DOI: 10.1002/cne.23668

Resource: AB_10562368

Curator: @jcabotaj

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_10562368

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/cne.23668

Resource: (Thermo Fisher Scientific Cat# A-31565, RRID:AB_2536178)

Curator: @jcabotaj

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_10373124

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/cne.23668

Resource: (Phoenix Pharmaceuticals Cat# H-029-30, RRID:AB_2307442)

Curator: @jcabotaj

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2307442

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/cne.23668

Resource: (Millipore Cat# MAB377, RRID:AB_2298772)

Curator: @jcabotaj

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2298772

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/cne.23668

Resource: GraphPad Prism (RRID:SCR_002798)

Curator: @jcabotaj

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_002798

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/cne.23668

Resource: (Santa Cruz Biotechnology Cat# sc-2004, RRID:AB_631746)

Curator: @jcabotaj

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_631746

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/cne.23668

Resource: (Novus Cat# 26630002, RRID:AB_2092129)

Curator: @jcabotaj

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2092129

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/cne.23668

Resource: (RGD Cat# 1302714,RRID:RGD_1302714)

Curator: @jcabotaj

SciCrunch record: RRID:RGD_1302714

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/cne.23668

Resource: (RGD Cat# 2312511,RRID:RGD_2312511)

Curator: @jcabotaj

SciCrunch record: RRID:RGD_2312511

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/cne.23664

Resource: Fiji (RRID:SCR_002285)

Curator: @jcabotaj

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_002285

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/cne.23664

Resource: (RGD Cat# 737929,RRID:RGD_737929)

Curator: @jcabotaj

SciCrunch record: RRID:RGD_737929

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/cne.23664

Resource: (ZIRC Cat# ZL1,RRID:ZIRC_ZL1)

Curator: @jcabotaj

SciCrunch record: RRID:ZIRC_ZL1

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/cne.23664

Resource: (IMSR Cat# JAX_000664,RRID:IMSR_JAX:000664)

Curator: @jcabotaj

SciCrunch record: RRID:IMSR_JAX:000664

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/cne.23665

Resource: (FUJIFILM Wako Pure Chemical Corporation Cat# 544-10001-WAKO, RRID:AB_664696)

Curator: @jcabotaj

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_664696

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/cne.23665

Resource: (Abcam Cat# ab41489, RRID:AB_727049)

Curator: @jcabotaj

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_727049

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/cne.23665

Resource: (Abcam Cat# ab32423, RRID:AB_880078)

Curator: @jcabotaj

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_880078

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/cne.23665

Resource: ImageJ (RRID:SCR_003070)

Curator: @jcabotaj

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_003070

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/cne.23665

Resource: (Thermo Fisher Scientific Cat# S-21374, RRID:AB_2336066)

Curator: @jcabotaj

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2336066

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/cne.23665

Resource: (Abcam Cat# ab6876, RRID:AB_954958)

Curator: @jcabotaj

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_954958

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/cne.23665

Resource: (Innovative Research Cat# A11058, RRID:AB_2313737)

Curator: @jcabotaj

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2313737

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/cne.23665

Resource: AB_10564074

Curator: @jcabotaj

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_10564074

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/cne.23665

Resource: AB_10561706

Curator: @jcabotaj

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_10561706

What is this?

DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.2014.281014

Resource: ImageJ (RRID:SCR_003070)

Curator: @gabimpine

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_003070

What is this?

DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.2014.281014

Resource: (Thermo Fisher Scientific Cat# A10042, RRID:AB_2534017)

Curator: @gabimpine

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_11180183

What is this?

DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.2014.281014

Resource: (Jackson ImmunoResearch Labs Cat# 706-605-148, RRID:AB_2340476)

Curator: @gabimpine

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2340476

What is this?

DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.2014.281014

Resource: (Neuromics Cat# GP10108, RRID:AB_2283325)

Curator: @gabimpine

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2283325

What is this?

DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.2014.281014

Resource: (Alomone Labs Cat# APR-003, RRID:AB_2040054)

Curator: @gabimpine

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2040054

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/glia.22756

Resource: AB_2313566

Curator: @jcabotaj

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2313566

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/glia.22756

Resource: MED PC (RRID:SCR_012156)

Curator: @jcabotaj

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_012156

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/glia.22756

Resource: SMART JUNIOR (RRID:SCR_012154)

Curator: @jcabotaj

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_012154

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/glia.22756

Resource: LightCycler Software (RRID:SCR_012155)

Curator: @jcabotaj

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_012155

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/glia.22756

Resource: (Millipore Cat# MAB1501, RRID:AB_2223041)

Curator: @jcabotaj

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2223041

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/glia.22756

Resource: (Jackson ImmunoResearch Labs Cat# 111-035-003, RRID:AB_2313567)

Curator: @jcabotaj

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2313567

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/glia.22756

Resource: (Cell Signaling Technology Cat# 2678, RRID:AB_2122301)

Curator: @jcabotaj

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2122301

What is this?

DOI: 10.1111/ejn.12716

Resource: (Millipore Cat# AB144P-1ML, RRID:AB_262156)

Curator: @gabimpine

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_262156

What is this?

DOI: 10.1111/ejn.12716

Resource: (Millipore Cat# MAB377, RRID:AB_2298772)

Curator: @gabimpine

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2298772

What is this?

Should this be applied to the GBM approach? Would it prevent it collapsing onto a spike at 0.42?

This is an annotation.

in --> into

This is definitely very exciting, but 10% is a lot when it comes to space, that could be a distance of lightyears. I am curious what is missing from the instruments currently available to be able to make more precise measurements.

Challenging the idea of "seeing is believing" and the idea of invisible matter must have been very controversial at the time and confusing to lots of people, but is now something we take for granted, despite the fact that we don't have a full understanding of it.

I saw a quote the other day that loosely said that everything sounds crazy until it's proven by science, and I think that really applies here. I also find it interesting that what people think is an impossibility at one point can very quickly become fact later. The idea that science is always evolving and changing is really interesting to me.

I would suggest adjusting punctuation for better readability. "In some cases, the accumulations are found inside structures, and often it is mixed with other material; for example, collapsed material".

How many other birds in different regions used the Milky Way to guide themselves but can't anymore? Although I'm curious how much this affects those birds, as they probably know where to go anyways instinctually or because of the many generations of birds flying south.

I am curious when the conscious decision was made to have protected spaces where development would be kept to a minimum in order to preserve the viewing of the sky.

I'm curious how many before Herschel and his sister tried and failed to discover how the milky way is laid out, and what set them apart from those before them, allowing them to get the job done.

It should be "the walls were one and a half mud bricks" wide.

It should be "another," instead of "an other," i.e., one word, no space.

what about the variant causes it to be optimized for flow cyt?

HES NOT LIKE OTHER BOYS-HE HAS THE ROMANTIC ERA FRUITINESS ABOUT HIM!

两个结果的原因是 net 有两个线性层

[(name, param.shape) for name, param in m.named_parameters()][0] 首先作为一个整体，获取列表的第一个元素，即第一个 (name, param.shape) 元组

然后对这个元祖进行解包！

net 是 net = nn.Sequential(nn.Linear(4, 8), nn.ReLU(), nn.Linear(8, 1))

nn.Linear 是一个全连接层（也称为线性层或密集层）。如果代码中有 if type(m) == nn.Linear: 这样的语句，它的意思是检查变量 m 是否是一个全连接层。

Prettily Painted Portable Typewriters by [[Robert Messenger]]

were there any OTUs that did not appear in the initial recipient community at detectable levels??

# of final reads / # of Tc sorted > 1 is that they mean

How do you determine where the "bacterial" sized particles should appear?

Set a gate for bacterial size on a bivariate SSC-A vs FSC-A plot for events of bacterial size by including the donor strain and excluding all events caused by a sterile pyrophosphate buffer control. Source: Klumper, 2018 Spring protocol handbook

"Did you put your name into the Goblet of Fire, Harry?" Dumbledore asked calmly. Reference: book.

And, the transition to the scene 😂

Part of the whole?

Metal af

Is he misunderstanding? Is this itself a translation problem?

oh, chill out

thunder-word sounds like melville

insults him?

What spirit?

The Whole = Creation = God?

"little god"

Woes of the educator

?? Free will?

Man is "little god" and has divine Reason

这是python的一个语法糖，net()实际上调用net.call()，而__call__()调用了forward

nn.ReLU()是构造了一个ReLU对象，并不是函数调用，而F.ReLU()是函数调用

这里也可以写成 return self.out(nn.ReLU()(self.hidden(X)) ，但是没有必要

In the provided code, the ReLU layer is applied as a function within the forward method, using F.relu(self.hidden(X)). This means that the ReLU activation is not explicitly recorded as a separate layer in the model's structure. Instead, it is applied directly to the output of the hidden layer during the forward pass.

If you want to explicitly include the ReLU layer in the model's structure, you can define it as a separate layer in the __init__ method and then use it in the forward method. Here's an example:

```python class MLP(nn.Module): def init(self): super().init() self.hidden = nn.Linear(20, 256) # 隐藏层 self.relu = nn.ReLU() # ReLU 层 self.out = nn.Linear(256, 10) # 输出层

def forward(self, X):
    return self.out(self.relu(self.hidden(X)))

```

In this version, the ReLU layer is explicitly defined and included in the model's structure.

Overall, I like the AI tools chapters and they are easy to read. I do think that they might need to be re-organized for a more logical progression of content, and that we can evaluate if some chapters that focus on only one specific tool should be maintained. If yes, do we need to find or write chapters for the (main) tools that are missing? Also, because they are coming from different sources, there is some repetition that we might need to address.

Can it be used for higher ed?

Higher ed focus?

Other coding specific tools might need to be included, such as GitHub Copilot, Debuild, etc.

Higher ed focus?

I would probably end with this chapter, since it is more mentoring related than teaching/instruction related.

Higher ed focus?

There are other platforms that could be mentioned in the area of creative storytelling: Character AI, Runway, Colossyan, etc...

Country-specific reference?

Higher ed focus?

I like to have a chapter for video tools, but maybe not just focusing on one? Or have other videos tools listed and summarized in the introductory chapters?

I like this chapter a lot because it focus on both the instructor side and the student side.

schöne diagnose, gut gebrüllt... und jetzt? wo ist der lösungsvorschlag?

10:00 "nach aussen für demokratie, aber sie machen immer genau das gegenteil."<br /> ihre lügen sind too big to fail. if you must lie then lie big. Greenwood - 180 Degrees.<br /> scheinheilig. sich immer rausreden auf "fahrlässigkeit" und "zufall".

Great and important chapter! I wonder if there are other tools to be listed under the 'research and effective source ID'.

Located on 7th floor of Alkek Library

Writing tool specific to craft e-mails. Should it be under writing tools?

Again, is it relevant for higher education?

NAWWWWWW SHE DID NOTTT (she fucking would. good characterization.)

