It takes an ungodly number of hours as input to get the best outputs.

This work has been peer reviewed in GigaScience (see https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giag074), which carries out single-anonymized peer review. These reviews are published under a CC-BY 4.0 license and were as follows:

(Resubmitted manuscript) Reviewer 3：

This manuscript introduces ScopeViewer, a browser-based platform for visualizing large biological images, including spatial transcriptomics and pathology data. The topic is timely, and the software appears to be a more accessible and technically advanced implementation compared with existing visualization tools such as Loupe Browser or CellXGene Viewer. The work addresses an important technical challenge and presents a promising browser-based solution.

However, to make the tool truly useful to the research community and to clearly distinguish it from existing tools, the manuscript still lacks essential information in two main aspects: biological relevance and usability for end users.

Major Comments 1. Biological Interpretation The manuscript should more clearly demonstrate how ScopeViewer contributes to biological discovery and interpretation. The current example focuses on cell segmentation and classification results, which are valuable but represent only a modest improvement over existing tools. The authors should elaborate on what additional types of biological information can be visualized or analyzed within the tool. For example: * What kinds of annotations are supported (e.g., cell boundaries, morphology, clusters, tissue regions, spot-level measurements)? * How are these annotations generated, formatted, and loaded into ScopeViewer? * How do these annotations facilitate the integration of molecular and cellular features for biological interpretation? I recommend providing an additional example with more specific biological questions, either in the supplementary materials or on the project website to demonstrate more diverse and distinctive applications of ScopeViewer. This would better highlight its scientific and practical advantages.

1. Ease of Use and Reproducibility The usability of ScopeViewer could be enhanced through more detailed, step-by-step guidance. I strongly recommend including:
2. A reproducible and downloadable example dataset (with corresponding annotations) so users can easily replicate the workflow and apply it to their own data.
3. A clear data preparation guide describing how users can prepare or convert their datasets (for example, a typical 10x Visium dataset from a public repository), including what kinds of annotations can be generated and how they can be converted into the required JSON format. Providing this information in the documentation or supplementary materials would substantially improve accessibility, reproducibility, and community adoption.

Minor Comment It would be helpful to clarify whether ScopeViewer supports newer high-resolution spatial omics platforms such as Visium HD, or Xenium, and to specify the extent to which users can visualize or explore data from these technologies.

Overall Evaluation: ScopeViewer is a technically solid and promising tool with clear potential for broad application. Enhancing the manuscript with richer biological examples and comprehensive user guidance would significantly improve its impact and usability for the research community.

This work has been peer reviewed in GigaScience (see https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giag074), which carries out single-anonymized peer review. These reviews are published under a CC-BY 4.0 license and were as follows:

(Resubmitted manuscript) Reviewer 2：

In this manuscript, the authors present a web browser for visualizing and annotating histological or spatial omics data. While the work is highly needed, the usage and functions of the current version is quite limited. Because multiple providers of spatial transcriptomics technologies also present browser for histological and spatial transcriptomics data, the current web browser should be compared with those available browsers for clarifying the functionalities. In addition, an offline version should be provided to facilitate local applications. A detailed protocol/video should also be provided to help readers/users use the browser.

This work has been peer reviewed in GigaScience (see https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giag074), which carries out single-anonymized peer review. These reviews are published under a CC-BY 4.0 license and were as follows:

(Resubmitted manuscript) Reviewer 1：

ScopeViewer runs within a browser, eliminating the hassle of configuring specific Python or other environments required by similar tools. This browser-based cross-platform tool offers superior compatibility. It enables the dual-view comparison of annotated images and raw HE images, offering greater convenience than other tools. Additionally, ST files are typically large, and this tool significantly mitigates slow transfer issues for large files. Overall this is a useful tool that will be very helpful to the ST research community. However, this manuscript still has some issues that need to be addressed.

1. Benchmarking against other tools shows that, although ScopeViewer offers the unique advantage of dual synchronised views, its overall performance is no better than that of other available tools. This distinctive strength should also be explicitly highlighted in the main text.
2. While the web interface slightly lowers the barrier to entry for users, it may not offer revolutionary convenience. Many web-based tools allow users to drag and drop files or make simple selections, while ScopeViewer requires users to create a dedicated JSON file, which may be challenging for those with limited bioinformatics experience.
3. I noticed some open-source code was missing. GitHub only hosts a subset of the project sources, not the complete repository.
4. The manuscript claims that "ScopeViewer is the only tool that supports the browser native SQLite data format". Is there any literature or evidence substantiating this "uniqueness"?
5. The application example provided in the article uses breast cancer data from the 10x Genomics platform only. Using only this single example, without data from other cancer types or measurement platforms, presents certain limitations.

This work has been peer reviewed in GigaScience (see https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giag074), which carries out single-anonymized peer review. These reviews are published under a CC-BY 4.0 license and were as follows:

(Previous submission) Reviewer 2：

General comment:

The author delivers an interactive web server named ScopeViewer and a standalone Docker image for spatial transcriptomics data and histology data visualization. The server is featured by 1. enabling to adjust the view on an image; 2. Enable a co-visualization of histology images, annotations, and gene expression; 3. Display with optimized bandwidth; 4. Security of data transferring. However, although the co-visualization of histology and gene expression is one key step in annotating histological features and exploring gene expression, the study may be limited by 1. Lacking the unique value of ScopeViewer to the spatial biology; 2. Inadequately data support the full functions of ScopeViewer; 3, unclear writings. The contents below are my comments on the study and ScopeViewer.

1. The uniqueness of ScopeViewer is not clear. Co-visualization of gene expression and histology images and other functionalities provided by ScopeViewer can be done by Loupe Browser. What were the downstream analyses enabled by ScopeViewer? What biological insight can be brought by the server? Can ScopeViewer be used for other high-resolution spatial transcriptomics data?
2. There are several visualization methods for spatial transcriptomics data. For example, RESEPT, SpatialPCA, Vesalius, and SODB use pseudo-RGB images (e.g., transformed from gene expression) to visualize tissue heterogeneity. Would the author also adopt those methods for visualizing spatial transcriptomics data?
3. Why did the author use HD-yolo for cell segmentation? Is there any benchmarking work to show HD-yolo is the best tool? Did the author consider additional options for providing the cell segmentation tool? In addition, is there any recommended histology image resolution, or what is the minimum resolution requirement for the current cell segmentation?
4. The paper should fully discuss and demonstrate the functionalities of the server. Figures 1A, B, and C demonstrate the partial view of the server. The author should display a full view of the webpage regarding displaying main functions and corresponding explanations.
5. ST is defined in the introduction, but its full name is still shown in the other part of the paper. Please be consistent in using abbreviations.
6. Be specific about using molecular features. For this study, the author mainly focuses on spatial transcriptomics. Therefore, using gene expression is better than molecular features regarding the scope of transcriptomics unless the author can include other omics features in this study.
7. Regarding "consider a standard pathology image of 20,000 by 20,000 pixels," please show the information on pixel size. For example, what is the physical length of each pixel?
8. The display of example data may have some issues using the Safari browser. For example, in "Image Viewer" button of the "Examples" menu, the zoomed-in image cannot be zoomed out.
9. In the introduction, "current software packages" is unclear. Please specify the package name.

This work has been peer reviewed in GigaScience (see https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giag074), which carries out single-anonymized peer review. These reviews are published under a CC-BY 4.0 license and were as follows:

(Previous submission) Reviewer 1：

The authors present a web-based tool for visualizing whole slide images, spatial transcriptomics and annotations. The tool is based on the OpenSeadragon viewer and is implemented in JavaScript using ReactJS. The data (images, markers, annotations) needs to be pre-processed to fit the format used in the software (dzi, sqlite, json respectively).

In Section 2.1, the authors claim to support multiple annotation formats, but the content primarily discusses image formats. It's crucial for the authors to clarify this discrepancy, as their software currently only supports one annotation format—specifically: JSON files generated by the OpenSeadragon Annotorious plugin (not cited in the paper). The software also supports a single image format (DZI) and a single marker format (SQLite generated from CSV files), and none of these formats are annotation formats. Clearing up this terminology will enhance the precision of their software description.

The authors introduce an interesting approach by employing an SQLite database to store spatial molecular data. However, given the current trend in the community towards utilizing the zarr format for efficient cloud access and computation (see SpatialData / NGFF), it is imperative that the authors provide a thorough comparison of the pros and cons of both formats. This will contribute to the relevance and adaptability of their software within the evolving landscape of spatial data storage.

Comparative Analysis with Existing Tools To strengthen the manuscript, the authors should conduct a comprehensive comparison of their work with existing tools in the spatial transcriptomics community. This analysis should encompass both web-based tools such as Vitessce (https://dx.doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/y8thv), TissUUmaps (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15306), Cellxgene (https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.04.05.438318), Cytomine (https://doi.org/10.1002/prca.201800057) as well as non-web-based tools like Napari (https://doi.org/10.1017/S1431927622006328), Giotto (https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-021-02286-2), ST viewer (https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bty714), etc. Key aspects for comparison should include feature differences, speed benchmarks, and memory benchmarks. By conducting a thorough evaluation against established tools, the authors can highlight the unique features and advantages of their software. This will provide readers with a clearer understanding of how the proposed tool stands out in the current landscape.

Additionally, it would be helpful if the authors could provide practical guidance on using their tool. I had difficulty finding information like the color scale for spatial transcriptomics data and how to retrieve spot values. The authors should include clear instructions or documentation explaining how to access these features within the tool.

Given the feedback provided, it appears that the manuscript lacks the necessary innovation and fails to sufficiently distinguish itself in the context of existing tools in the spatial transcriptomics field. The suggested revisions, including emphasizing format distinctions, conducting a comparative analysis, and exploring the advantages and disadvantages of the chosen data storage format, are crucial for addressing these concerns. However, despite these proposed changes, the current state of the manuscript does not offer significant advancements or unique contributions that would set it apart from established tools. As a result, I recommend rejecting the paper due to its limited impact and relevance within the spatial transcriptomics community.

Someone needs to be a good discriminator, usually someone who has high standards and knows what excellence looks like for that skill.

Humans are good discriminators.

and also ideally you're shooting for the thing that's ever just out of your reach, so you know it'll take an eternity

https://www.tbwritersplus.com/general-8

You have to love that they have DIY services for typewriter repair enthusiasts!

This work has been peer reviewed in GigaScience(see https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giag071), which carries out single-anonymized peer review. These reviews are published under a CC-BY 4.0 license and were as follows:

Reviewer 1：

This manuscript presents a fluorescence microscopy image dataset intended for evaluating deep learning-based image restoration methods across a range of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) levels. The study benchmarks three models (Restormer, CARE, and Noise2Fast) and introduces an adaptive image-stitching strategy to accommodate large field-of-view images. Overall, the proposed dataset and the reported benchmark results could be valuable to the community. However, the manuscript would benefit from further clarification and strengthening, particularly regarding the depth and rigor of the experimental analysis. Specific comments are as follows:

1. The manuscript highlights the novelty and diversity of the proposed dataset, including specimen types that are underrepresented in prior benchmarks as well as examples acquired with spinning-disk confocal microscopy. However, the specific advantages of this dataset over existing resources (e.g., those cited from Zhang et al., Zhou et al., and Hagen et al.) for advancing low-SNR image restoration are not yet sufficiently clear. In particular, the authors should more explicitly articulate what unique challenges the newly included specimen types and the "extreme-noise" cases introduce, and why these cases provide meaningful validation for assessing model robustness and generalization across imaging conditions.

2. To substantiate a broader conclusion about unsupervised/self-supervised approaches, the authors are encouraged to broaden the benchmark by adding additional representative unsupervised baselines, such as Noise2Void, Noise2Self, Probabilistic Noise2Void, PPNoise2Void, and Self-inspired Noise2Noise, evaluated under the same training and testing protocol.

3. The performance of the three models is compared under different preprocessing and training pipelines. For a fair and reproducible benchmark, all models should be retrained and evaluated using the same dataset splits and a consistent preprocessing protocol, including data augmentation, normalization schemes, and cropping/tiling strategies. Otherwise, the observed performance differences may reflect implementation choices rather than the intrinsic capabilities of the models. If certain methods impose specific input constraints (e.g., patch size or channel format), the authors should still minimize such discrepancies as much as possible and clearly justify any unavoidable deviations to ensure the comparison is as equitable as possible.

4. The manuscript refers to "extreme low-SNR" conditions, yet it does not characterize the underlying noise statistics (often well described by a Poisson-Gaussian model in fluorescence microscopy). A clear noise characterization is important for interpreting restoration performance and for selecting or designing appropriate denoising algorithms. The authors should estimate the noise statistics from the acquired measurements (e.g., via variance-mean analysis or other established noise-calibration procedures) or justify why such characterization is not feasible in this study.

This work has been peer reviewed in GigaScience(see https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giag071), which carries out single-anonymized peer review. These reviews are published under a CC-BY 4.0 license and were as follows:

Reviewer 2：

In the manuscript, the authors present a dataset of 324 paired high- and low-signal-to-noise ratio fluorescence microscopy images designed to improve the training and benchmarking of deep learning denoising models across various biological specimens and imaging conditions. The authors also developed an image stitching method to address GPU memory constraints when processing large images and demonstrated that supervised transformer-based models achieve the highest denoising performance among state-of-the-art methods. Overall I found the exposition quite good but some parts could result a bit confusing. So while I think the work is useful, I have some comments.

Here are my points:

I think the way Table 1 is organized is not very clear (at least to me!). Because the table refers to images with different sizes I was quite a bit lost. If for technique A, Sample B, there is an image of 26 MP (which I guess stands for megapixels), is this image then divided in 100 non-overlapping 512x512 images? So of these 100 images 90 are considered for training? How does this really work? In the table, instead of the MP indication, I would put how many paired images are considered for training/testing/validation and their typical size (e.g. technique A, Sample B has 100 images for training, 20 for testing, and 10 for validation. Also I would mention that these images have all size 512x512 or whatever the size was. I actually found a hint of this in the methods section toward the end of the paper. But I would just insert explicit numbers in the table so the reader knows immediately what is happening from the beginning.

The term "high-resolution images" is used ambiguously ("We introduce a novel dataset of 324 high-resolution images"). Does this refer to high pixel counts (large field of view), high spatial resolution (sampling frequency/Nyquist), or the optical resolution of the objectives used? A clearer definition is required.

Given the difference in image sizes across the dataset, some samples appear to contribute disproportionately to the training set (but this point could be due to a misreading on my part of how the table in column 1 and colum 2 is built and how it should be interpreted). Could the authors discuss how this imbalance affects the test results? I would expect under-represented features to show lower performance, and this should be reflected in the evaluation metrics.

The abstract mentions "spinning disk confocal" as an "also included" category. But before that there is no mention of any other modality. It is critical to define all modalities (e.g., widefield vs. confocal) in the introduction/background, as the difference in Z-resolution and PSF (Point Spread Function) means models trained on one may not generalize to the other.

The authors include excitation wavelengths but omit emission wavelengths. SNR and image quality are in some way dependent on the emission filters and camera quantum efficiency at specific wavelengths; therefore, an emission column should be added to the technical tables.

Regarding the layout of Figure 3 I think that for better visual comparison, the figures should be rearranged. Since Restormer is identified as the best-performing model, it should be placed immediately adjacent to the "Ground Truth" (high-SNR) image to allow the reader to easily assess its fidelity.

I'm not sure I got this right but in the abstract the authors mention "12 sub-datasets" but the table contains 15 entries.

I think the sentence " how different stains may impact denoising accuracy" should be rephrased. I can have stains that mark the same structures but with different fluorophores or mechanisms of attachment, and the features will be the same. It is more the target of the stain (which represents the feature content of the image) that would affect how the trained model can be more or less effective on the new target.

In conclusion the subject of the paper is interesting in my opinion and I think that overall the authors did a good job in providing very convincing results and in presenting potential applications of their method. The inclusion of a stitching method for high-megapixel images is also a practical contribution for microscopy applications and quite useful.

https://www.tbwritersplus.com/plans-pricing

$50/month for unlimited typewriters per month one at a time<br /> $40/month for one typewriter

资本压力增大

CEO Hassabis CSO Jeff Dean

1月（冬天极冷） ➡️ 冻得受不了，必须靠太阳近一点取暖 ➡️ 近日点。 7月（夏天极热） ➡️ 热得受不了，必须离太阳远一点避暑 ➡️ 远日点。

The Situation: One Image, Many Deadlines

Anyone who has managed a product launch knows the moment: one clean photo exists, but marketing needs six sizes, three languages, and two seasonal moods by tomorrow. Hiring a photographer again isn't realistic on that timeline, and manually retouching each variant invites inconsistency.

A Practical Way to Think About Batch Visuals

Before reaching for any tool, it helps to separate what must stay fixed (product shape, logo placement, brand colors) from what can flex (background, lighting mood, text layout). Treating the fixed elements as a reference and the flexible elements as variables makes batch work predictable instead of chaotic.

A Hypothetical Example: One Sneaker, Six Storefronts

Imagine a small footwear brand needing the same sneaker photo adapted for a minimalist storefront, a holiday banner, and a multilingual social post. In this hypothetical case, the team keeps the product reference constant and only changes background and layout per version, checking each output against the original for color accuracy before publishing.

A Quick Checklist Before You Batch-Generate

• Is the core subject reference sharp and well-lit?
• Have you listed every required size or aspect ratio in advance?
• Are brand colors and logo placement locked as constraints?
• Will someone manually review each output for text or proportion errors?

Some teams use image-to-image and multi-reference workflows like Seedream 5.0 Pro AI Image Generator to keep a product consistent across many generated variants, since it supports sketch-guided and batch editing steps.

Where This Approach Breaks Down

Automated variation still misreads fine text, unusual product textures, or precise legal labeling. If a correction is needed, revert to the original reference image rather than editing the flawed output repeatedly, since errors tend to compound. Treat generated variants as drafts requiring human sign-off, not final assets.

