provides valuable technical and theoretical validation of layer-specific wide-field imaging. Here, the authors use specific transgenic lines that provide layer-specific cell body expression (and some superficial dendrites). They then use deconvolution approaches and potentially more accurate atlases based on depth-dependent features to register and resolve what are layer-specific functional GCaMP signals.

In general, the work is extremely well done, and I have little specific criticism. I think the author should be commended for their creative solutions, including using the light source at different depths to measure apparent scattering and blurring, allowing them to incorporate the deconvolution approach.

Throughout the manuscript, they refer to the signals as layer-specific and, for the most part, conclude similar functional connectivity as in different layers with some noted exceptions. This is an outstanding resource for the community.

Major Comment:

I think they should add some caveats that the lines that they employ do contain dendrites that are in more superficial cortices. Could they make some estimates of signal contribution from these, say, layer 6 neuron superficial dendrites versus the deep somata? This clarification should be included in the abstract; maybe they could call these apparent somatic signals? Another way of doing this would be a Soma-targeted deep indicator, but this is probably beyond the scope of the paper.

Alternatively, how much of the layer 5 signal would be expected to be recovered?

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Since describing MDCs over a decade ago, the lab of the corresponding author, Hughes, has been at the forefront of further characterizing these structures. Here, they follow up on recent work (PMID: 38497895), where a screen identified Yme1 as a potential regulator of MDCs. After confirming that Yme1-ko prevents MDCs that are usually induced via various established treatments (Rapamycin, cycloheximide, Concanavalin A), the authors confirmed that the proteolytic activity of Yme1 is required. Next, using proteomics, they identified how loss of Yme1 impacts the mitochondrial proteome with and without Rapamycin treatment to induce MDCs. From this result and based on insight from other published data implicating lipids, the focused initially on the lipid transfer protein Usp2, a known target of Yme1. Here, they showed that loss of Usp2 could partially rescue MDC formation in Yme1-ko cells. To look for other Yme1 targets that might also be involved in MDC formation, next, they investigated the MICOS complex, which was also notable in their proteomics data. They then showed that inhibiting MICOS also partially restored MDC formation in Yme1-ko cells. They then tested the combined effects of Usp2 and MDC inhibition on MDCs, which was limited by the fact that the combination of full MICOS disruption, Usp2-KO, and Yme1-KO was not viable. To circumvent this limitation, they investigated the knockout of individual MICOS subunits in combination with Usp2 and/or Yme1. Finally, they showed that growth conditions also mediate MDC formation in the context of Yme1 overexpression. In rich media, Yme1 overexpression induces MDCs on its own. However, this induction is lost upon amino acid starvation, suggesting that there are still other as-yet-unidentified factors regulating the formation of MDCs.

Strengths:

The authors use unbiased approaches and genetic models to begin unraveling a novel regulatory role of Yme1 in the formation of MDCs.

Weaknesses:

(1) The authors find both Ups1 and Ups2 in their screens, but only focus on Ups2 in this paper. It would be good to know why they did not also investigate Ups1, and its other protease Atp23, which could potentially act similarly to Yme1, or even rescue the loss of Yme1.

(2) I'm not convinced that the data support the notion that Usp2 and MICOS have distinct effects on MDCs. In Figure S3C-D, there is no statistical analysis to indicate whether the small differences between the MICOS-ko and the double knockout are significant. If MICOS-ko and Ups2-ko were acting through different mechanisms, one would expect their combination to be additive; this does not appear to be the case, as both single deletions and the double deletion all cause similar levels of MDCs (~30-40%). Rather, this result is what you would expect if they were working through the same mechanism. There also does not appear to be an additive effect in Figure 4F-G, when using the mic60-ko rather than the complete MICOS-ko. In this regard, the authors note in their discussion that 'loss of MICOS may disrupt membrane associations or alter lipid distribution between mitochondrial subcompartments' (lines 390-392). The latter situation seems like it would be the same mechanism as Usp2 and would more accurately explain their findings.

(3) The manuscript is missing key data confirming the re-expression or overexpression of Yme1 protein (Figure 1 E/G and Figure 5A). It is important to know the relative levels of expression of the re-expressed proteins to each other and to endogenous Yme1.

(4) Some clarification of the details for metabolically restrictive conditions would be helpful.

(5) Beyond just the presence/absence of MDCs, does more detailed quantification of their size/shape reveal any subtle differences between conditions?

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

This paper aims to classify, from an evolutionary perspective, the multigene family PIR found in malaria parasites infecting rodents and Old World monkeys, and to link this classification to functional diversification. The authors also hypothesize that PIR members conserved across species play important roles in parasite survival, and seek to clarify their functions.

To achieve these aims, the authors comprehensively analyze the evolution of PIR genes using genomic and transcriptomic information from many malaria parasite species. They focus on PIRC1, a member conserved across species, and attempt to clarify its function in rodent and simian malaria parasites by examining the phenotypes of parasites in which the corresponding genetic locus has been disrupted. They also attempt to determine its localization using PIRC1 tagged with an epitope sequence. However, although the locus-disrupted parasites appear to show an approximately 50% reduction in growth rate, this effect seems to be overestimated. Another weakness is that the cause of the reduced growth rate has not been clarified. The localization analysis also remains insufficiently conclusive.

Therefore, I consider that the first half of the paper, consisting of the bioinformatics analyses, achieves the objective of comprehensively summarizing PIR and may become a reference paper for discussing the evolution and function of the PIR gene family. On the other hand, regarding the function of PIRC1, no clear conclusion can be drawn from the results presented, and several additional experiments are necessary.

My major comments are as follows.

(1) The claim that the failure of eight disruption attempts indicates that pirC1 is essential is too strong.

Lines 319-321: The authors argue that a total of eight failed attempts to disrupt the pirC1 locus using two different construct designs suggest that pirC1 is essential in P. berghei. However, the failure of these attempts could also reflect technical issues with the construct design itself, such as the length of the homologous regions used for recombination, which are approximately 650 bp. Therefore, it is an overstatement to conclude that "pirC1 is essential for P. berghei blood-stage growth." Given that parasites with disruption of the corresponding locus could be obtained in both P. chabaudi and P. knowlesi, a more appropriate statement would be that "pirC1 is important for P. berghei blood-stage growth."

(2) The data on the mCherry-expressing P. berghei line shown in Supplementary Figure 11 are insufficient.

(a) Panel C: Southern blot analysis<br /> To conclusively identify the lower band in panel C as chromosome 1, additional probes specific to genes located on chromosomes 1 and 2 would be required. In addition, a parental parasite control should also be included. The Southern blot image of the parental parasite should show only a single band at the higher position, with no band at the lower position. Probes specific to chromosomes 1 and 2 would help demonstrate that the lower band corresponds to chromosome 1, rather than chromosome 2.

To this end, the authors could describe the result as follows:<br /> "In the parental parasite, only a single band corresponding to chromosome 7 was detected, indicating that the smaller chromosome was genetically modified. The size of the lower band detected with the dhfr probe was identical to that of the band detected with the control chromosome 1 probe, but distinct from that detected with the chromosome 2 probe, indicating that chromosome 1 was modified."

That said, this chromosome-level Southern blot analysis is not sufficient to demonstrate that the target PBANKA_0100500 locus was specifically modified. The authors should provide more direct evidence showing that the PBANKA_0100500 locus, rather than another genomic locus, was modified. For example, Southern blot analysis after restriction enzyme digestion would provide more definitive evidence. Diagnostic PCR may also provide more specific evidence.

(b) Panel D: Flow cytometry analysis

To allow a more accurate interpretation of the percentage of mCherry-positive cells, flow cytometry data for the parental parasite line should also be presented.

(3) There are unclear points in the PCR results shown in Supplementary Figure 12.

Supplementary Figure 12: In panel B, a PCR product should also be amplified from dPCHAS_0101200 using the P1-P3 primer pair. Why is this band absent? The authors should provide the uncropped electrophoresis image so that the larger band can be seen. In addition, if labels 1 and 2 indicate independent clones, this should be stated in the figure legend.

(4) The growth rates of P. chabaudi and P. knowlesi parasites with disruption of the PIRC1 gene locus should be quantitatively analyzed.

The growth rates of P. chabaudi and P. knowlesi are described only qualitatively, but they should be evaluated quantitatively. In Figure 4A, the parasitemia of wild-type P. chabaudi increases from approximately 6.1% on day 6 to approximately 15.6% on day 8, corresponding to a 3.8-fold increase. However, because parasite growth may already be affected by immune-mediated suppression at this stage, this value should be regarded as a minimum estimate. In contrast, the mutant increases from approximately 3.2% on day 8 to approximately 6.8% on day 10, corresponding to a 2.1-fold increase. Based on these values, the daily growth rate of the mutant appears to be reduced to at least approximately 56% of that of the wild type. Similarly, from the growth curve of P. knowlesi in Fig. 5A, the DMSO-treated group appears to increase approximately two-fold per day, whereas the rapamycin-treated group increases only approximately one-fold per day. Thus, P. knowlesi also appears to show an approximately 50% reduction in growth rate. Taken together, both P. chabaudi and P. knowlesi appear to reproducibly show an approximately 50% reduction in growth capacity. A reduction of this magnitude is difficult to describe as a "severe growth defect"; a more appropriate wording would be simply that the parasites "showed a growth defect." In addition, the terms "a severe growth defect" and "essential" appear to be overstated throughout the manuscript, and the wording should be toned down. Finally, I recommend presenting Figure 4A and Figure 5A on a logarithmic scale so that the trend in growth rates can be more intuitively appreciated from the graphs.

(5) The evidence that disruption of the PIRC1 gene locus in P. knowlesi does not affect erythrocyte invasion is weak.

The authors describe that "the developmental cycle of the parasites lacking PIRCl is slightly longer than that of parasites that produce PIRCl (line 383-384)," and appear to support this interpretation with data showing that "mutant parasites are significantly smaller than wild-type parasites (line 414)" and that "the DNA content in ML10-arrested parasites lacking PIRCl is lower than that of DMSO-treated parasites (line 417-418)" at 24 hours after invasion. However, a slightly longer developmental cycle alone does not seem sufficient to explain a 50% growth reduction.

I think the erythrocyte invasion capacity has not been quantitatively evaluated, and therefore, the evidence supporting the conclusion that the phenotype of P. knowlesi parasites with disruption of the PIRC1 gene locus is unrelated to erythrocyte invasion is weak. The authors should assess invasion efficiency using purified merozoites. For P. chabaudi, it should also be possible to apply an in vitro or in vivo erythrocyte invasion assay similar to that used for other rodent malaria parasites, and this should be evaluated as well.

(6) The authors should examine whether disruption of the PIRC1 gene locus results in a phenotype characterized by a reduced number of merozoites.

Alternatively, the reduced DNA content in ML10-arrested parasites lacking PIRC1 (lines 416-417) could suggest that the number of merozoites formed per schizont may be reduced. To clarify this point, the authors should assess whether the number of merozoites per schizont is altered in P. knowlesi (and P. chabaudi parasites lacking PIRC1).

(7) The authors propose the possibility that PIRC1 expressed in merozoites is released after invasion; however, the evidence that PIRC1 localizes to intracellular organelles is weak.

Line 333: "a peripheral pattern around the parasite" is indicative of parasite plasma membrane, PV, or PVM. ", indicative of a parasitophorous vacuole (PV) or parasitophorous vacuole membrane (PVM) location" should be amended to ", indicative of parasite plasma membrane, a parasitophorous vacuole (PV) or parasitophorous vacuole membrane (PVM) location". In the Figure S14 image, red signals are uniformly detected from the merozoites formed in the schizont stage parasite (not really microorganelle patterns), but not from the PVM surrounding the schizont, suggesting parasite plasma membrane localization, not PVM. I agree that the signal is detected from the compartments extending into the iRBC cytosol, which may be difficult to explain if it is located on the parasite plasma membrane, but how frequently were such images seen?

Figure 4D. In the images of liver-stage schizonts, AMA1 does not appear to localize to the micronemes in mature merozoites, suggesting this image is an immature schizont. Although PIRC1 appears to be expressed in liver-stage schizonts, it is difficult to clearly determine whether it localizes to intracellular organelles or to the parasite plasma membrane.