Is this tool targeting higher education?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In the manuscript "Metabolic heterogeneity of colorectal cancer as a prognostic factor: insights gained from fluorescence lifetime imaging" by Komarova et al., the authors used fluorescence lifetime imaging and quantitative analysis to assess the metabolic heterogeneity of colorectal cancer. Generally, this work is logically well-designed, including in vitro and in vivo animal models and ex vivo patient samples. Although the key parameter (BI index) used in this study was already published by this group, it was shown that heterogeneity of patients' samples had associations with clinical characteristics of tumors. Additional samples from 8 patients were added to the data pool during the revision process, which is helpful and important for the conclusions that the authors are trying to draw. Overall, the revisions that the authors have made greatly strengthen this study.

Strengths:

(1) Solid experiments are performed and well-organized, including in vitro and in vivo animal models and ex vivo patient samples;

(2) Attempt and efforts to build the association between the metabolic heterogeneity and prognosis for colorectal cancer.

Weaknesses:

(1) Although additional data acquired from 8 patients were collected, maybe more patients should be involved in the future for reliable diagnosis and prognosis.

Author response:

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this study, Komarova et al. investigate the clinical prognostic ability of cell-level metabolic heterogeneity quantified via the fluorescence lifetime characteristics of NAD(P)H. Fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy (FLIM) has been studied as a minimally invasive approach to measure cellular metabolism in live cell cultures, organoids, and animal models. Its clinical translation is spearheaded through macroscopic implementation approaches that are capable of large sampling areas and enable access to otherwise constrained spaces but lack cellular resolution for a one-to-one transition with traditional microscopy approaches, making the interpretation of the results a complicated task. The merit of this study primarily lies in its design by analyzing with the same instrumentation and approach colorectal samples in different research scenarios, namely in vitro cells, in vivo animal xenografts, and tumor tissue from human patients. These conform to a valuable dataset to explore the translational interpretation hurdles with samples of increasing levels of complexity. For human samples, the study specifically investigates the prediction ability of NAD(P)H fluorescence metrics for the binary classification of tumors of low and advanced stage, with and without metastasis, and low and high grade. They find that NAD(P)H fluorescence properties have a strong potential to distinguish between high- and low-grade tumors and a moderate ability to distinguish advanced-stage tumors from low-stage tumors. This study provides valuable results contributing to the deployment of minimally invasive optical imaging techniques to quantify tumor properties and potentially migrate into tools for human tumor characterization and clinical diagnosis.

Strengths:

The investigation of colorectal samples under multiple imaging scenarios with the same instrument and approach conforms to a valuable dataset that can facilitate the interpretation of results across the spectrum of sample complexity.

The manuscript provides a strong discussion reviewing studies that investigated cellular metabolism with FLIM and the metabolic heterogeneity of colorectal cancer in general.

The authors do a thorough acknowledgement of the experimental limitations of investigating human samples ex vivo, and the analytical limitation of manual segmentation, for which they provide a path forward for higher throughput analysis.

Weaknesses:

To substantiate the changes in fluorescence properties at the examined wavelength range (associated with NAD(P)H fluorescence) in relationship to metabolism, the study would strongly benefit from additional quantification of metabolic-associated metrics using currently established standard methods. This is especially interesting when discussing heterogeneity, which is presumably high within and between patients with colorectal cancer, and could help explain the particularities of each sample leading to a more in-depth analysis of the acquired valuable dataset.

In order to address this issue, we have performed immunohistochemical staining of the available tumor samples for the two standard metabolic markers GLUT3 and LDHA.

The results are included in Supplementary (Fig.S4). Discussion has been extended.

Additionally, NAD(P)H fluorescence does not provide a complete picture of the cell/tissue metabolic characteristics. Including, or discussing the implications of including fluorescence from flavins would comprise a more compelling dataset. These additional data would also enable the quantification of redox metrics, as briefly mentioned, which could positively contribute to the prognosis potential of metabolic heterogeneity.

We agree with the Reviewer that fluorescence from flavins could be helpful to obtain more complete data on cellular metabolic states. However, we lack to detect sufficiently intensive emission from flavins in colorectal cancer cells and tissues. The paragraph about flavins was added in Discussion and representative images - in Supplementary Material (Figure S5).

In the current form of the manuscript, there is a diluted interpretation and discussion of the results obtained from the random forest and SHAP analysis regarding the ability of the FLIM parameters to predict clinicopathological outcomes. This is, not only the main point the authors are trying to convey given the title and the stated goals, but also a novel result given the scarce availability of these type of data, which could have a remarkable impact on colorectal cancer in situ diagnosis and therapy monitoring. These data merit a more in-depth analysis of the different factors involved. In this context, the authors should clarify how is the "trend of association" quantified (lines 194 and 199).

We thank the Reviewer for this suggestion. The section has been updated with SHAP analysis using different parameters (dispersion D of t2, a1, tm and bimodality index BI of t2, a1, tm). It is now more clear that D-a1 is more strongly associated with clinicopathological outcomes compared with other variables. We have also added some biological interpretation of these results in the Discussion.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In the manuscript "Metabolic heterogeneity of colorectal cancer as a prognostic factor: insights gained from fluorescence lifetime imaging" by Komarova et al., the authors used fluorescence lifetime imaging and quantitative analysis to assess the metabolic heterogeneity of colorectal cancer. Generally, this work is logically well-designed, including in vitro and in vivo animal models and ex vivo patient samples. However, since the key parameter presented in this study, the BI index, is already published in a previous paper by this group (Shirshin et al., 2022), and the quantification method of metabolic heterogeneity has already been well (and even better) described in previous studies (such as the one by Heaster et al., 2019), the novelty of this study is doubted. Moreover, I am afraid that the way of data analysis and presentation in this study is not well done, which will be mentioned in detail in the following sections.

Strengths:

(1) Solid experiments are performed and well-organized, including in vitro and in vivo animal models and ex vivo patient samples.

(2) Attempt and efforts to build the association between the metabolic heterogeneity and prognosis for colorectal cancer.

Weaknesses:

(1) The human sample number (from 21 patients) is very limited. I wonder how the limited patient number could lead to reliable diagnosis and prognosis;.

Additional 8 samples of patients’ tumors collected while the manuscript was under review were added to the present data. We agree that the number is still limited to conclude about the prognostic value of cell-level metabolic heterogeneity. But at this point we can expect that this parameter will become a metric for prognosis. We will continue this study to collect more samples of colorectal tumors and expand the approach to different cancer types.

(2) The BI index or similar optical metrics have been well established by this and other groups; therefore, the novelty of this study is doubted.

The purpose of this research was to quantify and compare the cellular metabolic heterogeneity across the systems of different complexity - commercial cell lines, tumor xenografts and patients’ tumors - using previously established FLIM-based metrics. For the first time, using FLIM, it was shown that heterogeneity of patients’ samples is much higher than of laboratory models and that it has associations with clinical characteristics of the tumors - the stage and the grade. In addition, this study provides evidence that bimodality (BI) in the distribution of metabolic features in the cell population is less important than the width of the spread (the dispersion value D).

Some corrections have been made in the text on this point.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

The following comments should be addressed to strengthen the rigor and clarity of the manuscript.

(1) The ethical committee that approved the human studies should also be mentioned in the methods section, as was done with the animal studies.

Information about the ethics committee has been added in the Manuscript.

The study with the use of patients’ material was approved by the ethics committee of the Privolzhsky Research Medical University (approval № 09 from 30.06.2023).

(2) The captions in Figures 2 and 3 must be revised. In Figure 2, it seems the last 2 sentences for the description of (C) do not belong there, and instead, the last sentence in the description of (D) may need to be included in (C) instead. Figure 3 is similar.

The captions were revised.

(3) From supplement Figure S2 it seems that EpCam and vimentin staining were only done in two of the mouse tumor types. No further mention is made in the results or methods section. Is there any reason this was not performed in the other tumor types? Were the histology and IHC protocols the same for the mouse and human tumors?

The data on other tumor types and patients’ tumors have been added in Figure S3. Discussion was extended with the following paragraph.

One of the possible reasons for metabolic heterogeneity could be the presence of stromal cells or diversity of epithelial and mesenchymal phenotypes of cancer cells within a tumor. Immunohistochemical staining of tumors for EpCam (epithelial marker) and vimentin (mesenchymal marker) showed that the fraction of epithelial, EpCam-positive, cells was more than 90% in tumor xenografts and on average 76±10 % in patients’ tumors (Figure S3). However, the ratio of EpCam- to vimentin-positive cells in patients’ samples neither correlated with D-a1 nor with BI-a1, which means that the presence of cells with mesenchymal phenotype did not contribute to metabolic heterogeneity of tumors identified by NAD(P)H FLIM.

(4) Clarify the design of the experiments: The results come from 50 - 200 cells in each sample (except 30 in the CaCo2 cell culture) that were counted from 5 - 10 images acquired from each sample. There were 21 independent human samples. How many independent samples were included in the cell culture experiments and the mouse tumor models? Why is there an order of magnitude fewer cells included in the CaCo2 group compared to the other groups (Figure 1)? From the image (Figure 1A - CaCo2), it seems to be a highly populated type of sample, yet only 30 cells were quantified. What prevents the inclusion of the same number of cells to be quantified in each group for a more systematic evaluation?

We thank the Reviewer for this comment.

Cell culture experiments included two independent replicates for each cell line, the data from which were then combined. In animal experiments measurements were made in three mice (numbered 1-3 in Figure 2C) for each tumor type. We have made calculations for additional >100 cells of CaCo2 cell line. In the revised version the number of Caco2 cells is 146.

The text of the Manuscript was revised accordingly.

(5) Regarding references: Some claims throughout the text would benefit from an additional reference. For example: line 70 "Metabolic heterogeneity [...] is believed to have prognostic value"; line 121 " [...] the uniformity of cell metabolism in a culture, which is consistent with the general view on standard cell lines [...]". The clinical translational aspect (i.e., paragraph in line 255) warrants the inclusion of the efforts already done with FLIM imaging in the clinical setting both in vivo and ex vivo with point-spectroscopy and macroscopy imaging (e.g., Jo Lab, Marcu Lab, French Lab, and earlier work by Mycek and Richards-Kortum in colorectal cancer to name a few).

Additional references were added.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) In the Introduction, line 85, the authors mention that "Specifically, the unbound state of NAD(P)H has a short lifetime (~0.4 ns) and is associated with glycolysis, while the protein-bound state has a long lifetime (~1.7-3.0 ns) and is associated with OXPHOS". I do not think this claim is appropriate. One cannot simply say that the unbound state is associated with glycolysis, nor that the bound state is associated with OXPHOS; both unbound and bound state are associated with almost all the metabolic pathways. Instead, the expression of "glycolytic/ OXPHOS shift", as authors used in other sections of this manuscript, is a more appropriate one in this case.

The text of the Introduction was revised.

(2) What are the biological implications of the bimodality index (BI)? Please provide specific insights.

