Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript provides an open-source tool including hardware and software, and dataset to facilitate and standardize behavioral classification in laboratory mice. The hardware for behavioral phenotyping was extensively tested for safety. The software is GUI based facilitating the usage of this tool across the community of investigators that do not have a programming background. The behavioral classification tool is highly accurate, and the authors deposited a large dataset of annotations and pose tracking for many strains of mice. This tool has great potential for behavioral scientists that use mice across many fields, however there are many missing details that currently limit the impact of this tool and publication.

Strengths:

Software-hardware integration for facilitating cross-lab adaptation of the tool and minimizing the need to annotate new data for behavioral classification.

Data from many strains of mice was included in the classification and genetic analyses in this manuscript.

Large dataset annotated was deposited for the use of the community

GUI based software tool decreases barriers of usage across users with limited coding experience.

Weaknesses:

The GUI requires pose tracking for classification but, the software provided in JABS does not do pose tracking, so users must do pose tracking using a separate tool. The pose tracking quality directly impacts the classification quality, given that it is used for the feature calculation

Comments on revisions:

The authors addressed all my concerns.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript presents the JAX Animal Behavior System (JABS), an integrated mouse phenotyping platform that includes modules for data acquisition, behavior annotation, and behavior classifier training and sharing. The manuscript provides details and validation for each module, demonstrating JABS as a useful open-source behavior analysis tool that removes barriers to adopting these analysis techniques by the community. In particular, with the JABS-AI module users can download and deploy previously trained classifiers on their own data, or annotate their own data and train their own classifiers. The JABS-AI module also allows users to deploy their classifiers on the JAX strain survey dataset and receive an automated behavior and genetic report.

Strengths:

(1) The JABS platform addresses the critical issue of reproducibility in mouse behavior studies by providing an end-to-end system from rig setup to downstream behavioral and genetic analyses. Each step has clear guidelines, and the GUIs are an excellent way to encourage best practices for data storage, annotation, and model training. Such a platform is especially helpful for labs without prior experience in this type of analysis.

(2) A notable strength of the JABS platform is its reuse of large amounts of previously collected data at JAX Labs, condensing this into pretrained pose estimation models and behavioral classifiers. JABS-AI also provides access to the strain survey dataset through automated classifier analyses, allowing large-scale genetic screening based on simple behavioral classifiers. This has the potential to accelerate research for many labs by identifying particular strains of interest.

(3) The ethograph analysis will be a useful way to compare annotators/classifiers beyond the JABS platform.

Weaknesses:

(1) The manuscript contains many assertions that lack references in both the Introduction and Discussion. For example, in the Discussion, the assertion "published research demonstrates that keypoint detection models maintain robust performance despite the presence of headstages and recording equipment" lacks reference.

(2) The provided GUIs lower the barrier to entry for labs that are just starting to collect and analyze mouse open field behavior data. However, users must run pose estimation themselves outside of the provided GUIs, which introduces a key bottleneck in the processing pipeline, especially for users without strong programming skills. The authors have provided pretrained pose estimation models and an example pipeline, which is certainly to be commended, but I believe the impact of these tools could be greatly magnified by an additional pose estimation GUI (just for running inference, not for labeling/training).

(3) While the manuscript does a good job of laying out best practices, there is an opportunity to further improve reproducibility for users of the platform. The software seems likely to perform well with perfect setups that adhere to the JABS criteria, but it is very likely there will be users with suboptimal setups - poorly constructed rigs, insufficient camera quality, etc. It is important, in these cases, to give users feedback at each stage of the pipeline so they can understand if they have succeeded or not. Quality control (QC) metrics should be computed for raw video data (is the video too dark/bright? are there the expected number of frames? etc.), pose estimation outputs (do the tracked points maintain a reasonable skeleton structure; do they actually move around the arena?), and classifier outputs (what is the incidence rate of 1-3 frame behaviors? a high value could indicate issues). In cases where QC metrics are difficult to define (they are basically always difficult to define), diagnostic figures showing snippets of raw data or simple summary statistics (heatmaps of mouse location in the open field) could be utilized to allow users to catch glaring errors before proceeding to the next stage of the pipeline, or to remove data from their analyses if they observe critical issues.

Comments on revisions:

I thank the authors for taking the time to address my comments. They have provided a lot of important context in their responses. My only remaining recommendation is to incorporate more of this text into the manuscript itself, as this context will also be interesting/important for readers (and potential users) to consider. Specifically:

the quality control/user feedback features that have already been implemented (these are extremely important, and unfortunately, not standard practice in many labs)

top-down vs bottom-up imaging trade-offs (you make very good points!)

video compression, spatial and temporal resolution trade-offs

more detail on why the authors chose pose-based rather than pixel-based classifiers

I believe the proposed system can be extremely useful for behavioral neuroscientists, especially since the top-down freely moving mouse paradigm is one of the most ubiquitous in the field. Many labs have reinvented the wheel here, and as a field it makes sense to coalesce around a set of pipelines and best practices to accelerate the science we all want to do. I make the above recommendation with this in mind: bringing together (properly referenced) observations and experiences of the authors themselves, as well as others in the field, provides a valuable resource for the community. Obviously, the main thrust of the manuscript should be about the tools themselves; it should not turn into a review paper, so I'm just suggesting some additional sentences/references sprinkled throughout as motivation for why the authors made the choices that they did.

Intro typo: "one link in the chainDIY rigs"

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

(1) The authors only report the quality of the classification considering the number of videos used for training, but not considering the number of mice represented or the mouse strain. Therefore, it is unclear if the classification model works equally well in data from all the mouse strains tested, and how many mice are represented in the classifier dataset and validation.

We agree that strain-level performance is critical for assessing generalizability. In the revision we now report per-strain accuracy and F1 for the grooming classifier, which was trained on videos spanning 60 genetically diverse strains (n = 1100 videos) and evaluated on the test set videos spanning 51 genetically diverse strains (n=153 videos). Performance is uniform across most strains (median F1 = 0.94, IQR = 0.899–0.956), with only modest declines in albino lines that lack contrast under infrared illumination; this limitation and potential remedies are discussed in the text. The new per-strain metrics are presented in the Supplementary figure (corresponding to Figure 4).

(2) The GUI requires pose tracking for classification, but the software provided in JABS does not do pose tracking, so users must do pose tracking using a separate tool. Currently, there is no guidance on the pose tracking recommendations and requirements for usage in JABS. The pose tracking quality directly impacts the classification quality, given that it is used for the feature calculation; therefore, this aspect of the data processing should be more carefully considered and described.

We have added a section to the methods describing how to use the pose estimation models used in JABS. The reviewer is correct that pose tracking quality will impact classification quality. We recommend that classifiers should only be re-used on pose files generated by the same pose models used in the behavior classifier training dataset. We hope that the combination of sharing classifier training data and making a more unified framework for developing and comparing classifiers will get us closer to having foundational behavior classification models that work in many environments. We also would like to emphasize that deviating from using our pose model will also likely hinder re-using our shared large datasets in JABS-AI (JABS1200, JABS600, JABS-BxD).

(3) Many statistical and methodological details are not described in the manuscript, limiting the interpretability of the data presented in Figures 4,7-8. There is no clear methods section describing many of the methods used and equations for the metrics used. As an example, there are no details of the CNN used to benchmark the JABS classifier in Figure 4, and no details of the methods used for the metrics reported in Figure 8.

We thank the reviewer for bringing this to our attention. We have added a methods section to the manuscript to address this concern. Specifically, we now provide: (1) improved citation visibility of the source of CNN experiments such that the reader can locate the architecture information, (2) mathematical formulations for all performance metrics (precision, recall, F1, …) with explicit equations;  (3) detailed statistical procedures including permutation testing methods, power analysis and multiple testing corrections used throughout Figures 7-8. These additions facilitate reproducibility and proper interpretation of all quantitative results presented in the manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

(1) The manuscript as written lacks much-needed context in multiple areas: what are the commercially available solutions, and how do they compare to JABS (at least in terms of features offered, not necessarily performance)? What are other open-source options?

JABS adds to a list of commercial and open source animal tracking platforms. There are several reviews and resources that cover these technologies. JABS covers hardware, behavior prediction, a shared resource for classifiers, and genetic association studies. We’re not aware of another system that encompasses all these components. Commercial packages such as EthoVision XT and HomeCage Scan give users a ready-made camera-plus-software solution that automatically tracks each mouse and reports simple measures such as distance travelled or time spent in preset zones, but they do not provide open hardware designs, editable behavior classifiers, or any genetics workflow. At the open-source end, the >100 projects catalogued on OpenBehavior and summarised in recent reviews (Luxem et al., 2023; Işık & Ünal 2023) usually cover only one link in the chain—DIY rigs, pose-tracking libraries (e.g., DeepLabCut, SLEAP) or supervised and unsupervised behaviour-classifier pipelines (e.g., SimBA, MARS, JAABA, B-SOiD, DeepEthogram). JABS provides an open source ecosystem that integrates all four: (i) top-down arena hardware with parts list and assembly guide; (ii) an active-learning GUI that produces shareable classifiers; (iii) a public web service that enables sharing of the trained classifier and applies any uploaded classifier to a large and diverse strain survey; and (iv) built-in heritability, genetic-correlation and GWAS reporting. We have added a concise paragraph in the Discussion that cites these resources and makes this end-to-end distinction explicit.

(2) How does the supervised behavioral classification approach relate to the burgeoning field of unsupervised behavioral clustering (e.g., Keypoint-MoSeq, VAME, B-SOiD)? 

The reviewer raises an important point about the rapidly evolving landscape of automated behavioral analysis, where both supervised and unsupervised approaches offer complementary strengths for different experimental contexts. Unsupervised methods like Keypoint-MoSeq , VAME , and B-SOiD , which prioritize motif discovery from unlabeled data but may yield less precise alignments with expert annotations, as evidenced by lower F1 scores in comparative evaluations. Supervised approaches (like ours), by contrast, employ fully supervised classifiers to deliver frame-accurate, behavior-specific scores that align directly with experimental hypotheses. Ultimately, a pragmatic hybrid strategy, starting with unsupervised pilots to identify motifs and transitioning to supervised fine-tuning with minimal labels, can minimize annotation burdens and enhance both discovery and precision in ethological studies. This has been added in the discussion section of the manuscript.

(3) What kind of studies will this combination of open field + pose estimation + supervised classifier be suitable for? What kind of studies is it unsuited for? These are all relevant questions that potential users of this platform will be interested in.

This approach is suitable for a wide array of neuroscience, genetics, pharmacology, preclinical, and ethology studies. We have published in the domains of action detection for complex behaviors such as grooming, gait and posture, frailty, nociception, and sleep. We feel these tools are indispensable for modern behavior analysis. 

(4) Throughout the manuscript, I often find it unclear what is supported by the software/GUI and what is not. For example, does the GUI support uploading videos and running pose estimation, or does this need to be done separately? How many of the analyses in Figures 4-6 are accessible within the GUI?

We have now clarified these. The JABS framework comprises two distinct GUI applications with complementary functionalities. The JABS-AL (active learning) desktop application handles video upload, behavioral annotation, classifier training, and inference -- it does not perform pose estimation, which must be completed separately using our pose tracking pipeline (https://github.com/KumarLabJax/mouse-tracking-runtime). If a user does not want to use our pose tracking pipeline, we have provided conversions through SLEAP to convert to our JABS pose format.  The web-based GUI enables classifier sharing and cloud-based inference on our curated datasets (JABS600, JABS1200) and downstream behavioral statistics and genetic analyses (Figures 4-6). The JABS-AL application also supports CLI (command line interface) operation for batch processing.  We have clarified these distinctions and provided a comprehensive workflow diagram in the revised Methods section.

(5) While the manuscript does a good job of laying out best practices, there is an opportunity to further improve reproducibility for users of the platform. The software seems likely to perform well with perfect setups that adhere to the JABS criteria, but it is very likely that there will be users with suboptimal setups - poorly constructed rigs, insufficient camera quality, etc. It is important, in these cases, to give users feedback at each stage of the pipeline so they can understand if they have succeeded or not. Quality control (QC) metrics should be computed for raw video data (is the video too dark/bright? are there the expected number of frames? etc.), pose estimation outputs (do the tracked points maintain a reasonable skeleton structure; do they actually move around the arena?), and classifier outputs (what is the incidence rate of 1-3 frame behaviors? a high value could indicate issues). In cases where QC metrics are difficult to define (they are basically always difficult to define), diagnostic figures showing snippets of raw data or simple summary statistics (heatmaps of mouse location in the open field) could be utilized to allow users to catch glaring errors before proceeding to the next stage of the pipeline, or to remove data from their analyses if they observe critical issues.

These are excellent suggestions that align with our vision for improving user experience and data quality assessment. We recognize the critical importance of providing users with comprehensive feedback at each stage of the pipeline to ensure optimal performance across diverse experimental setups. Currently, we provide end-users with tools and recommendations to inspect their own data quality. In our released datasets (Strain Survey OFA and BXD OFA), we provide video-level quality summaries for coverage of our pose estimation models. 

For behavior classification quality control, we employ two primary strategies to ensure proper operation: (a) outlier manual validation and (b) leveraging known characteristics about behaviors. For each behavior that we predict on datasets, we manually inspect the highest and lowest expressions of this behavior to ensure that the new dataset we applied it to maintains sufficient similarity. For specific behavior classifiers, we utilize known behavioral characteristics to identify potentially compromised predictions. As the reviewer suggested, high incidence rates of 1-3 frame bouts for behaviors that typically last multiple seconds would indicate performance issues.

We currently maintain in-house post-processing scripts that handle quality control according to our specific use cases. Future releases of JABS will incorporate generalized versions of these scripts, integrating comprehensive QC capabilities directly into the platform. This will provide users with automated feedback on video quality, pose estimation accuracy, and classifier performance, along with diagnostic visualizations such as movement heatmaps and behavioral summary statistics.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) A weakness of this tool is that it requires pose tracking, but the manuscript does not detail how pose tracking should be done and whether users should expect that the data deposited will help their pose tracking models. There is no specification on how to generate pose tracking that will be compatible with JABS. The classification quality is directly linked to the quality of the pose tracking. The authors should provide more details of the requirements of the pose tracking (skeleton used) and what pose tracking tools are compatible with JABS. In the user website link, I found no such information. Ideally, JABS would be integrated with the pose tracking tool into a single pipeline. If that is not possible, then the utility of this tool relies on more clarity on which pose tracking tools are compatible with JABS.

The JABS ecosystem was deliberately designed with modularity in mind, separating the pose estimation pipeline from the active learning and classification app (JABS-AL) to offer greater flexibility and scalability for users working across diverse experimental setups. Our pose estimation pipeline is documented in detail within the new Methods subsection, outlining the steps to obtain JABS-compatible keypoints with our recommended runtime (https://github.com/KumarLabJax/mouse-tracking-runtime) and frozen inference models (https://github.com/KumarLabJax/deep-hrnet-mouse). This pipeline is an independent component within the broader JABS workflow, generating skeletonized keypoint data that are then fed into the JABS-AL application for behavior annotation and classifier training.

By maintaining this separation, users have the option to use their preferred pose tracking tools— such as SLEAP —while ensuring compatibility through provided conversion utilities to the JABS skeleton format. These details, including usage instructions and compatibility guidance, are now thoroughly explained in the newly added pose estimation subsection of our Methods section. This modular design approach ensures that users benefit from best-in-class tracking while retaining the full power and reproducibility of our active learning pipeline.

(2) The authors should justify why JAABA was chosen to benchmark their classifier. This tool was published in 2013, and there have been other classification tools (e.g., SIMBA) published since then.  

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion regarding SIMBA. However, our comparisons to JAABA and a CNN are based on results from prior work (Geuther, Brian Q., et al. "Action detection using a neural network elucidates the genetics of mouse grooming behavior." Elife 10 (2021): e63207.), where both were used to benchmark performance on our publicly released dataset. In this study, we introduce JABS as a new approach and compare it against those established baselines. While SIMBA may indeed offer competitive performance, we believe the responsibility to demonstrate this lies with SIMBA’s authors, especially given the availability of our dataset for benchmarking.

(3) I had a lot of trouble understanding the elements of the data calculated in JABS vs outside of JABS. This should be clarified in the manuscript.

(a) For example, it was not intuitive that pose tracking was required and had to be done separately from the JABS pipeline. The diagrams and figures should more clearly indicate that.

(b) In section 2.5, are any of those metrics calculated by JABS? Another software GEMMA, but no citation is provided for this tool. This created ambiguity regarding whether this is an analysis that is separate from JABS or integrated into the pipeline.  

We acknowledge the confusion regarding the delineation between JABS components and external tools, and we have comprehensively addressed this throughout the manuscript. The JABS ecosystem consists of three integrated modules: JABS-DA (data acquisition), JABS-AL (active learning for behavior annotation and classifier training), and JABS-AI (analysis and integration via web application). Pose estimation, while developed by our laboratory, operates as a preprocessing pipeline that generates the keypoint coordinates required for subsequent JABS classifier training and annotation workflows. We have now added a dedicated Methods subsection that explicitly maps each analytical step to its corresponding software component, clearly distinguishing between core JABS modules and external tools (such as GEMMA for genetic analysis). Additionally, we have provided proper citations and code repositories for all external pipelines to ensure complete transparency regarding the computational workflow and enable full reproducibility of our analyses.

(4) There needs to be clearer explanations of all metrics, methods, and transformations of the data reported.

(a) There is very little information about the architecture of the classification model that JABS uses.

(b) There are no details on the CNN used for comparing and benchmarking the classifier in JABS.

(c) Unclear how the z-scoring of the behavioral data in Figure 7 was implemented.

(d) There is currently no information on how the metrics in Figure 8 are calculated.

We have added a comprehensive Methods section that not only addresses the specific concerns raised above but provides complete methodological transparency throughout our study. This expanded section includes detailed descriptions of all computational architectures (including the JABS classifier and grooming benchmark models and metrics), statistical procedures and data transformations (including the z-scoring methodology for Figure 7), downstream genetic analysis (including all measures presented in Figure 8), and preprocessing pipelines. 

(5) The authors talk about their datasets having visual diversity, but without seeing examples, it is hard to know what they mean by this visual diversity. Ideally, the manuscript would have a supplementary figure with a representation of the variety of setups and visual diversity represented in the datasets used to train the model. This is important so that readers can quickly assess from reading the manuscript if the pre-trained classifier models could be used with the experimental data they have collected.

The visual diversity of our training datasets has been comprehensively documented in our previous tracking work (https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-019-0362-1), which systematically demonstrates tracking performance across mice with diverse coat colors (black, agouti, albino, gray, brown, nude, piebald), body sizes including obese mice, and challenging recording conditions with dynamic lighting and complex environments. Notably, Figure 3B in that publication specifically illustrates the robustness across coat colors and body shapes that characterize the visual diversity in our current classifier training data. To address the reviewer's concern and enable readers to quickly assess the applicability of our pre-trained models to their experimental data, we have now added this reference to the manuscript to ground our claims of visual diversity in published evidence.

(6) All figures have a lot of acronyms used that are not defined in the figure legend. This makes the figures really hard to follow. The figure legends for Figures 1,2, 7, and 9 did not have sufficient information for me to comprehend the figure shown.

We have fixed this in the manuscript. 

(7) In the introduction, the authors talk about compression artifacts that can be introduced in camera software defaults. This is very vague without specific examples.

This is a complex topic that balances the size and quality of video data and is beyond the scope of this paper. We have carefully optimized this parameter and given the user a balanced solution. A more detailed blog post on compression artifacts can be found at our lab’s webpage (https://www.kumarlab.org/2018/11/06/brians-video-compression-tests/). We have also added a comment about keyframes shifting temporal features in the main manuscript. 

(8) More visuals of the inside of the apparatus should be included as supplementary figures. For example, to see the IR LEDs surrounding the camera.

We have shared data from JABS as part of several papers including the tracking paper (Geuther et al 2019), grooming, gait and posture, mouse mass. We have also released entire datasets that as part of this paper (JABS1800, JABS-BXD). We also have step by step assembly guide that shows the location of the lights/cameras and other parts (see Methods, JABS workflow guide, and this PowerPoint file in the GitHub repository (https://github.com/KumarLabJax/JABS-datapipeline/blob/main/Multi-day%20setup%20PowerPoint%20V3.pptx).

(9) Figure 2 suggests that you could have multiple data acquisition systems simultaneously. Do each require a separate computer? And then these are not synchronized data across all boxes?

Each JABS-DA unit has its own edge device (Nvidia Jetson). Each system (which we define as multiple JABS-DA areas associated with one lab/group) can have multiple recording devices (arenas). The system requires only 1 control portal (RPi computer) and can handle as many recording devices as needed (Nvidia computer w/ camera associated with each JABS-DA arena). To collect data, 1 additional computer is needed to visit the web control portal and initiate a recording session. Since this is a web portal, users can use any computer or a tablet. The recording devices are not strictly synchronized but can be controlled in a unified manner.

(10) The list of parts on GitHub seems incomplete; many part names are not there.

We thank referee for bringing this to our attention. We have updated the GitHub repository (and its README) which now links out to the design files. 

(11) The authors should consider adding guidance on how tethers and headstages are expected to impact the use of JABS, as many labs would be doing behavioral experiments combined with brain measurements.

While our pose estimation model was not specifically trained on tethered animals, published research demonstrates that keypoint detection models maintain robust performance despite the presence of headstages and recording equipment. Once accurate pose coordinates are extracted, the downstream behavior classification pipeline operates independently of the pose estimation method and would remain fully functional. We recommend users validate pose estimation accuracy in their specific experimental setup, as the behavior classification component itself is agnostic to the source of pose coordinates.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) "Using software-defaults will introduce compression artifacts into the video and will affect algorithm performance." Can this be quantified? I imagine most of the performance hit comes from a decrease in pose estimation quality. How does a decrease in pose estimation quality translate to action segmentation? Providing guidelines to potential users (e.g., showing plots of video compression vs classifier performance) would provide valuable information for anyone looking to use this system (and could save many labs countless hours replicating this experiment themselves). A relevant reference for the effect of compression on pose estimation is Mathis, Warren 2018 (bioRxiv): On the inference speed and video-compression robustness of DeepLabCut.

Since our behavior classification approach depends on features derived from keypoint, changes in keypoint accuracy will affect behavior segmentation accuracy. We agree that it is important to try and understand this further, particularly with the shared bioRxiv paper investigating the effect of compression on pose estimation accuracy. Measuring the effect of compression on keypoint and behavior classification is a complex task to evaluate concisely, given the number of potential variables to inspect. To list a few variables that should be investigated are: discrete cosine transform quality (Mathis, Warren experiment), Frame Size (Mathis, Warren experiment), Keyframe Interval (new, unique to video data), inter-frame settings (new, unique to video data), behavior of interest, Pose models with compression-augmentation used in training ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.08316?) and type of CNN used (under active development). The simplest recommendation that we can make at this time is that we know compression will affect behavior predictions and that users should be cautious about using our shared classifiers on compressed video data. To show that we are dedicated in sharing these results as we run those experiments, in a related work ( CV4Animals conference accepted paper (https://www.cv4animals.com/) and can be downloaded here https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UNQIgCUOqXQh3vcJbM4QuQrq02HudBLD/view) we have already begun to inspect how changing some factors affect behavior segmentation performance. In this work, we investigate the robustness of behavior classification across multiple behaviors using different keypoint subsets. Our findings in this work is that classifiers are relatively stable across different keypoint subsets. We are actively working on follow-up effort to investigate the effect of keypoint noise, CNN model architecture, and other factors we've listed above on behavior segmentation tasks.

(2) The analysis of inter-annotator variability is very interesting. I'm curious how these differences compare to two other types of variability:

(a) intra-annotator variability; I think this is actually hard to quantify with the presented annotation workflow. If a given annotator re-annotated a set of videos, but using different sparse subsets of the data, it is not possible to disentangle annotator variability versus the effect of training models on different subsets of data. This can only be rigorously quantified if all frames are labeled in each video.

We propose an alternative approach to behavior classifier development in the text associated with Figure 3C. We do not advocate for high inter-annotator agreement since individual behavior experts have differing labeling style (an intuitive understanding of the behavior). Rather, we allow multiple classifiers for the same behavior and allow the end user to prioritize classifiers based on heritability of the behavior from a classifier.  

(b) In lieu of this, I'd be curious to see the variability in model outputs trained on data from a single annotator, but using different random seeds or train/val splits of the data. This analysis would provide useful null distributions for each annotator and allow for more rigorous statistical arguments about inter-annotator variability. 

JABS allows the user to use multiple classifiers (random forest, XGBoost). We do not expect the user to carry out hyperparameter tuning or other forms of optimization. We find that the major increase in performance comes from optimizing the size of the window features and folds of cross validation. However, future versions of JABS-AL could enable a complete hyper-parameter scan across seeds and data splits to obtain a null distribution for each annotator. 

(c) I appreciate the open-sourcing of the video/pose datasets. The authors might also consider publicly releasing their pose estimation and classifier training datasets (i.e., data plus annotations) for use by method developers.

We thank the referee for acknowledging our commitment to open data sharing practices. Building upon our previously released strain survey dataset, we have now also made our complete classifier training resources publicly available, including the experimental videos, extracted pose coordinates, and behavioral annotations. The repository link has been added to the manuscript to ensure full reproducibility and facilitate community adoption of our methods.  

(3) More thorough discussion on the limitations of the top-down vs bottom-up camera viewpoint; are there particular scientific questions that are much better suited to bottomup videos (e.g., questions about paw tremors, etc.).

Top-down imaging, bottom-up, and multi-view imaging have a variety of pros and cons. Generally speaking, multi-view imaging will provide the most accurate pose models but requires increased resources on both hardware setup as well as processing of data. Top-down provides the advantage of flexibility for materials, since the floor doesn’t need to be transparent. Additionally lighting and potential reflection with the bottom-up perspective. Since the paws are not occluded from the bottom-up perspective, models should have improved paw keypoint precision allowing the model to observe more subtle behaviors. However, the appearance of the arena floor will change over time as the mice defecate and urinate. Care must be taken to clean the arena between recordings to ensure transparency is maintained. This doesn’t impact top-down imaging that much but will occlude or distort from the bottom-up perspective. Additionally, the inclusion of bedding for longer recordings, which is required by IACUC, will essentially render bottom-up imaging useless because the bedding will completely obscure the mouse. Overall, while bottomup may provide a precision benefit that will greatly enhance subtle motion, top-down imaging is overall more robust for obtaining consistent imaging across large experiments for longer periods of time.

(4) More thorough discussion on what kind of experiments would warrant higher spatial or temporal resolution (e.g., investigating slight tremors in a mouse model of neurodegenerative disease might require this greater resolution).

This is an important topic that deserves its own perspective guide. We try to capture some of this in the paper on specifications. However, we only scratch the surface. Overall, there are tradeoffs between frame rate, resolution, color/monochrome, and compression. Labs have collected data at hundreds of frames per second to capture the kinetics of reflexive behavior for pain (AbdoosSaboor lab) or whisking behavior. Labs have also collected data a low 2.5 frames per second for tracking activity or centroid tracking (see Kumar et al PNAS). The data collection specifications are largely dependent on the behaviors being captured. Our rule of thumb is the Nyquist Limit, which states that the data capture rate needs to be twice that of the frequency of the event. For example, certain syntaxes of grooming occur at 7Hz and we need 14FPS to capture this data. JABS collects data at 30FPS, which is a good compromise between data load and behavior rate. We use 800x800 pixel resolution which is a good compromise to capture animal body parts while limiting data size. Thank you for providing the feedback that the field needs guidance on this topic. We will work on creating such guidance documents for video data acquisition parameters to capture animal behavior data for the community as a separate publication.

(5) References 

(a) Should add the following ref when JAABA/MARS are referenced: Goodwin et al.2024, Nat Neuro (SimBA)

(b) Could also add Bohnslav et al. 2021, eLife (DeepEthogram).

(c) The SuperAnimal DLC paper (Ye et al. 2024, Nature Comms) is relevant to the introduction/discussion as well.

We thank the referee for the suggestions. We have added these references.  

(6) Section 2.2:

While I appreciate the thoroughness with which the authors investigated environmental differences in the JABS arena vs standard wean cage, this section is quite long and eventually distracted me from the overall flow of the exposition; might be worth considering putting some of the more technical details in the methods/appendix.

These are important data for adopters of JABS to gain IACUC approval in their home institution. These committees require evidence that any new animal housing environment has been shown to be safe for the animals. In the development of JABS, we spent a significant amount of time addressing the JAX veterinary and IACUC concerns. Therefore, we propose that these data deserve to be in the main text. 

(7) Section 2.3.1:

(a) Should again add the DeepEthogram reference here

(b) Should reference some pose estimation papers: DeepLabCut, SLEAP, Lightning Pose. 

We thank the referee for the suggestions. We have added these references.  

(c) "Pose based approach offers the flexibility to use the identified poses for training classifiers for multiple behaviors" - I'm not sure I understand why this wouldn't be possible with the pixel-based approach. Is the concern about the speed of model training? If so, please make this clearer.

The advantage lies not just in training speed, but in the transferability and generalization of the learned representations. Pose-based approaches create structured, low-dimensional latent embeddings that capture behaviorally relevant features which can be readily repurposed across different behavioral classification tasks, whereas pixel-based methods require retraining the entire feature extraction pipeline for each new behavior. Recent work demonstrates that pose-based models achieve greater data efficiency when fine-tuned for new tasks compared to pixel-based transfer learning approaches [1], and latent behavioral representations can be partitioned into interpretable subspaces that generalize across different experimental contexts [2]. While pixel-based approaches can achieve higher accuracy on specific tasks, they suffer from the "curse of dimensionality" (requiring thousands of pixels vs. 12 pose coordinates per frame) and lack the semantic structure that makes pose-based features inherently reusable for downstream behavioral analysis.

(1) Ye, Shaokai, et al. "SuperAnimal pretrained pose estimation models for behavioral analysis." Nature communications 15.1 (2024): 5165.

(2) Whiteway, Matthew R., et al. "Partitioning variability in animal behavioral videos using semi-supervised variational autoencoders." PLoS computational biology 17.9 (2021): e1009439.  

(d) The pose estimation portion of the pipeline needs more detail. Do users use a pretrained network, or do they need to label their own frames and train their own pose estimator? If the former, does that pre-trained network ship with the software? Is it easy to run inference on new videos from a GUI or scripts? How accurate is it in compliant setups built outside of JAX? How long does it take to process videos?

We have added the guidance on pose estimation in the manuscript (section “2.3.1 Behavior annotation and classifier training” and in the methods section titled “Pose tracking pipeline”)

(e) The final paragraph describing how to arrive at an optimal classifier is a bit confusing - is this the process that is facilitated by the app, or is this merely a recommendation for best practices? If this is the process the app requires, is it indeed true that multiple annotators are required? While obviously good practice, I imagine there will be many labs that just want a single person to annotate, at least in the beginning prototyping stages. Will the app allow training a model with just a single annotator?

We have clarified this in the text. 

(8) Section 2.5:

(a) This section contained a lot of technical details that I found confusing/opaque, and didn't add much to my overall understanding of the system; sec 2.6 did a good job of clarifying why 2.5 is important. It might be worth motivating 2.5 by including the content of 2.6 first, and moving some of the details of 2.5 to the method/appendix.

We moved some of the technical details in section 2.5 to the methods section titled “Genetic analysis”. Furthermore, we have added few statements to motivate the need of genetic analysis and how the webapp can facilitate this (which is introduced in the section 2.6)    

(9) Minor corrections:

(a) Bottom of first page, "always been behavior quantification task" missing "a".

(b) "Type" column in Table S2 is undocumented and unused (i.e., all values are the same); consider removing.

(c) Figure 4B, x-axis: add units.

(d) Page 8/9: all panel references to Figure S1 are off by one

We have fixed them in the updated manuscript.

Predictive, Oncogenic evidence:

Predictive: The study indicates that HP breast cancers with the HER2V777L mutation show resistance to the pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor, neratinib, but respond effectively to the combination of neratinib and trastuzumab deruxtecan, demonstrating a correlation between the variant and treatment response.

Oncogenic: The presence of the HER2V777L mutation is associated with accelerated tumor formation and increased invasion and migration in breast cancer models, indicating that this somatic variant contributes to tumor development and progression.

Predictive, Oncogenic evidence:

Predictive: The study indicates that HP breast cancers with the HER2V777L mutation show resistance to the pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor, neratinib, but respond effectively to the combination of neratinib and trastuzumab deruxtecan, demonstrating a correlation between the variant and treatment response.

Oncogenic: The presence of the HER2V777L mutation is associated with accelerated tumor formation and increased invasion and migration in breast cancer models, indicating that this somatic variant contributes to tumor development and progression.

Predictive, Oncogenic evidence:

Oncogenic: The BRAFG469V mutation was identified as the only known oncogenic mutation in the patient-derived xenograft model, indicating its role in tumor development. Additionally, the study confirmed that small interfering RNA knockdown of BRAF, but not EGFR, resulted in cell death, further supporting BRAFG469V as an oncogenic driver.

Predictive: The study demonstrated that the BRAFG469V mutation is sensitive to multiple EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), suggesting that this variant correlates with response to therapy. The findings indicate that clinically approved EGFR TKIs can be repurposed for treating patients with lung cancer harboring the BRAFG469V mutation.

Predictive, Oncogenic evidence:

Oncogenic: The BRAFG469V mutation was identified as the only known oncogenic mutation in the patient-derived xenograft model, indicating its role in tumor development. Additionally, the study confirmed that small interfering RNA knockdown of BRAF, but not EGFR, resulted in cell death, further supporting BRAFG469V as an oncogenic driver.

Predictive: The study demonstrated that the BRAFG469V mutation is sensitive to multiple EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), suggesting that this variant correlates with response to therapy. The findings indicate that clinically approved EGFR TKIs can be repurposed for treating patients with lung cancer harboring the BRAFG469V mutation.

Predictive, Diagnostic, Prognostic evidence:

Predictive: The study discusses how the presence of the EML4-ALK fusion variant 3 and TP53 mutation in plasma were associated with poor progression-free survival (PFS), indicating that these variants may correlate with treatment response to brigatinib versus crizotinib.

Prognostic: The results mention that the median overall survival was not reached in either treatment group, but there was a suggested survival benefit for brigatinib in patients with baseline brain metastases, indicating a correlation with disease outcome independent of therapy.

Diagnostic: The presence of the EML4-ALK fusion variant 3 is used to assess clinical efficacy and is associated with poor PFS, suggesting its role in defining or classifying the disease in the context of treatment response.

Predictive, Diagnostic, Prognostic evidence:

Predictive: The study discusses how the presence of the EML4-ALK fusion variant 3 and TP53 mutation in plasma were associated with poor progression-free survival (PFS), indicating that these variants may correlate with treatment response to brigatinib versus crizotinib.

Prognostic: The results mention that the median overall survival was not reached in either treatment group, but there was a suggested survival benefit for brigatinib in patients with baseline brain metastases, indicating a correlation with disease outcome independent of therapy.

Diagnostic: The presence of the EML4-ALK fusion variant 3 is used to assess clinical efficacy and is associated with poor PFS, suggesting its role in defining or classifying the disease in the context of treatment response.

Predictive, Oncogenic evidence:

Oncogenic: The study indicates that Intermedin (IMD) plays a significant role in glioma malignancy by increasing the invasive ability of glioma cells and promoting cell proliferation, suggesting that it contributes to tumor development and progression.

Predictive: The treatment with anti-IMD monoclonal antibodies not only inhibited tumor growth but also enhanced the antitumor activity of temozolomide, indicating that IMD is associated with response to therapy in glioblastoma.

Predictive, Oncogenic evidence:

Oncogenic: The study indicates that Intermedin (IMD) plays a significant role in glioma malignancy by increasing the invasive ability of glioma cells and promoting cell proliferation, suggesting that it contributes to tumor development and progression.

Predictive: The treatment with anti-IMD monoclonal antibodies not only inhibited tumor growth but also enhanced the antitumor activity of temozolomide, indicating that IMD is associated with response to therapy in glioblastoma.

Predictive, Prognostic evidence:

Prognostic: The study reports on overall survival (OS) in patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC and leptomeningeal metastases, indicating that T790M mutational status does not significantly affect median OS (10.1 months vs. 9.0 months, p = 0.936). This suggests that the T790M variant's presence does not correlate with disease outcome in this context, which aligns with the definition of prognostic evidence.

Predictive: The abstract discusses the treatment response to osimertinib in patients with T790M mutational status, indicating that patients treated with osimertinib had a superior OS compared to those not treated, regardless of T790M status. This suggests that the T790M variant may not predict response to osimertinib, but the context of treatment response is still relevant, thus supporting the predictive classification.

Predictive, Prognostic evidence:

Prognostic: The study reports on overall survival (OS) in patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC and leptomeningeal metastases, indicating that T790M mutational status does not significantly affect median OS (10.1 months vs. 9.0 months, p = 0.936). This suggests that the T790M variant's presence does not correlate with disease outcome in this context, which aligns with the definition of prognostic evidence.

Predictive: The abstract discusses the treatment response to osimertinib in patients with T790M mutational status, indicating that patients treated with osimertinib had a superior OS compared to those not treated, regardless of T790M status. This suggests that the T790M variant may not predict response to osimertinib, but the context of treatment response is still relevant, thus supporting the predictive classification.

Predictive, Diagnostic evidence:

Predictive: The study discusses how ATM loss in prostate cancer models does not significantly increase sensitivity to PARP inhibitors but does sensitize tumors to ATR inhibitors, indicating a correlation between the variant and response to specific therapies. This suggests that patients with ATM alterations may benefit more from ATR inhibitor therapy than from PARP inhibitors.

Diagnostic: The abstract mentions that ATM alterations are present in approximately 5% of advanced prostate tumors, indicating its association with a specific subtype of cancer, which supports its use as a biomarker for identifying patients with these alterations.

Predictive, Diagnostic evidence:

Predictive: The study discusses how ATM loss in prostate cancer models does not significantly increase sensitivity to PARP inhibitors but does sensitize tumors to ATR inhibitors, indicating a correlation between the variant and response to specific therapies. This suggests that patients with ATM alterations may benefit more from ATR inhibitor therapy than from PARP inhibitors.