To clarify the above points, the authors should examine whether PIRC1 is detected in intracellular organelles or around the merozoites by analyzing its localization in purified merozoites.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Gazal et al present convincing evidence supporting a new model of MPS formation where a gap-and-patch MPS pattern coalesces laterally to give rise to a lattice covering the entire axon shaft.

Strengths:

(1) This is a very interesting study that supports a change in paradigm in the model of MPS lattice formation.

(2) Knowledge on MPS organization is mainly derived from studies using rat hippocampal neurons. In the current manuscript, Gazal et al use human IPS-derived motor neurons, a highly relevant neuron type to further the current knowledge on MPS biology.

(3) The quality of the images provided, specifically of those involving super-resolution is of high standards, supporting adequately the conclusions of the authors.

Weaknesses:

(1) The main concern raised by the manuscript is the assumption that staudosporine-induced gap and patch formation recapitulates the physiological assembly of gaps and patches of betaII-spectrin.

(2) One technical challenge that limits a more compelling support of the new model of MPS formation, is that fixed neurons are imaged, which precludes the observation of patch coalescence.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

This manuscript examines how locus coeruleus (LC) activity relates to hippocampal ripple events across behavioral states in freely moving rats. Using multi-site electrophysiological recordings, the authors report that LC activity is suppressed prior to ripple events, with the magnitude of suppression depending on ripple subtype. Suppression is stronger during wakefulness than during NREM sleep and least pronounced for ripples coupled to spindles.

The study is technically sound and addresses a timely and important question regarding how LC activity interacts with hippocampal and thalamocortical network events across vigilance states. While the findings are interesting, they remain observational in nature. Following revision, the manuscript has substantially improved in both presentation and interpretation of the results, and most concerns have been addressed satisfactorily. I therefore only have a few minor considerations that the authors may wish to explore further in the current study or in future work, as these directions could provide additional mechanistic insight and would likely be of considerable interest to the field.

The authors demonstrate clearly that tonic LC firing rates preceding ripples differ significantly between wake-associated ripples (highest LC firing), isolated ripples during NREM sleep (lower LC firing), and spindle-coupled ripples (lowest LC firing). They also appropriately note that baseline firing differences will naturally influence the magnitude of LC suppression, which they also observe (highest LC reduction for wake ripples, then isolated ripples and last spindle-coupled ripples). However, this aspect could be explored further, as it may provide additional insight into the regulation of spindle-associated ripple events. Since LC activity appears to decline gradually prior to ripple occurrence (Suppl. Figure 2), it would be interesting to test whether this gradual reduction helps organize the emergence of isolated versus spindle-coupled ripples. For example, isolated ripples may occur during the initial phase of LC decline, whereas spindle-coupled ripples may preferentially emerge when LC activity reaches its lowest levels. Such a relationship could also be consistent with the stronger synchronization observed for spindle-ripple coupling.

Related to this point, it would also be informative to examine whether isolated spindles occur more randomly in time, whereas spindle-associated ripple events appear more temporally clustered. If a single isolated spindle occurs, the associated LC suppression might be more pronounced. In contrast, when multiple spindle-associated ripple events occur in succession, LC activity may already be reduced following the first event, resulting in smaller additional suppression preceding subsequent events. Exploring this possibility could help clarify how LC dynamics shape the temporal emergence of ripple-subtypes

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript presents a step towards testing the hypothesis that plasmodesmata have homology to nuclear pores. The similarities between the two structures have long been noted as both structures allow the transport of proteins and nucleic acids and both structures are composed of curved membranes. The manuscript has identified nuclear pore proteins (NUPs) in plasmodesmal protein fractions and uses live imaging in a non-endogenous system and functional assays of a mutant to propose that this might be a bone fide association.

The conclusions the authors seek to draw are that: NUPs are present in plasmodesmal protein fractions; NUPs localise at plasmodesmata; NUPs might form a pore-gating complex at plasmodesmata, regulating non-specific (2xGFP) and specific (SHR) transport through plasmodesmata.

The authors then use these conclusions to propose the possibility that phase separation mediates transport through plasmodesmata. If there is phase separation at plasmodesmata or a nuclear pore-like complex, it would revolutionise the community. However, this data is insufficient to act as a cornerstone for such a discovery.

Strengths:

The strength of the manuscript lies in the boldness and novelty of the idea.

Weaknesses:

The weaknesses lie in the lack of resolution over the specificity of the plasmodesmal association of the NUPs. The authors' own assessments of their data suggest they agree with this - in their abstract alone they point out that the transport defects they observe might be off-target effects and suggest there is a requirement in the future to determine whether the NUPs are bona fide PD components.

Across the proteomic and live imaging experiments, the authors have tried to make their initial conclusions stronger by comparing the NUP localisation and accumulation with ER proteins. Thus, they have demonstrated that there are some differences in the localisations between the NUPs and an ER-lumen marker, although there are also many similarities. Indeed, for CPR5 they have demonstrated that the protein in ER located and their imaging shows a very clear association with ER beyond the plasmodesmata. Residence in the ER does not prevent the possibility that the protein has a plasmodesmal function, but it does raise questions of specificity of the localisation at the plasmodesmata (and nuclear envelope) when it is evident throughout the ER. The authors acknowledge the possibility that PD accumulation is artefactual, so they are aware of this.

In my initial review I suggested that super-resolution imaging of an ER marker would help interpret the structures revealed by CPR5 in Figure 6. The authors indicated that because the localisation of NUPs looked different to the ER luminal marker that this wasn't a priority. However, they have shown that CPR5 is an ER-resident protein and so I disagree with this conclusion. I think this experiment would provide valuable information regarding whether there is any specificity in CPR5 accumulation at plasmodesmata.

Regarding the proteomic identification of NUPs in plasmodesmal fractions, the authors place significant weight on their own metric for PD enrichment, the PD score. As I understand it, this a metric derived from addition of two factors: a two component enrichment score that is the difference between intensity of peptides of a given protein in the PD fraction and cell wall fraction, added to the difference between intensity of peptides of a given protein in the PD fraction and total cell fraction, and a feature score that is a factor that describes representation of protein domains contained in said given protein in the plasmodesmal fraction relative to the representation of that domain in proteins in the whole proteome. The features chosen for analysis are not indicated and the feature factor, as I understand it is a score common to all proteins with a given feature. While each of the factors carries a measure of meaning and information, I do not understand how adding them is mathematically or biologically meaningful.

Regarding the possibility that there is a pore-gating complex at plasmodesmata. If NUPs are specifically located at plasmodesmata, this is a strong hypothesis. The authors approach this functionally by assaying for protein and dye movement through plasmodesmata in the cpr5 mutants. These experiments suggest that cpr5 mutants have reduced transport through plasmodesmata for both proteins, but not for a smaller dye. In their introduction the authors identify how PD structure can modify transport capacity so there are many technical and biological phenomena that could explain these data. Further, as the authors themselves acknowledge, altered protein movement might also arise from an off-target developmental phenotype. Many proteins have been shown to have no association with plasmodesmata but an indirect effect on their function. This hasn't been investigated and so cannot be ruled out.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this revised manuscript by Qiao et al., the authors seek to uncover force and contractility dynamics that drive tissue morphogenesis, using the Ciona atrial siphon primordium as a model. Specifically, the authors perform a detailed examination of epithelial folding dynamics. Generally, the authors' claims were supported by their data, and the conceptual advances may have broader implications for other epithelial morphogenesis processes in other systems.

Strengths:

The strengths of this manuscript include the variety of experimental and theoretical methods, including generally rigorous imaging and quantitative analyses of actomyosin dynamics during this epithelial folding process, and the derivation of a mathematical model based on their empirical data, which they perturb in order to gain novel insights into the process of epithelial morphogenesis.

Weaknesses:

Concerns raised in the initial submission were addressed in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Li et al describe a set of experiments to probe the role of FMRP in ribosome stalling and RNA granule composition. The authors are able to recapitulate findings from a previous study performed in rats (this one is in mice).

Strengths:

(1) The work addresses an important and challenging issue, investigating mechanisms that regulate stalled ribosomes that are part of stress granules, and focusing on the role of FMRP. This is a complicated problem, given the heterogeneity of the granules and the challenges related to their purification. This work is a solid attempt at addressing this issue, which is widely understudied.

(2) The interpretation of the results could be interesting, if supported by solid data. The idea that FMRP could control the formation and release of stress granules, rather than the elongation by stalled ribosomes is of high importance to the field, offering a fresh perspective into translational regulation by FMRP.

(3) The authors focused on recapitulating previous findings, published elsewhere (Anadolu et al., 2023) by the same group, but using rat tissue, rather than mouse tissue. Overall, they succeeded in doing so, demonstrating, among other findings, that stalled ribosomes are enriched in consensus mRNA motifs that are linked to FMRP. These interesting findings reinforce the role of FMRP in formation and stabilization of RNA granules. It would be nice to see extensive characterization of the mouse granules as performed in Figure 1 of Anadolu and colleagues, 2023.

(4) Some of the techniques incorporated aid in creating novel hypotheses, such as the ribopuromycilation assay and the cryo-EM of granule ribosomes.

Comments on revised version:

I am satisfied with the authors response to my comments.

Reviewer #4 (Public review):

This report entitled "The insulin/IGF axis is critically important (for) controlling gene transcription in the podocyte" from Hurcombe et al is based on a mouse double knockdown of the IR and IGF1R and a parallel cultured mouse podocyte model. Insulin/IGF signaling system in mammals evolved as three gene reduplicated peptides (insulin, IGF-1, and IGF-2) and their two receptors IR and IGF1R that cross-react to variable extents with the peptides, are ubiquitously expressed, and signal through parallel pathways. The major downstream effect of insulin is to regulate glucose uptake and metabolism, while that of the IGF pathways is to regulate growth and cell cycling in part through mTORC1. The GH-IGF-1-IGF1R pathway regulates post-natal growth. IGF-2 signaling is thought to play a major role in regulating intrauterine growth and development, although IGF-2 is also present at high levels in post-natal life. Thus, one would anticipate that reducing IR/IGF1R signaling in any cell would slow growth and cell cycling by reducing growth factor and metabolic mTORC1-mediated and other processes including the splicing of RNA for protein synthesis.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Strzelczyk, Vetsch, and Langer tackle an incredibly important question in clinical neuroscience: the use of the theta/beta ratio as a biomarker of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The theta/beta ratio is argued to be so reliable as an ADHD biomarker that, in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration has approved its use as a biomarker for ADHD diagnosis. However, there is mounting evidence that the theta/beta ratio is likely not really measuring the relative power between two oscillations - the theta rhythm and the beta rhythm - but rather reflects differences in a singular, non-oscillatory aperiodic process. In this very convincing study, Strzelczyk and colleagues take a "multiverse" analysis approach to show that aperiodic activity differences between healthy controls and people with ADHD are driving the apparent theta/beta ratio differences. While in a vacuum, where a measure is a measure and if it's related to a diagnosis it's still useful no matter what, this distinction might not seem important, from a neuroscientific perspective this is a critical distinction, because the ratio between two oscillations has fundamentally very different underlying physiological mechanisms than aperiodic differences, and this framing has a major impact on guiding research on the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD.

Strengths:

While smaller studies and analyses have already hinted at similar results as shown here, the current study's multiverse analysis approach is comprehensive, convincing, and very well done. The large sample size of 1,499 participants is very impressive, as is the use of an independent validation sample of 381 participants.

Overall, the technical and statistical aspects are very well done: the multiverse approach, the validation set, the resampling methods, and even the shiny apps. The authors should be applauded for being so thorough and making their data and analyses publicly accessible.

Weaknesses:

To be clear, I see no breaking weaknesses in the theoretical foundations, methods, statistical analyses, or interpretations.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, Tisdale et al. studied the sleep/wake patterns in the biological mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. The results in this study together with the established literature on the relationship of sleep and Alzheimer's disease progression, guided authors to propose this mouse model for the mechanistic understanding of sleep states that translates to Alzheimer's disease patients. However, the manuscript currently suffers from a disconnect between the physiological data and the mechanistic interpretations. Specifically, the claim of "impaired transitions" is logically at odds with the observed increase in wake-state stability or possible hyperactivity. Additionally, the description of the methods, quantification and figure presentation need substantial improvement. Without going over all the flaws and ways to improve the paper, I am pointing out some of my concerns below.