Bimodal distribution indicates there are two separate and independent peaks in the population data. In the metabolic FLIM data, this indicates that there are two sub-populations of cells with different metabolic phenotypes. Previously, we have observed bimodal distribution in the population of chemotherapy treated cancer cells, where one sub-population was responsive (shifted metabolism) and the second - non-responsive (unchanged metabolism) [Shirshin et al., PNAS, 2022]. In the naive tumor, a number of factors have an impact on cellular metabolism, including genetics features and microenvironment, so it is difficult to determine which ones resulted in bimodality. Our data on correlation of bimodality (BI) with clinical characteristics of the tumors show that there are no associations between them. What really matters is the width of the parameter spread in the population. The early-stage tumors (T1, T2) were metabolically more heterogeneous than the late-stage ones (T3, T4). A degree of heterogeneity was also associated with differentiation state, a stage-independent prognostic factor in colorectal cancer where the lower grade correlates with better the prognosis. The early-stage tumors (T1, T2) and high-grade (G3) tumors had significantly higher dispersion of NAD(P)H-a1, compared with the late-stage (T3, T4) and low-grade ones (G1, G2). From the point of view of biological significance of heterogeneity, this means that in stressful and unfavorable conditions, to which the tumor cells are exposed, the spread of the parameter distribution in the population rather than the presence of several distinct clusters (modes) matters for adaptation and survival. The high diversity of cellular metabolic phenotypes provided the survival advantage, and so was observed in more aggressive (undifferentiated or poorly differentiated) and the least advanced tumors.

The discussion has been expanded on this account.

(3) Have you run statistics in Figure 1B? If yes, do you find any significance? The same question also applies to Figures 2C and 3C.

We performed statistical analysis to compare different cell lines in in vitro and in vivo models, the results obtained are presented in Table S4.

(4) Line 119, why is the BI threshold set at 1.1?

When setting the BI threshold at 1.1, we relied on the work by Wang et al, Cancer Informatics, 2009. The authors recommended the 1.1 cutoff as more reliable to select bimodally expressed genes. Further, we validated this BI threshold to identify chemotherapy responsive and non-responsive sub-populations of cancer cells (Shirshin et al. PNAS, 2022)

(5) Line 123, what does the high BI of mean lifetime stand for? Please provide biological implications and insights.

The sentence was removed because inclusion of additional CaCo2 cells (n=146) for quantification NAD(P)H FLIM data showed no bimodality in this cell culture.

(6) In the legend for Figure 2C, the authors mention that "the bimodality index (BI-a1) is shown above each box"; however, I do not see such values. It is also true for Figure 3C.

The legends for Fig. 2 and 3 were corrected.

(7) In Figure 2, t1-t3 were not explained and mentioned in the main text. What do they mean? Do they mean different time points or different tumors?

t1-t3 means different tumors in a group. Changes have been made to the figure - individual tumors are indicated by numbers.

(8) In Figure 3, what do p13, p15 and p16 mean? It is not clearly explained. If they just represent patients numbered 13, 15, and 16, then why are these patients chosen as representatives? Do they represent different stages or are they just chosen randomly?

Figure 3 was revised. Representative images were changed and a short description for each representative sample was included. In the revised version, representatives have been selected to show different stages and grades.

(9) In Figure 3, instead of showing the results for each patient, I would suggest that authors show representative results from tumors at different stages; or, at least, clearly indicate the specific information for each patient. I do not think that providing the patient number only without any patient-specific information is helpful.

Figure 3 was revised.

(10) The sample number (21 patients) is very limited. I wonder how the limited patient number could lead to reliable diagnosis and prognosis.

Additional eight samples were added. The text, figures and tables were revised accordingly.

(11) In Discussion, it would be helpful to compare the BI index used in this study with the previously developed OMI-index (Line 275).

We believe that BI index and OMI index describe different things and, therefore, it is hard to compare them. While BI index is used to describe the degree of the metabolic heterogeneity, OMI index is an integral parameter that includes redox ratio, mean fluorescence lifetimes of NAD(P)H and FAD, and rather indicates the metabolic state of a cell. In this sense it is more relevant to compare it with conventional redox ratio or Fluorescence Lifetime Redox Ratio (FLIRR) (H. Wallrabe et al., Segmented cell analyses to measure redox states of autofluorescent NAD(P)H, FAD & Trp in cancer cells by FLIM, Sci. Rep. 2018; 8: 79). The assessment of the heterogeneity of the FLIM parameters has been previously reported using the weighted heterogeneity (wH) index (Amy T. Shah et al, In Vivo Autofluorescence Imaging of Tumor Heterogeneity in Response to Treatment, Neoplasia 17, pp. 862–870 (2015). To the best of our knowledge, this is the only metric to quantify metabolic heterogeneity on the basis of FLIM data for today. A comparison of BI with the wH-index showed that the value of wH-index provides results similar to BI in the heterogeneity evaluation as demonstrated in our earlier paper (E.A. Shirshin et al, Label-free sensing of cells with fluorescence lifetime imaging: The quest for metabolic heterogeneity, PNAS 119 (9) e2118241119 (2022).  Yet, the BI provides dimensionless estimation on the inherent heterogeneity of a sample, and therefore it can be used to compare heterogeneity assessed by different decay parameters and FLIM data analysis methods. The limitation of using the OMI index for FLIM data analysis is the low intensity of the FAD signal, which was the case in our experiments.

eLife assessment

This study presents a valuable finding on the heterogeneity of tumour metabolism using fluorescence lifetime imaging, measured across 4 cell lines, 4 tumour types of in vivo mouse models, and 29 patient samples. The indication is that the level of heterogeneity of cellular metabolism increases with model complexity and demonstrates high heterogeneity at a clinical level. The evidence supporting the claims of the authors is solid, and at the revision stage, the authors have included additional samples from 8 patients in the data pool, which is helpful for the conclusions that the authors are trying to draw. The work will be of interest to medical biologists developing methods for quantifying metabolic heterogeneity.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this study, Komarova et al. investigate the clinical prognostic ability of cell-level metabolic heterogeneity quantified via the fluorescence lifetime characteristics of NAD(P)H. Fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy (FLIM) has been studied as a minimally invasive approach to measure cellular metabolism in live cell cultures, organoids, and animal models. Its clinical translation is spearheaded though macroscopic implementation approaches that are capable of large sampling areas and enable access to otherwise constrained spaces but lack cellular resolution for a one-to-one transition with traditional microscopy approaches, making the interpretation of the results a complicated task. The merit of this study primarily lies in its design by analyzing with the same instrumentation and approach colorectal samples in different research scenarios, namely in vitro cells, in vivo animal xenografts, and ex vivo tumor tissue from human patients. These conform to a valuable dataset to explore the translational interpretation hurdles with samples of increasing levels of complexity. For human samples, which exhibited the highest degree of heterogeneity from the experiments presented, the study specifically investigates the prediction ability of NAD(P)H fluorescence metrics for the binary classification of tumors of low and advanced stage, with and without metastasis, and low and high grade. They find that NAD(P)H fluorescence properties have a strong potential to distinguish between high- and low-grade tumors and a moderate ability to distinguish advanced stage tumors from low stage tumors. This study provides valuable results contributing to the deployment of minimally invasive optical imaging techniques to quantify tumor properties and potentially migrating into tools for human tumor characterization and clinical diagnosis.

Strengths:

The investigation of colorectal samples under multiple imaging scenarios with the same instrument and approach conforms to a valuable dataset that can facilitate interpretation of results across the spectrum of sample complexity.

The manuscript provides a strong discussion reviewing studies that investigated cellular metabolism with FLIM and the metabolic heterogeneity of colorectal cancer in general.

The authors do a thorough acknowledgement of the experimental limitations of investigating human samples ex vivo, and the analytical limitation of manual segmentation, for which they provide a path forward for higher throughput analysis.

Weaknesses:

NAD(P)H fluorescence provides a partial picture of the cell/tissue metabolic characteristics. Including fluorescence from flavins would comprise a more compelling dataset. These additional data should enable the quantification of redox metrics, which could positively contribute to the prognosis potential of metabolic heterogeneity. The authors did attempt to incorporate flavin fluorescence, unfortunately they could not find strong enough signal to proceed with the analysis.

112-Year-Old Pasadena Office Equipment Firm Acquired by Las Vegas Company – Pasadena Now

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Starting from an unbiased search for somatic mutations (from COSMIC) likely disrupting binding of clinically approved antibodies the authors focus on mutations known to disrupt binding between two ERBB2 mutations and Pertuzamab. They use a combined computational and experimental strategy to nominate position which when mutated could result in restoring the therapeutic activity of the antibody. Using in vitro assays the authors confirm that the engineered antibody binds to the mutant ERBB2 and prevents ERBB3 phosphorylation

Strengths:

(1) In my assessment, the data sufficiently demonstrates that a modified version of Pertuzamab can bind both the wild-type and S310 mutant forms of ERBB2.

(2) The engineering strategy employed is rational and effectively combines computational and experimental techniques.

(3) Given the clinical activity of HER2-targeting ADCs, antibodies unaffected by ERBB2 mutations would be desired

Weaknesses:

(1) There is no data showing that the engineered antibody is equally specific as Pertuzamab i.e. that it does not bind to other (non-ERBB2) proteins.

(2) There is no data showing that the engineered antibody has the desired pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics properties or efficacy in vivo.

(3) Computational approaches are only used to design a phage-screen library, but not used to prioritize mutations that are likely to improve binding (e.g. based on predicted impact on the stability of the interaction). A demonstration how computational pre-screening or lead optimization can improve the time-intensive process would be a welcome advance.

Comments on revised version:

I have nothing to add beyond my first review, because no substantial changes, additional experiments and/or data, have been made to the manuscript.

eLife assessment

In this important manuscript, the authors used unbiased approaches to identify somatic mutations in publicly available databases that would disrupt clinically approved antibodies targeting HER2. Using a solid combination of both computational and experimental approaches they identify mutations that could restore therapeutic antibody sensitivity in a series of disease-relevant model systems. Additional cell-based and in vivo assays would strengthen the work and increase the translational and potential clinical relevance of the proposed work.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Peled et al identified HER2 mutations in connection with resistance to the anti-HER2 antibody Pertuzumab-mediated therapy. After constructing a yeast display library of Pertuzumab variants with 3.86×10^11 sequences for targeted screening of variant combinations in chosen 6 out of 14 residues, the authors performed experimental screening to obtain the clones that bind to HER2 WT and/or mutants (S310Y and S310F), and then combined new variations to obtain antibodies with a broad spectrum binding to both WT and two HER2 mutants. These are interesting studies of clinical impact and translational potential.

Strengths:

(1) Deep computational analyses of large datasets of clinical data provide useful information about HER2 mutations and their potential relevance to antibody therapy resistance.

(2) There is valuable information analyzing the residues within or near the interface between the antigen HER2 and the Pertuzumab antibody (heavy chain).<br /> The experimental antibody library screening obtained 90+ clones from 3.86×10^11 sequences for further functional validation.

Weaknesses:

(1) There is lack of assessment for antibody variant functions in cancer cell phenotypes in vitro (proliferation, cell death, motility) or in vivo (tumor growth and animal survival). The only assay was the western blotting of phosphopho-HER3 in Figure 4. However, HER2 levels and phosphor-HER2 were not analyzed.