Diagnostic: The abstract mentions that ATM alterations are present in approximately 5% of advanced prostate tumors, indicating its association with a specific subtype of cancer, which supports its use as a biomarker for identifying patients with these alterations.

Predisposing, Oncogenic, Functional evidence:

Predisposing: The abstract mentions "germline truncating mutations in DICER1" and states that "mutation carriers are at risk for nonepithelial ovarian tumors," indicating that these mutations confer inherited risk for developing disease.

Oncogenic: The abstract describes how "somatic missense mutations affecting the RNase IIIb domain of DICER1 are common in nonepithelial ovarian tumors" and suggests that these mutations may be oncogenic by altering microRNA processing, which contributes to tumor development.

Functional: The study reports that the "mutant DICER1 proteins had reduced RNase IIIb activity but retained RNase IIIa activity," indicating that the mutations alter the molecular function of the DICER1 protein.

Predisposing, Oncogenic, Functional evidence:

Predisposing: The abstract mentions "germline truncating mutations in DICER1" and states that "mutation carriers are at risk for nonepithelial ovarian tumors," indicating that these mutations confer inherited risk for developing disease.

Oncogenic: The abstract describes how "somatic missense mutations affecting the RNase IIIb domain of DICER1 are common in nonepithelial ovarian tumors" and suggests that these mutations may be oncogenic by altering microRNA processing, which contributes to tumor development.

Functional: The study reports that the "mutant DICER1 proteins had reduced RNase IIIb activity but retained RNase IIIa activity," indicating that the mutations alter the molecular function of the DICER1 protein.

Predictive, Oncogenic evidence:

Predictive: The abstract discusses how BRAF(V600E)-mutant melanoma patients generally benefit from RAF inhibitors like vemurafenib, but some do not respond, indicating a correlation between the variant and treatment response. This suggests that the presence of the V600E variant can influence the effectiveness of specific therapies, making it predictive of treatment outcomes.

Oncogenic: The variant BRAF(V600E) is implicated in driving tumor proliferation in melanoma, as indicated by its association with BRAF-mediated cell proliferation. This supports the classification of the variant as oncogenic, as it contributes to tumor development and progression.

Predictive, Oncogenic evidence:

Predictive: The abstract discusses how BRAF(V600E)-mutant melanoma patients generally benefit from RAF inhibitors like vemurafenib, but some do not respond, indicating a correlation between the variant and treatment response. This suggests that the presence of the V600E variant is predictive of sensitivity or resistance to specific therapies.

Oncogenic: The variant BRAF(V600E) is implicated in tumor development as it is associated with BRAF-mediated cell proliferation in melanoma. The mention of this variant in the context of resistance mechanisms further supports its role in oncogenesis.

Predictive, Oncogenic evidence:

Predictive: The abstract discusses how BRAF(V600E)-mutant melanoma patients generally benefit from RAF inhibitors like vemurafenib, but some do not respond, indicating a correlation between the variant and treatment response. This suggests that the presence of the V600E variant can influence the effectiveness of specific therapies, making it predictive of treatment outcomes.

Oncogenic: The variant BRAF(V600E) is implicated in driving tumor proliferation in melanoma, as indicated by its association with BRAF-mediated cell proliferation. This suggests that the variant contributes to tumor development or progression, classifying it as oncogenic.

Predictive, Oncogenic evidence:

Predictive: The abstract discusses how BRAF(V600E)-mutant melanoma patients generally benefit from RAF inhibitors like vemurafenib, but some do not respond, indicating a correlation between the variant and treatment response. This suggests that the presence of the V600E variant can influence the effectiveness of specific therapies, making it predictive of treatment outcomes.

Oncogenic: The variant BRAF(V600E) is implicated in driving tumor proliferation in melanoma, as indicated by its association with BRAF-mediated cell proliferation. This supports the classification of the variant as oncogenic, as it contributes to tumor development and progression.

Predictive, Oncogenic evidence:

Predictive: The abstract discusses how BRAF(V600E)-mutant melanoma patients generally benefit from RAF inhibitors like vemurafenib, but some do not respond, indicating a correlation between the variant and treatment response. This suggests that the presence of the V600E variant is predictive of sensitivity or resistance to specific therapies.

Oncogenic: The variant BRAF(V600E) is implicated in tumor development as it is associated with BRAF-mediated cell proliferation in melanoma. The mention of this variant in the context of resistance mechanisms further supports its role in oncogenesis.

Predictive, Oncogenic evidence:

Predictive: The abstract discusses how BRAF(V600E)-mutant melanoma patients generally benefit from RAF inhibitors like vemurafenib, but some do not respond, indicating a correlation between the variant and treatment response. This suggests that the presence of the V600E variant can influence the effectiveness of specific therapies, making it predictive of treatment outcomes.

Oncogenic: The variant BRAF(V600E) is implicated in driving tumor proliferation in melanoma, as indicated by its association with BRAF-mediated cell proliferation. This suggests that the variant contributes to tumor development or progression, classifying it as oncogenic.

Predictive, Oncogenic, Functional evidence:

Predictive: The abstract discusses a patient with an EGFR mutation who was initially responsive to gefitinib but later relapsed due to a second mutation (threonine-to-methionine) that resulted in gefitinib resistance, indicating a correlation between the variant and treatment response.

Oncogenic: The presence of the threonine-to-methionine mutation is described as contributing to gefitinib resistance, which suggests that this somatic variant plays a role in tumor progression and development in the context of non-small-cell lung cancer.

Functional: The abstract mentions that structural modeling and biochemical studies demonstrated that the threonine-to-methionine mutation alters the response to gefitinib, indicating a change in molecular function related to drug interaction.

Predictive, Oncogenic, Functional evidence:

Predictive: The abstract discusses a patient with an EGFR mutation who was initially responsive to gefitinib but later relapsed due to a second mutation (threonine-to-methionine) that resulted in gefitinib resistance, indicating a correlation between the variant and treatment response.

Oncogenic: The presence of the threonine-to-methionine mutation is described as contributing to gefitinib resistance, which suggests that this somatic variant plays a role in tumor progression and development in the context of non-small-cell lung cancer.

Functional: The abstract mentions that structural modeling and biochemical studies demonstrated that the threonine-to-methionine mutation alters the response to gefitinib, indicating a change in molecular function related to drug interaction.

Predictive, Functional evidence:

Functional: The abstract discusses how the HER2(YVMA) mutant transphosphorylates kinase-dead EGFR(K721R) and EGFR(WT), indicating that the K721R variant alters the molecular function of the EGFR protein in the presence of HER2 mutations and tyrosine kinase inhibitors. This suggests a change in biochemical activity related to the variant.

Predictive: The study mentions that cancer cells expressing the HER2(YVMA) mutation remain sensitive to HER2-targeted therapies but are insensitive to EGFR TKIs, indicating that the K721R variant's presence correlates with treatment response, specifically in the context of therapy with HER2 inhibitors.

Predictive, Functional evidence:

Functional: The abstract discusses how the HER2(YVMA) mutant transphosphorylates kinase-dead EGFR(K721R) and EGFR(WT), indicating that the K721R variant alters the molecular function of the EGFR protein in the presence of HER2 mutations and tyrosine kinase inhibitors. This suggests a change in biochemical activity related to the variant.

Predictive: The study mentions that cancer cells expressing the HER2(YVMA) mutation remain sensitive to HER2-targeted therapies but are insensitive to EGFR TKIs, indicating that the K721R variant's presence correlates with treatment response, specifically in the context of therapy with HER2 inhibitors.

Predictive evidence:

Predictive: The study indicates that the Val559Ile mutation in the c-kit gene is associated with resistance to imatinib therapy, as it was found that imatinib inhibited autophosphorylation of the mutant KIT with Val559Asp but not with Val559Ile. This suggests that the presence of the Val559Ile variant correlates with a lack of response to this specific treatment.

Predictive evidence:

Predictive: The study indicates that the Val559Ile mutation in the c-kit gene is associated with resistance to imatinib therapy, as it was found that imatinib inhibited autophosphorylation of the mutant KIT with Val559Asp but not with Val559Ile. This suggests that the presence of the Val559Ile variant correlates with a lack of response to this specific treatment.

Predictive, Oncogenic evidence:

Oncogenic: The abstract discusses somatic gain-of-function mutations in IDH1 and IDH2, indicating that these mutations contribute to tumor development and progression by causing a block in cellular differentiation, which is characteristic of oncogenic behavior.

Predictive: The study highlights that the mutant IDH2 enzyme can be targeted by the inhibitor AG-221, which not only suppresses 2HG production but also induces cellular differentiation in IDH2 mutation-positive AML cells, suggesting a correlation with treatment response.

Predictive, Oncogenic evidence:

Oncogenic: The abstract discusses somatic gain-of-function mutations in IDH1 and IDH2, indicating that these mutations contribute to tumor development and progression by causing a block in cellular differentiation, which is characteristic of oncogenic behavior.

Predictive: The study highlights that the mutant IDH2 enzyme can be targeted by the inhibitor AG-221, which not only suppresses 2HG production but also induces cellular differentiation in IDH2 mutation-positive AML cells, suggesting a correlation with treatment response.

Predictive, Oncogenic evidence:

Oncogenic: The abstract discusses the presence of the IDH1 mutation R132H in a patient with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA), indicating that this somatic variant is associated with tumor development in this specific cancer type. The mention of the mutation being detected through molecular profiling supports its role in oncogenesis.

Predictive: The abstract notes that the patient received a mutant IDH1 inhibitor (AG-120) as a treatment option, but there was no response. This indicates that the R132H variant was evaluated in the context of therapy, suggesting a predictive relationship regarding treatment response.

Predictive, Oncogenic evidence:

Oncogenic: The abstract discusses the presence of the IDH1 mutation R132H in a patient with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA), indicating that this somatic variant is associated with tumor development in this specific cancer type. The mention of the mutation being detected through molecular profiling supports its role in oncogenesis.

Predictive: The abstract notes that the patient received a mutant IDH1 inhibitor (AG-120) as a treatment option, but there was no response. This indicates that the R132H variant was evaluated in the context of therapy, suggesting a predictive relationship regarding treatment response.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This paper by Poverlein et al reports the substantial membrane deformation around the oxidative phosphorylation super complex, proposing that this deformation is a key part of super complex formation. I found the paper interesting and well-written.

* Analysis of the bilayer curvature is challenging on the fine lengthscales they have used and produces unexpectedly large energies (Table 1). Additionally, the authors use the mean curvature (Eq. S5) as input to the (uncited, but it seems clear that this is Helfrich) Helfrich Hamiltonian (Eq. S7). If an errant factor of one half has been included with curvature, this would quarter the curvature energy compared to the real energy, due to the squared curvature. The bending modulus used (ca. 5 kcal/mol) is small on the scale of typically observed biological bending moduli. This suggests the curvature energies are indeed much higher even than the high values reported. Some of this may be due to the spontaneous curvature of the lipids and perhaps the effect of the protein modifying the nearby lipids properties.

* It is unclear how CDL is supporting SC formation if its effect stabilizing the membrane deformation is strong or if it is acting as an electrostatic glue. While this is a weakness for a definite quantification of the effect of CDL on SC formation, the study presents an interesting observation of CDL redistribution and could be an interesting topic for future work.

In summary, the qualitative data presented are interesting (especially the combination of molecular modeling with simpler Monte Carlo modeling aiding broader interpretation of the results). The energies of the membrane deformations are quite large. This might reflect the roles of specific lipids stabilizing those deformations, or the inherent difficulty in characterizing nanometer-scale curvature.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this contribution, the authors report atomistic, coarse-grained and lattice simulations to analyze the mechanism of supercomplex (SC) formation in mitochondria. The results highlight the importance of membrane deformation as one of the major driving forces for the SC formation, which is not entirely surprising given prior work on membrane protein assembly, but certainly of major mechanistic significance for the specific systems of interest.

Strengths:

The combination of complementary approaches, including an interesting (re)analysis of cryo-EM data, is particularly powerful, and might be applicable to the analysis of related systems. The calculations also revealed that SC formation has interesting impacts on the structural and dynamical (motional correlation) properties of the individual protein components, suggesting further functional relevance of SC formation. In the revision, the authors further clarified and quantified their analysis of membrane responses, leading to further insights into membrane contributions. They have also toned down the decomposition of membrane contributions into enthalpic and entropic contributions, which is difficult to do. Overall, the study is rather thorough, highly creative and the impact on the field is expected to be significant.

Weaknesses:

Upon revision, I believe the weakness identified in previous work has been largely alleviated.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the previous reviews

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This paper by Poverlein et al reports the substantial membrane deformation around the oxidative phosphorylation super complex, proposing that this deformation is a key part of super complex formation. I found the paper interesting and well-written.

We thank the Reviewer for finding our work interesting. 

Analysis of the bilayer curvature is challenging on the fine lengthscales they have used and produces unexpectedly large energies (Table 1). Additionally, the authors use the mean curvature (Eq. S5) as input to the (uncited, but it seems clear that this is Helfrich) Helfrich Hamiltonian (Eq. S7). If an errant factor of one half has been included with curvature, this would quarter the curvature energy compared to the real energy, due to the squared curvature.

We thank the Reviewer for raising this important issue. We have now clarified in the SI and main manuscript that we employ the Helfrich model. In our initial implementation, we indeed used the mean curvature H, thereby missing a factor of 2. As the Reviewer correctly noted, this resulted in curvature deformation energies that were underestimated by a factor of ~4. We have now corrected for this effect in the revised analysis, and the updated Table 1. Importantly, however, this correction does not alter the general conclusions of our work that supercomplex formation relieves membrane strain and stabilizes the system. We have added an additional paragraph where we discuss the magnitude of the observed bending effects, and compared the previous estimates in literature:

SI: 

“The local mean curvature of the membrane midplane was computed using the Helfrich model (4,5) …”

(4) W. Helfrich, Elastic properties of lipid bilayers theory and possible experiments. Zeitschrift für Naturforschung 28c, 693-703 (1973).

(5) F. Campelo et al., Helfrich model of membrane bending: From Gibbs theory of liquid interfaces to membranes as thick anisotropic elastic layers. Advances in Colloid and Interface Science 208, 25-33 (2014).

Main Text: 

“which measures the energetic cost of deforming the membrane from a flat geometry (ΔG_curv) based on the Helfrich model (45, 46). …

Our analysis suggests that both contributions are substantially reduced upon formation of the SC, with the curvature penalty decreasing by 79.2 ± 5.2 kcal mol^-1 (for a membrane area of ca. 1000 nm²) and the thickness penalty by 2.8 ± 2.0 kcal mol^-1 (Table 1).”

“We note that the magnitude of the estimated bending energies (~10² kcal mol^-1) (Table 1), while seemingly high at first glance, falls within the range expected for large-scale membrane deformation processes induced by large multi-domain proteins. For example, the Piezo mechanosensitive channel performs roughly 150k_BT (≈ 90 kcal mol⁻¹) of work to bend the bilayer into its dome-like shape (65). Comparable energies have also been estimated for the nucleation of small membrane pores (66), while vesicle formation typically requires bending energies on the order of 300 kcal mol^-1, largely independent of vesicle size (67). When normalized by the affected membrane area (~1000 nm²), these values correspond to an energy density of approximately 0.1 kcal mol^-1 nm^-2, which places our estimates within a biophysically reasonable regime. Notably, cryo-EM structures of several supercomplexes shows that such assemblies can impose significant curvature on the surrounding bilayer (36, 50, 68), supporting the notion that respiratory chain organization is closely coupled to local membrane deformation. Nevertheless, we expect that the absolute deformation energies may be overestimated, as the continuum Helfrich model neglects molecular-level effects such as lipid tilt and local rearrangements, which can partially relax curvature stresses and reduce the effective bending penalty near protein–membrane interfaces (69, 70).”

The bending modulus used (ca. 5 kcal/mol) is small on the scale of typically observed biological bending moduli. This suggests the curvature energies are indeed much higher even than the high values reported. Some of this may be due to the spontaneous curvature of the lipids and perhaps the effect of the protein modifying the nearby lipids properties.

The SI initially included an incorrect value for the bending modulus (20 kJ mol^-1 instead of 20k_BT), which has now been corrected. The revised value is consistent with experimentally reported bending moduli from X-ray scattering measurements, although there remains substantial uncertainty in the precise values across different experimental and computational studies.

“The bending deformation energy was computed from the mean curvature field H(x,y), assuming a constant bilayer bending modulus κ (taken as 20k_bT  = 11.85 kcal mol^-1 (6)):”

(6) S. Brown et al., Comparative analysis of bending moduli in one-component membranes via coarsegrained molecular dynamics simulations. Biophysical Journal 124, 1–13 (2025).

It is unclear how CDL is supporting SC formation if its effect stabilizing the membrane deformation is strong or if it is acting as an electrostatic glue. While this is a weakenss for a definite quantification of the effect of CDL on SC formation, the study presents an interesting observation of CDL redistribution and could be an interesting topic for future work.

We agree with the Reviewer that future studies would be important to investigate the relationship between CDL-induced stabilization of membrane and its electrostatic effects.  

In summary, the qualitative data presented are interesting (especially the combination of molecular modeling with simpler Monte Carlo modeling aiding broader interpretation of the results). The energies of the membrane deformations are quite large. This might reflect the roles of specific lipids stabilizing those deformations, or the inherent difficulty in characterizing nanometer-scale curvature.

We thank the Reviewer for appreciating our work and for the help in further improving our findings.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this contribution, the authors report atomistic, coarse-grained and lattice simulations to analyze the mechanism of supercomplex (SC) formation in mitochondria. The results highlight the importance of membrane deformation as one of the major driving forces for the SC formation, which is not entirely surprising given prior work on membrane protein assembly, but certainly of major mechanistic significance for the specific systems of interest.

We thank Reviewer 3 for appreciating the importance of our study. 

Strengths:

The combination of complementary approaches, including an interesting (re)analysis of cryo-EM data, is particularly powerful, and might be applicable to the analysis of related systems. The calculations also revealed that SC formation has interesting impacts on the structural and dynamical (motional correlation) properties of the individual protein components, suggesting further functional relevance of SC formation. In the revision, the authors further clarified and quantified their analysis of membrane responses, leading to further insights into membrane contributions. They have also toned down the decomposition of membrane contributions into enthalpic and entropic contributions, which is difficult to do. Overall, the study is rather thorough, highly creative and the impact on the field is expected to be significant.

Weaknesses:

Upon revision, I believe the weakness identified in previous work has been largely alleviated.

We thank the Reviewer for their previous remarks, which allowed us to significantly improve our manuscript.

This article talks about the problem that Facebook has about the languages on the platform. Facebook allows over 100 languages to be used, but the content moderation workers are only able to moderate about 50 languages, and the automated moderators can only moderate 30 languages. This caused the problem that some users posts information about racism, spam, and other dangerous messages in languages that the moderators can't read, which brings rick to users. The article says Facebook is working on solving this problem, and I hope all languages that are allowed on Facebook can be used in a safe way even there are difficulties.

This Reddit post raises an important ethical question about unpaid labor on large online platforms. It’s surprising that Reddit, a company worth billions, depends so heavily on volunteer moderators who receive no compensation. I think this shows a contradiction between the platform’s profit and the unpaid effort that keeps it running. It reminds me of how Wikipedia also relies on unpaid editors, but in Reddit’s case, the moderators face more pressure and even harassment. Personally, I believe moderators should receive at least some form of payment or recognition for their work. Without them, Reddit would not function — so their contribution deserves more respect and support.

She became the third woman in history to win the Nobel Prize in Physics, but the fact that she didn't even have a Wikipedia page before winning the award highlights how many female scientists' achievements may go unnoticed or be underestimated. I wonder how many other outstanding women scientist have had their contributions buried behind the scenes simply because they haven't received the attention and recognition they deserve.

The reasoning for the poor treatment of the moderators can be due to the fact that moderation and the content that is features that might go against the social medias TOS might not actually hurt the companies bottom line that much, and they are only hired for PR reasons, to give off the impression that safety of users is important to the company. Another example is roblox, where child predators, scammers, and bad actors are quite common, and are all technically supposed to be banned by Roblox. But as roblox is such a large company, a few users experiencing these will not actually hurt Roblox's profits. Instead, the problems are only fixed is they get wide spread coverage by new soruces.

A Facebook moderator enjoyed her job but, during the pandemic, did not want to go to work in person due to her mother having heart issues that made COVID a more serious problem for her. When she had to go in anyway, she suffered mental health issues, which the company ignored.

this tracks because when notes are written but not consulted they have no purpose whatsoever

Bush didn't dream big enough, we got this tenfold

The advancing of technology is meant to advance our ability for navigating records of scientific understanding, this is the shortcoming that stopped Mendel's theories years ago, but I do think that this has not broken what I think is the ultimate wall of limitation which is the language used in academic readings (I am deeply annoyed an invested in this idea)

The comparison makes it hard to say if it is actually easier or harder, but I do think (if it is referring to difficulty) it is a point that stands even today where complexity of a text stops many from being able to properly engage in a text

Interesting

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Circannual timing is a phylogenetically widespread phenomenon in long-lived organisms and is central to the seasonal regulation of reproduction, hibernation, migration, fur color changes, body weight, and fat deposition in response to photoperiodic changes. Photoperiodic control of thyroid hormone T3 levels in the hypothalamus dictates this timing. However, the mechanisms that regulate these changes are not fully understood. The study by Stewart et al. reports that hypothalamic iodothyronine deiodinase 3 (Dio3), the major inactivator of the biologically active thyroid hormone T3, plays a critical role in circannual timing in the Djungarian hamster. Overall, the study yields important results for the field and is well-conducted, with the exception of the CRISPR/Cas9 manipulation.

We appreciate the positive and supportive comment from the Reviewer. We have clarified the oversight in the Crispr/Cas9 data representation below. Our correction should alleviate any concern raised.

Figure 1 lays the foundation for examining circannual timing by establishing the timing of induction, maintenance, and recovery phases of the circannual timer upon exposure of hamsters to short photoperiod (SP) by monitoring morphological and physiological markers. Measures of pelage color, torpor, body mass, plasma glucose, etc, established that the initiation phase occurred by weeks 4-8 in SP, the maintenance by weeks 12-20, and the recovery after week 20, where all morphological and physiological changes started to reverse back to long photoperiod phenotypes.

The statistical analyses look fine, and the results are unambiguous.

We thank the Reviewer for recognizing our attempts to highlight the phenomenon of circannual interval timing.

Their representation could, however, be improved. In Figures 1d and 1e, two different measures are plotted on each graph and differentiated by dots and upward or downward arrowheads. The plots are so small, though, that distinguishing between the direction of the arrows is difficult. Some color coding would make it more reader-friendly. The same comment applies to Figure S4. 

We have increased the panel size for Figure 1d and 1e. We have also changed the colour of the graphs in Figure 1d and 1e to facilitate the differentiation of the two dependent variables. For the circos plots, we attempted different ways to represent the data. We have opted to keep the figures in their current stage. The overall aim is to provide a ‘gestalt’ view of the timing of changes in transcript expression and highlighted only a few key genes. The whole dataset is provided in the supplementary materials for Reviewer/Reader interrogation.

The authors went on to profile the transcriptome of the mediobasal and dorsomedial hypothalamus, paraventricular nucleus, and pituitary gland (all known to be involved in seasonal timing) every 4 weeks over the different phases of the circannual interval timer. A number of transcripts displaying seasonal rhythms in expression levels in each of the investigated structures were identified, including transcripts whose expression peaks during each phase. This included two genes of particular interest due to their known modulation of expression in response to photoperiod, Dio3 and Sst, found among the transcripts upregulated during the induction and maintenance phases, respectively. The experiments are technically sound and properly analyzed, revealing interesting candidates. Again, my main issues lie with the representation in the figure. In particular, the authors should clarify what the heatmaps on the right of Figures 1f and 1g represent. I suspect they are simply heatmaps of averaged expression of all genes within a defined category, but a description is missing in the legend, as well as a scale for color coding near the figure.

We have clarified the heatmap and density maps in the Figure legend. We apologise for the lack of information to describe the figure panels. (see lines 644-648)

Figure 2 reveals that SP-programmed body mass loss is correlated to increased Dio3-dependent somatostatin (Sst) expression. First, to distinguish whether the body mass loss was controlled by rheostatic mechanisms and not just acute homeostatic changes in energy balance, experiments from hamsters fed ad lib or experiencing an acute food restriction in both LP and SP were tested. Unlike plasma insulin, food restriction had no additional effect on SP-driven epididymal fat mass loss (Figure S7). This clearly establishes a rheostatic control of body mass loss across weeks in SP conditions. Importantly, Sst expression in the mediobasal hypothalamus increased in both ad lib fed or restriction fed SP hamsters and this increase in expression could be reduced by a single subcutaneous injection of active T3, clearly suggesting that increase in Sst expression in SP is due to a decrease of active T3 likely via Dio3 increase in expression in the hypothalamus. The results are unambiguous

We thank the Reviewer for the supportive and affirmative feedback.

Figure 3 provides a functional test of Dio3's role in the circannual timer. Mediobasal hypothalamic injections of CRISPR-Cas9 lentiviral vectors expressing two guide RNAs targeting the hamster Dio3 led to a significant reduction in the interval between induction and recovery phases seen in SP as measured by body mass, and diminished the extent of pelage color change by weeks 15-20. In addition, hamsters that failed to respond to SP exposure by decreasing their body mass also had undetectable Dio3 expression in the mediobasal hypothalamus. Together, these data provide strong evidence that Dio3 functions in the circannual timer. I noted, however, a few problems in the way the CRISPR modification of Dio3 in the mediobasal hypothalamus was reported in Figure S8. One is in Figure S8b, where the PAM sites are reported to be 9bp and 11bp downstream of sgRNA1 and sgRNA2, respectively. Is this really the case? If so, I would have expected the experiment to fail to show any effect as PAM sites need to immediately follow the target genomic sequence recognized by the sgRNA for Cas9 to induce a DNA double-stranded break. It seems that each guide contains a 3' NGG sequence that is currently underlined as part of sgRNAs in both Fig S8b and in the method section. If this is not a mistake in reporting the experimental design, I believe that the design is less than optimal and the efficiencies of sgRNAs are rather low, if at all functional.

We apologize for the oversight and indeed the reporting in Figure S8b was a mistake. The PAM site previously indicated was the ‘secondary PAM site’ (which as the Reviewer notes would likely have low efficiency). The PAM site is described within the gRNA in the figure. We use Adobe Illustrator to generate figures, and during the editing process, the layer for PAM text was accidentally moved ‘back’ to a lower level. The oversight was not rectified before submission. We apologise for this unreservedly. The PAM site text has been moved forward, to highlight the location of the primary site (ie immediately following gRNA) and labelled the gRNA and PAM site in the ‘Target region’. The secondary PAM site text was removed to eliminate any confusion.

The authors report efficiencies around 60% (line 325), but how these were obtained is not specified. 

The efficiency provided are based on bioinformatic analyses and not in vivo assays. To reduce any confusion, we have removed the text. The gRNA were clearly effective to induce mutations based on the sequencing analyses.

Another unclear point is the degree to which the mediobasal hypothalamus was actually mutated. Only one mutated (truncated) sequence in Figure S8c is reported, but I would have expected a range of mutations in different cells of the tissue of interest.

The tissue punch would include multiple different cells (e.g., neuronal, glial, etc). We agree with the Reviewer that genomic samples from different cells would be included in the sequencing analyses. Given the large mutation in the target region, the gRNA was effective. We have only shown one representative sequence. If the Reviewer would like to see all mutations, we can easily show the other samples.

Although the authors clearly find a phenotypic effect with their CRISPR manipulation, I suspect that they may have uncovered greater effects with better sgRNA design. These points need some clarification. I would also argue that repeating this experiment with properly designed sgRNAs would provide much stronger support for causally linking Dio3 in circannual timing.

The gRNA was designed using the Gold-standard approach – ChopChop [citation Labon et al., 2019]. If the Reviewer’s concern re design is due to the comment above re PAM site; this issue was clarified and there are no concerns for the gRNA design. The major challenge with the Dio3 gene (single exon) with a very short sequence length (approx.. 412bp). There is limited scope within this sequence length to generate gRNA.

A proposed schematic model for mechanisms of circannual interval timing is presented in Figure S9. I think this represents a nice summary of the findings put in a broader context and should be presented as a main figure in the manuscript itself rather than being relayed in supplementary materials.

We agree with the Reviewer position and moved the figure to the main manuscript. The figure is now Figure 4.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Several animals and plants adjust their physiology and behavior to seasons. These changes are timed to precede the seasonal transitions, maximizing chances of survival and reproduction. The molecular mechanisms used for this process are still unclear. Studies in mammals and birds have shown that the expression of deiodinase type-1, 2, and 3 (Dio1, 2, 3) in the hypothalamus spikes right before the transition to winter phenotypes. Yet, whether this change is required or an unrelated product of the seasonal changes has not been shown, particularly because of the genetic intractability of the animal models used to study seasonality. Here, the authors show for the first time a direct link between Dio3 expression and the modulation of circannual rhythms.

We appreciate the clear synthesis and support for the manuscript.

Strengths:

The work is concise and presents the data in a clear manner. The data is, for the most part, solid and supports the author's main claims. The use of CRISPR is a clear advancement in the field. This is, to my knowledge, the first study showing a clear (i.e., causal) role of Dio3 in the circannual rhythms in mammals. Having established a clear component of the circannual timing and a clean approach to address causality, this study could serve as a blueprint to decipher other components of the timing mechanism. It could also help to enlighten the elusive nature of the upstream regulators, in particular, on how the integration of day length takes place, maybe within the components in the Pars tuberalis, and the regulation of tanycytes.

We thank the Reviewer for this positive summary.

Weaknesses:

Due to the nature of the CRISPR manipulation, the low N number is a clear weakness. This is compensated by the fact that the phenotypes shown here are strong enough. Also, this is the only causal evidence of Dio3's role; thus, additional evidence would have significantly strengthened the author's claims. The use of the non-responsive population of hamsters also helps, but it falls within the realm of correlations.

We would also like to remind the Reviewer that one Crispr-Cas9 Dio3^cc treated hamster did not show any mutation in the genome. This hamster was observed to have a change in body mass and pelage colour like controls. This animal provides another positive control.

We also conducted a statistical power analysis to examine whether n=3 is sufficient for the Dio3^cc treatment group. Using the appropriate expected difference in means and standard deviations for an alpha of 0.05; we regularly observed beta >0.8 across the dependent variables. 

Additionally, the consequences of the mutations generated by CRISPR are not detailed; it is not clear if the mutations affect the expression of Dio3 or generate a truncation or deletion, resulting in a shorter protein.

We agree with the Reviewer that transcript and protein assays would strengthen the genome mutation data. Due to the small brain region under investigation, we are limited in the amount of biological material to extract. Dio3 is an intronless gene and very short – approximately 412 base pairs in length. We opted to maximize resources into sequencing the gene as the confirmation of genetic mutation is paramount. Given the large size of the mutation in the treated hamsters, there would be no amplification of transcript or protein translated.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The authors investigated SP-induced physiological and molecular changes in Djungarian hamsters and the endogenous recovery from it after circa half a year. The study aimed to elucidate the intrinsic mechanism and included nice experiments to distinguish between rheostatic effects on energy state and homeostatic cues driven by an interval timer. It also aimed to elucidate the role of Dio3 by introducing a targeted mutation in the MBH by ICV. The experiments and analyses are sound, and the amount of work is impressive. The impact of this study on the field of seasonal chronobiology is probably high.

We thank the Reviewer for their positive comments and support for our work.

Even though the general conclusions are well-founded, I have fundamental criticism concerning 3 points, which I recommend revising:

(1) The authors talk about a circannual interval timer, but this is no circannual timer. This is a circasemiannual timer. It is important that the authors use precise wording throughout the manuscript.

We agree with the Reviewer that the change in physiology and behaviour does not approximate a full year (e.g. annual) and only a half of the year. We opted to use circannual timer as this term is established in the field (see doi: 10.1177/0748730404266626; doi: 10.1098/rstb.2007.2143). We cannot identify any publication that has used the term ‘semiannual timer’. We do not feel this manuscript is the appropriate time to introduce a new term to the field; we will endeavour to push the field to consider the use of ‘semiannual timer’. A Review or Opinion paper is best place for this discussion. We hope the Reviewer will understand our position.

(2) The authors put their results in the context of clocks. For example, line 180/181 seasonal clock. But they have described and investigated an interval timer. A clock must be able to complete a full cycle endogenously (and ideally repeatedly) and not only half of it. In contrast, a timer steers a duration. Thus, it is well possible that a circannual clock mechanism and this circa-semiannual timer of photoperiodic species are 2 completely different mechanisms. The argumentation should be changed accordingly.

We agree with the Reviewers definitions of circannual ‘clock’ and ‘timer’. We were careful to distinguish between the two concepts early in the manuscript (lines 41-46). We have added italics to emphasis the different terms. The use of seasonal clock on line 180/191 was imprecise and we appreciate the Reviewer highlighting our oversight and the text was revised. We have also revised the Abstract accordingly.

(3) The authors chose as animal model the Djungarian hamster, which is a predominantly photoperiodic species and not a circannual species. A photoperiodic species has no circannual clock. That is another reason why it is difficult to draw conclusions from the experiment for circannual clocks. However, the Djungarian hamster is kind of "indifferent" concerning its seasonal timing, since a small fraction of them are indeed able to cycle (Anchordoquy HC, Lynch GR (2000), Evidence of an annual rhythm in a small proportion of Siberian hamsters exposed to chronic short days. J Biol Rhythms 15:122-125.). Nevertheless, the proportion is too small to suggest that the findings in the current study might reflect part of the circannual timing. Therefore, the authors should make a clear distinction between timers and clocks, as well as between circa-annual and circa-semiannual durations/periods.

This comment is not clear to us. The Reviewer states the hamsters are not a circannual species, but then highlight one study that shows circannual rhythmicity. We agree that circannual rhythmicity in Djungarian hamsters is dependent on the physiological process under investigation (e.g. body mass versus reproduction) and that photoperiodic response system either dampen or mask robust cycles. We have corrected the text oversight highlighted above and the manuscript is focused on interval timers. We have kept the term circannual over semicircannual due to the prior use in the scientific literature.

Reviewing Editor Comments:

The detailed suggestions of the reviewers are outlined below (or above in case of reviewer 1). In light of the criticism, we ask the authors to especially pay attention to the comments on the Cas9/Crisp experiment, raised by Reviewers 1 and 2. As currently described, there are serious questions on the design of the sgRNAs, and also missing critical methodological details. If the latter are diligently taken care of, they may resolve the questions on the sgRNA design. Please also reconsider the wording along the suggestions of Reviewer 3.

We appreciate the Editors time and support for the manuscript. We have clarified and corrected our oversight for the PAM site. This correction confirms the strength of the Crispr-cas9 gRNA used in the study. The correction should remove all concerns. We have also considered using semicircannual in the text. As there is existing scientific literature using circannual interval timer, and there is no publication to our knowledge for using ‘semicircannual; we have opted to keep with the current approach and use circannual. We feel a subsequent Opinion paper is more suitable to introduce a new term.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

First, I want to commend the authors for their work. It is a clear advancement for our field. Below are a couple of comments and suggestions I have:

we thank the Review for the positive comment and support. We have endeavoured to incorporate their suggested improvements to the manuscript.

(1) Looking at the results of Figure 1A and Figure S8, the control in S8 showed a lower pelage color score as compared to the hamsters in 1A. Is this a byproduct of the ICV injection?

The difference between Figure 1 and 3 is likely due to the smaller sample sizes. The controls in Figure 1 had a higher proportion of hamsters show complete white fur (score =3) at 1618 weeks compared to controls in Figure 3. It is possible, although unlikely that the ICV injection would reduce the development of winter phenotype. There was no substance in the ICV injection that would impact the prolactin signalling pathway. Our perspective is that the difference between the two figures is due to the different sampling population. Overall, the timing of the change in pelage colour is the same between the figures and suggest that the mechanisms of interval timer were unaffected.

(2) Is there a particular reason why the pelage color for the CRISPR mutants is relegated to the supplemental information? In my opinion, this is also important, even though the results might be difficult to explain. Additionally, did the authors check for food intake and adipose mass in these animals?

We agree with the Reviewer the pelage change is very interesting. We decided to have Figure 3 focus on body mass. The rationale was due to the robust nature of the data collection from Crispr-cas9 study (Fig.3b), in addition to the non-responsive hamsters (Fig.3e). We disagree that the data patterns are hard to explain, as pelage changes was similar to the photoperiodic induced change in body mass. No differences were observed for food intake or adipose tissue. We have added this information in the text (see lines 162-163).

(3) I might have missed it, but did the authors check for the expression of Dio3 on the CRISPR mutants? Does the deletion cause reduced expression or any other mRNA effect, such as those resulting in the truncation of a protein?

Due to the limited biological material extracted from the anatomical punches, we decided to focus on genomic mutations. Dio3 has a very short sequence length and the size of the mutations identified indicate that no RNA could be transcribed.

(4) Could the authors clarify which reference genome or partial CDS (i.e., accession numbers) they used to align the gRNA? Did they use the SSSS strain or the Psun_Stras_1 isolate?

The gRNAs were designed using the online tool CHOPCHOP, using the Mus musculus

Dio3 gene. The generated gRNAs were subsequently aligned via blast with the Phodopus sungorus Dio3 partial cds (GenBank: MF662622.1), to ensure alignment with the species. We are confident that the gRNA designed align 100% in hamsters. Furthermore, we conducted BLAST to ensure there were no off-targets. The only gene identified in the BLAST was the rodent (i.e. hamster, mouse) Dio3 sequence.

(5) Figure 3b. I do agree with the authors in pointing out that the decrease in body mass is occurring earlier in Dio3wt hamsters; however, the shape of the body mass dynamic is also different. Do the authors have any comments on the possible role of Dio3 in the process of exist of overwintering?