Strengths:

Selection of the knock-in model is a notable strength as it avoids the artifacts associated with APP overexpression and more closely mimics human pathology. The study utilizes continuous 14-day EEG recordings, providing a unique dataset for assessing chronic changes in arousal states. The assessment of sex as a biological variable identifies a more severe "insomniac-like" phenotype in females, which aligns with the higher prevalence and severity of Alzheimer's disease in women.

Weaknesses:

The study seems to lack a clear hypothesis driven approach and relies mostly on explorative investigations. Moreover, lack of quantitative analytical methods as well as shaky logical conclusions, possibly not supported by data in its current form, leaves room for major improvement effort.

Since this paper studied sleep states, the "Methods" section is quite unclear on what specific criteria were used to classify sleep states. There is no quantitative description of classifying sleep based on clear reproducible procedures. There are many reasonably well characterized sleep scoring systems used in rat electrophysiological literature which could be useful here. The authors are generally expected to describe movement speed and/or EMG and/or EEG (theta/delta/gamma) criteria used to classify these epochs. The subjective (manual) nature of this procedure provides no verifiable validation on accuracy and interpretability regarding the results.

One of the bigger claims is that "state transition mechanism(s)" are impaired. However, Figure 7 shows that model mice exhibit significantly more long wake bouts (>260s) and fewer short wake bouts (<60s). Logically, an "impaired switch" (the flip-flop model, Saper et al., 2010) results in state fragmentation. The data here show the opposite: the wake state has become too stable. This suggests the primary defect is not in the transition mechanism itself, but possibly in a pathological increase in arousal drive (hyper-arousal), likely linked to the dark-phase hyperactivity shown in Figures 4 and 5. Also, point to note is that this finding is not new.

Figure 3 heatmaps lack color bars and units. As per eLife standards, spectral power must be quantitatively defined and methods well explained in the Methods section. Without these, the reader cannot discern if the "reduced power" in females is a global suppression of signal or a frequency-specific shift. Additionally, the representative example used to claim shorter sleep bouts lacks the statistical weight required for a major physiological conclusion. How does cooler color (not clear what range and what the interpretation is) mean shorter sleep bout in female mice? Authors should clearly mark the frequency ranges that support their claims. In this figure, there is a question mark following theta/delta range. Authors should avoid speculation and state their claims based on significant results. Please, also add the theta and delta ranges in the plot such that readers can draw their own conclusions.

Figure 8 and the MSLT results show that model mice are "no sleepier than WT mice" and have a functional homeostatic rebound. This presents a logical flaw in the "insomnia" narrative. True insomnia in AD patients typically involves a failure of the homeostatic process or a debilitating accumulation of sleep debt. If these mice do not show increased sleepiness (shorter latency) despite ~19% less sleep, the authors might be describing a "reduced need" for sleep or a "hyper-aroused" state, possibly not a clinical insomnia phenotype.

In Figure 9 LFP power shown and compared in percentages is problematic, as the LFP power distribution is known to be skewed (follows power law). This is particularly problematic here because all the frequencies above ~20 Hz seem to be totally flattened or nonexistent, which makes this comparison of power severely limited and biased towards the relative frequency in the highly skewed portion of the LFP power spectrum i.e very low frequency ranges like delta, theta and possibly beta. This ignores low, mid and high gamma as well as ripple band frequencies. NREM sleep is known to have relatively greater ripple band (100-250 Hz) power bursts in hippocampal regions and REM sleep are known to have synchronous theta-gamma relationships.

Comments on revised version:

The revised manuscript has made some improvements specifically in presentation of results as well as revising the title. However, more broadly authors have failed to address most of the concerns raised in the original review. As an example, the sleep scoring system is still subjective without any quantifiable and reproducible criteria. Another instance is regarding fig 9 comments, in which authors failed to address any of the raised concerns and reiterated their results. Hence, in the current form the results in the paper are incomplete with only partial support from the methods and evidence.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The study addresses how mammalian medial superior olive (MSO) neurons generate the internal delays required for interaural time difference (ITD) coding and sound localization. The authors demonstrate that dendritic morphology, particularly asymmetry between lateral and medial dendritic arbors, contributes to differential EPSP propagation delays and thereby shifts the optimal ITD of individual MSO neurons, using two-photon-guided paired dendritic and somatic recordings with compartmental modeling. This is a strong and potentially impactful manuscript. The work provides compelling evidence that dendritic morphology contributes to coincidence detection and ITD tuning in MSO neurons.

Strengths:

A major strength of the study is its technically rigorous combination of experimental electrophysiology, detailed neuronal reconstructions, and computational modeling. The use of paired dendritic and somatic recordings provides direct physiological insight into EPSP propagation, while the modeling approach allows the authors to test how cell-specific morphology influences coincidence detection. The analysis of multiple reconstructed MSO neurons further supports that dendritic asymmetry generates differential EPSP propagation delays that contribute to ITD tuning. This is a novel and potentially important mechanism that may complement classical axonal delay-line models. The study is strong in its anatomical and electrophysiological approach.

Weaknesses:

No major weakness. However, some aspects of the methods and interpretation would benefit from clarification. First, the assumptions used in the compartmental models should be more explicitly described, including the distribution of glutamatergic synaptic inputs and synaptic conductance parameters. It would be useful to clarify whether excitatory inputs were assumed to be homogeneously distributed along primary and higher-order dendritic branches or assigned based on known MSO input organization. Anatomical validation using VGluT staining together with dendritic labeling could strengthen the physiological relevance of the modeled input patterns. Second, the morphological analysis is informative, but additional measures of dendritic complexity could further support the conclusions. In addition to path length and membrane surface area, analyses of primary neurite number, branch points, and terminal arbors, using Sholl profiles or fractal dimension, could provide a more comprehensive assessment of lateral-medial dendritic asymmetry.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors aim to characterize the molecular interaction network inside phase-separated condensates formed by the MUT-16 foci-forming region (FFR), using atomistic simulations combined with residue-resolved analyses of contact frequencies, contact lifetimes, specific non-covalent interactions, ions, and water.

Strengths:

The work addresses an interesting and biologically relevant system, and the combination of large-scale atomistic simulations with an extensive contact analysis has clear potential value for the broader condensate field.

Weaknesses:

In its current form, several technical issues need to be addressed before the main conclusions can be considered robust. Most importantly, the simulated sequence is 172 residues long, while the atomistic slab has box dimensions of only 12 nm in two directions. This length scale is comparable to the expected end-to-end distances of a disordered 172-residue chain. It is therefore not clear whether individual protein chains interact with their own periodic images, which could substantially affect overall chain dynamics and subsequently bias contact lifetimes, residue-residue interaction statistics, and the inferred condensate dynamics. The authors should check, for each chain, histograms of end-to-end distances. For chains for which more than ~2-3% of the end-to-end distances exceed ~11 nm, the authors should explicitly check for self-image interactions (for example, using "gmx mindist -pi") and report whether such interactions occur and for what fraction of the trajectory. Without this control, at least in the Supporting Information, I do not think the simulation-derived contact dynamics are sufficiently trustworthy.

A second major concern is the treatment of ions. The manuscript makes important conclusions about Na⁺ association and Na⁺-mediated bridging, but the atomistic ion model is not explicitly stated. This is a reproducibility problem and also affects interpretation - for example, standard Amber ions are known to bind too strongly to the oppositely charged residues. In their results, one acidic residue appears to interact on average with roughly two Na⁺ ions, which is not obviously expected from charge balance alone. The authors should state the exact Na⁺/Cl⁻ parameters used, justify their compatibility with TIP4P-D and the protein force field, and explicitly interpret why such a strong Na⁺ association with acidic residues is observed.

More generally, because the manuscript is centered on contact lifetimes, the choice of the atomistic force field needs stronger justification. Salt bridges, cation-pi contacts, pi-pi stacking, ion coordination, and water-mediated interactions are all force-field-sensitive. Since there is no direct experimental observable used here to validate the simulations, the authors should discuss the expected limitations of the chosen force field (while I do acknowledge that testing different force fields would be computationally too demanding).

I also find the sequence-comparison section somewhat confusing. The authors compare one specific IDR, MUT-16 FFR, with the average properties of human IDRs and then frame it as more representative than FUS LCD. It is not clear how informative this is because IDR behavior depends strongly on sequence-specific patterning, molecular connectivity, and the particular interaction network of each protein. Averages over human IDRs may provide a broad context, but they do not necessarily define what is physically or biologically representative for phase separation. In addition, FUS LCD is not intended to be a representative human IDR; it is an unusually low-complexity, phase-separating domain. Therefore, the "more representative than FUS" framing should be toned down. At most, this analysis shows that MUT-16 FFR is compositionally less extreme than FUS LCD.

The ion- and water-bridging analyses are also potentially overinterpreted. A distance-based simultaneous contact with two residues does not by itself establish functional mediation or regulation of condensate dynamics. The authors should either add appropriate controls, such as local-density-normalized baselines or randomized-contact expectations, or soften the language to describe these as geometrically defined co-contact events rather than mechanistic bridging interactions.

Finally, the independence of the atomistic replicas is unclear. The manuscript should state whether all ten all-atom simulations were initiated from the same coarse-grained condensate configuration or from distinct CG frames. If the starting structures came from one CG trajectory, the authors should report how far apart those frames were in simulation time and provide evidence that the initial atomistic configurations are structurally independent. If only velocities differ, the simulations should not be described as fully independent structural replicas.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

This manuscript by Shtanov et al. attempts to define how DNA Polymerase β performs gap-filling DNA synthesis and strand displacement synthesis in linker DNA adjacent to a nucleosome. The authors show that DNA Polymerase β strand displacement synthesis activity is stimulated in linker DNA when the 1-nt gap is positioned 23 bp away from a nucleosome core particle. The authors further show that histone H1, known to bind linker DNA, disrupts the ability of DNA Polymerase β to perform strand displacement synthesis within this context. They then provide some evidence that PARP1 and PARP2 regulate DNA Polymerase β strand displacement synthesis in linker DNA adjacent to a nucleosome, possibly pointing to a role for PARP1 and PARP2 in base excision repair sub-pathway choice. While this study has some intriguing observations, these observations are severely underdeveloped, and many of the stated conclusions are inadequately justified by the experimental data.

Strengths:

(1) The authors have identified that DNA Polymerase β strand displacement synthesis is stimulated in linker DNA by the presence of an adjacent nucleosome, though the generalizability of this finding is unclear (see weaknesses).

(2) The authors convincingly show that the presence of histone H1 negatively regulates DNA Polymerase β strand displacement synthesis in linker DNA adjacent to a nucleosome core particle.

Weaknesses:

(1) Throughout the manuscript, the authors perform a variety of enzyme kinetic assays to show that DNA Polymerase β strand displacement synthesis is stimulated in linker DNA by the presence of an adjacent nucleosome, and that other chromatin factors (PARP1, PARP2, and histone H1) regulate strand displacement synthesis. The enzyme kinetic experiments presented have several issues that severely impact their interpretability. This includes the lack of proper substrate controls, a general lack of quantification and statistical analysis, the use of varied enzyme kinetics regimes that impede comparison between experiments, and a general lack of clarity regarding experimental replication/reproducibility.

(2) The general context where an adjacent nucleosome core particle would stimulate DNA Polymerase β strand displacement synthesis is severely underdeveloped, which limits the generalizability of these findings. It's unclear if this stimulation is dependent on the linker DNA length, the distance of the 1-nt gap from the nucleosome core particle, or the directionality of strand displacement synthesis (towards vs away from the nucleosome core particle). Given the data presented, it's possible that stimulation of DNA Polymerase β strand displacement synthesis by an adjacent nucleosome is a phenomenon that is unique to a 1-nt gap precisely 23 nts away from the nucleosome core particle.

(3) The conclusion that the N-terminal histone tails do not stimulate DNA Polymerase β strand displacement synthesis comes from an experiment where Gap-DNA227 was incubated with free core histones, and a reduction in strand displacement synthesis was observed. As designed, this experiment is simply unable to prove that the N-terminal tails do not stimulate DNA Polymerase β strand displacement synthesis.