This work has been peer reviewed in GigaScience (see https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giag073), which carries out single-anonymized peer review. These reviews are published under a CC-BY 4.0 license and were as follows:

Reviewer 2：

This manuscript presents ChatMDV, a natural language-driven bioinformatics visualization platform that integrates large language models (LLMs) with the MDV. Through an agent + RAG + code-generation architecture, ChatMDV translates user prompts into executable, reproducible Python analysis code and interactive MDV visualizations, and the authors provide a systematic evaluation on multiple scRNA-seq datasets at scale, including PBMC3K, the Human Cell Atlas lung atlas, and the TAURUS longitudinal study dataset. Overall, the work is technically solid, with strong system engineering and a high completeness. Below are a few remarks that I hope the authors can clarify in a revision.

1. The reported ">95% success rate" uses an overly generous definition and likely overestimates usability. A central claim is that ChatMDV achieves a success rate exceeding 95% in visualizing the evaluated datasets. However, the manuscript defines success as any rating except 1, i.e. effectively rating 2 - "View present but error-filled". However, the rating rubric explicitly states that rating 2 includes cases where "charts were present but did not address the question or contained significant errors." Counting these cases as "success" is too loose in my opinion, especially when success is interpreted by readers as semantic correctness or user-ready performance. Therefore, I think it would be great to distinguish execution success (rating over 2) and semantic success (rating over 4 and 5). Without this, the abstract ">95% success" risks being misleading.

2. Evaluation prompts may be too well-formed. The prompt set is carefully designed and scored with a bespoke complexity scheme, and the manuscript notes that prompts were developed with expert input, literature review, and assistance from ChatGPT. While this is reasonable, it raises a concern that the final benchmark may be closer to "experienced user requests" than what many wet-lab or novice computational users would actually type, for example ambiguous phrasing, missing chart specifications, typos, etc. Therefore, adding a small additional benchmark of "inexperienced biologist prompts" would substantially strengthen claims about democratizing analysis.

3. Handling biological hallucinations is described at an engineering level as the manuscript acknowledges key failure modes and describes retries/error handling. However, these are mostly presented as engineering notes rather than as actionable, interpretable examples for end-users and reviewers. I think it would be useful to provide one or two concrete failure case analyses so that users can understand what ChatMDV can and cannot reliably do and how to proceed when it fails.

4. The word "democratizing" sounds quite strong as no one would describe the current bioinformatics practice as "autocratic". A more technical but accurate phrasing, like "reducing technical barriers" would be appreciated.

This work has been peer reviewed in GigaScience (see https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giag073), which carries out single-anonymized peer review. These reviews are published under a CC-BY 4.0 license and were as follows:

Reviewer 1：

ChatMDV captures the forefront of the intersection between artificial intelligence and bioinformatics. The technical pathway of integrating the LLM-RAG architecture with the MDV visualization platform is forward-looking. This work identifies and attempts to address the long-standing "technical gap" problem in single-cell data analysis. From an engineering implementation perspective, the authors have fully considered reproducibility and FAIR principles in the system design, constructing a complete closed loop from natural language understanding to code generation to interactive visualization. Its modular architecture also lays a good foundation for future expansion to multi-omics data types. However, as an engineering work and paper, there are still several issues that need to be addressed:

1. Regarding the evaluation of other tools, the commentary should be more precise and avoid subjective judgments. For example, in the discussion of MDV, "unclear where to begin the exploration" lacks specificity. Additionally, tools such as FlowAgent and CellAgent have already implemented LLM-driven automation of single-cell data analysis. Although they differ, they are more appropriate for comparison. The distinction from OMEGA should also be compared in greater detail. The paper states "To our knowledge, ChatMDV is the only platform that enables users to interactively visualise and further interrogate their transcriptomics data using natural language within a unified analytical interface." In the competitive AI-driven bioinformatics field, such claims should be avoided rather than limited by the subjective qualifier "To our knowledge."

2. Different modules and steps should have corresponding evaluations. Evaluation and scoring should not only target final results; test sets should be established for intermediate steps, such as intent recognition and accuracy of generated code. For the 1-7 scoring of prompts, the difficulty of different tasks may vary and should have different weights.

3. The definition of the success rate metric is rather ambiguous. "Success rate" is defined as avoiding Rating 1 (complete failure), while Ratings 2-4 are all considered successful. Table 3 shows that the lung dataset has a significant proportion of Rating 3-4 (partial success), yet does not report the statistical significance of the exact match rate (Rating 5). Furthermore, outputs receiving a score of 1 have a complexity of only ≥2, which sounds too low. According to the authors' complexity criteria, user queries would typically satisfy multiple conditions simultaneously.

4. There is a lack of control baselines. The evaluation only tests ChatMDV's own success rate without establishing controls. For example, direct LLM generation without RAG: to compare whether RAG truly improves accuracy (an ablation study could be set up: GPT-4 direct vs RAG-enhanced). The paper also does not mention which version of GPT was tested or the differences arising from using various model versions.

5. The paper acknowledges that the lung dataset (~22GB) fails in typical desktop environments (8-12GB RAM), but does not clearly define the failure modes. It is recommended to supplement with tests of the maximum processable data scale under different memory configurations (16/32/64GB).

6. Do users have a way to verify that the final produced results match their intended data? A validation module is needed. If such validation methods already exist, please specify them in the paper. These are important as they relate to whether the user's cost of learning and correcting the AI is higher or lower than the cost of using MDV directly.

https://huggingface.co/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V4-Flash

这句官方说明是 EP.97 故事线 B"出口管制技术性错位"论点最干净的证据：架构和参数规模完全没变，仅仅重做了一遍后训练，基准分数就大幅跃升。这意味着真正稀缺、真正有价值的东西是后训练数据和配方，而这恰恰是现有出口管制体系管不住的部分——芯片和权重可以卡，训练方法论卡不住。

这是 DeepSeek 官方 Change Log 里的一手数据，直接证实了 EP.97 故事线 B 的核心事实：V4-Flash 在 Terminal Bench、Cybergym 等九项基准上大幅反超自家旗舰 V4-Pro-Preview。一个"轻量版"模型靠后训练反超"旗舰版"，说明模型能力的边际提升正在越来越多地来自后训练配方，而不是参数规模或架构本身。

This work has been peer reviewed in GigaScience (see https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giag067), which carries out single-anonymized peer review. These reviews are published under a CC-BY 4.0 license and were as follows:

Reviewer 3：

（Previous submission）

The manuscript presents a well-designed R package that provides an end-to-end solution for individualized cancer survival prediction, integrating gene expression and clinical data into a single workflow. The article is clearly written, methodologically thorough, and demonstrates the software's strong utility for both research and potential clinical applications.

Major Remarks: 1) The current evaluation relies on a single random train/test split for each TCGA dataset. Given the very small test cohorts (13-17 patients), performance estimates (C-index, MAE, accuracy) are unstable and may not reflect true generalization. Please consider adopting more robust evaluation strategies such as k-fold cross-validation, repeated random sub-sampling, or nested CV. This would strengthen confidence in the reported results and reduce the risk of overfitting. Also I am concerned about repeatability of Lasso, given the number of features. 2) Training metrics are often extremely high while test metrics drop substantially. This pattern suggests overfitting, likely due to high dimensionality (60,000+ features) and small sample sizes. The authors should acknowledge this explicitly and discuss strategies to mitigate overfitting (e.g., stricter regularization, dimensionality reduction, feature stability analysis). 3) The manuscript applies CPSM to GBM, LAML, and PAAD. However, the rationale for selecting these specific cancer types is not discussed. It would strengthen the work if the authors explained whether the choice was driven by data availability, clinical relevance, or to showcase CPSM's applicability across tumor types with different characteristics. Without justification one could argue that those 3 were cherry picked to show the advantage of CPSM, especially since for other cancer types, e.g. BRCA the number of available cases is much larger and for this reason they make better candidates for a study that requires train/test splits. 4) Although the title and abstract frame CPSM as a multi-omics integration tool, all demonstrations and evaluations are conducted exclusively with RNA-seq expression data (FPKM) in combination with clinical features. No examples of proteomics, metabolomics, or other omics integration are shown. This creates a mismatch between the stated scope (multi-omics) and the evidence provided. The authors should either include at least one additional omics dataset to demonstrate multi-omics integration, or adjust the framing to emphasize that CPSM is currently optimized for transcriptomics + clinical data, while being adaptable to other omics in principle. 5) The manuscript compares CPSM's functionality with existing packages (glmnet, MTLR, randomForestSRC, rms, etc.), but no direct head-to-head performance comparison is presented. Including such benchmarking would make the performance gains of CPSM more convincing.

Minor: 1) The CPSM package requires users to run many separate functions in sequence. While this demonstrates flexibility, it may be overwhelming for non-expert users. Wrapping the most common steps into a single high-level function would make the package more user-friendly while still allowing advanced users to call individual functions. 2) The vignette uses built-in example data, which is useful for illustration. However, it would be more impactful to include a real-life example starting from external data (loading data and creating SummarizedExperiment) and then walking through only the essential analysis steps. This would better reflect typical user workflows. 3) The vignette could highlight key results more clearly, e.g., "This step produces the list of selected genes and their coefficients", so users understand what to look for after each step. 4) The CPSM package vignette does not demonstrate best practices for robust model evaluation (e.g., cross-validation or repeated splits). Including a short demonstration or guidance would help users avoid overfitting and improve reliability of results. 5)Some minor language errors: "HK drafted and manuscript and PD and US refined the drafted manuscript.", "This function employ normalize.quantiles…"

（Resubmitted manuscript）

The revised manuscript shows clear effort in restructuring parts of the text and expanding several methodological descriptions. However, most of the major concerns raised in the previous review remain unresolved, and several central methodological limitations persist. 1) The evaluation strategy continues to rely on a single random train/test split for each cancer type, with very small test sets (13-17 samples). As noted previously (Major Remark 1), such a design does not provide reliable performance estimates, especially for metrics as variable as C-index or MAE with small n. The supplementary material also indicates that no form of stability assessment has been introduced. It also reiterates the use of LASSO without addressing its known instability in high-dimensional settings and the authors do not discuss how the default 10-fold cross-validation used in glmnet (via nfolds) may further affect feature selection variability in such small cohorts 2) The overfitting concerns (Major Remark 2) remain and are even more apparent in the extended results. Training performance is often extremely high, sometimes essentially perfect for risk-group prediction, while test performance declines sharply. Although some additional explanatory text was added, there is still no substantive discussion of why these models overfit (tens of thousands of features, small cohorts, noisy FPKM data) or how this might be mitigated. The supplement also demonstrates substantial instability in selected features (e.g., only three of ten GBM LASSO genes present in the CGGA dataset), further indicating that the models are sensitive to sampling noise. Combined with the extremely small test cohorts, this limits the interpretability of all reported metrics. 3) The rationale for selecting only GBM, LAML, and PAAD is still insufficient (Major Remark 3). The supplement's comparison with the PAWPH method makes this even clearer: both CPSM and PAWPH perform reasonably well on LAML, but fail or perform inconsistently on GBM and PAAD. Without evaluation on larger TCGA cohorts (e.g., BRCA, LUAD), it remains difficult to understand whether these results generalize or are driven by these smaller datasets. The choice of these three tumour types still appears somewhat arbitrary. 4) While the manuscript and supplement together now contain a functional comparison table and a PAWPH-based experiment, this still does not amount to a meaningful benchmark against existing survival modelling tools (Major Remark 5). Widely used baselines - Cox with elastic net, RSF, MTLR, or modern deep learning frameworks are not compared directly. Moreover, the PAWPH comparison highlights performance failures in GBM and PAAD, which does not support the claim that CPSM provides superior prediction accuracy. 5) Some of the minor issues from the earlier review, concerning the package documentation were addressed (external data, information on the outputs), however the package vignette still does not demonstrate best practices for robust model evaluation (Minor remark 4). The package also still requires many separate function calls without an easier, high-level wrapper, which is acceptable but will limit the packages usability. Additionally, I find it confusing that the authors use their own package versioning in the text, which differs from the versioning used in Bioconductor. I have to assume that the article's v1.1.4 corresponds to Bioconductor's 1.3.0. Overall, although the manuscript is more detailed and somewhat clearer than before, the fundamental methodological issues remain unresolved. Substantial revisions would be needed before the results could be considered robust.

This work has been peer reviewed in GigaScience (see https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giag067), which carries out single-anonymized peer review. These reviews are published under a CC-BY 4.0 license and were as follows:

Reviewer 2：

（Previous submission）

This manuscript developed an R package to predict survival and risk levels of individual patient. Several core bioinformatics functions were included. TCGA datasets were used as examples to illustrate the functions and package. There are a few questions or comments listed below. 1. The integration of multi-omics data is a strong motivation for this R package, according to the Introduction and Title. However, I could not find any relevant functions or examples in Method and Result. I am not sure if multi-omics data could be handled. If not, the authors should redefine their scope. If yes, more descriptions and examples should be provided. 2. How does the normalization work for train and test data? Is it performed separately on each set or jointly on the combined data? 3. Examples using only TCGA data are not sufficient to demonstrate the effectiveness of the R package. There are many other publicly available datasets beyond TCGA. Please include additional examples using non-TCGA data. 4. The validity of the Cox proportional hazards (CoxPH) model depends on several assumptions. The R package should include a model diagnostics function to assess model fit. Additionally, alternative approaches should be provided for cases where these assumptions are not met. 5. For the visualization, does the R package provide function/argument to customize the style of figure, such as font size, line color, etc.?

（Resubmitted manuscript）

Thanks for addressing the comments. There is one previous comment have not been fully addressed, which is regarding the model assumption exam functions. The CoxPH model assumption function is standard and should be added.

This work has been peer reviewed in GigaScience (see https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giag067), which carries out single-anonymized peer review. These reviews are published under a CC-BY 4.0 license and were as follows:

Reviewer 1：

（Previous submission）

This paper focused on the development of a new R/Bioconductor package that is able to provide feature selection and survival prediction for omics datasets with clinical survival outcomes. The strength of the package is that it provides an end-to-end solution for users, starting from data normalisation to results presentation (visualisation). It is also a comprehensive package in terms of survival model fitting, feature selection, performance evaluation and visualisation. However, I found the pipeline and methods included in the package may have issues that need to be fixed prior to applying the package for any analytical purpose. I think the "robust method" statement might be overclaimed.

I have the following comments/questions to the authors. 1. Could you include the brier score (maybe the one from the survAUC package) as the evaluation metric besides C-index and MAE? 2. When calculating the PI score, are all censored and non-censored data used to create the binary "high-risk" and "low-risk" group in training? If censored data is included in the calculation, adjustment should be applied for the contribution of the censored samples, i.e. could be a similar idea with the inverse probability of censoring rate (IPCW). If not, I assume only very few samples are used in this calculation when the censoring rate in the data is high, say, up to 70%, which is also common in "omics' survival data. 3. Since MTLR is used for prediction, it can also be used for feature selection. Why was the LASSO method being picked (and the univariate Cox) for feature selection? 4. It is known that "omics" data contains covariates that are highly correlated with each other. Therefore, I am not sure of the application of multiple univariate Cox models for feature selection. 5. It seems that from reading both the manuscript and the supplementary material that in the case studies, there is no repeated training and testing data split. There are also no cross-validation performances. I am not sure how reliable the reported results are based on only one random split of data. 6. Presentation of the result tables can be improved. Outstanding performances mentioned in the results section in Table 1 and Table 2 could be highlighted in bold. Names of method 1 to 4 could be more informative, for instance, method 3 could be renamed as Method "PI_Cli". 7. In Table 3, Glmnet can produce predicted survival probability for each individual in the test data. I am not sure what does the "No" mean under the "Single-patient survival probability prediction" column. MTLR should be able to run on p>n (high-dim) datasets. I am not sure why there is a "No" under the last column. 8. In terms of the robustness, how does the current pipeline method compare to existing robust methods? For example, how does the feature selection performance and the prediction performance compare to "pawph" and the sure independence screening?

References: Luo B, Gao X, Halabi S. Penalized weighted proportional hazards model for robust variable selection and outlier detection. Stat Med 2022;41:3398-420. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.9424. Fan J, Feng Y, Wu Y. High-dimensional variable selection for Cox's proportional hazards model. Inst Math Stat (IMS) Collect 2010;6:70-86. https://doi.org/10.1214/10-IMSCOLL606.

