Proving he's the "stronger" or "better" servant does nothing for Sampson as the people he's trying to compete against fall in the same category as him already. Us human's tend to seek completion with the urge to prove ourselves when there is no need to.

Sampson is purposely being aggressive with the other servants with the intention to get under their skin forcing them to make a wrong move to where his reaction wont make him be in the wrong.

leden zijn de 'afnemers' GDI, op dir niveau. vz is door stas benoemd en niet qq. - [ ] achterhaal mensen in PGDI. #geonovumtb

Does not appear to be a real hymn, but shares lyrics and themes with "I'm Going Home to Glory". This hymn holds less merit in a religious sense and is moreso a representation of African American oral tradition.

This passage here presents how, despite the differences in race and the effects of the time, Mrs. Shelby truly does care for Tom, Harry, and even Eliza, so much so she feels willing to uphold the promise of granting Tom his freedom.

They use the stereotypes to exagerte them and further instill fear in the ignorant (b/c that's what they are , ignorant) to make belive, that all the deportations they are making is okay. B/c they would most likely not belive it otherwise.

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

Learn more at Review Commons

Referee #1

Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors follow up on the results from a previous CRISPR screen in CHO-K1 cells demonstrating that knockout of the ER acetyl-CoA transporter Slc33a1 suppresses ATF6 activation. The authors show in these cells that, in response to 2-DG, the Slc33a1 deletion results in constitutive activation of the UPR except for the ATF6 pathway, which appears to traffic constitutively to the Golgi but to not be cleaved there. They show using an uncleavable ATF6 that loss of Slc33a1 delays formation of an O-glycosylated form of at least this version of the protein, and they also find that single deletion of the ER acetyltransferases NAT8 and NAT8B also constitutively activates the UPR, but that activation in this case includes activation of ATF6. The mechanism by which Acetyl-CoA might impact ATF6 activation is not elucidated.

Major Comments:

The following conclusions are well-supported:

• That loss of Slc33a1 results in IRE1 and PERK activation but not ATF6 activation
• That ATF6 traffics at least to some degree constitutively to the Golgi when Slc33a1 is deleted, which is a counterintuitive finding given the apparent lack of ATF6 activation
• That loss of Slc33a1 can alter the level O-glycosylation and the preponderance of sialylated N-glycans on at least ATF6
• Generally speaking, I find the wording to be careful and precise

The following claims are less convincing:

• That loss of Slc33a1 results in universal suppression of ATF6 activation. The effect in response to 2-DG is unquestionably strong at least at the level of Bip-GFP reporter (although it's not clear from this paper nor the previous one from this group how much of the Bip promoter this reporter encodes-which is important because only a minimal Bip promoter is exclusively responsive to ATF6). However, the impairment of ATF6 activation in response to tunicamycin (Fig. 1C) is very modest, and no other stressors were tested (DTT and TG were used for other purposes, not to test ATF6 activation). One might actually expect this pathway, if it affects glycosylation pathways, to be particularly sensitive to a stressor like 2-DG that would have knock-on effects on glycosylation. Admittedly, it does seem to be true in the basal condition (i.e., absent an exogenous ER stress) that IRE1 and PERK are activated where ATF6 is not. At some level, it's hard to reconcile the almost complete suppression of Bip-GFP induction in Slc33a1 cells in response to 2DG with the fact that in Fig. 3, cleavage clearly seems to be occurring, albeit to a lesser extent
• That regulation of ATF6 is a broadly applicable consequence of Slc33a1 action. Unless I've missed it, all experiments are performed in CHO-K1 cells, so how broadly applicable this pathway is not clear.
• That loss of Slc33a1 "deregulated activation of the IRE1 branch of the UPR." It is clear that IRE1 is activated when Slc33a1 is deleted (that the authors show this repeatedly in different parental cell lines provides a high degree of rigor). However, at least through the CHOP-GFP reporter, PERK is activated as well. Although 4u8C suppresses this activation, the suppression is not complete, there are no orthogonal ways of showing this (e.g., loss of KD of IRE1), and the converse experiment (examining IRE1 activation when PERK is lost or inhibited) was not done. Thus, while I agree that the data shown are consistent with PERK activation being downstream of IRE1, they are not definitive enough to, in my opinion, rule out the more parsimonious explanation for their own data and what is already published in the field that loss of Slc33a1 causes ER stress (thus in principle activating all 3 pathways of the UPR-including ATF6 transit to the Golgi) but that it also, separately, inhibits activation of ATF6 (and possibly other things? See below)-a possibility acknowledged towards the end of the Discussion.
• That "Nat8 and Slc33a1 influence ER homeostasis and ATF6 signaling through distinct mechanisms". This conclusion would require simultaneous deletion of both Nat8 and NAT8B because of possible redundancy/compensatory effects.
• If I'm understanding the authors' argument correctly, they seem to be invoking that the ATF6 activation defect underlies/is upstream of the activation of IRE1 in Slc33a1 KO cells. But if that understanding is correct, it seems fairly unlikely, as the authors' data show no evidence that ATF6 is activated in parental cells under basal conditions (Fig. 3B) and thus no reason to expect that failure to activate ATF6 by itself would result in appreciable phenotype in cells-an idea also consistent with the general lack of phenotype in ATF6-null MEF and other cells.

Minor Comments:

• The alteration in O-glycosylation levels of ATF6 is interesting, but it might or might not be relevant to ATF6 activation, and if it isn't, then the paper provides no mechanism for why loss of Slc33a1 has the effects on ATF6 that it does. What about other similar molecules, like ATF6B (surprising that this was not examined), SREBP1/2, a non-glycoyslatable ATF6, and/or one of the other CREB3L proteins?
• Does Slc33a1 deletion cause other ER resident proteins to constitutively mislocalize to the Golgi?
• As mentioned above, does loss/knockdown of Slc33a1 activate IRE1 and PERK but not ATF6 in other cell types?
• Also as mentioned above, how do the UPR (all 3 branches) in cells lacking Slc33a1 respond to TG or DTT? This and the preceding comments are important toward making the claim that Slc33a1 is actually a regulator of ATF6. The time required to do these experiments will depend on whether creation of more stable lines is required, and whether they are worth doing depends on how broad the authors wish the scope of the paper to be.
• It's surprising that the authors didn't do comparable experiments to what is shown in Fig. 6 but deleting the acetyltransferases that modify sialic acids, which I believe are known.
• The authors mis-describe the data from Fig. 5B. EndoH and PNGaseF should collapse ATF6 to a 0N form, not a 1N form (what is labeled as 2N should be 1N, and it looks like the true 2N band is partially obscured by the strong 3N band.

Referee cross-commenting

While reviewer #2 and I have somewhat different opinions on the strength of the evidence, we seem fairly well-aligned on the overall significance of the work.

Significance

The conceptual advance in this paper is that, while loss of Slc33a1 seems widely disruptive to ER function-an idea that has been advanced in the literature before-it seems to have unique and discordant effects on ATF6 relative to the other UPR pathways. The paper does not offer a conclusive mechanism by which these effects are realized, and the sole focus on ATF6 makes it difficult to fully contextualize the findings, but the data are of high quality and, while the scope is somewhat narrow, the phenotype is likely to be of interest to those concerned with ER stress and UPR signaling, which also describes my own expertise.

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

Reviewer #1 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

Summary:

Damaris et al. perform what is effectively an eQTL analysis on microbial pangenomes of E. coli and P. aeruginosa. Specifically, they leverage a large dataset of paired DNA/RNA-seq information for hundreds of strains of these microbes to establish correlations between genetic variants and changes in gene expression. Ultimately, their claim is that this approach identifies non-coding variants that affect expression of genes in a predictable manner and explain differences in phenotypes. They attempt to reinforce these claims through use of a widely regarded promoter calculator to quantify promoter effects, as well as some validation studies in living cells. Lastly, they show that these non-coding variations can explain some cases of antibiotic resistance in these microbes.

Major comments

Are the claims and the conclusions supported by the data or do they require additional experiments or analyses to support them?

The authors convincingly demonstrate that they can identify non-coding variation in pangenomes of bacteria and associate these with phenotypes of interest. What is unclear is the extent by which they account for covariation of genetic variation? Are the SNPs they implicate truly responsible for the changes in expression they observe? Or are they merely genetically linked to the true causal variants. This has been solved by other GWAS studies but isn't discussed as far as I can tell here.

We thank the reviewer for their effective summary of our study. Regarding our ability to identify variants that are causal for gene expression changes versus those that only “tag” the causal ones, here we have to again offer our apologies for not spelling out the limitation of GWAS approaches, namely the difficulty in separating associated with causal variants. This inherent difficulty is the main reason why we added the in-silico and in-vitro validation experiments; while they each have their own limitations, we argue that they all point towards providing a causal link between some of our associations and measured gene expression changes. We have amended the discussion (e.g. at L548) section to spell our intention out better and provide better context for readers that are not familiar with the pitfalls of (bacterial) GWAS.

They need to justify why they consider the 30bp downstream of the start codon as non-coding. While this region certainly has regulatory impact, it is also definitely coding. To what extent could this confound results and how many significant associations to expression are in this region vs upstream?

We agree with the reviewer that defining this region as “non-coding” is formally not correct, as it includes the first 10 codons of the focal gene. We have amended the text to change the definition to “cis regulatory region” and avoided using the term “non-coding” throughout the manuscript. Regarding the relevance of this including the early coding region, we have looked at the distribution of associated hits in the cis regulatory regions we have defined; the results are shown in Supplementary Figure 3.

We quantified the distribution of cis associated variants and compared them to a 2,000 permutations restricted to the -200bp and +30bp window in both E. coli * (panel A) and P. aeruginosa* (panel B). As it can be seen, the associated variants that we have identified are mostly present in the 200bp region and the +30bp region shows a mild depletion relative to the random expectation, which we derived through a variant position shuffling approach (2,000 replicates). Therefore, we believe that the inclusion of the early coding region results in an appreciable number of associations, and in our opinion justify its inclusion as a putative “cis regulatory region”.

The claim that promoter variation correlates with changes in measured gene expression is not convincingly demonstrated (although, yes, very intuitive). Figure 3 is a convoluted way of demonstrating that predicted transcription rates correlate with measured gene expression. For each variant, can you do the basic analysis of just comparing differences in promoter calculator predictions and actual gene expression? I.e. correlation between (promoter activity variant X)-(promoter activity variant Y) vs (measured gene expression variant X)-(measured gene expression variant Y). You'll probably have to

We realize that we may not have failed to properly explain how we carried out this analysis, which we did exactly in the way the reviewer suggests here. We had in fact provided four example scatterplots of the kind the reviewer was requesting as part of Figure 4. We have added a mention of their presence in the caption of Figure 3.

Figure 7 it is unclear what this experiment was. How were they tested? Did you generate the data themselves? Did you do RNA-seq (which is what is described in the methods) or just test and compare known genomic data?

We apologize for the lack of clarity here; we have amended the figure’s caption and the corresponding section of the results (i.e. L411 and L418) to better highlight how the underlying drug susceptibility data and genomes came from previously published studies.

Are the data and the methods presented in such a way that they can be reproduced?

No, this is the biggest flaw of the work. The RNA-Seq experiment to start this project is not described at all as well as other key experiments. Descriptions of methods in the text are far too vague to understand the approach or rationale at many points in the text. The scripts are available on github but there is no description of what they correspond to outside of the file names and none of the data files are found to replicate the plots.

We have taken this critique to heart, and have given more details about the experimental setup for the generation of the RNA-seq data in the methods as well as the results sections. We have also thoroughly reviewed any description of the methods we have employed to make sure they are more clearly presented to the readers. We have also updated our code repository in order to provide more information about the meaning of each script provided, although we would like to point out that we have not made the code to be general purpose, but rather as an open documentation on how the data was analyzed.

Figure 8B is intended to show that the WaaQ operon is connected to known Abx resistance genes but uses the STRING method. This requires a list of genes but how did they build this list? Why look at these known ABx genes in particular? STRING does not really show evidence, these need to be substantiated or at least need to justify why this analysis was performed.

We have amended the Methods section (“Gene interaction analysis”, L799) to better clarify how the network shown in this panel was obtained. In short, we have filtered the STRING database to identify genes connected to members of the waa operon with an interaction score of at least 0.4 (“moderate confidence”), excluding the “text mining” field. Antimicrobial resistance genes were identified according to the CARD database. We believe these changes will help the readers to better understand how we derived this interaction.

Are the experiments adequately replicated and statistical analysis adequate?

An important claim on MIC of variants for supplementary table 8 has no raw data and no clear replicates available. Only figure 6, the in vitro testing of variant expression, mentions any replicates.

We have expanded the relevant section in the Methods (“Antibiotic exposure and RNA extraction”, L778) to provide more information on the way these assays were carried out. In short, we carried out three biological replicates, the average MIC of two replicates in closest agreement was the representative MIC for the strain. We believe that we have followed standard practice in the field of microbiology, but we agree that more details were needed to be provided in order for readers to appreciate this.

Minor comments

Specific experimental issues that are easily addressable..

Are prior studies referenced appropriately?

There should be a discussion of eQTLs in this. Although these have mostly been in eukaryotes a. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-024-01769-9 ; https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3891.

We have added these two references, which provide a broader context to our study and methodology, in the introduction.

Line 67. Missing important citation for Ireland et al. 2020 https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.55308

Line 69. Should mention Johns et al. 2018 (https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4633) where they study promoter sequences outside of E. coli

Line 90 - replace 'hypothesis-free' with unbiased

We have implemented these changes.

Line 102 - state % of DEGs relative to the entire pan-genome

Given that the study is focused on identifying variants that were associated with changes in expression for reference genes (i.e. those present in the reference genome), we think that providing this percentage would give the false impression that our analysis include accessory genes that are not encoded by the reference isolate, which is not what we have done.

Figure 1A is not discussed in the text

We have added an explicit mention of the panels in the relevant section of the results.

Line 111: it is unclear what enrichment was being compared between, FIgures 1C/D have 'Gene counts' but is of the total DEGs? How is the p-value derived? Comparing and what statistical test was performed? Comparing DEG enrichment vs the pangenome? K12 genome?

We have amended the results and methods section, as well as Figure 1’s caption to provide more details on how this analysis was carried out.

Line 122-123: State what letters correspond to these COG categories here

We have implemented the clarifications and edits suggested above

Line 155: Need to clarify how you use k-mers in this and how they are different than SNPs. are you looking at k-mer content of these regions? K-mers up to hexamers or what? How are these compared. You can't just say we used k-mers.

We have amended that line in the results section to more explicitly refer to the actual encoding of the k-mer variants, which were presence/absence patterns for k-mers extracted from each target gene’s promoter region separately, using our own developed method, called panfeed. We note that more details were already given in the methods section, but we do recognize that it’s better to clarify things in the results section, so that more distracted readers get the proper information about this class of genetic variants.

Line 172: It would be VERY helpful to have a supplementary figure describing these types of variants, perhaps a multiple-sequence alignment containing each example

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have now added Supplementary Figure 3, which shows the sequence alignments of the cis-regulatory regions underlying each class of the genetic marker for both E. coli and P. aeruginosa.

Figure 4: THis figure is too small. Why are WaaQ and UlaE being used as examples here when you are supposed to be explicitly showing variants with strong positive correlations?

We rearranged the figure’s layout to improve its readability. We agree that the correlation for waaQ and ulaE is weaker than for yfgJ and kgtP, but our intention was to not simply cherry-pick strong examples, but also those for which the link between predicted promoter strength and recorded gene expression was less obvious.

Figure 4: Why is there variation between variants present and variant absent? Is this due to other changes in the variant? Should mention this in the text somewhere

Variability in the predicted transcription rate for isolates encoding for the same variant is due to the presence of other (different) variants in the region surrounding the target variant. PromoterCalculator uses nucleotide regions of variable length (78 to 83bp) to make its predictions, while the variants we are focusing on are typically shorter (as shown in Figure 4). This results in other variants being included in the calculation and therefore slightly different predicted transcription rates for each strain. We have amended the caption of Figure 4 to provide a succinct explanation of these differences.

Line 359: Need to talk about each supplementary figure 4 to 9 and how they demonstrate your point.

We have expanded this section to more explicitly mention the contents of these supplementary figures and why they are relevant for the findings of this section (L425).

Are the text and figures clear and accurate?

Figure 4 too small

We have fixed the figure, as described above

Acronyms are defined multiple times in the manuscript, sometimes not the first time they are used (e.g. SNP, InDel)

Figure 8A - Remove red box, increase label size

Figure 8B - Low resolution, grey text is unreadable and should be darker and higher resolution

Line 35 - be more specific about types of carbon metabolism and catabolite repression

Line 67 - include citation for ireland et al. 2020 https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.55308

Line 74 - You talk about looking in cis but don't specify how mar away cis is

Line 75 - we encoded genetic variants..... It is unclear what you mean here

Line 104 - 'were apart of operons' should clarify you mean polycistronic or multi-gene operons. Single genes may be considered operonic units as well.

We have addressed all the issues indicated above.

Figure 2: THere is no axis for the percents and the percents don't make sense relative to the bars they represent??

We realize that this visualization might not have been the most clear for readers, and have made the following improvement: we have added the number of genes with at least one association before the percentage. We note that the x-axis is in log scale, which may make it seem like the light-colored bars are off. With the addition of the actual number of associated genes we think that this confusion has been removed.

Figure 2: Figure 2B legend should clarify that these are individual examples of Differential expression between variants

Line 198-199: This sentence doesn't make sense, 'encoded using kmers' is not descriptive enough

Line 205: Should be upfront about that you're using the Promoter Calculator that models biophysical properties of promoter sequences to predict activity.

Line 251: 'Scanned the non-coding sequences of the DEGs'. This is far too vague of a description of an approach. Need to clarify how you did this and I didn't see in the method. Is this an HMM? Perfect sequence match to consensus sequence? Some type of alignment?

Line 257-259: This sentence lacks clarity

We have implemented all the suggested changes and clarified the points that the reviewer has highlighted above.

Line346: How were the E. coli isolates tested? Was this an experiment you did? This is a massive undertaking (1600 isolates * 12 conditions) if so so should be clearly defined

While we have indicated in the previous paragraph that the genomes and antimicrobial susceptibility data were obtained from previously published studies, we have now modified this paragraph (e.g. L411 and L418) slightly to make this point even clearer.

Figure 6A: The tile plot on the right side is not clearly labeled and it is unclear what it is showing and how that relates to the bar plots.

In the revised figure, we have clarified the labeling of the heatmap to now read “Log2(Fold Change) (measured expression)” to indicate that it represents each gene’s fold changes obtained from our initial transcriptomic analysis. We have also included this information in the caption of the figure, making the relationship between the measured gene expression (heatmap) and the reporter assay data (bar plots) clear to the reader.

FIgure 6B: typo in legend 'Downreglation'

We thank the review for pointing this out. The typo has been corrected to “Down regulation” in the revised figure.

Line 398: Need to state rationale for why Waaq operon is being investigated here. WHy did you look into individual example?

We thank the reviewer for asking for a clarification here. Our decision to investigate the waaQ gene was one of both biological relevance and empirical evidence. In our analysis associating non-coding variants with antimicrobial resistance using the Moradigaravand et al. dataset, we identified a T>C variant at position 3808241 that was associated with resistance to Tobramycin. We also observed this variant in our strain collection, where it was associated with expression changes of the gene, suggesting a possible functional impact. The waa operon is involved in LPS synthesis, a central determinant of the bacteria’s outer membrane integrity and a well established virulence factor. This provided a plausible biological mechanism through which variation could influence antimicrobial susceptibility. As its role in resistance has not been extensively characterized, this represents a good candidate for our experimental validation. We have now included this rationale in our revised manuscript (i.e. L476).

Figure 8: Can get rid of red box

We have now removed the red box from Figure 8 in the revised version.

Line 463 - 'account for all kinds' is too informal

Mix of font styles throughout document

We have implemented all the suggestions and formatting changes indicated above.

Reviewer #2 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

In their manuscript "Cis non-coding genetic variation drives gene expression changes in the E. coli and P. aeruginosa pangenomes", Damaris and co-authors present an extensive meta-analysis, plus some useful follow up experiments, attempting to apply GWAS principles to identify the extent to which differences in gene expression between different strains within a given species can be directly assigned to cis-regulatory mutations. The overall principle, and the question raised by the study, is one of substantial interest, and the manuscript here represents a careful and fascinating effort at unravelling these important questions. I want to preface my review below (which may otherwise sound more harsh than I intend) with the acknowledgment that this is an EXTREMELY difficult and challenging problem that the authors are approaching, and they have clearly put in a substantial amount of high quality work in their efforts to address it. I applaud the work done here, I think it presents some very interesting findings, and I acknowledge fully that there is no one perfect approach to addressing these challenges, and while I will object to some of the decisions made by the authors below, I readily admit that others might challenge my own suggestions and approaches here. With that said, however, there is one fundamental decision that the authors made which I simply cannot agree with, and which in my view undermines much of the analysis and utility of the study: that decision is to treat both gene expression and the identification of cis-regulatory regions at the level of individual genes, rather than transcriptional units. Below I will expand on why I find this problematic, how it might be addressed, and what other areas for improvement I see in the manuscript:

We thank the reviewer for their praise of our work. A careful set of replies to the major and minor critiques are reported below each point.

In the entire discussion from lines roughly 100-130, the authors frequently dissect out apparently differentially expressed genes from non differentially expressed genes within the same operons... I honestly wonder whether this is a useful distinction. I understand that by the criteria set forth by the authors it is technically correct, and yet, I wonder if this is more due to thresholding artifacts (i.e., some genes passing the authors' reasonable-yet-arbitrary thresholds whereas others in the same operon do not), and in the process causing a distraction from an operon that is in fact largely moving in the same direction. The authors might wish to either aggregate data in some way across known transcriptional units for the purposes of their analysis, and/or consider a more lenient 'rescue' set of significance thresholds for genes that are in the same operons as differentially expressed genes. I would favor the former approach, performing virtually all of their analysis at the level of transcriptional units rather than individual genes, as much of their analysis in any case relies upon proper assignment of genes to promoters, and this way they could focus on the most important signals rather than get lots sometimes in the weeds of looking at every single gene when really what they seem to be looking at in this paper is a property OF THE PROMOTERS, not the genes. (of course there are phenomena, such as rho dependent termination specifically titrating expression of late genes in operons, but I think on the balance the operon-level analysis might provide more insights and a cleaner analysis and discussion).

We agree with the reviewer that the peculiar nature of transcription in bacteria has to be taken into account in order to properly quantify the influence of cis variants in gene expression changes. We therefore added the exact analysis the reviewer suggested; that is, we ran associations between the variants in cis to the first gene of each operon and a phenotype that considered the fold-change of all genes in the operon, via a weighted average (see Methods for more details). As reported in the results section (L223), we found a similar trend as with the original analysis: we found the highest proportion of associations when encoding cis variants using k-mers (42% for E. coli and 45% for P. aeruginosa). More importantly, we found a high degree of overlap between this new “operon-level” association analysis and the original one (only including the first gene in each operon). We found a range of 90%-94% of associations overlapping for E. coli and between 75% and 91% for P. aeruginosa, depending on the variant type. We note that operon definitions are less precise for P. aeruginosa, which might explain the higher variability in the level of overlap. We have added the results of this analysis in the results section.

This also leads to a more general point, however, which I think is potentially more deeply problematic. At the end of the day, all of the analysis being done here centers on the cis regulatory logic upstream of each individual open reading frame, even though in many cases (i.e., genes after the first one in multi-gene operons), this is not where the relevant promoter is. This problem, in turn, raises potentially misattributions of causality running in both directions, where the causal impact on a bona fide promoter mutation on many genes in an operon may only be associated with the first gene, or on the other side, where a mutation that co-occurs with, but is causally independent from, an actual promoter mutation may be flagged as the one driving an expression change. This becomes an especially serious issue in cases like ulaE, for genes that are not the first gene in an operon (at least according to standard annotations, the UlaE transcript should be part of a polycistronic mRNA beginning from the ulaA promoter, and the role played by cis-regulatory logic immediately upstream of ulaE is uncertain and certainly merits deeper consideration. I suspect that many other similar cases likewise lurk in the dataset used here (perhaps even moreso for the Pseudomonas data, where the operon definitions are likely less robust). Of course there are many possible explanations, such as a separate ulaE promoter only in some strains, but this should perhaps be carefully stated and explored, and seems likely to be the exception rather than the rule.

While we again agree with the reviewer that some of our associations might not result in a direct causal link because the focal variant may not belong to an actual promoter element, we also want to point out how the ability to identify the composition of transcriptional units in bacteria is far from a solved problem (see references at the bottom of this comment, two in general terms, and one characterizing a specific example), even for a well-studied species such as E. coli. Therefore, even if carrying out associations at the operon level (e.g. by focusing exclusively on variants in cis for the first gene in the operon) might be theoretically correct, a number of the associations we find further down the putative operons might be the result of a true biological signal.