(4) The observation of apparent cooperativity in DNA Polymerase β binding to Gap-NCP227 from the mass photometry data is intriguing. However, the relationship between this observation and the stimulation of DNA Polymerase β strand displacement synthesis in linker DNA adjacent to a nucleosome core particle is unclear.

(5) The general claims regarding differential specificity of PARP1 and PARP2 for nicks and gaps in linker DNA adjacent to the nucleosome come from experiments lacking a proper control using an undamaged linker-nucleosome substrate. This is particularly problematic as PARP1 and PARP2 are known to engage the terminal ends of DNA as they partially mimic DNA double-strand breaks.

(6) While the authors clearly show that PARP1 and PARP2 regulate DNA Polymerase β strand displacement synthesis in linker DNA, the interpretation that this is through direct competition for 1-nt gap binding cannot be proven from the experiments presented.

(7) The claim that the presence of histone H1 changes the yield and length of PARylated core histones is overstated. The quantification would suggest a subtle difference (particularly for PARP1), but the lack of statistical analysis related to the experiments makes interpretation challenging.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The study reanalyzes data from a previously published cohort together with an additional cohort to investigate hippocampal activity during approach-avoidance conflict. Unlike many prior studies that isolate reward- or threat-based learning, this task requires animals to evaluate reward and threat concurrently. The central finding is that hippocampal representations differ between hesitant behaviors that lead to approach versus avoidance outcomes, with representations of the attack zone more likely during pauses preceding abort decisions. This is an important extension of prior work on hippocampal activity and deliberation, suggesting that the hippocampal content may help shape the eventual outcome.

Strengths:

All behavioral findings are replicated independently across cohorts, making the behavioral results highly convincing. The design is robust, and the task is especially valuable for studying approach-avoidance conflict. The behavioral paradigm is complex and rare, and neuronal recordings in such a paradigm are of great value.

The major strength of the study is the comparison of neural activity during hesitant behavior leading to different outcomes, namely, pauses followed by the animal aborting the approach (mid-track aborts), and pauses followed by the animal committing to the approach (mid-track continues). Hippocampal activity differed between the two pauses: the attack zone was more likely to be represented during mid-track aborts. The same effect was observed on the journey before the pause: even before the animal hesitates, hippocampal activity before a pause that led to a mid-track abort was more likely to represent the attack zone than hippocampal activity before pauses that led to continued approach. This analysis suggests that hippocampal content before and during deliberative behavior is predictive of the animal's decision.

Weaknesses:

The interpretation of the retreat-related decoding results is less clear. The study compares two sets of retreating behavior: on the one hand, retreat after being attacked, and on the other hand, retreat after hesitation in the absence of an attack (a mid-track abort). Hippocampal activity represents the attack zone more after the animal is attacked. However, these two retreating behaviors originate from different spatial locations: retreats always start past the "attack threshold", while mid-track aborts always start before this threshold. Given that hippocampal decoding is strongly location-dependent, this difference in position makes the neural decoding results difficult to interpret. The increased representation may be due to differences in physical location, rather than the distinct processing of immediate threat and an anticipatory return state.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The Sustar et al. manuscript catalogs glutamate receptor composition across distinct Drosophila NMJs: larval and adult abdominal NMJs, as well as NMJs on adult leg and flight muscles. This work is important and probably overdue. The larval NMJ is the exemplar NMJ in this system, and the identity of "essential" and "alternative" subunits at this stage is assumed by many to hold across developmental stages and NMJ types. Here, the authors show that there is surprising diversification among NMJ types and that the notion of essential/alternative subunits only holds true at larval NMJs.

The study will generate interest in the Clumsy GluR subunit, which has not been well-characterized at all, but is widely expressed at adult NMJs. They also find striking extrasynaptic expression of glutamate-gated chloride channel GluRClalpha in adult leg and flight muscles, raising questions about its role. The study is interesting, logical, and well-written. The figures are clear, and the discussion was particularly thoughtful. I have a couple of comments that the authors could consider.

(1) They cite Rivlin et al., (2004) in the Introduction as the sole previous study to investigate the molecular composition of adult NMJs, but do not mention this work again. In the Discussion, it would be helpful to compare/contrast their finding with those of the earlier work.

(2) Were these analyses done in adults of consistent ages? It seems possible that the GluR subunit composition could be different in very young adults or in aged flies. The age of the animals should be mentioned in the Methods.

(3) The broad expression of GluCl:V5 in adult leg and flight muscles is surprisingly robust and appears to light up the edges of all muscle fibers. Would the authors comment on the controls that were done to ensure that this staining is real and specific to animals carrying that V5 endogenous tag?

(4) The snRNAseq data in Figure S12 differ a bit from the IHC/GAL4 data summarized in the table in Figure 2. In particular, the data suggests that Ukar and Grik are widely expressed in adult muscles. Is there a reason not to include an "snRNA seq" column in Figure 2 alongside the data from GAL4 lines and IHC? To my mind, it is about as reliable as GAL4 lines that often capture only a subset of the full expression pattern. In this case, the snRNAseq data suggest that Ukar/Grik are likely at adult flight muscle NMJs, which might be important since NMJ was negative for everything except Neto-beta by IHC.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors presented evidence that spatial cognition in this population is under sexual selection, with extra-pair males, primarily chosen by the females, having better spatial cognition than males they cuckolded and males with better spatial cognition having more extra-pair young.

Strengths:

This cognitive ecology study was conducted on a well-known long-term study population of free-ranging mountain chickadees. This strong base, alongside a thorough study design and extensive statistical analyses, enabled the authors to address research questions that few other labs can address, making this a potentially powerful study of broad general interest.

Weaknesses:

Throughout the manuscript, there is a focus on the "mean number of location errors per trial over the first 20 trials". Performance changes across trials, so why weren't learning vs peak performance analyzed separately? Similarly, authors also describe results in the context of the entire task, but sometimes in the context of the first 20 trials - why is one prioritised over the other, and why is the emphasis not always consistent? Are the results across the two generally the same? A more thorough explanation addressing all these points is necessary.

Lines 429-432: Why was a categorical (i.e., chi-square test) and not a numerical comparison implemented? A numerical statistical test would capture more of the variation (i.e., the number of years separating the social and EPY males).

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Raiola and colleagues entitled "Quantitative computerized analysis demonstrates strongly compartmentalized tissue deformation patterns underlying mammalian heart tube formation" takes a highly quantitative approach to interrogating the earliest stages of cardiogenesis (12 hours, from early cardiac crescent to early heart tube) in a new and innovative way. The paper presents a new computational framework to help identify both regional and temporal patterns of tissue deformation at cellular resolution. The method is applied to live embryo imaging data (newly generated and from the group's previous pioneering work). In the initial setup, the new model was applied directly to raw time-lapse data, and the results were compared to actual cell tracks identified manually, showing close correlations of the model with the manual tracking. Next, they integrated spatial and temporal information from different embryos to generate a new model for tissue movement, driven by parameters such as tissue growth and anisotropy. Key findings from their model suggest that there are distinct compartments of tissue deformation patterns as the bilateral cardiac crescent develops into the linear heart tube, and that the ventricular chamber forms by a defined expansion pattern, as a 'hemi-barrel shape', with the arterial and venous poles (IFT and OFT) acting as the harnessing belts constraining the expansion of the chamber further. Lastly, the model is tested for its ability to predict future residence of cardiac crescent cells in the heart tube, which it seems to be able to do successfully based on fate tracking validation experiments.

The manuscript provides an exceptionally careful analysis of a critical stage during heart development - that of the earliest stages of morphogenesis, when the heart forms its first tube and chamber structures. While numerous studies have interrogated this stage of heart development, few studies have performed time-lapse imaging, and, to my knowledge, no other report has performed such in in-depth quantitative analysis and modeling of this complex process. The computational model applied to normal heart development of the myocardium (labelled by Nkx2-5) has revealed multiple new and interesting concepts, such as the distinct compartments of tissue deformation patterns and the growth trajectories of the emerging ventricle. The fact that the model operates at cellular resolution and over a nearly continuous time period of approximately 12 hours allows for unprecedented depth of the analysis in a largely unbiased manner. Going forward, one can imagine such models revealing additional information on these processes, performing analyses of subpopulations that form the heart, and maybe most importantly, applying the model to various perturbation models (genetic or otherwise). The manuscript is very well written, and the data display is accessible and transparent.

No major weaknesses are noted with the study. It would have been very exciting to see the model applied to any kind of perturbation, for example, a left-right defect model, or a model with compromised cardiac progenitor populations. However, the amount of live imaging required for such analyses renders this out of scope for the current study.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Liu, He, et al. present results suggesting hippocampal ripples support short-term working memory. The basic finding that hippocampal ripples increase during a 7s working memory maintenance period is intriguing and previously not shown as far as I know, but a lack of control analyses within the task, across brain regions, or as compared to alternative oscillatory signals makes the overall evidence weak. The author needs to more thoroughly evidence this signal via several analyses (suggested below) to strengthen their finding. The paper moves on to a hippocampal-cortical ripple coupling analysis that needs further methodological details and corrected statistics to make a meaningful contribution. As is, the ripple coupling results don't seem to necessarily relate to the hippocampal ripples found in the maintenance period, making the manuscript somewhat incoherent and of low impact in its current form.

Major issues:

(1) The framing sets up "visual short term memory" (VSTM) and "long term memory" (LTM) as two different things. A long line of research with humans possessing MTL/hippocampus damage shows the hippocampal memory system contributes to working memory only when the task is difficult enough to warrant its recruitment (see Hannula et al. 2006 J. of Neuroscience, Pertzov et al. 2013 Brain, or particularly Jeneson et al. 2012 Learning & Memory and J. of Neuroscience). This theory therefore, suggests that the hippocampus contributes to working memory via LTM mechanisms, as opposed to it possessing two different roles (VSTM and LTM). While the authors might disagree with this framing, at a minimum, they should describe this line of work. As is, it's difficult to know how their task fits into this literature since it's a cross between a pattern separation probe (identify repeats from lures), working memory (7 s delays), and subsequent cued associate recognition. Addressing why they used this combination of task features would help frame its place in the literature.

(2) The basic idea of looking for hippocampal ripples as a marker for working memory maintenance is new, with no prior literature (that I know of in rodents or in the handful of human intracranial ripple papers) to build on. That said, I suspect hippocampal ripples act as a proxy for hippocampal activation, providing a possible explanation for the hippocampal ripple increase shown during the Maintenance period. The effect they show is well supported by the mixed effects modeling (MEM), making it a potentially meaningful finding, but considering the novelty, it's rather important that control analyses rule out alternative possibilities. I suggest two important ones and a third related to the lack of parametric manipulations in the next paragraph. First, the authors frame the paper by suggesting hippocampal ripples share features with beta/gamma burst theories of working memory maintenance. In that case, the obvious question is why use a ripple detector instead of measuring gamma (or beta) activity as in this previous work? Some work has suggested hippocampal ripples act differently than high-frequency activity (see Sakon et al. 2024 J. of Neuroscience), so an analysis contrasting ripples and gamma seems rather important. Second, and relatedly, the authors only compare the hippocampus and lateral temporal cortex (LTC), likely because these tend to be sites with strong coverage in epilepsy cases. That's ok, but typically there is also reasonable coverage in other MTL areas like entorhinal cortex and amygdala, which would serve as important controls to show what they're measuring likely relates to sharp-wave ripples (a hippocampal phenomenon) and not something more generic like gamma or HFA (as shown in Sakon et al. 2024, Howard et al. 2003 Cerebral Cortex, Axmacher et al. 2007 reference 26, Meltzer et al. 2008 Cerebral Cortex, etc.).

(3) Related to the last point, since there are no parametric manipulations (e.g., different delay durations, different set sizes, varying lure difficulties) there's no way to assess increased hippocampal ripples with stronger loads, which would be important for determining the hippocampal dependence of their task in the first place. Do the authors have any justification for this task as an assessment of hippocampal working memory? I could imagine using a top vs. bottom tercile of lure discrimination difficulty (as assessed across all participants or control non-patients) to compare hippocampal activity. But only after the first trial, each pair is used since only then would the patient have awareness of the difficulty of the upcoming comparison. Or maybe something could be done by comparing VSTM performance by splitting patients based on how they performed at the LTM test.