这句话暴露了"关停开关"立法思路的结构性盲区——它对闭权重模型有效，但对开放权重模型基本失灵，因为权重一旦发布就脱离了原厂商的控制。这个漏洞恰好和 EP.97 故事线 B 的核心论点相互印证：出口管制/关停机制能管住"中心化可控的东西"，管不住已经扩散出去的模型权重和能力。

众议员 Ted Lieu 把这项立法的定位说得非常清楚：不干预训练过程，只要求"事后必须有能力关停"。这正是 EP.97 故事线 A 强调的"基础设施抓手"思路——监管重点从"审查模型该不该被造出来"转移到"确保任何已经存在的模型都有可靠的关停机制"，与汽车碰撞测试的类比也呼应了本期对"evaluation infrastructure"重要性的讨论。

这是 EP.97 故事线 A"监管抓手从发布前审查转向事故披露+基础设施"论点在立法层面的直接证据——AI Kill Switch Act 的推动力不是理论风险，而是 OpenAI/Anthropic/Meta 已经连续披露的真实入侵事件。国会议员用"事故已经在发生"作为立法紧迫性的论据，说明监管话语正在从"防患于未然"转向"响应已发生的失控"。

这句话点出了资本追逐的技术范式转变——从"贵、精、少"的传统装备转向"便宜、可消耗"的attritable系统，这正是乌克兰战场经验反哺出来的新军工逻辑。EP.97 专题06 用这个概念解释为什么 Anduril、Mach 这类公司能够用远低于传统军工复合体的成本和速度获得订单与估值。

防务科技赛道今年上半年的融资额，已经超过去年全年——这是判断"新军工企业崛起"是否只是个别公司现象、还是整个赛道系统性升温的关键宏观数据，与 EP.97 专题06 里 Helsing、Mach Industries 等公司的融资数据共同构成完整图景。

Anduril 估值一年半内从 305 亿到 610 亿再到传闻中的 1000 亿美元，是 EP.97 专题06（美国"硅谷"新军工企业）最核心的单一数据点——这个增速远超传统军工企业，说明资本市场正在用软件公司的估值逻辑给防务硬件公司定价。

在一个模拟真实淘宝/天猫供应链的 365 天经营基准测试里，Qwen3.8-Max 不仅打败了国内同代最强对手 GLM 5.2，还比自己的上一代旗舰提升了 152%。这组数据说明中国模型厂商之间的竞争已经从跑分基准延伸到长周期、多约束的经营决策能力，是判断 EP.97 故事线 B"国产模型正在多维度追赶"的具体案例。

Qwen3.8-Max 在一次连续自主运行中把芯片版图面积压缩了 81%，且验证结果落地到真实可布线的物理设计层面，不只是停留在算法层的优化。这类案例值得在"RSI 工具层证据"的清单里和 Anthropic 8× 代码产出、Astra 数学证明并列看待——中国厂商在同一条自动化研发曲线上给出了独立可验证的证据。

阿里 Qwen 官方对 Qwen3.8-Max 最核心的能力定位——多日不间断、自主提出想法、完全无人介入。这句话与 EP.97 故事线 B"阿里 Qwen3.8-Max 发布对标 Anthropic"的判断直接对应：中国厂商不只是在参数规模上追赶，而是在"长时自主任务链"这个 Anthropic/OpenAI 反复强调的能力维度上正面竞争。

OpenAI 官方（在同一天的驳回动议中）对"产品差异性"的正面表态，与前一句 Bloomberg 的独立判断相互印证。EP.97 专题05 依赖这类一手/准一手信息说明：这场诉讼的攻防焦点正在从"谁挖了谁的人"转向"谁的产品形态才代表 Agent 时代的硬件未来"。

Bloomberg 的这句判断被 MacRumors 直接引用来支撑 OpenAI 的核心抗辩——如果产品形态本身与 Apple 现有或在研产品线明显不同，那么"窃取商业机密来做同款产品"的指控在产品逻辑上就站不住脚。这句话把 EP.97 专题05 的法律争议和硬件形态两条线索连接了起来。

这是判断 OpenAI 硬件路线的关键产品定义：无屏幕、纯语音交互的"曲奇饼干"形态。EP.97 专题05 用这条信息论证 OpenAI 押注的是"calm computing"（无屏优先）路线，与 Apple 一直以来的软硬件集成、屏幕中心化路线正面对撞——这也是这场诉讼背后"下一代个人计算终端定义权"之争的产品层证据。

成立仅五年就跻身欧洲最具价值防务公司之列——这个时间跨度的对比，是 EP.97 专题06 论证"新军工企业崛起速度远超传统军工复合体历史节奏"的最直接数据支撑。

这句话点出了资本追逐的对象——不是传统军工制造能力，而是"AI 驱动 + 软件定义"的防务技术范式，这与 EP.97 专题06 描述的"新军火商"定位完全一致：用软件公司的打法做武器系统。

这是欧洲版 Anduril——Helsing——迄今最大一笔融资的核心数据，也是 EP.97 专题06（美国"硅谷"新军工企业）用来论证"这套模式正在跨大西洋复制"的关键证据：不只是美国在孵化 Anduril/Palantir 式新军工公司，欧洲防务科技创投同样在加速。

这句话把增长速度具象化到一个反直觉的对比上——一个季度的净利润就超过了去年一整年的总营收。这种量级跃迁是 EP.97 用来论证"AI 产业链资金正在向落地交付层集中"的最有冲击力的单一数据点。

Alex Karp 在致股东信中的这句话，配合他一贯高调批评"纯模型公司"的立场，构成了 EP.97 专题06 的核心叙事支点：Palantir 作为 FDE/Delta 打法的发明者，用财报证明了"交付能力"本身可以是比"模型能力"更具复利效应的护城河。

这是 EP.97 专题03（七层资金流向）和专题06（新军工企业）共同依赖的核心财报数字：Palantir 二季度营收同比增长 93%，其中商业收入增长 149%、政府收入增长 90%——说明资金没有停留在"讲故事"阶段，而是真实落到了应用/交付层（L1），印证 EP.97 故事线 C 里"落地层真赚钱"的判断。

Jeff Dean 亲口对 NYT 说的这句话，来自一位在 Google 工作 27 年、参与过搜索核心基础设施和 Gemini 多模态模型的资深人物——他的表态本身就是行业信号：当最了解"人类主导科研有多慢"的人开始押注全自动实验闭环，说明这不是外部炒作，而是内部人对趋势的判断。

Discovery Loop 官方新闻稿把"人类是科研进度的瓶颈"这句话说得毫不含糊。这是判断这家公司战略定位的关键句——它不是在做"AI 辅助科研工具"，而是把人类的顺序迭代本身当作需要被优化掉的系统缺陷。

这句话直接点名了 Discovery Loop 的终极野心——不只是加速科研，而是让 AI 参与"创造更强 AI"这个环节本身，把人类从迭代循环里彻底移除。这是 EP.97 故事线 C 论证"RSI 正在从叙事变成组织形态"最直接的证据：Jeff Dean、Sanjay Ghemawat 等人离开 Google，创办的公司名字本身就是 RSI 的定义（Discovery Loop = 发现闭环）。

这句话划出了一条关键的架构分界线："智能与编排"由 OpenAI 提供，"执行环境的控制权"留在客户自己的云里。这正是 EP.97 专题01 架构图里"安全网关/本体"层要解决的问题——企业愿意把工作交给 Agent 云端持续执行的前提，是自己仍然掌握基础设施、数据和安全边界。

这句话几乎就是 EP.97 专题01 提出的"设备解耦"设计公理的官方原话版本——OpenAI 明确把"任务不再绑定发起它的那台设备"当作 Codex 下一阶段的核心设计目标，而收购 Ona 正是为了补齐这一目标所需的持久化云端执行基础设施。

这是 Codex 用户规模的一手数据点，也是 OpenAI 收购 Ona 这笔交易的商业动机注脚：周活用户 500 万、同比增长 400%，说明云端持久化执行不是概念探索，而是要立刻承接真实的规模化需求。EP.97 专题01 用这个数字论证 Cowork/Codex 类产品正在从"能力竞赛"转向"在场方式竞赛"。

这句话是 FDE（前置部署工程师）打法在法律垂直行业的具体案例——Harvey 把融资明确用于扩大"嵌入客户内部、帮助构建和优化 Agent 的工程团队"，这正是 EP.97 专题04 描述的 Palantir 式 Delta/FDE 模式在另一个行业的复现：卖软件的公司越来越像卖服务的公司。

法律垂直领域 Agent 公司 Harvey 的最新估值数据点——EP.97 专题03（AI 产业链七层资金流向）用它标注资金在"L1 应用需求层"的停留位置：垂直行业 Agent 产品化公司仍在获得顶级机构真金白银的持续加注，而不只是基础设施层在吸金。

Lilian Weng 用 prompt engineering 的历史类比预测 harness 工程的走向：手工技巧会被模型能力提升逐渐内化，但"目标/约束/上下文/评估该如何被清晰表达"这个需求本身不会消失，只会转移到更高的抽象层。这是判断 Agent 设计下一步会往哪走的一条重要经验规律，也支撑了 EP.97 专题01 对"完整形态"的预测：接口会更简单，但背后的工程复杂度不会归零。

这句话描述的 Meta-Harness（用 coding agent 自动搜索、优化 harness 代码本身）是 RSI 在"工具层"最具体的落地案例：模型不是在改自己的权重，而是在改写包裹自己的运行系统，而这恰好是人类工程师原本要做的工作。EP.97 故事线 C 把这类证据归类为"工具层/架构层 RSI"，与"规范层 RSI"（模型自主设定目标）明确区分。

这是"harness"这个概念在本篇最精确的定义——不是模型本身，而是包裹模型的执行系统。EP.97 专题01（Cowork Agent 完整形态）的架构图直接建立在这个定义上：设备解耦、检查点可恢复、多端可观测这些设计公理，本质上都是在给"harness 层"而不是"模型层"做工程。

OpenAI 把 Apple 指控中的"残留访问权限"（residual access）问题反过来定性为 Apple 自身的 IT 权限管理疏漏，而非离职员工的主观意图问题。这是一句典型的"重新定义指控"式辩护——把技术性瑕疵从个人过错转移到公司系统流程，是理解这场诉讼攻防策略的关键句。

这是 OpenAI 对整起诉讼最核心的否认表态——直接点名"初步禁令请求"这个 Apple 最具杀伤力的诉求，并给出双重反驳：信息不实 + 没有动机。EP.97 专题05 依赖这句话论证 OpenAI 并未在实质证据层面退让，而是选择正面硬刚。

OpenAI 官方博文开场就是一记重拳——先褒后贬，把"Apple 一贯的严谨"和"这次诉讼的草率"直接对立起来定调。EP.97 专题05 用这篇文章作为 OpenAI 一方的一手回应，说明这场诉讼本质上是"个人计算终端下一形态定义权"之争的公开交火，而不只是普通商业秘密纠纷。

Anthropic 自己引用 Amdahl 定律给 RSI 叙事踩了刹车：即使编码和实验环节完全自动化，组织整体速度仍然会被没有加速的环节（比如人类代码审查、方向判断）卡住。这是判断"RSI 到底能带来多大实际提速"时最重要的限定条件，也是 EP.97 反复强调"本期观察到的一切仍停留在工具层/架构层 RSI，规范层 RSI 尚无公开证据"的直接依据。

这组对比数据是本篇最关键的"能力端 RSI"证据：同一个开放式 AI 安全研究问题，人类专家一周只能填补 23% 的性能差距，Agent 集群靠 800 小时算力（约 1.8 万美元）填补了 97%——且假设/实验/迭代全部由 Agent 自主设计，人类只定义了问题和评分标准。这也印证了 EP.97 故事线 C 里 Astra 用约 2000 美元攻克数学难题的模式：用远低于人力成本的算力换取此前需要顶尖人才才能达成的结果。

这是 Anthropic 首次用内部一手数据（而非公开基准）证明 RSI 已经在"工具层"生效：不是模型能力测评分数上升，而是公司自身研发速度的真实提升。EP.97 故事线 C 用这个数字论证"资本开支即 RSI 押注"——DeepMind 首席战略官的表态不是空谈，Anthropic 自己就是活案例。

这是对"蒸馏能不能让中国AI实现独立自主"这个问题最精确的限定回答——不是独立，而是把前沿模型的部分能力搬进一个更便宜、可控的本地系统。说这话的 Trevor Koverko 是 AI 数据公司 Sapien（https://sapien.io/，专注 AI 训练数据质量验证/Proof of Quality）联合创始人，这句话给 EP.97 故事线 B 提供了一个必要的降温视角：蒸馏管用，但不是万能钥匙。

这是 Anthropic 官方对这起事件的回应原话，也是 EP.97 故事线 B 的关键论据：蒸馏不仅转移能力，还会把安全护栏一并"蒸馏掉"——被训练出来的下游模型可能继承了原模型的能力，却丢失了原模型的安全约束，而这个下游模型已经不在原厂商的控制范围内。

这句话点出了本篇 Reuters 独家报道的技术核心：中国军方关联研究者不是在抄答案，而是在系统性提取美国前沿模型"如何推理"这件事本身——这正是 EP.97 故事线 B 的论点起点：出口管制卡得住芯片和权重，卡不住模型输出里蕴含的推理路径。说这句话的 Sunny Cheung 来自 Jamestown Foundation（华盛顿智库，长期研究中国军事与科技政策），本次分析了 60 余篇相关论文。

"frases emendadas indevidamente"

Conjunctiove advebs. Function: Sequence

But is coordinating conjunctions and your function is combine two independent clauses into a compound sentence, countering/contradicting the previous idea

Subordinating conjunctions. Function: condition

Thereafter is a conjunctive adverbs. Function: Sequence

And is a Coordinating conjunctions, and your function is combine two independent clauses into a compound sentence, adding meaning

Paralisação

Árbitros

Aplaudiu

Multidão

Arremessadores

Entrada?

No entanto

"Em adição" = Além disso..

Apesar de

文章结尾的定调句：区分"意图"和"后果"——reward hacking 不需要模型有恶意，纯粹追求奖励最大化本身就足以造成实质性破坏（呼应文中引用的 Bostrom 回形针思想实验）。这也是 EP.97 故事线 A 反复强调的一点：安全问题的关键不是模型是否"想学坏"，而是评测和奖励机制是否会诱导出有害行为。

这是本文最有画面感的一句比喻——打地鼠（whack-a-mole）：训练团队把作弊行为一层层压下去，但模型越聪明，藏得也越深。EP.97 故事线 A 引用这个观点说明为什么"发布前评测"这种一次性抓手正在失效：作弊没有消失，只是变得更难被同一批评测方法发现。

这句话把 reward hacking 的根源讲得非常清楚：不是模型"想"骗人，而是训练机制本身在奖励"看起来做对了"而不是"真的做对了"。说这句话的 Jeffrey Ladish 是 AI 安全非营利机构 Palisade Research（https://palisaderesearch.org/）的执行主任，该机构专注于"AI 失控风险"与模型自主黑客/自我复制能力研究，是本轮 Agent 安全讨论中值得持续关注的一个独立第三方声音。

OpenAI 在这里主动划清署名边界：人类只负责把论证整理成文稿、在 Lean 中形式化，数学论证本身由模型生成。这句话是判断"AI 科研成果算谁的"这个行业级争议的重要一手立场声明，也呼应了 Leiden Declaration on AI and Mathematics 关于归因诚实性的讨论。

这是本条新闻里最具冲击力的数字：内部版 Astra 模型解出十个悬而未决的数学难题（涵盖高维几何、编码理论、量子复杂度、格密码学等），推理成本合计约 2000 美元。EP.97 故事线 C 用这个数字论证"RSI 已经进入能力端"——不是概念验证，而是用近乎白菜价的推理算力拿下此前需要顶尖数学家数年攻关的问题。

三个模型（Opus 4.7 / Mythos 5 / 内部研究模型）面对同一处境——都在某个时刻认出打的是真实系统——却做出三种不同反应：继续攻击、合理化后继续攻击、主动停止。这句话是 Anthropic 给出的唯一"进步信号"，但措辞极其克制。EP.97 故事线 A 用这组对比说明"识别风险后是否主动停手"正在成为新一代 Agent 安全的关键分野，而不再只是"能不能做到某件事"。

Anthropic 在此明确划清界限——三起真实入侵不是"模型学坏了"，而是评测基础设施（harness）配置错误。这也解释了 EP.97 为什么认为真正有效的监管抓手是"评测环境审计 + 事故披露义务"而非单纯的模型对齐训练：责任被精确定位在系统工程而非模型意图上。

延伸：本次协作的第三方评测伙伴 Irregular（https://www.irregular.com/）是一家专注"前沿 AI 安全"的评测实验室，日常工作正是把最新模型（如 GLM-5.2、GPT-5.6 等）跑攻防基准（https://www.irregular.com/research），值得在后续 newsletter 中持续关注。

这是整篇报告的哲学核心——Anthropic 把"对齐失败"重新定义为"情境认知失败"：模型并没有偏离被给定的目标，而是对自己所处环境的判断是错的。EP.97 故事线 A 用这句话论证"发布前评测抓不住这类失败"：模型可以在完全遵从任务指令的情况下造成真实入侵，因为它把生产环境误判为演习。

https://www.irregular.com/

https://www.irregular.com/research/cyscenariobench

CHƯƠNG IX: NỢ PHẢI THU KHÁCH HÀNG

https://airporter.com/shuttle/locations-maps/seattle/ Seattle, WA

去“银行”拿“货币”，做“贸易”！

“凡”勃伦效应，就是“凡”尔赛效应（炫富）！

CHƯƠNG VII SKT: ĐẠO ĐỨC NGHỀ NGHIỆP VÀ TRÁCH NHIỆM CỦA KTV ĐỘC LẬP.

reply to u/dazzleshipsrecords at https://old.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/1vhiow0/passed_this_on_up_will_i_regret_it/

You'll always regret the typewriters you don't get (or can't carry—just yesterday I had to pass up on a $44 Olympia SM3 in good condition because I couldn't physically carry it with me on vacation and I'm still irked about it).

Watch Shopgoodwill.com and surely you'll run into a few KMMs in similar condition that you can pick up at nearby shops in the $15-25 range.

reply to u/betonyourself19 at https://old.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/1vhjuav/what_am_i_looking_at_here/

It's a Smith-Corona 5 series from the 1950s, likely a Silent-Super (though it's difficult to read the lettering on the back of the paper table. Looks like it may have been either originally a pink machine and someone repainted the body grey or someone chopped the pink parts off and put them on a gray machine.

Repair shops in the US typically run $40-75/hour of labor plus parts or a few hundred for a general clean, oil, and adjust. You can ask for the bare minimum to get it going again all the way up to a full restoration depending on your needs and budget. Typically based on what you need a shop will give you a quote before starting work.

https://site.xavier.edu/polt/typewriters/tw-repair.html

Can this extend to 3+ conditions such as ~ selection strength?

what should I change for different selection pressures?

Medicinal herbs are usually called weeds now in modern western culture.

I find this part to be the most fascinating.

At first I read this wrong and thought it was incorrect until I realized it said no "Single" history and that made a lot more sense.

This is sort of the direction I assumed this class would take since I didn't know what exactly I was getting into.

Content Layers aur Interactive Layers mein bunyadi farq kya hai?

anyone wants share their answers or opinion?

Sal Castro was clearly a very good teacher. He saw what these students were going to do and educated them on the proper way to pull off a proper peaceful protest. Plenty of America's most pivotal moments were in protest.

The walkouts were clearly completely justifiable and a monumental moment in the Chicano movement.

In many countries around the world it's not uncommon to have people fluent in multiple languages. America would be so much mor diverse if we put more effort in the other languages spoken.

This is an important piece to take note of. While knowing the language of the country you live in is important to be able to interact with others it's also very important to not diminish your own culture in the process of education.