(2) There is misleading impression from the title of computational engineering of a therapeutic antibody and the statement in the abstract "we designed a multi-specific version of Pertuzumab that retains original function while also bindings these HER2 variants" for a few reasons:

a. The primary method used for variant antibody identification for HER2 mutant binding is rather traditional experimental screening based on yeast display instead of computational design of a multi-specific version of Pertuzumab.

b. There is insufficient or lack of computational power in the antibody design or prioritization in choosing variant residues for the library construction of 3.86×1011 sequences. It seems random combinations from 6 residues out of 4 groups with 20 amino acid options.<br /> c. The final version of tri-binding variant is a combination of screened antibody clones instead of computation design from scratch.<br /> d. There is incomplete experimental evidence about the therapeutic values of newly obtained antibody clones.

Comments on revised version:

Two major comments remain and have not been well addressed. Comment 1 is expecting any cellular phenotypic analysis if not in vivo. Comment 2 requires some modifications to avoid overstating.

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Strengths:

(1) In my assessment, the data sufficiently demonstrates that a modified version of Pertuzamab can bind both the wild-type and S310 mutant forms of ERBB2.

(2) The engineering strategy employed is rational and effectively combines computational and experimental techniques.

(3) Given the clinical activity of HER2-targeting ADCs, antibodies unaffected by ERBB2 mutations would be desired.

Weaknesses:

(1) There is no data showing that the engineered antibody is equally specific as Pertuzamab i.e. that it does not bind to other (non-ERBB2) proteins.

Showing the specificity of the engineered antibodies is indeed important. We did not address it in the current ms, but it can be tested in the future.

(2) There is no data showing that the engineered antibody has the desired pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics properties or efficacy in vivo.

In this ms we did not conduct in-vivo experiments. When moving forward, pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics properties and efficacy will be tested as well.

(3) Computational approaches are only used to design a phage-screen library, but not used to prioritize mutations that are likely to improve binding (e.g. based on predicted impact on the stability of the interaction). A demonstration of how computational pre-screening or lead optimization can improve the time-intensive process would be a welcome advance.

Thank you for this important comment. In the present ms we indeed used a computational approach for prioritizing residues to be mutated, but we did not prioritize the mutations that are likely to improve binding. In the initial library design, we did prioritize the mutations. However, due to experimental approach limitations with codon’s selection for the library, we had decided to allow all possible residues in each position, knowing that the selection will remove non-binding variants.

Context:

The conflict of interest statement is inadequate. Most authors of the study (but not the first author) are employees of Biolojic, a company developing multi-specific antibodies, but the statements do not clarify whether the presented antibodies represent Biolojic IP, whether the company sponsored the research, and whether the company is further developing the specific antibodies presented.

The Conflict-of-Interest statement will be revised as such: The Biolojic Design authors are employees of Biolojic Design and have stock options in Biolojic Design. The company did not sponsor the research, does not hold IP for the presented antibodies, and is not further developing the presented antibodies.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Strengths:

(1) Deep computational analyses of large datasets of clinical data provide useful information about HER2 mutations and their potential relevance to antibody therapy resistance.

(2) There is valuable information analyzing the residues within or near the interface between the antigen HER2 and the Pertuzumab antibody (heavy chain). The experimental antibody library screening obtained 90+ clones from 3.86×1011 sequences for further functional validation.

Weaknesses:

(1) There is a lack of assessment for antibody variant functions in cancer cell phenotypes in vitro (proliferation, cell death, motility) or in vivo (tumor growth and animal survival). The only assay was the western blotting of phosphopho-HER3 in Figure 4. However, HER2 levels and phosphor-HER2 were not analyzed.

We indeed did not assess the engineered antibodies function in cancer cells. While a complete signaling assessment obviously requires functional assessment as well, due to the complexity of this assay, papers in this field (for example [1-3]) measure the signaling activation following HER2-HER3 dimerization by measuring pHER3, and we relied on them in this ms.

(2) There is a misleading impression from the title of computational engineering of a therapeutic antibody and the statement in the abstract "we designed a multi-specific version of Pertuzumab that retains original function while also bindings these HER2 variants" for a few reasons:

a. The primary method used for variant antibody identification for HER2 mutant binding is rather traditional experimental screening based on yeast display instead of the computational design of a multi-specific version of Pertuzumab.

b. There is insufficient or lack of computational power in the antibody design or prioritization in choosing variant residues for the library construction of 3.86×1011 sequences. It seems random combinations from 6 residues out of 4 groups with 20 amino acid options.

c. The final version of the tri-binding variant is a combination of screened antibody clones instead of computation design from scratch.

d. There is incomplete experimental evidence about the therapeutic values of newly obtained antibody clones.

Thank you for this relevant comment. When addressing relevant residues to be mutated, the number of potential variants is enormous. The computational approach was aimed at identifying the most preferable residues, in which variation can improve binding and is not likely to harm important interactions. Although an initial smaller number of residues could be chosen, we decided to broaden our view and create a larger library, in the aim of combining the computational selection with an experimental selection. This indeed is not a computational design from scratch, but rather an intercourse between the computer and the lab, that yielded the presented results.

(3) Figures can be improved with better labeling and organization. Some essential pieces of data such as Supplementary Figure 1B on HER2 mutations in S310 that abrogated its binding to Pertuzumab should be placed in the main figures.

Thank you for this comment, the relevant figures were moved to the main text, and the labels were revised.

(4) It is recommended to provide a clear rationale or flowchart overview into the main Figure 1. Figure 2A can be combined with Figure 1 to the list of targeted residues.

Figures 1 and 2 were divided differently, and the rationale was moved to the main text.

(5) The quality of Figures such as Figure 2B-C flow data needs to be improved.

High-quality figures were submitted with the revised ms.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for The Authors):

Major:

(1) It should be clarified whether the S310 somatic mutations represent resistance mutations to Pertuzamab (i.e. emerge post-therapy) or are general mutations that activate HER2. This is important because mutations that specifically "evade" the binding of an antibody may be substantially more difficult to overcome than mutations that only by chance occur in the antibody binding site. This concern should be addressed in the introduction and discussion as it changes the interpretation of the data.

This is a very important note. To the best of our knowledge, these mutations were not identified as resistance mutations that emerged post-therapy. However, as mentioned in the introduction, these mutations form hydrophobic interactions that stabilize HER2 dimerization. Moreover, cells expressing these mutations show hyperphosphorylation of HER2 and an increase in the subsequent activation of signaling pathways. Thus, these mutations do not necessarily evade Pertuzumab binding, but benefit cancer growth. This point was clarified in the introduction of the revised text.

(2) While the authors claim that S310 germline pathogenic variants exist, I could not find evidence that this is the case. The dbGAP ID does not provide any evidence (either in the form of a citation or prevalence). The variants do not exist in GnomAD. A recent article discussing pathogenic ERBB2 germline variants only mentions S310 as a somatic variant https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8268839/ and I could not find evidence for S310 being a germline variant in the references provided by the author (https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.3391) - where it is only mentioned as a somatic mutation. I could not find evidence of a cancer predisposition syndrome associated with this variant.

Thank you for highlighting this matter. We had assumed that the presence of the variant in dbSNP means it is also a germline mutations, what may not be correct. However, we did find some evidence of this mutation as germline in ClinVar, and this was edited in the revised ms. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/clinvar/RCV001311879.7.

(3) The authors should consider experiments that show that the modified Pertuzamab has the same mechanism of action as the original Pertuzamab in preventing dimerization of the ERBB2 homodimer and/or interactions with ERBB3. I cannot recommend a specific approach, but at present it is not clear whether the mechanism or just the effect (phosphorylation of ERBB3) is the same.

As mentioned above, for the assessment of HER-HER3 binding and HER3 signaling, in this ms we relied on a previous works [1-3] that also measured the signaling activation following HER2-HER3 dimerization by measuring pHER3.

(4) The authors should perform in vitro experiments to demonstrate that the engineered antibody has similar on-target specificity not only sensitivity. I don't know what the ideal experiments would be, but should probably probe native epitopes. Western blots, immunoprecipitation of cell lysates?

As mentioned above, showing the specificity of the engineered antibodies is indeed important. We did not address it in the current ms, but it can be tested in future work.

Minor:

(1) The introduction should review better the literature on the computational/rational design of antibodies, especially multi-specific - and likely de-emphasize small molecules (and mutations associated with the resistance thereof) as the presented research does not inform the design of mutation-agnostic small molecules.

Thank you for these comments, the introduction was revised accordingly.

(2) The authors should better present the fact that the lack of binding of Pertuzamab to HER2 S310 was previously known, thus the whole strategy of searching COSMIC, and computationally predicting their binding impact was unnecessary. Rather it would be helpful to learn how many other COSMIC hotspots could have a similar effect on other clinical antibodies.

The lack of binding was indeed previously known, as mentioned in the introduction. However, we did not start our analysis targeting HER2 specifically, but we rather found these mutations because they were located in the binding pocket, which enabled our strategy to compensate for these mutations with alteration of the original Pertuzumab. Regarding other potential hotspots, the numbers appeared in Supplementary Table 1, and were moved to the main text.

Stylistic:

(1) Avoid using the term "drug" for an antibody.

The term was changed to “antibody therapeutics” in the revised text.

(2) Avoid repetition in the introduction.

Thank you, we revised the introduction with this comment in mind.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

The quality of Figure 2B-C flow data needs to be improved:

a. The diagonal populations suggest inappropriate color compensation or indicate cells are derived from unhealthy populations.

We believe there may be some confusion here. The figures you are referring to are figures of very diverse library. The selected clones show nice diagonals, as shown in Supplementary Figure 5.

b. Additional round 3 and round 4 did not seem to improve the enrichment of targeted clones but rather had similar binding profiles to each of the three proteins over and over.

Two sets of the fourth round of selection were done, each originated from a different sub-population in round 3: 1. Clones that bind the S310Y mutation 2. Clones that bind the S310F mutation. The aim of the R4 was to examine this binders against the second mutation and canonical HER2 in the search for multi-specificity. Additional clarification of this point will be added to the main text.

c. Figure legends are vague with non-specific descriptions of cells and conditions, and unclear statements of "FACS results...".

The legends were edited in the revised version.

d. Text fonts are in low resolution.

High-quality figures were submitted with the revised ms.

(1) Diwanji, D., et al., Structures of the HER2-HER3-NRG1β complex reveal a dynamic dimer interface. Nature, 2021. 600(7888): p. 339-343.

(2) Yamashita-Kashima, Y., et al., Mode of action of pertuzumab in combination with trastuzumab plus docetaxel therapy in a HER2-positive breast cancer xenograft model. Oncol Lett, 2017. 14(4): p. 4197-4205.