This is a very interesting question. We do not have the data to evaluate the role of Dio3 for overwintering. We argue that disruption in Dio3 reduced the circannual interval period. For this interpretation, yes, Dio3 is necessary for overwintering. However, we would need to show the sufficiency of Dio3 to induce the winter phenotype in hamsters housed in long photoperiod. At this time, we do not have the technical ability to conduct this experiment.

(6) In Figure 3d, the Dio3wt group does not show any dispersion. Is this correct? If that's true, and no dispersion is observed, no normality can be assumed, and a t-test can't be performed (Line 692).The Mann-Whitney test might be better suited.

We conducted a Welch’s t-test to compare the difference in body mass period. We used the Welch’s test as the variance were not equal; Mann-Whitney test is best for skewed distributions. To clarify the test used, we have added ‘Welch’s test’ to the Figure legend.

(9) Figure 1 h. It might be convenient to add the words "Induction", "maintenance", and "recovery" over each respective line on the polar graph for easier reading.

We have added the text as suggested by the Reviewer.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) Figure 1: Please enlarge all partial graphics at least to the size of Figure 2. In the print version, labels are barely readable

we have increased the panels in Figure 1 and 3 by 20% to accommodate the Reviewers suggestion.

(2) Legend Figure 2: Add that the food restriction was 16h.

We have added 16h to the text.

(3) Figure 3b: enlarge font size. In the legend: Dio3cc hamsters delayed.... The delay might have been a week or so, but not more (and even that is unclear since the rise in body mass in that week seems to be rather a disturbance of the curve). Thus 'delay' might not be the most appropriate wording. Instead, the initial decline is slower, but both started at nearly the same week (=> no delay). Minimum body mass is reached at the identical week as in wt (=> no delay). Also, the increase started at the same week but was much faster in Dio3cc than in wt. Figure 3c: How can there be a period when there is no repeated cycle (rhythm)? This is rather a duration. Moreover, according to the displayed data, I am wondering which start point and which endpoint is used. The first and last values are the highest of the graph, but have they been the maximum? Especially for Dio3wt, it can be assumed that animals haven't reached the maximum at the end of the graph.

We have increased the font size in Figure 3b. We have changed ‘delayed’ to ‘slower’ in the text. Period analyses, such as the Lomb-Scargle measure the duration of a cycle (and multiple cycles). The start point and end point used in the analyses were the initial data collection date (week 0) and the final data collection date (week 32). The Lomb-Scargle analyses determines the duration of the period that occurs within these phases of the cycle. We believe the period analyses conducted by the Lomb-Scargle is the most suitable for the scientific question.

(4) Figure S9: This is a very nice graph and summarises your main results. It should appear in the main manuscript and not in the supplements.

We appreciate the positive comment and suggestion. We agree with the Reviewer and have move the graph to the main figure. The revised manuscript indicates the graph as Figure 4.

Synthèse des "Rendez-vous de la techno" : La filière STI2D

Résumé

Ce document synthétise les informations et témoignages présentés lors de l'événement "Les rendez-vous de la techno" consacré à la filière Sciences et Technologies de l'Industrie et du Développement Durable (STI2D).

La filière STI2D se positionne comme une voie d'excellence scientifique et technologique, conçue pour les élèves qui privilégient l'apprentissage par la pratique, la manipulation et la réalisation de projets concrets, en contraste avec l'approche plus théorique de la voie générale.

Elle s'adresse à des profils créatifs, aimant le travail en groupe, la résolution de problèmes et l'innovation.

Le cursus est structuré pour fournir des connaissances solides en sciences, technologie, mathématiques et ingénierie, tout en développant une sensibilité aux enjeux industriels et environnementaux.

La pédagogie, axée sur des projets concrets comme la conception d'une voiture solaire ou la modélisation 3D de châteaux, permet aux élèves de mettre en œuvre leurs compétences de manière tangible.

La filière STI2D se distingue par la grande diversité des poursuites d'études qu'elle autorise.

Elle ouvre aussi bien la voie à des études courtes (BTS, BUT) qu'à des parcours longs et exigeants menant aux plus hautes qualifications (Classes Préparatoires aux Grandes Écoles TSI, écoles d'ingénieurs, licences universitaires).

Les témoignages d'élèves et d'étudiants confirment que la filière constitue un tremplin efficace vers la réussite, y compris pour des élèves se réorientant depuis la voie générale, et que ses diplômés sont recherchés dans de nombreux secteurs d'activité de pointe.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Présentation Générale de la Filière STI2D

1.1. Public Cible et Profil de l'Élève

La filière STI2D est accessible après une classe de seconde générale et technologique.

Elle est particulièrement adaptée aux élèves présentant les caractéristiques suivantes :

• Intérêt pour la technologie et les sciences : Un goût prononcé pour la manipulation, la compréhension des phénomènes physiques et la mise en œuvre de solutions techniques.

• Esprit pratique et créatif : L'envie de travailler en groupe sur des projets, de résoudre des problèmes concrets et de faire preuve de créativité et d'innovation.

• Ambition : La filière attire des élèves qui envisagent des carrières d'ingénieur ou de technicien supérieur.

Selon Mme Amarante, le choix de cette filière correspond à un profil qui "aime la technologie", qui est "plutôt créatif", qui "aime aussi résoudre des problèmes, trouver des solutions".

1.2. Compétences et Connaissances Acquises

Le baccalauréat STI2D est présenté comme un "bac technologique plutôt scientifique" qui permet d'acquérir des compétences solides et variées :

• Connaissances pluridisciplinaires : Sciences, technologie, mathématiques et ingénierie.

• Compétences industrielles et environnementales : Une sensibilisation forte aux enjeux de l'industrie moderne et du développement durable.

• Approche design et innovation : Développement de la créativité et de la capacité à innover.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Structure du Cursus Pédagogique

L'enseignement en STI2D est conçu pour rendre les concepts scientifiques plus accessibles par l'expérimentation et la réalisation.

2.1. Classe de Première

L'objectif est de permettre aux élèves qui "ont du mal à comprendre les enseignements" de manière abstraite de "se rapprocher de la manipulation" et de "comprendre des phénomènes en petit groupe".

Le programme s'articule autour de deux spécialités :

• Ingénierie, Innovation et Développement Durable (I2D) : Acquisition de connaissances scientifiques fondamentales à travers trois domaines : la matière, l'énergie et l'information.

• Innovation Technologique (IT) : Mise en œuvre des connaissances acquises en I2D à travers la réalisation de trois projets concrets durant l'année.

2.2. Classe de Terminale

En terminale, l'enseignement de spécialité I2D se poursuit, complété par un choix parmi quatre approfondissements spécifiques. L'année est marquée par un projet de 72 heures qui couvre l'étude, l'analyse, la conception, la simulation et le prototypage.

Spécialité

Acronyme

Description

Architecture et Construction

AC

Approfondissement des connaissances liées à la matière et à la structure.

Innovation Technologique et Éco-conception

ITEC

Approfondissement des connaissances liées à la conception mécanique et au design.

Systèmes d'Information et Numérique

SIN

Approfondissement des connaissances liées à l'informatique et aux systèmes numériques.

Énergie et Environnement

EE

Approfondissement des connaissances liées à la gestion, au transport et au stockage de l'énergie.

Un exemple de projet pluridisciplinaire cité est celui de la voiture solaire, qui a mobilisé trois spécialités :

• AC pour la conception du châssis.

• EE pour la gestion de l'énergie (panneaux solaires, stockage, alimentation moteur).

• SIN pour la commande et le pilotage de la voiture.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Poursuites d'Études et Débouchés

La filière STI2D offre un large éventail de possibilités après le baccalauréat, permettant aux élèves de choisir entre des études courtes ou longues.

3.1. Panorama des Options Post-Baccalauréat

Type de Parcours

Formations Possibles

Exemples Cités

Études Courtes (Bac+2 / Bac+3)

BTS (Brevet de Technicien Supérieur)

BTS CIEL (Informatique et Réseau), BTS Électrotechnique, CPI, CPRP, CRSA.

BUT (Bachelor Universitaire de Technologie)

BUT Génie Civil Construction Durable, BUT Informatique, BUT Génie Industriel et Maintenance. Il est à noter que les BUT ont des places réservées pour les bacheliers technologiques.

Études Longues (Bac+5 et plus)

Classes Préparatoires aux Grandes Écoles (CPGE)

Prépa TSI (Technologie et Sciences Industrielles), spécifiquement destinée aux bacheliers STI2D/STL, et Prépa TPC (Technologie, Physique et Chimie).

Écoles d'Ingénieurs

Accès direct via le concours GPI Polytech pour STI2D/STL ou après une CPGE ou un BTS/BUT.

Licences Universitaires

Licence Informatique, Mathématiques, Physique, Sciences pour l'Ingénieur.

3.2. Données et Tendances (Parcoursup Janvier 2025)

Les données de Parcoursup indiquent une répartition équilibrée des choix des bacheliers STI2D, avec "autant de jeunes qui s'orientent vers des BTS que sur des BUT".

Un nombre légèrement inférieur d'élèves se dirige directement vers les classes préparatoires, les écoles d'ingénieurs ou les licences universitaires.

3.3. Secteurs d'Activité

Les diplômés peuvent intégrer des secteurs très variés, dont beaucoup sont des "métiers en tension" :

• BTP, architecture

• Énergie, électronique, environnement

• Audiovisuel, informatique, recherche et développement

• Secteurs de pointe : aéronautique, ferroviaire, construction navale

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Témoignages et Expériences Pratiques

4.1. L'Atelier de Prototypage : Une Démonstration Concrète

Une visite de l'atelier de prototypage a été organisée pour des élèves de seconde. Guidés par M. René, ils ont découvert :

• Des machines de fabrication complexes : Une voiture de course fabriquée sur place et ayant participé à une course à Albi.

• Des technologies de prototypage rapide : Des imprimantes 3D plastique et métal, ainsi qu'une machine de découpe laser.

La démonstration a mis en évidence la simplicité d'utilisation de certaines machines, incarnant l'esprit "Fablab" du lycée. Un élève a pu utiliser la machine de découpe laser après seulement 10 minutes d'explications pour réaliser une pièce. Cette expérience a souligné l'accessibilité de la technologie et la capacité des élèves à "concevoir et réaliser des pièces" rapidement.

4.2. Paroles d'Élèves de Terminale STI2D

Les témoignages des élèves de terminale illustrent la richesse et la diversité des parcours et des projets au sein de la filière.

• Spécialité Architecture et Construction (AC) :

◦ Jade a travaillé sur la modélisation des conduites d'eaux usées d'une ville fictive (Moeville) et souhaite devenir architecte d'intérieur.  

◦ Albin, réorienté depuis la première générale, ne "regrette pas du tout" son choix.

Il a participé à un projet de visite et de modélisation 3D du château de Jaligny.

Il souligne la valeur de l'approche plus appliquée de la filière et vise une école d'architecture ou un BUT Génie Civil.

• Spécialité Énergie et Environnement (EE) :

◦ Tom a choisi cette filière pour son "attrait relativement particulier pour tout ce qui était les énergies" et le désir "d'améliorer le fonctionnement de la société sur son point énergétique".

Bien qu'il se destine à devenir pilote, il "prend du plaisir à suivre les cours".

• Spécialité Innovation Technologique et Éco-conception (ITEC) :

◦ Will a choisi ITEC car il avait "beaucoup aimé les cours d'innovation technologique" en première.

Il se dirige vers une école d'informatique ou de cybersécurité.  

◦ Zoé, intéressée par le design (automobile, espace, mode), trouve que la spécialité ITEC est une bonne formation polyvalente où "on fait un peu de tout".

• Spécialité Systèmes d'Information et Numérique (SIN) :

◦ Liam apprécie le fait qu'en filière technologique, "il y a plus de pratique que de théorie" et que "on travaille plus souvent en classe qu'à la maison".    ◦ Martin a choisi la filière STI2D pour accéder à la spécialité SIN en vue d'une carrière dans l'informatique. Il n'est "pas déçu" et s'oriente vers les sciences des données.

4.3. Paroles d'Étudiants en Post-Baccalauréat

• BTS :

◦ Les étudiants de BTS CPI (Conception de Produits Industriels) montrent la complémentarité des parcours : Chris vient d'un bac général et y voit "la continuité de la matière science de l'ingénieur", tandis que Gauthier vient d'un bac STI2D ITEC et a été attiré par "le design qu'on faisait en ITECH".  

◦ Paul, en BTS CPRP, a préféré le cadre du BTS à celui du BUT pour son projet de carrière dans l'ingénierie militaire.

Il note que la cohabitation entre bacheliers généraux et STI2D est "plutôt complémentaire", les uns apportant la théorie (maths, physique), les autres la pratique.

• Classe Préparatoire TSI :

◦ Deux étudiants confirment que la prépa est le "meilleur moyen pour faire ingénieur".

Ils décrivent un changement de rythme important par rapport à la terminale : "Ça change de STI2D", "c'est vachement plus intense".

Cependant, l'adaptation est facilitée par une "bonne ambiance" et une "beaucoup de solidarité", notamment à l'internat.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Points Clés et Ressources

5.1. Diversité et Représentation

Il est souligné que la filière STI2D compte "globalement plus de garçons que de filles", tout en insistant sur le fait que "c'est aussi une filière pour les filles".

La présence de plusieurs étudiantes parmi les témoins (Jade, Zoé, Joyce) vient appuyer ce propos.

5.2. Outils d'Orientation

Pour aider les élèves dans leur parcours, deux ressources numériques accessibles via "Mon Bureau Numérique" sont mises en avant :

• La plateforme Avenir : En lien avec l'ONISEP, elle propose de la documentation, des fiches formations et des témoignages.

• Mon projet sup : Un outil d'aide à la préparation du projet d'orientation au lycée, permettant de cibler des secteurs d'activité en fonction des compétences et des intérêts de l'élève.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The goal of the manuscript was to determine if strenuous exercise negatively impacted regeneration. Indeed, the major conclusion of the manuscript is that elevated exercise during the early stages of regeneration compromises the regenerative process. The authors further conclude that regeneration is disrupted due to defects in blastema formation, which is caused by impaired HA deposition and reduced active (nuclear) Yap.

Strengths:

(1) The paradigm of elevated exercise disrupting ECM and regeneration is significant, and provides an experimental model to better understand connections between the ECM and cell/tissue activities.

(2) The conclusion that exercise intensity correlates with defects in regeneration is supported.

(3) The demonstration for the requirement for HA is well supported via transcriptomics and multiple independent strategies to manipulate HA levels.

(4) The demonstration that nuclear Yap depends on the amount of HA is well-supported.

Weaknesses:

(1) The authors conclude throughout the manuscript that "blastema formation" is disrupted, but they do not provide any insights into how blastema formation is disrupted (reduced de-differentiation? reduced cell migration? both?). While they show that there are fewer dividing cells, the timing of exercise is prior to outgrowth. So, the effect of dividing cells is likely secondary, which is not considered (or not clearly explained).

(2) The authors conclude that patterning is affected, but their analyses of patterns (bifurcations) are very limited. It is also not clear if patterning is believed to be affected by a common exercise-induced mechanism or a different exercise-induced mechanism (or by a secondary mechanism).

(3) The significance of HA in regeneration has been shown before in zebrafish fins, as well as in a handful of other models of regeneration. Although largely cited, explaining some of this work in more detail would give the reader a better picture of how HA is believed to promote regeneration. It may also highlight some emerging questions about the role of HA in regeneration that would permit a richer story and specific future directions.

(4) In general, parts of the text lack specificity/clarity, and in other cases, there seems to be contradictory information.

(5) Overall, many of the conclusions were well supported by the data, and this study is likely to provide a foundation for future research on the role of the ECM in tissue repair and regeneration. The main limitations were in connecting the experimental details with the specific processes required for regeneration, and in clearly explaining the findings.

Author response:

Reviewer #1

We agree that further clarification how elevated exercise disrupts blastema formation would strengthen the manuscript. Our data suggests a major contribution of proliferation. Exercise reduced the fraction of proliferative cells at 3 dpa, consistent with disrupted HA production and downstream Yap signaling. This interpretation aligns with prior studies showing that proliferation contributes to blastema establishment and is not restricted to the outgrowth phase of fin regeneration (Poleo et al, 2001; Poss et al, 2002; Wang et al, 2019; Pfefferli et al, 2014; Hou et al, 2020). We will explore additional experiments to reinforce these insights into the cellular mechanisms underlying exercise-disrupted blastema formation.

We acknowledge that our analysis of ray branching abnormalities is limited in the current manuscript. We focus our study on introducing the zebrafish swimming and regeneration model and then characterizing ECM and signaling changes accounting for disrupted blastema establishment. For completeness, we included the observation of skeletal patterning defects (branching delays and bone fusions) but without detailed analysis. We note that decreased expression of shha and Shh-pathway components following early exercise corresponds with the branching defects. However, we recognize exercise could have additional effects during the outgrowth  phase when branching morphogenesis actively occurs. Therefore, we will expand our discussion to outline future research directions related to exercise impacts on regenerative skeletal patterning.

We will expand the Introduction and/or Discussion sections to provide more context on known HA roles across regeneration contexts, including in zebrafish fins. Finally, we will improve the text’s clarity and specificity throughout the manuscript, including to resolve or explain any apparent contradictions.

Reviewer #2

We appreciate the Reviewer's concern regarding the specificity of forced exercise as a model for mechanical loading. Forced exercise has been widely used in vivo to induce mechanical loading without the requirement for specialized implants or animal restraint, including in mouse (Wallace et al, 2015; Bomer et al, 2016), rat (Honda et al, 2003; Boerckel et al, 2011; Boerckel et al, 2012), and, most relevant to our study, zebrafish models (Fiaz et al, 2012; Fiaz et al, 2014; Suniaga et al, 2018). However, we will expand our discussion of this approach and ensure precise language distinguishing exercise from mechanical loading.

We acknowledge the possibility that early shear stress disrupts the wound epidermis, which we will elaborate on in a revised Discussion. However, exercise-induced disruptions to the fin epidermis of early regenerates (1–2 dpa; Figure 2) typically resolve within one day, whereas fibroblast lineage cells still fail to establish a robust blastema. Therefore, sustained effects of mechanical loading and/or mechanosensation are likely major contributors to the observed regeneration phenotypes.

We will explore whether HA acts as a general enhancer of fin regeneration by comparing blastemal HA supplementation vs. controls in non-exercised regenerating animals, if technically feasible. We will merge Figure S7 (HA supplementation) with Figure 5 (HA depletion) for clarity, as suggested.

We will include a schematic and clear definitions for 'peripheral' and 'central' rays in a revised manuscript.

Reviewer #3

We included Hoechst and eosin fluorescent staining in the manuscript to show changes in tissue architecture following swimming exercise (Supplemental Figure 4). We will extend this histological analysis to include hematoxylin and eosin staining to provide additional tissue visualization.

References

Poleo G, Brown CW, Laforest L, Akimenko MA. Cell proliferation and movement during early fin regeneration in zebrafish. Dev Dyn. 2001 Aug;221(4):380-90.

Poss KD, Nechiporuk A, Hillam AM, Johnson SL, Keating MT. Mps1 defines a proximal blastemal proliferative compartment essential for zebrafish fin regeneration. Development. 2002 Nov;129(22):5141-9.

Wang YT, Tseng TL, Kuo YC, Yu JK, Su YH, Poss KD, Chen CH. Genetic Reprogramming of Positional Memory in a Regenerating Appendage. Curr Biol. 2019 Dec 16;29(24):4193-4207.e4.

Pfefferli C, Müller F, Jaźwińska A, Wicky C. Specific NuRD components are required for fin regeneration in zebrafish. BMC Biol. 2014 Apr 29;12:30.

Hou Y, Lee HJ, Chen Y, Ge J, Osman FOI, McAdow AR, Mokalled MH, Johnson SL, Zhao G, Wang T. Cellular diversity of the regenerating caudal fin. Sci Adv. 2020 Aug 12;6(33):eaba2084.

Wallace IJ, Judex S, Demes B. Effects of load-bearing exercise on skeletal structure and mechanics differ between outbred populations of mice. Bone. 2015 Mar;72:1-8.

Bomer N, Cornelis FM, Ramos YF, den Hollander W, Storms L, van der Breggen R, Lakenberg N, Slagboom PE, Meulenbelt I, Lories RJ. The effect of forced exercise on knee joints in Dio2(-/-) mice: type II iodothyronine deiodinase-deficient mice are less prone to develop OA-like cartilage damage upon excessive mechanical stress. Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Mar;75(3):571-7.

Honda A, Sogo N, Nagasawa S, Shimizu T, Umemura Y. High-impact exercise strengthens bone in osteopenic ovariectomized rats with the same outcome as Sham rats. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2003 Sep;95(3):1032-7.

Boerckel JD, Kolambkar YM, Stevens HY, Lin AS, Dupont KM, Guldberg RE. Effects of in vivo mechanical loading on large bone defect regeneration. J Orthop Res. 2012 Jul;30(7):1067-75.

Boerckel JD, Uhrig BA, Willett NJ, Huebsch N, Guldberg RE. Mechanical regulation of vascular growth and tissue regeneration in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Sep 13;108(37):E674-80.

Fiaz AW, Léon-Kloosterziel KM, Gort G, Schulte-Merker S, van Leeuwen JL, Kranenbarg S. Swim-training changes the spatio-temporal dynamics of skeletogenesis in zebrafish larvae (Danio rerio). PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e34072.

Fiaz AW, Léon‐Kloosterziel KM, van Leeuwen JL, Kranenbarg S. Exploring the molecular link between swim‐training and caudal fin development in zebrafish (Danio rerio) larvae. Journal of Applied Ichthyology. 2014 Aug;30(4):753-61.

Suniaga S, Rolvien T, Vom Scheidt A, Fiedler IAK, Bale HA, Huysseune A, Witten PE, Amling M, Busse B. Increased mechanical loading through controlled swimming exercise induces bone formation and mineralization in adult zebrafish. Sci Rep. 2018 Feb 26;8(1):3646.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In this manuscript, Qin and colleagues aim to delineate a neural mechanism by which the internal satiety levels modulate the intake of sugar solution. They identified a three-step neuropeptidergic system that downregulates the sensitivity of sweet-sensing gustatory sensory neurons in sated flies. First, neurons that release a neuropeptide Hugin (which is an insect homolog of vertebrate Neuromedin U (NMU)) are in an active state when the concentration of glucose is high. This activation does not require synaptic inputs, suggesting that Hugin-releasing neurons sense hemolymph glucose levels directly. Next, the Hugin neuropeptides activate Allatostatin A (AstA)-releasing neurons via one of Hugin's receptors, PK2-R1. Finally, the released AstA neuropeptide suppresses sugar response in sugar-sensing Gr5a-expressing gustatory sensory neurons through AstA-R1 receptor. Suppression of sugar response in Gr5a-expressing neurons reduces the fly's sugar intake motivation (measured by proboscis extension reflex). They also found that NMU-expressing neurons in the ventromedial hypothalamus (VMH) of mice (which project to the rostral nucleus of the solitary tract (rNST)) are also activated by high concentrations of glucose, independent of synaptic transmission, and that injection of NMU reduces the glucose-induced activity in the downstream of NMU-expressing neurons in rNST. These data suggest that the function of Hugin neuropeptide in the fly is analogous to the function of NMU in the mouse.

Generally, their central conclusions are well-supported by multiple independent approaches. The parallel study in mice adds a unique comparative perspective that makes the paper interesting to a wide range of readers. It is easier said than done: the rigor of this study, which effectively combined pharmacological and genetic approaches to provide multiple lines of behavioral and physiological evidence, deserves recognition and praise.

A perceived weakness is that the behavioral effects of the manipulations of Hugin and AstA systems are modest compared to a dramatic shift of sugar solution-induced PER (the behavioral proxy of sugar sensitivity) induced by hunger, as presented in Figure 1B and E. It is true that the mutation of tyrosine hydroxylase (TH), which synthesizes dopamine, does not completely abolish the hunger-induced PER change, but the remaining effect is small. Moreover, the behavioral effect of the silencing of the Hugin/AstA system (Figure Supplement 13B, C) is difficult to interpret, leaving a possibility that this system may not be necessary for shifting PER in starved flies. These suggest that the Hugin-AstA system accounts for only a minor part of the behavioral adaptation induced by the decreased sugar levels. Their aim to "dissect out a complete neural pathway that directly senses internal energy state and modulates food-related behavioral output in the fly brain" is likely only partially achieved. While this outcome is not a shortcoming of a study per se, the depth of discussion on the mechanism of interactions between the Hugin/AstA system and the other previously characterized molecular circuit mechanisms mediating hunger-induced behavioral modulation is insufficient for readers to appreciate the novelty of this study and future challenges in the field. In this context, authors are encouraged to confront a limitation of the study due to the lack of subtype-level circuit characterization, despite their intriguing finding that only a subtype of Hugin- and AstA-releasing neurons are responsive to the elevated level of bath-applied glucose.

Author response:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In this manuscript, Qin and colleagues aim to delineate a neural mechanism by which the internal satiety levels modulate the intake of sugar solution. They identified a three-step neuropeptidergic system that downregulates the sensitivity of sweet-sensing gustatory sensory neurons in sated flies. First, neurons that release a neuropeptide Hugin (which is an insect homolog of vertebrate Neuromedin U (NMU)) are in an active state when the concentration of glucose is high. This activation does not require synaptic inputs, suggesting that Hugin-releasing neurons sense hemolymph glucose levels directly. Next, the Hugin neuropeptides activate Allatostatin A (AstA)-releasing neurons via one of Hugin's receptors, PK2-R1. Finally, the released AstA neuropeptide suppresses sugar response in sugar-sensing Gr5a-expressing gustatory sensory neurons through AstA-R1 receptor. Suppression of sugar response in Gr5a-expressing neurons reduces the fly's sugar intake motivation (measured by proboscis extension reflex). They also found that NMU-expressing neurons in the ventromedial hypothalamus (VMH) of mice (which project to the rostral nucleus of the solitary tract (rNST)) are also activated by high concentrations of glucose, independent of synaptic transmission, and that injection of NMU reduces the glucose-induced activity in the downstream of NMU-expressing neurons in rNST. These data suggest that the function of Hugin neuropeptide in the fly is analogous to the function of NMU in the mouse.

Generally, their central conclusions are well-supported by multiple independent approaches. The parallel study in mice adds a unique comparative perspective that makes the paper interesting to a wide range of readers. It is easier said than done: the rigor of this study, which effectively combined pharmacological and genetic approaches to provide multiple lines of behavioral and physiological evidence, deserves recognition and praise.

A perceived weakness is that the behavioral effects of the manipulations of Hugin and AstA systems are modest compared to a dramatic shift of sugar solution-induced PER (the behavioral proxy of sugar sensitivity) induced by hunger, as presented in Figure 1B and E. It is true that the mutation of tyrosine hydroxylase (TH), which synthesizes dopamine, does not completely abolish the hunger-induced PER change, but the remaining effect is small. Moreover, the behavioral effect of the silencing of the Hugin/AstA system (Figure Supplement 13B, C) is difficult to interpret, leaving a possibility that this system may not be necessary for shifting PER in starved flies. These suggest that the Hugin-AstA system accounts for only a minor part of the behavioral adaptation induced by the decreased sugar levels. Their aim to "dissect out a complete neural pathway that directly senses internal energy state and modulates food-related behavioral output in the fly brain" is likely only partially achieved. While this outcome is not a shortcoming of a study per se, the depth of discussion on the mechanism of interactions between the Hugin/AstA system and the other previously characterized molecular circuit mechanisms mediating hunger-induced behavioral modulation is insufficient for readers to appreciate the novelty of this study and future challenges in the field.

We thank the reviewer for the thoughtful comment. We agree that the behavioral effects of manipulating the Hugin–AstA system alone were considerably weaker than the pronounced PER shifts induced by starvation. We will revise our Discussion to address it by positioning our findings within the broader context of energy regulation.

More specifically, we will discuss that feeding behavior is controlled by two distinct, yet synergistic, types of mechanisms:

(1) Hunger-driven 'accelerators': as the reviewer notes, pathways involving dopamine and NPF are powerful drivers of sweet sensitivity. These systems are strongly activated by hunger to promote food-seeking and consumption.

(2) Satiety-driven 'brakes': our study identifies the counterpart to those systems above, aka. a satiety-driven 'brake'. The Hugin–AstA pathway acts as a direct sensor of high internal energy (glucose), which is specifically engaged during satiety to actively suppress sweet sensation and prevent overconsumption.

This framework explains the seemingly discrepancy in effect size. The dramatic PER shift seen upon starvation is a combined result of engaging the 'accelerators' (hunger pathways like TH/NPF) while simultaneously releasing the 'brake' (our Hugin–AstA pathway being inactive).

Our manipulations, which specifically target only the 'brake' system, are therefore expected to have a more modest effect than this combined physiological state. Thus, rather than being a "minor part," the Hugin–AstA pathway is a mechanistically defined, satiety-specific circuit that is essential for the precise "braking" required for energy homeostasis. We will update our Discussion to emphasize how these 'accelerator' and 'brake' circuits must work in concert to ensure precise energy regulation.

In this context, authors are encouraged to confront a limitation of the study due to the lack of subtype-level circuit characterization, despite their intriguing finding that only a subtype of Hugin- and AstA-releasing neurons are responsive to the elevated level of bath-applied glucose.

We thank the reviewer for highlighting the critical issue of subtype-level specialization within the Hugin and AstA populations.

We fully agree that the Hugin system is known for its functional heterogeneity (pleiotropy), with different Hugin neuron subclusters implicated in regulating a variety of behaviors, including feeding, aversion, and locomotion (we will cite relevant literature here). Our finding that only a specific subcluster of Hugin neurons is responsive to glucose elevation provides a crucial first step in functionally dissecting this complexity. 

We will add a dedicated paragraph to elaborate on this functional partitioning. We propose that this subtype-level specialization allows the Hugin system to precisely link specific physiological states (like high circulating glucose) to appropriate behavioral outputs (like the suppression of sweet taste), demonstrating an elegant solution to coordinating multiple survival behaviors. Future work using high-resolution tools such as split-GAL4 and single-cell sequencing will be invaluable in fully mapping the specific functional roles corresponding to each Hugin and AstA subcluster.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The question of how caloric and taste information interact and consolidate remains both active and highly relevant to human health and cognition. The authors of this work sought to understand how nutrient sensing of glucose modulates sweet sensation. They found that glucose intake activates hugin signaling to AstA neurons to suppress feeding, which contributes to our mechanistic understanding of nutrient sensation. They did this by leveraging the genetic tools of Drosophila to carry out nuanced experimental manipulations and confirmed the conservation of their main mechanism in a mammalian model. This work builds on previous studies examining sugar taste and caloric sensing, enhancing the resolution of our understanding.

Strengths:

Fully discovering neural circuits that connect body state with perception remains central to understanding homeostasis and behavior. This study expands our understanding of sugar sensing, providing mechanistic evidence for a hugin/AstA circuit that is responsive to sugar intake and suppresses feeding. In addition to effectively leveraging the genetic tools of Drosophila, this study further extends their findings into a mammalian model with the discovery that NMU neural signaling is also responsive to sugar intake.

Weaknesses:

The effect of Glut1 knockdown on PER in hugin neurons is modest, and does not show a clear difference between fed and starved flies as might be expected if this mechanism acts as a sensor of internal energy state. This could suggest that glucose intake through Glut1 may only be part of the mechanism.

We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment and agree that the modest behavioral effect of Glut1 knockdown is a critical finding that warrants further clarification. This observation strongly supports the idea that internal energy state is monitored by a sophisticated and robust network, not a single, fragile component. We believe the effect size is modest for two main reasons, which we will further address in revised Discussion.

Firstly, the effect size is likely attenuated by technical and molecular redundancy. Specifically, the RNAi-mediated knockdown of Glut1 may be incomplete, leaving residual transporter function. Furthermore, Glut1 is likely only one part of the Hugin neuron's intrinsic sensing mechanism; other components, such as alternative glucose transporters or downstream K_ATP channel signaling, may provide molecular redundancy, meaning that the full energy-sensing function is not easily abolished by a single manipulation.

Secondly, and more importantly, the final feeding decision is an integrated output of competing circuits. While hunger-sensing pathways like the dopamine and NPF circuits act as powerful "accelerators" to drive sweet consumption, the Hugin–AstA pathway serves as a satiety-specific "brake". The modest effect of partially inhibiting just one component of this 'brake' system is the hallmark of a precisely regulated, multi-layered homeostatic system. We will further clarify in the Discussion that the Hugin pathway represents one essential inhibitory circuit within this cooperative network that works together with the hunger-promoting systems to ensure precise control over energy intake.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This study identifies a novel energy-sensing circuit in Drosophila and mice that directly regulates sweet taste perception. In flies, hugin+ neurons function as a glucose sensor, activated through Glut1 transport and ATP-sensitive potassium channels. Once activated, hugin neurons release hugin peptide, which stimulates downstream Allatostatin A (AstA)+ neurons via PK2-R1 receptors. AstA+ neurons then inhibit sweet-sensing Gr5a+ gustatory neurons through AstA peptide and its receptor AstA-R1, reducing sweet sensitivity after feeding. Disrupting this pathway enhances sweet taste and increases food intake, while activating the pathway suppresses feeding.

The mammalian homolog of neuromedin U (NMU) was shown to play an analogous role in mice. NMU knockout mice displayed heightened sweet preference, while NMU administration suppressed it. In addition, VMH NMU+ neurons directly sense glucose and project to rNST Calb2+ neurons, dampening sweet taste responses. The authors suggested a conserved hugin/NMU-AstA pathway that couples energy state to taste perception.

Strengths

Interesting findings that extend from insects to mammals. Very comprehensive.

Weaknesses:

Coupling energy status to taste sensitivity is not a new story. Many pathways appear to be involved, and therefore, it raises a question as to how this hugin-AstA pathway is unique.

The reviewer is correct that several energy-sensing pathways are known. However, we now clarify that these previously established mechanisms, such as the dopaminergic and NPF pathways, primarily function as hunger-driven "accelerators." They are activated by low energy states to promote sweet sensitivity and drive consumption.

The crucial, missing piece of the puzzle—which our study provides—is the satiety-specific "brake" mechanism. We identify the Hugin–AstA circuit as one of the “brakes”: a dedicated, central sensor that responds directly to high circulating glucose (satiety) to suppress sweet sensation and prevent overconsumption.

Thus, our work is unique because it defines the essential counterpart to the hunger pathways. In the revised Discussion, we will further explain how these 'accelerator' (hunger) and 'brake' (satiety) systems work in concert to allow for the precise, bidirectional regulation of energy intake. Furthermore, by demonstrating that this Hugin/NMU 'brake' circuit is evolutionarily conserved in mice, our findings reveal a fundamental energy-sensing strategy and suggest that this pathway could represent a promising new therapeutic target for managing conditions of excessive food intake.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This study extends the previous interesting work of this group to address the potentially differential control of movement and posture. Their earlier work explored a broad range of data to make the case for a downstream neural integrator hypothesized to convert descending velocity movement commands into postural holding commands. Included in that data were observations from people with hemiparesis due to stroke. The current study uses similar data, but pushes into a different, but closely related direction, suggesting that these data may address the independence of these two fundamental components of motor control. The study makes observations about the different expression movement deficits during postural fixation and movement, and the different effect of force perturbations during these periods, consistent with their hypothesis that movement and postural control are separate motor functions. They speculate that the appearance of the stereotypic flexor synergies characteristic of stroke, are the result of a breakdown of this normal separation between the two control modes.

Comments on revisions:

I had only two very trivial comments in the previous version. One was simply a figure that was mistakenly not updated, and the other was the use of the terms "proximal" and "distal" to describe the location of a target. Both have been corrected.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the previous reviews

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This study extends the previous interesting work of this group to address the potentially differential control of movement and posture. Their earlier work explored a broad range of data to make the case for a downstream neural integrator hypothesized to convert descending velocity movement commands into postural holding commands. Included in that data were observations from people with hemiparesis due to stroke. The current study uses similar data, but pushes into a different, but closely related direction, suggesting that these data may address the independence of these two fundamental components of motor control. I find the logic laid out in the second sentence of the abstract ("The paretic arm after stroke is notable for abnormalities both at rest and during movement, thus it provides an opportunity to address the relationships between control of reaching, stopping, and stabilizing") less then compelling, but the study does make some interesting observations. Foremost among them, is the relation between the resting force postural bias and the effect of force perturbations during the target hold periods, but not during movement. While this interesting observation is consistent with the central mechanism the authors suggest, it seems hard to me to rule out other mechanisms, including peripheral ones. These limitations should should be discussed.

Thank you for summarizing our work. Note we have improved the logic in our abstract (…”providing an opportunity to ask whether control of these behaviors is independently affected in stroke”) based on your comments as outlined in our previous revision. We now extensively discuss limitations and potential alternative mechanisms in greater detail, in a dedicated section (lines 846-895; see response to reviewer 2 for further details).

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Here the authors address the idea that postural and movement control are differentially impacted with stroke. Specifically, they examined whether resting postural forces influenced several metrics of sensorimotor control (e.g., initial reach angle, maximum lateral hand deviation following a perturbation, etc.) during movement or posture. The authors found that resting postural forces influenced control only following the posture perturbation for the paretic arm of stroke patients, but not during movement. They also found that resting postural forces were greater when the arm was unsupported, which correlated with abnormal synergies (as assessed by the Fugl-Meyer). The authors suggest that these findings can be explained by the idea that the neural circuitry associated with posture is relatively more impacted by stroke than the neural circuitry associated with movement. They also propose a conceptual model that differentially weights the reticulospinal tract (RST) and corticospinal tract (CST) to explain greater relative impairments with posture control relative to movement control, due to abnormal synergies, in those with stroke.

Thank you for the brief but comprehensive summary. We would like to clarify one point: we do not suggest that our findings are necessarily due to the neural circuitry associated with posture being more impacted than the neural circuitry associated with movement. (rather, our conceptual model suggests that increased outflow through the (ipsilateral) RST, involved in posture, compensates for CST damage, at the expense of posture abnormalities spilling over into movement). Instead, we suggest that the neural circuitry for posture vs. movement control remains relatively separate in stroke, with impairments in posture control not substantially explaining impairments in movement control.