We have added co-authors; therefore, the correct order is Karen Bartholomew; Dan Kirwana Kibuuka; Tracy Murphy; Wendy Bennett; Leah Pointon; Michael Walsh; Catherine Jackson; Adam Dennison; Rachael Webb; Joy Panoho; Ainsleigh Laumatia; Nigel Wilson; Tracey Hale; Aifai Taupule; Siobhan Tu’akoi; Peter Sandiford; Gillian Whalley; Lauren McCann; Ellen Woodcock; Kelly Boegel; Nicola Culliford-Semmens

Sem que isso anule os dirigintes...

Lembrar de quando eu estudei para a previdencia do RS, capitalização é o dinheiro guardado e investido, n o entra e sai (Repartição simples)

ground atomic formula cyc

with TrailMarks notation 1 can put anything into the lines in 1's own omnipresent IndyWiki

The inks themselves are cyc likebut expanded ground atomic formulas with a simple self-formulating extensible homoiconic syntax along with its own auto-poieticmeta-circular bootstrappable

working "NOTATION PROESSOR" which iteslf is extensibel permanent, evergreen and for-ever co0evolvable

with full recapitulable history of its verifiably attributed history of it's colaborative history an

IndyWiki ** as the Maker App for the IndyWeb**

all concerns are integral and omnioptional, so you will never be locked into a specific conception

change your mind and change the very machinery that you formulated and re-factor, make holesale changes as understanding grows

do that with fullintentional transparency and full suppot for turning intentional conceptionalizations into morphic capabilities and affordances as the need arise and it is fleshed out on its way to be REALized

make it amenable to to the PUN that something that is formulated and fully elaborated in its own explicit terms, language, tool, existing capabilities and methodologies can be deeloped to a software tht is capabile of delivering on the formulated intent

The whole thing is designed with making radical cahnges easy and cheap.

This applies to the very means that the notation orchestrates

Since the interpay between authors rely on exchanges sharing opermanently, irevocably with ful attributon within owned networks of collaborators or audience

all that is needed to change one thing to another named version

future proof forward compatiility can be ensured/

💻/asus/🧊/me/📓/2026/8/🔍/ground.atomic.formula.cyc/@/Brave/ground.atomic.formula.cyc.Brave.html

What about the simulator contract? I think there could be some things to discuss here, like how to control having Expo Go preinstalled after the split

This behavior is exactly why I am pushing back on REST a bit

I've worked on a system I called "page2api", which was a wrapper for Playwright scripts to present as if a certain service had an API. It had "sessions", which were leased browsers underneath

I've published a TypeScript SDK to consumers and have changed the transport to notify on leasing states like 3 times (retries -> long polling -> WebSocket) over a year for various reasons (performance, stability, command batching)

Here I would have gradually push for the same - maybe even adopt gRPC at some point, abstracted away in an SDK package

Being constrained to REST limits the scope of solutions we could implement for future problems

Not that anybody wanted to, but I'd like to say this: If we add metadata JSON, let's not kill tags, those aren't superseded by metadata, as they have their own neat rendering and they are algorithmic-ally cheap to filter by

As much as I like having REST API specs (especially for E2E tests, monitoring, etc.), I'd like to push back slightly, as this would slow our agents down, and it does not cleanly fit all of our features (i.e. log streaming would be poorly defined with REST)

Worth noting, that lim.run, for instance, only exposes many of their features as CLI and SDK, but NOT API https://docs.limrun.com/docs/ios/build-with-xcode

I believe this is deliberate; the define contracts with CLI and SDK types so that the agent can quickly reassemble internal implementation as needed

If the push for OpenAPI is mainly to support trace id, can we also investigate how to integrate it in places that don't cleanly map to REST?

Nice! We get to remove dead code for once haha

Why not?

As in "what failure scenario will justify having to rotate two sets of credentials if we have to"

Can we clarify that this is only bad if it's a "change of an existing feature" and not an "addition"?

I really liked how during my agentic loops that covered Newly, run.cloud and the fleet all at once, I've had both a new feature for Newly appear and something useful for our customer base too

Case in point: iOS/Android log streaming, added for Newly's debugging, got commended for it by minitap.ai

One thing I'd like to mention in run.cloud's product statement, that first-class support for some React Native-related and AI-related features should be included

For example, the Metro bundler tunneling

One might say "Newly needs it, Newly can implement it in their user land", but a) shipping purpose-built features in run.cloud's fleet was sometimes cheaper than solving a general purpose mechanism b) our customer base is heavy on AI, and they sometimes offer first class support for React Native too (like minitap.ai)

Basically, I'd like to caution everybody against too hard of a split, so as not to lose benefits of dogfooding

So in relation to observability note, I'd rather not commit to any decision now here

testing on docdrop if it is still working

I don't think it still really should be considered a "steelman". It's more of a model and a dashboard/Calculator, although the initial prompts did emphasize this steel manning motivation

royal society

law of human mortaility

from: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rstl/article/doi/10.1098/rstl.1825.0026/117600/XXIV-On-the-nature-of-the-function-expressive-of law of human mortaility

It seems likely the foundation model embedding geometries could vary across multiple axes: distribution of (non)linearity, local vs. global dimensionality, etc. I wonder if it might be worth characterizing these as a prior for intertepreting the proposed metrics. For example, won't the Euclidean distance of a gene in a locally nonlinear region of an embedding mean something different than a gene in a linear portion?

eLife Assessment

This work presents a software and hardware suite for targeted photostimulation that can be used in vivo. The package is a well-designed and documented hardware/software suite with a comprehensive build guide. This tool will likely promote important neuroscience advances through targeted real-time perturbation of the cerebral cortex. Overall, this manuscript makes a compelling case on how to design and make available power tools for the research community.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Lohse et al. describe an open-source system for laser scanning photostimulation (LSPS) in head-fixed animals. Although similar systems have been developed and used by different groups, Zapit provides an open-source solution requiring few custom parts and minimal coding. This tool can clearly facilitate and speed the adoption of LSPS, particularly for the increasingly used purpose of mapping the effects of focal cortical silencing during behavior. Other potential uses include mapping optogenetically evoked movements and selectively activating genetically labeled neuronal subtypes of interest in the cortex. The design is well thought through, and the presentation is mostly clear and well written.

In general, the more modular such a system is, the better, in terms of compatibility with existing hardware and software that potential users may already have purchased - laser, galvo, and camera in particular. The system has struck a reasonable balance between allowing modularity and providing an integrated complete package, but even more flexibility would be welcome for potential users looking to cut costs, as would clearer presentation of such flexibility as already exists.

Comments and suggestions are mostly minor, as follows.

(1) Command signals:

How is the relationship between analog voltage commands and laser power determined? Is this assumed (or required) to be linear (as Figure 7F implies)? Usability and modularity would be improved by an option to measure or provide a calibration curve for systems with a nonlinear mapping between command voltage and laser power.

For the grid calibration step, how is the initial mapping from galvo voltage commands to image position determined? Presumably, some sort of initial guess or calculation based on the hardware specifications is needed for the grid calibration to be feasible. Also, how are the number of grid lines and the distance between them determined?

Why is the mapping between analog outputs and hardware (galvos, laser, masking light) fixed? This would be trivial to make configurable and allow labs with existing setups to adopt Zapit without rewiring existing hardware.

(2) Laser and optics:

In Figure 1, the authors should consider explaining the scanning principle schematically, i.e., depicting how tilting of the scan mirrors translates via the scan lens into beam displacement in the specimen plane. Perhaps Zemax can be used for accurate rendering.

Since the unexpanded beam greatly under-fills the back aperture of the lens, the z resolution is presumably terrible - which is good! That is, for the purposes of LSPS, this advantageously avoids focus-dependent effects, which might otherwise arise due to (e.g.) skull curvature. The authors should consider pointing this out, as well as providing an estimate of the z resolution.

What is the working distance?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this work, Lohse and colleagues develop a system for doing targeted photostimulation in mouse cortex. The system uses a camera image to target laser stimulation to stereotactically defined locations in mouse dorsal cortex.

Strengths:

The hardware is well designed, and the software is well documented and supported. The build guide and well-documented software package should allow for simple implementation of the technology. Without a doubt, this is a valuable community resource for the circuit neuroscience field.

Weaknesses:

No weaknesses were identified by this reviewer.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Zappit is an open-source implementation of arbitrary-access laser-scanning optogenetics for manipulation of neuronal activity in mice. As the method requires expertise ranging from optics, hardware control and programming, the authors make the point that this powerful strategy is underutilized in the field, and put forward a well-documented modular hardware and software platform aligned to the Allen Mouse Brain Atlas aimed at enabling the larger scientific community to use this approach (democratizing) for controlling cortical activity during behavior in mice.

The authors favor a galvanometric approach to laser targeting. The system is inexpensive, easy to build, well-documented and user friendly (Matlab based GUI and GitHub repository). The photo-stimulation laser is directed into an X-Y galvo scanner targeted to the specimen using a dichroic mirror and focused on the sample using a Plössl lens as scan lens which is also used as an objective. The scan lens/objective images the specimen onto a camera via tube lens (also a Plössl lens) in a 0.5X magnification ensuring to fit the extent of the mouse brain onto the camera sensor (USB-3 Basler acA120-40um).

The authors report short and reproducible onsite time (~ 0.5 ms) and block (mask) the stimulation source using the laser analog control (~0.5 ms). The system is reliable, aiming at up to 20 stimulation sites per sequence considered as quasi-simultaneous (10 ms). They minimize rebound by gentle ramping down of stimulation over 250 ms.

The system is fast to calibrate by mapping scanner positions to pixel space in the camera space and mapping stereotaxic coordinate onto the image of the exposed skull. The theoretical x-y PSF is 70 µm (measured ~90µm) while the authors make the point that due to scattering the photo-stimulation spot size (lateral extent) is about 1 mm in diameter. This is what they also observe in electrophysiological recordings using silicon probes. The effective radius of inactivation depends on laser power, but was about 1 mm for laser powers (1-2-4 mW) on which the authors observed significant behavioral perturbations - in several tasks: 1) a delayed response somatosensory discrimination, 2) a visual detection task assessing changes in temporal frequency of a drifting visual stimulus; and 3) a visual discrimination (International Brain Laboratory task) in which mice were tasked to report the location of visual stimuli by turning a wheel. As proof of principle, the authors used a photo-stimulation set composed of 52 bilateral sites positioned at 0.5 mm interval covering a large network of frontal, motor and somatosensory cortical areas. Indeed, photo-inhibition of frontal motor cortex sites produced robust increases in reaction time. In contrast, stimulation at other motor and somatosensory sites produced modest, but significant decreases in reaction times.

While the approach is not novel, it does serve the need of better disseminating this technique in the research community. Overall, the Zappit is well-documented and easy to build and use, and will have impact in increasing robust use of site directed photo-stimulation (exciting/inhibiting ensembles of neurons at particular ~1 mm size regions of interests across the dorsal surface of the brain). The authors also note that the axial resolution is ~1.5 mm.

Concerns & comments:

(1) While the authors argue that it offers the best utility to affordability trade-off - faster than motorized drivers and require much less power than DMDs (100X) and less expensive/easier to use compared to SLMs, in the current form, the manuscript does not clearly list the limitations of the approach. At such, in my opinion, the authors should include side by side comparisons (perhaps as a table). For example, clear statements should be included with respect to comparisons in lateral (x-y), axial (z) spatial resolution, as well as temporal sequential aspect of Zappit and other photo-stimulation techniques involving DMDs or SLMs.

(2) Is power really a limitation in terms of the laser sources? Or is this a disadvantage mainly because using less power has beneficial effects on the tissue health? It may be useful to provide metrics of comparisons along these lines between Zappit and DMD-based approaches.

(3) Arbitrary-scanning vs random scanning may be more appropriate to describe to strategy.

The context of being a human lives in the human brain, deeply embedded in the very essence of our lively understanding. To mold that to understand what it is to be a bat feels almost impossible. Let's see what the author has to say.

I've been attacked by bats twice in my life. This statement couldn't be more true.

a branching diagram that shows the evolutionary history and relationships among different species or groups of organisms

Access to outcomes-level data becomes essential.

delete

make this: eine typische Sportart

make this: ist dies nicht der Fall

delete

make this: . D

make this: . Das trifft in einem österreichischen Krankenhaus selten zu.

make this: Behandlung, Rücktransport und Evakuierung werden je unbegrenzt gedeckt

make this: . So bleibt unklar, ob Skifahren gedeckt ist.

make this: . D

make this: . I

rephrase. make this two simple, proper German sentences

make this: Beim Rücktransport schneidet sie mit "medizinisch sinnvoll und ärztlich angeordnet" gut ab

make this: folgt der engsten

make this: . Alle anderen beginnen bei mindestens 100 Euro.

make this: Schneemangel berücksichtigt

What is this referring to? Clarify or find another phrasing without the reference

make this: . Der

make this: großzügig

delete

make this: . F

make this: also die Skibox auf dem Autodach nicht versichert

make this: Wer beispielsweise die Übernachtungskosten für die Hütte überweist

make this: . D

make this: kann in Österreich nicht nur zivilrechtlich belangt werden,

make this: nur einen

add the sum here: "ist die Summe von xxx"

find a better headline that summarizes the most important point of the following two sections

please rephrase to clarify

make this: . Wer

please rephrase to clarify. no idea what this means

make this: vollständigen

make this: Daraus leitet sich die Rangfolge im Vergleichstest ab und auch

make this: Im Test bestimmen sechs Kriterien die Rangfolge

make this: Karten

make this: jeder der hier verglichenen

delete

make this: die er selbst zahlen muss

make this: – 

make this: Am Berg ist dann eine oft unbekannte Unterscheidungen in der Formulierung der Police entscheidend:

make this: gilt für alle Krankenversicherungen und

delete

make this: beschriebenen

Dieser Artikel vergleicht sechs Karten, geprüft ausschließlich an den offiziellen Versicherungsbedingungen.

针对mac环境的话，要改一下：

修改前：

python device_type = 'cuda' if 'cuda' in device else 'cpu'

修改后：

python device_type = 'cuda' if 'cuda' in device else ('cpu' if device == 'cpu' else 'cpu')

原因： 这个变量用于决定后续是否启用 torch.amp.autocast（混合精度）。原逻辑只有 'cuda' 和 'cpu' 两种情况。当 device='mps' 时，'cuda' in device 为 False，所以会走 else 分支 ，结果也是 'cpu'，从而使用 nullcontext()（不启用 autocast）。这样避免了 MPS 上 <br /> autocast 的兼容性问题。

只不过这个是英文的视频就是了

eLife Assessment

This important study uses longitudinal EEG to chart how neural tracking of syllables and word-level statistical structure develops over the first two years of life in infants at high and low likelihood for autism and links these measures to verbal outcomes at 18-20 months. The strength of evidence is convincing: the prospective longitudinal design, careful data-quality handling, and partial least squares analyses are appropriate and well executed, though some interpretations of the group differences in syllable tracking, along with the possible contributions of multilingual exposure and sleep state during recording, warrant caution. The work will be of interest to developmental cognitive neuroscientists studying language acquisition and early neural markers of neurodevelopmental conditions.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript reports a prospective longitudinal study examining whether infants with high likelihood (HL) for autism differ from low-likelihood (LL) infants in two levels of word learning: brain-to-speech cortical entrainment and implicit word segmentation. The authors report reduced syllable tracking and post-learning word recognition in the HL group relative to the LL group. Importantly, both the syllable-tracking entrainment measure and the word recognition ERP measure are positively associated with verbal outcomes at 18-20 months, as indexed by the Mullen Verbal Developmental Quotient. Overall, I found this to be a thoughtfully designed and carefully executed study that tackles a difficult and important set of questions. With some clarifications and modest additional analyses or discussion on the points below, the manuscript has strong potential to make a substantial contribution to the literature on early language development and autism.

Strengths:

This is an important study that addresses a central question in developmental cognitive neuroscience: what mechanisms underlie variability in language learning, and what are the early neural correlates of these individual differences? While language development has a relatively well-defined sensitive period in typical development, the mechanisms of variability-particularly in the context of neurodevelopmental conditions-remain poorly understood, in part because longitudinal work in very young infants and toddlers is rare. The present study makes a valuable contribution by directly targeting this gap and by grounding the work in a strong theoretical tradition on statistical learning as a foundational mechanism for early language acquisition.

I especially appreciate the authors' meticulous approach to data quality and their clear, transparent description of the methods. The choice of partial least squares correlation (PLS-c) is well motivated, given the multidimensional nature of the data and collinearity among variables and the manuscript does a commendable job explaining this technique to readers who may be less familiar with it.

The results reveal interesting developmental changes in syllable tracking and word segmentation from birth to 2 years in both HL and LL infants. Simply mapping these trajectories in both groups is highly valuable. Moreover, the associations between neural indices of brain-to-speech entrainment and word segmentation with later verbal outcomes in the LL group support a critical role for speech perception and statistical learning in early language development, with clear implications for understanding autism. Overall, this is a rich dataset with substantial potential to inform theory.

Comment on revised version.

The revised manuscript has provided additional analyses that lead to critical clarification of the main findings, including the longitudinal nature of the relationship between neural tracking of speech and language, the role of sleep, and the potential modulation effect of stream structure on syllable-level neural tracking. The overall results highlight the robustness of the findings as well as the specific relevance of the structured speech tracking to verbal outcomes of infants with high likelihood (HL) of autism.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This article looks at differences in how the brain entrains to, or tracks, the rhythmic presentation of syllables and words in speech in infants at increased likelihood versus low likelihood for autism. The authors first sought to characterize how brain responses are modulated by learning the statistical probability of a given syllable following the one before it over the first two years of life. They then sought to identify at which stages of word learning infants at increased likelihood for autism showed difficulties, and whether those difficulties worsened over time. Finally, they sought to indicate whether infants' statistical learning and word learning abilities could predict later verbal skills. The authors found similar developmental trajectories of neural entrainment to syllables in infants at high and low likelihood for autism, but infants at high likelihood for autism had overall weaker syllable-level entrainment. Infants at high versus low likelihood for autism showed different developmental trajectories for word entrainment. Lower syllable entrainment in high-likelihood infants corresponded with poorer verbal outcomes, but word entrainment was not associated with verbal outcomes. Event-related potential responses to words and part words were positively associated with verbal outcomes, however, but only in low-likelihood infants.