(3) Kang, J.C., et al., Engineering multivalent antibodies to target heregulin-induced HER3 signaling in breast cancer cells. MAbs, 2014. 6(2): p. 340-53.

for - search - google - participatory system mapping and MuSIASEM

search - google - participatory system mapping and MuSIASEM - https://www.google.com/search?q=participatory+system+mapping+and+MuSIASEM&sca_esv=de3e428f524f6eaa&sxsrf=ADLYWIK8vYVFLcmHv4nSxvSg-qEGT2lXQg%3A1722527927661&ei=t7CrZqWBKPqmhbIPl62nkAk&ved=0ahUKEwjluPnJlNSHAxV6U0EAHZfWCZIQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=participatory+system+mapping+and+MuSIASEM&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAaAhgCIilwYXJ0aWNpcGF0b3J5IHN5c3RlbSBtYXBwaW5nIGFuZCBNdVNJQVNFTTIFECEYoAFIoIaJBVAAWMuCiQVwCXgBkAEAmAHdBKABsowBqgEJMy0zNS4xMC4yuAEDyAEA-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-AUYigUYiwPCAhcQLhiABBjwAxixAxiDARioAxiLAxibA8ICFBAuGIAEGLEDGIMBGKgDGIsDGJsDwgIHEAAYAxiLA8ICERAuGIAEGLEDGKgDGIsDGJsDwgINEAAYgAQYsQMYRhj5AcICJxAAGIAEGLEDGEYY-QEYlwUYjAUY3QQYRhj5ARj0Axj1Axj2A9gBAsICCxAAGIAEGIYDGIoFwgIGEAAYFhgewgIIEAAYFhgeGA_CAggQABiABBiiBMICBRAhGJ8FwgIHECEYoAEYCpgDA7oGBggBEAEYAboGBggCEAEYE5IHCzkuMy0zNS4xMS4xoAfflwM&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

search results returned - of interest

I would not focus an entire chapter to one image AI tool. It would be more consistent to have a chapter for image tools where we list and briefly describe all of them.

for - participatory system mapper - system mapping tool - participatory - question -participatory system mapper

question - participatory system mapper -tweak for people centered and Indyweb provenance? - Could we tweak it for Indyweb to simultanously map - people and - their ideas with - provenance

BIOmastodonte

Should we list some resources for blogs, conferences, etc.?

BIOmastodonte

https://mastogizmos.com/wmt.html

https://mastogizmos.com/bmhs.html

I did an excellent LinkedIn Learning course only to generate ChatGBT prompts. Can we list resources like that?

Would be useful to lost which tools can be used to 'generate research ideas', which tools can be used to 'find relevant information', etc...

Are listed prices updated? Do we need to mention the price or just say that there are free and paid subscriptions?

Because the chapters are coming from different sources, there is some repetition, such as ChatGPT and Grammarly. Leave like that or not?

Current free version is ChatGBT 4o

Update to 2024?

For coding, should mention: GitHub Copilot and Debuild

Other writing tools that could be mentioned and/or included: Copy.ai, Andi, Twain, Compose AI, etc.

Current free version is ChatGBT 4o

Should be updated to Summer 2024, and add additional tools on the list accordingly.

for - participatory system mapping - tool

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

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

We would like to see the major conclusions constrained to better fit the data presented in the manuscript. Speed is only a single performance metric of a very complicated, very diverse system of locomotion.

If the authors would like to maintain the broader conclusions, the study should be repeated with a number of different performance metrics to shore up the manuscript's results. Particularly with efficiency, speed is not a reliable measure of efficiency to begin with, so this needs to be explored in a more targeted and appropriate manner.

We agree with Reviewer 1 that we should be more precise about the fitness metrics used and more constrained about the conclusions. Considering the points raised in each paragraph, we’ve modified the text as follows:

- [line 17] “... to test the necessity of both traits for sustained and effective displacement on the ground.”

- [starting on line 105] “We generate the robot’s sample using an artificial evolutionary process that selects for better locomotion ability - defined as higher average speed as it is a proxy for organisms with sustained and effective displacement.”

- [starting on line 287] “We also found that different gravitational environments require different shape structures to optimize locomotion average speed.”

- [starting on line 311] “This consistency is evidence that a small number of sparsely connected modules is a morphological computation principle for an organism’s optimized average speed.”

- [starting on line 348] “Beyond that, extending the tests for other important aspects of locomotion behavior - as noise on the ground, energetic costs, and maneuverability - by using other locomotion metrics - as energy efficiency, stability margin, and dissipated power (Paez and Melo, 2014; Aoi et al., 2016 ) - would also be relevant to evaluate the principle’s robustness.”

- [starting on line 524] “As the robots with the highest average speed are the ones that succeed in maximizing displacement and having robust dynamics (they will not tumble with time), we defined $\bar s$ as the fitness value using it as a proxy of successful directed locomotion. Selecting for bodies that maximize speed is a common locomotion bias in natural selection, as both predators and prey and thus fecundity and mortality depend on it (Alexander, 2006). Other measures - such as energy efficiency - can capture distinct important aspects of the locomotion complexity (Paez and Melo, 2014) and would be worthy of investigating in future work.”

Paper Premise/Mission Statement: As defined in the abstract and also called out in the text starting on line 59 is "investigate whether symmetry and modularity are features of an organism's shape need [authors italics] to have for better-directed locomotion..."

If we understood correctly the reviewer is asking for more precision in the statement. We modified the respective sentence in the following way:

- [line 62] “... need to have for optimizing average speed on the ground,”

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

i) a lot of details that are in the captions should be moved in the main text;

Thank you for this comment. We reviewed all the captions and text making modifications to ensure that all the information in the captions is also present in the main text. Below, we highlighted some of the changes:

- [line 57] “Thus, locomotion on the ground is present in phylogenetically distant species (such as the maned wolf and frogfish in Figure 1A) and depends upon … “

- [starting on line 64] “Figure 1B shows a schematic representation of symmetry and modularity on the maned wolf and frogfish bodies.”

- [starting on line 277] “There is a negative correlation between the proportion of feet voxels and the robot’s locomotion transference capability when the robots go to an environment with higher gravity, i.e., water to mars (dark blue in Figure 5C), water to earth (light blue), and mars to earth (red) - with a Spearman correlation coefficients of r = -0.39, r = -0.43, and r = -0.32, respectively, all with p < 1e-08.”

ii) hypotheses should be spelled out more clearly;

We verified the experiments and certified that every experiment had a clear hypothesis statement in the original manuscript. Before each section defining the hypothesis and describing the experiment, we added the following statement:

- [starting on line 119] “ With this sample, we tested the hypotheses about the relationships between locomotion performance and body modularity and symmetry (Figure 1I).”

iii) performance metrics and other features should be better defined using mathematical terms if possible (for example, instability);

Thank you for the comment. We added a definition for instability in the text:

- [starting on line 218] “Nonetheless, locomotion requires a minimum instability - the dynamic possibility of translating the center of mass - in the direction axis to generate the necessary forward displacement (Bruijn et al., 2013; Nagarkar et al., 2021).”

Despite the different definitions of instability in literature (Bruijn et al., 2013, Paez and Melo, 2014; Aoi et al., 2016, Nagarkar et al., 2021), we didn’t find one mathematical definition that fits perfectly in our context.

Following the reviewer's comment, when necessary we expanded the definition for other features:

- [starting on line 199] “... the distribution of body weight. As the robots do not have sensory feedback abilities, the weight balance is defined as the body’s movement due to gravity forces (consequences of the weight distribution and surface contact points) (Benda et al., 1994). We hypothesized that the robots with the best directed locomotion ability would tend to have a symmetric body shape. A robot with a low XY shape symmetry (XY shape symmetry < 0.5) has a higher chance of having a poor weight balance, increasing the chance of the body tipping over, thus leading it to a lousy locomotion performance (blue dotted line in Figure 3C). “

iv)  more details regarding the simulations should be included;

We thank the reviewer for this comment. If we understood correctly the Reviewer 2 is asking for more details regarding: “a) the adequacy of the spatial resolution, whereby I failed to see a compelling argument regarding the completeness of 64 voxels; b) the realism of the oscillatory patterns, whereby all the voxels are set to oscillate at the same, constant, frequency of 2Hz; and c) the accuracy of simulations in water where added mass effects seem to be neglected.”. We modified the text to better satisfy these concern:

a) [starting on line 96] “We choose to first explore exhaustively the $4^3$ space dimension, as it is the minimal possible space that allows meaningful body plans. We also did control experiments within 6^3 and 8^3 to check for dimension size effects.”

- [starting on line 432] “We did control experiments with robots within 6³ and 8³ dimensions to check for dimension size effects - and we found that the results found in 4³ remained valid. We choose to focus our analysis in the 4³ design space because we consider it the minimum coarse-grain to approach the biological question about the contingency of shape outcomes pressured for locomotion. Smaller spaces do not allow sufficient complexity in the body structures, and increasing spatial resolution reduces the extensiveness of the investigated search space.”

b) [starting on line 451] “… we used a fixed oscillation frequency of 𝑓 = 2 Hz (Kriegman et al.,2020). A fixed frequency value reduces the number of degrees of freedom in the search for solutions, but in return, it narrows the direct connection between the simulated organisms and animals. Exploring different frequency values in future work would be important to investigate the impact of varied oscillatory frequencies in the shape solutions for directed locomotion.”

c) The environment we call “water” is not an accurate modeling of aquatic habitats as we didn’t simulate essential forces such as draff effects. This choice is explained in text starting on line 110: “In the water-like environment the bodies have nullifying body weight but do not have drag effects. We did not add drag in our simulations because our aim is to study just the body weight influences in locomotion independently of other forces.”

v) a full paragraph about limitations should be included in the discussions, focusing on both simulation aspects (for example, the use of simple spring elements in the voxels) and theoretical assumptions (for example, addressing the potential role of non-locomotion-related aspects).

We thank the reviewer for the comment. We edited some paragraphs of the discussion section to make more explicit some limitations of our work:

[starting on line 398] “We expect that including other important aspects of an animal's body as a developmental process and sensory functions could influence the shape's outcomes with other layers of principles. Although we based our simulations on an already successful transference of \textit{in silico} behavior to organisms made of biological tissue

\citep{kriegman_scalable_2020}, there is an intrinsic gap between spring-mass robots modeling and animal’s bodies that is worthy of exploring to ensure the generality of our results. Other methods, such as the inclusion of rigid body elements in the simulation (possible in Voxelyze), the use of finite element modeling (FEM) (Coevoet et al., 2019), and the construction of physical robots (Aguilar et al., 2016), are important complements to this work. Beyond that, principles on other scales as in the genotypes (Johnston et al., 2022) and in other behavioral phenotypes (Gomez-Marin et al., 2016) could also be investigated.”

To address the potential role of non-locomotion-related aspects, we revised the section

“Discussion - Contingency of evolutionary outcomes” where we discussed other functional and biological roles:

[starting on line 354 ] “Here we investigate how a specific functional cause - optimization of average speed during directed locomotion on the ground - externally defines the phenotypic space of shape possibilities.”