Comments on revisions:

The authors should be commended for being very responsive to comments and providing several further requested analyses, which have improved the paper. However, there is still some outstanding issues that make it difficult to fully support the provided interpretation.

Thank you for appreciating our response to your earlier comments. We address the outstanding issues below.

The authors say within the response, "We would also like to stress that these perturbations were not designed so that responses are directly compared to each other ***(though of course there is an *indirect* comparison in the sense that we show influence of biases in one type of perturbation but not the other)***." They then state in the first paragraph of the discussion that "Remarkably, these resting postural force biases did not seem to have a detectable effect upon any component of active reaching but only emerged during the control of holding still after the movement ended. The results suggest a dissociation between the control of movement and posture." The main issue here is relying on indirect comparisons (i.e., significant in one situation but not the other), instead of relying on direct comparisons. Using well-known example, just because one group / condition might display a significant linear relationship (i.e., slope_1 > 0) and another group / condition does not (slope_2 = 0), does not necessarily mean that the two groups / conditions are statistically different from one another [see Figure 1 in Makin, T. R., & Orban de Xivry, J. J. (2019). Ten common statistical mistakes to watch out for when writing or reviewing a manuscript. eLife, 8, e48175.].

We agree and are well aware of the limitation posed by an indirect comparison – hence the language we used to comment on the data (“did not seem”, “suggest”, etc.). To address this limitation, we performed a more direct comparison of how the two types of perturbations (moving vs. holding) interact with resting biases. For this comparison, we calculated a Response Asymmetry Index (RAI):

Above, 𝑟_𝐴 is the response on direction where resting bias is most-aligned with the perturbation, and 𝑟_𝑂 is the response on direction where resting bias is most-opposed to the perturbation.

We calculated RAIs for two response metrics used for both moving and holding perturbations: maximum deviation and time to stabilization/settling time. For these two response metrics, positive RAIs indicate an asymmetry in line with an effect of resting bias.

The idea behind the RAI is that, while the magnitude of responses may well differ between the two types of perturbations, this will be accounted for by the ratio used to calculate the asymmetry. The same approach has been used to assess symmetry/laterality across a variety of different modalities, such as gait asymmetry (Robinson et al., 1987), the relative fMRI activity in the contralateral vs. ipsilateral sensorimotor cortex while performing a motor task (Cramer et al., 1997), or the relative strength of ipsilateral vs. contralateral responses to transcranial magnetic stimulation (McPherson et al., 2018). Notably, the normalization also addresses potential differences in overall stiffness between holding vs. moving perturbations, which would similarly affect aligned and opposing cases (see our response to your following point).

Figure 8 shows RAIs we obtained for holding (red) vs. moving/pulse (blue) perturbations. For the maximum deviation (left), there is more asymmetry for the holding case though the pvalue is marginal (p=0.088) likely due to the large variability in the pulse case (individual values shown in black dots). For time to stabilization/settling time (right) the difference is significant (p=0.0048). Together, these analyses indicate that resting biases interact substantially more with holding compared to movement control, in line with a relative independence between these two control modalities. We now include this panel as Figure 8, and describe it in Results (lines 587-611).

Note that even a direct comparison does not prove that resting biases and active movement control are perfectly independent. We now discuss these issues in more depth, in the new Limitations section suggested by the Reviewer (lines 836-849).

The authors have provided reasonable rationale of why they chose certain perturbation waveforms for different. Yet it still holds that these different waveforms would likely yield very different muscular responses making it difficult to interpret the results and this remains a limitation. From the paper it is unknown how these different perturbations would differentially influence a variety of classic neuromuscular responses, including short-range stiffness and stretch reflexes, which would be at play here.

Much of the results can be interpreted when one considers classic neuromuscular physiology. In Experiment 1, differences in resting postural bias in supported versus unsupported conditions can readily be explained since there is greater muscle activity in the unsupported condition that leads to greater muscle stiffness to resist mechanical perturbations (Rack, P. M., & Westbury, D. R. (1974). The short-range stiffness of active mammalian muscle and its effect on mechanical properties. The Journal of physiology, 240(2), 331-350.). Likewise muscle stiffness would scale with changes in muscle contraction with synergies. Importantly for experiment 2, muscle stiffness is reduced during movement (Rack and Westbury, 1974) which may explain why resting postural biases do not seem to be impacting movement. Likewise, muscle spindle activity is shown to scale with extrafusal muscle fiber activity and forces acting through the tendon (Blum, K. P., Campbell, K. S., Horslen, B. C., Nardelli, P., Housley, S. N., Cope, T. C., & Ting, L. H. (2020). Diverse and complex muscle spindle afferent firing properties emerge from multiscale muscle mechanics. eLife, 9, e55177.). The concern here is that the authors have not sufficiently considered muscle neurophysiology, how that might relate to their findings, and how that might impact their interpretation. Given the differences in perturbations and muscle states at different phases, the concern is that it is not possible to disentangle whether the results are due to classic neurophysiology, the hypothesis they propose, or both. Can the authors please comment.

It is possible that neuromuscular physiology may explain part of our results. However, this would not contradict our conceptual model.

Regarding Experiment 1, it is possible that stiffness would scale with changes in background muscle contraction as the reviewer suggests. Indeed, Bennett and al.(Bennett et al., 1992) used brief perturbations on the wrist to assess elbow stiffness, finding that, during movement, stiffness was increased in positions with a higher gravity load (and, in general, in positions where the net muscle torque was higher). However, during posture maintenance (like in our Experiment 1), they found that stiffness did not vary with (elbow) position or gravity load (two characteristics of our findings in Experiment 1):

“The observed stiffness variation was not simply due to passive tissue or other joint angle dependent properties, as stiffnesses measured during posture were position invariant. Note that the minimum stiffness found in posture was higher than the peak stiffness measured during movement, and did not change much with the gravity load.” (illustrated in Fig. 5 of that paper)

We thus find it very unlikely that stiffness explains the difference between the supported vs. unsupported conditions in Experiment 1.

Even if stiffness modulation between the supported vs. unsupported conditions could explain our finding of stronger posture biases in the latter case, it would not be incompatible with our interpretation of increased RST drive: increased stiffness would potentially magnify the effects of the RST drive we propose to drive these resting biases. It is possible that the increase in resting biases under conditions of increased muscle contraction (lack of arm support) is mediated through an increase in muscle stiffness. In other words, the increase in resting biases may not directly reflect additional RST outflow per se, but the scaling, through stiffness, of the same magnitude of RST outflow. Understanding this interaction was beyond the scope of our experiment design; in line with this, we briefly comment about it in our Limitations section.

Regarding Experiment 2, stiffness has indeed been shown to be lower during movement, and we now comment the potential effect of this on our results in the “Limitations” section (lines 815-830, replicated below). Importantly, for the case of holding perturbations, the increased stiffness associated with holding would increase resistance to both extension and flexion-inducing perturbations. Thus, higher stiffness would be unlikely to explain our finding whereby resting biases resist or aggravate the effects of holding perturbations depending on perturbation direction. In addition, the framework in Blum et al., that describes how interactions between alpha and gramma drive can explain muscle activity patterns, does not rule out central neural control of stiffness: “muscle spindles have a unique muscle-within-muscle design such that their firing depends critically on both peripheral and central factors” (emphasis ours). It may be, for example, that gamma motoneurons controlling muscle spindles and stiffness are modulated from input from the reticular formation, making this a mechanism in line with our conceptual model.

“Moreover, it has been shown that joint stiffness is reduced during movement compared to holding control (Rack and Westbury, 1974; Bennett et al., 1992). Along similar lines, muscle spindle activity – which may modulate stiffness – scales with extrafusal muscle fiber activity (such as muscle exertion involved in holding) and forces acting through the tendon (Blum et al., 2020). Such observations could, in principle, explain why we were unable to detect a relationship between resting biases and active movement control but we readily found a relationship between resting biases and active holding control: reduced joint stiffness during movement could scale down the influence of resting abnormalities. There are two issues with this explanation, however. First, it is debatable whether this should be considered an alternative explanation per se: stiffness modulation could be, in total or in part, the manifestation of a central movement/posture CST/RST mechanism similar to the one we propose in our conceptual model. For example, (Blum et al., 2020) argue that muscle spindle firing depends on both peripheral and central factors. Second, increased stiffness would not necessarily help detect differences in how active postural control responds to within-resting-posture vs. out-of-resting-posture perturbations. This is because an overall increase in stiffness would likely increase resistance to perturbations in any direction.”

The authors should provide a limitations paragraph. They should address 1) how they used different perturbation force profiles, 2) the muscles were in different states which would change neuromuscular responses between trial phase / condition, 3) discuss a lack of direct statistical comparisons that support their hypothesis, and 4) provide a couple of paragraphs on classic neurophysiology, such as muscle stiffness and stretch reflexes, and how these various factors could influence the findings (i.e., whether they can disentangle whether the reported results are due to classic neurophysiology, the hypothesis they propose, or both).

Thank you for your suggestion. We now discuss these points in a separate paragraph (lines 846895), bringing together our previous discussion on stretch reflexes, our description of different perturbation types, and the additional issues raised by the reviewer above.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

The authors have responded well to all my concerns, save two minor points.

Figure 2 appears to be unchanged, although they describe appropriate changes in the response letter.

Thank you for catching this error – we now include the updated figure (further updated to use the terms near/distant in place of proximal/distal).

I still take issue with the use of proximal and distal to describe the locations of targets. Taking definitions somewhat randomly from the internet, "The terms proximal and distal are used in structures that are considered to have a beginning and an end," and "Proximal and distal are anatomical terms used to describe the position of a body part in relation to another part or its origin." In any case, the hand does not become proximal just because you bring it to your chest. Why not simply stick to the common and clearly defined terms "near" and "distant"?

Point taken. We have updated the paper to use the terms near/distant.

Additional changes/corrections not outlined above

We now include a link to the data and code supporting our findings (https://osf.io/hufy8/). In addition, we made several minor edits throughout the text to improve readability, and corrected occasional mislabeling of CCW and CW pulse data. Note that this correction did not alter the (lack of) relationship between resting biases and responses to perturbations during active movement.

Response letter references

Bennett D, Hollerbach J, Xu Y, Hunter I (1992) Time-varying stiffness of human elbow joint during cyclic voluntary movement. Exp Brain Res 88:433–442.

Blum KP, Campbell KS, Horslen BC, Nardelli P, Housley SN, Cope TC, Ting LH (2020) Diverse and complex muscle spindle afferent firing properties emerge from multiscale muscle mechanics. Elife 9:e55177.

Cramer SC, Nelles G, Benson RR, Kaplan JD, Parker RA, Kwong KK, Kennedy DN, Finklestein SP, Rosen BR (1997) A functional MRI study of subjects recovered from hemiparetic stroke. Stroke 28:2518–2527.

McPherson JG, Chen A, Ellis MD, Yao J, Heckman C, Dewald JP (2018) Progressive recruitment of contralesional cortico-reticulospinal pathways drives motor impairment post stroke. J Physiol 596:1211–1225 Available at: https://doi.org/10.1113/JP274968.

Rack PM, Westbury D (1974) The short range stiffness of active mammalian muscle and its effect on mechanical properties. J Physiol 240:331–350.

Robinson R, Herzog W, Nigg BM (1987) Use of force platform variables to quantify the effects of chiropractic manipulation on gait symmetry. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 10:172–176.

Williams PE, Goldspink G (1973) The effect of immobilization on the longitudinal growth of striated muscle fibres. J Anat 116:45.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this submitted manuscript, Lu, Tang, and colleagues implement a novel serial perturbation paradigm during speech to isolate the effects of sensory and motor processes on compensation. They perform three main studies: in the first study, they validate their method by randomly perturbing pitch in a series of produced vowels. They demonstrate that the amount of perturbation is driven (in part) by the previous trial's amount of motor compensation applied as opposed to the sensory perturbation. In the second experiment, they found that this effect carries over to single vowel words, but the effect was much weaker when different words were produced. Thirdly, the authors reproduce these findings in a more linguistically relevant way (during sentences) and show that the previously shown compensation effect only occurs within syntactic structures and not across them, suggesting an interplay between sensorimotor systems and linguistic structure processing.

Strengths:

Overall, this is a very unique study and strikes me as being potentially quite impactful. The authors have performed a large number of experiments to validate their findings that provide novel insights into the processes underlying compensation during speech production. These findings are also likely to produce new avenues for studying the neural mechanisms that support these processes.

Weaknesses:

While the authors go to great lengths to disassociate the serial effects of sensory and motor compensation, which is commendable, one weakness is that they are intrinsically linked (motor actions produce sensory consequences). Therefore, there is no obvious way to decouple them for the purposes of investigation. It would be beneficial to discuss future research that could further disentangle these factors.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This study aims to disentangle the contribution of sensory and motor processes (mapped onto the inverse and forward components of speech motor control models like DIVA) to production changes as a result of altered auditory feedback. After five experiments, the authors conclude that it is the motor compensation on the previous trial, and not the sensory error, that drives compensatory responses in subsequent trials.

Assessment:

The goal of this paper is great, and the question is timely. Quite a bit of work has gone into the study, and the technical aspects are sound. That said, I just don't understand how the current design can accomplish what the authors have set as their goal. This may, of course, be a misunderstanding on my part, so I'll try to explain my confusion below. If it is indeed my mistake, then I encourage the authors to dedicate some space to unpacking the logic in the Introduction, which is currently barely over a page long. They should take some time to lay out the logic of the experimental design and the dependent and independent variables, and how this design disentangles sensory and motor influences. Then clearly discuss the opposing predictions supporting sensory-driven vs. motor-driven changes. Given that I currently don't understand the logic and, consequently, the claims, I will focus my review on major points for now.

Main issues

(1) Measuring sensory change. As acknowledged by the authors, making a motor correction as a function of altered auditory feedback is an interactive process between sensory and motor systems. However, one could still ask whether it is primarily a change to perception vs. a change to production that is driving the motor correction. But to do this, one has to have two sets of measurements: (a) perceptual change, and (b) motor change. As far as I understand, the study has the latter (i.e., C), but not the former. Instead, the magnitude of perceptual change is estimated through the proxy of the magnitude of perturbation (P), but the two are not the same; P is a physical manipulation; perceptual change is a psychological response to that physical manipulation. It is theoretically possible that a physical change does not cause a psychological change, or that the magnitude of the two does not match. So my first confusion centers on the absence of any measure of sensory change in this study.

To give an explicit example of what I mean, consider a study like Murphy, Nozari, and Holt (2024; Psychonomic Bulletin & Review). This work is about changes to production as a function of exposure to other talkers' acoustic properties - rather than your own altered feedback - but the idea is that the same sensory-motor loop is involved in both. When changing the acoustic properties of the input, the authors obtain two separate measures: (a) how listeners' perception changes as a function of this physical change in the acoustics of the auditory signal, and (b) how their production changes. This allows the authors to identify motor changes above and beyond perceptual changes. Perhaps making a direct comparison with this study would help the reader understand the parallels better.

(2) A more fundamental issue for me is a theoretical one: Isn't a compensatory motor change ALWAYS a consequence of a perceptual change? I think it makes sense to ask, "Does a motor compensation hinge on a previous motor action or is sensory change enough to drive motor compensation?" This question has been asked for changed acoustics for self-produced speech (e.g., Hantzsch, Parrell, & Niziolek, 2022) and other-produced speech (Murphy, Holt, & Nozari, 2025), and in both cases, the answer has been that sensory changes alone are, in fact, sufficient to drive motor changes. A similar finding has been reported for the role of cerebellum in limb movements (Tseng et al., 2007), with a similar answer (note that in that study, the authors explicitly talk about "the addition" of motor corrections to sensory error, not one vs. the other as two independent factors. So I don't understand a sentence like "We found that motor compensation, rather than sensory errors, predicted the compensatory responses in the subsequent trials", which views motor compensations and sensory errors as orthogonal variables affecting future motor adjustments.

In other words, there is a certain degree of seriality to the compensation process, with sensory changes preceding motor corrections. If the authors disagree with this, they should explain how an alternative is possible. If they mean something else, a comparison with the above studies and explaining the differences in positions would greatly help.

(3) Clash with previous findings. I used the examples in point 2 to bring up a theoretical issue, but those examples are also important in that all three of them reach a conclusion compatible with one another and different from the current study. The authors do discuss Tseng et al.'s findings, which oppose their own, but dismiss the opposition based on limb vs. articulator differences. I don't find the authors reasoning theoretically convincing here, but more importantly, the current claims also oppose findings from speech motor studies (see citations in point 2), to which the authors' arguments simply don't apply. Strangely, Hantzsch et al.'s study has been cited a few times, but never in its most important capacity, which is to show that speech motor adaptation can take place after a single exposure to auditory error. Murphy et al. report a similar finding in the context of exposure to other talkers' speech.

If the authors can convincingly justify their theoretical position in 2, the next step would be to present a thorough comparison with the results of the three studies above. If indeed there is no discrepancy, this comparison would help clarify it.

References

Hantzsch, L., Parrell, B., & Niziolek, C. A. (2022). A single exposure to altered auditory feedback causes observable sensorimotor adaptation in speech. eLife, 11, e73694.

Murphy, T. K., Nozari, N., & Holt, L. L. (2024). Transfer of statistical learning from passive speech perception to speech production. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 31(3), 1193-1205.

Murphy, T. K., Holt, L. L. & Nozari, N. (2025). Exposure to an Accent Transfers to Speech Production in a Single Shot. Preprint available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5196109.

Tseng, Y. W., Diedrichsen, J., Krakauer, J. W., Shadmehr, R., & Bastian, A. J. (2007). Sensory prediction errors drive cerebellum-dependent adaptation of reaching. Journal of neurophysiology, 98(1), 54-62.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Schuler et al. present an extensive analysis of the synaptic connectivity of mechanosensory head bristles in the brain of Drosophila melanogaster. Based on the previously described set of bristle afferent neurons, (BMNs), located on the head, the study aims to provide a complete, quantitative assessment of all synaptic partners in the ventral brain. Activation of head bristles induces grooming behavior, which is hierarchically organized, and hypothesized to be grounded in a parallel cellular architecture in the central brain. The authors found evidence that, at the synaptic level, neurons downstream of the BMN afferents, namely the postsynaptic LB23 interneurons and recurrent GABAergic neurons (involved in sensory gain control), are organized in parallel, following the somatotopic organization described for the BMN afferents. This study, therefore, represents an important step towards a better understanding of the cellular circuits that govern the hierarchical order of sequentially organized grooming behavior in Drosophila melanogaster.

The study is well done, the images are well designed and extensive in number, but the account is challenging to read and digest for the reader outside the Drosophila /connectome community. It is amazing what can be done with the connectome nowadays using the up-to-date FAFB dataset, the analytical and visual tools (as in FlyWire), in combination with known anatomy/physiology/behavior in DM. I suggest that the authors provide more detail on hemilineages, their relationship to the FAB connectome, the predicted neurotransmitter identity, and the use of statistical CatMAID tools used in some of the Figures.

A graphical summary at the end of the study would be very useful to highlight the important findings focusing on neuron populations identified in this study and their position in the hypothesized parallel central circuitry of BMNs.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors set out to extend their previous mapping of Drosophila head mechanosensory neurons (Eichler et al., 2024) by reconstructing their full second-order connectome. Their aim is to reveal how bristle mechanosensory neurons (BMNs) interface with excitatory and inhibitory partners to generate location-specific grooming movements, and to identify the circuit motifs and developmental lineages that support this transformation.

Strengths:

The strengths of this work are clear. The authors present a comprehensive synaptic-resolution connectome for BMNs, identifying nearly all of their pre- and postsynaptic partners. This dataset reveals important circuit motifs:

(1) BMNs provide feedforward excitation to descending neurons, feedforward inhibition to interneurons, and are themselves strongly regulated by GABAergic presynaptic inhibition.

(2) These motifs together support the idea that BMN activity is locally gated and hierarchically suppressed, fitting well with known behavioural sequences of grooming.

(3) The study also shows that connectivity preserves somatotopy, such that BMNs from neighbouring bristle populations converge onto shared partners, while distant BMNs remain segregated.

(4) A developmental analysis reveals both primary and secondary partners, suggesting a layered scaffold plus adult-specific elaborations.

(5) Finally, the identification of hemilineage 23b (LB23) as a core postsynaptic pathway - incorporating previously described antennal grooming neurons (aBN2) - provides a striking link between developmental lineage, anatomical connectivity, and behavioral output.

(6) Together, the dataset represents a valuable resource for the neuroscience community and a foundation for future functional studies.

Weaknesses:

There are also some weaknesses that mostly only limit clarity.

(1) The writing is dense, with results often presented in a cryptic fashion and the functional implications deferred to the discussion. As a result, the significance of circuit motifs such as BMN→motor or reciprocal inhibitory loops is sometimes buried, rather than highlighted when first described.

(2) Some assumptions require more explanation for non-specialist readers - for example, how bristle identity is inferred in EM in the absence of cuticular structures, or what is meant by "ascending" and "descending" in a dataset that does not include the ventral nerve cord. While some of this comes from the earlier paper, it would help readers of this one to explain this.

(3) Visualization choices also sometimes obscure key conclusions: network graphs can be visually appealing but do not clearly convey somatotopy or BMN-type differences; heatmaps or region-level matrices would make the parallel, block-like organization of the circuit more evident.

(4) The data might also speak to roles beyond grooming (e.g., mechanosensory modulation of posture or feeding), and a brief acknowledgement of this would broaden the impact.

(5) The restriction to one hemisphere should be explicitly acknowledged as a limitation when framing this as a 'comprehensive' connectome.

Overall, the authors achieve their main goal: they convincingly show that BMNs connect into parallel, somatotopically organized pathways, with LB23 providing a key lineage-based link from sensory input to grooming output. The dataset is carefully analyzed, and while the presentation could be streamlined, the connectome will be a valuable resource for researchers studying sensory processing, motor control, and the logic of circuit organization.

Author response:

Reviewer #1:

In line with the reviewer’s suggestions, we will be adjusting the text with more conservative language regarding the claims of maturation within the co-culture system, and emphasize that the conclusion is based on limited transcriptomic evidence. We acknowledge that the results from bulk RNA sequencing might contain contaminants across the gates, but would like to point out that the CD45+ CD14+ population is clear, and any resulting contamination would likely be small. We will be addressing this caveat clearly in a new limitations section, as suggested by reviewer 3 as well. We will also be taking the reviewer’s suggestion to look further into the stress response genes to further characterize the system. We apologise if we might have missed out any statistical annotations and will take care to include them in the updated version.

Reviewer #3:

We acknowledge the reviewer’s concerns that the study was primarily focused on bulk RNA sequencing data and might not fully represent the complex metabolic and functional shifts, especially in a cell type like the hepatocyte , and will be addressing these concerns in a new limitations section in the revised manuscript. We also apologise if it was unclear in the manuscript that the iHeps and iMacs were characterised prior to coculturing, for example the iMacs are routinely assessed for CD45, CD14 and CD163 prior to the start of any experiment, and likewise the iHeps are tested by qPCR, which also served as the baseline of the fold expression changes in Fig 3. The primary aim of the IL-6 assays is to demonstrate that the hepatocyte co-culture systems behave differently based on the source of the macrophages, and that the use of primary macrophages might not be suitable in studying drug responses in-vitro. We will clarify in the revised manuscript that the overall effect might not be directly related to specific Kupffer cell identity.

I think this is something that can happen to alot of people, they might be diagnosed wrongly at a young age, and not have the needed resources and attention. Furthermore, many children might not even be diagnosed at all, they would just be viewed as "dumb" or "not paying attention", and receive blame, and harsh educational methods that negatively impact their ability, and attitude to learn even more.

This is really unfortunate. I think here the school is looking at T.J. not as an individual, but as a group of people with special needs, this is something that can harm T.J. and is already harming him from the excuse of not having enough students to form a special classroom. It is unfair to T.J. because the school clearly recognizes his needs but refuses to help him because it is not in the schools best interest.

I find this so relatable because my brother is 2 and half years right now and he is only saying a couple of word, but I feel like it is hard to really know if it is a disability or if they are going at their own pace. I think it is so important to have faith that all things will work and that nothing will define them besides the action choose to make. This article was very hard to read because we know that this is one story out of many. T.J, is just one that was highlighted but speaks to many different students. The percentages that this happens to be high.

I agree Ruiyao post, T.J. was not helped when he needed to be and create a lifelong of consequences that would make it hard for him to catch up. I am glad they are showing us the injustices in the education system of a story of one individual person because there are many stores of a general inequality, but this one is a story with a face and a name. It gave us a perspective that is needed to make the problem more connectable and real. I enjoyed reading your post and I totally agree and happy I came across your comment.

Neutrality isn't neutral, its erasure. Gender nonconforming and questioning students often lack community support, and when schools refuse to name or teach about LGBTQ+ lives, they turn that invisibility into a hidden curriculum. The task for schools isn't political performance but design.

This passage is not only true for Asian parents but is true for so many other cultures, but it goes to show how parents really do care for their children. Makes me wonder though do parents sometime forget that they were young and had these feelings and emotional and acted on them. Like parents know that this will be a distraction because it's a normal part of life and almost preventable and uncontrollable. I understand their fear because it is really and con effect there studying and it being effective.

I agree with Christina, that this quote definitely captures the experience of students not only who are LGBTQ but also who are introverted. It is so important to understand that this injustice happens everywhere not only in certain case but in others to. They can apply, relate, and be the same just different contexts. I was deeply moved with how we see similarities between student's form all communities. This is so powerful and needs to be explored more.

This statement stresses the urgent need for schools to involve parents in LGBTQ+ education. Without parental understanding and school-based support, queer students are left isolated and vulnerable. It highlights how inclusivity requires not only student programs but also family engagement to build a truly safe and accepting environment.

Du Bois declares the soldiers’ return as a moment of confrontation with America’s moral failures.

Du Bois opens by acknowledging Black soldiers’ sacrifices in World War I, noting they fought for France and humanity, for America’s ideals, but also—ironically—for a racist system that oppressed them

The bidirectional takes the form of linked mentions underneath a linked to note. That's common even in wiki I think these days. Any tools out there that link closer to like Ted Nelson proposed? Within a pkm tool bidirectional linking into a specific spot in a note should be somehow doable. Transclusion is a step further even, but if I can link to a paragraph, that paragraph should be able to link to where it is cited, no? In Obsidian the ^ link is still one way, while origin and source are known for it to work (the reference number)

Silverbullet, making the rounds in #pkm tooling circles last few days. Works on file system, but that needs to be on a web server. Client is a progressive web app. Browser loads all of it, and then it's local on device and can work offline.

When you do research, you’re not only find out the answer that everybody else has made for the question, but you start gathering your own knowledge on the subject, and you start creating your own opinion on it.

This quote encourages me to be open-minded when doing research. I should not just look for what I already believe, but also be ready to learn something new.

You don’t want to have the answer already because that would be boring, but you want to have some knowledge on the topic so its interesting to you.

This shows it takes time tho conduct research.

Never realized how much research takes place in our daily lives

I find this passage eye opening and powerful. If schools did get a counselor to speak to low-income students about their unique needs this would be so helpful. I remember struggling as a student, my teachers telling me I have special needs and wanting support, but they didn't know how to support me. With this an adult could figure out to help me understand how I needed to learn. So, if this is implemented a lot of students would benefit from this a can create a trailblazer effect for all students. I would love to do a job like this actually and hep support students step by step.

Reading allowed me to learn so much about Culturally and Linguistically diverse (CLD) means and how student can be affected by the over idea of what it means to CDL. How it plays into special education is very interesting. African American students who are in disproportionate places do identity ended to be in special education classes, but I don't think it's because of them but the environment and curriculum

for - health - David Sinclair - adjacency - belly fat - seed oils - chronic cellular inflammation - placebo - nocebo - thought triggered chronic cellular inflammation - adjacency - self image - inflammation - adjacency - life purpose - inflammation

summary - Learned a lot from this episode! - I've been reading that seed oils are not good for your health but David Sinclair's evidence-based arguments have really made a big impact on me. - I've got to eliminate seed oils from my diet. Avocado, Olive Oil and Coconut oil only from now on - The explanation of persistent belly fat being caused by the chronic cellular inflammation due to seed oils is eye opening - They are ubiqitious and still seen by the mainstream as healthy

In this passage a great perspective was given that being another shouldn't be the focus of one's attention but rather addressing the inequality all together of itself. It's a larger problem at hand that needs to be addressed so that this social construct can be handled all together. This would mean that schools would have to reframe there polices and the way they address these issues. With this many things can be delt with it goes back to Tuesday's readings about giving space to the larger idea so that schools can focus on what's most important for all students.

I agree with Lianna post , this is not right for Lydia to be treated differently in school and treated like she is not normal. I remember moments feeling like an outsider but that is not right especially at that age because this is the age where everything is developing at once. Discrimination plays a huge role at schools and can cause families and students to be under high emotional stress. I learned Othering can be done by yourself or other which means you should pay attention to see if you are causing it or if it just happening to you because of your identity.

It's so interesting how, even though directors usually get the spotlight, movies are never just one person's work. Every stage of a film requires a large crew and a team of specialists, each with their own expertise. There are so many crews, from photographers, production designers, composers, casting directors, to camera operators, cinematographers, VFX artists, and more. What we see on the screen is really the combination of all of these people's efforts and not just the director's vision. The final film only comes together through collaboration across so many different skills. Credits now make sure everyone who contributes is acknowledged, but they can go on for thousands of names that most of us don't even notice or stay to watch, which is kind of insane when you think about it.

It's so interesting how films are usually shot out of chronological order. This really shows why the preproduction stage is so important. Everything has to be carefully planned for efficiency. When scenes are filmed out of order, every detail — from actors' performances to props and costumes — has to remain consistent, which seems like a huge challenge. Sometimes, as viewers, we even notice mistakes, like an actor's hair being different or a glass of water disappearing between shots. Noticing this makes me appreciate the work of script supervisors and crew members who track these small but crucial details. There are so many considerations that go into filmmaking.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors generate an optimized small molecule inhibitor of SMARCA2/4 and test it in a panel of cell lines. All uveal melanoma (UM) cell lines in the panel are growth inhibited by the inhibitor making the focus of the paper. This inhibition is correlated with loss of promoter occupancy of key melanocyte transcription factors e.g. SOX10. SOX10 overexpression and a point mutation in SMARCA4 can rescue growth inhibition exerted by the SMARCA2/4 inhibitor. Treatment of a UM xenograft model results in growth inhibition and regression which correlates with reduced expression of SOX10 but not discernible toxicity in the mice. Collectively, the data suggest a novel treatment of uveal melanoma.

Strengths:

There are many strengths of the study, including the strong challenge of the on-target effect, the assays used and the mechanistic data. The results are compelling as are the effects of the inhibitor. The in vivo data is dose-dependent and doses are low enough to be meaningful and associated with evidence of target engagement.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the previous reviews

Reviewer #1 (Public review): 

Summary: 

The presented study by Centore and colleagues investigates the inhibition of BAF chromatin remodeling complexes. The study is well written and includes comprehensive datasets, including compound screens, gene expression analysis, epigenetics, as well as animal studies. This is an important piece of work for the uveal melanoma research field, and sheds light on a new inhibitor class, as well as a mechanism that might be exploited to target this deadly cancer for which no good treatment options exist. 

Strengths: 

This is a comprehensive and well-written study. 

Weaknesses: 

There are minimal weaknesses. 

Reviewer #2 (Public review): 

Summary: 

The authors generate an optimized small molecule inhibitor of SMARCA2/4 and test it in a panel of cell lines. All uveal melanoma (UM) cell lines in the panel are growth inhibited by the inhibitor making the focus of the paper. This inhibition is correlated with loss of promoter occupancy of key melanocyte transcription factors e.g. SOX10. SOX10 overexpression and a point mutation in SMARCA4 can rescue growth inhibition exerted by the SMARCA2/4 inhibitor. Treatment of a UM xenograft model results in growth inhibition and regression which correlates with reduced expression of SOX10 but not discernible toxicity in the mice. Collectively, the data suggest a novel treatment of uveal melanoma. 

Strengths: 

There are many strengths of the study, including the strong challenge of the on-target effect, the assays used and the mechanistic data. The results are compelling as are the effects of the inhibitor. The in vivo data is dose-dependent and doses are low enough to be meaningful and associated with evidence of target engagement. 

Weaknesses: 

The authors have addressed weaknesses in the revised version. 

Reviewer #3 (Public review): 

Summary: 

This manuscript reports the discovery of new compounds that selectively inhibit SMARCA4/SMARCA2 ATPase activity and have pronounced effects on uveal melanoma cell proliferation. They induce apoptosis and suppress tumor growth, with no toxicity in vivo. The report provides biological significance by demonstrating that the drugs alter chromatin accessibility at lineage specific gene enhancer regions and decrease expression of lineage specific genes, including SOX10 and SOX10 target genes. 

Strengths: 

The study provides compelling evidence for the therapeutic use of these compounds and does a thorough job at elucidating the mechanisms by which the drugs work. The study will likely have a high impact on the chromatin remodeling and cancer fields. The datasets will be highly useful to these communities. 

Weaknesses: 

The authors have addressed all my concerns. 

Recommendations for the authors: 

We would, however, like to draw the authors attention to 2 comments by the referees. 

Referee 1 comments: While BAP1 mutant UM cell lines were included for some of the experiments, it seems the in-vivo data mentioned in the response to the reviewers comment is missing? The authors stated that "MP46 (Supplementary Fig. 3a) is BAP1null uveal melanoma cell line with no detectable protein expression (AmiroucheneAngelozzi et al., Mol Oncol 2014), and we have observed strong tumor growth inhibition in this CDX model with our BAF ATPase inhibitor." But the CDX model data shown in Figure 4 is from 92.1 cells. If this data is available, then the manuscript would benefit from its addition. 

We thank the reviewer for bringing this to our attention. As the reviewer mentioned, we show 92-1 CDX model in our manuscript. Additionally, strong tumor growth inhibition was observed in MP-46  CDX model treated with our BAF ATPase inhibitor and can be found in Vaswani et al., 2025 (PMID:39801091, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39801091/).

Referee 3 comments: 

Supplementary Figure 2C 

Is the T910M mutation in the parental MP41 cells heterozygous? If so, the authors should indicate this in the figure legend. If this is a homozygous mutation, the authors should explain how the inhibitors suppress SMARCA4 activity in cells that have a LOF mutation. 

Could the authors please comment on these issues before a final version is posted online? 

We thank the reviewer for bringing this to our attention. T910M mutation is heterozygous and the variant allele frequency for that mutation is 0.5. We updated the figure legend accordingly to reflect the genotype of the mutations highlighted in the table.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors): 

The authors have addressed most of the questions in their review. 

While BAP1 mutant UM cell lines were included for some of the experiments, it seems the in-vivo data mentioned in the response to the reviewers comment is missing? The authors stated that "MP46 (Supplementary Fig. 3a) is BAP1-null uveal melanoma cell line with no detectable protein expression (Amirouchene-Angelozzi et al., Mol Oncol 2014), and we have observed strong tumor growth inhibition in this CDX model with our BAF ATPase inhibitor." But the CDX model data shown in Figure 4 is from 92.1 cells. If this data is available, then the manuscript would benefit from its addition. 

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors): 

Supplementary Figure 2C 

Is the T910M mutation in the parental MP41 cells heterozygous? If so, the authors should indicate this in the figure legend. If this is a homozygous mutation, the authors should explain how the inhibitors suppress SMARCA4 activity in cells that have a LOF mutation.

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Public review): 

Summary: 

In this manuscript, the authors performed an integration of 48 scRNA-seq public datasets and created a single-cell transcriptomic atlas for AML (222 samples comprising 748,679 cells). This is important since most AML scRNA-seq studies suffer from small sample size coupled with high heterogeneity. They used this atlas to further dissect AML with t(8;21) (AML-ETO/RUNX1-RUNX1T1), which is one of the most frequent AML subtypes in young people. In particular, they were able to predict Gene Regulatory Networks in this AML subtype using pySCENIC, which identified the paediatric regulon defined by a distinct group of hematopoietic transcription factors (TFs) and the adult regulon for t(8;21). They further validated this in bulk RNA-seq with AUCell algorithm and inferred prenatal signature to 5 key TFs (KDM5A, REST, BCLAF1, YY1, and RAD21), and the postnatal signature to 9 TFs (ENO1, TFDP1, MYBL2, KLF1, TAGLN2, KLF2, IRF7, SPI1, and YXB1). They also used SCENIC+ to identify enhancer-driven regulons (eRegulons), forming an eGRN, and found that prenatal origin shows a specific HSC eRegulon profile, while a postnatal origin shows a GMP profile. They also did an in silico perturbation and found AP-1 complex (JUN, ATF4, FOSL2), P300, and BCLAF1 as important TFs to induce differentiation. Overall, I found this study very important in creating a comprehensive resource for AML research. 

Strengths: 

(1) The generation of an AML atlas integrating multiple datasets with almost 750K cells will further support the community working on AML. 

(2) Characterisation of t(8;21) AML proposes new interesting leads. 

We thank the reviewer for a succinct summary of our work and highlighting its strengths.

Weaknesses: 

Were these t(8;21) TFs/regulons identified from any of the single datasets? For example, if the authors apply pySCENIC to any dataset, would they find the same TFs, or is it the increase in the number of cells that allows identification of these? 

We implemented pySCENIC on individual datasets and compared the TFs (defining the regulons) identified to those from the combined AML scAtlas analysis. There were some common TFs identified, but these vary between individual studies. The union of all TFs identified makes a very large set - comprising around a third of all known TFs. AML scAtlas provides a more refined repertoire of TFs, perhaps as the underlying network inference approach is more robust with a higher number of cells. The findings of these investigations are included in Supplementary Figure 4DE, we hope this is useful for other users of pySCENIC.