Strengths:

Overall, the article provides rigorous statistical analysis of longitudinal EEG data to provide strong support for the claims that neural entrainment to syllable and word features of speech may be a useful marker for language development difficulties, particularly in infants at increased likelihood for neurodevelopmental disorders. The EEG data collection and preprocessing procedures are well within standards within the field. Readers should take care to note that authors indexed neural entrainment to speech using phase-locking values instead of spectral power.

Comments on revised version.

While the statistical analyses are rigorous, there are a few potential confounds to the results. The authors now do a nice job addressing these limitations to the work. For example, sleep status may modulate some of the biomarkers relevant for language learning. Exposure to additional languages may influence performance on the verbal assessment, though the authors do clarify that participants came from majority French-speaking households. As a result, readers should be encouraged to interpret that neural entrainment to speech features is likely a useful mechanism to explain differences in language development, while taking this interpretation with some caution.

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) Interpretation of Syllable-Tracking in the RND Condition:

The finding of greater syllable-tracking in the LL group compared to the HL group in the RND condition warrants cautious interpretation. Currently, there is no direct statistical evidence demonstrating greater PLV at 4 Hz in the Structured versus Random conditions for either group; readers must infer this solely from numeric differences in Figure S5 B and D. Therefore, while the interpretation on Page 14 (Lines 443-446) "successful segmentation may enhance syllable tracking via top-down predictions of the next syllable" is an interesting speculation, it feels somewhat far-reaching. Additionally, the authors should discuss whether this upregulated syllable tracking in the structured condition (which is specific to the HL group) represents an adaptive or maladaptive response.

The reviewer correctly highlights the lack of direct  comparison between conditions (RND versus STR). We tempered our claims in the cited paragraph and insisted on the speculative nature of this part of the discussion. We also clarified that, to us, it may represent an adaptive compensatory strategy:

Page 14, line 441: “Interestingly, our supplementary analyses (Supplementary Material Figure S4-5) suggest that syllable entrainment may be differentially affected in HL versus LL infants, depending on the statistical structure of the input stream (RND versus STR). However, as our experiment was not explicitly designed to test stream effects, these results should be interpreted with caution. Future studies could explore how successful segmentation may enhance syllable tracking via top-down predictions of the next syllable in both LL and HL infants. If confirmed, such a mechanism may improve alignment to syllable onsets, potentially constituting a compensatory process allowed by preserved segmentation abilities.”

(2) Preservation of Statistical Learning in HL Infants:

The text added on Pages 17-18 (Lines 562-566) regarding a "heightened dependence on bottom-up mechanisms (in autism)" does not appear to be supported by the data or by theories of implicit statistical learning. Because greater syllable-level entrainment was observed in the LL group than the HL group across both the random and structured conditions, the data actually point toward impaired bottom-up processes. Furthermore, implicit statistical learning typically involves an interplay of both bottom-up and top-down mechanisms; the implicit nature of a task does not guarantee a strictly bottom-up process. Consequently, this interpretation is not entirely convincing.

We agree with the reviewer that the concepts of “top-down” and “bottom-up” were not fully appropriate to support our point in the cited paragraph. We should have used the concepts of implicit versus explicit learning instead, in line with previous literature suggesting increased reliance on preserved implicit learning in autism to compensate for altered explicit processes. The paragraph was slightly modified.

Page 18, line 564: “According to these studies, autistic impairments in explicit attentional processes, such as social orienting - which are critical for bootstrapping language acquisition (70) - may result in a heightened dependence on implicit mechanisms, including statistical learning. As previously discussed, preserved word segmentation abilities may further compensate for alterations in lower-level implicit processes, such as syllable tracking.”

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Potential typo on line 199 - I think an apostrophe is needed here.<br /> Potential typo on line 255 - do you mean Central electrodes?

We addressed the typos spotted by reviewer.

Line 199: variables’

Line 255: Centro-frontal electrodes

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript reports a prospective longitudinal study examining whether infants with high likelihood (HL) for autism differ from low-likelihood (LL) infants in two levels of word learning: brain-to-speech cortical entrainment and implicit word segmentation. The authors report reduced syllable tracking and post-learning word recognition in the HL group relative to the LL group. Importantly, both the syllable-tracking entrainment measure and the word recognition ERP measure are positively associated with verbal outcomes at 18-20 months, as indexed by the Mullen Verbal Developmental Quotient. Overall, I found this to be a thoughtfully designed and carefully executed study that tackles a difficult and important set of questions. With some clarifications and modest additional analyses or discussion on the points below, the manuscript has strong potential to make a substantial contribution to the literature on early language development and autism.

Strengths:

This is an important study that addresses a central question in developmental cognitive neuroscience: what mechanisms underlie variability in language learning, and what are the early neural correlates of these individual differences? While language development has a relatively well-defined sensitive period in typical development, the mechanisms of variability - particularly in the context of neurodevelopmental conditions - remain poorly understood, in part because longitudinal work in very young infants and toddlers is rare. The present study makes a valuable contribution by directly targeting this gap and by grounding the work in a strong theoretical tradition on statistical learning as a foundational mechanism for early language acquisition.

I especially appreciate the authors' meticulous approach to data quality and their clear, transparent description of the methods. The choice of partial least squares correlation (PLS-c) is well motivated, given the multidimensional nature of the data and collinearity among variables, and the manuscript does a commendable job explaining this technique to readers who may be less familiar with it.

The results reveal interesting developmental changes in syllable tracking and word segmentation from birth to 2 years in both HL and LL infants. Simply mapping these trajectories in both groups is highly valuable. Moreover, the associations between neural indices of brain-to-speech entrainment and word segmentation with later verbal outcomes in the LL group support a critical role for speech perception and statistical learning in early language development, with clear implications for understanding autism. Overall, this is a rich dataset with substantial potential to inform theory.

Weaknesses:

(1) Clarifying longitudinal vs. concurrent associations

Because the current analytical approach incorporates all time points, including the final visit, it is challenging to determine to what extent the brain-language associations are driven by longitudinal relationships vs. concurrent correlations at the last time point. This does not undermine the main findings, but clarifying this issue could significantly enhance the impact of the individual-differences results. If feasible, the authors might consider (a) showing that a model excluding the final visit still predicts verbal outcomes at the last visit in a similar way, or (b) more explicitly acknowledging in the discussion that the observed associations may be partly or largely driven by concurrent correlations. Either approach would help readers interpret the strength and nature of the longitudinal claims.

We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. We agree that distinguishing between longitudinal predictive power and concurrent correlations at the final visit is crucial for clarifying the nature of these brain-language associations. Following the reviewer’s suggestion (a), we re-ran the two critical Partial Least Squares Correlation (PLS-c) analyses by excluding all EEG and behavioral data from the final 18–21 month visit (n = 54 recordings kept) to test whether earlier trajectories still predict the final verbal outcome.

(1) Syllable entrainment (4 Hz) (original analysis on Figure 2C–D): The PLS-c restricted to the 3- to 15-month visits still identified a single significant component (p=.001, r=.56, 64.0% explained covariance, Figure 2 -figure supplement 3). Bootstrap ratios (BSR) were: contrast (low vs. high autism likelihood) 4.1; mean age −1.3; contrast*mean-age −2.1; delta-age 10.5; contrast*delta-age 2.0; age² −6.0; contrast*age² −5.8; and notably verbal outcome 7.1; contrast*verbal-outcome −6.3.

The latent component and its spatial electrode configuration remain highly consistent with the original analysis (Figure 2C–D). This confirms that excluding the final visit preserves the model’s predictive validity: lower syllable entrainment correlates with poorer verbal outcomes at 18–21 months, particularly in the high-likelihood group.

(2) Late evoked response to novel words (original analysis on Figure 6): The PLS-c analysis on the ERP late time window (1500–3000 ms), excluding the final visit, also revealed one significant component (p=.002, r=.74, 33.5% explained covariance, Figure 6 -figure supplement 1). Bootstrap ratios (BSR) were: contrast (part-word versus word) 14.5; mean age -5.2; contrast*mean-age 6.2; delta-age -0.8; contrast*delta-age 3.5; age² -0.8; contrast*age² -12.1; verbal-outcome 20.1; contrast*verbal-outcome -7.2. The latent component closely mirrored the original analysis (Figure 6), with frontal electrodes contributing negatively and posterior electrodes positively. Minor divergences in age-related parameter contributions were observed, likely due to the absence of 18-21 month timepoints, which previously contributed to the convex/concave shapes of the group age trajectories in figure 6B (left panel).

Crucially, both models (with and without the final visit) positively predicted verbal outcomes (Figure 6B, right panel, and Figure 6 -figure supplement 1B). However, excluding the final visit reversed the direction of the group*verbal-outcome interaction (from 3 to -7.2): This indicates that after ruling out cross-sectional correlations at 18–21 months, the early predictive value of the late ERP to word novelty is more prominently observed in high-likelihood infants, suggesting that the original result was influenced by concurrent cross-sectional correlations at the final visit. This aligns with the syllable entrainment findings (Figure 2 -figure supplement 3), as both 4 Hz neural tracking and late ERP responses to novelty predominantly predict verbal outcomes in infants at high likelihood for autism.

We reported these supplementary analyses in the revised manuscript as follows:

We added Figure 2 -figure supplement 3 and Figure 6 -figure supplement 1. In general, most of figures that were present in Supplementary materials were moved as figure supplements to enhance readability.

Page 8 lines 234-240 (pages and lines refer to the reviewed uploaded manuscript): “To rule out the possibility that the association between syllable entrainment and verbal outcome was driven by concurrent measures taken at 18–21 months, we re-ran the PLS-c analysis excluding EEG data from the final visit (n = 54 recordings kept). The resulting latent component remain significant (p = .001) and showed contributions from behavioral and EEG variables that were highly similar to those observed in the previous analysis, with a verbal outcome BSR of 7.1 and a group’verbal-outcome interaction BSR of −6.3 (Figure 2 -figure supplement 3).”

Page 12 lines 387-394: “As we did for neural entrainment to syllables, we conducted a new analysis on late ERP to word novelty, excluding EEG data from the final visit. This PLS-c yielded one significant latent component (p = .002, r=.74, 33.5% explained covariance, Figure 6 -figure supplement 1) with globally similar EEG parameter contributions and age trajectory modelling. Verbal outcome still significantly contributed to the latent component (BSR=20.1), with a negative verbal outcome*group interaction (BSR=-7.2). These results suggest that, after ruling out cross-sectional correlations at 18–21 months, the late ERP to word novelty predominantly predicts verbal outcomes in high-likelihood infants for autism.”

Page 17 lines 547-548: “As with syllable entrainment, the late ERP to novel words primarily predicted verbal outcomes in high-likelihood (HL) infants.”

Page 18 lines 588-590: “Likewise, the absence of a late ERP orientation response in HL participants may represent an early neural signature of altered attention to novelty that can be used both as a non-invasive predictor of language development and as a potential target for early intervention.’

(2) Incorporating sleep status into longitudinal models

Sleep status changes systematically across developmental stages in this cohort. Given that some of the papers cited to justify the paradigm also note limitations in speech entrainment and word segmentation during sleep or in patients with impaired consciousness, it would be helpful to account for sleep more directly. Including sleep status as a factor or covariate in the longitudinal models, or at least elaborating more fully on its potential role and limitations, would further strengthen the conclusions and reassure readers that these effects are not primarily driven by differences in sleep-wake state.

The reviewer is highlighting here a limitation of our study design that comprised sleeping status that varied from one timepoint to another among participants. To rule out any confounding effect of wake status (coded as a binary variable: sleeping or awake during recording) on analyses comparing groups, a linear mixed-effect model with repeated measures was fitted finding no significant difference between high- and low-likelihood participants (p=.769, reported at page 20, lines 646-647). However, as rightly suggested by the reviewer, this doesn’t prevent from a sleep bias on age trajectories, especially given that sleeping status significantly decreases with age in our sample.

Including sleep status as a covariate in our analyses, as suggested by the reviewer, would be difficult to implement in our PLS-c methods, since a categorical behavioral parameter that varies within participants is not possible in the models provided by myPLS toolbox.

As an alternative option, we re-ran all analyses that explored the condition effect on the whole sample within the sleeping participants only (n=25 recordings) to confirm that the same age-trajectories of EEG parameters were highlighted. However, negative results should be interpreted with caution since the sample is small for such a multivariate approach, resulting in modest statistical power.

(1) Syllable entrainment (4 Hz) (original analysis on Figure 2A–B): The PLS-c identified one significant component (p <.001, r = .78, 85.1% explained covariance, Figure 2 -figure supplement 2 and Figure 3 -figure supplement 1). Bootstrap ratios (BSR) were: contrast (4hz vs. adjacent frequencies) 30.3; mean age -2.9; contrast*mean-age -2.4; delta-age 3.8; contrast*delta-age 3.4; age² -1.1; contrast* −2.5. The spatial distribution of contributing electrodes globally matched that shown in Figure 2A. The high contrast BSR (30.3) confirms robust syllable entrainment in sleeping infants. Critically, the contrast*age² parameter contributed negatively to the latent component (BSR = −2.5), confirming that the convex age trajectory of syllabic entrainment (Figure 2B) is also present in the sleeping subsample.

(2) Word entrainment (1.3 Hz) (original analysis on Figure 3A–B): The PLS-c identified one significant component (p <.001, r = .63, 37.3% explained covariance, Author response image 1). Bootstrap ratios (BSR) were: contrast (1.3hz vs. adjacent frequencies) 24.9; mean age -7.5; contrast*mean-age -3.2; delta-age 2.9; contrast*delta-age 0.0; age² 1.5; contrast* 1.1. The spatial distribution of significant electrodes partially overlaps with the ones in the original analysis, primarily showing fronto-central positive contribution to the latent component. The high contrast BSR confirms a robust word entrainment in sleeping participants, in line with previous studies (e.g., Flò et al, Sci Rep, 2022). However, the lack of a significant contrast* age² suggests that the U-shape age trajectory illustrated on Figure 3 might be modulated by wakefulness or due to a lack of power in the present analysis. A non-significant trend towards a U-shape pattern with a 12-month nadir is visible in sleeping participants, but additional data from sleeping 18-21 months sleeping infants would be required to confirm or refute this trend.

(3) Early evoked response to novel words (original analysis on Figure 4): The PLS-c analysis on the ERP early time window (0–1000 ms) in sleeping participants revealed no significant component. The absence of early response to word novelty in sleeping participant might account for the lack of response observed in the whole sample, illustrated on Figure 4. To test this hypothesis, we conducted the same PLS-c in awake participants (n=58 recordings), which also yielded no significant latent component. This suggests that the lack of a measurable early response to word novelty observed in the whole sample is consistent across both sleeping and awake infants, and not driven by any of the two subsamples.

(4) Late evoked response to novel words (original analysis on Figure 5): The PLS-c analysis on the ERP late time window in sleeping participants revealed no significant component. This suggests that sleeping participants might present a reduced or even absent late response to novel words. Given this identified effect of sleep on late ERP response, we reran the PLS-c on the late ERP window using group as contrast (original analysis on figure 6), excluding the sleeping participants to avoid any confounds. This PLS-c revealed one significant component (p = .006, r = .68, 30.5% explained covariance, Author response image 1). Bootstrap ratios (BSR) were: contrast (low versus high likelihood) 7.6; mean age -5.9; contrast*mean-age -3.8; delta-age 2.5; contrast*delta-age -3.5; age² -2.5; contrast*age² -4.9; verbal-outcome 8.5; contrast*verbal-outcome -1.0. Behavioral parameters contribute to this latent component with similar magnitude and polarity as in the original analysis. Electrode contributions are also highly consistent, with frontal negative and posterior positive contributions. This confirms that sleeping participants, despite their potentially reduced late response, did not significantly bias the results presented in Figure 6.

Author response image 1.

Late evoked response potential (ERP) to word novelty in awake participants. A. Design and brain saliences derived from the significant latent component. Brain topographies of bootstrap ratios (BSR) are displayed at 250ms intervals. Black dots indicate BSR > 2.3. B. Participants’ brain scores for part-word and word conditions, as a function of age (left panel) and verbal DQ (right panel). For details on brain scores, see Figure 6 -figure supplement 1. Linear fitting is used for illustrative purposes only. HL: high likelihood for autism; LL: low likelihood for autism.

We reported these analyses in the revised manuscript as follows:

We added Figure 2 -figure supplement 2A and Figure 3 -figure supplement 1.

Page 7, lines 218-224: “Because some infants were asleep during the recording session, particularly at younger ages, we performed a supplementary control analysis restricted to this sleeping subsample (n = 25 recordings, Figure 2 -figure supplement 2). This PLS-c also identified a significant latent component (p < .001, r = .78, 85.1% explained covariance), with a significant contrast effect (BSR = 30.3) and a significant negative contrast*age² interaction (BSR = −2.5). These findings confirm that the convex age trajectory observed in the main analysis remains present and observable even in sleeping infants.”

Page 8, lines 252-259: “We further investigated word entrainment in sleeping participants (n=25), which yielded one significant latent component (p<.001, r=.63, 37.3% explained covariance, Figure 3 -figure supplement 1). Centro-frontal electrode contributed to this component, with a high contrast BSR (24.9), confirming a similar word entrainment pattern in the sleeping subsample. The contrast*age² was also positive but not significant (1.1), suggesting a trend toward a U-shape age trajectory with a 12-month nadir in sleeping infants. Additional 18-21 month recording would be required to confirm this trend.”

Page 11, lines 347-349: “The same PLS-c, conducted separately in sleeping (n=25) and awake subsamples (n = 58), yielded no significant latent component, indicating a consistent absence of early response to word novelty in both sleeping and awake infants.”

Page 11-12 lines 368-370: “The same PLS-c in the sleeping subsample yielded no significant latent component, suggesting that sleep may reduce or even abolish the late response to word novelty.”