[starting on line 359] “For simplification purposes, we choose to not explicitly control other important factors of locomotion (i.e., energy consumption, maneuverability) that nonlinearly interact during locomotion. In future studies, it would be important to conduct similar studies on a wider range of factors to study the shape and dynamic principles in different conditions.“

eLife assessment

This study provides an important, original framework to study locomotion on the ground with physics-based simulations. Through numerical simulations, the authors propose that intermediate numbers of body modules and high body symmetry enhance speed. The current way discussions and conclusions are written is overly broad: evidence that evolution may favour bilateral symmetry and modularity for efficient directed locomotion is still incomplete as further performance metrics and a more accurate description of the dynamics in water are needed.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The manuscript presents a framework for studying biomechanical principles and their links to morphology and provides interesting insights into a particular question regarding terrestrial locomotion and speed. The goal of the paper is to derive general principals of directed terrestrial locomotion, speed, and symmetry.

Major strengths:

The manuscript is a unique and creative work that explores performance spaces of a complicated question through computational modeling. Overall, the paper is well written and well crafted and was a pleasure to read.

The methods presented here (variable agents used to represent ultra-simplified body configurations that are not inherently constrained) are interesting and there's significant potential in them for a properly constrained question. For the data that is present here their hypotheses (while they can be anticipated from first principles) are very well validated and serve as a robust validation of these expectations and can help.

Of particular interest was the discussion of the transferability of morphologies designed under one system and moving to another. From a deep-time perspective, of particular interest is the transition from subaqueous to terrestrial locomotion which we know was a major earth life transition. The results of this study show that the best suited morphologies for subaqueous movement are ill-suited (from a locomotor speed standpoint at least) to fully terrestrial locomotion which begs the questions on if there are a suite of forms that have balanced performance in both and how that would differ from aquatic morphologies.

Major weaknesses:

(1) There is a major disagreement between target and parameters.

From a biomechanics perspective the target of this study, Directed Locomotion, is a fairly broad behavioral mode. However, what the authors are ultimately evaluating their model organisms on is a single performance parameter (speed, or distance traveled after 30s). Statements such as "bilateral symmetry showed to be a law-like pattern in animal evolution for efficient directed locomotion purposes" (p 12 line 365-366) are problematic for this reason.

Attaining the highest possible speed is a relevant but limited subset of ways one might interpret performance for directed locomotion. Efficiency, power generation, and limb loading/strain are equally relevant components.

The focus on speed coupled with selection for only the highest performing morphologies, rather than setting a minimum performance threshold fundamentally restricts the dynamics of the system in a way that is not representative of their specified target and pulls the simulations toward a specific, anticipatable, result.

Locomotor efficiency is alluded to later in the manuscript as one of the observed outcomes, but speed is not equivalent to locomotor efficiency (in much the same way that it is not the sole metric for describing performance with respect to directed locomotion). Energy/work/power have not been accounted for in the manuscript so this is not a parameter this study weighs in on.

The data and analyses the others present do show an interesting validation of these methods in assessing first order questions relating the shape of a single performance surface to a theoretical morphology, which has significant potential value.

(2) There is significant population and/or sample size and biasing.

Thirty simulations of a population of 101 morphologies seems small for a study of this kind, particularly looking to investigate such a broad question at an abstract level. Particularly when the top 50% of morphologies are chosen to mutate. It would be very easy for artificial biases to rapidly propagate through this system depending on the parameters bounding the formation of the initial generation.

This strong selection choosing the best 50 morphologies and mutating them enforces an aggressive effect that simulates and even more potent phylogenetic inertia than one might anticipate for an actual evolutionary history (it's no surprise then that all of the simulations were able to successfully retrieve a suite of morphotypes that recovered the performance peak for this system within 1500 generations)

Similarly, why is it that a 4^3 voxel limit was chosen? One can imagine that an increase in this voxel limit would allow for the development of more extreme geometries, which might be successful. It is likely that there might be computational resource constraints involved in this, it would be useful for the authors to add additional context here.

Review of resubmission:

I appreciate the clarification of points dealing with the details of computational modeling and methods and clarifications throughout the text.

However, the authors have failed to address the major weaknesses that were previously identified, specifically regarding the broader conclusions of the work, that either 1) the authors need to use an additional metric besides average speed, or 2) the conclusions need to be significantly reigned in to reflect the very narrow nature of the work.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This work makes substantial progress towards understanding physical aspects of formation locomotion, notably the hydrodynamic stability of groups of flappers and the modifications to energy costs associated with flow interactions.

Major strengths pertain to the fact that this topic is timely, interesting and complex, and the authors have advanced the understanding through their characterizations.

The weaknesses may relate to the many idealizations employed in the simulations and models, which may raise questions about how to interpret their results and whether the outcomes hold generally. But given the complexity of the problem, simplifications are necessary. The authors have certainly provided a clear presentation with appropriate details and caveats that will help the reader extract the main messages and form their own conclusions.

Overall, the work is a positive addition to the growing set of studies into schooling, flocking and related problems where unsteady flow interactions lead to interesting collective effects.

Marcus said that the Toledo Hem Sealer application is impressive and would be good website content

chinesen lachen sich kaputt über hirntote deutsche

reply to u/IamOkei at https://new.reddit.com/r/Zettelkasten/comments/1eg8jhe/how_different_is_bob_dotos_a_system_for_writing/?%24deep_link=true&correlation_id=f06f9a20-472b-4d1d-9820-65a28e4efb04&post_fullname=t3_1eg8jhe&post_index=0&ref=email_digest&ref_campaign=email_digest&ref_source=email&utm_content=post_title&%243p=e_as&utm_medium=Email%20Amazon%20SES

Doto's book is far more focused, well-written, and actually edited. Scheper's less well written and in need of heavy editing. Save yourself the extra 400 pages and spend that time practicing the craft instead.

If you were starting from scratch without any knowledge of the area, I would highly recommend Doto's work, possibly mention Ahrens in passing, and not suffer anyone to mention Scheper's book. If you're an academic, I would recommend Umberto Eco or perhaps if a historian, one of the many books on historical method like Barzun, Gottschalk, or Goutor.

As background, both Scheper and Doto sent me pre-publication drafts of their work-in-progress to read. I've also read the majority of other books, papers, articles, and works in the space over the past 150+ years including nearly 100% of the references footnoted the two texts referenced. See also: https://boffosocko.com/research/zettelkasten-commonplace-books-and-note-taking-collection/

ernst wolff for president ...<br /> aber ernsthaft, was würde ernst wolff machen wenn er alle freiheiten hätte?<br /> was würde er machen gegen übervölkerung, rohstoffmangel, degeneration?

Decirlo de manera más clara.

Decirlo con palabras más llanas y claras.

Aclarar o quitar

con mayor calidad del dato

Para garantizar que las conclusiones sean sólidas, compararemos ~~en profundidad~~ las herramientas.

Borrar.

Este ya no es nuestro objetivo. Sino el de analizar la calidad de los microdatos extraídos.

When I clicked on "introduction" in the A16 unit book, it jumps to MZ Sitewide, and users need to use the backwards button to return to A16. This is consistent with the way in which other pages are open and users may get lost. I suggest to keep it consistent, i.e., open link in tab.

Delete one period

This commentary and the testing referenced is Yesco's justification for calculating and applying Case B wind load with much less eccentricity than Figure 29.3-1 requires.

Yesco has suggested that because the force coefficients were divided by 0.85 (normal gust factor), when determining the pressure for flexible signs with frequency less than 1 Hz, we should multiply by 0.85.

Citizens, not users.

I like that. I've been grasping for a generic alternative to 'user' that is less generic than 'person' and this hits a sweet spot.

4:00 "gewaltfantasien laut aussprechen ist eine straftat"<br /> nein, zu sagen "ich werde den scheiss habek wegballern" ist KEINE straftat.<br /> deutsche sind nur zu blöd für redefreiheit... hirntotes scheissvolk >: (

In this section, it is unclear what it mean by "markers" and "control points." Since the grammar is in progress, it is probably a good idea to explain briefly here.

Change this

Hello

In this section, it is unclear what the lines and arrows on the maps mean. I suppose it will be explained in the Grammar, but since it is in progress, it might be good idea to briefly explain it here.

The combi-steamer checks the temperature value of temperature sensor B1 every second (in all modes). If the temperature is below 350°C [662°F], the combi-steamer is fully functional.

If the temperature rises above 350 degrees Service 28.2 shows and the oven has no function.

To protect the unit from damage due to overtemperature, the unit cannot be operated again until the temperature sensor B1 has cooled below 350°C [662°F]

Thermocouple B1 also controls steam production for steam requirements up to local boiling point by monitoring the cooking cabinet temperature up to steam saturation point.

(Steam saturation point is when all internal cabinet metalwork (including B1) reaches the local boiling point temperature).

Upon reaching steam saturation point B1 causes the processor to switch off steam heating.

When product is placed in the oven the cabinet temperature reduces and steam production starts once again until the product, cabinet metalwork and B1 reaches steam saturation point..

The ICP Core probe has 6 separate thermocouples, five in the stem and one in the handle.

The probe when used in a process should be completely embedded in the product to be cooked, such that the 5 thermocouples in the stem are recording a temperature inside the product .

The processor calulates the average temperature of the 5 thermocouples and uses this value in order to aciieve an accurate core temperature.

The handle of the Core probe should be pushed against the body of the product to be cooked as the thermocuople situated in the handle is used in the process for product browning and therefore should be in contact with the product surface.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This was a well-executed and well-written paper. The authors have provided important new datasets that expand on previous investigations substantially. The discovery that changes in diet are not so closely correlated with the presence of alkaloids (based on the expanded sampling of non-defended species) is important, in my opinion.

Strengths:

Provision of several new expanded datasets using cutting edge technology and sampling a wide range of species that had not been sampled previously. A conceptually important paper that provides evidence for the importance of intermediate stages in the evolution of chemical defense and aposematism.

Weaknesses:

There were some aspects of the paper that I thought could be revised. One thing I was struck by is the lack of discussion of the potentially negative effects of toxin accumulation, and how this might play out in terms of different levels of toxicity in different species. Further, are there aspects of ecology or evolutionary history that might make some species less vulnerable to the accumulation of toxins than others? This could be another factor that strongly influences the ultimate trajectory of a species in terms of being well-defended. I think the authors did a good job in terms of describing mechanistic factors that could affect toxicity (e.g. potential molecular mechanisms) but did not make much of an attempt to describe potential ecological factors that could impact trajectories of the evolution of toxicity. This may have been done on purpose (to avoid being too speculative), but I think it would be worth some consideration.

In the discussion, the authors make the claim that poison frogs don't (seem to) suffer from eating alkaloids. I don't think this claim has been properly tested (the cited references don't adequately address it). To do so would require an experimental approach, ideally obtained data on both lifespan and lifetime reproductive success.

eLife assessment

This important study sheds light on how poison frogs gain their toxins, with surprising new data on low levels of toxins in previously non-toxic frogs. The authors propose a new theory for evolution of toxicity based on convincing evidence, but the manuscript needs restructuring to be clearer. While the manuscript will benefit from improved presentation, this research has the potential to greatly impact our understanding of animal defense mechanisms.

...

...

The goal is to build an autoencoder that learns a common representation of a single object when given multiple perspectives during training.