(4) Also related to the VSTM vs. LTM framing, the authors use an "LTM" cued category recognition task--presumably done at the end of the repeat/lure recognition task--as a way to argue that the hippocampal ripple effects they see relate to VSTM and not LTM. The LTM task is disappointingly underdescribed, where even in the methods (lines 588-592) I cannot figure out when this task was probed, how many trials were done in comparison to the VSTM task, etc. Considering they use the LTM task to support their VSTM interpretation, it's rather crucial to understand precisely what they did. As is, the comparison they do present relies on a statistical error, where they compare p-values (n.b. https://www.nature.com/articles/nn.2886) instead of performing a direct interaction test (lines 177-180). Specifically, if they want to say their signal relates more to VSTM subsequent memory rather than LTM subsequent memory, they need to run a model of the form: ripple_rates ~ remembered + test_type + remembered*test_type (where test_type is either their VSTM or LTM task).

(5) As noted, the increase in hippocampal ripples during maintenance seems substantial, and the MEM confirms a significant increase over time. That said, the presentation of the data is atypical, with an example raster from one channel followed by average time courses of ALL participants below it. Why not show full raster plots for all participants? Ripples are so sparse that all the data in the task can be visualized in a single raster easily. A swarm plot indicating inter-patient variability in the maintenance signal also seems crucial. As is, there is no way to assess how much of the signal depends on a small subset of channels or patients.

(6) To compare ripple rates across task phases, they average over the bounds of each phase (lines 657-660) and input these into their MEMs. This approach makes sense for quantifying what we see in the ripple plots (Figure 2), except for Encoding, where they average over the entire 3 s window, even though there is clear tuning only from ~0-1 s. Using the tuned region and not the entire window is standard and would be more appropriate for the comparisons to maintenance, retrieval, etc (e.g., line 147-148 doesn't check out when looking at the figure), otherwise you are averaging over a seeming ripple inhibition from 1-2 s. They perform a cluster-based permutation test as is, so that a window or something a bit wider would be appropriate.

(7) The authors pivot to a hippocampal-cortical ripple coupling analysis to build the argument that the hippocampal ripples shown in Figure 2 support memory maintenance in the cortex. They use a window of -500 to 500 ms from hippocampal ripples to assess coupling. This is quite wide, since it doesn't seem plausible that a cortical ripple 500 ms from a hippocampal ripple means they synchronize. They cite two papers to justify the analysis, both of which use {plus minus}500 ms windows, but for spindle-ripple coupling, not ripple-ripple, so are miscited. Later in the paper, they switch to {plus minus}50 ms for another coupling analysis, raising the question of why they used {plus minus}500 ms in the previous analysis to begin with. If they want to claim cortical ripples are tuned by hippocampal ripples all the way up to 500 ms away, they should show the rasters (as in Figure 4a) and timecourse ripple rates, but going beyond {plus minus}500 ms to show that ripples in the {plus minus}50-500 ms range are above, say 500-1000 ms to justify their window selection. I will point out that there IS previous work that used {plus minus}500 ms to measure cortical-cortical ripple coupling (Dickey et al 2022 PNAS, which should be cited regardless, as I believe the first hippocampal-cortical ripple paper showing memory effects), although the figures in that paper suggest anything beyond {plus minus}250 ms returns to baseline (see Figure 2A-B).

(8) Lines 239 to 243 comparing p-values instead of an interaction test.

(9) I don't understand what "Further analysis based on the identified cluster" means (line 271). I see in Figure 5c that their broadband classifier identified a window of optimal decoding, but did they use only activity in this cluster to train the subsequent classifier (Figure 5d)? If so, this is not described in the methods. And if it is done that way, I don't think the logic makes sense. As mentioned in comment 6, the ripples during encoding tune to 0-1s after image presentation. So it doesn't make sense to use a 1.85-2.25 s window for ripple-locked decoding-they should just be using the 0-1 s window (or whatever their cluster-based permutation test shows in Figure 2b). Otherwise, it would appear they are studying two different phenomena.

(10) As is, the results in Figure 5d need to be redone. First, the results described on lines 271-275 once again suffer from comparing p-values. They need to run an interaction model if they want to claim Maintenance shows stronger ripple-locked decoding than Encoding (it almost certainly will not, since Encoding appears to show some evidence of decoding (p=0.118)). Second, even if they do change the framing to say Encoding and Maintenance show significant decoding, is it meaningful if Retrieval fails to? If you cannot decode the same information at the time of retrieval as is theoretically being held in working memory during the delay, the coupled ripple reactivation story wouldn't appear to make sense. They do show significant Retrieval decoding in Figure 5a-b, but since I don't really understand how they settled on the "identified cluster" in Figure 5c, I'm not sure what to make of the difference between these decoders.

(11) Finally, as mentioned in the summary, the analyses in Figures 2-3 seem disjointed from those in Figures 4-5. Part of this has to do with the switch to a broadband classifier, then a switch back to coupled ripples, and then, as I already mentioned, decoding results with time windows that don't align with the hippocampal ripple effects they showed earlier. Further, since the main point of Figures 2-3 is to establish a ramp in hippocampal ripples across maintenance, shouldn't they be trying to show how the decoding changes over the course of the Maintenance period? It would also help the interpretation of Figure 5 to see how the coupled ripples change over time in Figure 4 (as they showed them in Figure 2).

Minor issues:

(1) Instead of citing a software package like Emmeans, the statistical test being performed should be explained.

(2) Decoding % accuracy in the heatmaps in Figure 5 and supplementary would be more intuitive, particularly since Figure 5b uses accuracy anyway.

(3) Figure 2b is misleading with an unnecessary change in the y-axis for retrieval.

(4) In Figure 2d, a significant cluster is mentioned, but not drawn onto the figure as in Figure 2b.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary.

Carricarte and colleagues use 0.9mm 7T fMRI in EVC and LOC, fused with previously collected EEG using the same stimulus set, in order to dissect feedforward and feedback contributions to human object processing through their layer-specific termination patterns. They report a feedforward signal in middle layers of EVC (~100ms) and LOC (~160ms), and a later signal in superficial LOC (~400ms) that they interpret as interareal feedback. Using commonality analysis with a Vision Transformer, they argue that this late signal carries higher-complexity features than the earlier signal, and conclude that feedback actively increases representational complexity in LOC.

Strengths.

The empirical work is methodologically ambitious. Sub-millimeter 7T coverage of both EVC and LOC, combined with layer-resolved EEG-fMRI fusion, represents a substantial technical achievement. The authors first reproduce established macroscale EEG-fMRI fusion patterns at 7T before extending the approach to the layer level. The figures throughout are beautifully designed and convey complex analyses with clarity. The empirical core of the paper - that LOC contains layer-distinct dynamics at distinct times, with the late signal carrying representational structure that differs in some way from the early signal - is supported by the data, though with caveats imposed by the LOC noise ceiling.

Weaknesses.

The authors' interpretation of these data (interareal feedback that reflects feature-complexity, related to the functional role of these signals) is not adequately supported and requires either reframing or substantial additional evidence.

Feedback vs. recurrence. The late superficial-LOC signal is interpreted as interareal feedback, but the data are equally consistent with within-area recurrence, lateral connections, or sustained feedforward dynamics. A reader expecting evidence of higher-area signals returning to early-time middle layers - a signature of interareal feedback - finds none in either region.

"Functional role" overclaim. The paper repeatedly claims to characterize the "functional role" of feedforward and feedback, but contains no behavioral linkage, no perturbation, and no analysis relating signals to perceptual outcomes; the fMRI task is explicitly orthogonal to object processing. What is demonstrated is spatiotemporal dynamics and representational format - both valuable, neither equivalent to functional role.

DNN analysis. The DNN analyses use several non-standard modeling choices that introduce more uncertainty than clarity. In the main analyses, the authors only use four sampling points from a single model (DeiT-small): transformer blocks 1, 7, and 12, plus the classification head. Then, the authors make their headline claims about complexity by comparing block 12 and the classification head; within the model, this is a distinction between an embedding layer and a supervised category readout, not a feature-complexity gradient. As such, the author's interpretation conflates semantic layers with representational "complexity." A more convincing use of this modeling strategy would be to demonstrate these effects in multiple models that might disentangle these factors-e.g., supervised (ResNet/ViT), self-supervised (DINOv2), and vision-language (CLIP) models-then to visualize these brain-model relationships across all layers. Alternatively, there are many suitable model-free analyses that could demonstrate the unique representational information within LOC without introducing any model-related concerns.

Reliability of LOC layer-resolved RDMs. The lower-bound noise ceiling for LOC mesoscale RDMs is approximately 0.05 across layers, with deep-LOC reliability essentially at zero. The central layer-resolved dissociation rests on RDMs that individual subjects barely reproduce; consequently, the deep LOC layer is dropped from the commonality analysis (Figure 4C shows only middle/superficial layers, while Figure 4B shows all three for EVC) because the data cannot support it. This is not damning, but it is consequential, and not sufficiently addressed in the manuscript.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This article by Scheib et al. investigates how layer 5 extratelencephalic (ET) neurons in the frontal cortex encode sensorimotor information during motor learning, focusing on differences between their apical tuft dendrites and somas. The authors alternated recordings among these ET neuronal compartments in the mouse anterior lateral motor cortex (ALM) during a cued directional licking task with a target port shift. They found that while tuft dendrites predominantly encode sensory cues, with a subset selectively active during corrective actions, somatic activity was more strongly associated with action timing. Additionally, learning induced divergent plasticity: tuft dendrites increased their selectivity but decreased response gain, maintaining stable net selectivity, whereas somas showed increased net selectivity early in learning. Together, these findings reveal distinct sensorimotor representations and learning-related plasticity in dendritic and somatic compartments, providing insight into how compartment-specific activity in the frontal cortex may contribute to motor skill acquisition.

Strengths:

The authors developed an innovative imaging approach and a comprehensive data analysis pipeline to address a knowledge gap in the literature. By alternating imaging of dendritic tufts and somas in the same animals, they compare compartment-specific activity during motor learning and identify distinct encoding of task variables and learning-related plasticity across these compartments. Interestingly, a subset of dendritic tufts shows activity associated with corrective actions. The findings are discussed in the context of current theories of dendritic computation, credit assignment, and motor learning, providing a useful foundation for future mechanistic studies.

Weaknesses:

No major weaknesses were identified.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, the authors aim to address two questions. First, do people avoid cooperation primarily because of betrayal aversion beyond loss aversion? Second, can the effects of betrayal aversion and loss aversion be dissociated at the behavioral and neural levels? To address these questions, the authors compared individuals' choices of taking risks in a nonsocial risk task with those in a social cooperation task, with the two tasks matched in success probability and principal amount. They fitted computational models that include betrayal-aversion and loss-aversion terms and related the model parameters to ERP measures. Based on these analyses, the authors concluded that betrayal aversion has a stronger effect on cooperation than loss aversion and that betrayal is encoded earlier than loss in the brain. This is an important research question, and the attempt to combine computational modeling with ERP analysis is valuable. However, the current data analyses may not be able to support all the conclusions the authors made. For instance, the claims concerning the dissociation between betrayal aversion and loss aversion are not yet sufficiently supported by the evidence.

Strengths:

(1) The research question is theoretically important. Distinguishing betrayal aversion from loss aversion is important for research on trust, cooperation, and risky decision-making.

(2) The approach of integrating behavioral measures, self-report ratings, computational modeling, and ERP data is valuable and gives the study significance.

(3) The behavioral findings are broadly consistent. Participants reported stronger emotional responses in the cooperation task and were less willing to accept risk in the cooperation condition. These findings are generally in line with previous work on betrayal aversion and provide a reasonable manipulation check for the contrast between social and nonsocial risk.

Weaknesses:

(1) The manuscript states that the two tasks are matched in probability and principal amount, but the cooperation task additionally introduces partner outcomes, betrayal, and prosocial components. The Methods section states that, in the cooperation task, if both players cooperate, the principal is doubled and then split equally; if the partner betrays, half of the participant's principal is transferred to the partner. The model also includes an expected-other-reward term, namely, V_other=ω[p⋅2X+(1-p)⋅1.5X]. This raises an interpretive concern: if the two tasks differ not only in whether the source of uncertainty is social, but also in partner outcome, intentionality, and potential inequity structure, then the fitted "betrayal aversion" parameter may in fact reflect multiple motives rather than betrayal aversion alone. In the current experimental design, the "betrayal aversion" parameter may not be uniquely interpretable as a pure betrayal-specific construct, and the current evidence is insufficient to support such a specific interpretation.