1. Conway, T., Creecy, J. P., Maddox, S. M., Grissom, J. E., Conkle, T. L., Shadid, T. M., Teramoto, J., San Miguel, P., Shimada, T., Ishihama, A., Mori, H., & Wanner, B. L. (2014). Unprecedented High-Resolution View of Bacterial Operon Architecture Revealed by RNA Sequencing. mBio, 5(4), 10.1128/mbio.01442-14. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.01442-14

2. Sáenz-Lahoya, S., Bitarte, N., García, B., Burgui, S., Vergara-Irigaray, M., Valle, J., Solano, C., Toledo-Arana, A., & Lasa, I. (2019). Noncontiguous operon is a genetic organization for coordinating bacterial gene expression. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(5), 1733–1738. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1812746116

3. Zehentner, B., Scherer, S., & Neuhaus, K. (2023). Non-canonical transcriptional start sites in E. coli O157:H7 EDL933 are regulated and appear in surprisingly high numbers. BMC Microbiology, 23(1), 243. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-023-02988-6

Another issue with the current definition of regulatory regions, which should perhaps also be accounted for, is that it is likely that for many operons, the 'regulatory regions' of one gene might overlap the ORF of the previous gene, and in some cases actual coding mutations in an upstream gene may contaminate the set of potential regulatory mutations identified in this dataset.

We agree that defining regulatory regions might be challenging, and that those regions might overlap with coding regions, either for the focal gene or the one immediately upstream. For these reasons we have defined a wide region to identify putative regulatory variants (-200 to +30 bp around the start codon of the focal gene). We believe this relatively wide region allows us to capture the most cis genetic variation.

Taken together, I feel that all of the above concerns need to be addressed in some way. At the absolute barest minimum, the authors need to acknowledge the weaknesses that I have pointed out in the definition of cis-regulatory logic at a gene level. I think it would be far BETTER if they performed a re-analysis at the level of transcriptional units, which I think might substantially strengthen the work as a whole, but I recognize that this would also constitute a substantial amount of additional effort.

As indicated above, we have added a section in the results section to report on the analysis carried out at the level of operons as individual units, with more details provided in the methods section. We believe these results, which largely overlap with the original analysis, are a good way to recognize the limitation of our approach and to acknowledge the importance of gaining a better knowledge on the number and composition of transcriptional units in bacteria, for which, as the reference above indicates, we still have an incomplete understanding.

Having reached the end of the paper, and considering the evidence and arguments of the authors in their totality, I find myself wondering how much local x background interactions - that is, the effects of cis regulatory mutations (like those being considered here, with or without the modified definitions that I proposed above) IN THE CONTEXT OF A PARTICULAR STRAIN BACKGROUND, might matter more than the effects of the cis regulatory mutations per se. This is a particularly tricky problem to address because it would require a moderate number of targeted experiments with a moderate number of promoters in a moderate number of strains (which of course makes it maximally annoying since one can't simply scale up hugely on either axis individually and really expect to tease things out). I think that trying to address this question experimentally is FAR beyond the scope of the current paper, but I think perhaps the authors could at least begin to address it by acknowledging it as a challenge in their discussion section, and possibly even identify candidate promoters that might show the largest divergence of activities across strains when there IS no detectable cis regulatory mutation (which might be indicative of local x background interactions), or those with the largest divergences of effect for a given mutation across strains. A differential expression model incorporating shrinkage is essential in such analysis to avoid putting too much weight on low expression genes with a lot of Poisson noise.

We again thank the reviewer for their thoughtful comments on the limitations of correlative studies in general, and microbial GWAS in particular. In regards to microbial GWAS we feel we may have failed to properly explain how the implementation we have used allows to, at least partially, correct for population structure effects. That is, the linear mixed model we have used relies on population structure to remove the part of the association signal that is due to the genetic background and thus focus the analysis on the specific loci. Obviously examples in which strong epistatic interactions are present would not be accounted for, but those would be extremely challenging to measure or predict at scale, as the reviewer rightfully suggests. We have added a brief recap of the ability of microbial GWAS to account for population structure in the results section (“A large fraction of gene expression changes can be attributed to genetic variations in cis regulatory regions”, e.g. L195).

I also have some more minor concerns and suggestions, which I outline below:

It seems that the differential expression analysis treats the lab reference strains as the 'centerpoint' against which everything else is compared, and yet I wonder if this is the best approach... it might be interesting to see how the results differ if the authors instead take a more 'average' strain (either chosen based on genetics or transcriptomics) as a reference and compared everything else to that.

While we don’t necessarily disagree with the reviewer that a “wild” strain would be better to compare against, we think that our choice to go for the reference isolates is still justified on two grounds. First, while it is true that comparing against a reference introduces biases in the analysis, this concern would not be removed had we chosen another strain as reference; which strain would then be best as a reference to compare against? We think that the second point provides an answer to this question; the “traditional” reference isolates have a rich ecosystem of annotations, experimental data, and computational predictions. These can in turn be used for validation and hypothesis generation, which we have done extensively in the manuscript. Had we chosen a different reference isolate we would have had to still map associations to the traditional reference, resulting in a probable reduction in precision. An example that will likely resonate with this reviewer is that we have used experimentally-validated and high quality computational operon predictions to look into likely associations between cis-variants and “operon DEGs”. This analysis would have likely been of worse quality had we used another strain as reference, for which operon definitions would have had to come from lower-quality predictions or be “lifted” from the traditional reference.

Line 104 - the statement about the differentially expressed genes being "part of operons with diverse biological functions" seems unclear - it is not apparent whether the authors are referring to diversity of function within each operon, or between the different operons, and in any case one should consider whether the observation reflects any useful information or is just an apparently random collection of operons.

We agree that this formulation could create confusion and we have elected to remove the expression “with diverse biological functions”, given that we discuss those functions immediately after that sentence.

Line 292 - I find the argument here somewhat unconvincing, for two reasons. First, the fact that only half of the observed changes went in the same direction as the GWAS results would indicate, which is trivially a result that would be expected by random chance, does not lend much confidence to the overall premise of the study that there are meaningful cis regulatory changes being detected (in fact, it seems to argue that the background in which a variant occurs may matter a great deal, at least as much as the cis regulatory logic itself). Second, in order to even assess whether the GWAS is useful to "find the genetic determinants of gene expression changes" as the authors indicate, it would be necessary to compare to a reasonable, non-straw-man, null approach simply identifying common sequence variants that are predicted to cause major changes in sigma 70 binding at known promoters; such a test would be especially important given the lack of directional accuracy observed here. Along these same lines, it is perhaps worth noting, in the discussion beginning on line 329, that the comparison is perhaps biased in favor of the GWAS study, since the validation targets here were prioritized based on (presumably strong) GWAS data.

We thank the reviewer for prompting us into reasoning about the results of the in-vitro validation experiments. We agree that the agreement between the measured gene expression changes agree only partly with those measured with the reporter system, and that this discrepancy could likely be attributed to regulatory elements that are not in cis, and thus that were not present in the in-vitro reporter system. We have noted this possibility in the discussion. Additionally, we have amended the results section to note that even though the prediction in the direction of gene expression change was not as accurate as it could be expected, the prediction of whether a change would be present (thus ignoring directionality) was much higher.

I don't find the Venn diagrams in Fig 7C-D useful or clear given the large number of zero-overlap regions, and would strongly advocate that the authors find another way to show these data.

While we are aware that alternative ways to show overlap between sets, such as upset plots, we don’t actually find them that much easier to parse. We actually think that the simple and direct Venn diagrams we have drawn convey the clear message that overlaps only exist between certain drug classes in E. coli, and virtually none for P. aeruginosa. We have added a comment on the lack of overlap between all drug classes and the differences between the two species in the results section (i.e. L436 and L465).

In the analysis of waa operon gene expression beginning on line 400, it is perhaps important to note that most of the waa operon doesn't do anything in laboratory K12 strains due to the lack of complete O-antigen... the same is not true, however, for many wild/clinical isolates. It would be interesting to see how those results compare, and also how the absolute TPMs (rather than just LFCs) of genes in this operon vary across the strains being investigated during TOB treatment.

We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. We examined the absolute expression (TPMs) of waa operon genes under the baseline (A) and following exposure to Tobramycin (B). The representative TPMs per strain were obtained by averaging across biological replicates. We observed a constitutive expression of the genes in the reference strain (MG1655) and the other isolates containing the variant of interest (MC4100, BW25113). In contrast, strains lacking the variants of interest (IAI76 and IAI78), showed lower expression of these operon genes under both conditions. Strain IAI77, on the other hand, displayed increased expression of a subset of waa genes post Tobramycin exposure, indicating strain-specific variation in transcriptional response. While the reference isolate might not have the O-antigen, it certainly expresses the waa operon, both constitutively and under TOB exposure.

I don't think that the second conclusion on lines 479-480 is fully justified by the data, given both the disparity in available annotation information between the two species, AND the fact that only two species were considered.

While we feel that the “Discussion” section of a research paper allows for speculative statements, we have to concede that we have perhaps overreached here. We have amended this sentence to be more cautious and not mislead readers.

Line 118: "Double of DEGs"

Line 288 - presumably these are LOG fold changes

Fig 6b - legend contains typos

Line 661 - please report the read count (more relevant for RNA-seq analysis) rather than Gb

We thank the reviewer for pointing out the need to make these edits. We have implemented them all.

Source code - I appreciate that the authors provide their source code on github, but it is very poorly documented - both a license and some top-level documentation about which code goes with each major operation/conclusion/figure should be provided. Also, ipython notebooks are in general a poor way in my view to distribute code, due to their encouragement of nonlinear development practices; while they are fine for software development, actual complete python programs along with accompanying source data would be preferrable.

We agree with the reviewer that a software license and some documentation about what each notebook is about is warranted, and we have added them both. While we agree that for “consumer-grade” software jupyter notebooks are not the most ergonomic format, we believe that as a documentation of how one-time analyses were carried out they are actually one of the best formats we could think of. They in fact allow for code and outputs to be presented alongside each other, which greatly helped us to iterate on our research and to ensure that what was presented in the manuscript matched the analyses we reported in the code. This is of course up for debate and ultimately specific to someone’s taste, and so we will keep the reviewer’s critique in mind for our next manuscript. And, if we ever decide to package the analyses presented in the manuscript as a “consumer-grade” application for others to use, we would follow higher standards of documentation and design.

Reviewer #3 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

In this manuscript, Damaris et al. collected genome sequences and transcriptomes from isolates from two bacterial species. Data for E. coli were produced for this paper, while data for P. aeruginosa had been measured earlier. The authors integrated these data to detect genes with differential expression (DE) among isolates as well as cis-expression quantitative trait loci (cis-eQTLs). The authors used sample sizes that were adequate for an initial exploration of gene regulatory variation (n=117 for E. coli and n=413 for P. aeruginosa) and were able to discover cis eQTLs at about 39% of genes. In a creative addition, the authors compared their results to transcription rates predicted from a biophysical promoter model as well as to annotated transcription factor binding sites. They also attempted to validate some of their associations experimentally using GFP-reporter assays. Finally, the paper presents a mapping of antibiotic resistance traits. Many of the detected associations for this important trait group were in non-coding genome regions, suggesting a role of regulatory variation in antibiotic resistance.

A major strength of the paper is that it covers an impressive range of distinct analyses, some of which in two different species. Weaknesses include the fact that this breadth comes at the expense of depth and detail. Some sections are underdeveloped, not fully explained and/or thought-through enough. Important methodological details are missing, as detailed below.

We thank the reviewer for highlighting the strengths of our study. We hope that our replies to their comments and the other two reviewers will address some of the limitations.

Major comments:

1. An interesting aspect of the paper is that genetic variation is represented in different ways (SNPs & indels, IRG presence/absence, and k-mers). However, it is not entirely clear how these three different encodings relate to each other. Specifically, more information should be given on these two points:

2. it is not clear how "presence/absence of intergenic regions" are different from larger indels.

In order to better guide readers through the different kinds of genetic variants we considered, we have added a brief explanation about what “promoter switches” are in the introduction (“meaning that the entire promoter region may differ between isolates due to recombination events”, L56). We believe this clarifies how they are very different in character from a large deletion. We have kept the reference to the original study (10.1073/pnas.1413272111) describing how widespread these switches are in E. coli as a way for readers to discover more about them.

• I recommend providing more narration on how the k-mers compare to the more traditional genetic variants (SNPs and indels). It seems like the k-mers include the SNPs and indels somehow? More explanation would be good here, as k-mer based mapping is not usually done in other species and is not standard practice in the field. Likewise, how is multiple testing handled for association mapping with k-mers, since presumably each gene region harbors a large number of k-mers, potentially hugely increasing the multiple testing burden?

We indeed agree with the reviewer in thinking that representing genetic variants as k-mers would encompass short variants (SNP/InDels) as well as larger variants and promoters presence/absence patterns. We believe that this assumption is validated by the fact that we identify the highest proportion of DEGs with a significant association when using this representation of variants (Figure 2A, 39% for both species). We have added a reference to a recent review on the advantages of k-mer methods for population genetics (10.1093/molbev/msaf047) in the introduction. Regarding the issue of multiple testing correction, we have employed a commonly recognized approach that, unlike a crude Bonferroni correction using the number of tested variants, allows for a realistic correction of association p-values. We used the number of unique presence/absence patterns, which can be shared between multiple genetic variants, and applied a Bonferroni correction using this number rather than the number of variants tested. We have expanded the corresponding section in the methods (e.g. L697) to better explain this point for readers not familiar with this approach.

1. What was the distribution of association effect sizes for the three types of variants? Did IRGs have larger effects than SNPs as may be expected if they are indeed larger events that involve more DNA differences? What were their relative allele frequencies?

We appreciate the suggestion made by the reviewer to look into the distribution of effect sizes divided by variant type. We have now evaluated the distribution of the effect sizes and allele frequencies for the genetic markers (SNPs/InDels, IGRs, and k-mers) for both species (Supplementary Figure 2). In E. coli, IGR variants showed somewhat larger median effect sizes (|β| = 4.5) than SNPs (|β| = 3.8), whereas k-mers displayed the widest distribution (median |β| = 5.2). In P. aeruginosa, the trend differed with IGRs exhibiting smaller effects (median |β| = 3.2), compared to SNPs/InDels (median |β| =5.1) and k-mers (median |β| = 6.2). With respect to allele frequencies, SNPs/InDels generally occured at lower frequencies (median AF = 0.34 for E.coli, median AF = 0.33 for P. aeruginosa), whereas IGRs (median AF = 0.65 for E. coli and 0.75 for P. aeruginosa) and k-mers (median AF = 0.71 for E. coli and 0.65 for P. aeruginosa) were more often at the intermediate to higher frequencies respectively. We have added a visualization for the distribution of effect sizes (Supplementary Figure 2).

1. The GFP-based experiments attempting to validate the promoter effects for 18 genes are laudable, and the fact that 16 of them showed differences is nice. However, the fact that half of the validation attempts yielded effects in the opposite direction of what was expected is quite alarming. I am not sure this really "further validates" the GWAS in the way the authors state in line 292 - in fact, quite the opposite in that the validations appear random with regards to what was predicted from the computational analyses. How do the authors interpret this result? Given the higher concordance between GWAS, promoter prediction, and DE, are the GFP assays just not relevant for what is going on in the genome? If not, what are these assays missing? Overall, more interpretation of this result would be helpful.

We thanks the reviewer for their comment, which is similar in nature to that raised by reviewer #2 above. As noted in our reply above we have amended the results and discussion to indicate that although the direction of gene expression change was not highly accurate, focusing on the magnitude (or rather whether there would be a change in gene expression, regardless of the direction), resulted in a higher accuracy. We postulate that the cases in which the direction of the change was not correctly identified could be due to the influence of other genetic elements in trans with the gene of interest.

1. On the same note, it would be really interesting to expand the GFP experiments to promoters that did not show association in the GWAS. Based on Figure 6, effects of promoter differences on GFP reporters seem to be very common (all but three were significant). Is this a higher rate than for the average promoter with sequence variation but without detected association? A handful of extra reporter experiments might address this. My larger question here is: what is the null expectation for how much functional promoter variation there is?

We thank the reviewer for this comment. We agree that estimating the null expectation for the functional promoter would require testing promoter alleles with sequence variation that are not associated in the GWAS. Such experiments, which would directly address if the observed effects in our study exceeds background, would have required us to prepare multiple constructs, which was unfortunately not possible for us due to staff constraints. We therefore elected to clarify the scope of our GFP reporter assays instead. These experiments were designed as a paired comparison of the wild-type and the GWAS-associated variant alleles of the same promoter in an identical reporter background, with the aim of testing allele-specific functional effects for GWAS hits (Supplementary Figure 6). We also included a comparison in GFP fluorescence between the promoterless vector (pOT2) and promoter-containing constructs; we observed higher GFP signals in all but four (yfgJ, fimI, agaI, and yfdQ) variant-containing promoter constructs, which indicates that for most of the construct we cloned active promoter elements. We have revised the manuscript text accordingly to reflect this clarification and included the control in the supplementary information as Supplementary Figure 6.

1. Were the fold-changes in the GFP experiments statistically significant? Based on Figure 6 it certainly looks like they are, but this should be spelled out, along with the test used.

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have reviewed Figure 6 to indicate significant differences between the test and control reporter constructs. We used the paired student’s t-test to match the matched plate/time point measurements. We also corrected for multiple testing using the Benhamini-Hochberg correction. As seen in the updated Figure 6A, 16 out of the 18 reporter constructs displayed significant differences (adjusted p-value

1. What was the overall correlation between GWAS-based fold changes and those from the GFP-based validation? What does Figure 6A look like as a scatter plot comparing these two sets of values?

We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion, which allows us to more closely look into the results of our in-vitro validation. We performed a direct comparison of RNAseq fold changes from the GWAS (x-axis) with the GFP reporter measurements (y-axis) as depicted in the figure above. The overall correlation between the two was weak (Pearson r = 0.17), reflecting the lack of thorough agreement between the associations and the reporter construct. We however note that the two metrics are not directly comparable in our opinion, since on the x-axis we are measuring changes in gene expression and on the y-axis changes in fluorescence expression, which is downstream from it. As mentioned above and in reply to a comment from reviewer 2, the agreement between measured gene expression and all other in-silico and in-vitro techniques increases when ignoring the direction of the change. Overall, we believe that these results partly validate our associations and predictions, while indicating that other factors in trans with the regulatory region contribute to changes in gene expression, which is to be expected. The scatter plot has been included as a new supplementary figure (Supplementary Figure 7).

1. Was the SNP analyzed in the last Results section significant in the gene expression GWAS? Did the DE results reported in this final section correspond to that GWAS in some way?

The T>C SNP upstream of waaQ did not show significant association with gene expression in our cis GWAS analysis. Instead, this variant was associated with resistance to tobramycin when referencing data from Danesh et al, and we observed the variant in our strain collection. We subsequently investigated whether this variant also influenced expression of the waa operon under sub-inhibitory tobramycin exposure. The differential expression results shown in the final section therefore represent a functional follow-up experiment, and not a direct replication of the GWAS presented in the first part of the manuscript.

1. Line 470: "Consistent with the differences in the genetic structure of the two species" It is not clear what differences in genetic structure this refers to. Population structure? Genome architecture? Differences in the biology of regulatory regions?

The awkwardness of that sentence is perhaps the consequence of our assumption that readers would be aware of the differences in population genetics differences between the two species. We however have realized that not much literature is available (if at all!) about these differences, which we have observed during the course of this and other studies we have carried out. As a result, we agree that we cannot assume that the reader is similarly familiar with these differences, and have changed that sentence (i.e. L548) to more directly address the differences between the two species, which will presumably result in a diverse population structure. We thank the reviewer for letting us be aware of a gap in the literature concerning the comparison of pangenome structures across relevant species.

1. Line 480: the reference to "adaption" is not warranted, as the paper contains no analyses of evolutionary patterns or processes. Genetic variation is not the same as adaptation.

We have amended this sentence to be more adherent to what we can conclude from our analyses.

1. There is insufficient information on how the E. coli RNA-seq data was generated. How was RNA extracted? Which QC was done on the RNA; what was its quality? Which library kits were used? Which sequencing technology? How many reads? What QC was done on the RNA-seq data? For this section, the Methods are seriously deficient in their current form and need to be greatly expanded.

We thank the reviewer for highlighting the need for clearer methodological detail. We have expanded this section (i.e. L608) to fully describe the generation and quality control of the E. coli RNA-seq data including RNA extraction and sequencing platform.

1. How were the DEG p-values adjusted for multiple testing?

As indicated in the methods section (“Differential gene expression and functional enrichment analysis”), we have used DEseq2 for E. coli, and LPEseq for P. aeruginosa. Both methods use the statistical framework of the False Discovery Rate (FDR) to compute an adjusted p-value for each gene. We have added a brief mention of us following the standard practice indicated by both software packages in the methods.

1. Were there replicates for the E. coli strains? The methods do not say, but there is a hint there might have been replicates given their absence was noted for the other species.

In the context of providing more information about the transcriptomics experiments for E. coli, we have also more clearly indicated that we have two biological replicates for the E. coli dataset.

1. There needs to be more information on the "pattern-based method" that was used to correct the GWAS for multiple tests. How does this method work? What genome-wide threshold did it end up producing? Was there adjustment for the number of genes tested in addition to the number of variants? Was the correction done per variant class or across all variant classes?

In line with an earlier comment from this reviewer, we have expanded the section in the Methods (e.g. L689) that explains how this correction worked to include as many details as possible, in order to provide the readers with the full context under which our analyses were carried out.

1. For a paper that, at its core, performs a cis-eQTL mapping, it is an oversight that there seems not to be a single reference to the rich literature in this space, comprising hundreds of papers, in other species ranging from humans, many other animals, to yeast and plants.

We thank both reviewer #1 and #3 for pointing out this lack of references to the extensive literature on the subject. We have added a number of references about the applications of eQTL studies, and specifically its application in microbial pangenomes, which we believe is more relevant to our study, in the introduction.

Minor comments:

1. I wasn't able to understand the top panels in Figure 4. For ulaE, most strains have the solid colors, and the corresponding bottom panel shows mostly red points. But for waaQ, most strains have solid color in the top panel, but only a few strains in the bottom panel are red. So solid color in the top does not indicate a variant allele? And why are there so many solid alleles; are these all indels? Even if so, for kgtP, the same colors (i.e., nucleotides) seem to seamlessly continue into the bottom, pale part of the top panel. How are these strains different genotypically? Are these blocks of solid color counted as one indel or several SNPs, or somehow as k-mer differences? As the authors can see, these figures are really hard to understand and should be reworked. The same comment applies to Figure 5, where it seems that all (!) strains have the "variant"?

We thank the reviewer for pointing out some limitations with our visualizations, most importantly with the way we explained how to read those two figures. We have amended the captions to more explicitly explain what is shown. The solid colors in the “sequence pseudo-alignment” panels indicate the focal cis variant, which is indicated in red in the corresponding “predicted transcription rate” panels below. In the case of Figure 5, the solid color indicates instead the position of the TFBS in the reference.

1. Figure 1A & B: It would be helpful to add the total number of analyzed genes somewhere so that the numbers denoted in the colored outer rings can be interpreted in comparison to the total.

We have added the total number of genes being considered for either species in the legend.

1. Figure 1C & D: It would be better to spell out the COG names in the figure, as it is cumbersome for the reader to have to look up what the letters stand for in a supplementary table in a separate file.

While we do not disagree with the awkwardness of having to move to a supplementary table to identify the full name of a COG category, we also would like to point out that the very long names of each category would clutter the figure to a degree that would make it difficult to read. We had indeed attempted something similar to what the reviewer suggests in early drafts of this manuscript, leading to small and hard to read labels. We have therefore left the full names of each COG category in Supplementary Table 3.

1. Line 107: "Similarly," does not fit here as the following example (with one differentially expressed gene in an operon) is conceptually different from the one before, where all genes in the operon were differentially expressed.

We agree and have amended the sentence accordingly.

1. Figure 5 bottom panel: it is odd that on the left the swarm plots (i.e., the dots) are on the inside of the boxplots while on the right they are on the outside.

We have fixed the position of the dots so that they are centered with respect to the underlying boxplots.

1. It is not clear to me how only one or a few genes in an operon can show differential mRNA abundance. Aren't all genes in an operon encoded by the same mRNA? If so, shouldn't this mRNA be up- or downregulated in the same manner for all genes it encodes? As I am not closely familiar with bacterial systems, it is well possible that I am missing some critical fact about bacterial gene expression here. If this is not an analysis artifact, the authors could briefly explain how this observation is possible.