"Correlational neural networks" - looking at learning from multiple perspectives of the same thing to increase representation learning.

@article{chandar2016neuralcompjour, author = {Chandar, Sarath and Khapra, Mitesh M and Larochelle, Hugo and Ravindran, Balaraman}, date-added = {2024-08-01 10:47:30 -0400}, date-modified = {2024-08-01 10:50:01 -0400}, journal = {Neural Computation}, keywords = {correlation-learning, machine-learning, inductive-bias, autoencoders}, number = {2}, pages = {257--285}, pdf = {https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Balaraman-Ravindran/publication/275588055_Correlational_Neural_Networks/links/55ed84d308ae21d099c75c00/Correlational-Neural-Networks.pdf}, publisher = {MIT Press}, title = {Correlational neural networks}, venue-short = {NeuralCompJour}, volume = {28}, year = {2016}}

cool

https://youtu.be/RxHilNaLy_s

https://youtu.be/RxHilNaLy_s

salam men notam necesen Sema

https://youtu.be/RxHilNaLy_s

https://youtu.be/RxHilNaLy_s

https://youtu.be/RxHilNaLy_s

Это видео о том, что в словакий, во первых много цыган, у них есть свой поселение, которых безумно сильно остают от всего мира: 1. электричества, света 2. дома сделаны в ручную, некоторые без крыш как в Африке, или в видео про Сеул. во вторых, правительство Словакий очень помогает им с условиями жизни. строит дома, или проводит электричество.

в этом видео Леша посещяет одно из таких населений Цыган, которое считается самым современным, в этом месте просто куча детей. условно у каждого человека есть, как минимум, 5 братьев и сестер.

оно такое цивильное, потому в этом поселений когда-то родился будущий управляшющий этого района. именно он сделал его ухоженным, практический без мусора и относительно приятным для проживания. хотя до этого было просто тьма мусора по всему району

он в детстве видел, как всё плохо. закончил вуз и получил диплом и стал дипломатом ради того, чтоб сделать жизнь людей в месте, где он родился лучше

for - system mapping software

system mapping software - ask @gyuri

for - participatory system maps - subjective - perspectival knowing

dfdf

eLife assessment

This valuable study examines whether the BMP signaling pathway has a role in H3.3K27M DMG tumors, regardless of the presence of ACRVR1 activating mutations. The authors provide solid evidence that BMP2/7 synergizes with H3.3K27M to induce a transcriptomic rewiring associated with a quiescent but invasive cell state. Although this work could be further enhanced by the inclusion of additional models, the study overall points to BMP2/7 as a potential target for future therapies in this deadly cancer.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Mutational analysis of diffuse midline glioma (DMG) found that ACVR1 mutations, which up-regulate BMP signaling pathway are found in most H3.1K27M, but not H3.3K27M DMG cases. In this manuscript, Huchede et al attempted to determine whether the BMP signaling pathway has any role in H3.3K27M DMG tumors. They found that the BMP signaling is activated to a similar level in H3.3K27M DMG cells with wild type ACVR1 compared to ACVR1 DMG cells, likely due to the expression of BMP7 or BMP2. They went on to test whether cells treated with BMP7 or BMP2 treatments affected the gene expression and cell fitness of tumor cells with H3.3K27M mutation. They concluded that BMP2/7 synergizes with H3.3K27M to induce a transcriptomic rewiring associated with a quiescent but invasive cell state. The major issue for this conclusion is that the authors did not use the right models/controls to obtain results to support this conclusion as detailed below. Therefore, in order to strengthen the conclusion, the authors need to address the major concerns below.

Strength:<br /> Address an important question in DMG field.

Major concerns/weakness:<br /> (1) All the results in Fig. 2 utilized two glioma lines SF188 and Res259. The authors should repeat all these experiments in a couple of H3.3K27M DMG lines by deleting H3.3K27M mutation first.<br /> (2) Fig. 3. The experiments of BMP2 treatment should be repeated in another H3.3K27M DMG line using H3.1K27M ACVR1 mutant tumor lines as controls.

Minor concerns<br /> Fig.2A. BMP2 expression increased in H3.3K27M SF188 cells. Therefore, the statement "whereas BMP2 and BMP4 expressions are not significantly modified (Figure 2A and Figure 2-figure supplement A-B)"is not accurate

Comments on revised version:

I had three issues listed above on the initial version. The authors did not address my major concerns of #1 and #2, which are re-listed above.

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1

Summary:

Mutational analysis of diffuse midline glioma (DMG) found that ACVR1 mutations, which up-regulate the BMP signaling pathway are found in most H3.1K27M, but not H3.3K27M DMG cases. In this manuscript, Huchede et al attempted to determine whether the BMP signaling pathway has any role in H3.3K27M DMG tumors. They found that the BMP signaling is activated to a similar level in H3.3K27M DMG cells with wild-type ACVR1 compared to ACVR1 DMG cells, likely due to the expression of BMP7 or BMP2. They went on to test whether cells treated with BMP7 or BMP2 treatments affected the gene expression and cell fitness of tumor cells with H3.3K27M mutation. They concluded that BMP2/7 synergizes with H3.3K27M to induce a transcriptomic rewiring associated with a quiescent but invasive cell state. The major issue for this conclusion is that the authors did not use the right models/controls to obtain results to support this conclusion as detailed below. Therefore, in order to strengthen the conclusion, the authors need to address the major concerns below.

Strength:

This paper addresses an important question in the DMG field.

Major concerns/weakness:

(1) All the results in Fig. 2 utilized two glioma lines SF188 and Res259. The authors should repeat all these experiments in a couple of H3.3K27M DMG lines by deleting the H3.3K27M mutation first.

We thank the referee for his/her comments that have helped us to strengthen our conclusions. Although we were rather interested in studying how the BMP pathway can participate in installing a particular cell state at the time of expression of the K27M mutation, we have now included the characterization of the native H3.3K27M BT245 and SU-DIPGXIII cell lines, and their counterparts in which the mutation was reverted by CRISPRCas9 (Harutyunyan et al., 2019). As shown in Figure 3-figure supplement D, the growth arrest induced by BMP2 seems indeed to be specific of the K27M epigenetic context, which could also be required to settle a positive regulation loop to activate the BMP pathway, as mentioned in the Discussion.

(2) Fig. 3. The experiments of BMP2 treatment should be repeated in other H3.3K27M DMG lines using H3.1K27M ACVR1 mutant tumor lines as controls.

The use of mutant ACVR1 lines is interesting, but their control status seems questionable, as the addition of BMPs could have a cumulative effect on the effect of the mutation, notably by activating other receptors in the pathway. But we have now included 3 different cell lines (HSJD-DIPG-014, BT245 and SU-DIPGXIII), and observed similar impact of BMP2 with growth arrest as a readout (Figure 3-figure supplement C-D)

Minor concerns

Fig.2A. BMP2 expression increased in H3.3K27M SF188 cells. Therefore, the statement "whereas BMP2 and BMP4 expressions are not significantly modified (Figure 2A and Figure 2-figure supplement A-B)" is not accurate.

The referee is absolutely right, and we have corrected this statement.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The manuscript by Huchede et al investigates the BMP pathway in H3K27M-mutant gliomas carrying or not activating mutations in ALK2 (ACVR1). Their results in cell lines and in datasets acquired from the literature on patient tumors indicate that the BMP signaling pathway is activated at similar levels between ACVR1 wild-type and mutant tumors. The group further identifies BMP2 and BMP7 as possibly the main activators of the pathway in cells. They then show that BMP2 and 7 crosstalk with the H3 mutation and synergize to induce transcriptomic rewiring leading to an invasive cell state.

The paper is well-written and easy to follow with a robust experimental plan and datasets supporting the claims. While previous work (acknowledged by the authors) indicated activation of BMP in H3K27M tumors, wild type for the ACVR1 mutation this paper is a nice addition and provides further mechanistic cues as to the importance of the BMP pathway and specific members in these deadly brain cancers. The effect of these BMPs in quiescence and invasion is of particular interest.

We thank the referee for his/her supportive comments.

A few suggestions to clarify the message are provided below 1- In thalamic diffuse midline gliomas, the BMP pathway should not be activated as it is in the pons. The authors should identify thalamic tumors in the datasets they explored and patients-derived cell lines from thalamic tumors available to investigate whether this pathway is active across all H3.3K27M mutants in the brain midline or specifically in tumors from the pons.

The inter-patient variability observed in the level of activation of the BMP pathway may indeed be due, at least in part, to different tumor locations. However, we failed to find this information in the publicly available datasets that we used. We however included this element in the Discussion part.

(2) There are ~20% H3.3K27M tumors that carry an ACVR1 mutation and similar numbers of H3.1K27M that are wild type for this gene. Can the authors identify these outliers in their datasets and assess the activation of BMP2 and 7 or other BMP pathway members in this context?

We have now included the outliers present in our datasets in the legends of Figure 1B and Figure 1-figure supplement B and F. From the few samples available to document these outliers in the cohorts that we used, we have not observed major differences regarding the expression levels of BMP2/7 or BMP pathway members and have discussed the fact that it may result from the establishment in all cases of a feedback loop of activation.

In all this is an interesting paper that provides meaningful data to pursue clinical targeting of the BMP pathway, which would be a nice addition to the field.

We thank the reviewer for his/her supportive comments.

Gemini for Chrom

eLife assessment

This important study extends existing sequentially Markovian coalescent approaches to include the combined use of SNPs and hypervariable loci such as epimutations. This is an intriguing addition to infer population size history in the recent past, and the authors provide solid validation of their methods via simulation and analysis of empirical data in Arabidopsis thaliana. Given the increasing availability of such data, this work is a timely contribution and represents a foundation for further developments to explore when and where these methods will be best used.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors developed an extension to the pairwise sequentially Markov coalescent model that allows to simultaneously analyze multiple types of polymorphism data. In this paper, they focus on SNPs and DNA methylation data. Since methylation markers mutate at a much faster rate than SNPs, this potentially gives the method better power to infer size history in the recent past. Additionally, they explored a model where there are both local and regional epimutational processes.

Integrating additional types of heritable markers into SMC is a nice idea which I like in principle. However, a major caveat to this approach seems to be a strong dependence on knowing the epimutation rate. In Fig. 6 it is seen that, when the epimutation rate is known, inferences do indeed look better; but this is not necessarily true when the rate is not known. (See also major comment #1 below about the interpretation of these plots.) A roughly similar pattern emerges in Supp. Figs. 4-7; in general, results when the rates have to be estimated don't seem that much better than when focusing on SNPs alone. This carries over to the real data analysis too: the interpretation in Fig. 7 appears to hinge on whether the rates are known or estimated, and the estimated rates differ by a large amount from earlier published ones.