(2) Participants were informed that the cooperation probabilities were derived from previous real participants, whereas in fact these probabilities were randomly generated. In addition, six participants explicitly expressed doubts about the authenticity of the social interaction, yet the authors retained these participants with only the brief statement that this "did not affect the results." For such a critical manipulation, this explanation is too brief. I recommend that the authors report robustness analyses excluding skeptical participants. Since six participants reportedly doubted the authenticity of the social interaction, and some participants also performed poorly on the catch trials, it would be important to show whether the main behavioral, modeling, and ERP findings remain after excluding these participants. This is especially important because the manuscript's central interpretation depends on the assumption that the cooperation task was genuinely experienced as social.

(3) The descriptions of the sample size are inconsistent across sections. The Participants section states that, after excluding one participant for misunderstanding the instructions, the final sample consisted of 49 participants; however, the behavioral results section later states that only 42 participants were included in the final analyses due to recording problems. This discrepancy is important because readers need to know clearly which sample was used for the behavioral analyses, which for the model fitting, and which for the ERP analyses; whether these analyses were conducted on the same participants; and whether the exclusion criteria were consistent across analyses. The manuscript needs a more transparent description of sample size and exclusion criteria.

(4) The authors need to do more thorough analyses to validate their models. In addition to AIC and parameter recovery, I would encourage the authors to include other model comparison metrics where possible, such as BIC and exceedance probability, as well as model-recovery analyses. The authors should also do model-based simulation analyses to show that the winning model can capture the contextual effects observed in real data.

(5) The authors should explain the rationales for the choice of ERP time windows and component selection in more detail. The current ERP analyses are time-locked to principal onset, and P3/LPP are extracted from fixed time windows. The authors should explain why this is the most appropriate time-locking point for examining betrayal- and loss-related computations, and why alternative time-locking points, such as probability-cue onset or other key task events, were not used. More importantly, the time windows of P3 and LPP are defined arbitrarily in the current analyses. The authors need to apply a more principled approach to define ERP components. It looks like the P3 and LPP are from the same ERP component in Figure 3.

(6) The manuscript has several internal inconsistencies in terminology, figure references, and result descriptions. These issues weaken the clarity of the arguments and reduce the readability of the manuscript.

(7) The authors partially achieved their aims. The study does provide evidence that social risk and nonsocial risk are not treated equivalently, and it also offers a computational framework that is informative for the field. This is an important topic, and the overall approach is promising.

via u/BlindAssassin111 at https://www.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/1u19nbi/1960_optima_super/

https://www.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/1u03qli/hermes_3000_2nd_gen_made_new_knobs_3d_printed_but/

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The manuscript by Bai et al presents a study of the effect of trapping on the efficiency of chemotactic spreading. While the overall impression of the study is positive, there are multiple drawbacks that accumulate and together make the statement of the paper not fully justifiable. Below, I provide some detailed comments in chronological order, and indicate those of particular importance.

(1) On the first page of the Introduction, the authors use the following wording: "...how bacteria optimise their intrinsic motility parameters to maximise navigation efficiency". However, it is not shown or known whether they do. In the experiments, the authors fetch the bacteria at the far front and artificially select the ones with shorter run times. The ones at the front could be the effect of heterogeneity of the population rather than an adaptation. Moreover, the authors claim that the selective pressure is via trapping. But this can be due to a multitude of other factors that change with agar concentration, availability of nutrients, osmotic properties of water, etc.

(2) At the beginning of the results section, the authors claim that for both agar concentrations, they observe a progressive increase in chemotactic navigation. I do not see how the data for 0.2 % agar would correspond to that. Migration speed remains flat.

(3) (Important). The authors claim that the mean run speed remained constant. But this is definitely not true, as seen in the plots. The speed of modernity is increasing for both agar conditions. And here it is important to note that the chemotactic drift velocity is proportional to the square of run speed (which is not the case for the formulas in this paper, see comment below). Thus, even smaller changes in v_0 can result in a significant increase in the drift velocity.

(4) (Important). Tumble bias is also significantly increasing in 0.3 agar concentration. While it is not clear from the paper what exactly the tumble bias is, if it is related to the persistence of the turning angle, this also has a linear effect on the chemotactic drift velocity.

(5) (Important). When performing aTc dependence testing, the authors didn't report how other observables of swimming behaviour are changing.

(6) (Very important). I'm not sure that by interfering with Che-Z expression, one does not affect the whole chemotactic circuit, for example, by changing G (in terms of the model) and thus the optimality occurs not due to the agar concentration/traps but due to the perturbations in the circuit. Also, the effect of different % seems to be much more minor compared to the overall induced changes in spreading speed.

(7) (Very important). I was very confused by the statement of the authors about only 3% of traps being exited due to tumble. I don't think this is possible (in a way consistent with the suggested model). Mean free run times (Figure 1C) go down to 0.4 s. Duration of tumbles is 0.3s (Figure S2c), but the duration of traps is longer than tumbles (and a bit shorter than runs). So how can it be that a running cell gets into a trap and only in 3% cases it experiences a tumble? What would be the distribution of run durations if one combines pre-trap+trap_time+post_trap run time - would they still have a mean below 1s?? It really looks like the authors are not able to detect tumbles when bacteria are trapped. Or is there an active mechanism suppressing tumbles when in the trap?

(8) It is not clear what it means that post-tumble angles were uniformly distributed. Does this refer to only trap-associated tumbles? It is known that in the freely swimming e.coli the tumbling angles are not isotropic but have a preference for the forward direction. Is it different in agar conditions?

(9) (Very important) The authors assume an oversimplified model for the chemotactic drift based on biased random walks. As a result, the answer for chemotactic drift velocity has a wrong scaling with run speed. In the linear theory of chemotaxis by de Gennes, the scaling is v_0^2, while the authors use a linear relationship. Thus, the assumption of the simplified model is incorrect. The exact effect of the traps (where no tumbling is happening, and the directional memory is conserved) needs to be properly calculated, for example, in the same de Gennes framework. And I can't say what the result would be from the top of my head because the calculation is, in fact, not too trivial. Thus, the model used is oversimplified, and thus the fact that it shows a non-monotonous relationship with tau_f is of little predictive power.

Taken together, you see that all the key points that are used in the chain of the argument about the optimality are not rock solid and allow for alternative explanations. I think all those either need to be tested explicitly or at least clearly discussed, and the respective conclusions of the paper need to be rephrased. In my view, this work needs major revision.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors argue that establishing the expression pattern and sub-cellular localisation of an animal's proteome will highlight hypotheses for further study. This claim is probably accepted by many in the community. This manuscript seeks to confirm the feasibility of establishing such a resource, by using current transgenic methods to knock in DNA encoding different colored fluorescent tags into C. elegans genes.

Strengths:

The authors make the points above. For example, they provide evidence that the C. elegans germline harbors two populations of mitochondria that differ qualitatively in the proteins they express. They also confirm that labelling the whole proteome is an achievable goal with relatively limited resources and time.

Weaknesses:

The work is somewhat incremental in that it uses existing transgenic technology. Cell biology in C. elegans is challenging because of the small size of many of its cells, notably neurons. This can make establishing the sub-cellular localisation of a fluorescently tagged protein, or co-localizing it with another protein, tricky. The authors point out in their introduction that advances in light microscopy such as diSPIM, STED and ISM (a close relative of SIM), have increased the resolution of light microscopy. They also point out that recent advances in expansion microscopy can similarly help overcome the resolution limit. However, they do not use these technologies to characterize their transgenic strains.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The SET1C/COMPASS complex is the histone H3K4 methyltransferase in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, where it plays pivotal roles in transcriptional regulation, DNA repair, and chromatin dynamics. While its canonical function in histone methylation is well-established, its full interactome remains poorly defined. Moreover, whether SET1C methylates non-histone substrates has been an open question.

In this study, Luciano et al. employ systematic yeast two-hybrid (Y2H) screening to uncover novel interactors and functions of SET1C. Their findings reveal potential functional connections to RNA biogenesis, chromatin remodeling, and non-histone methylation.

The authors performed multiple Y2H screens using Set1 (full-length, N-terminal, and C-terminal fragments) and each of its seven subunits as baits. They identified high-confidence interactors that link SET1C to diverse cellular processes, including chromatin regulation (e.g., the SWI/SNF complex via Snf2), DNA replication (e.g., Mcm2, Orc6), RNA biogenesis (e.g., spliceosome components Prp8 and Prp22; polyadenylation factors Pta1 and Ref2), tRNA processing (e.g., Trm1, Trm732), and nuclear import/export (e.g., importins Kap104 and Kap123). Some of these interactions were further validated by immunoprecipitation or in vitro assays.

Given the interaction of Set1 with Slx5 and Wss1-proteins involved in SUMO-dependent processes-the authors investigated and convincingly demonstrated that Set1 is sumoylated. This modification may influence the function and regulation of the SET1C complex.

Finally, the authors provide evidence that SET1C methylates Snf2, the catalytic subunit of the SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling complex.

One of the interactors, Nrm1, contains a domain resembling the H3K4-methylated sequence, which is also present in other proteins. Whether this H3K4-like domain is required for methylation remains to be demonstrated

Strengths:

This study offers valuable insights into the interactome of SET1C, suggesting potential links between the complex and a wide range of cellular processes. It also provides information on the possible regulation of Set1 by sumoylation. Finally, the finding that Snf2 is methylated in a Set1-dependent manner could significantly expand the known targets and functions of SET1C.

Weaknesses:

Many of the Y2H interactions remain to be validated and have to be considered as a starting point for further studies. Their functional significance remains to be explored. Several conclusions based on these 2HY data are speculative.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This study investigates how the activity of hypothalamic paraventricular oxytocin (PVNOT) neurons relates to physiological states in female mice, with a particular focus on behavioral states and thermogenic sympathetic activity. To address this question, the authors combined automated video-based behavioral classification with calcium imaging of PVNOT neuron activity. Sympathetic thermogenesis was inferred from surface temperature changes measured by infrared thermography, and the authors have made their custom analysis scripts available. The authors report that strong, pulsatile activation of PVNOT neurons was "occasionally" observed immediately before transitions from resting to active states. This observation suggests that PVNOT neuronal activity may facilitate the transition from rest to activity. This phenomenon was observed in both pair-housed and individually housed animals. Taken together, these findings raise the possibility that the oxytocinergic system contributes to naturalistic behavior transitions even in the absence of social interactions. However, concerns regarding the selectivity of GCaMP expression in oxytocin-expressing neurons call into question the validity of the recorded PVNOT neuronal activity.

Strengths:

The oxytocinergic neural system is believed to subserve a wide range of physiological functions. Elucidating these roles requires monitoring PVNOT neuronal activity under diverse behavioral contexts, as well as manipulating this activity to establish causal relationships. In this study, the authors present a technically sound experimental framework that integrates behavioral tracking in both individually and group-housed mice with the monitoring and manipulation of PVNOT neuron activity. This setup represents a valuable methodological resource for researchers investigating the physiological functions of oxytocin.

Weaknesses:

(1) Immunohistochemical validation of selective GCaMP expression in oxytocin-expressing neurons showed that only 24-51% of GCaMP-positive neurons expressed oxytocin. As an alternative approach, the authors demonstrate that GCaMP-expressing PVN neurons in virgin females exhibit calcium peaks during rest-wake transitions with kinetics similar to those observed in PVNOT neurons during early lactation. However, this comparison is based solely on population-level peak profiles and does not provide direct evidence for cell-type specificity of GCaMP expression in oxytocin neurons. This limitation substantially undermines the validity of the optical calcium imaging data. In situ hybridization targeting oxytocin mRNA, rather than immunohistochemistry, may provide a more reliable assessment of expression specificity.