Reviewer #2 (Public review): 

Summary: 

The authors assemble 222 publicly available bone marrow single-cell RNA sequencing samples from healthy donors and primary AML, including pediatric, adolescent, and adult patients at diagnosis. Focusing on one specific subtype, t(8;21), which, despite affecting all age classes, is associated with better prognosis and drug response for younger patients, the authors investigate if this difference is reflected also in the transcriptomic signal. Specifically, they hypothesize that the pediatric and part of the young population acquires leukemic mutations in utero, which leads to a different leukemogenic transformation and ultimately to differently regulated leukemic stem cells with respect to the adult counterpart. The analysis in this work heavily relies on regulatory network inference and clustering (via SCENIC tools), which identifies regulatory modules believed to distinguish the pre-, respectively, post-natal leukemic transformation. Bulk RNA-seq and scATAC-seq datasets displaying the same signatures are subsequently used for extending the pool of putative signature-specific TFs and enhancer elements. Through gene set enrichment, ontology, and perturbation simulation, the authors aim to interpret the regulatory signatures and translate them into potential onset-specific therapeutic targets. The putative pre-natal signature is associated with increased chemosensitivity, RNA splicing, histone modification, stemness marker SMARCA2, and potentially maintained by EP300 and BCLAF1. 

Strengths: 

The main strength of this work is the compilation of a pediatric AML atlas using the efficient Cellxgene interface. Also, the idea of identifying markers for different disease onsets, interpreting them from a developmental angle, and connecting this to the different therapy and relapse observations, is interesting. The results obtained, the set of putative up-regulated TFs, are biologically coherent with the mechanisms and the conclusions drawn. I also appreciate that the analysis code was made available and is well documented. 

We thank the reviewer for evaluating our work, and highlighting its key features, including creation of AML atlas, downstream analysis and interpretation for t(8;21) subtype.

Weaknesses:

There were fundamental flaws in how methods and samples were applied, a general lack of critical examination of both the results and the appropriateness of the methods for the data at hand, and in how results were presented. In particular: 

(1) Cell type annotation: 

(a) The 2-phase cell type annotation process employed for the scRNA-seq sample collection raised concerns. Initially annotated cells are re-labeled after a second round with the same cell types from the initial label pool (Figure 1E). The automatic annotation tools were used without specifying the database and tissue atlases used as a reference, and no information was shown regarding the consensus across these tools. 

Cell type annotations are heavily influenced by the reference profiles used and vary significantly between tools. To address this, we used multiple cell type annotation tools which predominantly encompassed healthy peripheral blood cell types and/or healthy bone marrow populations. This determined the primary cluster cell types assigned. 

Existing tools and resources are not leukemia specific, thus, to identify AMLassociated HSPC subpopulations we created a custom SingleR reference, using a CD34 enriched AML single-cell dataset. This was not suitable for the annotation of the full AML scAtlas, as it is derived from CD34 sorted cell types so is biased towards these populations. 

We have made this much clearer in the revised manuscript, by splitting Figure 1 into two separate figures (now Figure 1 and Figure 2) reflecting both different analyses performed. The methods have also been updated with more detail on the cell type annotations, and we have included the automated annotation outputs as a supplementary table, as this may be useful for others in the single-cell community. 

(b) Expression of the CD34 marker is only reported as a selection method for HSPCs, which is not in line with common practice. The use of only is admitted as a surface marker, while robust annotation of HSPCs should be done on the basis of expression of gene sets. 

Most of the cells used in the HSPC analysis were in fact annotated as HSPCs with some exceptions. In line with this feedback, we have re-worked this analysis and simply taken HSPC annotated clusters forward for the subsequent analysis, yielding the same findings. 

(c) During several analyses, the cell types used were either not well defined or contradictory, such as in Figure 2D, where it is not clear if pySCENIC and AUC scores were computed on HSPCs alone or merged with CMPs. In other cases, different cell type populations are compared and used interchangeably: comparing the HSPCderived regulons with bulk (probably not enriched for CD34+ cells) RNA samples could be an issue if there are no valid assumptions on the cell composition of the bulk sample. 

We apologize for the lack of clarity regarding which cell types were used, the text has been updated to clarify that in the pySCENIC analysis all myeloid progenitor cells were included. 

The bulk RNA-seq samples were used only to test the enrichment of our AML scAtlas derived regulons in an unbiased and large-scale way. While CD34 enriched samples could be preferable, this was not available to us. 

We agree that more effort could be made to ensure the single-cell/myeloid progenitor derived regulons are comparable to the bulk-RNA sequencing data. In the original bulk RNA-seq validation analysis, we used all bulk-RNA sequencing timepoints (diagnostic, on-treatment, relapse) and included both bone marrow and peripheral blood. Upon reflection, and to better harmonize the bulk RNA-seq selection strategy with that of AML scAtlas, we revised our approach to include only diagnostic bone marrow samples. We expect that, since the leukemia blast count for pediatric AML is typically high at diagnosis, these samples will predominantly contain leukemic blasts. 

(2) Method selection: 

(a) The authors should explain why they use pySCENIC and not any other approach.They should briefly explain how pySCENIC works and what they get out in the main text. In addition they should explain the AUCell algorithm and motivate its usage. 

pySCENIC is state-of-the-art method for network inference from scRNA data and is widely used within the single-cell community (over 5000 citations for both versions of the SCENIC pipeline). The pipeline has been benchmarked as one of the top performers for GRN analysis (Nguyen et al, 2021. Briefings in Bioinformatics). AUCELL is a module within the pySCENIC pipeline to summarize the activity of a set of genes (a regulon) into a single number which helps compare and visualize different regulons.  We have modified the manuscript (Results section 2 paragraph 2) to better explain this method and provided some rationale and accompanying citations to justify its use for this analysis. We thank the reviewer for highlighting this and hope our updates add some clarity.

(b) The obtained GRN signatures were not critically challenged on an external dataset. Therefore, the evidence that supports these signatures to be reliable and significant to the investigated setting is weak. 

These signatures were inferred using the most suitable AML single-cell RNA datasets currently available. To validate our findings, we used two independent datasets (the TARGET AML bulk RNA sequencing cohort, and the Lambo et al. scRNA-seq dataset). To clarify this workflow in the manuscript, we have added a panel to Figure 3 outlining the analytical process. To our knowledge, there are no other better-suited datasets for validation. Experimental validations on patient samples, while valuable, are beyond the scope of this study.

(3) There are some issues with the analysis & visualization of the data. 

Based on this feedback, we have improved several aspects of the analysis, changed some visualizations, and improved figure resolution throughout the manuscript. 

(4) Discussion: 

(a) What exactly is the 'regulon signature' that the authors infer? How can it be useful for insights into disease mechanisms? 

The ’regulon signature’ here refers to a gene regulatory program (multiple gene modules, each defined by a transcription factor and its targets) which are specific to different age groups. Further investigation into this can be useful for understanding why patients of different ages confer a different clinical course. We have amended the text to explain this.  

(b) The authors write 'Together this indicates that EP300 inhibition may be particularly effective in t(8;21) AML, and that BCLAF1 may present a new therapeutic target for t(8;21) AML, particularly in children with inferred pre-natal origin of the driver translocation.' I am missing a critical discussion of what is needed to further test the two targets. Put differently: Would the authors take the risk of a clinical study given the evidence from their analysis? 

Indeed, many extensive studies would be required before these findings are clinically translatable. We have included a discussion paragraph (discussion paragraph 7) detailing what further work is required in terms of experimental validation and potential subsequent clinical study.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors): 

In addition to the point raised above, Cytoscape files for the GRNs and eGRNs inferred would be useful to have. 

We have now provided Cytoscape/eGRN tables in supplementary materials.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors): 

(1) Figures 1F and 1G: You show the summed-up frequencies for all patients, right? It would be very interesting to see this per patient, or add error bars, since the shown frequencies might be driven by single patients with many cells. 

While this type of plot could be informative, the large number of samples in the AML scAtlas rendered the output difficult to interpret. As a result, we decided not to include it in the manuscript.

(2) An issue of selection bias has to be raised when only the two samples expressing the expected signatures are selected from the external scRNA dataset. Similarly, in the DepMap analysis, the age and nature of the other cell lines sensitive to EP300 and BCLAF1 should be reported. 

Since the purpose of this analysis was to build on previously defined signatures, we selected the two samples which we had preliminary hypotheses for. It would indeed be interesting to explore those not matching these signatures; however, samples numbers are very small, so without preliminary findings robust interpretation and validation would be difficult. An expanded validation would be more appropriate once more data becomes available in the future. 

We agree that investigating the age and nature of other BCLAF1/EP300 sensitive cell lines is a very valuable direction. Our analysis suggests that our BCLAF1 findings may also be applicable to other in-utero origin cancers, and we have now summarized these observations in Supplementary Figure 7H. 

(3) Is there statistical evidence for your claim that "This shows that higher-risk subtypes have a higher proportion of LSCs compared to favorable risk disease."? At least intermediate and adverse look similar to me. How does this look if you show single patients?  

We are grateful to the reviewer for noticing this oversight and have now included an appropriate statistical test in the revised manuscript. As before, while showing single patients may be useful, the large number of patients makes such plot difficult to interpret. For this reason, we have chosen not to include them.

(4) Specify the statistical test you used to 'identify significantly differentially expressed TFs' (line 192). 

The methods used for differential expression analysis are now clearly stated in the text as well as in the methods section. We hope this addition improves clarity for the reader.

(5) Figure 2B: You show the summed up frequencies for all patients, right? It would be intriguing to see this figure per patient, since the shown frequencies might be driven by single patients with many cells. 

Yes, the plot includes all patients. Showing individual patients on a single plot is not easily interpretable. 

(6) Y axis in 2D is not samples, but single cells? Please specify. 

We thank the reviewer for bringing this to our attention and have now updated Figure 3D accordingly. 

(7) Figure 3A: I don't get why the chosen clusters are designated as post- and prenatal, given the occurrence of samples in them. 

This figure serves to validate the previously defined regulon signatures, so the cluster designations are based on this. We have amended the text to elaborate on this point, which will hopefully provide greater clarity.

(8) Figure 3E: What is shown on the y axis? Did you correct your p-values for multiple testing? 

We apologize for this oversight and have now added a y axis label. P values were not corrected for multiple testing, as there are only few pairwise T tests performed.

(9) Robustness: You find some gene sets up- and down-regulated. How would that change if you used an eg bootstrapped number of samples, or a different analysis approach? 

To address this, we implemented both edgeR and DESeq2 for DE testing. Our findings (Supplementary Figure 5B) show that 98% of edgeR genes are also detected by DESeq2. We opted to use the smaller edgeR gene list for our analysis, due to the significant overlap showing robust findings. We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion, which has strengthened our analysis

(10) Multiomics analysis:

(a) Why only work on 'representative samples'? The idea of an integrated atlas is to identify robust patterns across patients, no? I'd love to see what regulons are robust, ie,  shared between patients.

As discussed in point 2, there are very few samples available for the multiomics analysis. Therefore, we chose to focus on those samples which we had a working hypothesis for, as a validation for our other analyses. 

(b) I don't agree that finding 'the key molecular processes, such as RNA splicing, histone modification, and TF binding' expressed 'further supports the stemness signature in presumed prenatal origin t(8;21) AML'.

Following the improvements made on the bulk RNA-Seq analysis in response to the previous reviewer comments, we ended up with a smaller gene set. Consequently, the ontology results have changed. The updated results are now more specific and indicate that developmental processes are upregulated in presumed prenatal origin t(8;21) AML. 

(c) Please clarify if the multiome data is part of the atlas.

The multiome data is not a part of AML scAtlas, as it was published at a later date. We used this dataset solely for validation purposes and have updated the figures and text to clearly indicate that it is used as a validation dataset.  

(d) Please describe the used data with respect to the number of patients, cells, age, etc.

We clarified this point in the text and have also included supplementary tables detailing all samples used in the atlas and validation datasets. 

(e) The four figures in Figure 4E look identical to me. What is the take-home message here? Do all perturbations have the same impact on driving differentiation? Please elaborate.

The perturbation figure is intended to illustrate that other genes can behave similarly to members of the AP-1 complex (JUN and ATF4 here) following perturbation. Since the AP-1 complex is well known to be important in t(8;21) AML, we hypothesize that these other genes are also important. We apologize for the previous lack of interpretation here and have amended the text to clarify this point. 

(11) Abstract: Please detail: how many of the 159 AML patients are t(8;21)? 

We have now amended the abstract to include this. 

(12) Figures: Increase font size where possible, eg age in 1B or risk group in 1G is super small and hard to read. 

Extra attention has been given to improving the figure readability and resolution throughout the whole manuscript.  

(13) Color codes in Figures 2B and 2C are all over the place and misleading: Sort 2C along age, indicate what is adult and adolescent, sort the x axis in 2B along age. 

We have changed this figure accordingly.  

(14) I suggest not coloring dendrograms, in my opinion this is highly irritating. 

The dendrogram colors correspond to clusters which are referenced in the text, this coloring provides informative context and aids interpretation, making it a useful addition to the figure.

(15) The resolution in Figure 4B is bad, I can't read the labels. 

This visualization has been revised, to make presentation of this data clearer.  

(16) In addition to selecting bulk RNA samples matching the two regulon signatures, some effort should have been put into investigating the samples not aligned with those, or assessing how unique these GRN signatures are to the specific cell type and disease of interest, excluding the influence of cell type composition and random noise. The lateonset signatures should also be excluded from being present in an external pre-natal cohort in a more statistically rigorous manner. 

Our use of the bulk RNA-Seq data is solely intended for the validation of predefined regulon signatures, for which we already have a working hypothesis.  While we agree that further investigation of the samples that do not align with these signatures could yield interesting insights, we believe that such an analysis would extend beyond the scope of the current manuscript.

(17) The specific bulk RNA samples used should be specified, along with the tissue of origin. The same goes for the Lambo dataset. 

We have clarified this point in the text and provided a supplementary table detailing all samples used for validation, alongside the sample list from AML scAtlas.

(18) In Supplementary Figure 5 B, the axes should be define. 

We have updated this figure to include axis legends.

(19) Supplementary Figure 4A. There is a mistake in the sex assignment for sample AML14D. Since chrY-genes are expressed, this sample is likely male, while the Xist expression is mostly zero. 

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this error, which has now been corrected.  

(20) Wording suggestions: 

(a) Line 54: not compelling phrasing. 

(b) Line 83: "allows to decipher". 

(c) Line 88: repetition from line 85. 

(d) Line 90: the expression "clean GRN" is not clear. 

These wording suggestions have all been incorporated in the revised manuscript.

(21) Supplementary Figure 3D is not interpretable, I suggest a different visualization. 

We agree that the original figure was not the most informative and have replaced it with UMAPs displaying LSC6 and LSC17 scores.

Parent support varies; therefore, schools should collaborate without making support conditional on parent agreement. Build confidential processes, designate a trusted adult, provide staff training, and set clear community norms for pronouns and facilities.

This is a hard conversation to have because people have their beliefs that they have and so does religions. I feel like it creates a divide between people when we do not try to understand each other and love each other. Like said those it is a very touchy conversation to have because of how people feel and the hurt they experienced but it is good to talk about it and come to and understand.

I found this passage interesting because not only do we see that there are difference communities when it comes to people who identify as LGBTQ. I am learning in my ASL class that not only is the community of Deaf people just white people but that this communities encompasses any different communities. Like a Deaf Black Christian person. I just find it interesting that there are many aspects to a person then just what they are seen as.

I found this sentence upsetting but true. It points to how misinformation and stereotypes can cause real harm in schools. Many students do not understand the difference between gender identity and sexuality, which leads to bullying and isolation for transgender youth. This made me think about how important it is for schools to teach about gender diversity early on, not just to support LGBTQ students but to create a safer environment for everyone.

This admission is useful, but the authors stop short of detailed discussion of endogeneity concerns, or variable confounds like regulatory changes or industry shifts. Recognizing but not deeply exploring these limitations means readers should remain cautious about how strongly they interpret causality.

This section highlights how institutional support directly improves school climate for LGBTQ students. It shows that representation and visibility are not just symbolic gestures but measurable factors that reduce harassment and promote safety. The author suggests that inclusion benefits the entire school community by fostering belonging and encouraging staff to take active roles in addressing bias. I think this connects to the broader theme of how policy and culture within schools can either reinforce or challenge systemic heteronormativity.

As I read this section, we do see that there is this trend that schools like Columbine often do make sure that that all the students are safe. they can sometimes not protect the ones getting bulled and harassed. I see that in my school in high school they Definity focused on the safety of all students, but should that be the school to check all the box's i know that they do have a lot already on their plate. Not saying they should not address it but find a balance.

This shows how important it is to not push certain perspectives onto students. I think schools should be a place where students are able to explore and express themselves without feeling constraint to act a certain way or fit in. When students feel free to be themselves, they’re more likely to engage, learn, and build confidence in their own identities.

I am responding to Mfoolin, this passage is showing us what it is like to be an LGBTQ student. Sheds light on the experiences and abuse. We can't step in into their shoes without understanding but now after reading we come to a better understanding of what it is like. It's important to give students guidance on how to handle this and process their feelings. I think to talk it through is so important to understand.

I interpret this as a disconnect between knowledge and behavior. I've observed that instruction without follow-up does not influence behavior. I'd like the chapter to provide particular assistance, such as coaching cycles and observation checklists. I believe that would assist teachers in translating policy into daily routines that protect pupils.

Prior to this, conformation to heterosexual and gender norms was seen as a way to avoid being seen in a different light. However, this tragic story brings awareness that nonconformance can turn deadly and also draws light to the matter of race. We have learned about the struggles and risks that minority races can face and now we know that there truly is danger that LGBTQ minority youth can face. Instead of dedicating a day to Sakia Gunn, curriculum that teaches the extreme wrongness of stigma should be applied in order to draw true change.

With this the author suggests that the African Cichlids ability to undergo adaptive radiation possibly evolved within a specific lineage because of genomic traits instead of morphological or behavioral changes. This supports the idea that lineages that have a past history of radiating have a higher chance of radiating again. This suggests that the capacity for diversification can change over time.

Fluctuating lake levels played a key role in creating or erasing opportunities for speciation. These data show total species numbers over time but don’t tell whether changes are due to fewer species forming or dying out.

I'm reminded of the line "right to be forgotten" from the Information as a Relation: Defining Indigenous Information Literacy reading.

I think a lot of institutions during 2020 had this big crisis about systemic inequalities. But 5 almost 6 years later, it turns out, the Institutions are still Oppressive... I think so much work was done very quickly that year to attempt to undo years and years of oppression and it seems like a lot of people burned themselves out very quickly or more radical ideas were co-opted by status quo upholding liberals. Would UCLA even write an update to this article five years later? I appreciate the gesture that was made by writing this article, but what's actually changed?

This question summarizes the whole controversy behind conserving racist material. It can be used as a historical piece that further emphasizes the harm that racism causes, but can also be used to further a radical group's ideologies.

I was also concerned about preserving evidence, especially with regards to slavery given how folks often downplay our history. But I can’t argue with the idea of re-prioritizing what is conserved, especially when there’s no telling what intentions might be. It did make me question what the cap for racist materials is? Like when do we have “enough”? When does that work stop/get pushed aside for non-racist projects?

It’s so cool how all the stone castles in Britain are Norman or later! William the Conqueror even built the Tower of London in 1078 and lived there, while later rulers, like the Plantagenets, used it for defense but preferred places like Westminster and Windsor as their main homes.

sdsdsds

I loved this line because it is just so true. If you look anywhere in history, there have been many governments that have taken over others, but it never lasts forever. Eventually, the oppressed find a way to get out and escape.

He's not just calling out the racists, he's calling out the people who say that they're good but don't do anything to help.

I like what he's saying here. I think what he's pointing out is that some laws might look good on the outside, but in reality, they have deeper reasons for making the law and it's not always good.

It's interesting that he says tension can be good. Most people think tension means fighting, but here he means the kind that forces people to pay close attention.

This brings us back to the idea of morals over laws!

While it is usually used as a negative word, being an extremist for something you whole-heartedly believe in and morally believe in is an honorable thing!

The way he uses this tension to force change without imposing any kind of violence is really amazing!

I feel like not enough people hear about the steps that come before larger demonstrations like trying to negotiate, and just assume that the first action they hear about was the first action taken.

I think this is really important to talk about. When a group of people is desperate enough to take less than desirable action in order to get attention, the issue they are talking about clearly deserves attention!

I think this is a really powerful line that we could all learn from! I also think this line is very relevant today with current events in our country that may not directly impact you, but are incredibly impactful on other people!

Gifted students, when lacking engagement in the classroom, can display behaviors that might appear as rude and disrespectful but ultimately are not intentional.

This quote argues that providing specialized education for gifted learners is not about favoritism, but it is instead about fairness.

This quote distinguishes how teachers must differentiate instruction not only for students who need extra help but also for those who need more challenge.

I am a stranger in this adultcentric capitalist world, I haven't signed a social contract to obey your crappy laws.

This new one seems to show some potential to be reflecting the key concerns but I need to check this in more detail as it could just be credible sounding garbage. It still doesn't seem to pick up the key 'data leakage' concern.

But actually I'm a bit puzzled as to what data is being piped in there because if I recall the latest version we had didn't ask for rationales for specific categories. So where is it getting this from?

Much higher than the humans, but this category is rated lowest or second-lowest for both ... so perhaps close to a monotonic transformation of sorts.

Reply to query about the differences between using index cards versus planners at https://reddit.com/r/indexcards/comments/1or2btl/gloria_steinems_memindex/

Broadly, yes, but there are a few subtle affordances index cards have over book-bound or notebook-style planners: - Self indexing. Any notes you write down on separate cards really self-index themselves when filed versus needing to index them on a separate page in your planner/notebook which, if used over several years, means consulting multiple indexes rather than just one to search your data. (This is big for me as I also use cards for my commonplacebook/zettelkasten/pkm needs as well as for project planning and general notes.) - More portable. You can put one or several at your own discretion in your pocket at a time. (You can also carry a larger swath in a small pouch if you need more.) - Better protection against total loss. If you lose your planner, everything in if for the year is gone. If you loose the cards you're carrying, it's only a few days' worth. - Takes away the worries of starting and/or perfection, especially in a new notebook as you can always rewrite/recreate a card. - If you make your own layouts/spreads, there's less worry about planning ahead. - If you need to, you can lay out multiple cards at a time to more easily view, cross-reference, or reorganize them on the table instead of all your data being bound on separate pages and needing to flip back and forth. - Index cards can be much less expensive, particularly when compared to some of the higher end notebooks, even if you buy the more premium cards.

In the end it all comes down to personal preference and what works best for you and your favorite working methods.

More material on these and related topics based on my own research and experiences: https://boffosocko.com/research/zettelkasten-commonplace-books-and-note-taking-collection/

How has Brown v Board shaped the education system today?

not under the name of the library but as bs4

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Noell et al have presented a careful study of the dissociation kinetics of Kinesin (1,2,3) classes of motors moving in vitro on a microtubule. These motors move against the opposing force from a ~1 micron DNA strand (DNA tensiometer) that is tethered to the microtubule and also bound to the motor via specific linkages (Figure 1A). The authors compare the time for which motors remain attached to the microtubule when they are tethered to the DNA, versus when they are not. If the former is longer, the interpretation is that the force on the motor from the stretched DNA (presumed to be working solely along the length of the microtubule) causes the motor's detachment rate from the microtubule to be reduced. Thus, the specific motor exhibits "catch-bond" like behaviour.

Strengths:

The motivation is good - to understand how kinesin competes against dynein through the possible activation of a catch bond. Experiments are well done, and there is an effort to model the results theoretically.

Weaknesses:

The motivation of these studies is to understand how kinesin (1/2/3) motors would behave when they are pitted in a tug of war against dynein motors as they transport cargo in a bidirectional manner on microtubules. Earlier work on dynein and kinesin motors using optical tweezers has suggested that dynein shows a catch bond phenomenon, whereas such signatures were not seen for kinesin. Based on their data with the DNA tensiometer, the authors would like to claim that (i) Kinesin1 and Kinesin2 also show catch-bonding and (ii) the earlier results using optical traps suffer from vertical forces, which complicates the catch-bond interpretation.

While the motivation of this work is reasonable, and the experiments are careful, I find significant issues that the authors have not addressed:

(1) Figure 1B shows the PREDICTED force-extension curve for DNA based on a worm-like chain model. Where is the experimental evidence for this curve? This issue is crucial because the F-E curve will decide how and when a catch-bond is induced (if at all it is) as the motor moves against the tensiometer. Unless this is actually measured by some other means, I find it hard to accept all the results based on Figure 1B.

(2) The authors can correct me on this, but I believe that all the catch-bond studies using optical traps have exerted a load force that exceeds the actual force generated by the motor. For example, see Figure 2 in reference 42 (Kunwar et al). It is in this regime (load force > force from motor) that the dissociation rate is reduced (catch-bond is activated). Such a regime is never reached in the DNA tensiometer study because of the very construction of the experiment. I am very surprised that this point is overlooked in this manuscript. I am therefore not even sure that the present experiments even induce a catch-bond (in the sense reported for earlier papers).

(3) I appreciate the concerns about the Vertical force from the optical trap. But that leads to the following questions that have not at all been addressed in this paper:

(i) Why is the Vertical force only a problem for Kinesins, and not a problem for the dynein studies?

(ii) The authors state that "With this geometry, a kinesin motor pulls against the elastic force of a stretched DNA solely in a direction parallel to the microtubule". Is this really true? What matters is not just how the kinesin pulls the DNA, but also how the DNA pulls on the kinesin. In Figure 1A, what is the guarantee that the DNA is oriented only in the plane of the paper? In fact, the DNA could even be bending transiently in a manner that it pulls the kinesin motor UPWARDS (Vertical force). How are the authors sure that the reaction force between DNA and kinesin is oriented SOLELY along the microtubule?

(4) For this study to be really impactful and for some of the above concerns to be addressed, the data should also have included DNA tensiometer experiments with Dynein. I wonder why this was not done?

While I do like several aspects of the paper, I do not believe that the conclusions are supported by the data presented in this paper for the reasons stated above.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

To investigate the detachment and reattachment kinetics of kinesin-1, 2, and 3 motors against loads oriented parallel to the microtubule, the authors used a DNA tensiometer approach comprising a DNA entropic spring attached to the microtubule on one end and a motor on the other. They found that for kinesin-1 and kinesin-2, the dissociation rates at stall were smaller than the detachment rates during unloaded runs. With regard to the complex reattachment kinetics found in the experiments, the authors argue that these findings were consistent with a weakly-bound 'slip' state preceding motor dissociation from the microtubule. The behavior of kinesin-3 was different and (by the definition of the authors) only showed prolonged "detachment" rates when disregarding some of the slip events. The authors performed stochastic simulations that recapitulate the load-dependent detachment and reattachment kinetics for all three motors. They argue that the presented results provide insight into how kinesin-1, -2, and -3 families transport cargo in complex cellular geometries and compete against dynein during bidirectional transport.

Strengths:

The present study is timely, as significant concerns have been raised previously about studying motor kinetics in optical (single-bead) traps where significant vertical forces are present. Moreover, the obtained data are of high quality, and the experimental procedures are clearly described.

Weaknesses:

However, in the present version of the manuscript, the conclusions drawn from the experiments, the overall interpretation of the results, and the novelty over previous reports appear less clear.

Major comments:

(1) The use of the term "catch bond" is misleading, as the authors do not really mean consistently a catch bond in the classical sense (i.e., a protein-protein interaction having a dissociation rate that decreases with load). Instead, what they mean is that after motor detachment (i.e., after a motor protein dissociating from a tubulin protein), there is a slip state during which the reattachment rate is higher as compared to a motor diffusing in solution. While this may indeed influence the dynamics of bidirectional cargo transport (e.g., during tug-of-war events), the used terms (detachment (with or without slip?), dissociation, rescue, ...) need to be better defined and the results discussed in the context of these definitions. It is very unsatisfactory at the moment, for example, that kinesin-3 is at first not classified as a catch bond, but later on (after tweaking the definitions) it is. In essence, the typical slip/catch bond nomenclature used for protein-protein interaction is not readily applicable for motors with slippage.

(2) The authors define the stall duration as the time at full load, terminated by >60 nm slips/detachments. Isn't that a problem? Smaller slips are not detected/considered... but are also indicative of a motor dissociation event, i.e., the end of a stall. What is the distribution of the slip distances? If the slip distances follow an exponential decay, a large number of short slips are expected, and the presented data (neglecting those short slips) would be highly distorted.

(3) Along the same line: Why do the authors compare the stall duration (without including the time it took the motor to reach stall) to the unloaded single motor run durations? Shouldn't the times of the runs be included?

(4) At many places, it appears too simple that for the biologically relevant processes, mainly/only the load-dependent off-rates of the motors matter. The stall forces and the kind of motor-cargo linkage (e.g., rigid vs. diffusive) do likely also matter. For example: "In the context of pulling a large cargo through the viscous cytoplasm or competing against dynein in a tug-of-war, these slip events enable the motor to maintain force generation and, hence, are distinct from true detachment events." I disagree. The kinesin force at reattachment (after slippage) is much smaller than at stall. What helps, however, is that due to the geometry of being held close to the microtubule (either by the DNA in the present case or by the cargo in vivo) the attachment rate is much higher. Note also that upon DNA relaxation ,the motor is likely kept close to the microtubule surface, while, for example, when bound to a vesicle, the motor may diffuse away from the microtubule quickly (e.g., reference 20).

(5) Why were all motors linked to the neck-coil domain of kinesin-1? Couldn't it be that for normal function, the different coils matter? Autoinhibition can also be circumvented by consistently shortening the constructs.

(6) I am worried about the neutravidin on the microtubules, which may act as roadblocks (e.g. DOI: 10.1039/b803585g), slip termination sites (maybe without the neutravidin, the rescue rate would be much lower?), and potentially also DNA-interaction sites? At 8 nM neutravidin and the given level of biotinylation, what density of neutravidin do the authors expect on their microtubules? Can the authors rule out that the observed stall events are predominantly the result of a kinesin motor being stopped after a short slippage event at a neutravidin molecule?

(7) Also, the unloaded runs should be performed on the same microtubules as in the DNA experiments, i.e., with neutravidin. Otherwise, I do not see how the values can be compared.

(8) If, as stated, "a portion of kinesin-3 unloaded run durations were limited by the length of the microtubules, meaning the unloaded duration is a lower limit." corrections (such as Kaplan-Meier) should be applied, DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2017.09.024.

(9) Shouldn't Kaplan-Meier also be applied to the ramp durations ... as a ramp may also artificially end upon stall? Also, doesn't the comparison between ramp and stall duration have a problem, as each stall is preceded by a ramp ...and the (maximum) ramp times will depend on the speed of the motor? Kinesin-3 is the fastest motor and will reach stall much faster than kinesin-1. Isn't it obvious that the stall durations are longer than the ramp duration (as seen for all three motors in Figure 3)?

(10) It is not clear what is seen in Figure S6A: It looks like only single motors (green, w/o a DNA molecule) are walking ... Note: the influence of the attached DNA onto the stepping duration of a motor may depend on the DNA conformation (stretched and near to the microtubule (with neutravidin!) in the tethered case and spherically coiled in the untethered case).

(11) Along this line: While the run time of kinesin-1 with DNA (1.4 s) is significantly shorter than the stall time (3.0 s), it is still larger than the unloaded run time (1.0 s). What do the authors think is the origin of this increase?

(12) "The simplest prediction is that against the low loads experienced during ramps, the detachment rate should match the unloaded detachment rate." I disagree. I would already expect a slight increase.

(13) Isn't the model over-defined by fitting the values for the load-dependence of the strong-to-weak transition and fitting the load dependence into the transition to the slip state?

(14) "When kinesin-1 was tethered to a glass coverslip via a DNA linker and hydrodynamic forces were imposed on an associated microtubule, kinesin-1 dissociation rates were relatively insensitive to loads up to ~3 pN, inconsistent with slip-bond characteristics (37)." This statement appears not to be true. In reference 37, very similar to the geometry reported here, the microtubules were fixed on the surface, and the stepping of single kinesin motors attached to large beads (to which defined forces were applied by hydrodynamics) via long DNA linkers was studied. In fact, quite a number of statements made in the present manuscript have been made already in ref. 37 (see in particular sections 2.6 and 2.7), and the authors may consider putting their results better into this context in the Introduction and Discussion. It is also noteworthy to discuss that the (admittedly limited) data in ref. 37 does not indicate a "catch-bond" behavior but rather an insensitivity to force over a defined range of forces.

Author response:

Reviewer 1 (Public review):

(1) Figure 1B shows the PREDICTED force-extension curve for DNA based on a worm-like chain model. Where is the experimental evidence for this curve? This issue is crucial because the F-E curve will decide how and when a catch-bond is induced (if at all it is) as the motor moves against the tensiometer. Unless this is actually measured by some other means, I find it hard to accept all the results based on Figure 1B.

The Worm-Like-Chain model for the elasticity of DNA was established by early work from the Bustamante lab (Smith et al., 1992)  and Marko and Siggia (Marko and Siggia, 1995), and was further validated and refined by the Block lab (Bouchiat et al., 1999; Wang et al., 1997). The 50 nm persistence length is the consensus value, and was shown to be independent of force and extension in Figure 3 of Bouchiat et al (Bouchiat et al., 1999). However, we would like to stress that for our conclusions, the precise details of the Force-Extension relationship of our dsDNA are immaterial. The key point is that the motor stretches the DNA and stalls when it reaches its stall force. Our claim of the catch-bond character of kinesin is based on the longer duration at stall compared to the run duration in the absence of load. Provided that the motor is indeed stalling because it has stretched out the DNA (which is strongly supported by the repeated stalling around the predicted extension corresponding to ~6 pN of force), then the stall duration depends on neither the precise value for the extension nor the precise value of the force at stall.

(2) The authors can correct me on this, but I believe that all the catch-bond studies using optical traps have exerted a load force that exceeds the actual force generated by the motor. For example, see Figure 2 in reference 42 (Kunwar et al). It is in this regime (load force > force from motor) that the dissociation rate is reduced (catch-bond is activated). Such a regime is never reached in the DNA tensiometer study because of the very construction of the experiment. I am very surprised that this point is overlooked in this manuscript. I am therefore not even sure that the present experiments even induce a catch-bond (in the sense reported for earlier papers).

It is true that Kunwar et al measured binding durations at super-stall loads and used that to conclude that dynein does act as a catch-bond (but kinesin does not) (Kunwar et al., 2011). However, we would like to correct the reviewer on this one. This approach of exerting super-stall forces and measuring binding durations is in fact less common than the approach of allowing the motor to walk up to stall and measuring the binding duration. This ‘fixed trap’ approach has been used to show catch-bond behavior of dynein (Leidel et al., 2012; Rai et al., 2013) and kinesin (Kuo et al., 2022; Pyrpassopoulos et al., 2020). For the non-processive motor Myosin I, a dynamic force clamp was used to keep the actin filament in place while the myosin generated a single step (Laakso et al., 2008). Because the motor generates the force, these are not superstall forces either.

(3) I appreciate the concerns about the Vertical force from the optical trap. But that leads to the following questions that have not at all been addressed in this paper:

(i) Why is the Vertical force only a problem for Kinesins, and not a problem for the dynein studies?

Actually, we do not claim that vertical force is not a problem for dynein; our data do not speak to this question. There is debate in the literature as to whether dynein has catch bond behavior in the traditional single-bead optical trap geometry - while some studies have measured dynein catch bond behavior (Kunwar et al., 2011; Leidel et al., 2012; Rai et al., 2013), others have found that dynein has slip-bond or ideal-bond behavior (Ezber et al., 2020; Nicholas et al., 2015; Rao et al., 2019). This discrepancy may relate to vertical forces, but not in an obvious way.

(ii) The authors state that "With this geometry, a kinesin motor pulls against the elastic force of a stretched DNA solely in a direction parallel to the microtubule". Is this really true? What matters is not just how the kinesin pulls the DNA, but also how the DNA pulls on the kinesin. In Figure 1A, what is the guarantee that the DNA is oriented only in the plane of the paper? In fact, the DNA could even be bending transiently in a manner that it pulls the kinesin motor UPWARDS (Vertical force). How are the authors sure that the reaction force between DNA and kinesin is oriented SOLELY along the microtubule?

We acknowledge that “solely” is an absolute term that is too strong to describe our geometry. We will soften this term in our revision to “nearly parallel to the microtubule”. In the Geometry Calculations section of Supplementary Methods, we calculate that if the motor and streptavidin are on the same protofilament, the vertical force will be <1% of the horizontal force. We also note that if the motor is on a different protofilament, there will be lateral forces and forces perpendicular to the microtubule surface, except they are oriented toward rather than away from the microtubule. The DNA can surely bend due to thermal forces, but because inertia plays a negligible role at the nanoscale (Howard, 2001; Purcell, 1977), any resulting upward forces will only be thermal forces, which the motor is already subjected to at all times.

(4) For this study to be really impactful and for some of the above concerns to be addressed, the data should also have included DNA tensiometer experiments with Dynein. I wonder why this was not done?

As much as we would love to fully characterize dynein here, this paper is about kinesin and it took a substantial effort. The dynein work merits a stand-alone paper.

While I do like several aspects of the paper, I do not believe that the conclusions are supported by the data presented in this paper for the reasons stated above.

The three key points the reviewer makes are the validity of the worm-like-chain model, the question of superstall loads, and the role of DNA bending in generating vertical forces. We hope that we have fully addressed these concerns in our responses above.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Major comments:

(1) The use of the term "catch bond" is misleading, as the authors do not really mean consistently a catch bond in the classical sense (i.e., a protein-protein interaction having a dissociation rate that decreases with load). Instead, what they mean is that after motor detachment (i.e., after a motor protein dissociating from a tubulin protein), there is a slip state during which the reattachment rate is higher as compared to a motor diffusing in solution. While this may indeed influence the dynamics of bidirectional cargo transport (e.g., during tug-of-war events), the used terms (detachment (with or without slip?), dissociation, rescue, ...) need to be better defined and the results discussed in the context of these definitions. It is very unsatisfactory at the moment, for example, that kinesin-3 is at first not classified as a catch bond, but later on (after tweaking the definitions) it is. In essence, the typical slip/catch bond nomenclature used for protein-protein interaction is not readily applicable for motors with slippage.

We appreciate the reviewer’s point and we will work to streamline and define terms in our revision.