Page 12 lines 382-385: “Given that no late response was detected in sleeping participants, we re-ran the PLS-c analysis using group as a contrast in the awake subsample (n=58). This yielded one significant latent component (p=.006, r=.68, 30.5% explained covariance), with behavioral and electrode contributions highly overlapping with those in Figure 6.”

Page 18 lines 590-592: “This potential biomarker might nevertheless be modulated by participants’ sleep status, warranting careful consideration of vigilance state in future studies.”

(3) Use of PLS-c and potential group × condition interactions

I am relatively new to PLS-c. One question that arose is whether PLS-c could be extended to handle a two-way interaction between group and condition contrasts (STR vs. RND). If so, some of the more complex supplementary models testing developmental trajectories within each group (Page 8, Lines 258-265) might be more directly captured within a single, unified framework. Even a brief comment in the methods or discussion about the feasibility (or limitations) of modeling such interactions within PLS-c would be informative for readers and could streamline the analytic narrative.

The reviewer raises a valid concern regarding the capacity of PLS-c to accommodate multi-way interactions among categorical and continuous variables. While PLS-c has no inherent theoretical constraints on the number of predictor terms (they can even exceed the sample size in number), practical limitations arise from model stability and interpretability when the ratio of predictors to sample size becomes excessive. As noted by Geladi and Kowalski (1986), exceeding ~10% of the sample size with predictors increases noise sensitivity and overfitting.

In our study, the PLS-c analyses already reach this ~10% limit, with a maximum of nine predictors for a sample size of n=83. Attempting to integrate both group and condition as contrasts — along with necessary age parameters to account for developmental trajectories — would result in 12 predictors (or 15 if verbal outcome is included). Specifically, the model would require behavioral terms for Group, Condition, Group*Condition, Mean-age, Group*Mean-age, Condition*Mean-age, Delta-age, Group*Delta-age, Condition*Delta-age, Age², Group*Age², Condition*Age², Verbal-outcome, Group*Verbal-outcome, and Condition*Verbal-outcome.

Although a unified multivariate model capturing the complex dynamics at play in our sample is theoretically appealing, the substantial risk of overfitting precludes its feasibility. Therefore, we opted to use only one categorical predictor per PLS-c analysis to maintain model parsimony and reliability. However, a larger sample could overcome this limitation, allowing a stable and unified model of longitudinal EEG data that simultaneously captures age trajectories, group, clinical outcome, and condition.

Reference:

Geladi, P., & Kowalski, B. (1986). Partial least-squares regression: A tutorial. Analytica Chimica Acta, 185, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-2670(00)82582-3

We added the following comment in the method section:

Page 24, lines 773-777: “We limited the number of behavioral variables to nine to mitigate noise sensitivity and overfitting risks associated with exceeding the 10% sample size threshold (Geladi & Kowalski, 1986). This limitation precluded the implementation of a single PLS-c model incorporating group, condition (STR vs. RND), age, and their interactions.”

(4) STR-only analyses and the role of RND

Page 8, Lines 241-245: This analysis is conducted only within the STR condition. The lack of group difference observed here appears consistent with the lack of group difference in word-level entrainment (Page 9, Lines 292-294), suggesting that HL and LL groups may not differ in statistical learning per se, but rather in syllabic-level entrainment. As a useful sanity check and potential extension, it might be informative to explore whether syllable-level entrainment in the RND condition differs between groups to a similar extent as in Figure 2C-D. In other work (e.g., adults vs. children; Moreau et al., 2022), group differences can be more pronounced for syllable-level than for word-level entrainment. Figure S6 seems to hint that a similar pattern may exist here. If feasible, including or briefly reporting such an analysis could help clarify the asymmetry between the two learning measures and further support the interpretation of syllabic-level differences.

The reviewer points to the interesting pattern highlighted in supplementary figure S6, suggesting that group differences in syllabic entrainment might be modulated by the structure of the stream (STR versus RND). Such modulatory effect of stream structure on entrainment to syllables has been suggested by many studies, like Moreau et al (2022), as pointed by the reviewer, and seems at play in our sample, as illustrated on supplementary figure S5 (decline in the 4hz PLV that exceeds the size of confidence intervals, ~90 s after STR onset).

Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we ran a PLS-c testing group effect on 4hz PLVs in each stream:

(1) in the RND stream: the analysis yields one significant component (p<.001, r=.49, 52.7% explained covariance, Author response image 2A-B). Bootstrap ratios (BSR) are: contrast (low versus high likelihood) 6.9; mean age -1.0; contrast*mean-age 0.1; delta-age 11.8; contrast*delta-age 0.1; age² -4.9; contrast*age² 4.6; verbal-outcome 9.7; contrast*verbal-outcome -0.6. Interestingly, the model still highlights a strong link between syllable tracking and group, suggesting that RND also discriminate between HL and LL. However, RND syllable tracking doesn’t appear to be linked to group x verbal-outcome as we observed in Figure 2C-D.

(2) In the STR stream, we obtained one significant latent component (p=.002, r=.51, 57.8% explained covariance, Author response image 2C-D). Bootstrap ratios (BSR) are: contrast 2.2; mean age -1.6; contrast*mean-age -1.1; delta-age 6.1; contrast*delta-age -0.7; age² -4.4; contrast*age² 0.5; verbal-outcome 8.2; contrast*verbal-outcome -7.3. Here, the strong association between syllable tracking and group x verbal-outcome is similar to the model presented in Figure 2C-D.

Taken together, these results suggest that the apparent STR/RND dissociation illustrated in Figure S6 might primarily reflect a Group*Verbal-outcome divergence, with syllable tracking in the STR stream being related to verbal outcome mainly in high likelihood for autism.

Author response image 2.

Syllable entrainment within RND (A-B) and STR (C-D).

These results were reported in the revised manuscript in the Result section (Time course of the entrainment along experiment subheader), implying a slight reframing of the result presentation of supplementary analysis S6. Author response image 2 was added in supplementary material as Figure S5.

Page 10, lines 307-319: “The group, age and verbal outcome parameters were mainly correlated (BSR>2.3) with the neural entrainment occurring~90 seconds after the onset of the STR stream, coinciding with the time participants began tracking word boundaries (Supplementary material, S3). This result suggests that the group differences in syllable entrainment, as shown in Figure 2C-D, as their associations with verbal outcome, are modulated by the structure of the stream (STR versus RND). We ran one additional PLS-c for each stream separately, using group as contrast. In both streams, the PLS-c yielded a significant LC (p<.001 for RND and p=.002 for STR), with a positive group effect (BSR>2.3) in both LC (Supplementary material, S5). Most strikingly, the group*verbal outcome parameter reached significance exclusively within the STR latent component (BSR:-7.3). These results suggest that while syllable tracking is generally decreased in HL infants across both streams, its association with verbal outcome is prominently driven by the stream containing words (STR).”

Page 14, lines 443-446: “This temporal overlap suggests that successful segmentation may enhance syllable tracking via top-down predictions of the next syllable, improving alignment to syllable onsets in LL infants as well as in HL with better verbal outcome.’

(5) Multi-speaker input and voice perception (Page 15, Lines 475-483)

The multi-speaker nature of the speech input is an interesting and ecologically relevant feature of the design, but it does add interpretive complexity. The literature on voice perception in autism is still mixed: for example, Boucher et al. (2000) reported no differences in voice recognition and discrimination between children with autism and language-matched non-autistic peers, whereas behavioral work in autistic adults suggests atypical voice perception (e.g., Schelinski et al., 2016; Lin et al., 2015). I found the current interpretation in this paragraph somewhat difficult to follow, partly because the data do not directly test how HL and LL infants integrate or suppress voice information. I think the authors could strengthen this section by slightly softening and clarifying the claims.

We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern regarding the potential ambiguity in the cited paragraph. To address this, we have revised the text to explicitly clarify the aims of our study and its design. Furthermore, we now emphasize the speculative and post-hoc nature of the hypotheses and interpretations presented, thereby ensuring transparency regarding the limitations of our findings.

Page 16 lines 520-530), as follows: “HL infants, on the other hand, did not show this transient disruption. In this group, word entrainment remained stable over time. To account for this unexpected finding, we followed up on the post-hoc hypothesis proposed above: a reduced sensitivity to social and vocal cues observed in HL infants may have spared segmentation abilities by limiting the interference introduced by speaker variability. If this post-hoc hypothesis holds true, LL and HL infants would differ not in their intrinsic ability to learn statistical regularities per se, but rather in how they integrate or suppress competing cues (such as speaker changes) during the segmentation process. It is important to note, however, that the present study was not designed to isolate and evaluate the specific impact of speaker changes on word segmentation. Consequently, this interpretation remains speculative, and additional research is required to further address this question.”

(6) Asymmetry between EEG learning measures

Page 16, Lines 502-507 touches on the asymmetry between the two EEG learning measures but leaves some questions for the reader. The presence of word recognition ERPs in the LL group suggests that a failure to suppress voice information during learning did not prevent successful word learning. At the same time, there is an interesting complementary pattern in the HL group, who show LL-like word-level entrainment but does not exhibit robust word recognition. Explicitly discussing this asymmetry - why HL infants might show relatively preserved word-level entrainment yet reduced word recognition ERPs, whereas LL infants show both - would enrich the theoretical contribution of the manuscript.

We concur with the reviewer’s observation that our findings imply a theoretically significant double dissociation between HL and LL groups, specifically concerning the asymmetries between word-level neural entrainment and word recognition mechanisms. We believe this point was partly addressed in the subsequent paragraph, where we stated that “in contrast” to LL, HL infants “showed no clear ERP difference between novel and familiar triplets”, while “both groups showed similar word neural entrainment during learning”. We further explored potential explanations for this apparent dissociation, such as a possible deficit in novelty orientation that may be specific to HL infants and unrelated to statistical learning itself. We cited Liu et al (2023) as a reference showing the dissociation between mechanisms underlying implicit versus explicit traces of statistical learning. We acknowledge that we can discuss more in depth the potential preservation of statistical learning in HL infants. We have incorporated the following discussion in the reviewed manuscript, supported by relevant references:

Pages 17-18, lines 562-566: “Interestingly, this dissociation between spared implicit versus impaired explicit statistical learning in autism has been previously discussed in the literature (Zwart et al, 2018, Kissine, 2021). According to these studies, autistic impairments in top-down attentional processes, such as social orienting — which are critical for bootstrapping language acquisition (Kuhl, 2007) — may result in a heightened dependence on bottom-up mechanisms, including implicit statistical learning.”

References:

Zwart, F.S., Vissers, C.T.W.M., Kessels, R.P.C. and Maes, J.H.R. (2018), Implicit learning seems to come naturally for children with autism, but not for children with specific language impairment: Evidence from behavioral and ERP data. Autism Research, 11: 1050-1061. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.1954

Kissine, M. (2021). Autism, constructionism, and nativism. Language 97(3), e139-e160. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/lan.2021.0055.

Kuhl, P.K. (2007), Is speech learning ‘gated’ by the social brain?. Developmental Science, 10: 110-120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00572.x

References:

(1) Moreau, C. N., Joanisse, M. F., Mulgrew, J., & Batterink, L. J. (2022). No statistical learning advantage in children over adults: Evidence from behaviour and neural entrainment. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 57, 101154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2022.101154

(2) Boucher, J., Lewis, V., & Collis, G. M. (2000). Voice processing abilities in children with autism, children with specific language impairments, and young typically developing children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(7), 847-857. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00672

(3) Schelinski, S., Borowiak, K., & von Kriegstein, K. (2016). Temporal voice areas exist in autism spectrum disorder but are dysfunctional for voice identity recognition. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11(11), 1812-1822. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsw089

(4) Lin, I.-F., Yamada, T., Komine, Y., Kato, N., Kato, M., & Kashino, M. (2015). Vocal identity recognition in autism spectrum disorder. PLOS ONE, 10(6), e0129451.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129451

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This article looks at differences in how the brain entrains to, or tracks, the rhythmic presentation of syllables and words in speech in infants at increased likelihood versus low likelihood for autism. The authors first sought to characterize how brain responses are modulated by learning the statistical probability of a given syllable following the one before it over the first two years of life. They then sought to identify at which stages of word learning infants with increased likelihood of autism showed difficulties, and whether those difficulties worsened over time. Finally, they sought to indicate whether infants' statistical learning and word learning abilities could predict later verbal skills. The authors found similar developmental trajectories of neural entrainment to syllables in infants at high and low likelihood for autism, but infants at high likelihood for autism had overall weaker syllable-level entrainment. Infants at high versus low likelihood for autism showed different developmental trajectories for word entrainment. Lower syllable entrainment in high-likelihood infants corresponded with poorer verbal outcomes, but word entrainment was not associated with verbal outcomes. Event-related potential responses to words and part words were positively associated with verbal outcomes, however, but only in low-likelihood infants.

Strengths:

Overall, the article provides rigorous statistical analysis of longitudinal EEG data to provide strong support for the claims that neural entrainment to syllable and word features of speech may be a useful marker for language development difficulties, particularly in infants at increased likelihood for neurodevelopmental disorders. The EEG data collection and preprocessing procedures are well within standards in the field. Readers should take care to note that authors indexed neural entrainment to speech using phase-locking values instead of spectral power.

Weaknesses:

While the statistical analyses are rigorous, a few of the components of the models are not clearly defined, and some corrections and thresholds for significance warrant further justification. Further, a few stimuli and participant details that could influence results are not specified. It is not clear whether all participants came from majority French-speaking families; differences in the amount of French language exposure (compared to other languages that may be spoken by a participant's family) could influence results. The standardized volume of the stimuli is also not included. As a result, readers should be encouraged to interpret that neural entrainment to speech features is likely a useful mechanism to explain differences in language development, while taking this interpretation with some caution.

We thank the reviewer for these remarks.

Regarding the amount of French exposure: while all participants were raised in primarily French-speaking environments (i.e., French as the dominant language at home and daycare), the parental questionnaire at intake indicated that 45% of the sample was exposed to additional languages, reflecting Geneva’s highly multicultural demographics. We did not quantify the extent of this exposure, which could range from very occasional exposure to situations close to true bilingualism. The structural sensitivity hypothesis (Weiss et al., 2020) posits that additional language exposure may enhance detection of statistical structures in artificial language input, even when these structures differ from those in native languages. Yet, empirical support is mixed: Yim & Rudoy (2013) found no bilingualism effect in a paradigm close to ours (triplet segmentation via auditory statistical learning, n=112 children), whereas most studies reporting bilingual advantages for statistical learning involved tasks very distinct from ours, like artificial grammar and phonotactic rule learning, or multi-cue integration for segmentation (Weiss et al., 2020).

Regarding the volume of stimuli, they were played at 50cm distance with an intensity of 75dB. Both considerations have been included in the new version of the manuscript. In general, we moved most of the figures present in Supplementary material to figure supplements to improve readability.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

Minor Comments:

Figure 6: The figure caption is not complete (there is no description for the right half of panel B).

We thank the reviewer for this observation, figure 6 caption has been completed.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Broadly speaking, I would recommend reducing the number of abbreviations in this article, and I would recommend that the authors take care as to where these abbreviations are being introduced. Many of the abbreviated terms are defined in the Materials and Methods section, which is presented after the abbreviations are used in the main results.

We acknowledge that our extensive use of abbreviations compromises the readability of the manuscript. Consequently, we have removed the following abbreviations:

- SL (replaced by statistical learning)

- LC (replaced by latent component)

- ASD (replaced by autism)

- TP (replaced by transition probability)

- MEG (replaced by magneto-encephalogram)

- MSEL (replaced by Mullen Scale of Early Learnings)

The remaining abbreviations are:

HL (high likelihood for autism), LL (low likelihood for autism), EEG (electroencephalogram), PLS-c (partial least square correlation), ERP (event-related potential), RND (random), STR (structured), BSR (bootstrap ratio), AIC (Akaike Information Criterion), PLV (phase locking value), DQ (developmental quotient), APSI (Autism Parent Screen for Infants).

Moreover, we carefully reviewed how abbreviations were introduced and identified that PLS-c, STR and RND were not defined prior to the Method section. This oversight has been corrected in the reviewed manuscript.

I would also recommend that the authors be careful with the structuring of the Introduction, particularly with their research questions and hypotheses. The article initially makes clear that the research questions are focused on the developmental trajectory of statistical learning, the levels of word learning that may differentiate high-likelihood versus low-likelihood infants, and the stability of those differences, and associations between statistical learning and various levels of word learning with verbal outcomes. The use of acoustic variability across syllables, while a valuable methodological tool, is somewhat presented as an additional research question, but not clearly stated or tested as such.

We acknowledge that the introduction (particularly the paragraph from lines 173 to 184) may have implied that speaker variability across syllables was one of our primary research aims. We clarify here that speaker variability was introduced as a mean to increase task difficulty, particularly for high-likelihood (HL) participants, with the aim of amplifying the effect sizes in our analyses.

To address this, we have removed the theoretical discussion on speaker variability in autism and typical development (lines 173–184) and explicitly stated that speaker variability was not a research question in this study. Crucially, our experimental design did not include a control condition without speaker variability, and thus we could not test its specific effects on statistical learning across age trajectories and groups.

Page 6, lines 173-176 (pages and lines refer to the reviewed uploaded manuscript): “It is worth noting, however, that our study was not designed to isolate or quantify the specific impact of speaker variability on statistical learning, as the experimental design did not include a baseline control condition omitting this acoustic variation.”

The authors do a nice job in the Materials & Methods explaining PLS-c and defining the latent components and bootstrapped ratios that will be shared in the Results. An additional brief iteration defining these statistical elements is needed at the beginning of the Results section.

We thank the reviewer for their appreciation of our Method section. We agree that an additional iteration in the result section would improve readability. We added the following paragraph at the very beginning of the Result section, briefly defining PLS-c and its main statistical output (latent components and bootstrap ratios):

Pages 6-7, lines 193-202: “Briefly, PLS-c is a data-driven multivariate modelling approach designed to identify significant patterns of electrode clusters (from a brain data matrix containing electrophysiological measures, here PLV) and their associations with “behavioral” variables (from a behavioral design matrix, here age-related parameters). Patterns of brain x behavior associations are called latent components, and their statistical significance is evaluated using permutation testing (n=1000, Bonferroni correction for number of components tested, alpha=.006). Brain and behavioral variables respective contributions to any significant latent component are tested with bootstrapping (500 random samples and replacement), with bootstrap ratios (BSR) greater than 2.3 indicating a stable contribution (for details, see the Materials and Methods section).”