(2) Although the authors' interpretation is generally consistent with the data presented, their main conclusions rely heavily on observational findings. Moreover, optogenetic stimulation of PVNOT neurons failed to robustly recapitulate behavioral state transitions (Figs. 6D and S5B). Further interventional experiments will be necessary to more rigorously test the authors' interpretation and to establish mechanistic insight into the causal relationship between PVNOT activity and rest-to-active transitions. In particular, loss-of-function approaches targeting the PVNOT system, such as OXTR antagonism, inhibitory DREADDs, or cell-type-specific ablation, will be essential to determine whether perturbation of this system alters behavioral state transitions These points should be addressed in future studies.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript by Mukherjee and colleagues extended earlier studies on the coordination of the SidC and SidE effector families on the generation of a unique ubiquitin layer on the surface of the vacuoles containing the bacterial pathogen Legionella pneumophila (LCV).

Strengths:

The main strength of the manuscript is the identification of the small GTPase Rab5 as a major "carrier" of these differently modified ubiquitin and ubiquitin chains, which was nicely quantified.

Weaknesses:

The results are mostly descriptive, based on mechanistic studies from earlier works.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors record from the ACC during a task in which animals must switch contexts to avoid shock as instructed by a cue. As expected, they find neurons that encode context, with some encoding of actions prior to the context, and encoding of neurons post-action. The primary novelty is dynamic encoding of action-outcome in a discrimination-avoidance domain, while this is traditionally done using operant methods.

Comments on revised version:

I appreciate subsequent responses to my comments and other reviewers. My comments are addressed, and at this point, I think readers can judge the work appropriately in context.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this unusual paper, Hodapp and Meyniel relate the spatial topography of activity maps for confidence and surprise (from four learning tasks) to the spatial topography of receptor density maps from atlas data. They find that the brain maps for confidence and surprise are largely consistent across four studies using different stimuli/ task demands. They then use a general linear model to predict the spatial pattern of confidence/surprise-related activity from the spatial distribution of receptors (receptor types) for several neuromodulators. Further analyses test which neuromodulators are most important for predicting the functional maps.

Strengths:

The study gives an interesting new perspective on the brain networks for surprise and confidence, indicating that one reason for the involvement of different networks with these computational parameters is the neurochemical sensitivity of tissue within those networks.

Weaknesses:

I felt the paper was light on context.

To what extent are the distributions of receptor types correlated with each other?

What does the spatial topography of receptor density look like for the identified receptors (NET, MOR, 5HT1b)? Could these be displayed alongside the functional networks? I realise these are atlas data, but for me to interpret the result, I'd need to see the map, and I don't want to download the atlas.

To what extent are the correlations with receptor maps network-wide, vs being driven by one big patch of activity in a single region with high receptor density? To me, this would be important - does this study demonstrate that distant regions united in a functional purpose by shared receptor profile (which would in my opinion be more intersting that the alternative, that there is a single region within each network driving the effect).

Finally, I wasn't convinced by the spin test in this particular application. To my mind, permutation tests are valid when the permuted points are interchangeable under the null. The spin test, as used, preserves the distribution and spatial pattern of activity, but assumes that it could equally plausibly be relocated to any angle on the 3D surface (under the null). However, the brain has a lot of structure that is non-uniform across its surface (connectivity patterns and histological boundaries being important ones). The observed data probably follow this structure, but the 'spun' or permuted datasets probably overlay randomly on the connectivity structure (for example), so that one blob of activity has uniform connectivity in the real data, but overlaps the projections of multiple white matter tracts in the permuted data. But then the permuted data would likely be more heterogeneous in terms of both function and histology than the original data. Since connectivity, histology (layer structure) and receptor density are likely correlated, I think it must be impossible to find verticies that differ in one modality whilst being interchangeable in all others, therefore it may not be possible to use permutation logic to make a claim about (say) receptor density independently of connectivity and histology.

I should add I'm not sure how one would carry out a permutation test that respects the underlying brain anatomy here, or whether this is even possible; that is a difficult question.

I would add that I think the observation that the functional networks have different receptor profiles is interesting, even as a qualitative observation, but not convinced the statistical approach can be justified.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This study investigates the neural mechanisms underlying sensory-perceptual differences in autism through a naturalistic movie-viewing fMRI paradigm. By employing encoding models, the authors demonstrate that autistic children and adolescents exhibit a specific alteration in visual feature weighting, characterized by a shift toward low-level visual feature encoding in higher-order association regions, particularly the posterior Superior Temporal Sulcus (pSTS). This shift is linked to social symptom severity, providing empirical support for Weak Central Coherence accounts.

Strengths:

The study's primary strengths lie in its methodological rigor and innovative approach. The use of a pre-registered analysis plan ensures transparency and enhances the credibility of the findings, while the encoding models allow for a fine-grained dissociation of low-level versus high-level feature representations across the cortex. Overall, the writing is clear, the logic is sound, and the results offer a significant contribution to the field by refining our understanding of how sensory processing is differentially organized in autism.

Weaknesses:

While the study presents compelling findings regarding visual feature encoding in autism, several methodological and interpretive limitations warrant consideration. First, the Discussion focuses primarily on WCC and EPF theories, failing to explicitly address how the results intersect with other prominent frameworks mentioned in the Introduction, such as Bayesian predictive coding or E/I imbalance hypotheses. Second, the demographic characteristics and specific sample sizes of the ASD-ADHD and ASD+ADHD subgroups are not reported, limiting the interpretability of the stratified analyses; furthermore, the counterintuitive finding that the ASD+ADHD group resembles controls is not sufficiently discussed. Third, given the significant group difference in IQ and the known relationship between cognitive ability and neural processing, the potential confounding influence of IQ on the neuroimaging results requires more explicit acknowledgment, particularly since IQ was not included as a covariate in the primary models.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This study makes clever use of generative AI to create stimuli that are pixel-for-pixel identical but which have radically different meanings depending on their orientation, to investigate the perception of animacy while retaining control over low-level image features (so-called 'anagram' stimuli).

The authors present seven elegantly designed experiments in a commendably compact format.

Experiments 1 and 2 involved a working memory paradigm in which participants had to spot which of five objects in an array changed after a pause. Importantly, the changed object was an anagram stimulus that in one orientation matched the animacy/inanimacy of the changed object, and in the other orientation was the opposite (e.g., a rabbit is replaced by either a dog or a boot, where the dog and boot stimuli are actually identical, just rotated by 90 degrees). They found a difference in accuracy depending on whether the animacy of the objects matched.

Experiments 3 and 4 used a visual search task in which the participants had to localize the target, and the distractors were anagrams that either matched the target in terms of animacy or did not. There was a significant cost in terms of response time when the animacy of the target was the same as that of the distractors. Experiments 5 and 6 also used a similar visual search design, except that the task was to determine if the target was present or absent from the display, and the distractors again either matched or differed from the target in terms of animacy. Again, the authors found slower responses when the distractor arrays matched the animacy of the target than when they differed.

An obvious potential concern about the studies is addressed by Experiment 7. It is unclear if the observed effects are related to the specific orientations of the target and distractor stimuli selected in each condition. For example, it could be that all the animate versions of the anagrams involved tall and skinny shapes, while all the inanimate versions involved wide and short objects, due to the 90-degree rotational difference between the two versions of the stimuli. To control for this, the authors repeated the visual search experiment but with convex-hull silhouettes of each of the stimuli. In other words, all targets and distractors from each trial were replaced by a black splotch with approximately the same overall outline (envelope) as the corresponding stimulus. Importantly, in contrast to the anagram stimuli, the silhouettes had had no meaningful semantic interpretation, and their animacy did not change depending on their orientation.

Strengths:

The main strength is the elegant use of stimuli that control almost perfectly for low-level image features.

Weaknesses:

My only real concern about the study is whether the findings truly provide evidence for a high-level visual representation of animacy independent of the low-level stimulus characteristics, or whether, instead, the effects are essentially semantic priming, which is independent of visual processing per se. For example, if all the stimuli in the experiments were replaced with the verbal names of the depicted objects instead of pictures, would we expect different results? Words can also access semantic representations of the animacy of objects, and also don't suffer from low-level visual confounds. It would be helpful to add a discussion of this possibility to the article.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The manuscript by Ono et al describes application of prime editors to introduce precise genetic changes in the zebrafish model system. Probably the most important observation is that compared to the "standard" PE2, prime editor with full nuclease activity appears to be more efficient at introducing insertions into the genome. Although many laboratories around the world have successfully used oligonucleotide-mediated HDR to insert short exogenous sequences such as epitope tags or loxP sites into the zebrafish genome, the method suffers from high frequency of indels at the edit site. Thus, additional tools are badly needed, making this manuscript very important.

Comments on revised version.

Thank you for thoroughly addressing my minor concerns.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

This article demonstrates a comparative study on two funding mechanisms adopted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The authors adopted a quantitative approach and introduced five metrics to compare the output of intramural and extramural grants. These findings reveal the impacts of intramural and extramural grants on the scientific community, providing funders with insights into the future decisions of funding mechanisms they should take.

Strengths:

The authors clearly presented their methods for processing the NIH project data and classifying projects into either intramural or extramural categories. The limitations of the study are also well-addressed.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The American beefalo cattle breed was developed as a mixture of 5/8 domestic cattle and 3/8 (or 37.5%) bison ancestry. The authors sequenced 50 genomes from bison and hybrids (historical and present-day). They found that most animals did not carry any detectable bison ancestry, with only a few between 2-18%, while other beefalo had taurine/zebu cattle ancestry, which may explain morphological traits. Breeding design was likely each time to a parental instead of to other admixtures.

The authors utilize whole genome sequence data to explore the ancestry of beefalo with respect to expected and possible contributions from cattle lineages. Using molecular and analytical methods central to questions exploring genomic ancestry and identity, the authors very nicely show evidence that calls into question ability of ancestry to be deduced from breed club documentation without considering reproductive challenges that are known in hybridization between cattle lineages.

Comments on revised version:

The authors have addressed all my comments to help improve presentation of specific details, results, and readability. Thank you!

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Javorski and colleagues investigate how CO2 valence is processed in the Drosophila olfactory system. Although CO2 is classically associated with an aversive labeled‑line pathway, its behavioral significance can be modulated by environmental context, such as the presence of food‑related cues. The circuit‑level mechanisms underlying this flexibility remain incompletely understood. The authors address this gap by examining how CO2 sensory information diverges at early stages of olfactory processing and how distinct neural pathways contribute to opposing behavioral outcomes. By identifying the local interneuron LN23 as a relay for CO2‑induced aversion, the study suggests that CO2 valence processing may begin to diverge at the level of the antennal lobe, prior to synaptic integration in higher‑order brain regions such as the lateral horn.

Strengths:

A major strength of this study is its comprehensive, multi-level experimental design that effectively links neuronal identity, synaptic organization, and behavior. The authors combine calcium‑based anatomical mapping, activity‑dependent reporters, optogenetic and thermogenetic manipulations, and connectomic analyses with behavioral readouts under genetically defined neuronal activation or silencing conditions. Specifically, the identification of LN23 as a component of the CO2 avoidance pathway is supported by anatomical, genetic, and behavioral evidence. Both silencing and activation experiments indicate that LN23 plays an important role in mediating CO2‑induced aversive responses. In contrast, manipulation of the projection neurons (PNv bi and PNv uni) produces more modest behavioral effects, suggesting a degree of specificity for LN23‑associated circuitry within the avoidance pathway. Moreover, the use of previous reported connectome to identify downstream third‑order neurons strengthens the proposed circuit model and provides anatomical support for early divergence of CO2 valence processing.

Weaknesses:

While the study provides a strong mechanistic framework for CO2 aversion, some aspects of context‑dependent valence modulation are less directly addressed and may benefit from further experimental exploration.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Several recent findings indicate that forces perpendicular to the microtubule accelerate kinesin unbinding, where perpendicular and axial forces were analyzed using the geometry in a single-bead optical trapping assay (Khataee and Howard, 2019), comparison between single-bead and dumbbell assay measurements (Pyrpassopoulos et al., 2020), and comparison of single-bead optical trap measurements with and without a DNA tether (Hensley and Yildiz, 2025).