We thanks the reviewer for their comment, which again echoes one of the main concerns from reviewer #2. As noted in our reply above, it has been established in multiple studies (see the three we have indicated above in our reply to reviewer #2) how bacteria encode for multiple “non-canonical” transcriptional units (i.e. operons), due to the presence of accessory terminators and promoters. This, together with other biological effects such as the presence of mRNA molecules of different lengths due to active transcription and degradation and technical noise induced by RNA isolation and sequencing can result in variability in the estimation of abundance for each gene.

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

In their manuscript "Cis non-coding genetic variation drives gene expression changes in the E. coli and P. aeruginosa pangenomes", Damaris and co-authors present an extensive meta-analysis, plus some useful follow up experiments, attempting to apply GWAS principles to identify the extent to which differences in gene expression between different strains within a given species can be directly assigned to cis-regulatory mutations. The overall principle, and the question raised by the study, is one of substantial interest, and the manuscript here represents a careful and fascinating effort at unravelling these important questions. I want to preface my review below (which may otherwise sound more harsh than I intend) with the acknowledgment that this is an EXTREMELY difficult and challenging problem that the authors are approaching, and they have clearly put in a substantial amount of high quality work in their efforts to address it. I applaud the work done here, I think it presents some very interesting findings, and I acknowledge fully that there is no one perfect approach to addressing these challenges, and while I will object to some of the decisions made by the authors below, I readily admit that others might challenge my own suggestions and approaches here. With that said, however, there is one fundamental decision that the authors made which I simply cannot agree with, and which in my view undermines much of the analysis and utility of the study: that decision is to treat both gene expression and the identification of cis-regulatory regions at the level of individual genes, rather than transcriptional units. Below I will expand on why I find this problematic, how it might be addressed, and what other areas for improvement I see in the manuscript:

In the entire discussion from lines roughly 100-130, the authors frequently dissect out apparently differentially expressed genes from non differentially expressed genes within the same operons... I honestly wonder whether this is a useful distinction. I understand that by the criteria set forth by the authors it is technically correct, and yet, I wonder if this is more due to thresholding artifacts (i.e., some genes passing the authors' reasonable-yet-arbitrary thresholds whereas others in the same operon do not), and in the process causing a distraction from an operon that is in fact largely moving in the same direction. The authors might wish to either aggregate data in some way across known transcriptional units for the purposes of their analysis, and/or consider a more lenient 'rescue' set of significance thresholds for genes that are in the same operons as differentially expressed genes. I would favor the former approach, performing virtually all of their analysis at the level of transcriptional units rather than individual genes, as much of their analysis in any case relies upon proper assignment of genes to promoters, and this way they could focus on the most important signals rather than get lots sometimes in the weeds of looking at every single gene when really what they seem to be looking at in this paper is a property OF THE PROMOTERS, not the genes. (of course there are phenomena, such as rho dependent termination specifically titrating expression of late genes in operons, but I think on the balance the operon-level analysis might provide more insights and a cleaner analysis and discussion).

This also leads to a more general point, however, which I think is potentially more deeply problematic. At the end of the day, all of the analysis being done here centers on the cis regulatory logic upstream of each individual open reading frame, even though in many cases (i.e., genes after the first one in multi-gene operons), this is not where the relevant promoter is. This problem, in turn, raises potentially misattributions of causality running in both directions, where the causal impact on a bona fide promoter mutation on many genes in an operon may only be associated with the first gene, or on the other side, where a mutation that co-occurs with, but is causally independent from, an actual promoter mutation may be flagged as the one driving an expression change. This becomes an especially serious issue in cases like ulaE, for genes that are not the first gene in an operon (at least according to standard annotations, the UlaE transcript should be part of a polycistronic mRNA beginning from the ulaA promoter, and the role played by cis-regulatory logic immediately upstream of ulaE is uncertain and certainly merits deeper consideration. I suspect that many other similar cases likewise lurk in the dataset used here (perhaps even moreso for the Pseudomonas data, where the operon definitions are likely less robust). Of course there are many possible explanations, such as a separate ulaE promoter only in some strains, but this should perhaps be carefully stated and explored, and seems likely to be the exception rather than the rule. Another issue with the current definition of regulatory regions, which should perhaps also be accounted for, is that it is likely that for many operons, the 'regulatory regions' of one gene might overlap the ORF of the previous gene, and in some cases actual coding mutations in an upstream gene may contaminate the set of potential regulatory mutations identified in this dataset. Taken together, I feel that all of the above concerns need to be addressed in some way. At the absolute barest minimum, the authors need to acknowledge the weaknesses that I have pointed out in the definition of cis-regulatory logic at a gene level. I think it would be far BETTER if they performed a re-analysis at the level of transcriptional units, which I think might substantially strengthen the work as a whole, but I recognize that this would also constitute a substantial amount of additional effort. Having reached the end of the paper, and considering the evidence and arguments of the authors in their totality, I find myself wondering how much local x background interactions - that is, the effects of cis regulatory mutations (like those being considered here, with or without the modified definitions that I proposed above) IN THE CONTEXT OF A PARTICULAR STRAIN BACKGROUND, might matter more than the effects of the cis regulatory mutations per se. This is a particularly tricky problem to address because it would require a moderate number of targeted experiments with a moderate number of promoters in a moderate number of strains (which of course makes it maximally annoying since one can't simply scale up hugely on either axis individually and really expect to tease things out). I think that trying to address this question experimentally is FAR beyond the scope of the current paper, but I think perhaps the authors could at least begin to address it by acknowledging it as a challenge in their discussion section, and possibly even identify candidate promoters that might show the largest divergence of activities across strains when there IS no detectable cis regulatory mutation (which might be indicative of local x background interactions), or those with the largest divergences of effect for a given mutation across strains. A differential expression model incorporating shrinkage is essential in such analysis to avoid putting too much weight on low expression genes with a lot of Poisson noise.

I also have some more minor concerns and suggestions, which I outline below: It seems that the differential expression analysis treats the lab reference strains as the 'centerpoint' against which everything else is compared, and yet I wonder if this is the best approach... it might be interesting to see how the results differ if the authors instead take a more 'average' strain (either chosen based on genetics or transcriptomics) as a reference and compared everything else to that.

Line 104 - the statement about the differentially expressed genes being "part of operons with diverse biological functions" seems unclear - it is not apparent whether the authors are referring to diversity of function within each operon, or between the different operons, and in any case one should consider whether the observation reflects any useful information or is just an apparently random collection of operons. Line 292 - I find the argument here somewhat unconvincing, for two reasons. First, the fact that only half of the observed changes went in the same direction as the GWAS results would indicate, which is trivially a result that would be expected by random chance, does not lend much confidence to the overall premise of the study that there are meaningful cis regulatory changes being detected (in fact, it seems to argue that the background in which a variant occurs may matter a great deal, at least as much as the cis regulatory logic itself). Second, in order to even assess whether the GWAS is useful to "find the genetic determinants of gene expression changes" as the authors indicate, it would be necessary to compare to a reasonable, non-straw-man, null approach simply identifying common sequence variants that are predicted to cause major changes in sigma 70 binding at known promoters; such a test would be especially important given the lack of directional accuracy observed here. Along these same lines, it is perhaps worth noting, in the discussion beginning on line 329, that the comparison is perhaps biased in favor of the GWAS study, since the validation targets here were prioritized based on (presumably strong) GWAS data.

I don't find the Venn diagrams in Fig 7C-D useful or clear given the large number of zero-overlap regions, and would strongly advocate that the authors find another way to show these data.

In the analysis of waa operon gene expression beginning on line 400, it is perhaps important to note that most of the waa operon doesn't do anything in laboratory K12 strains due to the lack of complete O-antigen... the same is not true, however, for many wild/clinical isolates. It would be interesting to see how those results compare, and also how the absolute TPMs (rather than just LFCs) of genes in this operon vary across the strains being investigated during TOB treatment.

I don't think that the second conclusion on lines 479-480 is fully justified by the data, given both the disparity in available annotation information between the two species, AND the fact that only two species were considered.

Line 118: "Double of DEGs"

Line 288 - presumably these are LOG fold changes

Fig 6b - legend contains typos

Line 661 - please report the read count (more relevant for RNA-seq analysis) rather than Gb

Source code - I appreciate that the authors provide their source code on github, but it is very poorly documented - both a license and some top-level documentation about which code goes with each major operation/conclusion/figure should be provided. Also, ipython notebooks are in general a poor way in my view to distribute code, due to their encouragement of nonlinear development practices; while they are fine for software development, actual complete python programs along with accompanying source data would be preferrable.

Significance

Overall the key strength of the study is the heroic merging of large genetic and transcriptomic datasets to address the question of how much variation in gene expression can be assigned to cis regulatory mutations in E. coli and in P. aeruginosa. The authors find that only a minority of genes can have such an assignment explaining expression variation, which highlights both the many factors (local and global) impacting gene expression, and the difficulty in trying to predict and understand expression patterns in different strains. I believe that with suitable modification, the manuscript will be of great interest to a broad audience interested in bacterial genomics, gene regulation, and systems/synthetic biology.

Reviewer Expertise: I consider myself a bacterial systems biologist and routinely use high throughput experiments to understand bacterial gene regulation.

Movimento Pico acredito não esta bantendo com o que temos nos último anos.

• Efeitos pecuniários do MS tem eficácia prospectiva, visto que MS não pode se servir como ação de cobrança. Logo, o recebimento de valores compreendidos entre o ajuizamento da ação e a concessão da ordem devem ser pagos sob a sistemática de precatórios ou, se o caso, RPV. Nesse sentido:

• RE 889173 RG - Tema 831
• Órgão julgador: Tribunal Pleno
• Relator(a): Min. LUIZ FUX
• Julgamento: 07/08/2015
• Publicação: 17/08/2015

RECURSO EXTRAORDINÁRIO. CONSTITUCIONAL E PROCESSUAL. MANDADO DE SEGURANÇA. VALORES DEVIDOS ENTRE A DATA DA IMPETRAÇÃO E A IMPLEMENTAÇÃO DA ORDEM CONCESSIVA. SUBMISSÃO AO REGIME DE PRECATÓRIOS. REPERCUSSÃO GERAL RECONHECIDA. REAFIRMAÇÃO DE JURISPRUDÊNCIA.

Tema 831

• Obrigatoriedade de pagamento, mediante o regime de precatórios, dos valores devidos pela Fazenda Pública entre a data da impetração do mandado de segurança e a efetiva implementação da ordem concessiva.

Tese - O pagamento dos valores devidos pela Fazenda Pública entre a data da impetração do mandado de segurança e a efetiva implementação da ordem concessiva <u>deve</u> observar o regime de precatórios previsto no artigo 100 da Constituição Federal.

Outras ocorrências Observação (1)

O Tribunal que julgará o crime de responsabilidade do Governador será composto: - 5 deputados eleitos pela Assembleia; - 5 desembargadores sorteados. - O presidente deste tribunal será o Presidente do Tribunal de Justiça do Estado.

No entanto, ATENÇÃO: - A admissibilidade da acusação é julgada exclusivamente pela Assembleia. Com isso, por maioria absoluta, a Assembleia decreta a procedência da acusação realizada, suspende o Governador de suas funções e, após isso, terá início o julgamento pelo Tribunal composto por Desembargadores e Deputados.

Leisure is seeming to have a different definition here than what I originally thought it meant. It wasn't just a break from labor and work but a time to find yourself and for development

Me encanta esta fotografía porque están bailando en lo que parece una cárcel (convict camp). Me pregunto por qué estarían ellos ahí. Uno está bailando, otro toca la guitarra, y el otro aplaudiendo. Los demos no participan, pero hay un hombre hasta el fondo que los observa (creo que es un guardia). No me puedo imaginar cómo se dio ese momento, pero me gustaría creer que ellos tuvieron esperanza o, al menos, un breve encuentro con la felicidad.

Atualizar com os dados de 2025

melhorar o espaçamento entre os percentuais

falta o numero 3.6 e 3.7 nos indices

Figura 3.36 - Atualizar o gráfico pizza de medidas ATFM para o ano de 2025.

Na Figura 3.30, o valor da capacidade de chegada no gráfico de SBGR de 2023 está em 32. O correto é 34. 32 é a taxa pico, não a capacidade de chegada.

dados 2023 estão incorretos de acordo com o dashboard do cgna

Esse gráfico não está trazendo muita informação. Qual a leitura dele? A tabela abaixo traz as mesmas informações só que não é visual. Mas segue o baile.

dejar solmante los pasos para usar el json de footprint (usar precondicion de validar eschema de JSON)

• consultar a IVAN que decisión tomamos sobre este punto: Bloqueo de Estructura: El sistema rechaza (Error 409 Conflict) cualquier intento de modificar coverage (agregar/quitar países o RATs). Razón: Modificar esto alteraría el contrato técnico de productos que ya están vendidos/activos sin pasar por el ciclo de versionado del perfil. Excepción: Se permite modificar solo el name (metadato descriptivo) para correcciones ortográficas o de claridad. Si se rechaza por estar en uso, el mensaje debe instruir: "Este Footprint está en uso. Para cambiar la cobertura, cree un nuevo Footprint y asócielo a una nueva versión del Service Profile".

• CUANDO CREAMOS EL FOOTPRINT ( VA A TENER UN IDENTIFICADOR DE PROVEEDOR QUE LO ADMITE) ENTONCES CUANDO GENERO UN SERVICE PROFILE CON ESE FOOTPRINT, HEREDA LOS PROVEEDORES QUE ADMITEN ESE SERVICE PROFILE. --> DAR VUELTA CON IA, EN CASO DE QUE CIERRE, HABRIA QUE SACAR LA CAP 07

EN CU 01

SACAR TODA LA CAPACIDAD, Ya que esto las capabilitys deberan estar precargadas en una entidad, con los atributos que necesite serviceprofile-

My serious concern are security breaches. I know that these companies collect a lot o data on us that I hope that some other greater force does not compromise that. Ex. Things like location< important identification numbers, and addresses.

Car@s formandos que papel desempenham as e-atividades no desenho de uma abordagem pedagógica? É a abordagem pedagógica que define as e-atividades? Ou são as e-atividades que definem a abordagem?? Façam comentários e coloquem anotações ao longo do texto para discutir estas e outras questões relacionadas com o tema... saudações académicas António Moreira

Author response:

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This fundamental study identifies a new mechanism that involves a mycobacterial nucleomodulin manipulation of the host histone methyltransferase COMPASS complex to promote infection. Although other intracellular pathogens are known to manipulate histone methylation, this is the first report demonstrating the specific targeting of the COMPASS complex by a pathogen. The rigorous experimental design using state-of-the art bioinformatic analysis, protein modeling, molecular and cellular interaction, and functional approaches, culminating with in vivo infection modeling, provides convincing, unequivocal evidence that supports the authors' claims. This work will be of particular interest to cellular microbiologists working on microbial virulence mechanisms and effectors, specifically nucleomodulins, and cell/cancer biologists that examine COMPASS dysfunction in cancer biology.

Strengths:

(1) The strengths of this study include the rigorous and comprehensive experimental design that involved numerous state-of-the-art approaches to identify potential nucleomodulins, define molecular nucleomodulin-host interactions, cellular nucleomodulin localization, intracellular survival, and inflammatory gene transcriptional responses, and confirmation of the inflammatory and infection phenotype in a small animal model.

(2) The use of bioinformatic, cellular, and in vivo modeling that are consistent and support the overall conclusions is a strength of the study. In addition, the rigorous experimental design and data analysis, including the supplemental data provided, further strengthen the evidence supporting the conclusions.

Weaknesses:

(1) This work could be stronger if the MgdE-COMPASS subunit interactions that negatively impact COMPASS complex function were better defined. Since the COMPASS complex consists of many enzymes, examining the functional impact on each of the components would be interesting.

We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. A biochemistry assays could be helpful to interpret the functional impact on each of the components by MgdE interaction. However, the purification of the COMPASS complex could be a hard task itself due to the complexity of the full COMPASS complex along with its dynamic structural properties and limited solubility.

(2) Examining the impact of WDR5 inhibitors on histone methylation, gene transcription, and mycobacterial infection could provide additional rigor and provide useful information related to the mechanisms and specific role of WDR5 inhibition on mycobacterial infection.

We thank the reviewer for the comment. A previous study showed that WIN-site inhibitors, such as compound C6, can displace WDR5 from chromatin, leading to a reduction in global H3K4me3 levels and suppression of immune-related gene expression (Hung et al., Nucleic Acids Res, 2018; Bryan et al., Nucleic Acids Res, 2020). These results closely mirror the functional effects we observed for MgdE, suggesting that MgdE may act as a functional mimic of WDR5 inhibition. This supports our proposed model in which MgdE disrupts COMPASS activity by targeting WDR5, thereby dampening host pro-inflammatory responses.

(3) The interaction between MgdE and COMPASS complex subunit ASH2L is relatively undefined, and studies to understand the relationship between WDR5 and ASH2L in COMPASS complex function during infection could provide interesting molecular details that are undefined in this study.

We thank the reviewer for the comment. In this study, we constructed single and multiple point mutants of MgdE at residues S⁸⁰, D²⁴⁴, and H²⁴⁷ to identify key amino acids involved in its interaction with ASH2L (Figure 5A and B; New Figure S4C). However, these mutations did not interrupt the interaction with MgdE, suggesting that more residues are involved in the interaction.

ASH2L and WDR5 function cooperatively within the WRAD module to stabilize the SET domain and promote H3K4 methyltransferase activity with physiological conditions (Couture and Skiniotis, Epigenetics, 2013; Qu et al., Cell, 2018; Rahman et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2022). ASH2L interacts with RbBP5 via its SPRY domain, whereas WDR5 bridges MLL1 and RbBP5 through the WIN and WBM motifs (Chen et al., Cell Res, 2012; Park et al., Nat Commun, 2019). The interaction status between ASH2L and WDR5 during mycobacterial infection could not be determined in our current study.

(4) The AlphaFold prediction results for all the nuclear proteins examined could be useful. Since the interaction predictions with COMPASS subunits range from 0.77 for WDR5 and 0.47 for ASH2L, it is not clear how the focus on COMPASS complex over other nuclear proteins was determined.

We thank the reviewer for the comment. We employed AlphaFold to predict the interactions between MgdE and the major nuclear proteins. This screen identified several subunits of the SET1/COMPASS complex as high-confidence candidates for interaction with MgdE (Figure S4A). This result is consistent with a proteomic study by Penn et al. which reported potential interactions between MgdE and components of the human SET1/COMPASS complex based on affinity purification-mass spectrometry analysis (Penn et al., Mol Cell, 2018).

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Chen et al addresses an important aspect of pathogenesis for mycobacterial pathogens, seeking to understand how bacterial effector proteins disrupt the host immune response. To address this question, the authors sought to identify bacterial effectors from M. tuberculosis (Mtb) that localize to the host nucleus and disrupt host gene expression as a means of impairing host immune function.

Strengths:

The researchers conducted a rigorous bioinformatic analysis to identify secreted effectors containing mammalian nuclear localization signal (NLS) sequences, which formed the basis of quantitative microscopy analysis to identify bacterial proteins that had nuclear targeting within human cells. The study used two complementary methods to detect protein-protein interaction: yeast two-hybrid assays and reciprocal immunoprecipitation (IP). The combined use of these techniques provides strong evidence of interactions between MgdE and SET1 components and suggests that the interactions are, in fact, direct. The authors also carried out a rigorous analysis of changes in gene expression in macrophages infected with the mgdE mutant BCG. They found strong and consistent effects on key cytokines such as IL6 and CSF1/2, suggesting that nuclear-localized MgdE does, in fact, alter gene expression during infection of macrophages.

Weaknesses:

There are some drawbacks in this study that limit the application of the findings to M. tuberculosis (Mtb) pathogenesis. The first concern is that much of the study relies on ectopic overexpression of proteins either in transfected non-immune cells (HEK293T) or in yeast, using 2-hybrid approaches. Some of their data in 293T cells is hard to interpret, and it is unclear if the protein-protein interactions they identify occur during natural infection with mycobacteria. The second major concern is that pathogenesis is studied using the BCG vaccine strain rather than virulent Mtb. However, overall, the key findings of the paper - that MgdE interacts with SET1 and alters gene expression are well-supported.

We thank the reviewer for the comment. We agree that the ectopic overexpression could not completely reflect a natural status, although these approaches were adopted in many similar experiments (Drerup et al., Molecular plant, 2013; Chen et al., Cell host & microbe, 2018; Ge et al., Autophagy, 2021). Further, the MgdE localization experiment using Mtb infected macrophages will be performed to increase the evidence in the natural infection.

We agree with the reviewer that BCG strain could not fully recapitulate the pathogenicity or immunological complexity of M. tuberculosis infection. We employed BCG as a biosafe surrogate model since it was acceptable in many related studies (Wang et al., Nat Immunol, 2025; Wang et al., Nat Commun, 2017; Péan et al., Nat Commun, 2017; Li et al., J Biol Chem, 2020).

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

In this study, Chen L et al. systematically analyzed the mycobacterial nucleomodulins and identified MgdE as a key nucleomodulin in pathogenesis. They found that MgdE enters into host cell nucleus through two nuclear localization signals, KRIR^108-111 and RLRRPR^300-305, and then interacts with COMPASS complex subunits ASH2L and WDR5 to suppress H3K4 methylation-mediated transcription of pro-inflammatory cytokines, thereby promoting mycobacterial survival. This study is potentially interesting, but there are several critical issues that need to be addressed to support the conclusions of the manuscript.

(1) Figure 2: The study identified MgdE as a nucleomodulin in mycobacteria and demonstrated its nuclear translocation via dual NLS motifs. The authors examined MgdE nuclear translocation through ectopic expression in HEK293T cells, which may not reflect physiological conditions. Nuclear-cytoplasmic fractionation experiments under mycobacterial infection should be performed to determine MgdE localization.

We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. In the revised manuscript, we addressed this concern by performing nuclear-cytoplasmic fractionation experiments using M. bovis BCG-infected macrophages to assess the subcellular localization of MgdE (New Figure 2F) (Lines 146–155). Nuclear-cytoplasmic fractionation experiments showed that WT MgdE and the NLS single mutants (MgdE^ΔNLS1 and MgdE^ΔNLS2) could be detected both in the cytoplasm and in the nucleus, while the double mutant MgdE^ΔNLS1-2 was detectable only in the cytoplasm. These findings strongly indicate that MgdE is capable of translocating into the host cell nucleus during BCG infection, and that this nuclear localization relies on the dual NLS motifs.

(2) Figure 2F: The authors detected MgdE-EGFP using an anti-GFP antibody, but EGFP as a control was not detected in its lane. The authors should address this technical issue.

We thank the reviewer for this question. In the revised manuscript, we have included the uncropped immunoblot images, which clearly show the EGFP band in the corresponding lane. These have been provided in the New Figure 2E.

(3) Figure 3C-3H: The data showing that the expression of all detected genes in 24 h is comparable to that in 4 h (but not 0 h) during WT BCG infection is beyond comprehension. The issue is also present in Figure 7C, Figure 7D, and Figure S7. Moreover, since Il6, Il1β (pro-inflammatory), and Il10 (anti-inflammatory) were all upregulated upon MgdE deletion, how do the authors explain the phenomenon that MgdE deletion simultaneously enhanced these gene expressions?

We thank the reviewer for the comment. A relative quantification method was used in our qPCR experiments to normalize the WT expression levels in Figure 3C–3H, Figure 7C, 7D, and New Figure S6.

The concurrent induction of both types of cytokines likely represents a dynamic host strategy to fine-tune immune responses during infection. This interpretation is supported by previous studies (Podleśny-Drabiniok et al., Cell Rep, 2025; Cicchese et al., Immunological Reviews, 2018).

(4) Figure 5: The authors confirmed the interactions between MgdE and WDR5/ASH2L. How does the interaction between MgdE and WDR5 inhibit COMPASS-dependent methyltransferase activity? Additionally, the precise MgdE-ASH2L binding interface and its functional impact on COMPASS assembly or activity require clarification.

We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. We cautiously speculate that the MgdE interaction inhibits COMPASS-dependent methyltransferase activity by interfering with the integrity and stability of the COMPASS complex. Accordingly, we have incorporated the following discussion into the revised manuscript (Lines 303-315):

“The COMPASS complex facilitates H3K4 methylation through a conserved assembly mechanism involving multiple core subunits. WDR5, a central scaffolding component, interacts with RbBP5 and ASH2L to promote complex assembly and enzymatic activity (Qu et al., 2018; Wysocka et al., 2005). It also recognizes the WIN motif of methyltransferases such as MLL1, thereby anchoring them to the complex and stabilizing the ASH2L-RbBP5 dimer (Hsu et al., Cell, 2018). ASH2L further contributes to COMPASS activation by interacting with both RbBP5 and DPY30 and by stabilizing the SET domain, which is essential for efficient substrate recognition and catalysis (Qu et al., Cell, 2018; Park et al., Nat Commun, 2019). Our work shows that MgdE binds both WDR5 and ASH2L and inhibits the methyltransferase activity of the COMPASS complex. Site-directed mutagenesis revealed that residues D²²⁴ and H²⁴⁷ of MgdE are critical for WDR5 binding, as the double mutant MgdE-D²²⁴A/H²⁴⁷A fails to interact with WDR5 and shows diminished suppression of H3K4me3 levels (Figure 5D).”