(1) Page 18 Line 576. The authors need to clarify whether participants were required to be in primarily French-speaking environments and whether there was a minimum amount of French language exposure that participants were required to have if they were exposed to additional languages besides French in their everyday life.

The reviewer raises a valid concern regarding participants’ language exposure. In this study, all participants were raised in primarily French-speaking environments, with French as the dominant language at home and daycare. The parental questionnaire at intake indicated that 45% of the sample was exposed to additional languages, reflecting Geneva’s highly multicultural demographics. However, we did not quantify the extent of this exposure, which could range from very occasional exposure to situations close to true bilingualism.

The structural sensitivity hypothesis (Weiss et al., 2020) posits that additional language exposure may enhance detection of statistical structures in artificial language input, even when these structures differ from those in native languages. Yet, empirical support is mixed: Yim & Rudoy (2013) found no bilingualism effect in a paradigm close to ours (triplet segmentation via auditory statistical learning, n=112 children), whereas most studies reporting bilingual advantages for statistical learning involved tasks very distinct from ours, like artificial grammar and phonotactic rule learning, or multi-cue integration for segmentation (Weiss et al., 2020).

To include these considerations, Limitations and Material and methods sections were modified as follows:

Page 19, lines 604-607: “Second, although all participants were primarily exposed to French, we did not quantify additional language exposure, precluding any analysis of its potential moderator effects on statistical learning in our groups and age-trajectories. However, prior work has reported no effect of bilingualism on auditory triplet segmentation in children (Yim & Rudoy, 2013).”

Page 20, lines 630-631: “All participants were raised in primarily French-speaking environments, with French as the dominant language at home and daycare.”

References:

Weiss DJ, Schwob N, Lebkuecher AL. Bilingualism and statistical learning: Lessons from studies using artificial languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 2020;23(1):92-97. doi:10.1017/S1366728919000579

Yim D, Rudoy J. Implicit statistical learning and language skills in bilingual children. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2013 Feb;56(1):310-22. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0243). Epub 2012 Aug 15. PMID: 22896046.

(2) Page 18 Line 588. Further, the authors should clarify whether the 7 infants in the HL group, due to early parental concerns were defined by the 18-21-month APSI scores or by parental report prior to study enrollment.

These 7 infants were recruited based on early parental concerns prior to intake. The APSI score at 18-21 months is only reported to provide an illustration of the amount of early autistic signs that were present in these 7 infants, and to provide an estimation of their probability to develop autism later on based on Sacrey et al., 2018 longitudinal study on the APSI predictive value. We agree with the reviewer that our phrasing suggests that the APSI was used as an inclusion criterion. We rephrased the page 20 lines 642-646 as follows:

“The 7 other HL infants presented with early parental concerns for autism, based on parental report prior to enrollment. Their Autism Parent Screen for Infants (APSI) total score at their 18-21 months visit was 15.6±6.4, [8-22] range – a score greater than 8 reflecting a 63% positive predictive value for autism in HL populations.”

(3) Page 20 Line 641. The authors should specify the volume of the stimuli.

The volume of stimuli was reported in the main text (page 22, lines 695-696) as follows:

“Stimuli were played on a Bose® Companion 2 Series III at a 50cm distance with an intensity of 75dB.”

(4) I'd prefer Figure 1 to be reorganized slightly - at present, the placement of the arrows explaining the analysis steps is not intuitive.

We addressed the reviewer’s comments (4) and (5) together as they both refer to Figure 1B.

(5) Page 23 lines 718-719. I think it would be helpful to explicitly define each of the interaction variables included in the behavioral design matrix. Further, this matrix should be labeled consistently in both Figure 1B and in the main text.

We refined figure 1B and its corresponding main text (in Methods section) for clarity. The arrows are now simpler and more parsimonious, labels (e.g., participant i, visit n, behavior design matrix and its parameters) are now standardized between the figure and the main text, and the interaction terms at lines 718-719 are explicitly defined.

(6) Page 23 lines 726-731: It would be helpful to know whether applying a Bonferroni correction in addition to completing permutation testing is standard when evaluating latent components derived from PLS-c. The authors should also cite justification for a bootstrap ratio cutoff of 2.3 for defining stability.

In PLS-c analyses, multiple comparisons correction across latent components and bootstrap ratio (BSR) thresholding at 2.3 are commonly adopted practices.

- Correction for multiple comparisons in PLS-c: PLS-c performs singular decomposition of the data into latent components equal in number to the variables included in the behavior design matrix (7-9 in our study, depending on the inclusion of Verbal outcome as an input variable). Each latent component’s statistical significance is assessed through permutation testing, generating a null distribution for its singular value (Krishnan et al., 2011). Given the multiple tests (one permutation test per latent component), Type I error inflation must be addressed. Recent PLS-c studies commonly applied Bonferroni correction (default procedure in the myPLS toolbox, used by Zoeller et al., 2017, and Delavari et al, 2021), though FDR correction has also been used (Lombardo et al, 2018).

- Stability threshold for bootstrap and replacement: Within each latent component, saliences’ stability (brain/behavior parameter contributions to each latent component) are evaluated using bootstrapping (Krishnan et al., 2011). The bootstrap ratio (BSR) of each parameter, calculated as the saliency divided by its bootstrap-derived standard error, functions analogously to a z-score under normality assumptions. The BSR can then be used to assess the stability of the saliency (i.e., how stable is its contribution to the latent component). BSR thresholds in the literature typically range from 1.96 to 3.0. Krishnan et al (2011) state that when BSR are “larger than 2 the corresponding saliences are considered significantly stable”. Delavari et al (2021) and our study used a 2.3 thresholding, corresponding to a 99.0% bootstrap confidence interval not crossing the zero line – roughly equivalent to a two-tailed p<.001. Lombardo et al (2018) used a looser threshold of 1.96, corresponding to a 95% confidence interval not crossing the zero line (~two-tailed p<.05), while Zöller et al (2017) used a more stringent 3.0 thresholding (~p<.001, or 99.9% confidence interval not crossing the zero line).

Thus, our application of Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons and our 2.3 BSR threshold aligns with established conventions.

We added following lines in the manuscript:

Page 25 lines 784-785: “Bonferroni correction was applied to account for multiple comparisons across the 9 tested latent components in the PLS-c, yielding an adjusted alpha of .006 (Zoeller et al, 2017; Delavari et al, 2021).”

Page 25 lines 789-792: “BSR are analogous to Z-scores and can be used to assess the stability of the saliency. We considered BSR > 2.3 as stable, corresponding to a 99.0% bootstrap confidence interval not crossing zero – roughly equivalent to a two-tailed p<.001 (Delavari et al., 2021; Krishnan et al., 2011).”

References:

Delavari F, Sandini C, Zöller D, Mancini V, Bortolin K, Schneider M, Van De Ville D, Eliez S. Dysmaturation Observed as Altered Hippocampal Functional Connectivity at Rest Is Associated With the Emergence of Positive Psychotic Symptoms in Patients With 22q11 Deletion Syndrome. Biol Psychiatry. 2021 Jul 1;90(1):58-68. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2020.12.033. Epub 2021 Jan 18. PMID: 33771350.

Lombardo, M.V., Pramparo, T., Gazestani, V. et al. Large-scale associations between the leukocyte transcriptome and BOLD responses to speech differ in autism early language outcome subtypes. Nat Neurosci 21, 1680–1688 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-018-0281-3

Daniela Zöller, Marie Schaer, Elisa Scariati, Maria Carmela Padula, Stephan Eliez, Dimitri Van De Ville. Disentangling resting-state BOLD variability and PCC functional connectivity in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. NeuroImage, Volume 149, 2017, Pages 85-97, ISSN 1053-8119, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.01.064

Anjali Krishnan, Lynne J. Williams, Anthony Randal McIntosh, Hervé Abdi, Partial Least Squares (PLS) methods for neuroimaging: A tutorial and review, NeuroImage, Volume 56, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 455-475, ISSN 1053-8119, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.07.034

(7) I have a few minor grammar/formatting recommendations for the authors as well:

(a) Should the Geneva Autism Cohort be capitalized? At present, it is not.

We agree with the reviewer’s suggestion, and we capitalized the Geneva Autism Cohort in the main text (page 18, line 571)

(b) Page 24, line 750. Do the authors mean that the data was re-referenced to average?

The preprocessed data is not average-referenced (see section Data pre-processing). Therefore, both for neural entrainment computation and ERPs, the data were average-referenced.

(c) It would be nice to have a figure of the actual ERP for each condition and age group.

We agree that PLS-c can be difficult to interpret without the raw actual ERPs on which it was modelled. We direct the reviewer to supplementary figure S6 at page 59, which displays the raw ERPs for each condition (part-word, word, and their subtraction) per age group. Supplementary figures S7-8 at pages 60-61 further illustrate topographical ERPs for each group (high and low likelihood for autism). We deemed these figures too extensive for the main text. Instead, the most relevant ERP topographies are presented in Figures 4-6 to facilitate PLS-c interpretation.

Note: This response was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. The content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

Reply to the reviewers

We sincerely thank the reviewers for the time dedicated to providing us with feedback on our work. In response to their helpful remarks, we have generated new data and made several changes to the manuscript. We hope the reviewers agree that, together with the rebuttal points below, this improved version addresses their concerns.

Reviewer #1

Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

In this report the authors have provided evidence for the involvement of transposable elements in the regulation of gene expression in murine trophoblast cells and placenta. They utilized data that they generated and also published data in their analyses. They concluded that the involvement of transposable elements in the regulation of genes in differentiated trophoblast cells was less than utilized in trophoblast cells in the stem state. They provide evidence for the utilization of intracisternal A particle elements in the modulation of gene transcription of the mouse placenta, which represents a more recent evolutionary adaptation. Overall the report is descriptive presenting correlations with limited testing of specific hypotheses. There is also the impression that the manuscript consists of the merging of two projects, which have not been fully developed. Some concerns with the experimental design and interpretation of the results are provided below.

1. Some concerns with the model systems used in the analysis. First of all, there are methods for inducing the differentiation of mouse trophoblast stem cells, which usually involves the removal of factors that promote trophoblast stem cell proliferation. The authors do not describe their method for inducing trophoblast stem cell differentiation nor did they show evidence that they directly investigated differentiated trophoblast stem cells.

We have added information in the Methods section to clarify that differentiation was performed by culturing cells in TS base medium (no conditioned media, FGF or heparin) for 4 days. We also provide RT-qPCR data confirming TSC differentiation (Figure S1A).

1. There is a published report presenting data from single cell analysis of mouse trophoblast stem cells in the stem and differentiated states that was not acknowledged or used in the authors' analyses. Please see: Angelova et al. 2025 Nature Communications (PMID:39747179).

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion, but the purpose of our single-cell analysis was to assess the expression of IAP elements and their associated chimeric transcripts in vivo. This has more significance than single-cell data from in vitro differentiated cells. We also found that at least some of the chimeric transcripts seen in vivo are not detected in vitro.

1. Much of the analysis, compared mouse trophoblast stem cells and murine placentas. Interpretation of single nucleus sequencing data from mouse placentas can provide information regarding the behavior of trophoblast cells; however, bulk sequencing of placentas is limited. The placenta contains trophoblast cell and non-trophoblast cell components. More specifically the placenta contains fetal endothelial, immune, and mesenchymal cells and depending upon dissections and the gestational stage of dissections variable amounts of uterine decidua and yolk sac-derived tissues. The authors need to be clear in the comparisons that they are making. More specifically, the authors need to effectively communicate the cell types from the placenta contributing to the results they are describing. Attributing analyses of the placenta to trophoblast cells is problematic.

We agree with this point. In our original submission we had included a cell type deconvolution analysis to infer the composition of our bulk placental tissue (Figure S1B of the revised submission). This clarifies the heterogeneity of the tissue and shows that most cells are trophoblast. We also used a genetic model to isolate trophoblast from placentas to address this point. Cell type deconvolution confirms that >90% of cells are trophoblast.

1. How were the newly derived mouse trophoblast stem cells characterized? Do they behave like authentic mouse trophoblast stem cells? Were the newly derived trophoblast stem cells capable undergoing differentiation? What parameters were measured?

We now include data on trophoblast stem cell and differentiation markers, comparing our newly derived line with the well-established GFP-TSC line (Figure S1A). While not included in this submission, the cells also presented with the expected morphologies when cultured under stem or differentiation conditions.

1. Were analyses with the newly derived mouse trophoblast stem cells performed in the stem or differentiated states?

Our initial analyses were only from cells cultured in stem conditions. However, we now also include an analysis of TE regulatory activity in differentiation conditions (updated Figures 1B, 1D, S1C).

1. TSC derivation and culture section. The authors appear to be initially describing the generation of mouse embryonic fibroblast conditioned medium not trophoblast stem cell conditioned medium as stated. Some clarification will be helpful. As stated above, the authors do not provide any information on the characterization and validation of the newly derived mouse trophoblast stem cells, which is problematic.

We appreciate the confusion with the nomenclature. To clarify we have changed the start of that section to: “Conditioned medium for the culture of TSCs (TS-CM) was prepared by…”. This conditioned medium is generated using MEFs and is then used to culture TSCs.

1. Discussion. The authors state that there are fundamental differences between the mouse and human placenta regarding the co-option of transposable element subfamilies. Human trophoblast stem cells represent a highly tractable model and could be compared with mouse trophoblast stem cells to further explore this observation.

We previously published a paper focused on TE co-option in human trophoblast (PMID: 37012406), and we made a brief comparison to those data in the current manuscript (Figure S1G). Interestingly, in contrast to mouse, many of the TEs with regulatory activity in human TSCs remain active in term placenta.

Significance

Efforts to understand roles for transposable elements in the regulation of trophoblast cell gene expression and placental evolution are very important. We recognize significant differences in placentation across various species but do not have a good understanding how this important developmental process evolved.

Assessment: The authors have a potentially interesting story. However, it appears that they have merged two incomplete research efforts: i) effects of trophoblast cell differentiation on utilization transposable elements to regulate gene expression; ii) IAP involvement in regulating murine placental transcription.

Whilst we appreciate this viewpoint, our investigation of IAPs as regulators of gene expression was triggered from the analysis in the first part of the manuscript and thus follows logically in our view. Moreover, the overarching theme remains consistent: the effects of TEs (whether IAPs or others) on gene expression/transcription.

Advance: The scientific advance is somewhat fragmented. There is a reinforcement of our existing understanding of the involvement of transposable elements in trophoblast and placental gene regulation but other new insights are limited or not well developed.

Both the TE and placental scientific communities largely assume that the placenta is a privileged organ for co-option of TEs as regulatory elements. Here we demonstrate that TE co-option in the placenta can be quite limited and species-specific. Additionally, the roles of IAPs as gene regulators in the placenta had not been previously described. We believe these two novel observations constitute significant advancements in the field.

Audience: Evolutionary biologists and reproductive and developmental biologists.

Reviewer #2

Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

Summary: This manuscript describes the characterization of transposable elements (TEs) in mouse trophoblast stem cells and in the mature mouse placenta. The authors find that overall, the trophoblast stem or progenitor state of TSCs harbours a greater abundance of active TE elements, while their activity levels decline as trophoblast differentiates. Instead, the dominant repetitive element that is active in the mature placenta are intracisternal A particle (IAP)-derived elements. Indeed, the authors show that these provide the initiation sites for differential isoforms of some 27 chimeric transcripts that are specific to differentiated trophoblast cell types. The authors attempt to epigenetically silence these IAPs in TSCs using CRISPRi methodolgy, and find reduced expression of 4 IAP-driven transcripts and many presumably secondary transcriptional changes. Finally, they also compare IAP activity in the placentas of different mouse species or sub-species, and conclude that IAP insertion sites close to genes can affect their expression in the placenta, with potential consequences for development and evolution.

Major comments: This is a well-conducted study that brings significant novelty, albeit to a more specialized audience.

There are several aspects that need clarification, addition and some experimental work: 1. Figure 1A shows carefully separated cell types, in particular extraembryonic mesoderm, that have also been assessed by the various cut&tag and ATAC-seq methods, but are not mentioned in the remainder of the manuscript. This should be added. I.e., is the same activity pattern of IAPs evident in the ExMes cells, or do they follow a more somatic pattern?

Apologies if additional analyses of extraembryonic mesoderm were not obvious, but we did analyse IAP expression in these cells and show in Figure 2B that it is much lower when compared to trophoblast. We also used the comparison between trophoblast and extraembryonic mesoderm in Figures 2A, 3B, S2A-D and S4B.

1. Page 4, top: The mention of a "custom pipeline" for cut&tag analysis is vague, and the modifications and what they stand for is hardly mentioned. These details need to be elaborated, so to be more accessible to a wider audience.

We have tried to clarify the overall strategy of the analysis: “Using CUT&Tag and ATAC-seq data, we aimed to identify TE subfamilies that bear classic hallmarks of active promoters (open chromatin, H3K4me3, H3K27ac) and/or enhancers (open chromatin, H3K27ac, H3K4me1). We used a custom pipeline that selects TE subfamilies bearing more elements overlapping CUT&Tag/ATAC-seq peaks than expected by chance.”.

1. For differentiated TSCs, only ATAC-seq data were analysed. How do they relate to the various cut&tag profiles, and do they result in a robust detection of putative active repeat elements at a detection limit similar to the chromatin marks? I would think that it might be prudent to include the same cut&tag for differentiated TSCs as well, so to be directly comparable to the other data. This is important to establish whether TE elements are really less active in differentiating trophoblast, or whether this feature is intrinsic to the placenta and not to pure trophoblast cells in culture, in which case it may be influenced by tissue context.

We are thankful for this important suggestion. We have now carried out CUT&Tag on differentiated cells and include the findings in the revised Figures 1B, 1D and S1C. Consistent with our observations using ATAC-seq data, we find that TE regulatory activity is diminished upon in vitro differentiation.