Here, the authors devise an assay to exert forces along the microtubule axis by tethering kinesin to the microtubule via a dsDNA tether. They compared the behavior of kinesin-1, -2, and -3 when pulling against the DNA tether. In line with previous optical trapping measurements, kinesin unbinding is less sensitive forces when the forces are aligned with the microtubule axis. Surprisingly, the authors find that both kinesin-1 and -2 detach from the microtubule more slowly when stalled against the DNA tether than in unloaded conditions, indicating that these motors act as catch bonds in response to axial loads. Axial loads accelerate kinesin-3 detachment. However, kinesin-3 reattaches quickly to maintain forces. For all three kinesins, the authors observe weakly-attached states where the motor briefly slips along the microtubule before continuing a processive run.

Strengths:

These observations suggest that the conventional view that kinesins act as slip bonds under load, as concluded from single-bead optical trapping measurements where perpendicular loads are present due to the force being exerted on the centroid of a large (relative to the kinesin) bead, need to be reconsidered. Understanding the effect of force on the association kinetics of kinesin has important implications for intracellular transport, where the force-dependent detachment governs how kinesins interact with other kinesins and opposing dynein motors (Muller et al., 2008; Kunwar et al., 2011; Ohashi et al., 2018; Gicking et al., 2022) on vesicular cargoes.

Royal Futura 800 Case Handles<br /> https://www.tbwritersplus.com/product-page/royal-futura-800-case-handles

via https://www.reddit.com/r/Typewriter_parts/comments/1t1y9a2/royal_futura_800_case_handles/<br /> Originally offered on May 2, 2026

The plastic handles on Royal Futura Cases are almost always broken and/or missing. TB Writers Plus began offering a plastic replacement handle in May 2026 for $35.00.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript examines how phosphate limitation primes E. coli and Salmonella for defense against polymyxin antibiotics. Other environmental signals, such as altered levels of extracellular Mg or Fe, were previously shown to induce polymyxin resistance in Enterobacteriaceae, and phosphate limitation was known to augment polymyxin resistance in other organisms such as A. baumannii and P. aeruginosa; however, whether phosphate limitation boosted polymyxin resistance in Enterobacteriaceae was not known. This study shows that this indeed occurs, and the mechanism is distinct from that in A. baumannii and P. aeruginosa. The model proposed is: (1) low phosphate causes bacteria to jettison Mg to balance cellular P/Mg ratio, (2) extracellular Fe3+ associates with the cell envelope to replace Mg as LPS-bridging cation, and (3) envelope Fe3+ activates PmrAB, which mediates a transcriptional response leading to L-Ara4N modification of lipid A and protection from polymyxin B. Flooding with Mg or chelating the surface Fe3+ blocks the protective response to low phosphate in E. coli and Salmonella but not in P. aeruginosa despite Fe still mobilizing in the latter. The differential response between Enterobacteriaceae and P. aeruginosa is connected to the presence/absence of Fe-sensing motifs in the PmrB periplasmic domain.

Strengths:

The strengths of the study are the wide array of approaches used and the thorough characterization of a novel stress-response mechanism involving metal mobilization. Combined with the analysis of multiple bacterial families, the results clarify how different strategies have evolved to defend against polymyxins during phosphate starvation.

Weaknesses:

Controls are needed in some of the genetic experiments, namely complementation, to verify linkage of defective survival phenotypes to the genes mutated and to rule out protein stability defects for the PmrB variants tested. In addition, the generalizability of the metal mobilization feature of the model would be strengthened by examining media with differing metal composition. Claims about antibiotic resistance would be strengthened by data examining bacterial growth in the presence of an antibiotic.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This study evaluates the contributions of the mammalian PG-binding protein PGLYRP1 to Bordetella infection. The authors find potential roles for PGLYRP1 in both bacterial killing (canonical) and regulation of inflammation (non-canonical). While these are interesting findings and the idea that PG fragment release has differential impacts on infection depending on fragment structure, the study is ultimately limited by the lack of connection between the in vivo and in vitro experiments and determining the precise mechanism of how PGLYRP1 regulates host responses and bacterial fitness during infection requires further study.

Strengths:

(1) The combination of scRNAseq with in vitro and in vivo assays provides complementary views of PGLYRP1 function during infection.

(2) The use of TCT-deficient B. pertussis provides a useful control and perturbation in the in vitro assays.

Weaknesses/Areas for future study:

(1) The study does not ultimately resolve the initial early versus late phenotype divergence. While the in vitro assays suggest explanations for their in vivo observations, further mechanistic links are lacking and necessary for the author's conclusions throughout. To state one example, what is the early and late infection phenotype of TCT- Bp in mice lacking PGLYRP1? RNAseq data is reported from these mice but there are no burden or pathology studies. Furthermore, what are the neutrophil phenotypes (NOD-1/TREM-1 activation) in vivo? And are they dependent on PGLYRP1 and/or TCT? This will be an important topic of future study, as noted by the authors in their response.

(2) It is unclear whether or how the NOD1 and TREM-1 pathways interact.

(3) Many of the study's conclusions rely on the use of HEK293 reporter lines in the absence of bacterial infection, which may not be physiologically representative.

Comments on revised version.

The authors have responded adequately to my comments.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This multi-omics study by Zhou et al elucidates the context-dependent roles of the Janus kinase-signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway (JSP) across different cellular compartments in the breast cancer tumor microenvironment. While bulk JSP activity is associated with a favorable prognosis, single-cell analysis reveals a paradoxical landscape: high JSP in T cells drives anti-tumor cytotoxicity and reduces exhaustion, whereas high activity in tumor epithelial cells promotes malignancy and immunosuppression via the MIF-CD74 signaling axis. The JSP score (immune-related) serves as a robust predictive biomarker for response to anti-PD-1 immunotherapy, particularly in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Furthermore, the study identifies the STAT4/SLC47A1 axis as a critical mechanism through which tumor cells resist ferroptosis, facilitating disease progression. These findings suggest that broad JAK-STAT inhibition may be counterproductive in cancer therapeutics; instead, therapeutic success depends on precise modulation and carefully timed interventions to preserve its T-cell-associated functions. This study may inspire future studies to explore specific factors that selectively modulate JAK-STAT activity in immune cells to achieve favorable therapeutic outcomes.

Strengths:

Significant therapeutics implications

Weaknesses:

Limited molecular mechanisms

Comments on revised version:

The authors have addressed my comments

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The study "PIK3CA-related overgrowth spectrum (PROS) zebrafish models reveal pan-lineage developmental dysregulation" presents important findings that extend significantly beyond a single subfield, bridging developmental biology, vascular medicine, and cancer-related PI3K signalling. By developing mosaic zebrafish models of PROS and combining live imaging with single-cell transcriptomics, the authors provide compelling evidence for a non-cell-autonomous mechanism of tissue overgrowth, a conceptual shift with meaningful therapeutic implications.

Strengths:

The evidence is overall convincing, with methodology appropriate and well-validated relative to the current state of the art; the integration of multiple approaches (in vivo modelling, scRNA-seq, ligand-receptor inference) strengthens the central claims. However, some aspects of the proposed non-cell-autonomous signalling mechanisms remain partly correlative, and direct functional validation of the rewired ligand-receptor interactions would further consolidate the conclusions.

Weaknesses:

The transgenic overexpression approach chosen by the authors represents a well-established and effective strategy for generating mosaic models in zebrafish. However, this approach introduces notable limitations: the lack of control over transgene dosage and unknown integration sites may generate non-physiological effects, potentially confounding the interpretation of key findings.

The authors are certainly aware that alternative approaches (though technically more demanding) could be considered in future studies to further strengthen the model. For instance, a CRISPR/Cas9-mediated knock-in of the pik3ca-PROS allele at the endogenous locus (retaining upstream native regulatory elements with only a minimal promoter in the construct, co-expressed with a fluorescent reporter via P2A) could allow even more physiological, lineage-restricted expression while enabling direct visualisation of mutant cells. Mesodermal specificity could potentially be further refined by driving mosaic Cas9 expression under a pan-mesodermal tbx promoter, restricting editing to the relevant lineage while simultaneously marking mutant cells fluorescently, thus even more closely mimicking the post-zygotic mutational events characteristic of PROS. As a complementary strategy, blastula transplantation experiments using pik3ca-PROS donor cells (ideally co-expressing a distinct fluorescent marker such as mCherry) into fli1:GFP transgenic hosts could provide a powerful and technically consolidated approach to directly visualise and quantify non-cell-autonomous effects on host vasculature, with precise control over mutant cell burden. This combinatorial framework, separating donor mutant cells from host tissue in a two-colour imaging setup, could be particularly compelling for validating the ligand-receptor rewiring predicted by single-cell transcriptomics in future investigations.

These reflections are offered in the spirit of prospective methodological development and do not diminish the value of the current work, which opens a valuable new avenue for therapeutic investigation, suggesting that targeting indirect overgrowth-propagating signals, alongside PI3K inhibition, deserves serious consideration.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Triandafillou and colleagues report a single-cell resolved spatial atlas of gene expression of 26 gastruloids. While previous work had analyzed either single-cell gene expression or spatially coarse-grained patterns of gene expression (van den Brink et al, 2020), the authors here use multiplexed sequential RNA FISH (seqFISH) to create the first gastruloid atlas, which is simultaneously spatially and cellularly resolved. This atlas adds to a growing list of resources cataloging gastruloid development (see also Suppinger et al 2023).

To analyze this dataset, the authors also describe a novel analytical framework. Their analysis centers around the 'L-metric', which measures the degree to which pairs of genes are either coexpressed or mutually exclusive. While this metric is similar to calculating correlations in gene expressions, it has important differences (including that it can, in principle, be asymmetric; although the authors symmetrize much of their analysis). In addition to the gene-centric L-metric analysis, the authors also analyze cells in their dataset according to the cell type entropy (an information-theoretical measure of confidence in cell type assignment) and the 'exposure index' (a measure of the similarity of nearest cellular neighbors).

Using this framework, the authors focus their analysis on two major features of development. The first is the differentiation of the bipotent neuromesodermal progenitor (NMP) cells in the posterior of the gastruloid into either presomitic mesoderm (PSM) or spinal cord SC lineages. They use L-metric analysis to compare overlap in marker genes used to separate NMP, PSM, and SC fates. They highlight that L-metric analysis can recover spatial patterns of gene expression (without explicit spatial information) and discern subtle features of marker genes beyond simple binning of cell types (e.g., that Epha5 expression in anterior NMPs may predict future SC differentiation).

The second is the formation of endothelial (spatial) clusters within the gastruloid. The authors highlight two subtypes of endothelial clusters: (1) smaller clusters within the somitic anterior region, and (2) larger clusters associated with endoderm. While the authors discern some subtle differences in gene expression between these two clusters, their different spatial patterns suggest a potential physiological difference that would not be captured in traditional droplet microfluidic-based scRNAseq pipelines.

Overall, this manuscript is a sophisticated and technically sound study that will provide a valuable beachhead for future studies of developmental patterning in gastruloids and organoids.

Strengths:

The major strengths of this study are the overall technical sophistication of the data set and analysis, as well as its potential generalizability to other developmental systems (both in vitro and in vivo). The data are extensively analyzed and reasonably interpreted, and this atlas makes good use of the variability in gastruloid development to extract the statistical structure of developmental processes. The L-metric offers a parameter-free tool to analyze transcriptomic datasets that could overcome the pitfalls of other approaches.

Weaknesses:

The major limitations of this study are the depth and novelty of the developmental processes studied. The authors provide very convincing proof-of-concept that their data set can recover known features of gastruloid development, including NMP differentiation and endothelial development. However, further analysis and/or investigation would be required to discover new principles of gastruloid development and patterning.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Miyachi and Ichihashi investigate whether the arrangement of the genetic code affects mutational robustness. Using an in vitro minimal genetic code with vacant codons, they constructed 10 non-standard genetic codes by reassigning Ala, Ser, and Leu, generating codes with replacement costs that were generally higher than those of the standard genetic code across several amino acid property measures. They then tested how random mutations affected the activity of reporter proteins translated under these altered codes. Although error minimization theory predicts that higher-cost codes should make mutations more harmful, the authors report that protein function declined to a similar extent across all codes examined, suggesting that mutational robustness remains largely unchanged within the range of genetic code alterations tested here.

Strengths:

This is an interesting study that investigates one of the most fundamental and intriguing questions in molecular evolution: the emergence of the genetic code, which is nearly universal across nature. The in vitro approach is a powerful aspect of the work and provides an opportunity to examine this phenomenon experimentally at a depth that has previously been inaccessible.