Regarding the precise MgdE-ASH2L binding interface, we attempted to identify the key interaction site by introducing point mutations into ASH2L. However, these mutations did not disrupt the interaction (Figure 5A and B; New Figure S4C), suggesting that more residues are involved in the interaction.

(5) Figure 6: The authors proposed that the MgdE-regulated COMPASS complex-H3K4me3 axis suppresses pro-inflammatory responses, but the presented data do not sufficiently support this claim. H3K4me3 inhibitor should be employed to verify cytokine production during infection.

We thank the reviewer for the comment. We have now revised the description in lines 220-221 and lines 867-868 "MgdE suppresses host inflammatory responses probably by inhibition of COMPASS complex-mediated H3K4 methylation."

(6) There appears to be a discrepancy between the results shown in Figure S7 and its accompanying legend. The data related to inflammatory responses seem to be missing, and the data on bacterial colonization are confusing (bacterial DNA expression or CFU assay?).

We thank the reviewer for the comment. New Figure S6 specifically addresses the effect of MgdE on bacterial colonization in the spleens of infected mice, which was assessed by quantitative PCR rather than by CFU assay.

We have now revised the legend of New Figure S6 as below (Lines 986-991):

“MgdE facilitates bacterial colonization in the spleens of infected mice. Bacterial colonization was assessed in splenic homogenates from infected mice (as described in Figure 7A) by quantifying bacterial DNA using quantitative PCR at 2, 14, 21, 28, and 56 days post-infection.”

(7) Line 112-116: Please provide the original experimental data demonstrating nuclear localization of the 56 proteins harboring putative NLS motifs.

We thank the reviewer for the comment. We will provide this data in the New Table S3.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

There are a few concerns about specific experiments:

Major Comments:

(1) Questions about the exact constructs used in their microscopy studies and the behavior of their controls. GFP is used as a negative control, but in the data they provide, the GFP signal is actually nuclear-localized (for example, Figure 1c, Figure 2a). Later figures do show other constructs with clear cytoplasmic localization, such as the delta-NLS-MgdE-GFP in Figure 2D. This raises significant questions about how the microscopy images were analyzed and clouds the interpretation of these findings. It is also not clear if their microscopy studies use the mature MdgE, lacking the TAT signal peptide after signal peptidase cleavage (the form that would be delivered into the host cell) or if they are transfecting the pro-protein that still has the TAT signal peptide (a form that would present in the bacterial cell but that would not be found in the host cell). This should be clarified, and if their construct still has the TAT peptide, then key findings such as nuclear localization and NLS function should be confirmed with the mature protein lacking the signal peptide.

We thank the reviewer for this question.  EGFP protein can passively diffuse through nuclear pores due to its smaller size (Petrovic et al., Science, 2022; Yaseen et al., Nat Commun, 2015; Bhat et al., Nucleic Acids Res, 2015). However, upon transfection with EGFP-tagged wild-type MdgE and its NLS deletion mutants (MdgE^ΔNLS1, MdgE^ΔNLS2, and MdgE^ΔNLS1-2), we observed significantly stronger nuclear fluorescence in cells expressing wild-type MdgE compared to the EGFP protein. Notably, the MdgE^ΔNLS1-2-EGFP mutant showed almost no detectable nuclear fluorescence (Figure 2C, D, and E). These results indicate that (i) MdgE-EGFP fusion protein could not enter the nucleus by passive diffusion, and (ii) EGFP does not interfere with the nuclear targeting ability of MdgE.

We did not construct a signal peptide-deleted MgdE for transfection assays. Instead, we performed an infection experiment using recombinant M. bovis BCG strains expressing Flag-tagged wild-type MgdE. The mature MgdE protein (signal peptide cleaved) can be detected in the nucleus fractionation (New Figure 2F), suggesting that the signal peptide does not play a role for the nuclear localization of MgdE.

(2) The localization of MdgE is not shown during actual infection. The study would be greatly strengthened by an analysis of the BCG strain expressing their MdgE-FLAG construct.

We thank the reviewer for the comment. In the revised manuscript, we constructed M. bovis BCG strains expressing FLAG-tagged wild-type MdgE as well as NLS deletion mutants (MdgE^ΔNLS1, MdgE^ΔNLS2, and MdgE^ΔNLS1-2). These strains were used to infect THP-1 cells, and nuclear-cytoplasmic fractionation was performed 24 hours post-infection.

Nuclear-cytoplasmic fractionation experiments showed that WT MgdE and the NLS single mutants could be detected both in the cytoplasm and in the nucleus by immunoblotting, while the double mutant MgdE^ΔNLS1-2 was detectable only in the cytoplasm (New Figure 2F) (Lines 146–155). These findings indicate that MdgE is capable of entering the host cell nucleus during BCG infection, and that this nuclear localization depends on the presence of both its N-terminal and C-terminal NLS motifs.

(3) Their pathogenesis studies suggesting a role for MdgE would be greatly strengthened by studying MdgE in virulent Mtb rather than the BCG vaccine strain. If this is not possible because of technical limitations (such as lack of a BSL3 facility), then at least a thorough discussion of studies that examined Rv1075c/MdgE in Mtb is important. This would include a discussion of the phenotype observed in a previously published study examining the Mtb Rv1075c mutant that showed a minimal phenotype in mice (PMID: 31001637) and would also include a discussion of whether Rv1075c was identified in any of the several in vivo Tn-Seq studies done on Mtb.

We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. In the revised manuscript, we have incorporated a more thorough discussion of prior studies that examined Rv1075c/MgdE in Mtb, including the reported minimal phenotype of an Mtb MgdE mutant in mice (PMID: 31001637) (Lines 288–294).

In the latest TnSeq studies in M. tuberculosis, Rv1075c/MgdE was not classified as essential for in vivo survival or virulence (James et al., NPJ Vaccines, 2025; Zhang et al., Cell, 2013). However, this absence should not be interpreted as evidence of dispensability since these datasets also failed to identify some well characterized virulence factors including Rv2067c (Singh et al., Nat Commun, 2023), PtpA (Qiang et al., Nat Commun, 2023), and PtpB (Chai et al., Science, 2022) which were demonstrated to be required for the virulence of Mtb.

Minor Comments:

(1) Multiple figures with axes with multiple discontinuities used when either using log-scale or multiple graphs is more appropriate, including 3B, 7A.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for pointing this out. In the revised manuscript, we have updated Figure 3B and Figure 7A.

(2) Figure 1C - Analysis of only nuclear MFI can be very misleading because it is affected by the total expression of each construct. Ratios of nuclear to cytoplasmic MFI are a more rigorous analysis.

We thank the reviewer for this comment. We agree that analyzing the ratio of nuclear to cytoplasmic mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) provides a more rigorous quantification of nuclear localization, particularly when comparing constructs with different expression levels. However, the analysis presented in Figure 1C was intended as a preliminary qualitative screen to identify Tat/SPI-associated proteins with potential nuclear localization, rather than a detailed quantitative assessment.

(3) Figure 5C - Controls missing and unclear interpretation of their mutant phenotype. There is no mock or empty-vector control transfection, and their immunoblot shows a massive increase in total cellular H3K4me3 signal in the bulk population, although their prior transfection data show only a small fraction of cells are expressing MdgE. They also see a massive increase in methylation in cells transfected with the inactive mutant, but the reason for this is unclear. Together, these data raise questions about the specificity of the increasing methylation they observe. An empty vector control should be included, and the phenotype of the mutant explained.

We thank the reviewer for this comment. In the revised manuscript, we transfected HEK293T cells with an empty EGFP vector and performed a quantitative analysis of H3K4me3 levels. The results demonstrated that, at the same time point, cells expressing MdgE showed significantly lower levels of H3K4me3 compared to both the EGFP control and the catalytically inactive mutant MdgE (D²⁴⁴A/H²⁴⁷A) (New Figure 5D) (Lines 213–216). These findings support the conclusion that MdgE specifically suppresses H3K4me3 levels in cells.

(4) Figure S1A - The secretion assay is lacking a critical control of immunoblotting a cytoplasmic bacterial protein to demonstrate that autolysis is not releasing proteins into the culture filtrate non-specifically - a common problem with secretion assays in mycobacteria.

We thank the reviewer for this comment. To address the concerns, we examined FLAG-tagged MgdE and the secreted antigen Ag85B in the culture supernatants by monitoring the cytoplasmic protein GlpX. The absence of GlpX in the supernatant confirmed that there was no autolysis in the experiment. We could detect MgdE-Flag in the culture supernatant (New Figure S2A), indicating that MgdE is a secreted protein.

(5) The volcano plot of their data shows that the proteins with the smallest p-values have the smallest fold-changes. This is unusual for a transcriptomic dataset and should be explained.

We thank the reviewer for this comment. We are not sure whether the p-value is correlated with fold-change in the transcriptomic dataset. This is probably case by case.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

There are several minor comments:

(1) Line 104-109: The number of proteins harboring NLS motifs and candidate proteins assigned to the four distinct pathways does not match the data presented in Table S2. Please recheck the details. Figure 1A and B, as well as Figure S1A and B, should also be corrected accordingly.

We thank the reviewer for the comment. We have carefully checked the details and the numbers were confirmed and updated.

(2) Please add the scale bar in all image figures, including Figure 1C, Figure 2D, Figure 5C, Figure 7B, and Figure S2.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have now added scale bars to all relevant image figures in the revised manuscript, including Figure 1C, New Figure 2C, Figure 5C, Figure 7B, and New Figure S2B.

(3) Please add the molecular marker in all immunoblotting figures, including Figure 2C, Figure 2F, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 5B, Figure 5D, and Figure S5.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have now added the molecular marker in all immunoblotting figures in the revised manuscript, including New Figure 2E–F, Figure 4B–C, Figure 5B and D, Figure S2A, New Figure S2E and New Figure S4C.

References

Bryan AF, Wang J, Howard GC, Guarnaccia AD, Woodley CM, Aho ER, Rellinger EJ, Matlock BK, Flaherty DK, Lorey SL, Chung DH, Fesik SW, Liu Q, Weissmiller AM, Tansey WP (2020) WDR5 is a conserved regulator of protein synthesis gene expression Nucleic Acids Res 48:2924-2941.

Chai Q, Yu S, Zhong Y, Lu Z, Qiu C, Yu Y, Zhang X, Zhang Y, Lei Z, Qiang L, Li BX, Pang Y, Qiu XB, Wang J, Liu CH (2022) A bacterial phospholipid phosphatase inhibits host pyroptosis by hijacking ubiquitin Science 378(6616):eabq0132.

Chen C, Nguyen BN, Mitchell G, Margolis SR, Ma D, Portnoy DA (2018) The listeriolysin O PEST-like sequence co-opts AP-2-mediated endocytosis to prevent plasma membrane damage during Listeria infection Cell host & microbe 23: 786-795.

Chen Y, Cao F, Wan B, Dou Y, Lei M (2012) Structure of the SPRY domain of human Ash2L and its interactions with RbBP5 and DPY30 Cell Res 22:598–602.

Cicchese JM, Evans S, Hult C, Joslyn LR, Wessler T, Millar JA, Marino S, Cilfone NA, Mattila JT, Linderman JJ, Kirschner DE (2018) Dynamic balance of pro‐ and anti‐inflammatory signals controls disease and limits pathology Immunological Reviews 285: 147–167.

Couture JF, Skiniotis G (2013) Assembling a COMPASS Epigenetics 8:349-54

Drerup MM, Schlücking K, Hashimoto K, Manishankar P, Steinhorst L, Kuchitsu K, Kudla J (2013) The calcineurin B-like calcium sensors CBL1 and CBL9 together with their interacting protein kinase CIPK26 regulate the Arabidopsis NADPH oxidase RBOHF Molecular plant 6: 559-569.

Ge P, Lei Z, Yu Y, Lu Z, Qiang L, Chai Q, Zhang Y, Zhao D, Li B, Pang Y, Liu C, Wang J (2021) M. tuberculosis PknG Manipulates Host Autophagy Flux to Promote Pathogen Intracellular Survival Autophagy 18: 576–94.

Hung KH, Woo YH, Lin IY, Liu CH, Wang LC, Chen HY, Chiang BL, Lin KI (2018) The KDM4A/KDM4C/NF-κB and WDR5 epigenetic cascade regulates the activation of B cells Nucleic Acids Res 46:5547–5560.

James KS, Jain N, Witzl K, Cicchetti N, Fortune SM, Ioerger TR, Martinot AJ, Carey AF (2025) TnSeq identifies genetic requirements of Mycobacterium tuberculosis for survival under vaccine-induced immunity NPJ Vaccines 10:103.

Li X, Chen L, Liao J, Hui J, Li W, He ZG (2020) A novel stress-inducible CmtR-ESX3-Zn²⁺ regulatory pathway essential for survival of Mycobacterium bovis under oxidative stress J Biol Chem 295:17083–17099.

Park SH, Ayoub A, Lee YT, Xu J, Kim H, Zheng W, Zhang B, Sha L, An S, Zhang Y, Cianfrocco MA, Su M, Dou Y, Cho US (2019) Cryo-EM structure of the human MLL1 core complex bound to the nucleosome Nat Commun 10:5540.

Penn BH, Netter Z, Johnson JR, Von Dollen J, Jang GM, Johnson T, Ohol YM, Maher C, Bell SL, Geiger K (2018) An Mtb-human protein-protein interaction map identifies a switch between host antiviral and antibacterial responses Mol Cell 71:637-648.e5.

Petrovic S, Samanta D, Perriches T, Bley CJ, Thierbach K, Brown B, Nie S, Mobbs GW, Stevens TA, Liu X, Tomaleri GP, Schaus L, Hoelz A (2022) Architecture of the linker-scaffold in the nuclear pore Science 376: eabm9798.

Podleśny-Drabiniok A, Romero-Molina C, Patel T, See WY, Liu Y, Marcora E, Goate AM (2025) Cytokine-induced reprogramming of human macrophages toward Alzheimer's disease-relevant molecular and cellular phenotypes in vitro Cell Rep 44:115909.

Qiang L, Zhang Y, Lei Z, Lu Z, Tan S, Ge P, Chai Q, Zhao M, Zhang X, Li B, Pang Y, Zhang L, Liu CH, Wang J (2023) A mycobacterial effector promotes ferroptosis-dependent pathogenicity and dissemination Nat Commun 14:1430.

Qu Q, Takahashi YH, Yang Y, Hu H, Zhang Y, Brunzelle JS, Couture JF, Shilatifard A, Skiniotis G (2018) Structure and Conformational Dynamics of a COMPASS Histone H3K4 Methyltransferase Complex Cell 174:1117-1126.e12.

Rahman S, Hoffmann NA, Worden EJ, Smith ML, Namitz KEW, Knutson BA, Cosgrove MS, Wolberger C (2022) Multistate structures of the MLL1-WRAD complex bound to H2B-ubiquitinated nucleosome Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 119:e2205691119.

Sharma G, Upadhyay S, Srilalitha M, Nandicoori VK, Khosla S 2015 The interaction of mycobacterial protein Rv2966c with host chromatin is mediated through non-CpG methylation and histone H3/H4 binding Nucleic Acids Res 43:3922-37.

Singh PR, Dadireddy V, Udupa S, Kalladi SM, Shee S, Khosla S, Rajmani RS, Singh A, Ramakumar S, Nagaraja V (2023) The Mycobacterium tuberculosis methyltransferase Rv2067c manipulates host epigenetic programming to promote its own survival Nat Commun 14:8497.

Wang J, Ge P, Qiang L, Tian F, Zhao D, Chai Q, Zhu M, Zhou R, Meng G, Iwakura Y, Gao GF, Liu CH (2017) The mycobacterial phosphatase PtpA regulates the expression of host genes and promotes cell proliferation Nat Commun 8:244.

Wang J, Li BX, Ge PP, Li J, Wang Q, Gao GF, Qiu XB, Liu CH (2015) Mycobacterium tuberculosis suppresses innate immunity by coopting the host ubiquitin system Nat Immunol 16:237–245

Wysocka J, Swigut T, Milne TA, Dou Y, Zhang X, Burlingame AL, Roeder RG, Brivanlou AH, Allis CD (2005) WDR5 associates with histone H3 methylated at K4 and is essential for H3 K4 methylation and vertebrate development Cell 121:859-72.

Yaseen I, Kaur P, Nandicoori VK, Khosla S (2015) Mycobacteria modulate host epigenetic machinery by Rv1988 methylation of a non-tail arginine of histone H3 Nat Commun 6:8922.

Zhang L, Kent JE, Whitaker M, Young DC, Herrmann D, Aleshin AE, Ko YH, Cingolani G, Saad JS, Moody DB, Marassi FM, Ehrt S, Niederweis M (2022) A periplasmic cinched protein is required for siderophore secretion and virulence of Mycobacterium tuberculosis Nat Commun 13:2255.

Zhang YJ, Reddy MC, Ioerger TR, Rothchild AC, Dartois V, Schuster BM, Trauner A, Wallis D, Galaviz S, Huttenhower C, Sacchettini JC, Behar SM, Rubin EJ (2013) Tryptophan biosynthesis protects mycobacteria from CD4 T-cell-mediated killing Cell 155:1296-308.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

We appreciate the reviewers’ insightful comments. In response, we conducted three new experiments, summarized in Author response table 1. After the table, we provide detailed responses to each comment.

Author response table 1.

Summary of new experiments and results.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The authors show that corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF) neurons in the central amygdala (CeA) and bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST) monosynaptically target cholinergic interneurons (CINs) in the dorsal striatum of rodents. Functionally, activation of CRFR1 receptors increases CIN firing rate, and this modulation was reduced by pre-exposure to ethanol. This is an interesting finding, with potential significance for alcohol use disorders, but some conclusions could use additional support.

Strengths:

Well-conceived circuit mapping experiments identify a novel pathway by which the CeA and BNST can modulate dorsal striatal function by controlling cholinergic tone. Important insight into how CRF, a neuropeptide that is important in mediating aspects of stress, affective/motivational processes, and drug-seeking, modulates dorsal striatal function.

Weaknesses:

(1) Tracing and expression experiments were performed both in mice and rats (in a mostly nonoverlapping way). While these species are similar in many ways, some conclusions are based on assumptions of similarities that the presented data do not directly show. In most cases, this should be addressed in the text (but see point number 2).

In the revised manuscript, we have clarified this limitation in the first paragraph of the Methods and the third paragraph of the Discussion and avoid cross-species claims, limiting our conclusions to the species in which each assay was performed. Specifically, we now state that while mice and rats share many conserved amygdalostriatal components, our tracing and expression studies were performed in a species-specific manner, and direct cross-species comparisons of CRF–CIN connectivity and CRFR1 expression were not assessed. We further note that future studies will be needed to determine the extent to which these observations are conserved across species as more tools become available.

(2) Experiments in rats show that CRFR1 expression is largely confined to a subpopulation of striatal CINs. Is this true in mice, too? Since most electrophysiological experiments are done in various synaptic antagonists and/or TTX, it does not affect the interpretation of those data, but non-CIN expression of CRFR1 could potentially have a large impact on bath CRF-induced acetylcholine release.

To address whether CRFR1 expression in striatal CINs is conserved across species, we performed new histological experiments using CRFR1-GFP mice. Striatal sections were immunostained with anti-ChAT, and we found that approximately 10% of CINs express CRFR1 (new Fig. 4D, 4E). This result indicates that, similar to rats, a subset of CINs in mice express CRFR1. However, the proportion of CRFR1⁺ CINs is lower than the proportion of CRF-responsive CINs observed during electrophysiology experiments, suggesting that CRF may also modulate CIN activity indirectly through network or synaptic mechanisms. We have also noted in the revised Discussion that while CRFR1 expression is confirmed in a subset of CINs, the broader distribution of CRFR1 among other striatal cell types remains to be determined (third paragraph of Discussion).

In our study, bath application of CRF increased striatal ACh release. Because striatal ACh is released primarily from CINs, and CRFR1 is an excitatory receptor, this effect is most likely mediated by CRF activation of CRFR1 on CINs, leading to enhanced CIN activity and ACh release. Although CRFR1 may also be expressed on other striatal neurons, these cell types—medium spiny neurons and GABAergic interneurons—are inhibitory. If CRF were to activate CRFR1 on these GABAergic neurons, the resulting increase in GABA release would suppress CIN activity and consequently reduce, rather than enhance, ACh release. Given that most CINs responded functionally while only a small subset expressed CRFR1, these findings imply that indirect mechanisms, such as CRF modulation of local circuits influencing CIN excitability, may also contribute to the observed increase in ACh release. Together, these data support a model in which CRF primarily enhances ACh release via activation of CRFR1-expressing CINs, while indirect network effects may further amplify this response.

(3) Experiments in rats show that about 30% of CINs express CRFR1 in rats. Did only a similar percentage of CINs in mice respond to bath application of CRF? The effect sizes and error bars in Figure 5 imply that the majority of recorded CINs likely responded. Were exclusion criteria used in these experiments?

We thank the reviewer for this insightful question. In our mouse cell-attached recordings, ~80% of CINs increased firing during CRF bath application, and all recorded cells were included in the analysis (no exclusions based on response direction/magnitude; cells were only required to meet standard recording-quality criteria such as stable baseline firing and seal).

Using a CRFR1-GFP reporter mouse, we found that ~10% of striatal CINs are GFP+, suggesting that the high proportion of CRF-responsive CINs cannot be explained solely by somatic reporter-labeled CRFR1 expression. Importantly, the CRF-induced increase in CIN firing is blocked by the selective CRFR1 antagonist NBI 35695 (Fig. 5B–C), supporting a CRFR1-dependent mechanism at the circuit level. We now discuss several non-mutually exclusive explanations for this apparent discrepancy: (i) reporter lines (e.g., CRFR1-GFP) may underestimate functional CRFR1 expression, particularly for low-level or compartmentalized receptor pools; (ii) bath-applied CRF may act indirectly via CRFR1 on presynaptic afferents, thereby enhancing excitatory drive onto CINs; and (iii) electrical coupling among CINs could allow direct effects in a subset of CINs to propagate through the CIN network (Ren, Liu et al. 2021). We added this discussion to the revised manuscript (fourth paragraph of the Discussion).

(4) The conclusion that prior acute alcohol exposure reduces the ability of subsequent alcohol exposure to suppress CIN activity in the presence of CRF may be a bit overstated. In Figure 6D (no ethanol preexposure), ethanol does not fully suppress CIN firing rate to baseline after CRF exposure. The attenuated effect of CRF on CIN firing rate after ethanol pre-treatment (6E) may just reduce the maximum potential effect that ethanol can have on firing rate after CRF, due to a lowered starting point. It is possible that the lack of significant effect of ethanol after CRF in pre-treated mice is an issue of experimental sensitivity. Related to this point, does pre-treatment with ethanol reduce the later CIN response to acute ethanol application (in the absence of CRF)?

In the revised manuscript, we have tempered our interpretation in the final Results section and throughout the Discussion to emphasize that ethanol pre-exposure attenuates, rather than abolishes, the CRFinduced increase in CIN firing. We also note the reviewer’s important point that in Figure 6D, ethanol does not fully suppress firing to baseline after CRF exposure, consistent with a partial effect. Regarding the reviewer’s question, our experiments were specifically designed to test interactions between CRF and ethanol, so we did not assess whether ethanol pre-treatment alters subsequent responses to ethanol alone. We now explicitly acknowledge CRF-dependent and CRF-independent effects of ethanol on CIN activity as an important point for future studies to disentangle (sixth paragraph of the Discussion). For example, comparing ethanol responses with and without prior ethanol without any treatment with CRF could resolve this question.

(5) More details about the area of the dorsal striatum being examined would be helpful (i.e., a-p axis).

We now provide more detail regarding the anterior–posterior axis of the dorsal striatum examined. Most recordings and imaging were performed in the posterior dorsomedial striatum (pDMS), corresponding to coronal slices posterior to the crossing of the anterior commissure and anterior to the tail of the striatum (starting around 0.62 mm and ending at −1.3 mm relative to the Bregma). While our primary focus was on posterior slices, some anterior slices were included to increase the sample size. These details have been added to the Methods (Last sentence of the ‘Histology and cell counting’ section and of the ‘Slice electrophysiology’ section).