(2) The authors define the stall duration as the time at full load, terminated by >60 nm slips/detachments. Isn't that a problem? Smaller slips are not detected/considered... but are also indicative of a motor dissociation event, i.e., the end of a stall. What is the distribution of the slip distances? If the slip distances follow an exponential decay, a large number of short slips are expected, and the presented data (neglecting those short slips) would be highly distorted.

The reviewer brings up a good point that there may be undetected slips. To address this question, we plotted the distribution of slip distances for kinesin-3, which by far had the most slip events. As the reviewer suggested, it is indeed an exponential distribution. Our preliminary analysis suggests that roughly 20% of events are missed due to this 60 nm cutoff. This will change our unloaded duration numbers slightly, but this will not alter our conclusions.\

(3) Along the same line: Why do the authors compare the stall duration (without including the time it took the motor to reach stall) to the unloaded single motor run durations? Shouldn't the times of the runs be included?

The elastic force of the DNA spring is variable as the motor steps up to stall, and so if we included the entire run duration then it would be difficult to specify what force we were comparing to unloaded. More importantly, if we assume that any stepping and detachment behavior is history independent, then it is mathematically proper to take any arbitrary starting point (such as when the motor reaches stall), start the clock there, and measure the distribution of detachments durations relative to that starting point.

More importantly, what we do in Fig. 3 is to separate out the ramps from the stalls and, using a statistical model, we compute a separate duration parameter (which is the inverse of the off-rate) for the ramp and the stall. What we find is that the relationship between ramp, stall, and unloaded durations is different for the three motors, which is interesting in itself.

(4) At many places, it appears too simple that for the biologically relevant processes, mainly/only the load-dependent off-rates of the motors matter. The stall forces and the kind of motor-cargo linkage (e.g., rigid vs. diffusive) do likely also matter. For example: "In the context of pulling a large cargo through the viscous cytoplasm or competing against dynein in a tug-of-war, these slip events enable the motor to maintain force generation and, hence, are distinct from true detachment events." I disagree. The kinesin force at reattachment (after slippage) is much smaller than at stall. What helps, however, is that due to the geometry of being held close to the microtubule (either by the DNA in the present case or by the cargo in vivo) the attachment rate is much higher. Note also that upon DNA relaxation, the motor is likely kept close to the microtubule surface, while, for example, when bound to a vesicle, the motor may diffuse away from the microtubule quickly (e.g., reference 20).

We appreciate the reviewer’s detailed thinking here, and we offer our perspective. As to the first point, we agree that the stall force is relevant and that the rigidity of the motor-cargo linkage will play a role. The goal of the sentence on pulling cargo that the reviewer highlights is to set up our analysis of slips, which we define as rearward displacements that don’t return to the baseline before force generation resumes. We agree that force after slippage is much smaller than at stall, and we plan to clarify that section of text. However, as shown in the model diagram in Fig. 5, we differentiate between the slip state (and recovery from this slip state) and the detached state (and reattachment from this detached state). This delineation is important because, as the reviewer points out, if we are measuring detachment and reattachment with our DNA tensiometer, then the geometry of a vesicle in a cell will be different and diffusion away from the microtubule or elastic recoil perpendicular to the microtubule will suppress this reattachment.

Our evidence for a slip state in which the motor maintains association with the microtubule comes from optical trapping work by Tokelis et al (Toleikis et al., 2020) and Sudhakar et al (Sudhakar et al., 2021). In particular, Sudhakar used small, high index Germanium microspheres that had a low drag coefficient. They showed that during ‘slip’ events, the relaxation time constant of the bead back to the center of the trap was nearly 10-fold slower than the trap response time, consistent with the motor exerting drag on the microtubule. (With larger beads, the drag of the bead swamps the motor-microtubule friction.) Another piece of support for the motor maintaining association during a slip is work by Ramaiya et al. who used birefringent microspheres to exert and measure rotational torque during kinesin stepping (Ramaiya et al., 2017). In most traces, when the motor returned to baseline following a stall, the torque was dissipated as well, consistent with a ‘detached’ state. However, a slip event is shown in S18a where the motor slips backward while maintaining torque. This is best explained by the motor slipping backward in a state where the heads are associated with the microtubule (at least sufficiently to resist rotational forces). Thus, we term the resumption after slip to be a rescue from the slip state rather than a reattachment from the detached state.

To finish the point, with the complex geometry of a vesicle, during slip events the motor remains associated with the microtubule and hence primed for recovery. This recovery rate is expected to be the same as for the DNA tensiometer. Following a detachment, however, we agree that there will likely be a higher probability of reattachment in the DNA tensiometer due to proximity effects, whereas with a vesicle any elastic recoil or ‘rolling’ will pull the detached motor away from the microtubule, suppressing reattachment. We plan to clarify these points in the text of the revision.

(5) Why were all motors linked to the neck-coil domain of kinesin-1? Couldn't it be that for normal function, the different coils matter? Autoinhibition can also be circumvented by consistently shortening the constructs.

We chose this dimerization approach to focus on how the mechoanochemical properties of kinesins vary between the three dominant transport families. We agree that in cells, autoinhibition of both kinesins and dynein likely play roles in regulating bidirectional transport, as will the activity of other regulatory proteins. The native coiled-coils may act as as ‘shock absorbers’ due to their compliance, or they might slow the motor reattachment rate due to the relatively large search volumes created by their long lengths (10s of nm). These are topics for future work. By using the neck-coil domain of kinesin-1 for all three motors, we eliminate any differences in autoinhibition or other regulation between the three kinesin families and focus solely on differences in the mechanochemistry of their motor domains.

(6) I am worried about the neutravidin on the microtubules, which may act as roadblocks (e.g. DOI: 10.1039/b803585g), slip termination sites (maybe without the neutravidin, the rescue rate would be much lower?), and potentially also DNA-interaction sites? At 8 nM neutravidin and the given level of biotinylation, what density of neutravidin do the authors expect on their microtubules? Can the authors rule out that the observed stall events are predominantly the result of a kinesin motor being stopped after a short slippage event at a neutravidin molecule?

We will address these points in our revision.

(7) Also, the unloaded runs should be performed on the same microtubules as in the DNA experiments, i.e., with neutravidin. Otherwise, I do not see how the values can be compared.

We will address this point in our revision.

(8) If, as stated, "a portion of kinesin-3 unloaded run durations were limited by the length of the microtubules, meaning the unloaded duration is a lower limit." corrections (such as Kaplan-Meier) should be applied, DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2017.09.024.

(9) Shouldn't Kaplan-Meier also be applied to the ramp durations ... as a ramp may also artificially end upon stall? Also, doesn't the comparison between ramp and stall duration have a problem, as each stall is preceded by a ramp ...and the (maximum) ramp times will depend on the speed of the motor? Kinesin-3 is the fastest motor and will reach stall much faster than kinesin-1. Isn't it obvious that the stall durations are longer than the ramp duration (as seen for all three motors in Figure 3)?

The reviewer rightly notes the many challenges in estimating the motor off-rates during ramps. To estimate ramp off-rates and as an independent approach to calculating the unloaded and stall durations, we developed a Markov model coupled with Bayesian inference methods to estimate a duration parameter (equivalent to the inverse of the off-rate) for the unloaded, ramp, and stall duration distributions. With the ramps, we have left censoring due to the difficulty in detecting the start of the ramps in the fluctuating baseline, and we have right censoring due to reaching stall (with different censoring of the ramp duration for the three motors due to their different speeds). The Markov model assumes a constant detachment probability and history independence, and thus is robust even in the face of left and right censoring (details in the Supplementary section). This approach is preferred over Kaplan-Meier because, although these non-parametric methods make no assumptions for the distribution, they require the user to know exactly where the start time is.

Regarding the potential underestimate of the kinesin-3 unloaded run duration due to finite microtubule lengths. The first point is that the unloaded duration data in Fig. 2C are quite linear up to 6 s and are well fit by the single-exponential fit (the points above 6s don’t affect the fit very much). The second point is that when we used our Markov model (which is robust against right censoring) to estimate the unloaded and stall durations, the results agreed with the single-exponential fits very well (Table S2). For instance, the single-exponential fit for the kinesin-3 unloaded duration was 2.74 s (2.33 – 3.17 s 95% CI) and the estimate from the Markov model was 2.76 (2.28 – 3.34 s 95% CI). Thus, we chose not to make any corrections due to finite microtubule lengths.

(10) It is not clear what is seen in Figure S6A: It looks like only single motors (green, w/o a DNA molecule) are walking ... Note: the influence of the attached DNA onto the stepping duration of a motor may depend on the DNA conformation (stretched and near to the microtubule (with neutravidin!) in the tethered case and spherically coiled in the untethered case).

In Figure S6A kymograph, the green traces are GFP-labeled kinesin-1 without DNA attached (which are in excess) and the red diagonal trace is a motor with DNA attached. There are also two faint horizontal red traces, which are labeled DNA diffusing by (smearing over a large area during a single frame). Panel S6B shows run durations of motors with DNA attached. We agree that the DNA conformation will differ if it is attached and stretched (more linear) versus simply being transported (random coil), but by its nature this control experiment is only addressing random coil DNA.

(11) Along this line: While the run time of kinesin-1 with DNA (1.4 s) is significantly shorter than the stall time (3.0 s), it is still larger than the unloaded run time (1.0 s). What do the authors think is the origin of this increase?

Our interpretation of the unloaded kinesin-DNA result is that the much slower diffusion constant of the DNA relative to the motor alone enables motors to transiently detach and rebind before the DNA cargo has diffused away, thus extending the run duration. In contrast, such detachment events for motors alone normally result in the motor diffusing away from the microtubule, terminating the run. This argument has been used to reconcile the longer single-motor run lengths in the gliding assay versus the bead assay (Block et al., 1990). Notably, this slower diffusion constant should not play a role in the DNA tensiometer geometry because if the motor transiently detaches, then it will be pulled backward by the elastic forces of the DNA and detected as a slip or detachment event. We will address this point in the revision.

(12) "The simplest prediction is that against the low loads experienced during ramps, the detachment rate should match the unloaded detachment rate." I disagree. I would already expect a slight increase.

Agreed. We will change this text to: “The prediction for a slip bond is that against the low loads experienced during ramps, the detachment rate should be equal to or faster than the unloaded detachment rate.”

(13) Isn't the model over-defined by fitting the values for the load-dependence of the strong-to-weak transition and fitting the load dependence into the transition to the slip state?

Essentially, yes, it is overdefined, but that is essentially by design and it is still very useful. Our goal here was to make as simple a model as possible that could account for the data and use it to compare model parameters for the different motor families. Ignoring the complexity of the slip and detached states, a model with a strong and weak state in the stepping cycle and a single transition out of the stepping cycle is the simplest formulation possible. And having rate constants (k_S-W and k_slip in our case) that vary exponentially with load makes thermodynamic sense for modeling mechanochemistry (Howard, 2001). Thus, we were pleasantly surprised that this bare-bones model could recapitulate the unloaded and stall durations for all three motors (Fig. 5C-E).

(14) "When kinesin-1 was tethered to a glass coverslip via a DNA linker and hydrodynamic forces were imposed on an associated microtubule, kinesin-1 dissociation rates were relatively insensitive to loads up to ~3 pN, inconsistent with slip-bond characteristics (37)." This statement appears not to be true. In reference 37, very similar to the geometry reported here, the microtubules were fixed on the surface, and the stepping of single kinesin motors attached to large beads (to which defined forces were applied by hydrodynamics) via long DNA linkers was studied. In fact, quite a number of statements made in the present manuscript have been made already in ref. 37 (see in particular sections 2.6 and 2.7), and the authors may consider putting their results better into this context in the Introduction and Discussion. It is also noteworthy to discuss that the (admittedly limited) data in ref. 37 does not indicate a "catch-bond" behavior but rather an insensitivity to force over a defined range of forces.

The reviewer misquoted our sentence. The actual wording of the sentence was: “When kinesin-1 was connected to micron-scale beads through a DNA linker and hydrodynamic forces parallel to the microtubule imposed, dissociation rates were relatively insensitive to loads up to ~3 pN, inconsistent with slip-bond characteristics (Urbanska et al., 2021).” The sentence the reviewer quoted was in a previous version that is available on BioRxiv and perhaps they were reading that version. Nonetheless, in the revision we will note in the Discussion that this behavior was indicative of an ideal bond (not a catch-bond), and we will also add a sentence in the Introduction highlighting this work.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The authors attribute the differences in the behaviour of kinesins when pulling against a DNA tether compared to an optical trap to the differences in the perpendicular forces. However, the compliance is also much different in these two experiments. The optical trap acts like a ~ linear spring with stiffness ~ 0.05 pN/nm. The dsDNA tether is an entropic spring, with negligible stiffness at low extensions and very high compliance once the tether is extended to its contour length (Fig. 1B). The effect of the compliance on the results should be addressed in the manuscript.

This is an interesting point. To address it, we calculated the predicted stiffness of the dsDNA by taking the slope of theoretical force-extension curve in Fig. 1B. Below 650 nm extension, the stiffness is <0.001 pN/nM; it reaches 0.01 pN/nM at 855 nm, and at 960 nm where the force is 6 pN the stiffness is roughly 0.2 pN/nm. That value is higher than the quoted 0.05 pN/nm trap stiffness, but for reference, at this stiffness, an 8 nm step leads to a 1.6 pN jump in force, which is reasonable. Importantly, the stiffness of kinesin motors has been estimated to be in the range of 0.3 pN (Coppin et al., 1996; Coppin et al., 1997). Granted, this stiffness is also nonlinear, but what this means is that even at stall, our dsDNA tether has a similar predicted compliance to the motor that is pulling on it. We will address this point in our revision.  

Compared to an optical trapping assay, the motors are also tethered closer to the microtubule in this geometry. In an optical trap assay, the bead could rotate when the kinesin is not bound. The authors should discuss how this tethering is expected to affect the kinesin reattachment and slipping. While likely outside the scope of this study, it would be interesting to compare the static tether used here with a dynamic tether like MAP7 or the CAP-GLY domain of p150glued.

Please see our response to Reviewer #2 Major Comment #4 above, which asks this same question in the context of intracellular cargo. We plan to address this in our revision. Regarding a dynamic tether, we agree that’s interesting – there are kinesins that have a second, non-canonical binding site that achieves this tethering (ncd and Cin8); p150glued likely does this naturally for dynein-dynactin-activator complexes; and we speculated in a review some years ago (Hancock, 2014) that during bidirectional transport kinesin and dynein may act as dynamic tethers for one another when not engaged, enhancing the activity of the opposing motor.

In the single-molecule extension traces (Figure 1F-H; S3), the kinesin-2 traces often show jumps in position at the beginning of runs (e.g., the four runs from ~4-13 s in Fig. 1G). These jumps are not apparent in the kinesin-1 and -3 traces. What is the explanation? Is kinesin-2 binding accelerated by resisting loads more strongly than kinesin-1 and -3?

Due to the compliance of the dsDNA, the 95% limits for the initial attachment position are +/- 290 nm (Fig. S2). Thus, some apparent ‘jumps’ from the detached state are expected. We will take a closer look at why there are jumps for kinesin-2 that aren’t apparent for kinesin-1 or -3.

When comparing the durations of unloaded and stall events (Fig. 2), there is a potential for bias in the measurement, where very long unloaded runs cannot be observed due to the limited length of the microtubule (Thompson, Hoeprich, and Berger, 2013), while the duration of tethered runs is only limited by photobleaching. Was the possible censoring of the results addressed in the analysis?

Yes. Please see response to Reviewer #2 points (8) and (9) above.

The mathematical model is helpful in interpreting the data. To assess how the "slip" state contributes to the association kinetics, it would be helpful to compare the proposed model with a similar model with no slip state. Could the slips be explained by fast reattachments from the detached state?

In the model, the slip state and the detached states are conceptually similar; they only differ in the sequence (slip to detached) and the transition rates into and out of them. The simple answer is: yes, the slips could be explained by fast reattachments from the detached state. In that case, the slip state and recovery could be called a “detached state with fast reattachment kinetics”. However, the key data for defining the kinetics of the slip and detached states is the distribution of Recovery times shown in Fig. 4D-F, which required a triple exponential to account for all of the data. If we simplified the model by eliminating the slip state and incorporating fast reattachment from a single detached state, then the distribution of Recovery times would be a single-exponential with a time constant equivalent to t₁, which would be a poor fit to the experimental distributions in Fig. 4D-F.

We appreciate the efforts and helpful suggestions of all three reviewers and the Editor.

References:

Block, S.M., L.S. Goldstein, and B.J. Schnapp. 1990. Bead movement by single kinesin molecules studied with optical tweezers. Nature. 348:348-352.

Bouchiat, C., M.D. Wang, J. Allemand, T. Strick, S.M. Block, and V. Croquette. 1999. Estimating the persistence length of a worm-like chain molecule from force-extension measurements. Biophys J. 76:409-413.

Coppin, C.M., J.T. Finer, J.A. Spudich, and R.D. Vale. 1996. Detection of sub-8-nm movements of kinesin by high-resolution optical-trap microscopy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 93:1913-1917.

Coppin, C.M., D.W. Pierce, L. Hsu, and R.D. Vale. 1997. The load dependence of kinesin's mechanical cycle. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 94:8539-8544.

Ezber, Y., V. Belyy, S. Can, and A. Yildiz. 2020. Dynein Harnesses Active Fluctuations of Microtubules for Faster Movement. Nat Phys. 16:312-316.

Hancock, W.O. 2014. Bidirectional cargo transport: moving beyond tug of war. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 15:615-628.

Howard, J. 2001. Mechanics of Motor Proteins and the Cytoskeleton. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA. 367 pp.

Kunwar, A., S.K. Tripathy, J. Xu, M.K. Mattson, P. Anand, R. Sigua, M. Vershinin, R.J. McKenney, C.C. Yu, A. Mogilner, and S.P. Gross. 2011. Mechanical stochastic tug-of-war models cannot explain bidirectional lipid-droplet transport. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 108:18960-18965.

Kuo, Y.W., M. Mahamdeh, Y. Tuna, and J. Howard. 2022. The force required to remove tubulin from the microtubule lattice by pulling on its alpha-tubulin C-terminal tail. Nature communications. 13:3651.

Laakso, J.M., J.H. Lewis, H. Shuman, and E.M. Ostap. 2008. Myosin I can act as a molecular force sensor. Science. 321:133-136.

Leidel, C., R.A. Longoria, F.M. Gutierrez, and G.T. Shubeita. 2012. Measuring molecular motor forces in vivo: implications for tug-of-war models of bidirectional transport. Biophys J. 103:492-500.

Marko, J.F., and E.D. Siggia. 1995. Stretching DNA. Macromolecules. 28:8759-8770.

Nicholas, M.P., F. Berger, L. Rao, S. Brenner, C. Cho, and A. Gennerich. 2015. Cytoplasmic dynein regulates its attachment to microtubules via nucleotide state-switched mechanosensing at multiple AAA domains. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 112:6371-6376.

Purcell, E.M. 1977. Life at low Reynolds Number. Amer J. Phys. 45:3-11.

Pyrpassopoulos, S., H. Shuman, and E.M. Ostap. 2020. Modulation of Kinesin's Load-Bearing Capacity by Force Geometry and the Microtubule Track. Biophys J. 118:243-253.

Rai, A.K., A. Rai, A.J. Ramaiya, R. Jha, and R. Mallik. 2013. Molecular adaptations allow dynein to generate large collective forces inside cells. Cell. 152:172-182.

Ramaiya, A., B. Roy, M. Bugiel, and E. Schaffer. 2017. Kinesin rotates unidirectionally and generates torque while walking on microtubules. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 114:10894-10899.

Rao, L., F. Berger, M.P. Nicholas, and A. Gennerich. 2019. Molecular mechanism of cytoplasmic dynein tension sensing. Nature communications. 10:3332.

Smith, S.B., L. Finzi, and C. Bustamante. 1992. Direct mechanical measurements of the elasticity of single DNA molecules by using magnetic beads. Science. 258:1122-1126.

Sudhakar, S., M.K. Abdosamadi, T.J. Jachowski, M. Bugiel, A. Jannasch, and E. Schaffer. 2021. Germanium nanospheres for ultraresolution picotensiometry of kinesin motors. Science. 371.

Toleikis, A., N.J. Carter, and R.A. Cross. 2020. Backstepping Mechanism of Kinesin-1. Biophys J. 119:1984-1994.

Urbanska, M., A. Ludecke, W.J. Walter, A.M. van Oijen, K.E. Duderstadt, and S. Diez. 2021. Highly-Parallel Microfluidics-Based Force Spectroscopy on Single Cytoskeletal Motors. Small. 17:e2007388.

Wang, M.D., H. Yin, R. Landick, J. Gelles, and S.M. Block. 1997. Stretching DNA with optical tweezers. Biophys J. 72:1335-1346.

eLife Assessment

This study provides a valuable insight into how the medial and lateral entorhinal cortices interact through distinct excitatory and inhibitory pathways. Using anatomical tracing, optogenetics, and electrophysiology, the authors show that glutamatergic medial entorhinal neurons provide broad excitatory input to lateral entorhinal, while long-range SST+ interneurons deliver selective inhibition to layer I. These findings reveal a novel layer- and cell-type-specific organization of medial to lateral entorhinal connectivity with implications for spatial and episodic memory. The work is solid, but validation of injection specificity and viral spread is needed to fully confirm the anatomical interpretations; with these clarifications, this will be a significant contribution to understanding entorhinal-hippocampal circuit organization.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The study addresses the organisation of synaptic connections from the medial to the lateral entorhinal cortex. Classic anatomical work has suggested these connections exist, but very little is known about their identity or functional impact. The manuscript argues that these projections are mediated by glutamatergic neurons, providing excitatory input from MEC to all layers of LEC, and by SST+ve interneurons sending inhibitory projections to L1 of LEC. This appears to be the most likely interpretation of the data, although in my opinion, more could be done to rule out the possible impact of the spread of the virus/tracer from the injection site.

While this concern might seem overly picky, the importance of this level of detail is nicely shown by the authors' previous work clarifying connectivity from postrhinal to entorhinal cortices through careful analysis of similar types of data (Doan et al. 2019). If additional analyses/data can address the concern here, then I think this will be an important set of fundamental results that will influence thinking about circuit mechanisms for spatial cognition and episodic memory. In particular, it will nicely add to an emerging view that MEC and LEC can interact directly, showing that the organisation of these interactions is asymmetric and identifying a potentially interesting long-range inhibitory pathway.

Author response:

Reviewer #1:

The issue on validation of injection sites and viral spread is an important one, and we are fully aware of the risks associated with an incomplete assessment. Note that in the supplementary material, section on ‘Brain area identification’ we write the following: ‘In all neuroanatomical tracing experiments, correct placement of tracer injections into the four different areas (MEC, PER, PIR and LEC) was carefully evaluated based on known cytoarchitectonic features (see below). Electrophysiological experiments were initiated after our neuroanatomical experiments had verified the correct surgery coordinates for interrogating pathways to LEC from MEC, PIR, PER and cLEC. In patch-clamp experiments, viral injections were considered to hit the intended target area whenever the axonal innervation patterns in LEC were consistent with the patterns obtained in our neuroanatomical tracing experiments. To ensure that our injections were placed in MEC, without unintended spread to LEC, we examined the innervation patterns in DG.

In agreement with the current understanding of entorhinal innervation of DG in rodents (Steward, 1976; van Groen et al., 2003), injections targeting MEC or LEC resulted in axonal labelling in the middle one-third or outer one-third of the molecular layer of DG, respectively. Cases where the injection had clearly spread to LEC, evident from the laminar distribution of labelling in DG and labelled cell bodies in LEC, were excluded from analysis.’

In our view this provides sufficient security that we did not by mistake included intrinsic LEC projections into our dataset. In the result section, we addressed this issue as well by stating that: ‘We carefully checked all sections at and close to the levels we used for our experiments and did not observe any virally labelled neurons in LEC.’ In case of electrophysiological experiments, one normally does not secure whole brain material to exclude viral spread, but since for each animal we did record from multiple adjacent thick slices and in none did we find indications of including LEC. Finally, we included an analysis of SST projections originating from LEC (suppl Figure 1). As can be seen from panel C the local SST axonal pattern in LEC is markedly different form that seen following an injection in MEC. We aim to provide additional supplementary detail of this and include that in the text of the revised version.

Reviewer #2:

The remark that the in vivo relevance of these connections remains to be determined is absolutely correct and in the discussion we only speculated on this, since we currently do not have functional data of sufficient quality to address this. However, in an earlier version of the paper, still accessible on bioRxiv (https://biorxiv.org/cgi/content/short/2022.11.29.518323v1), we did include data on changes in expression of the immediate early gene cFos in LEC layer IIa cells upon manipulation of the SST projections from MEC within the context of conspecific memory. These data resulted in a non-significant trend, but we do not have the time, nor the financial means to extent that dataset. Therefore we cannot revise the paper in this respect.

Great work! But this doc needs a serious update with the current SoTA

There may be an issue here in performing a power analysis using a different model than the one that will be used (i.e., GLMM vs. GAMM). I dont think that's necessary a problem, and maybe it can be justified on the basis of simplicity.

However, the power analysis only concerns the overall proportions, not the effects of time, nor the onsets (the overall proportions correspond only to the parametric part of the GAMM).

But I suspect that onsets are quite hard to estimate precisely, certainly much harder than the overall proportion effects. So there is a risk that with a between-group design and 35 in each group, the onsets will be very uncertain, especially in the noisy conditions of the low-quality webcam. IF there's any possibility to increase this (resource-wise, etc.), the onsets will thank you in the future.

Perhaps a set of exploratory analyses could also be interesting, for example, on cohort vs. rhyme, target vs. cohort, or whatever else (but of course, if they are exploratory they can also be decided upon later and then reported as such...)

I was trying to tie the hypotheses to the analyses (as i comment again below); this is more for me to understand it, maybe nothing needs to be changed here.

H1a is tested by the parametric part of the model, with a significant intercept indicating log-odds different from 0 (so, a difference from 50%) over the whole critical window, and thus a cohort-versus-unrelated advantage. One possible complication is that in half of the trials there are two unrelated images, I'll think about that. Another possible complication is whether this will be estimated across cameras (as an omnibus "main effect") or within each camera.

H1b is the effect of camera. IF we set up the model in this cohort-versus-unrelated way, then the effect of camera will express the difference between the cohort-versus-unrelated advantage between the two cameras. But that is currently H1c, it's just that it won't be an "interaction". But then maybe H1b is lost? Maybe it can still be tested, but with some other model, e.g., maybe a model on proportion of looks on any image out of the total of looks (including those outside of the areas of interest). But Im not sure this is what you were getting at.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The introduction does a very good job of discussing the issue around whether there is ongoing replication in people with HIV on antiretroviral therapy. Sporadic, non-sustained replication likely occurs in many PWH on ART related to adherence, drug-drug interactions and possibly penetration of antivirals into sanctuary areas of replication and as the authors point out proving it does not occur is likely not possible and proving it does occur is likely very dependent on the population studied and the design of the intervention. Whether the consequences of this replication in the absence of evolution toward resistance have clinical significance challenging question to address.

It is important to note that INSTI-based therapy may have a different impact on HIV replication events that results in differences in virus release for specific cell type (those responsible for "second phase" decay) by blocking integration in cells that have completed reverse transcription prior to ART initiation but have yet to be fully activated. In a PI or NNRTI-based regimen, those cells will release virus, whereas with an INSTI-based regimen, they will not.

Given the very small sample size, there is a substantial risk of imbalance between the groups in important baseline measures.

Comments on the revised version from the editor:

I appreciate that the authors thoroughly address the reviewer's concerns in the response letter. Most importantly, they acknowledge that "The absence of a pre-specified statistical endpoint or sample size calculation reflects the exploratory nature of the trial." This is vital because the transient impact on total HIV DNA in the intensified versus standard dose arm raises questions about any sustained or meaningful anti-reservoir effect and was also not hypothesized a priori. The authors explanation that HIV DNA may have rebounded due to clonal expansion is interesting but not assessed directly in the trial.

The greater decrease in intact HIV DNA between days 0 and 84 in the intensified arm are notable but are somewhat limited by small sample size, small effect size and lack of data between these two timepoints.

Unfortunately, the hypothesis generating nature of the conclusions which is outlined nicely in the author's response letter is only acknowledged in the discussion of the revised paper. The abstract and results are only marginally different than the original version and still read as definitive when the evidence is only hypothesis generating. For these reasons, the level of evidence remains incomplete as before.

Author response:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Fombellida-Lopez and colleagues describe the results of an ART intensification trial in people with HIV infection (PWH) on suppressive ART to determine the effect of increasing the dose of one ART drug, dolutegravir, on viral reservoirs, immune activation, exhaustion, and circulating inflammatory markers. The authors hypothesize that ART intensification will provide clues about the degree to which low-level viral replication is occurring in circulation and in tissues despite ongoing ART, which could be identified if reservoirs decrease and/or if immune biomarkers change. The trial design is straightforward and well-described, and the intervention appears to have been well tolerated. The investigators observed an increase in dolutegravir concentrations in circulation, and to a lesser degree in tissues, in the intervention group, indicating that the intervention has functioned as expected (ART has been intensified in vivo). Several outcome measures changed during the trial period in the intervention group, leading the investigators to conclude that their results provide strong evidence of ongoing replication on standard ART. The results of this small trial are intriguing, and a few observations in particular are hypothesis-generating and potentially justify further clinical trials to explore them in depth. However, I am concerned about over-interpretation of results that do not fully justify the authors' conclusions.

We thank Reviewer #1 for their thoughtful and constructive comments, which helped us clarify and improve the manuscript. Below, we address each of the reviewer’s points and describe the changes that we implemented in the revised version. We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern regarding potential overinterpretation of certain findings, and in the revised version we took particular care to ensure that all conclusions are supported by the data and framed within the exploratory nature of the study.

(1) Trial objectives: What was the primary objective of the trial? This is not clearly stated. The authors describe changes in some reservoir parameters and no changes in others. Which of these was the primary outcome? No a priori hypothesis / primary objective is stated, nor is there explicit justification (power calculations, prior in vivo evidence) for the small n, unblinded design, and lack of placebo control. In the abstract (line 36, "significant decreases in total HIV DNA") and conclusion (lines 244-246), the authors state that total proviral DNA decreased as a result of ART intensification. However, in Figures 2A and 2E (and in line 251), the authors indicate that total proviral DNA did not change. These statements are confusing and appear to be contradictory. Regarding the decrease in total proviral DNA, I believe the authors may mean that they observed transient decrease in total proviral DNA during the intensification period (day 28 in particular, Figure 2A), however this level increases at Day 56 and then returns to baseline at Day 84, which is the source of the negative observation. Stating that total proviral DNA decreased as a result of the intervention when it ultimately did not is misleading, unless the investigators intended the day 28 timepoint as a primary endpoint for reservoir reduction - if so, this is never stated, and it is unclear why the intervention would then be continued until day 84? If, instead, reservoir reduction at the end of the intervention was the primary endpoint (again, unstated by the authors), then it is not appropriate to state that the total proviral reservoir decreased significantly when it did not.

We agree with the reviewer that the primary objective of the study was not explicitly stated in the submitted manuscript. We clarified this in the revised manuscript (lines 361-364). As registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05351684), the primary outcome was defined as “To evaluate the impact of treatment intensification at the level of total and replication-competent reservoir (RCR) in blood and in tissues”, with a time frame of 3 months. Accordingly, our aim was to explore whether any measurable reduction in the HIV reservoir (total or replication-competent) occurred during the intensification period, including at day 28, 56, or 84. The protocol did not prespecify a single time point for this effect to occur, and the exploratory design allowed for detection of transient or sustained changes within the intensification window.

We recognize that this scope was not clearly articulated in the original text and may have led to confusion in interpreting the transient drop in total HIV DNA observed at day 28. While total DNA ultimately returned to baseline by the end of intensification, the presence of a transient reduction during this 3-month window still fits within the framework of the study’s registered objective. Moreover, although the change in total HIV DNA was transient, it aligns with the consistent direction of changes observed across the multiple independent measures, including CA HIV RNA, RNA/DNA ratio and intact HIV DNA, collectively supporting a biological effect of intensification.

We would also like to stress that this is the first clinical trial ever, in which an ART intensification is performed not by adding an extra drug but by increasing the dosage of an existing drug. Therefore, we were more interested in the overall, cumulative, effect of intensification throughout the entire trial period, than in differences between groups at individual time points. We clarified in the revised manuscript that this was a proof-of-concept phase 2 study, designed to reveal biological effects of ART intensification rather than confirm efficacy in a powered comparison. The absence of a prespecified statistical endpoint or sample size calculation reflects the exploratory nature of the trial.

(2) Intervention safety and tolerability: The results section lacks a specific heading for participant safety and tolerability of the intervention. I was wondering about clinically detectable viremia in the study. Were there any viral blips? Was the increased DTG well tolerated? This drug is known to cause myositis, headache, CPK elevation, hepatotoxicity, and headache. Were any of these observed? What is the authors' interpretation of the CD4:8 ratio change (line 198)? Is this a significant safety concern for a longer duration of intensification? Was there also a change in CD4% or only in absolute counts? Was there relative CD4 depletion observed in the rectal biopsy samples between days 0 and 84? Interestingly, T cells dropped at the same timepoints that reservoirs declined... how do the authors rule out that reservoir decline reflects transient T cell decline that is non-specific (not due to additional blockade of replication)?

We improved the Methods section to clarify how safety and tolerability were assessed during the study (lines 389-396). Safety evaluations were conducted on day 28 and day 84 and included a clinical examination and routine laboratory testing (liver function tests, kidney function, and complete blood count). Medication adherence was also monitored through pill counts performed by the study nurses.

No virological blips above 50 copies/mL were observed and no adverse events were reported by participants during the 3-month intensification period. Although CPK levels were not included in the routine biological monitoring, no participant reported muscle pain or other symptoms suggestive of muscle toxicity.

The CD4:CD8 ratio decrease noted during intensification was not associated with significant changes in absolute CD4 or CD8 counts, as shown in Figure 5. We interpret this ratio change as a transient redistribution rather than an immunological risk, therefore we do not consider it to represent a safety concern.

We would like to clarify that CD4⁺ T-cell counts did not significantly decrease in any of the treatment groups, as shown in Figure 5. The apparent decline observed concerns the CD4/CD8 ratio, which transiently dropped, but not the absolute number of CD4⁺ T cells. Moreover, although the dynamics of total HIV DNA is indeed similar to that of CD4/CD8 ratio (both declined transiently and then returned to baseline by day 84), the dynamics of unspliced RNA and unspliced RNA/total DNA ratio are clearly different, as these markers demonstrated a sustained decrease that was maintained throughout the trial period, even when the CD4/CD8 ratio already returned to baseline. Also, we observed a significant decrease in intact HIV DNA at day 84 compared to day 0. These effects cannot be easily explained by a transient decline in CD4+ cells.

(3) The investigators describe a decrease in intact proviral DNA after 84 days of ART intensification in circulating cells (Figure 2D), but no changes to total proviral DNA in blood or tissue (Figures 2A and 2E; IPDA does not appear to have been done on tissue samples). It is not clear why ART intensification would result in a selective decrease in intact proviruses and not in total proviruses if the source of these reservoir cells is due to ongoing replication. These reservoir results have multiple interpretations, including (but not limited to) the investigators' contention that this provides strong evidence of ongoing replication. However, ongoing replication results in the production of both intact and mutated/defective proviruses that both contribute to reservoir size (with defective proviruses vastly outnumbering intact proviruses). The small sample size and well-described heterogeneity of the HIV reservoir (with regard to overall size and composition) raise the possibility that the study was underpowered to detect differences over the 84-day intervention period. No power calculations or prior studies were described to justify the trial size or the duration of the intervention. Readers would benefit from a more nuanced discussion of reservoir changes observed here.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. We fully agree that the reservoir dynamics observed in our study might raise several possible interpretations, and that its complexity, resulting from continuous cycles of expansion and contraction, reflects the heterogeneity of the latent reservoir. 

Total HIV DNA in PBMCs showed a transient decline during intensification (notably at day 28), ultimately returning to baseline by day 84. This biphasic pattern likely reflects the combined effects of suppression of ongoing low-level replication by an increased DTG dosage, followed by the expansion of infected cell clones (mostly harbouring defective proviruses). In other words, the transient decrease in total (intact + defective) DNA at day 28 may be due to an initial decrease in newly infected cells upon ART intensification, however at the subsequent time points this effect was masked by proliferation (clonal expansion) of infected cells with defective proviruses. Recent studies suggest that intact and defective proviruses are subjected to different selection pressures by the immune system on ART (PMID: 38337034) and their decay on therapy is different (intact proviruses are cleared much more rapidly than defectives). In addition, defective proviruses can be preferentially expanded as they can reprogram the host cell proliferation machinery (https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.09.22.676989). This explains why in our study the intact proviruses decreased, but the total proviruses did not change, between days 0 and 84, in the intensification group. Interestingly, in the control group, we observed a significant increase in total DNA at day 84 compared to day 0, with no difference for the intact DNA, which is also in line with the clonal expansion of defective proviruses.

Importantly, we observed a significant decrease in intact proviral DNA between day 0 and day 84 in the intensification group (Figure 2D). This result directly addresses the study’s primary objective: assessing the impact of intensification on the replication-competent reservoir. In comparison, as the reviewer rightly points out, total HIV DNA includes over 90% defective genomes, which limits its interpretability as a biomarker of biologically relevant reservoir changes. In addition, other reservoir markers, such as cell-associated unspliced RNA and RNA/DNA ratios, also showed consistent trends supporting a biologically relevant effect of intensification. Even in the absence of sustained changes in total HIV DNA, the coherence across the different independent measures of the reservoir (intact DNA, unspliced RNA), suggests an effect indicative of ongoing replication pre-intensification.

Regarding tissue reservoirs, the lack of substantial change in total HIV DNA between days 0 and 84 is also in line with the predominance of defective sequences in these compartments. Moreover, the limited increase in rectal tissue dolutegravir levels during intensification (from 16.7% to 20% of plasma concentrations) may have limited the efficacy of the intervention in this site.