1. Are the IAP-initiated chimeric transcripts including new coding regions? If so, a Western Blot analysis of a few of the 27 candidates should be performed to prove this. Suv39h2 is a particularly interesting candidate where such protein analysis would be very informative.

We performed a search for ORFs in IAP-driven transcripts and identified a putative protein isoform of SUV39H2 that includes a portion of the IAP and that is larger than the canonical form by 28 kDa. However, by Western blot we see no major size shift in the main band when comparing placenta (where the IAP isoform predominates) with TSCs (where only the canonical form is expressed). We now include this in a new Supplementary Figure S5. To note is that in our hands the main SUV39H2 band runs at a lower molecular weight than expected (54 kDa), which could be due to buffer/gel conditions and/or expression of a shorter isoform (ENSMUSG00000026646, 46 kDa). But we are reassured that the antibody used has been validated in multiple human KO lines, as well as in at least one mouse knockdown model (PMID: 32698678).

1. A WB analysis should for sure be performed on the M. musculus and M. pahari placentas. The IHC staining is not interpretable as to whether or not SUV39H2 levels are reduced in M pahari.

We appreciate the reviewer’s point, but the main hypothesis to be tested here was whether there was an obvious difference in the spatial distribution of SUV39H2, which we did not find. Any more subtle differences would be cell-type specific and would require complex cell sorting approaches before attempting a western blot. This would not affect our conclusion that, despite differences between species at the transcriptional level, this does not lead to an overt redistribution of SUV39H2 protein expression.

1. Could the authors please also provide more global proof of the CRISPRi success. The display of two candidate gene tracks is not very telling.

In the original submission we had included a subfamily-level analysis of IAP expression in the CRISPRi experiment (Figure S6A of the revised version). This shows a mild downregulation of IAP expression overall. Whilst an element-based analysis would be preferable due to potential caveats with subfamily-level analyses, very few TSC-expressed elements are sufficiently mappable to ensure a robust analysis, which is why we only showed two highly expressed loci where the effects of CRISPRi can be evaluated. Importantly, we observe effects on gene expression that, whilst mild, are non-random and support a role for IAPs in regulating the expression of nearby genes (Figure 4D).

Significance

General assessment: Collectively, this is a carefully conducted study that needs to be bolstered by some few additional experiments, as suggested above. The discovery of changing patterns of repetitive element activity in differentiating trophoblast cells is important and intriguing, as it has direct impact on the evolutionary divergence of gene expression and, as a consequence, cell type differentiation, through the insertion of IAP and L1 elements close to placenta-expressed genes. This will be a major contributor and even driver of the barrier to inter-species hybridization that the placenta represents.

Advance: Currently, the main TE elements known to drive placenta-specific gene expression are retrovirally derived LTR elements. Here, however, the authors show that the relevance of these elements diminishes in the mature placenta, and instead is taken over by a different class, the IAP elements. This is important, as many these elements retain the capacity for retrotransposition, and thus actively contribute to ongoing evolutionary divergence of placental gene expression patterns that ultimately may drive speciation.

Audience: The manuscript is not particularly easy to follow, even for the informed reader, and it appeals to a relatively specialized audience in the field of genome regulation coupled to evolutionary aspects of repetitive element insertion/transposition. The authors should be encouraged to spell out some aspects of their thought process throughout the study in some more detail, so not to "lose" the reader.

We have made multiple changes throughout the manuscript that we hope improve readability.

__Reviewer #3 __

__Evidence, reproducibility and clarity __ The cis-regulatory roles of TEs in human/mouse TSCs have been extensively studied, yet in vivo studies on their roles in placenta tissue is largely absent. In this manuscript, Amante and colleagues compared the regulatory landscape of TEs across the trophoblast cell lines and placenta samples in human and mouse, and after revealing the shared and species-specific patterns (including some that are surprising), they further investigated the regulatory function of the murine-specific IAP retrotransposons in house mouse and other mouse strains. Specifically, it presents several findings regarding the shared and diverged function of TEs across: 1) in vivo vs. in vitro placental models, 2) human vs. mouse, 3) and different mouse strains. The writing is of good quality, the results are well visualized and interpreted, the conclusions are reasonable, and the novelty is high. It significantly extended previous studies from the same group as well as many other researchers. I think this manuscript should fit publication after a minor revision. Below I have a few comments:

1. In Fig. 1B, it seems the differences of TE enrichment between the same groups of samples (e.g., B6 TSC vs. GFP TSC) is also remarkable. Is this expectable? I am curious if such difference is robust, or it is just due to the TE sub-families with too few copies, whose enrichment can be influenced by just a couple of overlapping counts. The authors may double-check if possible.

This is an interesting hypothesis, but the main subfamilies that are H3K27ac-enriched in TSCs are quite abundant (e.g., 683 copies of RLTR13D5, 260 copies of RLTR13B3). We believe these are cell line-specific differences, possibly partly driven by genetics, since they were derived from different mouse strains. Nonetheless, there is good agreement between the two lines with respect to the TE subfamilies that are enriched.

1. The authors demonstrate that the association of TEs to cis-regulatory elements is much weaker in the placenta of mouse relative to human, and in mouse the activation of TEs is indeed similar to most other tissues. And based on this observation, they propose that "Co-option of TEs as regulatory elements within the mature placenta may therefore not be as promiscuous across species as commonly thought" (page 4 paragraph 1). While this finding is quite interesting, how it is related to the popular hypothesis that "maternal-fetal conflict leads to the strong TE activation in placenta"? I am curious if the authors have any idea on this point.

It is indeed a fascinating topic. We would dispute that the conflict hypothesis leads to TE activation in the placenta, but rather that it creates selective pressures that drive their co-option. But this still requires for TEs to be available for co-option. What we suggest here is that TE co-option opportunities can be tightly constrained by transcriptional silencing mechanisms, even in the placenta. We added the following text to that section of the discussion: “Whilst maternal-fetal conflicts may create selective pressures for TE co-option in the placenta, epigenetic mechanisms can still act as gatekeepers and dictate the frequency of co-option events in this organ.”

1. For the highly active IAP subfamilies identified in mouse placenta, have the authors tried to identity the enriched motifs, which may be helpful for uncovering transcription factors responsible for their activation?

This is an interesting question, given the specific expression of IAP elements in the spongiotrophoblast. We now performed transcription factor motif analysis on subfamilies that are highly expressed in the placenta (IALTR1/2). We then filtered this list for motifs that are absent/mutated in lowly expressed IAP subfamilies (IAPLTR3/4) and whose associated transcription factor is highly expressed in spongiotrophoblast. In the revised manuscript we highlight our top candidate, MITF, which is a spongiotrophoblast-specific marker (Figure S3C).

1. In Fig. 3B, the IAPEY_LTR-adjacent Zfp229 gene is demonstrated, yet this gene is not mentioned at all in the main text. The authors may consider providing more details for this gene.

Unfortunately, nearly nothing is currently known about this zinc finger protein gene, but we did not feel that should prevent us from using it as a strong example of placenta-specific usage of an IAP-derived promoter. Future work on this gene may indeed be triggered by highlighting this observation.

1. A few errors for the citations should be corrected. For example, the journal names are missed for ref56 and ref58 at page 22.

We have reviewed all our references and added missing information

1. A few typos should be corrected. For example, at page 11 line 2, "of" is missed between "presence this IAP-driven.

We have corrected this typo and made additional changes to the manuscript to improve readability.

Significance

Overall, this is an interesting and technically-sound study with substantial novelty, which significantly extends previous knowledge on TE function in placenta which largely relies on in vitro models.I believe this study will be attractive to the fields about TE function and placenta evolution.

Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

Referee #3

Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

The cis-regulatory roles of TEs in human/mouse TSCs have been extensively studied, yet in vivo studies on their roles in placenta tissue is largely absent. In this manuscript, Amante and colleagues compared the regulatory landscape of TEs across the trophoblast cell lines and placenta samples in human and mouse, and after revealing the shared and species-specific patterns (including some that are surprising), they further investigated the regulatory function of the murine-specific IAP retrotransposons in house mouse and other mouse strains. Specifically, it presents several findings regarding the shared and diverged function of TEs across: 1) in vivo vs. in vitro placental models, 2) human vs. mouse, 3) and different mouse strains. The writing is of good quality, the results are well visualized and interpreted, the conclusions are reasonable, and the novelty is high. It significantly extended previous studies from the same group as well as many other researchers. I think this manuscript should fit publication after a minor revision. Below I have a few comments:

1. In Fig. 1B, it seems the differences of TE enrichment between the same groups of samples (e.g., B6 TSC vs. GFP TSC) is also remarkable. Is this expectable? I am curious if such difference is robust, or it is just due to the TE sub-families with too few copies, whose enrichment can be influenced by just a couple of overlapping counts. The authors may double-check if possible.
2. The authors demonstrate that the association of TEs to cis-regulatory elements is much weaker in the placenta of mouse relative to human, and in mouse the activation of TEs is indeed similar to most other tissues. And based on this observation, they propose that "Co-option of TEs as regulatory elements within the mature placenta may therefore not be as promiscuous across species as commonly thought" (page 4 paragraph 1). While this finding is quite interesting, how it is related to the popular hypothesis that "maternal-fetal conflict leads to the strong TE activation in placenta"? I am curious if the authors have any idea on this point.
3. For the highly active IAP subfamilies identified in mouse placenta, have the authors tried to identity the enriched motifs, which may be helpful for uncovering transcription factors responsible for their activation?
4. In Fig. 3B, the IAPEY_LTR-adjacent Zfp229 gene is demonstrated, yet this gene is not mentioned at all in the main text. The authors may consider providing more details for this gene.
5. A few errors for the citations should be corrected. For example, the journal names are missed for ref56 and ref58 at page 22.
6. A few typos should be corrected. For example, at page 11 line 2, "of" is missed between "presence this IAP-driven.

Significance

Overall, this is an interesting and technically-sound study with substantial novelty, which significantly extends previous knowledge on TE function in placenta which largely relies on in vitro models.I believe this study will be attractive to the fields about TE function and placenta evolution.

Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

Referee #2

Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

Summary: This manuscript describes the characterization of transposable elements (TEs) in mouse trophoblast stem cells and in the mature mouse placenta. The authors find that overall, the trophoblast stem or progenitor state of TSCs harbours a greater abundance of active TE elements, while their activity levels decline as trophoblast differentiates. Instead, the dominant repetitive element that is active in the mature placenta are intracisternal A particle (IAP)-derived elements. Indeed, the authors show that these provide the initiation sites for differential isoforms of some 27 chimeric transcripts that are specific to differentiated trophoblast cell types. The authors attempt to epigenetically silence these IAPs in TSCs using CRISPRi methodolgy, and find reduced expression of 4 IAP-driven transcripts and many presumably secondary transcriptional changes. Finally, they also compare IAP activity in the placentas of different mouse species or sub-species, and conclude that IAP insertion sites close to genes can affect their expression in the placenta, with potential consequences for development and evolution.

Major comments:

This is a well-conducted study that brings significant novelty, albeit to a more specialized audience.

There are several aspects that need clarification, addition and some experimental work:

1. Figure 1A shows carefully separated cell types, in particular extraembryonic mesoderm, that have also been assessed by the various cut&tag and ATAC-seq methods, but are not mentioned in the remainder of the manuscript. This should be added. I.e., is the same activity pattern of IAPs evident in the ExMes cells, or do they follow a more somatic pattern?
2. Page 4, top: The mention of a "custom pipeline" for cut&tag analysis is vague, and the modifications and what they stand for is hardly mentioned. These details need to be elaborated, so to be more accessible to a wider audience.
3. For differentiated TSCs, only ATAC-seq data were analysed. How do they relate to the various cut&tag profiles, and do they result in a robust detection of putative active repeat elements at a detection limit similar to the chromatin marks? I would think that it might be prudent to include the same cut&tag for differentiated TSCs as well, so to be directly comparable to the other data. This is important to establish whether TE elements are really less active in differentiating trophoblast, or whether this feature is intrinsic to the placenta and not to pure trophoblast cells in culture, in which case it may be influenced by tissue context.
4. Are the IAP-initiated chimeric transcripts including new coding regions? If so, a Western Blot analysis of a few of the 27 candidates should be performed to prove this. Suv39h2 is a particularly interesting candidate where such protein analysis would be very informative.
5. A WB analysis should for sure be performed on the M. musculus and M. pahari placentas. The IHC staining is not interpretable as to whether or not SUV39H2 levels are reduced in M pahari.
6. Could the authors please also provide more global proof of the CRISPRi success. The display of two candidate gene tracks is not very telling.

Significance

General assessment:

Collectively, this is a carefully conducted study that needs to be bolstered by some few additional experiments, as suggested above. The discovery of changing patterns of repetitive element activity in differentiating trophoblast cells is important and intriguing, as it has direct impact on the evolutionary divergence of gene expression and, as a consequence, cell type differentiation, through the insertion of IAP and L1 elements close to placenta-expressed genes. This will be a major contributor and even driver of the barrier to inter-species hybridization that the placenta represents.

Advance:

Currently, the main TE elements known to drive placenta-specific gene expression are retrovirally derived LTR elements. Here, however, the authors show that the relevance of these elements diminishes in the mature placenta, and instead is taken over by a different class, the IAP elements. This is important, as many these elements retain the capacity for retrotransposition, and thus actively contribute to ongoing evolutionary divergence of placental gene expression patterns that ultimately may drive speciation.

Audience:

The manuscript is not particularly easy to follow, even for the informed reader, and it appeals to a relatively specialized audience in the field of genome regulation coupled to evolutionary aspects of repetitive element insertion/transposition. The authors should be encouraged to spell out some aspects of their thought process throughout the study in some more detail, so not to "lose" the reader. The study would sit well in journals that cover a wide spectrum of biology.

Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

Referee #1

Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

In this report the authors have provided evidence for the involvement of transposable elements in the regulation of gene expression in murine trophoblast cells and placenta. They utilized data that they generated and also published data in their analyses. They concluded that the involvement of transposable elements in the regulation of genes in differentiated trophoblast cells was less than utilized in trophoblast cells in the stem state. They provide evidence for the utilization of intracisternal A particle elements in the modulation of gene transcription of the mouse placenta, which represents a more recent evolutionary adaptation. Overall the report is descriptive presenting correlations with limited testing of specific hypotheses. There is also the impression that the manuscript consists of the merging of two projects, which have not been fully developed. Some concerns with the experimental design and interpretation of the results are provided below.

1. Some concerns with the model systems used in the analysis. First of all, there are methods for inducing the differentiation of mouse trophoblast stem cells, which usually involves the removal of factors that promote trophoblast stem cell proliferation. The authors do not describe their method for inducing trophoblast stem cell differentiation nor did they show evidence that they directly investigated differentiated trophoblast stem cells.
2. There is a published report presenting data from single cell analysis of mouse trophoblast stem cells in the stem and differentiated states that was not acknowledged or used in the authors' analyses. Please see: Angelova et al. 2025 Nature Communications (PMID:39747179).
3. Much of the analysis, compared mouse trophoblast stem cells and murine placentas. Interpretation of single nucleus sequencing data from mouse placentas can provide information regarding the behavior of trophoblast cells; however, bulk sequencing of placentas is limited. The placenta contains trophoblast cell and non-trophoblast cell components. More specifically the placenta contains fetal endothelial, immune, and mesenchymal cells and depending upon dissections and the gestational stage of dissections variable amounts of uterine decidua and yolk sac-derived tissues. The authors need to be clear in the comparisons that they are making. More specifically, the authors need to effectively communicate the cell types from the placenta contributing to the results they are describing. Attributing analyses of the placenta to trophoblast cells is problematic.
4. How were the newly derived mouse trophoblast stem cells characterized? Do they behave like authentic mouse trophoblast stem cells? Were the newly derived trophoblast stem cells capable undergoing differentiation? What parameters were measured?
5. Were analyses with the newly derived mouse trophoblast stem cells performed in the stem or differentiated states?
6. TSC derivation and culture section. The authors appear to be initially describing the generation of mouse embryonic fibroblast conditioned medium not trophoblast stem cell conditioned medium as stated. Some clarification will be helpful. As stated above, the authors do not provide any information on the characterization and validation of the newly derived mouse trophoblast stem cells, which is problematic.
7. Discussion. The authors state that there are fundamental differences between the mouse and human placenta regarding the co-option of transposable element subfamilies. Human trophoblast stem cells represent a highly tractable model and could be compared with mouse trophoblast stem cells to further explore this observation.

Significance

Efforts to understand roles for transposable elements in the regulation of trophoblast cell gene expression and placental evolution are very important. We recognize significant differences in placentation across various species but do not have a good understanding how this important developmental process evolved.

Assessment: The authors have a potentially interesting story. However, it appears that they have merged two incomplete research efforts: i) effects of trophoblast cell differentiation on utilization transposable elements to regulate gene expression; ii) IAP involvement in regulating murine placental transcription.

Advance: The scientific advance is somewhat fragmented. There is a reinforcement of our existing understanding of the involvement of transposable elements in trophoblast and placental gene regulation but other new insights are limited or not well developed.

Audience: Evolutionary biologists and reproductive and developmental biologists.

这个肿瘤区域的熵值能不能用于预测response或者os/pfs

This seems rather intuitive to me, but it's asking a slightly different question than what the original phrasing might seem to imply.

I think the initial intuition that more risk means more value of reducing risk, comes from the natural idea that effort spent reducing a particular risk will reduce that risk proportionally. So, spending effort on reducing risks from car crashes, malaria in Africa, or heart disease, all else equal, we yield more value than spending comparable effort on reducing the risks of bear attacks. I guess this is the "importance" part of the ITN paradigm.

But of course, the benefit of reducing the risk of car crashes is lower if we are facing other impending doom. Let's say we see an asteroid coming toward the Earth, or the threat of incoming nuclear war is high.

answer is bugged

on a training day, exercise will take 30-45 minutes so to say 20 mins here is not true.

make this am besten abschneidet

make this: bei

make this: Welche

make this: die Karte

make this: – und damit

make this: die Mastercard GOLD von Advanzia