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Essoh and colleagues present a thorough and elegant study identifying the central amygdala and BNST as key sources of CRF input to the dorsal striatum. Using monosynaptic rabies tracing and electrophysiology, they show direct connections to cholinergic interneurons. The study builds on previous findings that CRF increases CIN firing, extending them by measuring acetylcholine levels in slices and applying optogenetic stimulation of CRF+ fibers. It also uncovers a novel interaction between alcohol and CRF signaling in the striatum, likely to spark significant interest and future research.

Strengths:

A key strength is the integration of anatomical and functional approaches to demonstrate these projections and assess their impact on target cells, striatal cholinergic interneurons.

Weaknesses:

(1) The nature of the interaction between alcohol and CRF actions on cholinergic neurons remains unclear. Also, further clarification of the ACh sensor used and others is required

We have clarified the nature of the interaction between alcohol and CRF signaling in CINs and have provided additional details regarding the acetylcholine sensor used. These issues are addressed in detail in our responses to the specific comments below.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) The interaction between the effects of alcohol and CRF is a novel and important part of this study. When considering possible mechanisms underlying the findings in the discussion, there is no mention of occlusion. Given that incubation with alcohol produced a similar increase in firing of CINs as CRF, occlusion could be a parsimonious explanation for the observed interaction. Have the author considered blocking the effects of alcohol on CIN with CRF-R1 antagonist? Another experiment that could address the occlusion would be to test if alcohol also increases ACh levels as it did CRF.

We thank the reviewer for proposing occlusion as a potential mechanism underlying the interaction between alcohol and CRF. We agree that, in principle, alcohol-induced endogenous CRF release could occlude subsequent exogenous CRF-mediated potentiation of CIN firing, and we carefully considered this possibility.

However, several observations from our data argue against occlusion driven by acute alcohol exposure or withdrawal in this preparation. First, as shown in Fig. 6A, bath application of alcohol transiently reduced CIN firing, and firing recovered to baseline levels after washout without any rebound increase. Second, in Fig. 6D–E, the baseline firing rates under control conditions and following alcohol pretreatment were comparable, indicating that acute alcohol exposure and short-term withdrawal did not produce a sustained increase in CIN excitability. Together, these results suggest that acute withdrawal in slices is less likely to trigger substantial endogenous CRF release capable of occluding subsequent exogenous CRF effects.

While we and others have previously reported increased spontaneous CIN firing following prolonged in vivo alcohol exposure and extended withdrawal periods (e.g., 21 days), short-term withdrawal (e.g., 1 day) does not robustly alter baseline CIN firing (Ma, Huang et al. 2021, Huang, Chen et al. 2024). Consistent with these prior findings, the absence of a rebound or elevated baseline firing in the present slice experiments discouraged further pursuit of an endogenous CRF occlusion mechanism under acute conditions.

We also considered experimentally testing occlusion by blocking CRFR1 signaling during alcohol pre-treatment. However, this approach is technically challenging in slice recordings, as CRFR1 antagonists require prolonged incubation (~1 hour) during alcohol exposure. Because it is unclear whether endogenous CRF release is triggered by alcohol incubation itself or by withdrawal, the antagonist would need to remain present throughout both the incubation and withdrawal periods. This leaves insufficient time for complete washout of the CRFR1 antagonist prior to subsequent bath application of exogenous CRF to assess its effects on CIN firing. Consequently, residual antagonist presence would confound the interpretation of the exogenous CRF response.

Finally, regarding the possibility that alcohol increases acetylcholine release, we did not observe alcohol-induced increases in CIN firing in slices, arguing against elevated ACh signaling under these conditions. Consistent with prior work (Ma, Huang et al. 2021, Huang, Chen et al. 2024), alcohol-induced increases in CIN excitability and cholinergic signaling appear to depend on prolonged in vivo exposure and extended withdrawal rather than acute slice-level manipulations.

We have now incorporated discussion of occlusion as a potential mechanism (seventh paragraph) and clarified why our data and technical considerations argue against it in the present study. We thank the reviewer for this wonderful suggestion, which we will test in future in vivo studies.

(2) Retrograde monosynaptic tracing of inputs to CIN. Results state the finding of labeling in all previously reported area..." Can the authors report these areas? A list in the text or a bar plot, if there is quantification, will suffice. This formation will serve as important validation and replication of previous findings.

We thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion. We agree that summarizing the anatomical sources of CIN input provides important validation of our tracing results. In the revised Results, we now list the major input regions observed, including the striatum itself, cortex (e.g., cingulate cortex, motor cortex, somatosensory cortex), thalamus (e.g., parafascicular thalamic nucleus, centrolateral thalamic nucleus), globus pallidus, and midbrain (first paragraph of the Results). Quantitative analysis of relative input strength will be presented in a separate study that expands on these findings. Here, we limit the current manuscript to the functional characterization of CRF and alcohol modulation of CINs.

(3) Given the difference in connectivity among striatal subregions, it would be important to describe in more detail the injection site in the results and figures. In the figure, for example, you might want to include the AP coordinates, given that it is such a zoomed-in image, it is hard to tell how anterior/posterior the site is. I imagine that the picture is a representative image of the injection site, but maybe having a side image with overlay of injection sites in all the animals used, would help.

The anterior–posterior (AP) coordinates for representative images have been included in the panels and reiterated more clearly in the revised Results section and figure legends. In the legend for Figure 3B, a list of AP coordinates for each animal used for Figure 3A-3E has been added.

(4) Figure 1D inset, there seem to be some double-labeled cells in the zoomed in BNST images. The authors might want to comment on this. It seemed far from the injection site. Do D1-MSN so far away show connectivity to CINs?

Upon closer inspection of the BNST images, we noted a small number of double-labeled cells were indeed present, consistent with prior reports that a subset of D1R-expressing neurons (~10%) has been reported previously in our lab in the BNST, with the majority being D2R-expressing neurons (Lu, Cheng et al. 2021). Given the BNST’s anatomical proximity to the dorsal striatum, it is plausible that some D1Rexpressing neurons in this region provide monosynaptic input to CINs, highlighting a potential ventral-to-dorsal connection that merits further study.

(5) Can the author provide quantification of the onset delay of the optogenetic evoked CRF+ axon responses onto CINs? The claim of monosynaptic connectivity is well supported by the TTX/4AP experiment but additional information on the timing will strengthen that conclusion.

We thank the reviewer for this insightful suggestion. Quantifying the onset latency of optogenetically evoked CRFMsup+</sup> axon responses onto CINs provides valuable confirmation of monosynaptic connectivity. To address this, we performed new latency measurements under the same recording conditions as the TTX/4-AP experiments. The average onset latency from the start of the optical stimulation was 5.85 ± 0.37 ms (new Figure 3J), consistent with direct monosynaptic transmission.

As an additional reference, we analyzed latency data from a separate project in which we optogenetically stimulated cholinergic interneurons and recorded synaptic responses in medium spiny neurons. This circuit, known to involve disynaptic transmission from CINs to MSNs via nAChR-expressing interneurons (Autor response image 1) (English, Ibanez-Sandoval et al. 2011), exhibited a significantly longer latency (18.34 ± 0.70 ms; t₍₂₉₎ = 10.3, p < 0.001) compared to CRF⁺ CeA/BNST inputs to CINs (5.85 ± 0.37 ms). Together, these results further support that CRF⁺ axons form direct functional synapses onto CINs.

Author response image 1.

Latency of disynaptic transmission from CINs to MSNs via interneurons A) Schematic illustrating optogenetic stimulation of Chrimson-expressing CINs, leading to excitation of nAChRexpressing interneurons that release GABA onto recorded MSNs. B) Sample trace of disynaptic transmission (left) and bar graph summarizing onset latency (right) from light stimulation to synaptic response onset (n = 23 neurons from 3 mice).

(6) The ACh sensor reported is "AAV-GRABACh4m" but the reference is for GRAB-ACh3.0. Also, BrainVTA has GRAB-ACh4.3. Is this the vector? Could you please check the name of the construct and report the corresponding reference, as well as clarify the meaning of the additional "m". They have a mutant version of the GRAB-ACH that researchers use for control, and of course, you want to use it as a control, but not for the test experiment.

GRAB-ACh4m is the correct acetylcholine sensor used in this study. The ACh4 series (including ACh4h, ACh4m, and ACh4l; personal communication with Dr. Yulong Li’s lab) represents an updated generation following GRAB-ACh3.0. Although the ACh4 family has not yet been formally published, these constructs are publicly available through BrainVTA (https://www.brainvta.tech/plus/view.php?aid=2680).

The suffix “m” does not indicate a mutant control; rather, it denotes a medium-affinity variant within the ACh4 sensor family. Importantly, the mutant (non-responsive) control sensor is only available for GRAB-ACh3.0 (ACh3.0mut) and does not exist for the ACh4 series.

Our laboratory has previously used GRAB-ACh4m in multiple peer-reviewed publications (Huang, Chen et al. 2024, Gangal, Iannucci et al. 2025, Purvines, Gangal et al. 2025), and its use has also been reported by independent groups in recent preprints (Potjer, Wu et al. 2025, Touponse, Pomrenze et al. 2025). We have now clarified the construct name, its relationship to GRAB-ACh3.0, in the Methods ‘Reagents’ section, and we have corrected the reference accordingly.

(7) Are CRF-R1+ CINs equally abundant in the DMS and DLS? From the image in Figure 4, it seems that a larger percentage of CINs are CRFR1+ in the DLS than in DMS. Is this true? The authors probably already have this data, or it should be easy to get, and it could be additional information that was not studied before.

We did not perform a quantitative comparison of CRFR1+ CIN abundance between the DMS and DLS in the present study. While the representative images in Figure 4 may appear to suggest regional differences, these panels were selected to illustrate labeling quality rather than relative density and should not be interpreted as evidence of unequal distribution. We have clarified this point in the revised Discussion (last sentence of the third paragraph) and note that future studies will be needed to systematically evaluate potential regional differences in CRFR1 expression, which could have important implications for dorsal striatal function.

(8) The manuscript states several times that there are no CRF+ neurons in the dorsal striatum. At the same time, there are reports of the CRF+ neuron in the ventral striatum and its role in learning. Could the authors include mention of the studies by the Lemos group (10.1016/j.biopsych.2024.08.006)

We have revised the Discussion section to clarify that our findings pertain specifically to the dorsal striatum and now acknowledge the presence and functional relevance of CRF+ neurons in the ventral striatum, citing the Lemos group’s study (fifth paragraph of the Discussion).

(9) For the histology analysis, please express cell counts as "density", not just number of cells, by providing an area (e.g., "number of cell/ µm2").

In the revised manuscript, all histological outcomes have been recalculated as cell density (cells/mm²) by normalizing raw cell counts to the measured area of each region of interest (ROI). Figures that previously displayed absolute counts now present densities (cells/mm²), with corresponding updates made to figure legends and text. We note one exception in Figure 4B, where the comparison between the total number of CINs and CRFR1+ CINs is best represented as cell counts rather than normalized values, as the counting was conducted in the same area (within the same ROI) of the dorsostriatal subregion.

(10) Figure 2C, we can see there are some labeled fibers in the striatum cut. Would it be possible to get a better confocal image?

Figure 2C has been replaced with a higher-quality confocal image captured at the same magnification and scale. The updated image provides improved clarity and resolution, ensuring accurate visualization of labeled CRF+ fibers, but not cell bodies, within the striatum.

(11) The ACh measurements in the slice are very informative and an important addition. I first thought that these experiments with the GRAB-ACh sensor were performed in ChAT-eGFP mice. After reading more carefully, I realized they were done in wild-type mice. Would you include the wildtype label in the figure as well? The ChATeGFP BAC transgenic line was reported to have enhanced ACh packaging and increased ACh release, which could have magnified the signals. So, it is important to highlight the experiments were done in wildtype mice.

We now label with ‘WT mice’ and note in the legend that all GRAB-ACh experiments were performed in wild-type mice, not ChAT-eGFP, to avoid confounds in ACh release. We thank the reviewer for this important suggestion.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The authors demonstrate that CRF neurons in the extended amygdala form GABAergic synapses onto cholinergic interneurons and that CRF can excite these neurons. The evidence is strong, however, the authors fail to make a compelling connection showing CRF released from these extended amygdala neurons is mediating any of these effects. Further, they show that acute alcohol appears to modulate this action, although the effect size is not particularly robust.

Strengths:

This is an exciting connection from the extended amygdala to the striatum that provides a new direction for how these regions can modulate behavior. The work is rigorous and well done.

Weaknesses:

(1) While the authors show that opto stim of these neurons can increase firing, this is not shown to be CRFR1 dependent. In addition, the effects of acute ethanol are not particularly robust or rigorously evaluated. Further, the opto stim experiments are conducted in an Ai32 mouse, so it is impossible to determine if that is from CEA and BNST, vs. another population of CRF-containing neurons. This is an important caveat.

We added recordings with the CRFR1 antagonist antalarmin. Light-evoked increases in CIN firing were abolished under CRFR1 blockade, linking the effect to CRFR1 (Figure 5J, 5K). We also clarify that CRFCre;Ai32 does not isolate CeA versus BNST sources, so we temper regional claims and highlight this as a limitation. The acute ethanol effects are modest but consistent; we expanded the discussion of dose and preparation constraints in acute slice physiology and note that in vivo studies will be needed to define the network-level impact.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) The authors could bring some of this data together by examining CRFR1 dependence of optical stimulationinduced increases in firing. Further, the authors have devoted significant effort to exploring how the BNST and CEA project to the CIN, yet their ephys does not explore site-specific infusion of ChR2 into either region. How are we to be sure it is not some other population of CRF neurons mediating this effect? The alcohol data does not appear particularly robust, but I think if the authors wanted to, they could explore other concentrations. Mostly I think it is important to discuss the limitations of acute alcohol on 5a brain slice.

We thank the reviewer for these thoughtful comments, which helped us strengthen the mechanistic interpretation of the CRF-CIN interaction. In the revised manuscript, we have addressed each point as follows:

- CRFR1 dependence of optogenetically evoked responses: We performed new recordings in which optogenetic stimulation of CRF⁺ terminals in the dorsal striatum was conducted in the presence of the CRFR1 antagonist antalarmin. The increase in CIN firing evoked by light stimulation was abolished under CRFR1 blockade, confirming that this effect is mediated through CRFR1 activation (new Figure 5J, 5K, third paragraph of the corresponding Result section). These results directly link the functional effects of CRF⁺ terminal activation to CRFR1 signaling on CINs.

- CeA vs. BNST projection specificity: The reviewer is correct that CeA and BNST projections were not analyzed separately. As unknown pathways, our experiment was designed to first establish the monosynaptic connections between CeA/BNST CRF neurons to striatal CINs. Future studies would further explore the specific contribution of each site. However, our data exclude the possibility of other CRF neurons as we selectively infused Cre-dependent opsins into both CeA and BNST of CRF-Cre mice (Figure 3G-3J).

- Limitations of acute slice experiments: We have expanded the Discussion (sixth paragraph) to acknowledge that acute slice physiology cannot fully capture the dynamic and network-level effects of ethanol observed in vivo. While this preparation enables mechanistic precision, factors such as washout, diffusion constraints, and the absence of systemic feedback may underestimate ethanol’s impact on CINs. We now explicitly note this limitation and highlight the need for in vivo studies to examine behavioral and circuit-level implications of CRF–alcohol interactions.

Collectively, these revisions clarify the CRFR1 dependence of CRF⁺ terminal effects and reaffirm that both CeA and BNST projections contribute to CIN modulation while addressing the methodological limitations of the slice preparation.

Reviewer #4 Public Review):

This manuscript presents a compelling and methodologically rigorous investigation into how corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF) modulates cholinergic interneurons (CINs) in the dorsal striatum - a brain region central to cognitive flexibility and action selection-and how this circuit is disrupted by alcohol exposure. Through an integrated series of anatomical, optogenetic, electrophysiological, and imaging experiments, the authors uncover a previously uncharacterized CRF⁺ projection from the central amygdala (CeA) and bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST) to dorsal striatal CINs.

Strengths:

Key strengths of the study include the use of state-of-the-art monosynaptic rabies tracing, CRF-Cre transgenic models, CRFR1 reporter lines, and functional validation of synaptic connectivity and neurotransmitter release. The finding that CRF enhances CIN excitability and acetylcholine (ACh) release via CRFR1, and that this effect is attenuated by acute alcohol exposure and withdrawal, provides important mechanistic insight into how stress and alcohol interact to impair striatal function. These results position CRF signaling in CINs as a novel contributor to alcohol use disorder (AUD) pathophysiology, with implications for relapse vulnerability and cognitive inflexibility associated with chronic alcohol intake. The study is well-structured, with a clear rationale, thorough methodology, and logical progression of results. The discussion effectively contextualizes the findings within broader addiction neuroscience literature and suggests meaningful future directions, including therapeutic targeting of CRFR1 signaling in the dorsal striatum.

Weaknesses:

(1) Minor areas for improvement include occasional redundancy in phrasing, slightly overlong descriptions in the abstract and significance sections, and a need for more concise language in some places. Nevertheless, these do not detract from the manuscript's overall quality or impact. Overall, this is a highly valuable contribution to the fields of addiction neuroscience and striatal circuit function, offering novel insights into stress-alcohol interactions at the cellular and circuit level, which requires minor editorial revisions.

We have streamlined the abstract and significance statement, reduced redundancy, and improved conciseness throughout the text. We appreciate the reviewer’s feedback, which has helped us further strengthen the clarity and readability of the manuscript.

Reviewer #4 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) Line 29-30: Slightly verbose. Consider: "Alcohol relapse is associated with corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF) signaling and altered reward pathway function, though the precise mechanisms are unclear."

The sentence has been revised as recommended to improve clarity and conciseness in the introductory section (Lines 31-32).

(2) Lines 39-43: Good synthesis, but could better emphasize the novelty of identifying a CRF-CIN pathway.

The abstract has been revised to more clearly emphasize the novelty of identifying a CRF-CIN pathway and its functional significance (Line 42-43).

(3) Lines 66-68: Consider integrating clinical relevance more directly, e.g., "AUD affects over 14 million adults in the U.S., with relapse often triggered by stress...".

The introduction has been revised to more directly emphasize the clinical relevance of alcohol use disorder, including its high prevalence and the role of stress in relapse, thereby underscoring the translational significance of our findings (Lines 68-69).

(4) Line 83: Repetition of "goal-directed learning, habit formation, and behavioral flexibility" appears multiple times; consider variety.

We have varied the phrasing in the Introduction to avoid redundancy. Specifically, in place of repeating “goal-directed learning, habit formation, and behavioral flexibility,” we now use alternative terms such as “action selection,” “habitual responding,” and “cognitive flexibility,” depending on the context.

(5) Lines 107-116: Clarify why both rats and mice were used-do they serve different experimental purposes?

We now explain that each species was used for complementary experimental purposes. Rats were used for histological validation of CRFR1 expression using the CRFR1-Cre-tdTomato line, which has been extensively characterized in this species. Mice were used for the majority of electrophysiological, optogenetic, and GRAB-ACh sensor experiments due to the availability of well-established transgenic CRF-Cre-driver lines. This division allowed us to leverage the most appropriate tools in each species to address different aspects of the study. We have clarified this rationale in the Methods (first paragraph of the “Animals” section) and Discussion (third paragraph).

(6) Electrophysiology section: The distinction between acute exposure vs. withdrawal could be further emphasized.

To better highlight the distinction between acute alcohol exposure and withdrawal, we have clarified the timing and context of each condition within the Results section for Figure 6. Specifically, we now distinguish the immediate suppressive effects of alcohol observed during bath application (acute exposure) from the subsequent changes in CIN firing measured after washout (withdrawal). These revisions clarify the temporal dynamics and functional implications of CRF–alcohol interactions in our experimental design.

(7) Lines 227-229: Reword for clarity: "Significantly more BNST neurons projected to CINs compared to the CeA...".

The sentence has been reworded to clarify as recommended (Lines 247-248).

(8) Lines 373-374: Consider connecting the CRF-CIN circuit to behavioral inflexibility in AUD more directly.

We have modified the sentence (Lines 390-395) to more explicitly link alcohol-induced dysregulation of the CRF–CIN circuit to behavioral inflexibility in AUD, consistent with the established role of CINs in action selection and cognitive flexibility.

(9) Lines 387-389: This is an excellent point about stress resilience; consider expanding with examples or potential implications.

We thank the reviewer for this insightful suggestion. In the revised Discussion (sixth paragraph), we expanded this section to more directly connect alcohol-induced disruption of CRF–CIN signaling with impaired stress resilience and behavioral inflexibility. Specifically, we now note that such dysregulation may compromise stress resilience mechanisms mediated by CRF–cholinergic interactions in the striatum and related corticostriatal circuits. We further discuss how impaired CIN responsiveness could blunt adaptive behavioral adjustments under stress, biasing animals toward habitual or compulsive alcohol seeking. This addition highlights the broader implication that alcohol-induced alterations in CRF–CIN signaling may contribute to relapse vulnerability by undermining adaptive stress coping.

References

English, D. F., O. Ibanez-Sandoval, E. Stark, F. Tecuapetla, G. Buzsaki, K. Deisseroth, J. M. Tepper and T. Koos (2011). "GABAergic circuits mediate the reinforcement-related signals of striatal cholinergic interneurons." Nat Neurosci 15(1): 123–130.

Gangal, H., J. Iannucci, Y. Huang, R. Chen, W. Purvines, W. T. Davis, A. Rivera, G. Johnson, X. Xie, S. Mukherjee, V. Vierkant, K. Mims, K. O'Neill, X. Wang, L. A. Shapiro and J. Wang (2025). "Traumatic brain injury exacerbates alcohol consumption and neuroinflammation with decline in cognition and cholinergic activity." Transl Psychiatry 15(1): 403.

Huang, Z., R. Chen, M. Ho, X. Xie, H. Gangal, X. Wang and J. Wang (2024). "Dynamic responses of striatal cholinergic interneurons control behavioral flexibility." Sci Adv 10(51): eadn2446.

Lu, J. Y., Y. F. Cheng, X. Y. Xie, K. Woodson, J. Bonifacio, E. Disney, B. Barbee, X. H. Wang, M. Zaidi and J. Wang (2021). "Whole-Brain Mapping of Direct Inputs to Dopamine D1 and D2 Receptor-Expressing Medium Spiny Neurons in the Posterior Dorsomedial Striatum." Eneuro 8(1).

Ma, T., Z. Huang, X. Xie, Y. Cheng, X. Zhuang, M. J. Childs, H. Gangal, X. Wang, L. N. Smith, R. J. Smith, Y. Zhou and J. Wang (2021). "Chronic alcohol drinking persistently suppresses thalamostriatal excitation of cholinergic neurons to impair cognitive flexibility." J Clin Invest 132(4): e154969.

Potjer, E. V., X. Wu, A. N. Kane and J. G. Parker (2025). "Parkinsonian striatal acetylcholine dynamics are refractory to L-DOPA treatment." bioRxiv.

Purvines, W., H. Gangal, X. Xie, J. Ramos, X. Wang, R. Miranda and J. Wang (2025). "Perinatal and prenatal alcohol exposure impairs striatal cholinergic function and cognitive flexibility in adult offspring." Neuropharmacology 279: 110627.

Ren, Y., Y. Liu and M. Luo (2021). "Gap Junctions Between Striatal D1 Neurons and Cholinergic Interneurons." Front Cell Neurosci 15: 674399.

Touponse, G. C., M. B. Pomrenze, T. Yassine, V. Mehta, N. Denomme, Z. Zhang, R. C. Malenka and N. Eshel (2025). "Cholinergic modulation of dopamine release drives effortful behavior." bioRxiv.

Такс идея связнная с сортировкой не сработает. Так как необходимо вернуть массив в том же порядке, а сортировка этот порядок уничтожает.

тогда что я могу сделать не меняя порядок и при этом проверить? сделать просто O(N^2), брав каждый элемент, и ходить по всему массиву для подсчтёта? звучит долго.

может быть использовать ведро - в целом звучит как рабочий способ ограничеие в 500 элементов, таким образом всё получиться и будет работать.

порядок нарушен не будет, так как мы просто будет менять изначальный массив. и его же использовать для адрессации.

nums[i] = bucket[i], где в bucket количество цифр меньше.

как будто это самое оптимальное решение и сейчас я других не вижу

La tradición oral por mucho tiempo ha sido la principal manera de transmitir las historias y el conocimiento. En la época actual, como se menciona en el texto, esta práctica ha disminuido drásticamente con la llegada de la escritura y aún más con la llegada de las nuevas tecnologías. Me parece curioso pensar cómo se transmitía el conocimiento de manera oral. Las personas y la humanidad en general no solo dependían de sus habilidades o inteligencia, sino también de su memoria. El cerebro tiene una capacidad enorme para almacenar datos y procesar información, pero tiene ciertas limitaciones a la hora de reproducir la información o almacenarla más allá del periodo de vida de un individuo. Es por lo anterior que la escritura revolucionó por completo la manera en la que la tecnología avanza, el conocimiento ya no se construía a lo largo de los años, se acumulaba generación tras generación. Personalmente creo que esto es un arma de doble filo ya que se puede perder cierta capacidad cognitiva al no usar con la misma frecuencia o intensidad todas las conexiones neuronales que tenemos. Por otro lado, la tradición oral creo que es algo inherente a la especie humana. Por más tecnología que exista no vamos a dejar de contar historias o transmitir conocimientos de la misma manera, solo que la dinámica cambia un poco.