As for the IPDA on rectal biopsies, we attempted the assay using two independent DNA extraction methods (Promega Reliaprep and Qiagen Puregene), but both yielded high DNA shearing index values, and intact proviral detection was successful in only 3 of 40 samples. Given the poor DNA integrity, these results were not interpretable.

That said, we fully acknowledge the limitations of our study, especially the small sample size, and we agree with the reviewer that caution is needed when interpreting these findings. In the revised manuscript, we adopted a more measured tone in the discussion (lines 340-346), stating that these observations are exploratory and hypothesis-generating, and require confirmation in larger, more powered studies. Nonetheless, we believe that the convergence of multiple reservoir markers pointing in the same direction constitutes a meaningful biological effect that deserves further investigation.

(4) While a few statistically significant changes occurred in immune activation markers, it is not clear that these are biologically significant. Lines 175-186 and Figure 3: The change in CD4 cells + for TIGIT looks as though it declined by only 1-2%, and at day 84, the confidence interval appears to widen significantly at this timepoint, spanning an interquartile range of 4%. The only other immune activation/exhaustion marker change that reached statistical significance appears to be CD8 cells + for CD38 and HLA-DR, however, the decline appears to be a fraction of a percent, with the control group trending in the same direction. Despite marginal statistical significance, it is not clear there is any biological significance to these findings; Figure S6 supports the contention that there is no significant change in these parameters over time or between groups. With most markers showing no change and these two showing very small changes (and the latter moving in the same direction as the control group), these results do not justify the statement that intensifying DTG decreases immune activation and exhaustion (lines 38-40 in the abstract and elsewhere).

We agree with the reviewer that the observed changes in immune activation and exhaustion markers were modest. We revised the abstract and the manuscript text (including a section header) to reflect this more accurately (lines 39, 175, 185, 253). We noted that these differences, while statistically significant (e.g., in TIGIT+ CD4+ T cells and CD38+HLA-DR+ CD8+ T cells), were limited in magnitude. We explicitly acknowledged these limitations and interpreted the findings with appropriate caution.

(5) There are several limitations of the study design that deserve consideration beyond those discussed at line 327. The study was open-label and not placebo-controlled, which may have led to some medication adherence changes that confound results (authors describe one observation that may be evidence of this; lines 146-148). Randomized/blinded / cross-over design would be more robust and help determine signal from noise, given relatively small changes observed in the intervention arm.There does not seem to be a measurement of key outcome variables after treatment intensification ceased - evidence of an effect on replication through ART intensification would be enhanced by observing changes once intensification was stopped. Why was intensification maintained for 84 days? More information about the study duration would be helpful. Table 1 indicates that participants were 95% male. Sex is known to be a biological variable, particularly with regard to HIV reservoir size and chronic immune activation in PWH. Worldwide, 50% of PWH are women. Research into improving management/understanding of disease should reflect this, and equal participation should be sought in trials. Table 1 shows differing baseline reservoir sizes between the control and intervention groups. This may have important implications, particularly for outcomes where reservoir size is used as the denominator.

We expanded the limitations section to address several key aspects raised by the reviewer: the absence of blinding and placebo control, the predominantly male study population, and the lack of postintervention follow-up. While we acknowledge that open-label designs can introduce behavioural biases, including potential changes in adherence, we now explicitly state that placebo-controlled, blinded trials would provide a more robust assessment and are warranted in future research (lines 340346). 

The 84-day duration of intensification was chosen based on previous studies and provided sufficient time for observing potential changes in viral transcription and reservoir dynamics. However, we agree that including post-intervention follow-up would have strengthened the conclusions, and we highlighted this limitation and future direction in the revised manuscript (lines 340-346). 

The sex imbalance is now clearly acknowledged as a limitation in the revised manuscript, and we fully support ongoing efforts to promote equitable recruitment in HIV research. We would like to add that, in our study, rectal biopsies were coupled with anal cancer screening through HPV testing. This screening is specifically recommended for younger men who have sex with men (MSM), as outlined in the current EACS guidelines (see: https://eacs.sanfordguide.com/eacs part2/cancer/cancerscreening-methods). As a result, MSM participants had both a clinical incentive and medical interest to undergo this procedure, which likely contributed to the higher proportion of male participants in the study.

Lastly, although baseline total HIV DNA was higher in the intensified group, our statistical approach is based on a within-subject (repeated-measures) design, in which the longitudinal change of a parameter within the same participant during the study was the main outcome. In other words, we are not comparing absolute values of any marker between the groups, we are looking at changes of parameters from baseline within participants, and these are not expected to be affected by baseline imbalances.

(6) Figure 1: the increase in DTG levels is interesting - it is not uniform across participants. Several participants had lower levels of DTG at the end of the intervention. Though unlikely to be statistically significant, it would be interesting to evaluate if there is a correlation between change in DTG concentrations and virologic / reservoir / inflammatory parameters. A positive relationship between increasing DTG concentration and decreased cell-associated RNA, for example, would help support the hypothesis that ongoing replication is occurring.

We agree with the reviewer that assessing correlations between DTG concentrations and virological, immunological, or inflammatory markers would be highly informative. In fact, we initially explored this question in a preliminary way by examining whether individuals who showed a marked increase in DTG levels after intensification also demonstrated stronger changes in the viral reservoir. While this exploratory analysis did not reveal any clear associations, we would like to emphasize that correlating biological effects with DTG concentrations measured at a single timepoint may have limited interpretability. A more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between drug exposure and reservoir dynamics would ideally require multiple pharmacokinetic measurements over time, including pre-intensification baselines. This is particularly important given that DTG concentrations vary across individuals and over time, depending on adherence, metabolism, and other individual factors.

(7) Figure 2: IPDA in tissue- was this done? scRNA in blood (single copy assay) - would this be expected to correlate with usCaRNA? The most unambiguous result is the decrease in cell-associated RNA - accompanying results using single-copy assay in plasma would be helpful to bolster this result.

As mentioned in our response to point 3, we attempted IPDA on tissue samples, but technical limitations prevented reliable detection of intact proviruses. Regarding residual viremia, we did perform ultra-sensitive plasma HIV RNA quantification but due to a technical issue (an inadvertent PBMC contamination during plasma separation) that affected the reliability of the results we felt uncomfortable including these data in the manuscript.

The use of the US RNA / Total DNA ratio is not helpful/difficult to interpret since the control and intervention arms were unmatched for total DNA reservoir size at study entry.

We respectfully disagree with this comment. The US RNA/total DNA ratio is commonly used to assess the relative transcriptional activity of the viral reservoir, rather than its absolute size. While we acknowledge that the total HIV-1 DNA levels differed at baseline between the two groups, the US RNA/total DNA ratio specifically reflects the relationship between transcriptional activity and reservoir size within each individual, and is therefore not directly confounded by baseline differences in total DNA alone.

Moreover, our analyses focus on within-subject longitudinal changes from baseline, not on direct between-group comparisons of absolute marker values. As such, the observed changes in the US RNA/total DNA ratio over time are interpreted relative to each participant's baseline, mitigating concerns related to baseline imbalances between groups.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

An intensification study with a double dose of 2nd generation integrase inhibitor with a background of nucleoside analog inhibitors of the HIV retrotranscriptase in 2, and inflammation is associated with the development of co-morbidities in 20 individuals randomized with controls, with an impact on the levels of viral reservoirs and inflammation markers. Viral reservoirs in HIV are the main impediment to an HIV cure, and inflammation is associated with co-morbidities.

Strengths:

The intervention that leads to a decrease of viral reservoirs and inflammation is quite straightforward forward as a doubling of the INSTI is used in some individuals with INSTI resistance, with good tolerability.

This is a very well documented study, both in blood and tissues, which is a great achievement due to the difficulty of body sampling in well-controlled individuals on antiretroviral therapy. The laboratory assays are performed by specialists in the field with state-of-the art quantification assays. Both the introduction and the discussion are remarkably well presented and documented.

The findings also have a potential impact on the management of chronic HIV infection.

Weaknesses:

I do not think that the size of the study can be considered a weakness, nor the fact that it is open-label either.

We thank Reviewer #2 for their constructive and supportive comments. We appreciate their positive assessment of the study design, the translational relevance of the intervention, and the technical quality of the assays. We also take note of their perspective regarding sample size and study design, which supports our positioning of this trial as an exploratory, hypothesis-generating phase 2 study.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The introduction does a very good job of discussing the issue around whether there is ongoing replication in people with HIV on antiretroviral therapy. Sporadic, non-sustained replication likely occurs in many PWH on ART related to adherence, drug-drug interactions and possibly penetration of antivirals into sanctuary areas of replication and as the authors point out proving it does not occur is likely not possible and proving it does occur is likely very dependent on the population studied and the design of the intervention. Whether the consequences of this replication in the absence of evolution toward resistance have clinical significance challenging question to address.

It is important to note that INSTI-based therapy may have a different impact on HIV replication events that results in differences in virus release for specific cell type (those responsible for "second phase" decay) by blocking integration in cells that have completed reverse transcription prior to ART initiation but have yet to be fully activated. In a PI or NNRTI-based regimen, those cells will release virus, whereas with an INSTI-based regimen, they will not.

Given the very small sample size, there is a substantial risk of imbalance between the groups in important baseline measures. Unfortunately, with the small sample size, a non-significant P value is not helpful when comparing baseline measures between groups. One suggestion would be to provide the full range as opposed to the inter-quartile range (essentially only 5 or 6 values). The authors could also report the proportion of participants with baseline HIV RNA target not detected in the two groups.

We thank Reviewer #3 for their thoughtful and balanced review. We are grateful for the recognition of the strength of the Introduction, the complexity of evaluating residual replication, and the technical execution of the assays. We also appreciate the insightful suggestions for improving the clarity and transparency of our results and discussion.

We revised the manuscript to address several of the reviewer’s key concerns. We agree that the small sample size increases the risk of baseline imbalances. We acknowledged these limitations in the manuscript (lines 327-330). For transparency, we now provide both the full range and the IQR for all parameters in Table 1. However, we would like to stress that our statistical approach is based on a within-subject (repeated-measures) design, in which the longitudinal change of a parameter within the same participant during the study was the main outcome. In other words, we are not comparing absolute values of any marker between the groups, we are looking at changes of parameters from baseline within participants, and these are not expected to be affected by baseline imbalances.

A suggestion that there is a critical imbalance between groups is that the control group has significantly lower total HIV DNA in PBMC, despite the small sample size. The control group also has numerically longer time of continuous suppression, lower unspliced RNA, and lower intact proviral DNA. These differences may have biased the ability to see changes in DNA and US RNA in the control group.

We acknowledge the significant baseline difference in total HIV DNA between groups, which we have clearly reported. However, the other variables mentioned, such as duration of continuous viral suppression, unspliced RNA levels, and intact proviral DNA, did not differ significantly between groups at baseline, despite differences in the median values (that are always present). These numerical differences do not necessarily indicate a critical imbalance.

Notably, there was no significant difference in the change in US RNA/DNA between groups (Figure 2C).

The nonsignificant difference in the change in US RNA/total DNA between groups is not unexpected, given the significant between-group differences for both US RNA and total DNA changes. Since the ratio combines both markers, it is likely to show attenuated between-group differences compared to the individual components. However, while the difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.09), we still observed a trend towards a greater reduction in the US RNA/total DNA ratio in the intervention group.

The fact that the median relative change appears very similar in Figure 2C, yet there is a substantial difference in P values, is also a comment on the limits of the current sample size. 

Although we surely agree that in general, the limited sample size impacts statistical power, we would like to point out that in Figure 2C, while the medians may appear similar, the ranges do differ between groups. At days 56 and 84, the median fold changes from baseline are indeed close but the full interquartile range in the DTG group stays below 1, while in the control group, the interquartile range is wider and covers approximately equal distance above and below 1. This explains the difference in p values between the groups.

The text should report the median change in US RNA and US RNA/DNA when describing Figures 2A-2C.

These data are already reported in the Results section (lines 164–166): "By day 84, US RNA and US RNA/total DNA ratio had decreased from day 0 by medians (IQRs) of 5.1 (3.3–6.4) and 4.6 (3.1–5.3) fold, respectively (p = 0.016 for both markers)."

This statistical comparison of changes in IPDA results between groups should be reported. The presentation of the absolute values of all the comparisons in the supplemental figures is a strength of the manuscript.

In the assessment of ART intensification on immune activation and exhaustion, the fact that none of the comparisons between randomized groups were significant should be noted and discussed.

We would like to point out that a statistically significant difference between the randomized groups was observed for the frequency of CD4⁺ T cells expressing TIGIT, as shown in Figure 3A and reported in the Results section (p = 0.048).

The changes in CD4:CD8 ratio and sCD14 levels appear counterintuitive to the hypothesis and are commented on in the discussion.

Overall, the discussion highlights the significant changes in the intensified group, which are suggestive. There is limited discussion of the comparisons between groups where the results are less convincing.

We observed statistically significant differences between the randomized groups for total DNA (p<0.001) and US RNA (p=0.01), as well as for the frequency of CD4⁺ T cells expressing TIGIT (p=0.048). We would like to stress that US RNA is a key marker of residual replication as it is very sensitive to de novo infection events. As discussed in the manuscript (lines 291-294), a newly infected CD4+ T lymphocyte can contain hundreds to thousands of US HIV RNA copies at the peak of infection. Therefore, a change in the US RNA level upon ART intensification is a very sensitive indicator of new infections. The fact that for US RNA we observed both a significant reduction in the intensified group and a significant difference between the groups is a strong indicator that some new infections had been occurring prior to intensification.

The limitations of the study should be more clearly discussed. The small sample size raises the possibility of imbalance at baseline. The supplemental figures (S3-S5) are helpful in showing the differences between groups at baseline, and the variability of measurements is more apparent. The lack of blinding is also a weakness, though the PK assessments do help (note 3TC levels rise substantially in both groups for most of the time on study (Figure S2).

The many assays and comparisons are listed as a strength. The many comparisons raise the possibility of finding significance by chance. In addition, if there is an imbalance at baseline outcomes, measuring related parameters will move in the same direction.

We agree that the multiple comparisons raise the possibility of chance findings but would like to stress that in an exploratory study like this it is very important to avoid a type II error. In addition, the consistent directionality of the most relevant outcomes (US RNA and intact DNA) lends biological plausibility to the observed effects.

The limited impact on activation and inflammation should be addressed in the discussion, as they are highlighted as a potentially important consequence of intermittent, not sustained replication in the introduction.

The study is provocative and well executed, with the limitations listed above. Pharmacokinetic analyses help mitigate the lack of blinding. The major impact of this work is if it leads to a much larger randomized, controlled, blinded study of a longer duration, as the authors point out.

Finally, we fully endorse the reviewer’s suggestion that the primary contribution of this study lies in its value as a proof-of-concept and foundation for future randomized, blinded trials of greater scale and duration. We highlighted this more clearly in the revised Discussion (lines 340-346).

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) Lines 84-87: How would chronic immune activation/inflammation be expected to differ if viral antigen is being released from stable reservoirs rather than low-level replication?

This is a very insightful question. Although release of viral antigens from stable reservoirs could certainly also trigger immune activation/inflammation, the reservoir cells in PWH on long-term ART are constantly being negatively selected by the immune system (PMID: 38337034; PMID: 36596305) so that after a number of years on therapy, most proviruses are either transcriptionally silent or express only a low amount of viral RNA/antigen. Recent evidence suggests that these selected cells possess specific biological properties that include mechanisms that limit proviral gene expression (PMID: 36599977; PMID: 36599978). In comparison, low-level replication would result in de novo infection of unselected, activated CD4+ cells that are expected to produce much more viral antigen than preselected reservoir cells.

(2) Lines 249-253: There are multiple ways to explain this observation - alternatively, the total proviral DNA declined due to transient CD4 depletion.

As discussed above, CD4⁺ T-cell counts did not significantly decrease in any of the treatment groups, as shown in Figure 5. The apparent decline observed concerns the CD4/CD8 ratio, which transiently dropped, but not the absolute number of CD4⁺ T cells. Moreover, although the dynamics of total HIV DNA is indeed similar to that of CD4/CD8 ratio (both declined transiently and then returned to baseline by day 84), the dynamics of unspliced RNA and unspliced RNA/total DNA ratio is clearly different, as these markers demonstrated a sustained decrease that was maintained throughout the trial period. Also, we observed a significant decrease in intact HIV DNA at day 84 compared to day 0. These effects cannot be easily explained by a transient decline in CD4+ cells.

(3) Lines 301-305: This is a confusing explanation for not seeing an effect in tissue. Overall, there was no change in total proviral DNA in blood between days 0 and 84 either - yet the explanation for this observation is different (249-253). Was IPDA not performed on the tissue? Wouldn't this be the preferred test for reservoir depletion?

We thank the reviewer for bringing this point to our attention. We modified the Discussion to prevent the confusion (lines 303-305). As for the IPDA on tissue, we attempted this assay on the tissue samples using two independent DNA extraction methods (Promega Reliaprep and Qiagen Puregene), but both yielded high DNA shearing index values, and intact proviral detection was successful in only 3 of 40 samples. Given the poor DNA integrity, these results were not interpretable.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The work set out to better understand the phenomenon of antibiotic persistence in mycobacteria. Three new observations are made using the pathogenic Mycobacterium abscessus as an experimental system: phenotypic tolerance involves suppression of ROS, protein synthesis inhibitors can be lethal for this bacterium, and levofloxacin lethality is unaffected by deletion of catalase, suggesting that this quinolone does not kill via ROS.

Strengths:

The ROS experiments are supported in three ways: measurement of ROS by a fluorescent probe, deletion of catalase increases lethality of selected antibiotics, and a hypoxia model suppresses antibiotic lethality. A variety of antibiotics are examined, and transposon mutagenesis identifies several genes involved in phenotypic tolerance, including one that encodes catalase. The methods are adequate for making these statements.

Weaknesses:

The work can be improved by a more comprehensive treatment of prior work, especially comparison of E. coli work with mycobacterial studies.<br /> Moreover, the work still has some technical issues to fix regarding description of the methods, supplementary material, and reference formating.

Overall impact: Showing that ROS accumulation is suppressed during phenotypic tolerance, while expected, adds to the examples of the protective effects of low ROS levels. Moreover, the work, along with a few others, extends the idea of antibiotic involvement with ROS to mycobacteria. These are field-solidifying observations.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have moved this paper along nicely. I have a few general thoughts.

(1) It would be helpful to have more references to specific figures and panels listed in the text to make reading easier.

(2) I would suggest adding a statement about the importance of the work. From my perspective, the work shows the general nature of many statements derived from work with E. coli. This is important. The abstract says this overall, but a final sentence in the abstract would make it clear to all readers.

(3) The paper describes properties that may be peculiar to mycobacteria. If the authors agree, I would suggest some stress on the differences from E. coli. Also, I would place more stress on novel findings. This might be done in a section called Concluding Remarks. The paper by Shee 2022 AAC could be helpful in phrasing general properties.

(4) Several aspects still need work to be of publication quality. Examples are the materials table and the presentation of supplementary material. Reference formatting also needs attention.

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Weaknesses:

Only 1 gene (katG) gave a strong and 1 (Mab_1456c) exhibited a minor defect. Two of the clones did not show any persistence phenotype (blaR and recR) and one (pafA) showed a minor phenotype,

We have now carried out more detailed validation studies on the Tn-Seq, with analysis of timedependent killing over 14 d. This more comprehensive analysis shows that 4 of 5 genes analyzed do indeed have antibiotic tolerance defects under the conditions that Tn-Seq predicted a survival defect (Revised Figure 3). In addition, we found that even before actual cell death, several mutants had delayed resumption of growth after antibiotic removal (Figure 3 Supplemental).

Fig 3 - Why is there such a huge difference in the extent of killing of the control strain in media, when exposed to TIG/LZD, when compared to Fig. 1C and Fig. 4. In Fig. 1C, M. abs grown in media decreases by >1 log by Day 3 and >4 log by Day 6, whereas in Fig. 3, the bacterial load decreases by <1 log by Day 3 and <2 log by Day 6. This needs to be clarified, if the experimental conditions were different, because if comparing to Fig. 1C data then the katG mutant strain phenotype is not very different.

We agree with the reviewer that there is variability in the timing and extent of cell death from experiment to experiment. As noted by the reviewer, in Figure 1C the largest decrement in survival is between day 1 - day 3 (also seen in Figure 6A). As they noted in Figure 4 the largest decrement is between day 3 – day 6 (also seen in Figure 3A, Figure 5F). In each experiment with katG mutants we carefully compare the mutant vs. the control strain within that experiment, which is more accurate than comparing the behavior of mutant in one experiment to a control in another experiment.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Weaknesses:

.First, word-choice decisions could better conform to the published literature. Alternatively, novel definitions could be included. In particular, the data support the concept of phenotypic tolerance, not persistence. 

We appreciate the reviewers comments, text modified.

Second, two of the novel observations could be explored more extensively to provide mechanistic explanations for the phenomena. 

We have added several additional experiments, these are detailed below in response to specific comments.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Weaknesses:

The findings could not be validated in clinical strains.

We understand the reviewer’s concern that the katG phenotype was only observed in one of the two clinical strains we studied. We feel that our findings are relevant beyond the ATCC 19977 strain for two reasons

(1) We have performed additional analyses of the two clinical isolates and indeed find significant accumulation of ROS following antibiotic exposure in both of these strains (revised Figure 6A).

(2) We do in fact see a role for katG in starvation-induced antibiotic tolerance in Mabs clinical strain-2. It is not surprising that different strains from a particular species may have some different responses to stresses – for example, there is wide strain-specific variability in susceptibility to different phages within a species based on which particular phage defense modules a given strain carries (for example PMID: 37160116). We speculate that different Mabs strains may express varying levels of other antioxidant factors and note that the genes encoding several such factors were identified by our Tn-Seq screen including the peroxidases ahpC, ahpD, and ahpE. Our analysis of the genetic interactions between katG and these other factors is ongoing. 

Comments/Suggestions

(1) In Fig1E, the authors show no difference in killing Mtb with or without adaptation in PBS. These data are contrary to the data presented in Figure 1B. These also do not align with the data of M. smegmatis and M. abscesses. Please discuss these observations in light of the Duncan model of persistence (Mol Microbiol. 2002 Feb;43(3):717-31.).’

The above referenced Duncan laboratory study found tolerance after prolonged starvation but did not actually examine tolerance at early time points. While some of the transcriptional and metabolic changes seen by Duncan and others are slow, other groups have described starvation responses in Mtb that are quite rapid. For example, the stringent response mediator ppGpp accumulates within a few hours after onset of starvation in Mtb (PMID: 30906866). We suspect that a rapid signaling response such as this underlies the phenotype we observe. Regarding the difference between Mtb and other mycobacterial species we also find it surprising that Mtb had a much more rapid starvation response. This is a clear species-specific difference that may reflect an adaptation of Mtb to the nutrient-limited physiologic niche within host macrophages.

(2) Line 151, the authors state that they have used an M. abscesses Tn mutant library of ~ 55,000 mutant strains. The manuscript will benefit from the description of the coverage of total TA sites covered by the mutants.

Text modified to add this detail. There are 91,559 TA sites in the abscessus genome. Thus, our Tn density is ~60%.

(3) Line 155: Please explain how long the cells were kept in an Antibiotic medium.

This technical detail was noted above on line 153 in the original text: “…and then exposed them to TIG/LZD for 6 days”. To clarify the overall conditions, we have also revised the text of the manuscript and added the detail of how long cells were passaged after removal of antibiotics.

(4) Line 201: data not shown. Delayed resumption of growth after removal of antibiotic would be helpful in indicating drug resilience. This data could enhance the manuscript.

Data now provided in Figure 3 Supplemental

(5) Figures 4C and 4F represent the kill curve. It will be good to show the date with CFU against the drug concentration in place of OD600. CFU rather than OD600 best reflects growth inhibition.

Figures 4C and 4F are measuring the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) to stop the overall growth of the bacterial population. While we agree that CFU could be analyzed, this would be measuring a different outcome – cell death and the minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC). In these experiments we sought to specifically examine the MIC so as to separate growth inhibition from cell death. For this we used the standard method employed by clinical microbiology laboratories for MIC, which is optical density of the culture (PMID: 10325306).

(6) Figure 5C. The authors shall show the effect of TIG/LZD on M. abscesses ROS production without the PBS adaptation. It is important to conclude that TIG/LZD induces ROS in cells. Authors should utilize ROS scavengers such as Thiourea, DFO, etc., to conclude ROS's contribution to bacterial killing following inhibition of transcription and translation.

New data added (revised Figure 5 and Figure 5 Supplemental)  

(7) Line 303. Remove "note".

Text revised. We thank the reviewer for identifying this typographical error.  

(8) The introduction and Discussion are very similar, and several lines are repeated.

Text revised with overlapping content removed.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

It appears that the same datasets for PBS adapted cultures were plotted in A-C and D-F. Either this should be specifically mentioned in the legend or it might be better to integrate the non-adapted plots into A-C which would also allow easier comparison.

Appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion; text modified with added clarification to figure legend.

This manuscript is focused on M. abs and the antibiotics TIG/LZD, so the Mtb data or data using the antibiotics INH/RIF/EMB and serves more as a distraction and can be removed

We appreciate the reviewer’s perspective. However, we wish to include these data to show the similarities (and differences) in starvation-induced tolerance between the three organisms.

Fig 3 -As mentioned for Fig. 1, it appears that the same dataset was used for the control in all the figures A-E. This should be explicitly stated in the Figure legend.

Appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion; text modified with added clarification to figure legend.

The divergent results from the clinical strains are extremely interesting. It would be helpful to determine the oxidative stress levels (similar to the cellROX data shown in 5E), to tease out if the difference in katG role is because of lack of ROS induction in these strains or due to expression of alternate anti-oxidative stress defense mechanisms.

We have performed additional cellROX analysis as suggested by the reviewer and found that the ROS induction is indeed present across all three Mabs strains, but that katG is only required in one of the two strains (Strain #2). These data are now included in the revised Figure 6.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

GENERAL COMMENTS

This is a nice piece of work that uses the pathogen Mabs as a test subject.

The work has findings that likely apply generally to antibiotics and mycobacteria: 1) phenotypic tolerance is associated with suppression of ROS, 2) lethal protein synthesis inhibitors act via accumulation of ROS, and 3) levofloxacin behaves in an unexpected way. Each is a new observation. However, I believe that each topic requires more work to be firmly established to be suitable for eLife.

Phenotypic tolerance: Association with suppression of ROS is important but expected. I would solidify the conclusion by performing several additional experiments. For example, confirm the lethal effect of ROS by reducing it with an iron chelator and a radical scavenger. There is a large literature on effects of iron uptake, levels, etc. on antibiotic lethality that could be applied to this question. In 2013 Imlay argued against the validity of fluorescent probes. Perhaps getting the same results with another probe would strengthen the conclusion.

We have carried out additional experiments with both an iron chelator and small molecule ROS scavengers to further test this idea but note that these experiments have several inherent limitations: 1) These compounds have highly pleiotropic effects. For example while N-acetyl cysteine (NAC) is an antioxidant it also increases mycobacterial respiration and was shown to paradoxically decrease antibiotic tolerance in M. tuberculosis (PMID: 28396391). 2) It has been shown by the Imlay group that small-molecule antioxidants are often ineffective in quenching ROS in bacteria (PMID: 388893820), making negative results difficult to interpret. Nonetheless, we present new experimental data showing that iron chelation does indeed improve the survival of antibiotic-treated Mabs (revised Figure 5).  However,  small molecule antioxidants such as thiourea do not restore antibiotic tolerance and actually increased bacterial cell death, suggesting that they may be affecting respiration in Mabs in a manner similar to that seen for NAC in Mtb. We also note that our genetic analysis, which identified numerous other genes encoding proteins with antioxidant function (Figure 2) is a strong additional argument in support of the importance of ROS in antibiotic-mediated lethality. 

Regarding the concern raised by Imlay about the validity of oxidation-sensitive dyes - this relates to concern bacterial autofluorescence induced by antibiotics that can confound analyses in some species. We have ruled this out in our analyses by using bacteria unstained by cellROX as controls to confirm that there is negligible autofluorescence in Mabs (<0.1%, Figure 5E, Figure 6A).

Protein synthesis inhibitors: At present, this is simply an observation. More work is needed to suggest a mechanism. For example, with E. coli the aminoglycosides are protein synthesis inhibitors that also cause membrane damage. Membrane damage is known to stimulate ROS-mediated killing. Your observation needs to be extended because chloramphenicol, another protein synthesis inhibitor, blocks ROS production. The lethality may be a property of mycobacteria: does it occur with E. coli (note that rifampicin is bacteriostatic with E. coli but lethal to Mtb)?

We agree with the reviewer that the mechanism underlying ROS accumulation following transcription or translational inhibition in Mabs is of significant interest. It is likely to be a mechanism different from E. coli, because in E. coli tetracyclines and rifamycins are both bacteriostatic, whereas in Mabs they are both bactericidal. Determining the mechanism by which translation inhibitors cause ROS accumulation in Mabs is an ongoing effort in our laboratory using proteomics and metabolomics, but is outside the scope of this manuscript.

Levofloxacin: This is also at the observational stage but is unexpected. In other studies, ROS is involved in quinolone-mediated killing of bacteria. Why is this not the case with Mabs? The observation should be solidified by showing the contrast with moxifloxacin, since this compound has been studied with mycobacteria (Shee 2022 AAC). With E. coli, quinolone structure can affect the relative contribution of ROS to killing (Malik 2007 AAC), as is also seen with Mtb (Malik 2006 AAC). What is happening in the present work with levofloxacin, an important anti-tuberculosis drug? Is there a structure explanation (compare with ofloxacin)?

While these are interesting questions, a detailed exploration of the structure-function relationships between different fluoroquinolone antibiotics and their varying activities on Mtb and Mabs is outside the scope of this manuscript.  

The writing is generally easy to follow. However, the concept of persistence should be changed to phenotypic tolerance with text changes throughout. I base this suggestion on the definitions of tolerance and persistence as stated in the consensus review (Balaban 2019 Nat Micro Rev). Experimentally, tolerance is seen as a gradual decline in survival following antibiotic addition; the decline is slower than seen with wild-type cells. The data presented in this paper fit that definition. In contrast, persistence refers to a rapid drop in survival followed by a distinct plateau (Balaban 2019 Nat Micro Rev; for example, see Wu Lewis AAC 2012 ). Moreover, to claim persistence, it would be necessary to demonstrate subpopulation status, which is not done. The Balaban review is an attempt to bring order to the field with respect to persistence and tolerance, since the two are commonly used without regard for a consistent definition.

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion; text modified in multiple places to clarify.

Another issue requiring clarification is the relationship between resistance and tolerance. Killing by antibiotics is a two-step process, as most clearly seen with quinolones. First a reversible bacteriostatic event occurs. Resistance blocks that bacteriostatic damage. Then a lethal metabolic response to that damage occurs. Tolerance selectively blocks the second, killing event, a distinct process that often involves the accumulation of ROS. Direct antibiotic-mediated damage is an additional mode of killing that also stems from the reversible, bacteriostatic damage created by antibiotics. The authors recognize the distinction but could make it clearer. Take a look at Zheng (JJ Collins) 2020, 2022.

Text modified to clarify this point

Many readers would also like to see a bit more background on Mabs. For example, does it grow rapidly? Are there features that make it a good model for studying mycobacteria or bacteria in general? The more general, the better.

Text modified, background added

Below I have listed specific comments that I hope are useful in bringing the work to publication and making it highly cited.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

Line 30 unexpectedly. I would delete this word because the result is expected from the ROS work of Shee et al 2022 with mycobacteria. Moreover, Zeng et al 2022 PNAS showed that ROS participates in antimicrobial tolerance, and persistence is a form of tolerance (Balalban et al, 2019, Nat Micro Rev).

Text modified as per review suggestion

Line 39 key goal: this is probably untrue in the general sense stated, since bacteriostatic antibiotics are sufficient to clear infection (Wald-Dickler 2019 Clin Infect Dis). However, it is likely to be the goal for Mtb infections.

We agree with the reviewer that bacteriostatic antibiotics are effective in treating most types of infections and do not claim otherwise in the manuscript. However, from a clinical standpoint, eradication of the pathogen causing the infection is indeed the goal of antibiotic therapy in virtually all circumstances (with the exception of specific scenarios such as cystic fibrosis where it is recognized that the infecting organism cannot be fully eliminated). In most cases, the combination of bacteriostatic antibiotics and the host immune response is sufficient to achieve eradication. We have modified the manuscript text to reflect this nuance noted by the reviewer.

Line 62 several: you list three, but hipAB works via ppGpp, so the sentence needs fixing

Text modified  

Line 70 uncertain: this uncertainty is unreferenced. Since everything is uncertain, this vague phrase does not add to the story.

The reviewer makes an interesting philosophical argument. However, we would submit that some aspects of biology, for example the regulation of glycolysis, are understood in great detail. However, other mechanisms, such as the precise mechanisms of lethality for diverse antibiotics in different bacterial species, are far more uncertain and remain a subject of debate (for example PMID: 39910302). Text not modified.

Line 72 somewhat controversial: I would delete this, because the points in the Science papers by Lewis and Imlay have been clarified and in some cases refuted by prior and subsequent work.

Text modified

Line 72 presumed: this suggests that it is wrong and perhaps a different idea has replaced it. Another, and more likely view is that there is an additional mode of killing. I suggest rephrasing to be more in line with the literature.

Text modified for clarity. In this sentence “presume” refers to the historical concept that direct target inhibition was solely responsible for antibiotic lethality. As the reviewer notes, there is now significant literature that ROS (and perhaps other secondary effects) also contribute to bacterial killing.  

Line 73 However and the following might also: this phrasing, plus the presumed, misleads the reader from your intent. I suggest rephrasing.

See above re: line 72

Line 75 citations: these are inappropriate and should be changed to fit the statement. I suggest the initial paper by Collins (Kohanski 2007 Cell) a recent paper by Zhao (Zeng PNAS 2022), and a review Drlica Expert Rev Anti-infect Therapy 2021). The present citations are fine if you want to narrow the statement to mycobacteria, but the history is that the E. coli work came first and was then generalized to mycobacteria. A mycobacterial paper for ROS is Shee 2022 AAC.

We thank the reviewer for noticing that we inadvertently omitted several important E. coli-related references. These have been added.

Line 75 and 76: Conversely ... unresolved. Compelling arguments have been made that show major flaws in the two papers cited, and a large body of evidence has now accumulated showing the validity of the idea promoted by the Collins lab, beginning with Kohanski 2007. In addition to many papers by Collins, see Hong 2019 PNAS and Zeng 2022 PNAS). It is fine if you want to counter the arguments against the Lewis and Imlay papers (summarized in Drlica & Zhao 2021 Expert Rev Anti-infect Therapy), but making a blanket statement suggests that the authors are unfamiliar with the literature.

We agree with the reviewer that the weight of the evidence supports a role for antibiotic-induced ROS as an important mechanism for antibiotic lethality under many (though not all) conditions. We have revised the text to better reflect this nuance.

Line 78. Advantages over what?

Text modified

Line 80 exposure: to finish the logic you need to show that E. coli and S. aureus persisters fail to do this.

We thank the reviewer for their suggestion but studying these other organisms is outside the scope of this study. 

Line 82 whereas: this misdirects the reader. It would seem that a simple "and" is better

Text modified

Line 89 I think this paragraph is about the need to study Mabs, the subject of the present report. This paragraph could use a more appropriate topic sentence to guide the reader so that no guessing is involved. I suggest rephrasing this paragraph to make the case for studying more compelling.

Text modified

Line 96. I suggest citing several references after subinhibitory concentration of antibiotic.

The references are in the following sentence alongside the key observations.

Line 99. Genetic analysis: how does this phrase fit with the idea of persister cells arising stochastically?

There are two issues: 1) We would argue that persister formation is not completely stochastic, but rather a probability that can be modified both genetically and by environment (for example hipA PMID: 6348026). 2) Even if persister formation were totally stochastic, the survival of these cells may depend on specific genes – as we indeed find in our Tn-Seq analysis of Mabs.  

Line 106. In this paragraph you need to define persister. The consensus definition (Balaban 2019 Nat Micro Rev) is a subpopulation of tolerant cells. Tolerance is defined as the slowing or absence of killing while an antibiotic retains its ability to block growth. See Zeng 2022 PNAS for example with rapidly growing cells. Phenotypic tolerance is the absence of killing due to environmental perturbations, most notably nutrient starvation, dormancy, and growth to stationary phase. By extension, phenotypic persistence would be subpopulation status of a phenotypically tolerant cells. If you have a different definition, it is important to state it and emphasize that you disagree with the consensus statement.

Text modified  

Line 109 unexpectedly. I would delete this word, because the literature leads the reader to expect this result unless you make a clear case for Mabs being fundamentally different from other bacteria with respect to how antibiotics kill bacteria (this is unlikely, see Shee 2022 AAC). Indeed, lines 111-113 state extensions of E. coli work, although suppression of ROS in phenotypic tolerance and genetic persistence have not been demonstrated.

Text modified

Line 124 you might add, in parentheses and with references, that a property of persisters is crosspersistence to multiple antibiotic classes. This is also true for tolerance, both genetic and phenotypic. An addition will support your approach.

Text modified

Line 128 minimal

Text not modified. We appreciate the reviewer’s preference but both “minimal” and “minimum” are both widely accepted terms. Indeed, the Balaban et al 2019 consensus statement on definitions cited by the author above also uses “minimum” (PMID: 30980069), as do IDSA clinical guidelines (PMID: 39108079).

Line 130 is MIC somehow connected to killing or did you also measure killing? Note that blocking growth and killing cells are mechanistically distinct phenomena, although they are related. By being upstream from killing, blockage of growth will also interfere with killing.