Overall, this is an interesting research direction, and I think the method may hold more promise as we get more and better epigenetic data, and in particular better knowledge of the epigenetic mutational process.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

A limitation in using SNPs to understand recent histories of genomes is their low mutation frequency. Tellier et al. explore the possibility of adding hypermutable markers to SNP based methods for better resolution over short time frames. In particular, they hypothesize that epimutations (CG methylation and demethylation) could provide a useful marker for this purpose. Individual CGs in Arabidopsis tends to be either close to 100% methylated or close to 0%, and are inherited stably enough across generations that they can be treated as genetic markers. Small regions containing multiple CGs can also be treated as genetic markers based on their cumulative methylation level. In this manuscript, Tellier et al develop computational methods to use CG methylation as a hypermutable genetic marker and test them on theoretical and real data sets. They do this both for individual CGs and small regions. My review is limited to the simple question of whether using CG methylation for this purpose makes sense at a conceptual level, not at the level of evaluating specific details of the methods. I have a small concern in that it is not clear that CG methylation measurements are nearly as binary in other plants and other eukaryotes as they are in Arabidopsis. However, I see no reason why the concept of this work is not conceptually sound. Especially in the future as new sequencing technologies provide both base calling and methylating calling capabilities, using CG methylation in addition to SNPs could become a useful and feasible tool for population genetics in situations where SNPs are insufficient.

Author response:

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors developed an extension to the pairwise sequentially Markov coalescent model that allows to simultaneously analyze multiple types of polymorphism data. In this paper, they focus on SNPs and DNA methylation data. Since methylation markers mutate at a much faster rate than SNPs, this potentially gives the method better power to infer size history in the recent past. Additionally, they explored a model where there are both local and regional epimutational processes. Integrating additional types of heritable markers into SMC is a nice idea which I like in principle. However, a major caveat to this approach seems to be a strong dependence on knowing the epimutation rate. In Fig. 6 it is seen that, when the epimutation rate is known, inferences do indeed look better; but this is not necessarily true when the rate is not known. (See also major comment #1 below about the interpretation of these plots.) A roughly similar pattern emerges in Supp. Figs. 4-7; in general, results when the rates have to be estimated don't seem that much better than when focusing on SNPs alone. This carries over to the real data analysis too: the interpretation in Fig. 7 appears to hinge on whether the rates are known or estimated, and the estimated rates differ by a large amount from earlier published ones.

Overall, this is an interesting research direction, and I think the method may hold more promise as we get more and better epigenetic data, and in particular better knowledge of the epigenetic mutational process. At the same time, I would be careful about placing too much emphasis on new findings that emerge solely by switching to SNP+SMP analysis.

Major comments:

- For all of the simulated demographic inference results, only plots are presented. This allows for qualitative but not quantitative comparisons to be made across different methods. It is not easy to tell which result is actually better. For example, in Supp. Fig. 5, eSMC2 seems slightly better in the ancient past, and times the trough more effectively, while SMCm seems a bit better in the very recent past. For a more rigorous approach, it would be useful to have accompanying tables that measure e.g. mean-squared error (along with confidence intervals) for each of the different scenarios, similar to what is already done in Tables 1 and 2 for estimating $r$.

We believe this comment was addressed in the previous revision (Sup Table 6-10) by adding Root Mean Square Errors for the demographic estimates (and RMSE for recent versus past portions of the demography). 

- 434: The discussion downplays the really odd result that inputting the true value of the mutation rate, in some cases, produces much worse estimates than when they are learned from data (SFig. 6)! I can't think of any reason why this should happen other than some sort of mathematical error or software bug. I strongly encourage the authors to pin down the cause of this puzzling behaviour. (Comment addressed in revision. Still, I find the explanation added at 449ff to be somewhat puzzling -- shouldn't the results of the regional HMM scan only improve if the true mutation rate is given?)

We do understand that our results and explanation can appear counter-intuitive. As acknowledged by the reviewer, in the previous round of revision we have at length clarified this puzzling behaviour by the discrepancy in assessing methylation regions using the HMM method which then differs from the HMM for the SMC inference. We are happy to clarify further in response to the new question of reviewer 1:

If the Reviewer #1 means the SNP mutations (e.g. A → T), knowing the true mutation rate does not help the HMM to recover the region level methylation status. 

If the Reviewer #1 means the epimutations (whether it is the region, site or both), knowing the true epimutations rates could theoretically help the HMM to recover the region level methylation status. However, at present, our method does not leverage information from epimutation rates to infer the region level methylation status. As inferring the epimutations rates is one of the goals of this study in the SMC inference, and that region level methylation status is required to infer those rates, we suspect that using epimutations rates to infer the region level methylation status could be statistically inappropriate (generating some kind of circular estimations). Instead, our HMM uses only the proportion of methylated and unmethylated sites (estimated from the genome) to determine whether or not a region status is most-likely to be methylated or unmethylated. We now explicit this fact in the HMM for methylation region in the method section.

We acknowledge that our HMM to infer region level methylation status could be improved, but this would be a complete project and study on its own (due to the underlying complexity of the finite site and the lack of a consensus model for epimutations at evolutionary time scale). We believe our HMM to have been the best compromise with what was known from methylation and our goals when the study was conducted, and future work is definitely worth conducting on the estimation of the methylation regions.

- As noted at 580, all of the added power from integrating SMPs/DMRs should come from improved estimation of recent TMRCAs. So, another way to study how much improvement there is would be to look at the true vs. estimated/posterior TMRCAs. Although I agree that demographic inference is ultimately the most relevant task, comparing TMRCA inference would eliminate other sources of differences between the methods (different optimization schemes, algorithmic/numerical quirks, and so forth). This could be a useful addition, and may also give you more insight into why the augmented SMC methods do worse in some cases. (Comment addressed in revision via Supp. Table 7.).

- A general remark on the derivations in Section 2 of the supplement: I checked these formulas as best I could. But a cleaner, less tedious way of calculating these probabilities would be to express the mutation processes as continuous time Markov chains. Then all that is needed is to specify the rate matrices; computing the emission probabilities needed for the SMC methods reduces to manipulating the results of some matrix exponentials. In fact, because the processes are noninteracting, the rate matrix decomposes into a Kronecker sum of the individual rate matrices for each process, which is very easy to code up. And this structure can be exploited when computing the matrix exponential, if speed is an issue.

We believe this comment was acknowledged in the previous revision (line 649), and we thank the reviewer for this interesting insight.

- Most (all?) of the SNP-only SMC methods allow for binning together consecutive observations to cut down on computation time. I did not see binning mentioned anywhere, did you consider it? If the method really processes every site, how long does it take to run?

We believe this comment was addressed in the previous revision and was added to the manuscript in the methods Section (subsection :  SMC optimization function).

- 486: The assumed site and region (de)methylation rates listed here are several OOM different from what your method estimated (Supp. Tables 5-6). Yet, on simulated data your method is usually correct to within an order of magnitude (Supp. Table 4). How are we to interpret this much larger difference between the published estimates and yours? If the published estimates are not reliable, doesn't that call into question your interpretation of the blue line in Fig. 7 at 533? (Comment addressed in revision.)

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

A limitation in using SNPs to understand recent histories of genomes is their low mutation frequency. Tellier et al. explore the possibility of adding hypermutable markers to SNP based methods for better resolution over short time frames. In particular, they hypothesize that epimutations (CG methylation and demethylation) could provide a useful marker for this purpose. Individual CGs in Arabidopsis tends to be either close to 100% methylated or close to 0%, and are inherited stably enough across generations that they can be treated as genetic markers. Small regions containing multiple CGs can also be treated as genetic markers based on their cumulative methylation level. In this manuscript, Tellier et al develop computational methods to use CG methylation as a hypermutable genetic marker and test them on theoretical and real data sets. They do this both for individual CGs and small regions. My review is limited to the simple question of whether using CG methylation for this purpose makes sense at a conceptual level, not at the level of evaluating specific details of the methods. I have a small concern in that it is not clear that CG methylation measurements are nearly as binary in other plants and other eukaryotes as they are in Arabidopsis. However, I see no reason why the concept of this work is not conceptually sound. Especially in the future as new sequencing technologies provide both base calling and methylating calling capabilities, using CG methylation in addition to SNPs could become a useful and feasible tool for population genetics in situations where SNPs are insufficient.

We thank again the reviewer #2 for his positive comments.  

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

I very much like this approach and the idea of incorporating hypervariable markers. The method is intriguing, and the ability to e.g. estimate recombination rates, the size of DMRs, etc. is a really nice plus. I am not able to comment on the details of the statistical inference, but from what I can evaluate it seems reasonable and in principle the inclusion of highly mutable sties is a nice advance. This is an exciting new avenue for thinking about inference from genomic data. I remain a bit concerned about how well this will work in systems where much less is understood about methylation,

The authors include some good caveats about applying this approach to other systems, but I think it would be helpful to empiricists outside of thaliana or perhaps mammalian systems to be given some indication of what to watch out for. In maize, for example, there is a nonbimodal distribution of CG methlyation (35% of sites are greater than 10% and less than 90%) but this may well be due to mapping issues. The authors solve many of the issues I had concerns with by using gene body methylation, but this is only briefly mentioned on line 659. I'm assuming the authors' hope is that this method will be widely used, and I think it worth providing some guidance to workers who might do so but who are not as familiar with these kind of data.

We thank the reviewer #3 for his positive comments. And we agree with Reviewer #3 concerning the application to data and that our approach needs to be carefully thought before applied. Our results clearly show that methylation processes are not well enough understood to apply our approach as we initially (maybe naively) designed it. Further investigations need to be conducted and appropriate theoretical models need to be developed before reliable results can be obtained. And we hope that our discussion points this out. However, our approach, the theoretical models and the additional tools contained in this study can be used to help researchers in their investigations to whether or not use different genomic markers to build a common (potentially more reliable) ancestral history. We enhanced the discussion in this second revision by clarifying also the use of the methylation from genic regions to avoid  confusion (lines 700-731).

Recommendations for the authors:  

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

In added Supp. Table 7, I don't think these are in log10 units as stated in the caption.

Well Spotted! Indeed, the RMSE is not in log10 scale, we corrected the caption. We also added that the TMRCA used for MRSE calculations is in generations units to avoid potential confusion.  

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for The Authors):

I very much appreciate the authors' attention to previous questions. I would ask that a bit more is spent in the discussion on concerns/approaches empiricists should keep in mind -- I am wary of this being uncritically applied to data from non-model species. It was not clear to me, for example (only mentioned on line 659 in the discussion) that the thaliana data is only using gene-body methylation. This poses potential issues with background selection that the authors acknowledge appropriately, but also assuages many of my concerns about using genome-wide data. I think text with recommendations for data/filtering/etc or at least cautions of assumptions empiricists should be aware of would help.

We apologize for the confusion at line 659. As written in the other section of the manuscript we meant CG sites in genic regions (and not only gene body methylated regions).

Due to the manuscript’s structure, the data from Arabidopsis thaliana is only described at the very end of the manuscript (line 900+). However, a brief description could also be found line 291-296. We however added a sentence in the introduction (line 128) for clarity. 

We however agree with the comment made by reviewer #3 concerning the application to data. We pointed in the discussion the risk of applying our approach on ill-understood (or illprepared) data and stressed the current need of studies on the epimutations processes at evolutionary time scale ( i.e. at Ne time scale) (line 700-703).

Declaration of Digital Independence