Esta frase me parece un resumen muy claro de lo que para mí es la inteligencia artificial. A través del texto y sus supervínculos, entiendo la IA como una gran base de datos siempre disponible, lista para ser consultada cuando se nos da la gana. En ese sentido, la inteligencia artificial no filtra la información ni distingue necesariamente entre lo verdadero y lo falso, sino que ofrece lo que tiene a su disposición. No importa quién produjo la información ni de dónde proviene, porque todo está ahí, accesible para ser consultado. Esta idea se complementa con el fragmento que plantea que la inteligencia artificial no es una tecnología utópica ni distópica, sino una tecnología más, con usos, aplicaciones y consecuencias, pero que no transformará a la sociedad de pies a cabeza. Desde esta perspectiva, la IA se parece a algo que alguien escribió alguna vez en una piedra, solo que hoy todos tenemos acceso a esas “piedras”, lo que hace que el conocimiento esté al alcance de cualquiera. Además, el texto me invita a reflexionar sobre mi propia relación con la inteligencia artificial. Me hace pensar que soy yo quien decide cómo usarla y con qué propósito, y que depende de mí si la convierto en una herramienta o en algo de lo que termino dependiendo. Sara Castillo Valderrama

Kahle is basically saying that the safest way to preserve digital material is to make multiple copies and share them, instead of trusting just one archive to protect everything.

This is an interesting difference. Why did aging occur here and not in the Tokyo victims?

Key finding

Автор использует четвертую волну исследований World Values Survey (WVS, «Всемирный обзор ценностей»), которая проводилась в 1999-2001 гг. Именно в этой волне затрагивались многие мусульманские страны, что делает этот датасет одним из лучших для анализа ценностей и политических установок в мусульманских обществах на момент публикации работы (2010 г.)

seria o KPI 23, de acordo com o PCA 100-3, sim

Si bien el artículo presenta hallazgos interesantes sobre la relación entre el cuidado de los nietos y el mantenimiento de la agudeza mental en personas mayores, su lectura resulta parcial si no se considera el contexto sociocultural y económico en el que fue realizado el estudio. En países como Colombia, muchos abuelos y abuelas continúan trabajando en edades avanzadas debido a la falta de una pensión estable, lo que implica cargas físicas y emocionales distintas a las analizadas en la investigación. Además, no se contemplan otras actividades cognitivas y físicas que también podrían incidir positivamente en la salud mental, como el trabajo, la participación comunitaria o el autocuidado. En el contexto bogotano, marcado por el tráfico, la inseguridad y las dificultades de movilidad, el cuidado de los nietos no siempre es una actividad estimulante, sino que puede convertirse en una fuente adicional de estrés. Y aunque los resultados pueden ser válidos en casos muy específicos, no son fácilmente generalizables al contexto colombiano sin un análisis mucho más situado.

"Asistir" es un término muy impreciso. No distingue entre el cuidado recreativo y el cuidado intensivo o forzoso. Con seguridad, para los abuelos un poco de cuidado es beneficioso , ya que permite la socialización y les da un propósito, pero una carga excesiva, como la crianza a tiempo completo, sin duda genera estrés crónico, lo cual es neurotóxico y acelera el deterioro cognitivo. Al no mencionar la frecuencia ideal ni los riesgos del "síndrome de la abuela esclava", el artículo ofrece una visión incompleta y potencialmente dañina de la dinámica familiar.

Los abuelos que cuentan con una mejor salud física y cognitiva son, precisamente, aquellos a quienes se les confía el cuidado de los nietos o quienes se sienten capaces de hacerlo. Ahora bien, aquellos que ya presentan un deterioro cognitivo suelen ser apartados de estas responsabilidades en la mayorìa de casos por seguridad. Por tanto, no es necesariamente que los nietos mejoren el cerebro, como afirma el artículo, sino que se requiere un cerebro sano para poder cuidar de ellos.

A imagem sugere uma divisão da FIR, o que só ocorre na FIR-RE com a FIR-AO

A imagem sugere uma divisão da FIR, o que só ocorre na FIR-RE com a FIR-AO

UNDERLYING point of contention is issue of LAND OWNERSHIP -> Perhaps now in the news because Afrikaners are concerned about requisitions

Ramaphosa admin passed a law that would allow govt yo exporpriate private property for "public purposes" , most often with compensation -> similar to other expropriation laws arounf the world (Canada?) -> So far no land, contrary to Trump's claims, has been expropriated w/o compensation SINCE 1994.

And in fact this is kind of the key issue here -> notes that Black South Africans were disspossessed of farmland and continue to own only around 30% of all agricultural land. Whites own the remaining 70%

Basically going to explain article and then explain that this actually matter of controlling history. Farm murders have been around for a long time. V, C describe how they are used by Afrikaners to avoid historical culpability for crimes of Apartheid -> to avoid trials for direct violence, in some cases, but also to avoid broader questions about continued benefitting from the racial divide

Drop fact that 70% of wealth is still owned by white South Africans.

Likewise, by asserting this is a genocide, are also thereby asserting their own definition as an ethnic group -> shores up unstable identity.

Mitko Sp.?

Observation: Bossuet warns kings that they will be judged by God for how they use their power

Interpretation: This shows that although kings had power, they were still expected to rule with their power responsibly escpecially with the religious standards they were being held up to.

Connection: This connects to the tertiary sourse, which explains that absolutist ideology still made a moral and ethical responsibility, even though political authority was the main rule.

Consequence: When abusing the power that they have, there are consequences that can take place if rulers failed to live up to moral and religious expecations.

Investigar y redactar una entrevista a una persona de la comunidad que tenga un oficio análogo y/o que sea experto en un saber tradicional o local

Completely makes sense.

Que sucede en ambientes de arquitectura sin gravedad, o aquellas posibilidades no experienciales en un mundo fisico. o aquellas experiencia que no son de conocimiento sino que se viven a partir de las prácticas culturales propias de los pueblos del sur global.

Revisar folk computing

Definiciones que vienen desde la propia industria, es decir que el lugar donde los autores se situan es precisamente desde esta visión.

Es posible hacer inmersiones espiritu-tecnológicos? Es posible integrar o simular experiencias o practicas ontológicas propias del pueblos del sur global desde estas tecnologías?

Considero que es un una creencia muy arraigada en la cultura tener la posibilidad de criar nietos, compartir con ellos y que trasmiten mucha alegría, sobre todo para esa etapa de la vida donde los adultos mayores están mas solos. La pregunta que se puede dejar planteada es Considerando la tendencia de la baja natalidad ¿Como sería el involucramiento de los nietos? o ¿Como mantener esa agudeza mental o en qué otro mecanismo pensar para mantener esa agudeza mental? como el mejor entorno para asegurar una calidad de vida y la longevidad.

Esto me recuerda de un estudio sobre la longevidad en distintas poblaciones a lo largo del mundo (Japón, Italia, California), que hablaba de la importancia de familias multigeneracionales con miembros mayores activos y respetados en la vida cotidiana.

Delegar el acceso a recursos en uno o más de los servicios de almacenamiento.

Delegar el acceso a un recurso en un único servicio de almacenamiento.

Proteger un recurso mediante credenciales de Azure AD.

Los blobs de tipo block con el prefijo container1/salesorders o container2/inventory que no hayan sido modificados en más de 60 días se mueven al almacenamiento cool.

Los blobs que no hayan sido modificados en 120 días se mueven a la capa de almacenamiento archive.

Los blobs se mueven al almacenamiento cool si no han sido accedidos durante 30 días.

Los blobs se moverán automáticamente de cool a hot si se acceden nuevamente después de haber sido movidos a cool.

Todos los blobs de tipo block con una antigüedad mayor a 730 días se eliminarán.

I imagine this is not favorable? If the energy is needed for growth and development the fact they have to recycle a portion of it to create more ATP means that their growth is limited to some degree. Is it mainly unicellular and tiny microorganisms that do not have a full 4 key metabolic precursors.

proper due diligence needed for productive fwas (theme)

Los blobs de tipo block con el prefijo transactions moverán automáticamente a almacenamiento cool aquellos blobs que no hayan sido modificados en más de 60 días, y eliminarán los blobs que no hayan sido modificados en 365 días.

Los blobs se moverán al nivel de almacenamiento cool si no han sido accedidos durante 60 días.

La regla de la política moverá a la capa cool las versiones anteriores dentro de un contenedor llamado transactions que tengan 60 días o más, y eliminará las versiones anteriores que tengan 365 días o más.

Los blobs se volverán a mover automáticamente de cool a hot si se acceden nuevamente después de haber sido movidos a cool.

DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2118124119

Resource: RRID:BDSC_63599

Curator: @maulamb

SciCrunch record: RRID:BDSC_63599

What is this?

delete "o"

DOI: 10.1002/advs.202519368

Resource: (NCI-DTP Cat# NCI-H1299, RRID:CVCL_0060)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0060

What is this?

My question from this information is should I-O psychologists interpret scores differently depending on the circumstance. For example hiring a new candidate versus training one or simply doing research about a potential promotion?

I had to do a lot of surveys for my internship capstone project this past summer. These were anonymous but they ended up being shared with my manager and team and then went to her superordinate. So I am wondering who should own employee data: the employee, their employer, boss or I-O psychologist? I feel like it can get really messy because if the I-O psychologist believes their superordinate should know but it is confidential information, the lines could get blurry.

If you think about it, IO psychologists really are trained to care about the well-being of individuals in the company. There's really no other group of people in a workplace that are trained like that and are tasked with that responsibility. There are individual people in a workplace that are, but IO psychologists can really be the backbone of a quality workplace.

es decir que mutaciones en estos genes pueden causar enfermedades como aumento de β-amiloide anormal, lo que favorece:

Placas amiloides

Daño neuronal

Alzheimer, generalmente de inicio temprano

abajo también en un párrafo (o call out) sobre temas de apertura y reproducibilidad del reporte

y también el gráfico de la estructura del repo comentado (o su link al readme. Mejor, que el readme sea idéntico al resumen ejecutivo

esto lo incorporaría al párrafo 3 actual, y partiría con el 2 actual

diría asignación de notas no más

Revisaría la redacción de este párrafo. Me parece que se repite muchas veces una o dos ideas y que se podrían presentar de manera más concisa.

En general, creo que hace falta citas en este párrafo.

Sobre esta frase en particular, ¿hay alguna evaluación desde Pregrado sobre la implementación de las adecuaciones curriculares?

no

Oil Red O is a dye that stains lipids. This was performed to observe the level of lipids inside the germline. Tje results show us that fat storage was normal.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the previous reviews

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

To summarize: The authors' overfilling hypothesis depends crucially on the premise that the very quickly reverting paired-pulse depression seen after unusually short rest intervals of << 50 ms is caused by depletion of release sites whereas Dobrunz and Stevens (1997) concluded that the cause was some other mechanism that does not involve depletion on. The authors now include experiments where switching extracellular Ca2+ from 1.2 to 2.5 mM increases synaptic strength on average, but not by as much as at other synapse types. They contend that the result supports the depletion on hypothesis. I didn't agree because the model used to generate the hypothesis had no room for any increase at all, and because a more granular analysis revealed a mixed population with a subset where: (a) synaptic strength increased by as much as at standard synapses; and yet (b) the quickly reverting depression for the subset was the same as the overall population.

The authors raise the possibility of additional experiments, and I do think this could clarify things if they pre-treat with EGTA as I recommended initially. They've already shown they can do this routinely, and it would allow them to elegantly distinguish between pv and pocc explanations for both the increases in synaptic strength and the decreases in the paired pulse ratio upon switching Ca2+ to 2.5 mM. Plus/minus EGTA pre-treatment trials could be interleaved and done blind with minimal additional effort.

Showing reversibility would be a great addition too, because, in our experience, this does not always happen in whole-cell recordings in ex-vivo tissue even when electrical properties do not change. If the goal is to show that L2/3 synapses are less sensitive to changes in Ca2+ compared to other synapse types - which is interesting but a bit off point - then I would additionally include a positive control, done by the same person with the same equipment, at one of those other synapse types using the same kind of presynaptic stimulation (i.e. ChRs).

Specific points (quotations are from the Authors' rebuttal)

(1) Regarding the Author response image 1, I was instead suggesting a plot of PPR in 1.2 mM Ca2+ versus the relative increase in synaptic strength in 2.5 versus in 1.2 mM. This continues to seem relevant.

Complying with your suggestion, we studied the effects of external [Ca²⁺] ([Ca²⁺]_o) after pre-incubating the slice in aCSF containing 50 μM EGTA-AM, and added the results as Figure 3—figure supplement 3C-D. Elevation of ([Ca²⁺]_o) from 1.3 to 2.5 mM produced no significant change in either baseline EPSC amplitude or PPR, supporting that the p_v is already saturated at 1.3 mM [Ca²⁺]_o and implying that the modest Ca²⁺ dependence of baseline EPSCs and PPR in the absence of EGTA (Figure 3—figure supplement 3A-B) is mediated by the change in baseline vesicular occupancy of release sites (p_occ) rather than fusion probability of docked vesicles (p_v).

We found some correlation of high Ca²⁺-induced relative increase in synaptic strength with the PPR at low Ca²⁺ (Author response image 1-A). But this correlation was abolished by pre-incubating the slices in EGTA-AM too (Author response image 1-B). It should be noted that high PPR does not always mean low p_v. For example, when the replenishment is equal between high and low baseline p_occ synapses, the PPR would be higher at low p_occ synapses than that at high p_occ synapses, even if p_v is close to unity. Therefore, high baseline release probability (Pr), whatever it is attributed to high p_v or high p_occ, can result in low PPR, considering that Pr = p_occ x p_v.

As we have already mentioned in our previous letter, the relationship of PPR with refilling rate is complicated and can be bidirectional, whereas an increase in p_v always results in a reduction of PPR. For example, PPR can be reduced by both a decrease and an increase in the refilling rate (Figure 2— figure supplement 1 and Lin et al., 2025). Therefore, the PPR analysis alone is insufficient to differentiate the contributions of p_v and p_occ Thanks to your suggestion, we could resolve this ambiguity by the EGTA-AM pre-incubation study (Figure 3—figure supplement 3C-D).

Author response image 1.

Plot of PPR at low [Ca²⁺]_o (1.3 mM) as a function of the baseline EPSC at high [Ca²⁺]_o (2.5 mM) normalized to that at low [Ca²⁺]_o measured at recurrent excitatory synapses in L2/3 of the prelimbic cortex under the conditions without EGTA-AM (A) and after pre-incubating the slices in EGTA-AM (50 μM) (B)

(2) "Could you explain in detail why two-fold increase implies pv < 0.2?"

(a) start with power((2.5/(1 + (2.5/K1) + 1/2.97)),4) = 2^*power((1.3/(1 + (1.3/K1) + 1/2.97)),4);

(b) solve for K1 (this turns out to be 0.48);

(c) then implement the premise that pv -> 1.0 when Ca2+ is high by calculating Max = power((C/(1 + (C/K1) + 1/2.97)),4) where C is [Ca] -> infinity.

(d) pv when [Ca] = 1.3. mM must then be power((1.3/(1 + (1.3/K1) + 1/2.97)),4)/Max, which is <0.2. Note that modern updates of Dodge and Rahamimoff typically include a parameter that prevents pv from approaching 1.0; this is the gamma parameter in the versions from Neher group.

Thank you very much for your kind explanation. This interpretation, however, based on the premise that pv is not saturated at low[Ca²⁺]_o, and that Pr = p_v. In the present study, however, we presented multiple convergent lines of evidence supporting that p_v is already saturated at 1.3 mM [Ca²⁺]_o as follows: (1) little effect of EGTA-AM on the baseline EPSCs (Figure 2—figure supplement 1); (2) high double failure rates (Figure 3—figure supplement 2); (3) little effect of high [Ca²⁺]_o on baseline EPSC (Figure 3—figure supplement 3). Therefore, our results suggest that the classical Dodge-Rahamimoff fourth-power relationship can not be applied to estimate p_v at the L2/3 recurrent excitatory synapses. 

(3) "If so, we can not understand why depletion-dependent PPD should lead to PPF." When PPD is caused by depletion and pv < 0.2, the number of occupied release sites should not be decreased by more than one-filth at the second stimulus so, without facilitation, PPR should be > 0.8. The EGTA results then indicate there should be strong facilitation, driving PPR to something like 1.2 with conservative assumptions. And yet, a value of < 0.4 is measured, which is a large miss.

As mentioned above, the framework used for inferring that p_v < 0.2, the Dodge-Rahamimoff equation, is not applicable to our experimental system. Consequently, the subsequent deduction— that depletion-dependent PPD should logically lead to PPF—is based on a model that does not compatible with aforementioned multiple convergent lines of evidence, which supports high p_v rather than the low p_v facilitation model.

(4) Despite the authors' suggestion to the contrary, I continue to think there is a substantial chance that Ca2+-channel inactivation is the mechanism underlying the very quickly reverting paired-pulse depression. However, this is only one example of a non-depletion mechanism among many, with the main point being that any non-depletion mechanism would undercut the reasoning for overfilling. And, this is what Dobrunz and Stevens claimed to show; that the mechanism - whatever it is - does not involve depletion. The most effective way to address this would be affirmative experiments showing that the quickly reverting depression is caused by depletion after all. Attempting to prove that Ca2+channel inactivation does not occur does not seem like a worthwhile strategy because it would not address the many other possibilities.

We have systematically ruled out alternative possibilities that may underlie the strong PPD observed at our synapses and demonstrated that it arises from high p_v-induced vesicle depletion through multiple independent lines of evidence. First, we excluded (1) AMPAR desensitization or saturation (Figure 1—figure supplement 5), (2) Ca²⁺ channel inactivation (Figure 2—figure supplement 2), (3) channelrhodopsin inactivation (Figure 1—figure supplement 2), (4) artificial bouton stimulation (Figure 1—figure supplement 4), and (5) transient vesicle undocking (Figure 5; addressed in our previous rebuttal). Second, EGTA-AM experiments (Figure 2, Figure 2—figure supplement 1) revealed that release sites are tightly coupled to Ca²⁺  channels, and that EGTA further exacerbates PPD. Third, we validated high baseline p_v through analysis of double failure rates (Figure 3—figure supplement 2). Fourth, the minimal increase in baseline EPSCs upon elevation of external [Ca²⁺] (Figure 3—figure supplement 3) further supports that baseline p_v is already saturated at low [Ca²⁺]_o. Additionally, to further validate our hypothesis, we performed the specific experiment suggested by the reviewer. We have now added EGTA pre-incubation experiments (Figure 3—figure supplement 3C-D) and have revised the manuscript. Specifically, when slices were pre-incubated with 50 μM EGTA-AM, elevation of extracellular [Ca²⁺] from 1.3 to 2.5 mM produced no significant change in either baseline EPSC amplitude or PPR, strongly supporting that the high [Ca²⁺]_o effects in the absence of EGTA are primarily mediated by changes in p_occ rather than p_v

(5) True that Kusick et al. observed morphological re-docking, but then vesicles would have to re-prime and Mahfooz et al. (2016) showed that re-priming would have to be slower than 110 ms (at least during heavy use at calyx of Held).

As previously discussed, Kusick et al. (2020) demonstrated that the transient destabilization of the docked vesicle pool recovers very rapidly within 14 ms after stimulation. This implies that any posts stimulation undocking events are likely recovered before the 20 ms ISI used in our PPR experiments. Consequently, transient undocking/re-docking events are unlikely to significantly influence the PPR measured at this interval. Furthermore, regarding the slow re-priming kinetics (>100 ms) reported by Mahfooz et al. (2016) and Kusick et al., (2020), our 20 ms ISI effectively falls into a me window that avoids the potential confounds of both processes: it is long enough for the rapid morphological recovery (~14 ms) of docked vesicles to occur, yet too short for the slow re-priming process to make a substantial  contribution. Furthermore, Vevea et al. (2021) showed that post-stimulus undocking is facilitated in synaptotagmin-7 (Syt7) knockout synapses. In our study, however, Syt7 knockdown did not affect PPR at 20 ms ISI, suggesting that the undocking process described in Kusick et al. (2020) is not a major contributor to the PPD observed at 20 ms intervals in our experiments. Therefore, we conclude that the 20 ms ISI used in our experiments falls within a me window that is influenced neither by the rapid undocking (<14 ms) reported nor by the slow re-priming process (>100 ms).

Author response:

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Monziani and Ulitsky present a large and exhaustive study on the lncRNA EPB41L4A-AS1 using a variety of genomic methods. They uncover a rather complex picture of an RNA transcript that appears to act via diverse pathways to regulate the expression of large numbers of genes, including many snoRNAs. The activity of EPB41L4A-AS1 seems to be intimately linked with the protein SUB1, via both direct physical interactions and direct/indirect of SUB1 mRNA expression.

The study is characterised by thoughtful, innovative, integrative genomic analysis. It is shown that EPB41L4A-AS1 interacts with SUB1 protein and that this may lead to extensive changes in SUB1's other RNA partners. Disruption of EPB41L4A-AS1 leads to widespread changes in non-polyA RNA expression, as well as local cis changes. At the clinical level, it is possible that EPB41L4A-AS1 plays disease-relevant roles, although these seem to be somewhat contradictory with evidence supporting both oncogenic and tumour suppressive activities.

A couple of issues could be better addressed here. Firstly, the copy number of EPB41L4A-AS1 is an important missing piece of the puzzle. It is apparently highly expressed in the FISH experiments. To get an understanding of how EPB41L4A-AS1 regulates SUB1, an abundant protein, we need to know the relative stoichiometry of these two factors. Secondly, while many of the experiments use two independent Gapmers for EPB41L4A-AS1 knockdown, the RNA-sequencing experiments apparently use just one, with one negative control (?). Evidence is emerging that Gapmers produce extensive off-target gene expression effects in cells, potentially exceeding the amount of on-target changes arising through the intended target gene. Therefore, it is important to estimate this through the use of multiple targeting and non-targeting ASOs, if one is to get a true picture of EPB41L4A-AS1 target genes. In this Reviewer's opinion, this casts some doubt over the interpretation of RNA-seq experiments until that work is done. Nonetheless, the Authors have designed thorough experiments, including overexpression rescue constructs, to quite confidently assess the role of EPB41L4A-AS1 in snoRNA expression.

It is possible that EPB41L4A-AS1 plays roles in cancer, either as an oncogene or a tumour suppressor. However, it will in the future be important to extend these observations to a greater variety of cell contexts.

This work is valuable in providing an extensive and thorough analysis of the global mechanisms of an important regulatory lncRNA and highlights the complexity of such mechanisms via cis and trans regulation and extensive protein interactions.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Monziani et al. identified long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) that act in cis and are coregulated with their target genes located in close genomic proximity. The authors mined the GeneHancer database, and this analysis led to the identification of four lncRNA-target pairs. The authors decided to focus on lncRNA EPB41L4A-AS1.

They thoroughly characterised this lncRNA, demonstrating that it is located in the cytoplasm and the nuclei, and that its expression is altered in response to different stimuli. Furthermore, the authors showed that EPB41L4A-AS1 regulates EPB41L4A transcription, leading to a mild reduction in EPB41L4A protein levels. This was not recapitulated with siRNA-mediated depletion of EPB41L4AAS1. RNA-seq in EPB41L4A-AS1-depleted cells with single LNA revealed 2364 DEGs linked to pathways including the cell cycle, cell adhesion, and inflammatory response. To understand the mechanism of action of EPB41L4A-AS1, the authors mined the ENCODE eCLIP data and identified SUB1 as an lncRNA interactor. The authors also found that the loss of EPB41L4A-AS1 and SUB1 leads to the accumulation of snoRNAs, and that SUB1 localisation changes upon the loss of EPB41L4A-AS1. Finally, the authors showed that EPB41L4A-AS1 deficiency did not change the steady-state levels of SNORA13 nor RNA modification driven by this RNA. The phenotype associated with the loss of EPB41L4A-AS1 is linked to increased invasion and EMT gene signature.

Overall, this is an interesting and nicely done study on the versatile role of EPB41L4A-AS1 and the multifaceted interplay between SUB1 and this lncRNA, but some conclusions and claims need to be supported with additional experiments. My primary concerns are using a single LNA gapmer for critical experiments, increased invasion, and nucleolar distribution of SUB1- in EPB41L4A-AS1-depleted cells. These experiments need to be validated with orthogonal methods.