Text modified

Line 133 PBS is undefined

Text modified

Line 134 increase in persisters ... you need to establish that these are not phenotypically tolerant cells. Do they constitute the entire population (tolerance)? Your data would be more indicative of persisters if you saw a distinct plateau with the PBS samples, as such data are often used to document persistence (retardation of killing is a property of tolerance, Balaban 2019). Fig. 1B is clearly phenotypic tolerance, as the entire population grows. Your data suggest that you are not measuring persistence as defined in the literature (Balaban 2019). Line 139 persister should be tolerance •

Text modified

Lines 142, 143, 144. 159, 163, 171, 181, 211, 226, 238, 246, 277, 279,289 persistent should be tolerant

Text modified

Line 146 fig 1E Mtb does not show the adaptation phenomenon and it is clearly tolerant, not persistent. This should be pointed out. As stated, you may be misleading the reader.

Text modified  

*Line 169. Please make it clear whether these genes are affecting antibiotic susceptibility (MIC will affect killing because blocking growth is upstream) or if you are dealing with tolerance (no change in MIC). These measurements are essential and should included as a table. By antibiotic response, do you mean that antibiotics change expression levels?

Regarding MICs, the data for MICs in control and katG mutant are presented in Figure 4C and 4F. Regarding ‘response’ we have clarified the text of this sentence.

Line 174 Interestingly should be as expected

Text not modified; tetracyclines do not induce ROS in E. coli and oxazolidinones have not been studied in this regard.

Line 183 you need to include citations. You can cite the ability of chloramphenicol to block ROS-mediated killing of E. coli. That allows you to use the word unexpected

Text modified

Line 199. All of the data in Fig. 3 shows tolerance, not persistence, requiring word changes in this paragraph.

Text modified

Line 226. The MIC experiment is important. You can add that this result solidifies the idea that blocking growth and killing cells are distinct phenomena. You can cite Shee 2022 AAC for a mycobacterial paper

Text modified

Line 241. The result with levofloxacin is unexpected, because the fluoroquinolones are widely reported to induce ROS, even with mycobacteria (see Shee 2022 AAC). You need to point this out and perhaps redo the experiment to make sure it is correct.

We appreciate the reviewer’s interest in this question. All experiments in this paper were repeated multiple times. This particular experiment was repeated 3 times and in all replicates the katG mutant was sensitized to translation inhibitors but not levofloxacin. Shee et al examined Mtb treated with moxifloxacin and found ROS generation, but did not assess whether a Mtb katG mutant had impaired survival. Thus, in addition to differences in: i) the species studied and ii) the particular fluoroquinolone used, the two sets of experiments were designed to address different questions (ROS accumulation vs protection by katG) . A cell might accumulate ROS without a katG mutant having impaired survival if genetic redundancy exists – a result we indeed see in our clinical Mabs strains under some conditions (new data included in revised Figure 6A).  

Line 269 Additional controls would bolster the conclusion: use of an antioxidant such as thiourea and an iron chelator (dipyridyl) both should reduce ROS effects.

New experiments performed, revised Figure 5.

Line 276 the word no is singular

Text modified

Line 284 this suggested ... in fact previous work suggested. This summary paragraph might go better as the first paragraph of the Discussion

Text modified to specify that this is in reference to the work in this manuscript

Lines 294-299 Most of this is redundant and should be deleted.

Text modified

Line 299 this species is vague

Text modified

Line 310 Do you want to discuss spoT?

Text not modified

Line 313 paragraph is largely redundant

Text modified

Line 314 controversial. As above, I would delete this, especially since it is not referenced and is unlikely to be true. If you believe it, you have the obligation to show why the ROS-lethality idea is untrue. If you are referring to Lewis and Imlay, there were almost a dozen supporting papers before 2013 and many after. This statement does not make the present work more important, so deletion costs you nothing.

Text modified

Line 314 direct disruption of targets. This is clearly not a general principle, because the quinolones rapidly kill while inhibition of gyrase by temperature-sensitive mutations does not (Kreuzer 1979 J.Bact; Steck 1985). Indeed, formation of drug-gyrase-DNA complexes is reversible: death is not.

Text modified

Line 318 as pointed out above, you have not brought this story up to date. The two papers mainly focused on Kohanski 2007, ignoring other available evidence.’’

Text modified

Line 326 you need to cite Shee 2022 AAC

Text modified

Line 342 the idea of mutants being protective is not novel, as several have been reported with E. coli studies. Thus, there is a general principle involved.

We agree that this suggests a potential general principle

Line 344. It depends on the inhibitor. For example, aminoglycosides are translation inhibitors and they also cause the accumulation of ROS.

We agree that ROS generation depends on the inhibitor, and indeed upon other variables including drug concentration, growth conditions, and bacterial species as well.  

Line 347. You need to point out the considerable data showing that the absence of catalase increases killing

Text modified

Line 363 look at Shee 2022 AAC and Jacobs 2021 AAC

Text modified, reference added.

Line 585 I suggest having a colleague provide critical comments on the manuscript and acknowledge that person.

Text not modified

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Pavel et al. analyzed a cohort of atrial fibrillation (AF) patients from the University of Illinois at Chicago, identifying TTN truncating variants (TTNtvs) and TTN missense variants (TTNmvs). They reported a rare TTN missense variant (T32756I) associated with adverse clinical outcomes in AF patients. To investigate its functional significance, the authors modeled the TTN-T32756I variant using human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived atrial cardiomyocytes (iPSC-aCMs). They demonstrated that mutant cells exhibit aberrant contractility, increased activity of the cardiac potassium channel KCNQ1 (Kv7.1), and dysregulated calcium homeostasis. Interestingly, these effects occurred without compromising sarcomeric integrity. The study further identified increased binding of the titin-binding protein Four-and-a-Half Lim domains 2 (FHL2) with KCNQ1 and its modulatory subunit KCNE1 in the TTN-T32756I iPSC-aCMs.

Comments on revised version:

This revised manuscript demonstrates significant improvement, notably through the inclusion of new data (Supplementary Figures 5 and 7) and expanded explanations in the main text. These additions strengthen the association between the TTN-T32756I missense variant and electrophysiological phenotypes relevant to atrial fibrillation (AF). The authors are commended for their thorough and thoughtful responses to reviewer feedback, their transparency in acknowledging limitations, and their efforts to provide mechanistic insight into the observed phenotype.

Nonetheless, several important limitations remain and should be more explicitly addressed when framing the conclusions and selecting the final manuscript title:

(1) While the data support a functional impact of the TTN-T32756I variant, the evidence does not yet definitively establish causality in the context of AF. Statements asserting a causal relationship should be softened and clearly framed as suggestive, pending further in vivo or patient-specific validation.

(2) The study models the TTN-T32756I variant in a single healthy iPSC line using CRISPR/Cas9 editing. Although this provides a genetically controlled system, the absence of validation in patient-derived iPSCs or replication across multiple isogenic lines limits the generalizability and reproducibility of the findings.

(3) The co-localization and co-immunoprecipitation (co-IP) data provide strong support for an interaction between FHL2 and the KCNQ1/KCNE1 complex. However, in the current form, the proposed mechanism remains plausible but not fully validated.

strategic issues wrt China. Nexperia is mentioned but not explained (e.g. as to why Dutch gov stepped in), something I find lacking overall. Search for comms by Dutch gov on this?

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

This is a reply/revision plan, not definitive. Planned and already implemented revisions are underlined.

First of all, we wish to express our gratitude to the reviewers: they helped to improve the paper.

Reviewer #1:* **

Reviewer #1 wrote: Major Comments: 1.Differential gene/pathway analysis across epithelial clusters: What are the differential genes or pathways among the epithelial clusters? Without CCA/Harmony integration, do the tumor subgroups show distinct differences? In addition, I suggest applying NMF or hdWGCNA to identify shared modules and test whether ATC and PTC harbor overlapping regulatory modules.

*

Reply plan: Both reviewers suggested some regulatory network analysis. We proposed to run SCENIC+ (Nature Methods, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-023-01938-4) on our data__.__

* Reviewer #1 wrote: 2.Validation of TSHR/TPO-based subgrouping: While the TSHR/TPO grouping appears appropriate for stratification at the single-cell level, it is necessary to exclude sequencing depth as a confounding factor. Should validate the existence of these subpopulations using mIHC/IF on corresponding samples. *

__Reply plan: __We made claims about RNA expression, not protein expression. Thus, validation should be at the RNA level:

• We already replicated part of our analysis on the dataset published by Lu et al. (JCI 2023, https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI169653), see Figs. 3 and 4. This effort will be extended to all single cell analysis results from our study in the revised paper.
• We will also present plots demonstrating that the sequencing depth is similar in the different cancer cell subgroups-further excluding it as a confounding factor. Reviewer #1 wrote: *3.Impact of mutational differences on conclusions: According to Supplementary Table 1, almost all PTC cases carried BRAF mutations, whereas four ATC patients harbored no BRAF mutation. Could this difference influence the conclusions of the study? Although the authors briefly mention this in the Discussion, a more thorough clarification is warranted. *

Reply plan: The dataset of Lu et al. includes BRAF-mutated ATCs along with BRAF-mutated PTCs. Therefore, the replication mentioned earlier will also address those concerns. In fact, Fig. 4E-I already confirm in Lu et al. data the ordered loss of markers. Replication will be extended to other results of the study and be more emphasized in the paper.

* Reviewer #1 wrote: 4. The statement "Myeloid and T cells also grouped in specific clusters" seems descriptive. Is this clustering biologically meaningful? Please elaborate.

*

__Reply plan: __This is an important point, and accordingly, a cell mixing experiment was specifically designed to sort apart technical effects from biological effects. We therefore know with certainty that the myeloid and T cell patients-specific clusters are the result of biological variation (Fig. 1). We further demonstrate that part of this variation is associated with hypoxia (Supp. Fig 4). So yes, the clustering is biologically meaningful.

* Reviewer #1 wrote: Minor Comments: In Figure 2C, the "Epith TSHR-" population resembles myeloid cells. Could the authors clarify why this is the case? For the correlation analysis in Figure 2C, were highly variable genes or all genes used?

*

Reply plan: There is a simple explanation: The Epith TSHR- population the reviewer is referring to are cells from anaplastic thyroid cancers (ATC), which are tumors notoriously infiltrated by macrophages (Supp. Fig. 4). A high correlation of Epith TSHR- and macrophages proportion across our panel of ATC and papillary cancer (PTC) is therefore expected. Among other things, Fig. 2C shows that high correlation, but it is not meant to and does not show that Epith TSHR- and macrophages "resemble" one another. It shows that their proportions are highly positively correlated. This correlation analysis does not rely on gene expression but on cell type proportions. It measures co-occurrence rather than resemblance. The text has been clarified in order to prevent any confusion.

• *

* __Reviewer #2: __

Reviewer #2 wrote: 1. This study largely confirms established facts that 1) PTC due to BRAF driver mutation is a heterogeneous tumour entity and 2) ATC is the most dedifferentiated of all thyroid cancers. Although interesting, observations of a highly variable tissue cell composition including immune cells and the gradual loss of thyroid differentiation markers, in part linked to tumor subclone development featured by altered chromosomal copy numbers, are thus not surprising.

*

__Reply plan: __We wish to respectfully express our take on this perception of the work:

• There is a difference between conjecturing a high heterogeneity in the cell composition of thyroid cancers and establishing it with the level of accuracy and quantitative rigor our analysis provides. The extreme amplitude of that variation was surprising to us: the size of the microenvironment makes from 8.4 to 80% of the cells in PTCs driven by the same BRAF mutation.
• We don't simply show that a subclone characterized by a large number of copy number events is less differentiated. We go all the way proving that those copy number alterations are associated with specific cell states that produce specific histology (Fig. 5). It required a combination of single cell transcriptomics, spatial transcriptomics and sophisticated computational analysis to establish that connection between genomic changes and histology. The fragmentation of epithelial sheets uncovered from CNV analysis had escaped the attention of pathologist colleagues and ours at first, this is not a parameter typically assessed in diagnostic, to our knowledge.
• We don't simply show that there is a gradual loss of differentiation markers: this loss is ordered in a very specific way that mirrors the gain of markers during thyroid organoid differentiation. * Reviewer #2 wrote: 2. Considering tumor progression, comparison of PTC and ATC should preferably include specimens with the same driver mutation (BRAF or RAS), which is not the case here. This notion should be more clearly explained to readers. An optional improvement would be to conduct similar analyses on an ATC specimen that contains more differentiated PTC tumor portions arguably suggesting that PTC progresses to ATC (by mechanisms that are still largely unexplored).

*

__Reply plan: __This is clearly a limitation of our study. As already proposed in our reply to reviewer number one, we will extend to all our single cell results the replication of our analysis in the dataset of Lu e al., which includes ATCs and PTCs harboring the BRAF-mutation.

* Reviewer #2 wrote: 3. Comments on findings of lymphocytic infiltration need to be balanced. Although autoimmune thyroid disease in infered a risk factor of developing malignancy it is unlikely that the majority of TCGA samples of PTC is associated with thyroiditis as indicated in Fig. 3 and Suppl Fig. 3. Immune cell abundance may rather reflect the tumor immune microenvironment (TIME).

*

__Reply plan: __The figure the reviewer is referring to demonstrates that PTC occurring in a background of thyroiditis also has a higher proportion of B cells. We did not claim, and the figure did not show, that "the majority of TCGA samples of PTC is associated with thyroiditis", because they don't. This point has been clarified.

* Reviewer #2 wrote: 4. Some tissue sections seem of quite poor quality either shape-wise of containing rifts e.g. PTC7 in Fig. 3 and PTC2 in Fig. 5. The authors should explain whether and how this might influence analysis.

*

__Reply plan: __Spatial transcriptomics is typically performed on frozen sections. Frozen sections, which are obviously of lower visual quality than slice from FFPE preserved samples. Since no computational analyses were performed on the image, this lower quality has no impact on our results. Regarding RNA quality, the RINs were >7 for all tumors. RINs are now presented in Supp table S1.

Reviewer #2 wrote: The experiment on mouse ESC/organoids (Fig. 6H-J) does not show much of an expected enhanced thyroid progenitor cell proliferation after induction of the mutant Braf allele by tamoxifen, which raises doupt whether the subsequent promoted growth by fibronectin at all is oncogene-related. This differs from the impact of BrafCA activation along with mouse thyroid development in vivo (Schoultz et al iScience 2023 PMID: 37534159). In the same experimental setup, it appears that mutant Braf prevents follicle formation (Fig. 6I). A control experiment investigating the influence of fibronectin in the absence of oncogene activation should be conclusive. The effect of Braf and fibronectin on thyroid organoid structure and function should be better explained, if necessary based on complementary experiments, and discussed in relation to the claimed association of fibronectin expression to "...low amounts of thyroid differentiation markers...) and "...loss of epithelial structure (PTC7, Figure 6E)." in the previous section of Results.

__Reply plan: __The induction of the mutant Braf allele for 7 days increases the percentage of BrdU+ cells by 1.43 fold (p-value for Wilcoxon test = 0.035). The effects observed by Schoultz et al. are certainly more dramatic, but they result from an oncogenic activity spanning 1 to 6 months (4 to 26 times longer) in an in vivo model. Most importantly, oncogenic activity is initiated in Nkx2.1+ cells and not Tg+ cells, thus much earlier during development. These two models are thus not comparable. As for the effects of fibronectin on thyroid structure, we do not claim that our organoid model recapitulates the complex interactions between cancer cells and their microenvironment that shapes tissue morphology in vivo. This is now clarified in the text.

We presented controls with no oncogene expression and no Fn1, controls with oncogene induction and no FN1 and organoids with oncogene induction and Fn1 treatment. This alone establishes the effect of Fn1 on induced organoids, which was our goal. We regard it as a novel and interesting but non-essential development in our paper.

As the reviewer points out, while our results show an increased proliferation in Braf-mutated organoids treated with Fn1, they do not allow us to conclude on any potential interaction between Fn1 and the oncogenic process. The suggested experiment with Fn1 in absence of oncogene activation would add information, but we cannot follow up for practical lab management reasons detailed in Section 4 below.

* Reviewer #2 wrote: 6. Concerning EMT profiling (Supplementary Fig. 7B) , there is a great similarity of ATC tumor cells and fibroblasts, and as stated in the text the malignant status of the former is indicated by chromosomal aberrations (refering to Suppl fig. 6). However, looking at Suppl. Fig. 7B it is evident that fractions of cells identified as fibroblasts express TG and TSHR suggesting mismatch. How was this comparison done in order to exclude mismatch? Is there no other profiled markers that distinguish cancer cells from stromal cells that can support conclusions?*

Reply plan: TG-a thyrocyte marker-seems expressed by fibroblasts in Supplementary Figure 7B. The reviewer suggests this could be caused by an incomplete distinction between bona fide fibroblasts and thyrocytes in advanced EMT state. We argue that

• Ambient TG RNA leaking out of thyrocytes nuclei contaminates the transcriptomes of all cell types. It is a well-known technical problem, with dedicated software packages to mitigate it. We preprocessed our data with one of them, SoupX, which corrected for most, but not all, ambient RNA contamination.
• The plot below shows that there is nothing special about fibroblasts in that respect. For example, B and T cells are contaminated by TG at levels comparable to fibroblasts, endothelial cells and pericyte to higher levels.
• In addition, the UMAP of Fig. 2A shows that EMT cells and fibroblast form very distinct clusters. Furthermore, the fibroblast cluster but not the two EMT clusters contain cells from PTC, and the PTC cluster do not contain cells with DNA copy number aberration. Thus, although both EMT cells and fibroblasts express the typical mesenchymal marker of Supplementary Fig. 7B, they are easy to distinguish on the basis of their overall transcriptomes.
• The panel below has been added to the Supplementary Figure 7B. [Panel cannot be displayed here]

Reviewer #2 wrote: *In the same figure, it appears there are no clear differences in EMT marker expression among PTC samples regardless of differentiation state, suggesting that the gradual loss of thyroid differentiation in PTC tumor cells and EMT are not parallel and potentially linked phenomena? Please clarify this dissociation of results. Is possible that refocusing on other EMT markers than the top 10, of which almost all concerns various collagen genes, might better reveal partial EMT in PTCs?

*

__Reply plan: __The technical basis of this comment is related to the previous point. Our perception is that the mesenchymal markers in Supplementary Fig. 7B show a binary effect, i.e. strong expression in ATC and no expression in PTC (beyond ambient RNA noise)-not a gradual effect. Thus, there is no correlation of COL1A1 and other mesenchymal markers with dedifferentiation in PTC as these markers are not expressed beyond the noise level of the experiments. A lot has been written about EMT in PTC, but one of the findings of our study is that while ATC undergo full EMT, EMT in PTC is very limited. PTC express FN1 but no other major mesenchymal markers such as collagens I and III, for example.

• *

Reviewer #2 wrote: *7. According to Suppl. Table 1, the ATC2 tumor does not harbor any mutations. What about chromosomal aberrations, was that included in analysis? Considering previous consistent reports of a high mutation burden in ATC, if not supported by other data (clinical, pathological) the diagnosis might be questioned for this particular case included in multiple analyses of the present study.

*

Reply: There is little doubt about the diagnostic of ATC2 by our pathologist collaborators

• The histology of this tumor is strikingly anaplastic, i.e. without structure, as shown in the image below.
• This tumor has a high level of macrophages infiltration typical of ATCs (Supplementary Fig. 4).
• Reviewer #2 wrote: Minor comments: -The logical order of presentation of Results might benefit from first presenting specific PTC data following by ATC dito. I´m thinking of swapping the section of EMT in ATC to end of Results.*

*Reply plan: We miss why the reviewer thinks that way. We believe that discussing the microenvironment, then tumor cells bring conciseness and clarity about how we propose to stratify the latter. By contrast, the suggested tumor type-centered structure entails going back and forth between the microenvironment and tumor cells, diluting the messages about both.

* Reviewer #2 wrote: -Methods paragraph "Mouse ESC-derived thyroid organoids experiments" (starting with "ccc") seems to be missing some essential information.

*Reply plan: A sentence was missing, indeed, and has been re-introduced in the manuscript. We thank the reviewer for catching that error.

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:

Expression pattern profiling of human thyroid cancer tissues by combining single cell/nuclei RNAseq analysis, spatial transcriptomics and immunofluorescence on corresponding tumor histologic sections. Papillary and anaplastic thyroid carcinomas (PTC n=10 and ATC n=4) were compared; some data were extracted from TCGA. The results indicate that ATCs consists of completely dedifferentiated tumor cells whereas PTCs show variable levels of dedifferentiation, which in a sense mimics the the reverse process of thyroid differentiation as observed in stem cell-based organoids. Moreover, PTC and ATC tumors show different levels of epithelial-mesenchymal transition. Fibronectin is inferred a role in promoting tumor growth, supported by functional studies on organoids. Authors suggest that global profiling of differentiation state is a promising technique to stratifiy tumor heterogeneity, with potentially might be useful distinguishing thyroid malignancies suitable or not to adjuvant treatment e.g. with radioiodine (RAI) therapy.

Major comments:

1. This study largely confirms established facts that 1) PTC due to BRAF driver mutation is a heterogeneous tumour entity and 2) ATC is the most dedifferentiated of all thyroid cancers. Although interesting, observations of a highly variable tissue cell composition including immune cells and the gradual loss of thyroid differentiation markers, in part linked to tumor subclone development featured by altered chromosomal copy numbers, are thus not surprising.
2. Considering tumor progression, comparison of PTC and ATC should preferably include specimens with the same driver mutation (BRAF or RAS), which is not the case here. This notion should be more clearly explained to readers. An optional improvement would be to conduct similar analyses on an ATC specimen that contains more differentiated PTC tumor portions arguably suggesting that PTC progresses to ATC (by mechanisms that are still largely unexplored).
3. Comments on findings of lymphocytic infiltration need to be balanced. Although autoimmune thyroid disease in infered a risk factor of developing malignancy it is unlikely that the majority of TCGA samples of PTC is associated with thyroiditis as indicated in Fig. 3 and Suppl Fig. 3. Immune cell abundance may rather reflect the tumor immune microenvironment (TIME).
4. Some tissue sections seem of quite poor quality either shape-wise of containing rifts e.g. PTC7 in Fig. 3 and PTC2 in Fig. 5. The authors should explain whether and how this might influence analysis.
5. The experiment on mouse ESC/organoids (Fig. 6H-J) does not show much of an expected enhanced thyroid progenitor cell proliferation after induction of the mutant Braf allele by tamoxifen, which raises doupt whether the subsequent promoted growth by fibronectin at all is oncogene-related. This differs from the impact of BrafCA activation along with mouse thyroid development in vivo (Schoultz et al iScience 2023 PMID: 37534159). In the same experimental setup, it appears that mutant Braf prevents follicle formation (Fig. 6I). A control experiment investigating the influence of fibronectin in the absence of oncogene activation should be conclusive. The effect of Braf and fibronectin on thyroid organoid structure and function should be better explained, if necessary based on complementary experiments, and discussed in relation to the claimed association of fibronectin expression to "...low amounts of thyroid differentiation markers...) and "...loss of epithelial structure (PTC7, Figure 6E)." in the previous section of Results.
6. Concerning EMT profiling (Supplementary Fig. 7B) , there is a great similarity of ATC tumor cells and fibroblasts, and as stated in the text the malignant status of the former is indicated by chromosomal aberrations (refering to Suppl fig. 6). However, looking at Suppl. Fig. 7B it is evident that fractions of cells identified as fibroblasts express TG and TSHR suggesting mismatch. How was this comparison done in order to exclude mismatch? Is there no other profiled markers that distinguish cancer cells from stromal cells that can support conclusions? In the same figure, it appears there are no clear differences in EMT marker expression among PTC samples regardless of differentiation state, suggesting that the gradual loss of thyroid differentiation in PTC tumor cells and EMT are not parallel and potentially linked phenomena? Please clarify this dissociation of results. Is is possible that refocusing on other EMT markers than the top 10, of which almost all concerns various collagen genes, might better reveal partial EMT in PTCs?
7. According to Suppl. Table 1, the ATC2 tumor does not harbor any mutations. What about chromosomal aberrations, was that included in analysis? Considering previous consistent reports of a high mutation burden in ATC, if not supported by other data (clinical, pathological) the diagnosis might be questioned for this particular case included in multiple analyses of the present study.

Minor comments:

• The logical order of presentation of Results might benefit from first presenting specific PTC data following by ATC dito. I´m thinking of swapping the section of EMT in ATC to end of Results.
• Methods paragraph "Mouse ESC-derived thyroid organoids experiments" (starting with "ccc") seems to be missing some essential information.

Significance

The study confirms at single cell level the fundamental difference of PTC and ATC that is evident clinically and biologically, but does not address the intriguing issue how ATC may progress from PTC.

Tumor heterogeneity of BRAFV600E-driven PTC in terms of dedifferentiation of functional parameters, which are of potential clinical relevance, is well documented.

Reviewer expertise: thyroid development, thyroid cell and tumor biology, superficial knowledge in scRNAseq analysis

Note again that McGilchrist has really no idea how to do this: how to integrate wisdom and power/agency.

McGilchrist starting to see (or say) the necessity of religion.

NB: getting convinced of the importance of religion.

A classic example of a S mis-explanation which sounds compelling on the surface.

It's not the game theory topology that is driving us here per se - it is a feature of underlying human nature (self interest, difficulty to coordinate/free rider) with global warming.

And it is not because there is no sacred but because it is not perceived, and specifically not perceived communally. And that broke down for some good reasons.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The NF-kB signaling pathway plays a critical role in the development and survival of conventional alpha beta T cells. Gamma delta T cells are evolutionarily conserved T cells that occupy a unique niche in the host immune system and that develop and function in a manner distinct from conventional alpha beta T cells. Specifically, unlike the case for conventional alpha beta T cells, a large portion of gamma delta T cells acquire functionality during thymic development, after which they emigrate from the thymus and populate a variety of mucosal tissues. Exactly how gamma delta T cells are functionally programmed remains unclear. In this manuscript, Islam et al. use a wide variety of mouse genetic models to examine the influence of the NF-kB signaling pathway on gamma delta T cell development and survival. They find that the inhibitor of kappa B kinase complex (IKK) is critical to the development of gamma delta T1 subsets, but not adaptive/naïve gamma delta T cells. In contrast, IKK-dependent NF-kB activation is required for their long-term survival. They find that caspase 8-deficiency renders gamma delta T cells sensitive to RIPK1-mediated necroptosis, and they conclude that IKK repression of RIPK1 is required for the long-term survival of gamma delta T1 and adaptive/naïve gamma delta T cells subsets. These data will be invaluable in comparing and contrasting the signaling pathways critical for the development/survival of both alpha beta and gamma delta T cells.

The conclusions of the paper are mostly well-supported by the data, but some aspects need to be clarified.

(1) The authors appear to be excluding a significant fraction of the TCRlow gamma delta T cells from their analysis in Figure 1A. Since this population is generally enriched in CD25+ gamma delta T cells, this gating strategy could significantly impact their analysis due to the exclusion of progenitor gamma delta T cell populations.

(2) The overall phenotype of the IKKDeltaTCd2 mice is not described in any great detail. For example, it is not clear if these mice possess altered thymocyte or peripheral T cell populations beyond that of gamma delta T cells. Given that gamma delta T cell development has been demonstrated to be influenced by gamma delta T cells (i.e, trans-conditioning), this information could have aided in the interpretation of the data. Related to this, it would have been helpful if the authors provided a comparison of the frequencies of each of the relevant subsets, in addition to the numbers.

(3) The manner in which the peripheral gamma delta T cell compartment was analyzed is somewhat unclear. The authors appear to have assessed both spleen and lymph node separately. The authors show representative data from only one of these organs (usually the lymph node) and show one analysis of peripheral gamma delta T cell numbers, where they appear to have summed up the individual spleen and lymph node gamma delta T cell counts. Since gamma deltaT17 and gamma deltaT1 are distributed somewhat differently in these compartments (lymph node is enriched in gamma deltaT17, while spleen is enriched in gamma deltaT1), combining these data does not seem warranted. The authors should have provided representative plots for both organs and calculated and analyzed the gamma delta T cell numbers for both organs separately in each of these analyses.

(4) The authors make extensive use of surrogate markers in their analysis. While the markers that they choose are widely used, there is a possibility that the expression of some of these markers may be altered in some of their genetic mutants. This could skew their analysis and conclusions. A better approach would have been to employ either nuclear stains (Tbx21, RORgammaT) or intracellular cytokine staining to definitively identify functional gamma deltaT1 or gamma deltaT17 subsets.

(5) The analysis and conclusion of the data in Figure 3A is not convincing. Because the data are graphed on log scale, the magnitude of the rescue by kinase dead RIPK1 appears somewhat overstated. A rough calculation suggests that in type 1 game delta T cells, there is ~ 99% decrease in gamma delta T cells in the Cre+WT strain and a ~90% decrease in the Cre+KD+ strain. Similarly, it looks as if the numbers for adaptive gamma delta T cells are a 95% decrease and an 85% decrease, respectively. Comparing these data to the data in Figure 5, which clearly show that kinase dead RIPK1 can completely rescue the Caspase 8 phenotype, the conclusion that gamma delta T cells require IKK activity to repress RIPK1-dependent pathways does not appear to be well-supported. In fact, the data seem more in line with a conclusion that IKK has a significant impact on gamma delta T cell survival in the periphery that cannot be fully explained by invoking Caspase8-dependent apoptosis or necroptosis. Indeed, while the authors seem to ultimately come to this latter conclusion in the Discussion, they clearly state in the Abstract that "IKK repression of RIPK1 is required for survival of peripheral but not thymic gamma delta T cells." Clarification of these conclusions and seeming inconsistencies would greatly strengthen the manuscript. With respect to the actual analysis in Figure 3A, it appears that the authors used a succession of non-parametric t-tests here without any correction. It may be helpful to determine if another analysis, such as ANOVA, may be more appropriate.

(6) The conclusion that the alternative pathway is redundant for the development and persistence of the major gamma delta T cell subsets is at odds with a previous report demonstrating that Relb is required for gamma delta T17 development (Powolny-Budnicka, I., et al., Immunity 34: 364-374, 2011). This paper also reported the involvement of RelA in gamma delta T17 development. The present manuscript would be greatly improved by the inclusion of a discussion of these results.

(7) The data in Figures 1C and 3A are somewhat confusing in that while both are from the lymph nodes of IKKdeltaTCD2 mice, the data appear to be quite different (In Figure 3A, the frequency of gamma delta T cells increases and there is a near complete loss of the CD27+ subset. In Figure 1A, the frequency of gamma delta T cells is drastically decreased, and there is only a slight loss of the CD27+ subset.)

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary

The regulation of NF-κB signaling is complex and central to the differentiation and homeostasis of αβT cells, essential to adaptive immunity. γδ T cells are a distinct population that responds to stress/injury-induced cues by producing inflammatory cytokines, representing an important bridge between innate and adaptive immunity. This study from Islam et al. demonstrates that the IKK complex, a central regulator of NF-κB signaling, plays distinct and essential roles in the differentiation and maintenance of γδ T cells. The authors use elegant murine genetic models to generate clear data that disentangle these requirements in vivo.

Although NF-κB activity was found to be dispensable for specification of γδ T cell progenitors and the generation of adaptive γδ T cells, it was required for both the ontogeny of type 1 γδ T cells and the survival of mature adaptive γδ T cells. Subunit-specific analyses revealed parallels with αβ T cells: RELA was necessary for type 1 γδ T cell development, while maintenance of adaptive γδ T cells relied upon redundancy between REL subunits, with cREL and p50 compensating in the absence of RELA but not vice versa. These findings reflect distinct biological requirements for ontogeny versus maintenance, likely driven by differences in receptor signaling, such as TCR and TNFRSF family members. Moreover, IKK also maintained γδ T cell survival through repression of RIPK1-mediated cell death, echoing its dual role in αβ T cells, where it both prevents TNF-induced apoptosis and provides NF-κB-dependent survival signals.

Strengths:

The multiple, unique murine genetic models employed for detailed analysis of in vivo γδ T cell differentiation and homeostasis are a major strength of this paper. NF-κB signaling processes are devilishly complex. The conditional mutants generated for this study disentangle the requirements for the various IKK-regulated pathways in γδ T cell differentiation, cell survival, and homeostasis. Data are clearly presented and suitably interpreted, with a helpful synthesis provided in the Discussion. These data will provide a definitive account of the requirements for NF-κB signaling in γδ T cells and provide new genetic models for the community to further study the upstream signals.

Weaknesses:

The paper would benefit greatly from a graphical abstract that could summarize the key findings, making the key findings accessible to the general immunology or biochemistry reader. Ideally, this graphic would distinguish the requirements for NF-κB signals sustaining thymic γδ T cell differentiation from peripheral maintenance, taking into account the various subsets and signaling pathways required. In addition, the authors should consider adding further literature comparing the requirements for NF-κB /necroptosis pathways in regulating other non-conventional T cell populations, such as iNKT, MAIT, or FOXP3+ Treg cells. These data might help position the requirements described here for γδ T cells compared to other subsets, with respect to homeostatic cues and transcriptional states.

Last and least, there are multiple grammatical errors throughout the manuscript, and it would benefit from further editing. Likewise, there are some minor errors in figures (e.g., Figure 3A, add percentage for plot from IKKDT.RIPK1D138N mouse; Figure 7, "Adative").

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Kim et al. describes a MuSC subpopulation that loses VCam expression in geriatric muscle and shows reduced ability to contribute to muscle regeneration. They propose that this population underlies the reported decline of MuSCs in aged mice, suggesting that these cells remain present in geriatric muscle but are overlooked due to low or absent VCam expression. The identification of a subpopulation that changes with aging would be compelling and of interest to the field.

Strengths:

The authors employ a wide range of assays, from in vitro to in vivo systems, to characterize Vcam-low/negative cells from geriatric muscle. The loss of Vcam appears strong in geriatric mice. They further identify CD63 and CD200 as potential surface markers that remain stable with age, thereby enabling the isolation of MuSCs across different age groups.

Weaknesses:

Some issues remain before establishing whether this population represents a true functional subset or explains the reported decline in MuSC numbers in aged mice. A stronger fate assessment of Vcam-low/negative cells is needed to assess their propensity for cell death in vitro and in vivo (e.g., engraftment efficiency), and if this plays a role in their conclusions. Comparisons include young, middle-aged, and geriatric mice, but not aged (~24 months) mice, which are needed for direct assessment of previous reports of age-related MuSC decline. The suggestion that the Vcam-low/negative population reflects senescence appears premature, with few consistent markers for this fate, as well as the cells not exhibiting irreversible cell-cycle exit. Finally, validation of CD63 and CD200 as reliable age-independent MuSC markers requires further testing, specifically using the Pax7-YFP tracing model and co-labeling in geriatric mice.

This in itself, this part in the text, I found it really powerful how the author connects personal experience with the larger idea that the people who have most affects on design choices have the lease influence. I also appreciated the reminder that design justice is not just about good intentions but about centering the people most affected by design decision. In addition, especially the idea that everyone is going off of their own lived experience, it makes me reflect on how inclusive design requires rethinking who gets to participate in shaping technology and systems that impact daily life and how we should have more perspective.

Honestly I was never aware of this fact no matter how many times I have been through TSA screening myself during my entire life. This is quite shocking to hear about but now that I am aware of this information I can see how it could serve bias to people with different gender preferences. Thinking back, I also vividly remember moments when it comes to "tapping someone down" I had male officer pat me down to ensure safety. I don't mind this because I have trust they will take it professionally without crossing boundaries (and thankfully all of them I have encountered were very professional so far) but I am sure that is not the case everywhere and some individuals may be uncomfortable with that. When these gender normativity are embedded in all technologies and basis of all policies, it only makes it harder to create real life changes later on.

Reading this made me realize how critical dataset composition is for AI performance. I think it is alarming that a model’s accuracy can vary so drastically simply because of the demographic skew in its training data. I think the call for intersectional bias audits is a very important step for improving not just fairness but also the reliability of ML systems in real-world applications. I also really admire the work of Buolamwini and Gebru here. How they create a whole new dataset just to show these biases is a really powerful and necessary intervention. This makes me even more committed to thinking critically about the ethical side of tech my own life and studies. I want to be intentional about the data I use, the assumptions I make, and the potential impacts my work could have on marginalized communities.

I find this passage powerful and convincing. It shows how a design that forces a binary choice can create harm for anyone who does not fit the expected mold. I agree that the problem is not just individual bias but the way tools, data, and procedures lock in narrow assumptions. The example made me think more carefully about everyday systems I take for granted, and how they can quietly exclude people. It also makes the case that more inclusive design is not a nice to have but a real matter of safety, dignity, and fairness.

I found the idea that “artifacts have politics” to be both fascinating and eye-opening. I agree with Winner’s argument that technologies are not neutral, but instead reflect and reinforce the social and political values of the people who design them. For example, when I use social media platforms, I notice how the design choices—like infinite scroll or algorithmic recommendations—encourage specific behaviors such as constant engagement, which benefits companies economically but can harm users’ attention and well-being. This reading made me more aware of how even small features in technology embody broader assumptions about profit, productivity, and human behavior. I think it’s useful because it pushes us to see design as a form of power, not just function.

There is something about this passage that makes me think about what happens when every other external marker of the body has been stripped away, almost like a face lift that produces massive invisibility where all other cultural value the person may have once held is gone, and what remains is raw, material value.

This article would be immensely enriched by adding a small discussion of alternatives to detect the rare disorders / complications that this fetal monitoring (continuous, or otherwise) was supposed to detect.

The only alternative offered is the use of a stethoscope by a doctor, but I see issues of nurse staffing etc. in the comments questioning the feasibility. It would be nice to shed a light on this and discuss other alternatives in a paragraph or two.

I couldn't help but think if the continuous monitored signal could be down-sampled to mimic a stethoscope read. This could be done either randomly to match the time intervals or somehow limit the reading to 5 mins after some other signal that would trigger a doctor to use the stethoscope? This would maintain the convenience of the monitoring scheme without giving too much low quality data that leads to false positive alarms. I'm pretty sure that responsibly implemented AI that is explainable could help with this but that is too many if's..

• Missing text after this list and before the H5P, please add and include instructional text: There are also some important considerations to be aware of. Click on the plus icons below.

H5P itself: * I think we should remove the heading from being repeated in the sentence as well. e.g. remove 'Accuracy -' from beginning of sentence but keep the heading 'Accuracy' * turn off reuse/embed display bar to match other h5ps * need to provide attributions for the icons - i can do this