Strengths:

The authors used complementary tools to dissect the complex role of lncRNA EPB41L4A-AS1 in regulating EPB41L4A, which is highly commendable. There are few papers in the literature on lncRNAs at this standard. They employed LNA gapmers, siRNAs, CRISPRi/a, and exogenous overexpression of EPB41L4A-AS1 to demonstrate that the transcription of EPB41L4A-AS1 acts in cis to promote the expression of EPB41L4A by ensuring spatial proximity between the TAD boundary and the EPB41L4A promoter. At the same time, this lncRNA binds to SUB1 and regulates snoRNA expression and nucleolar biology. Overall, the manuscript is easy to read, and the figures are well presented. The methods are sound, and the expected standards are met.

Weaknesses:

The authors should clarify how many lncRNA-target pairs were included in the initial computational screen for cis-acting lncRNAs and why MCF7 was chosen as the cell line of choice. Most of the data uses a single LNA gapmer targeting EPB41L4A-AS1 lncRNA (eg, Fig. 2c, 3B, and RNA-seq), and the critical experiments should be using at least 2 LNA gapmers. The specificity of SUB1 CUT&RUN is lacking, as well as direct binding of SUB1 to lncRNA EPB41L4A-AS1, which should be confirmed by CLIP qPCR in MCF7 cells. Finally, the role of EPB41L4A-AS1 in SUB1 distribution (Figure 5) and cell invasion (Figure 8) needs to be complemented with additional experiments, which should finally demonstrate the role of this lncRNA in nucleolus and cancer-associated pathways. The use of MCF7 as a single cancer cell line is not ideal.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this paper, the authors made some interesting observations that EPB41L4A-AS1 lncRNA can regulate the transcription of both the nearby coding gene and genes on other chromosomes. They started by computationally examining lncRNA-gene pairs by analyzing co-expression, chromatin features of enhancers, TF binding, HiC connectome, and eQTLs. They then zoomed in on four pairs of lncRNA-gene pairs and used LNA antisense oligonucleotides to knock down these lncRNAs. This revealed EPB41L4A-AS1 as the only one that can regulate the expression of its cis-gene target EPB41L4A. By RNA-FISH, the authors found this lncRNA to be located in all three parts of a cell: chromatin, nucleoplasm, and cytoplasm. RNA-seq after LNA knockdown of EPB41L4A-AS1 showed that this increased >1100 genes and decreased >1250 genes, including both nearby genes and genes on other chromosomes. They later found that EPB41L4A-AS1 may interact with SUB1 protein (an RNA-binding protein) to impact the target genes of SUB1. EPB41L4A-AS1 knockdown reduced the mRNA level of SUB1 and altered the nuclear location of SUB1. Later, the authors observed that EPB41L4A-AS1 knockdown caused an increase of snRNAs and snoRNAs, likely via disrupted SUB1 function. In the last part of the paper, the authors conducted rescue experiments that suggested that the full-length, intron- and SNORA13-containing EPB41L4A-AS1 is required to partially rescue snoRNA expression. They also conducted SLAM-Seq and showed that the increased abundance of snoRNAs is primarily due to their hosts' increased transcription and stability. They end with data showing that EPB41L4A-AS1 knockdown reduced MCF7 cell proliferation but increased its migration, suggesting a link to breast cancer progression and/or metastasis.

Strengths:

Overall, the paper is well-written, and the results are presented with good technical rigor and appropriate interpretation. The observation that a complex lncRNA EPB41L4A-AS1 regulates both cis and trans target genes, if fully proven, is interesting and important.

Weaknesses:

The paper is a bit disjointed as it started from cis and trans gene regulation, but later it switched to a partially relevant topic of snoRNA metabolism via SUB1. The paper did not follow up on the interesting observation that there are many potential trans target genes affected by EPB41L4A-AS1 knockdown and there was limited study of the mechanisms as to how these trans genes (including SUB1 or NPM1 genes themselves) are affected by EPB41L4A-AS1 knockdown. There are discrepancies in the results upon EPB41L4A-AS1 knockdown by LNA versus by CRISPR activation, or by plasmid overexpression of this lncRNA.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) Copy number:

Perhaps I missed it, but it seems that no attempt is made to estimate the number of copies of EPB41L4A-AS1 transcripts per cell. This should be possible given RNAseq and FISH. At least an order of magnitude estimate. This is important for shedding light on the later observations that EPB41L4A-AS1 may interact with SUB1 protein and regulate the expression of thousands of mRNAs.

We thank the reviewer for the insightful suggestion. We agree that an estimate of EPB41L4A-AS1 copy number might further strengthen the hypotheses presented in the manuscript. Therefore, we analyzed the smFISH images and calculated the copy number per cell of this lncRNA, as well as that of GAPDH as a comparison.

Because segmenting MCF-7 cells proved to be difficult due to the extent of the cell-cell contacts they establish, we imaged multiple (n = 14) fields of view, extracted the number of EPB41L4A-AS1/GAPDH molecules in each field and divided them by the number of cells (as assessed by DAPI staining, 589 cells in total). We detected an average of 33.37 ± 3.95 EPB41L4A-AS1 molecules per cell, in contrast to 418.27 ± 61.79 GAPDH molecules. As a comparison, within the same qPCR experiment the average of the Ct values of these two RNAs is about  22.3 and 17.5, the FPKMs in the polyA+ RNA-seq are ~ 2479.4 and 35.6, and the FPKMs in the rRNA-depleted RNA-seq are ~ 3549.9 and 19.3, respectively. Thus, our estimates of the EPB41L4A-AS1 copy number in MCF-7 cells fits well into these observations.

The question whether an average of ~35 molecules per cell is sufficient to affect the expression of thousands of genes is somewhat more difficult to ascertain. As discussed below, it is unlikely that all the genes dysregulated following the KD of EPB41L4A-AS1 are all direct targets of this lncRNA, and indeed SUB1 depletion affects an order of magnitude fewer genes. It has been shown that lncRNAs can affect the behavior of interacting RNAs and proteins in a substoichiometric fashion (Unfried & Ulitsky, 2022), but whether this applies to EPB41L4A-AS1 remains to be addressed in future studies. Nonetheless, this copy number appears to be sufficient for a trans-acting functions for this lncRNA, on top of its cis-regulatory role in regulating EPB41L4A. We added this information in the text as follows:

“Using single-molecule fluorescence in-situ hybridization (smFISH) and subcellular fractionation we found that EPB41L4A-AS1 is expressed at an average of 33.37 ± 3.95 molecule per cell, and displays both nuclear and cytoplasmic localization in MCF-7 cells (Fig. 1D), with a minor fraction associated with chromatin as well (Fig. 1E).”

We have updated the methods section as well:

“To visualize the subcellular localization of EPB41L4A-AS1 in vivo, we performed single-molecule fluorescence in situ hybridization (smFISH) using HCR™ amplifiers. Probe sets (n = 30 unique probes) targeting EPB41L4A-AS1 and GAPDH (positive control) were designed and ordered from Molecular Instruments. We followed the Multiplexed HCR v3.0 protocol with minor modifications. MCF-7 cells were plated in 8-well chambers (Ibidi) and cultured O/N as described above. The next day, cells were fixed with cold 4% PFA in 1X PBS for 10 minutes at RT and then permeabilized O/N in 70% ethanol at -20°C. Following permeabilization, cells were washed twice with 2X SSC buffer and incubated at 37°C for 30 minutes in hybridization buffer (HB). The HB was then replaced with a probe solution containing 1.2 pmol of EPB41L4A-AS1 probes and 0.6 pmol of GAPDH probes in HB. The slides were incubated O/N at 37°C. To remove excess probes, the slides were washed four times with probe wash buffer at 37°C for 5 minutes each, followed by two washes with 5X SSCT at RT for 5 minutes. The samples were then pre-amplified in amplification buffer for 30 minutes at RT and subsequently incubated O/N in the dark at RT in amplification buffer supplemented with 18 pmol of the appropriate hairpins. Finally, excess hairpins were removed by washing the slides five times in 5X SSCT at RT. The slides were mounted with ProLong™ Glass Antifade Mountant (Invitrogen), cured O/N in the dark at RT, and imaged using a Nikon CSU-W1 spinning disk confocal microscope. In order to estimate the RNA copy number, we imaged multiple distinct fields, extracted the number of EPB41L4A-AS1/GAPDH molecules in each field using the “Find Maxima” tool in ImageJ/Fiji, and divided them by the number of cells (as assessed by DAPI staining).”

(2) Gapmer results:

Again, it is quite unclear how many and which Gapmer is used in the genomics experiments, particularly the RNA-seq. In our recent experiments, we find very extensive off-target mRNA changes arising from Gapmer treatment. For this reason, it is advisable to use both multiple control and multiple targeting Gapmers, so as to identify truly target-dependent expression changes. While I acknowledge and commend the latter rescue experiments, and experiments using multiple Gapmers, I'd like to get clarification about how many and which Gapmers were used for RNAseq, and the authors' opinion on the need for additional work here.

We agree with the Reviewer that GapmeRs are prone to off-target and unwanted effects (Lai et al., 2020; Lee & Mendell, 2020; Maranon & Wilusz, 2020). Early in our experiments, we found out that LNA1 triggers a non-specific CDKN1A/p21 activation (Fig. S5A-C), and thus, we have initially performed some experiments such as RNA-seq with only LNA2.

Nonetheless, other experiments were performed using both GapmeRs, such as multiple RT-qPCRs, UMI-4C, SUB1 and NPM1 imaging, and the in vitro assays, among others, and consistent results were obtained with both LNAs.

To accommodate the request by this and the other reviewers, we have now performed another round of polyA+ RNA-seq following EPB41L4A-AS1 knockdown using LNA1 or LNA2, as well as the previously used and an additional control GapmeR. The FPKMs of the control samples are highly-correlated both within replicates and between GapmeRs (Fig. S6A). More importantly, the fold-changes to control are highly correlated between the two on-target GapmeRs LNA1 and LNA2, regardless of the GapmeR used for normalization (Fig. S6B), thus showing that the bulk of the response is shared and likely the direct result of the reduction in the levels of EPB41L4A-AS1. Notably, key targets NPM1 and MTREX (see discussion, Fig. S12A-C and comments to Reviewer 3) were found to be downregulated by both LNAs (Fig. S6C).

However, we acknowledge that some of the dysregulated genes are observed only when using one GapmeR and not the other, likely due to a combination of indirect, secondary and non-specific effects, and as such it is difficult to infer the direct response. Supporting this, LNA2 yielded a total of 1,069 DEGs (617 up and 452 down) and LNA1 2,493 DEGs (1,328 up and 1,287 down), with the latter triggering a stronger response most likely as a result of the previously mentioned CDKN1A/p21 induction. Overall, 45.1% of the upregulated genes following LNA2 transfection were shared with LNA1, in contrast to only the 24.3% of the downregulated ones.

We have now included these results in the Results section (see below) and in Supplementary Figure (Fig. S6).

“Most of the consequences of the depletion of EPB41L4A-AS1 are thus not directly explained by changes in EPB41L4A levels. An additional trans-acting function for EPB41L4A-AS1 would therefore be consistent with its high expression levels compared to most lncRNAs detected in MCF-7 (Fig. S5G). To strengthen these findings, we have transfected MCF-7 cells with LNA1 and a second control GapmeR (NT2), as well as the previous one (NT1) and LNA2, and sequenced the polyadenylated RNA fraction as before. Notably, the expression levels (in FPKMs) of the replicates of both control samples are highly correlated with each other (Fig. S6A), and the global transcriptomic changes triggered by the two EPB41L4A-AS1-targeting LNAs are largely concordant (Fig. S6B and S6C). Because of this concordance and the cleaner (i.e., no CDKN1A upregulation) readout in LNA2-transfected cells, we focused mainly on these cells for subsequent analyses.”

(3) Figure 1E:

Can the authors comment on the unusual (for a protein-coding mRNA) localisation of EPB41L4A, with a high degree of chromatin enrichment?

We acknowledge that mRNAs from protein-coding genes displaying nuclear and chromatin localizations are quite unusual. The nuclear and chromatin localization of some mRNAs are often due to their low expression, length, time that it takes to be transcribed, repetitive elements and strong secondary structures (Bahar Halpern et al., 2015; Didiot et al., 2018; Lubelsky & Ulitsky, 2018; Ly et al., 2022).

We now briefly mention this in the text:

“In contrast, both EPB41L4A and SNORA13 were mostly found in the chromatin fraction (Fig. 1E), the former possibly due to the length of its pre-mRNA (>250 kb), which would require substantial time to transcribe (Bahar Halpern et al., 2015; Didiot et al., 2018; Lubelsky & Ulitsky, 2018; Ly et al., 2022).”

Supporting our results, analysis of the ENCODE MCF-7 RNA-seq data of the cytoplasmic, nuclear and total cell fractions indeed shows a nuclear enrichment of the EPB41L4A mRNA (Author response image 1), in line with what we observed in Fig. 1E by RT-qPCR. 

Author response image 1.

The EPB41L4A transcript is nuclear-enriched in the MCF-7 ENCODE subcellular RNA-seq dataset. Scatterplot of gene length versus cytoplasm/nucleus ratio (as computed by DESeq2) in MCF-7 cells. Each dot represents an unique gene, color-coded reflecting if their DESeq2 adjusted p-value < 0.05 and absolute log₂FC > .41 (33% enrichment or depletion).GAPDH and MALAT1 are shown as representative cytoplasmic and nuclear transcripts, respectively. Data from ENCODE.

(4) Annotation and termini of EPB41L4A-AS1:

The latest Gencode v47 annotations imply an overlap of the sense and antisense, different from that shown in Figure 1C. The 3' UTR of EPB41L4A is shown to extensively overlap EPB41L4A-AS1. This could shed light on the apparent regulation of the former by the latter that is relevant for this paper. I'd suggest that the authors update their figure of the EPB41L4A-AS1 locus organisation with much more detail, particularly evidence for the true polyA site of both genes. What is more, the authors might consider performing RACE experiments for both RNAs in their cells to definitely establish whether these transcripts contain complementary sequence that could cause their Watson-Crick hybridisation, or whether their two genes might interfere with each other via some kind of polymerase collision.

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. Also in previous GENCODE annotations, multiple isoforms were reported with some overlapping the 3’ UTR of EPB41L4A. In the EPB41L4A-AS1 locus image (Fig. 1C), we report at the bottom the different transcripts isoforms currently annotated, and a schematics of the one that is clearly the most abundant in MCF-7 cells based on RNA-seq read coverage. This is supported by both the polyA(+) and ribo(-) RNA-seq data, which are strand-specific, as shown in the figure.

We now also examined the ENCODE/CSHL MCF-7 RNA-seq data from whole cell, cytoplasm and nucleus fractions, as well as 3P-seq data (Jan et al., 2011) (unpublished data from human cell lines), reported in Author response image 2. All these data support the predominant use of the proximal polyA site in human cell lines. This shorter isoform does not overlap EPB41L4A.

Author response image 2.

Most EPB41L4A-AS1 transcripts end before the 3’ end of EPB41L4A. UCSC genome browser view showing tracks from 3P-seq data in different cell lines and neural crest (top, with numbers representing the read counts, i.e. how many times that 3’ end has been detected), and stranded ENCODE subcellular RNA-seq (bottom).

Based on these data, the large majority of cellular transcripts of EPB41L4A-AS1 terminate at the earlier polyA site and don’t overlap with EPB41L4A. There is a small fraction that appears to be restricted to the nucleus that terminates later at the annotated isoform. 3' RACE experiments are not expected to provide substantially different information beyond what is already available.

(5) Figure 3C:

There is an apparent correlation between log2FC upon EPB41L4A-AS1 knockdown, and the number of clip sites for SUB1. However, I expect that the clip signal correlates strongly with the mRNA expression level, and that log2FC may also correlate with the same. Therefore, the authors would be advised to more exhaustively check that there really is a genuine relationship between log2FC and clip sites, after removing any possible confounders of overall expression level.

As the reviewer suggested, there is a correlation between the baseline expression level and the strength of SUB1 binding in the eCLIP data. To address this issue, we built expression-matched controls for each group of SUB1 interactors and checked the fold-changes following EPB41L4A-AS1 KD, similarly to what we have done in Fig. 3C. The results are presented, and are now part of Supplementary Figure 7 (Fig. S7C). 

Based on this analysis, while there is a tendency of increased expression with increased SUB1 binding, when controlling for expression levels the effect of down-regulation of SUB1-bound RNAs upon lncRNA knockdown remains, suggesting that it is not merely a confounding effect. We have updated the text as follows:

“We hypothesized that loss of EPB41L4A-AS1 might affect SUB1, either via the reduction in its expression or by affecting its functions. We stratified SUB1 eCLIP targets into confidence intervals, based on the number, strength and confidence of the reported binding sites. Indeed, eCLIP targets of SUB1 (from HepG2 cells profiled by ENCODE) were significantly downregulated following EPB41L4A-AS1 KD in MCF-7, with more confident targets experiencing stronger downregulation (Fig. 3C). Importantly, this still holds true when controlling for gene expression levels (Fig. S7C), suggesting that this negative trend is not due to differences in their baseline expression.”

(6) The relation to cancer seems somewhat contradictory, maybe I'm missing something. Could the authors more clearly state which evidence is consistent with either an Oncogene or a Tumour Suppressive function, and discuss this briefly in the Discussion? It is not a problem if the data are contradictory, however, it should be discussed more clearly.

We acknowledge this apparent contradiction. Cancer cells are characterized by a multitude of hallmarks depending on the cancer type and stage, including high proliferation rates and enhanced invasive capabilities. The notion that cells with reduced EPB41L4A-AS1 levels exhibit lower proliferation, yet increased invasion is compatible with a function as an oncogene. Cells undergoing EMT may reduce or even completely halt proliferation/cell division, until they revert back to an epithelial state (Brabletz et al., 2018; Dongre & Weinberg, 2019). Notably, downregulated genes following EPB41L4A-AS1 KD are enriched in GO terms related to cell proliferation and cell cycle progression (Fig. 2I), whereas those upregulated are enriched for terms linked to EMT processes. Thus, while we cannot rule out a potential function as tumor suppressor gene, our data fit better the notion that EPB41L4A-AS1 promotes invasion, and thus, primarily functions as an oncogene. We now address this in point in the discussion:

“The notion that cells with reduced EPB41L4A-AS1 levels exhibit lower proliferation (Fig. 8C), yet increased invasion (Fig. 8A and 8B) is compatible with a function as an oncogene by promoting EMT (Fig. 8D and 8E). Cells undergoing this process may reduce or even completely halt proliferation/cell division, until they revert back to an epithelial state (Brabletz et al., 2018; Dongre & Weinberg, 2019). Notably, downregulated genes following EPB41L4A-AS1 KD are enriched in GO terms related to cell proliferation and cell cycle progression (Fig. 2I), whereas those upregulated for terms linked to EMT processes. Thus, while we cannot rule out a potential function as tumor suppressor gene, our data better fits the idea that this lncRNA promotes invasion, and thus, primarily functions as an oncogene.”

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Below are major and minor points to be addressed. We hope the authors find them useful.

(1) Figure 1:

Where are LNA gapmers located within the EPB41L4A-AS1 gene? Are they targeting exons or introns of the EPB41L4A-AS1? Please clarify or include in the figure.

We now report the location of the two GapmeRs in Fig. 1C. LNA1 targets the intronic region between SNORA13 and exon 2, and LNA2 the terminal part of exon 1.

(2) Figure 2B:

Why is a single LNA gapmer used for EPB41L4A Western? In addition, are the qPCR data in Figure 2B the same as in Figure 1B? Please clarify.

The Western Blot was performed after transfecting the cells with either LNA1 or LNA2. We now have replaced Fig. 2C with the full Western Blot image, in order to show both LNAs. With respect to the qPCRs in Fig. 1B and 2B, they represent the results from two independent experiments.

(3) Figure 2F:

2364 DEGs for a single LNA is a lot of deregulated genes in RNA-seq data. How do the authors explain such a big number in DEGs? Is that because this LNA was intronic? Additional LNA gapmer would minimise the "real" lncRNA target and any potential off-target effect.

We agree with the Reviewer that GapmeRs are prone to off-target and unwanted effects (Lai et al.,2020; Lee & Mendell, 2020; Maranon & Wilusz, 2020). Early in our experiments, we found out that LNA1 triggers a non-specific CDKN1A/p21 activation (Fig. S5A-C), and thus, we have initially performed some experiments such as RNA-seq with only LNA2.

Nonetheless, other experiments were performed using both GapmeRs, such as multiple RT-qPCRs, UMI-4C, SUB1 and NPM1 imaging, and the in vitro assays, among others, and consistent results were obtained with both LNAs.

To accommodate the request by this and the other reviewers, we have now performed another round of polyA+ RNA-seq following EPB41L4A-AS1 knockdown using LNA1 or LNA2, as well as the previously used and an additional control GapmeR. The FPKMs of the control samples are highly-correlated both within replicates and between GapmeRs (Fig. S6A). More importantly, the fold-changes to control are highly correlated between the two on-target GapmeRs LNA1 and LNA2, regardless of the GapmeR used for normalization (Fig. S6B), thus showing that despite significant GapmeR-specific effects, the bulk of the response is shared and likely the direct result of the reduction in the levels of EPB41L4A-AS1. Notably, key targets NPM1 and MTREX (see discussion, Fig. S12A-C and comments to Reviewer 3) were found to be downregulated by both LNAs (Fig. S6C).

However, we acknowledge that some of the dysregulated genes are observed only when using one GapmeR and not the other, likely due to a combination of indirect, secondary and non-specific effects, and as such it is difficult to infer the direct response. Supporting this, LNA2 yielded a total of 1,069 DEGs (617 up and 452 down) and LNA1 2,493 DEGs (1,328 up and 1,287 down), with the latter triggering a stronger response most likely as a result of the previously mentioned CDKN1A/p21 induction. Overall, 45.1% of the upregulated genes following LNA2 transfection were shared with LNA1, in contrast to only the 24.3% of the downregulated ones.

We have now included these results in the Results section (see below) and in Supplementary Figure (Fig. S6).

“Most of the consequences of the depletion of EPB41L4A-AS1 are thus not directly explained by changes in EPB41L4A levels. An additional trans-acting function for EPB41L4A-AS1 would therefore be consistent with its high expression levels compared to most lncRNAs detected in MCF-7 (Fig. S5G). To strengthen these findings, we have transfected MCF-7 cells with LNA1 and a second control GapmeR (NT2), as well as the previous one (NT1) and LNA2, and sequenced the polyadenylated RNA fraction as before. Notably, the expression levels (in FPKMs) of the replicates of both control samples are highly correlated with each other (Fig. S6A), and the global transcriptomic changes triggered by the two EPB41L4A-AS1-targeting LNAs are largely concordant (Fig. S6B and S6C). Because of this concordance and the cleaner (i.e., no CDKN1A upregulation) readout in LNA2-transfected cells, we focused mainly on these cells for subsequent analyses.”

(4) Figure 3B: Does downregulation of SUB1 and NPM1 reflect at the protein level with both LNA gapmers? The authors should show a heatmap and metagene profile for SUB1 CUT & RUN. How did the author know that SUB1 binding is specific, since CUT & RUN was not performed in SUB1-depleted cells?

As requested by both Reviewer #2 and #3, we have performed WB for SUB1, NPM1 and FBL following EPB41L4A-AS1 KD with two targeting (LNA1 and LNA2) and the previous control GapmeRs. Interestingly, we did not detect any significant downregulation of either proteins (Author response image 3), although this might be the result of the high variability observed in the control samples. Moreover, the short timeframe in which the experiments have been conducted━that is, transient transfections for 3 days━might not be sufficient time for the existing proteins to be degraded, and thus, the downregulation is more evident at the RNA (Fig. 3B and Supplementary Figure 6C) rather than protein level.

Author response image 3.

EPB41L4A-AS1 KD has only marginal effects on the levels of nucleolar proteins. (A) Western Blots for the indicated proteins after the transfection for 3 days of the control and targeting GapmeRs. (B) Quantification of the protein levels from (A).  All experiments were performed in n=3 biological replicates, with the error bars in the barplots representing the standard deviation. ns - P>0.05; * - P<0.05; ** - P<0.01; *** - P<0.001 (two-sided Student’s t-test).

Following the suggestion by the Reviewer, we now show both the SUB1 CUT&RUN metagene profile (previously available as Fig. 3F) and the heatmap (now Fig. 3G) around the TSS of all genes, stratified by their expression level. Both graphs are reported.

We show that the antibody signal is responsive to SUB1 depletion via siRNAs in both WB (Fig. S8F) and IF (Fig. 5E) experiments. As mentioned below, this and the absence of non-specific signals makes us confident in the CUT&RUN data. Performing CUT&RUN in SUB1 depleted cells would be difficult to interpret as perturbations are typically not complete, and so the remaining protein can still bind the same regions. Since there isn’t a clear way to add spike-ins to CUT&RUN experiments, it is very difficult to show specificity of binding by CUT&RUN in siRNA-knockdown cells.

(5) Figure 3D: The MW for the depicted proteins are lacking. Why is there no SUB1 protein in the input? Please clarify. Since the authors used siRNA to deplete SUB1, it would be good to know if the antibody is specific in their CUT & RUN (see above)

We apologize for the lack of the MW in Fig. 3D. As shown in Fig. S8F, SUB1 is ~18 kDa and the antibody signal is responsive to SUB1 depletion via siRNAs in both WB (Fig. S8F) and IF (Fig. 5E) experiments. Thus, given its 1) established specificity in those two settings and 2) the lack of generalized signal at most open chromatin regions, which is typical of nonspecific CUT&RUN experiments, we are confident in the specificity of the CUT&RUN results.

We now mention the MW of SUB1 in Fig. 3D as well and we provide in Author response image 4 the full SUB1 WB picture, enhancing the contrast to highlight the bands. We agree that the SUB1 band in the input is weak, likely reflecting the low abundance in that fraction and the detection difficulty due to its low MW (see Fig. S8F).

Author response image 4.

Western blot for SUB1 following RIP using either a SUB1 or IgG antibody. IN - input, SN - supernatant/unbound, B - bound.

(6) Supplementary Figure 6C:

The validation of lncRNA EPB41L4A-AS1 binding to SUB1 should be confirmed by CLIP qPCR, since native RIP can lead to reassociation of RNA-protein interactions (PMID: 15388877). Additionally, the eclip data presented in Figure 3a were from a different cell line and not MCF7.

We acknowledge that the SUB1 eCLIP data was generated in a different cell line, as we mentioned in the text:

“Indeed, eCLIP targets of SUB1 (from HepG2 cells profiled by ENCODE) were significantly downregulated following EPB41L4A-AS1 KD in MCF-7, with more confident targets experiencing stronger downregulation (Fig. 3C). Importantly, this still holds true when controlling for gene expression levels (Fig. S7C), suggesting that this negative trend is not due to differences in their baseline expression. To obtain SUB1-associated transcripts in MCF-7 cells; we performed a native RNA immunoprecipitation followed by sequencing of polyA+ RNAs (RIP-seq) (Fig. 3D, S7D and S7E).”

Because of this, we resorted to native RIP, in order to get binding information in our experimental system. As we show independent evidence for binding using both eCLIP and RIP, and the substantial challenge in establishing the CLIP method, which has not been successfully used in our group, we respectfully argue that further validations are out of scope of this study. We nonetheless agree that several genes which are nominally significantly enriched in our RIP data are likely not direct targets of SUB1, especially given that it is difficult to assign the perfect threshold that discriminates between bound and unbound RNAs.

We now additionally mention this at the beginning of the paragraph as well:

“In order to identify potential factors that might be associated with EPB41L4A-AS1, we inspected protein-RNA binding data from the ENCODE eCLIP dataset(Van Nostrand et al., 2020). The exons of the EPB41L4A-AS1 lncRNA were densely and strongly bound by SUB1 (also known as PC4) in both HepG2 and K562 cells (Fig. 3A).”

(7) Figure 3G:

Can the authors distinguish whether loss of EPB41L4A-AS1 affects SUB1 chromatin binding or its activity as RBP? Please discuss.

Distinguishing between altered SUB1 chromatin and RNA binding is challenging, as this protein likely does not interact directly with chromatin and exhibits rather promiscuous RNA binding properties (Ray et al., 2023). In particular, SUB1 (also known as PC4) interacts with and regulates the activity of all three RNA polymerases, and was reported to be involved in transcription initiation and elongation, response to DNA damage, chromatin condensation (Conesa & Acker, 2010; Das et al., 2006; Garavís & Calvo, 2017; Hou et al., 2022) and telomere maintenance (Dubois et al., 2025; Salgado et al., 2024).

Based on our data, genes whose promoters are occupied by SUB1 display marginal, yet highly significant changes in their steady-state expression levels upon lncRNA perturbations. We also show that upon EPB41L4A-AS1 KD, SUB1 acquires a stronger nucleolar localization (Fig. 5A), which likely affects its RNA interactome as well. However, further elucidating these activities would require performing RIP-seq and CUT&RUN in lncRNA-depleted cells, which we argue is out of the scope of the current study. We note that  KD of SUB1 with siRNAs have milder effects than that of EPB41L4A-AS1 (Fig. S8G), suggesting that additional players and effects shape the observed changes. Therefore, it is highly likely that the loss of this lncRNA affects both SUB1 chromatin binding profile and RNA binding activity, with the latter likely resulting in the increased snoRNAs abundance.

(8) Figure 4: Can the authors show that a specific class of snorna is affected upon depletion of SUB1 and EPB41L4A-AS1? Can they further classify the effect of their depletion on H/ACA box snoRNAs, C/D box snoRNAs, and scaRNAs?

Such potential distinct effect on the different classes of snoRNAs was considered, and the results are available in Fig. S8B and S8H (boxplots, after EPB41L4A-AS1 and SUB1 depletion), as well as Fig. 4F and S9F (scatterplots between EPB41L4A-AS1 and SUB1 depletion, and EPB41L4A-AS1 and GAS5 depletion, respectively). We see no preferential effect on one group of snoRNAs or the other.

(9) Figure 5: From the representative images, it looks to me that LNA 2 targeting EPB41L4A-AS1 has a bigger effect on nucleolar staining of SUB1. To claim that EPB41L4A-AS1 depletion "shifts SUB1 to a stronger nucleolar distribution", the authors need to perform IF staining for SUB1 and Fibrillarin, a known nucleolar marker. Also, how does this data fit with their qPCR data shown in Figure 3B? It is instrumental for the authors to demonstrate by IF or Western blotting that SUB1 levels decrease in one fraction and increase specifically in the nucleolus. They could perform Western blot for SUB1 and Fibrillarin in EPB41L4A-AS1-depleted cells and isolate cytoplasmic, nuclear, and nucleolar fractions.This experiment will strengthen their finding. The scale bar is missing for all the images in Figure 5. The authors should also show magnified images of a single representative cell at 100x.

We apologize for the confusion regarding the scale bars. As mentioned here and elsewhere, the scale bars are present in the top-left image of each panel only, in order to avoid overcrowding the panel. All the images are already at 100X, with the exception of Fig. 5E (IF for SUB1 upon siSUB1 transfection) which is 60X in order to better show the lack of signal. We however acknowledge that the images are sometimes confusing, due to the PNG features once imported into the document. In any case, in the submission we have also provided the original images in high-quality PDF and .ai formats.  The suggested experiment would require establishing a nucleolar fractionation protocol which we currently don’t have available and we argue that it is out of scope of the current study.

(10) Additionally, is rRNA synthesis affected in SUB1- and EPB41L4A-AS1-depleted cells? The authors could quantify newly synthesised rRNA levels in the nucleoli, which would also strengthen their findings about the role of this lncRNA in nucleolar biology.

We acknowledge that there are many aspects of the role of EPB41L4A-AS1 in nucleolar biology that remain to be explored, as well as in nucleolar biology itself, but given the extensive experimental data we already provide in this and other subjects, we respectfully suggest that this experiment is out of scope of the current work. We note that a recent study has shown that SUB1 is required for Pol I-mediated rDNA transcription in the nucleolus (Kaypee et al., 2025). In the presence of nucleolar SUB1, rDNA transcription proceeds as expected, but when SUB1 is depleted or its nucleolar localization is affected—by either sodium butyrate treatment or inhibition of KAT5-mediated phosphorylation at its lysine 35 (K35)—the levels of the 47S pre-rRNA are significantly reduced. In our settings, SUB1 enriches into the nucleolus following EPB41L4A-AS1 KD; thus, we might expect to see a slightly increased rDNA transcription or no effect at all, given that SUB1 localizes in the nucleolus in baseline conditions as well. We now mention this novel role of SUB1 both in the results and discussion.

“SUB1 interacts with all three RNA polymerases and was reported to be involved in transcription initiation and elongation, response to DNA damage, chromatin condensation(Conesa & Acker, 2010; Das et al., 2006; Garavís & Calvo, 2017; Hou et al., 2022), telomere maintenance(Dubois et al., 2025; Salgado et al., 2024) and rDNA transcription(Kaypee et al., 2025). SUB1 normally localizes throughout the nucleus in various cell lines, yet staining experiments show a moderate enrichment for the nucleolus (source: Human Protein Atlas; https://www.proteinatlas.org/ENSG00000113387-SUB1/subcellular)(Kaypee et al., 2025).”

“Several features of the response to EPB41L4A-AS1 resemble nucleolar stress, including altered distribution of NPM1(Potapova et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2016). SUB1 was shown to be involved in many nuclear processes, including transcription(Conesa & Acker, 2010), DNA damage response(Mortusewicz et al., 2008; Yu et al., 2016), telomere maintenance(Dubois et al., 2025), and nucleolar processes including rRNA biogenesis(Kaypee et al., 2025; Tafforeau et al., 2013). Our results suggest a complex and multi-faceted relationship between EPB41L4A-AS1 and SUB1, as SUB1 mRNA levels are reduced by the transient (72 hours) KD of the lncRNA (Fig. 3B), the distribution of the protein in the nucleus is altered (Fig. 5A and 5C), while the protein itself is the most prominent binder of the mature EPB41L4A-AS1 in ENCODE eCLIP data (Fig. 3A). The most striking connection between EPB41L4A-AS1 and SUB1 is the similar phenotype triggered by their loss (Fig. 4). We note that a recent study has shown that SUB1 is required for Pol I-mediated rDNA transcription in the nucleolus(Kaypee et al., 2025). In the presence of nucleolar SUB1, rDNA transcription proceeds as expected, but when SUB1 is depleted or its nucleolar localization is affected—by either sodium butyrate treatment or inhibition of KAT5-mediated phosphorylation at its lysine 35 (K35)—the levels of the 47S pre-rRNA are significantly reduced. In our settings, SUB1 enriches into the nucleolus following EPB41L4A-AS1 KD; thus, we might expect to see a slightly increased rDNA transcription or no effect at all, given that SUB1 localizes in the nucleolus in baseline conditions as well. It is however difficult to determine which of the connections between these two genes is the most functionally relevant and which may be indirect and/or feedback interactions. For example, it is possible that EPB41L4A-AS1 primarily acts as a transcriptional regulator of SUB1 mRNA, or that its RNA product is required for proper stability and/or localization of the SUB1 protein, or that EPB41L4A-AS1 acts as a scaffold for the formation of protein-protein interactions of SUB1.”

(11) Figure 8: The scratch assay alone cannot be used as a measure of increased invasion, and this phenotype must be confirmed with a transwell invasion or migration assay. Thus, I highly recommend that the authors conduct this experiment using the Boyden chamber. Do the authors see upregulation of N-cadherin, Vimentin, and downregulation of E-cadherin in their RNA-seq?

We agree with the reviewer that those phenotypes are complex and normally require multiple in vitro, as well as in vivo assays to be thoroughly characterized. However, we respectfully consider those as out of scope of the current work, which is more focused on RNA biology and the molecular characterization and functions of EPB41L4A-AS1.

Nevertheless, in Fig. 8D we show that the canonical EMT signature (taken from MSigDB) is upregulated in cells with reduced expression of EPB41L4A-AS1. Notably, EMT has been found to not possess an unique gene expression program, but it rather involves distinct and partially overlapping gene signatures (Youssef et al., 2024). In Fig. 8D, the most upregulated gene is TIMP3, a matrix metallopeptidase inhibitor linked to a particular EMT signature that is less invasive and more profibrotic (EMT-T2, (Youssef et al., 2024)). Interestingly, we observed a strong upregulation of other genes linked to EMT-T2, such as TIMP1, FOSB, SOX9, JUNB, JUN and KLF4, whereas MPP genes (linked to EMT-T1, which is highly proteolytic and invasive) are generally downregulated or not expressed. With regards to N- and E-cadherin, the first does not pass our cutoff to be considered expressed, and the latter is not significantly changing. Vimentin is also not significantly dysregulated. All these examples are reported, which were added as Fig. 8E:

The text has also been updated accordingly:

“These findings suggest that proper EPB41L4A-AS1 expression is required for cellular proliferation, whereas its deficiency results in the onset of more aggressive and migratory behavior, likely linked to the increase of the gene signature of epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT) (Fig. 8D). Because EMT is not characterized by a unique gene expression program and rather involves distinct and partially overlapping gene signatures (Youssef et al., 2024), we checked the expression level of marker genes linked to different types of EMTs (Fig. 8E). The most upregulated gene in Fig. 8D is TIMP3, a matrix metallopeptidase inhibitor linked to a particular EMT signature that is less invasive and more profibrotic (EMT-T2) (Youssef et al., 2024). Interestingly, we observed a stark upregulation of other genes linked to EMT-T2, such as TIMP1, FOSB, SOX9, JUNB, JUN and KLF4, whereas MPP genes (linked to EMT-T1, which is highly proteolytic and invasive) are generally downregulated or not expressed. This suggests that the downregulation of EPB41L4A-AS1 is primarily linked to a specific EMT program (EMT-T2), and future studies aimed at uncovering the exact mechanisms and relevance will shed light upon a possible therapeutic potential of this lncRNA.”

(12) Minor points:

(a) What could be the explanation for why only the EPB41L4A-AS1 locus has an effect on the neighbouring gene?

There might be multiple reasons why EPB41L4A-AS1 is able to modulate the expression of the neighboring genes. First, it is expressed from a TAD boundary exhibiting physical contacts with several genes in the two flanking TADs (Fig. 1F and 2A), placing it in the right spot to regulate their expression. Second, it is highly expressed when compared to most of the genes nearby, with transcription having been linked to the establishment and maintenance of TAD boundaries (Costea et al., 2023). Accordingly, the (partial) depletion of EPB41L4A-AS1 via GapmeRs transfection slightly reduces the contacts between the lncRNA and EPB41L4A loci (Fig. 2E and S4J), although this effect could also be determined by a premature transcription termination triggered by the GapmeRs. 

There are a multitude of mechanisms by which lncRNAs with regulatory functions modulate the expression of one or more target genes in cis (Gil & Ulitsky, 2020), and our data do not unequivocally point to one of them. Distinguishing between these possibilities is a major challenge in the field and would be difficult to address in the context of this one study. It could be that the processive RNA polymerases at the EPB41L4A-AS1 locus are recruited to the neighboring loci, facilitated by the close proximity in the 3D space. It could also be possible that chromatin remodeling factors are recruited by the nascent RNA, and then promote and/or sustain the opening of chromatin at the target site. The latter possibility is intriguing, as this mechanism is proposed to be widespread among lncRNAs (Gil & Ulitsky, 2020; Oo et al., 2025) and we observed a significant reduction of H3K27ac levels at the EPB41L4A promoter region (Fig. 2D). Future studies combining chromatin profiling (e.g., CUT&RUN and ATAC-seq) and RNA pulldown experiments will shed light upon the exact mechanisms by which this lncRNA regulates the expression of target genes in cis and its interacting partners.

(b) The scale bar is missing on all the images in the Supplementary Figures as well.

The scale bars are present in the top-left figure of each panel. We acknowledge that due to the export as PNG, some figures (including those with microscopy images) display abnormal font sizes and aspect ratio. All images were created using consistent fonts, sizes and ratio, and are provided as high-quality PDF in the current submission.

(13) Methods:

The authors should double-check if they used sirn and LNA gapmers at 25 and 50um concentrations, as that is a huge dose. Most papers used these reagents in the range of 5-50nM maximum.

We apologize for the typo, the text has been fixed. We performed the experiments at 25 and 50nM, respectively, as suggested by the manufacturer’s protocol.

(14) Discussion:

Which cell lines were used in reference 27 (Cheng et al., 2024 Cell) to study the role of SNORA13? It may be useful to include this in the discussion.

We already mentioned the cell system in the discussion, and now we edited to include the specific cell line that was used:

“A recent study found that SNORA13 negatively regulates ribosome biogenesis in TERT-immortalized human fibroblasts (BJ-HRAS<Sup>G12V</sup>), by decreasing the incorporation of RPL23 into the maturing 60S ribosomal subunits, eventually triggering p53-mediated cellular senescence(Cheng et al., 2024).”

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

Major comments on weaknesses:

(1) The paper is quite disjointed:

(a) Figures1/2 studied the cis- and potential trans target genes altered by EPB41L4A-AS1 knockdown. They also showed some data about EPB41L4A-AS1 overlaps a strong chromatin boundary.

(b) Figures3/4/5 studied the role of SUB1 - as it is altered by EPB41L4A-AS1 knockdown - in affecting genes and snoRNAs, which may partially underlie the gene/snoRNA changes after EPB41L4A-AS1 knockdown.

(c) Figure 6 showed that EPB41L4A-AS1 knockdown did not directly affect SNORA13, the snoRNA located in the intron of EPB41L4A-AS1. Thus, the upregulation of many snoRNAs is not due to SNORA13.

(d) Figure 7 studied whether the changes of cis genes or snoRNAs are due to transcriptional stability.

(e) Figure 8 studied cellular phenotypes after EPB41L4A-AS1 knockdown.

These points are overly spread out and this dilutes the central theme of these results, which this Reviewer considered to be on cis or trans gene regulation by this lncRNA.The title of the paper implies EPB41L4A-AS1 knockdown affected trans target genes, but the paper did not focus on studying cis or trans effects, except briefly mentioning that many genes were changed in Figure 2. The many changes of snoRNAs are suggested to be partially explained by SUB1, but SUB1 itself is affected (>50%, Figure 3B) by EPB41L4A-AS1 knockdown, so it is unclear if these are mostly secondary changes due to SUB1 reduction. Given the current content of the paper, the authors do not have sufficient evidence to support that the changes of trans genes are due to direct effects or indirect effects. And so they are encouraged to revise their title to be more on snoRNA regulation, as this area took the majority of the efforts in this paper.

We respectfully disagree with the reviewer. We show that the effect on the proximal genes are cis-acting, as they are not rescued by exogenous expression, whereas the majority of the changes observed in the RNA-seq datasets appear to be indirect, and the snoRNA changes, that indeed might be indirect and not necessarily involve direct interaction partners of the lncRNA, such as SUB1, appear to be trans-regulated, as they can be rescued partially by exogenous expression of the lncRNA. We also show that KD of the main cis-regulated gene, EPB41L4A, results in a much milder transcriptional response, further solidifying the contribution of trans-acting effects. While we agree that the snoRNA effects are interesting, we do not consider them to be the main result, as they are accompanied by many additional changes in gene expression, and changes in the subnuclear distribution of the key nucleolar proteins, so it is difficult for us to claim that EPB41L4A-AS1 is specifically relevant to the snoRNAs rather than to the more broad nucleolar biology. Therefore, we prefer not to mention snoRNAs specifically in the title.

(2) EPB41L4A-AS1 knockdown caused ~2,364 gene changes. This is a very large amount of change on par with some transcriptional factors. It thus needs more scrutiny. First, on Page 9, second paragraph, the authors used|log2Fold-change| >0.41 to select differential genes, which is an unusual cutoff. What is the rationale? Often |log2Fold-change| >1 is more common. How many replicates are used? To examine how many gene changes are likely direct target genes, can the authors show how many of the cist-genes that are changed by EPB41L4A-AS1 knockdown have direct chromatin contacts with EPB41L4A-AS1 in HiC data? Is there any correlation between HiC contact with their fold changes? Without a clear explanation of cis target genes as direct target genes, it is more difficult to establish whether any trans target genes are directly affected by EPB41L4A-AS1 knockdown.

A |log₂Fold-change| >0.41 equals a change of 33% or more, which together with an adjusted P < 0.05 is a threshold that has been used in the past. All RNA-seq experiments have been performed in triplicates, in line with the standards in the field. While it is possible that the EPB41L4A-AS1 establishes multiple contacts in trans—a process that has been observed in at least another lncRNA, namely Firre but involving its mature RNA product—we do believe this to be less likely that the alternative, namely that the > 2,000 DEGs are predominantly result from secondary changes rather than genes directly regulated by EPB41L4A-AS1 contacts.

In any case, we have inspected our UMI-4C data to identify other genes exhibiting higher contact frequencies than background levels, and thus, potentially regulated in cis. To this end, we calculated the UMI-4C coverage in a 10kb window centered around the TSS of the genes located on chromosome 5, which we subsequently normalized based on the distance from EPB41L4A-AS1, in order to account for the intrinsic higher DNA recovery the closer to the target DNA sequence. However, in our UMI-4C experiment we have employed baits targeting three different genes—EPB41L4A-AS1, EPB41L4A and STARD4—and therefore such approach assumes that the lncRNA locus has the most regulatory features in this region. As expected, we detected a strong negative correlation between the normalized coverage and the distance from the EPB41L4A-AS1 locus (⍴ = -0.51, p-value < 2.2e-16), and the genes in the two neighboring TADs exhibited the strongest association with the bait region (Author response image 5). The genes that we see are down-regulated in the adjacent TADs, namely NREP, MCC and MAN2A1 (Fig. 2F) show substantially higher contacts than background with the EPB41L4A-AS1 gene, thus potentially constituting additional cis-regulated targets of this lncRNA. We note that both SUB1 and NPM1 are located on chromosome 5 as well, albeit at distances exceeding 75 and 50 Mb, respectively, and they do not exhibit any striking association with the lncRNA locus.

Author response image 5.

UMI-4C coverage over the TSS of the genes located on chromosome 5. (A) Correlation between the normalized UMI-4C coverage over the TSS (± 5kb) of chromosome 5 genes and the absolute distance (in megabases, Mb) from EPB41L4A-AS1. (B) Same as in (A), but with the x axis showing the relative distance from EPB41L4A-AS1. In both cases, the genes in the two flanking TADs are colored in red and their names are reported.

To increase the confidence in our RNA-seq data, we have now performed another round of polyA+ RNA-seq following EPB41L4A-AS1 knockdown using LNA1 or LNA2, as well as the previously used and an additional control GapmeR. The FPKMs of the control samples are highly-correlated both within replicates and between GapmeRs (Fig. S6A). More importantly, the fold-changes to control are highly correlated between the two on-target GapmeRs LNA1 and LNA2, regardless of the GapmeR used for normalization (Fig. S6B), thus showing that despite significant GapmeR-specific effects, the bulk of the response is shared and likely the direct result of the reduction in the levels of EPB41L4A-AS1. Notably, key targets NPM1 and MTREX (see discussion, Fig. S12A-C and comments to Reviewer 3) were found to be downregulated by both LNAs (Fig. S6C).

However, we acknowledge that some of the dysregulated genes are observed only when using one GapmeR and not the other, likely due to a combination of indirect, secondary and non-specific effects, and as such it is difficult without short time-course experiments (Much et al., 2024) to infer the direct response. Supporting this, LNA2 yielded a total of 1,069 DEGs (617 up and 452 down) and LNA1 2,493 DEGs (1,328 up and 1,287 down), with the latter triggering a stronger response most likely as a result of the previously mentioned CDKN1A/p21 induction. Overall, 45.1% of the upregulated genes following LNA2 transfection were shared with LNA1, in contrast to only the 24.3% of the downregulated ones.

We have now included these results in the Results section (see below) and in Supplementary Figure (Fig. S6).

“Most of the consequences of the depletion of EPB41L4A-AS1 are thus not directly explained by changes in EPB41L4A levels. An additional trans-acting function for EPB41L4A-AS1 would therefore be consistent with its high expression levels compared to most lncRNAs detected in MCF-7 (Fig. S5G). To strengthen these findings, we have transfected MCF-7 cells with LNA1 and a second control GapmeR (NT2), as well as the previous one (NT1) and LNA2, and sequenced the polyadenylated RNA fraction as before. Notably, the expression levels (in FPKMs) of the replicates of both control samples are highly correlated with each other (Fig. S6A), and the global transcriptomic changes triggered by the two EPB41L4A-AS1-targeting LNAs are largely concordant (Fig. S6B and S6C). Because of this concordance and the cleaner (i.e., no CDKN1A upregulation) readout in LNA2-transfected cells, we focused mainly on these cells for subsequent analyses.”

Figure 3B, SUB1 mRNA is reduced >half by EPB41L4A-AS1 KD. How much did SUB1 protein reduce after EPB41L4A-AS1 KD? Similarly, how much is the NPM1 protein reduced? If these two important proteins were affected by EPB41L4A-AS1 KD simultaneously, it is important to exclude how many of the 2,364 genes that changed after EPB41L4A-AS1 KD are due to the protein changes of these two key proteins. For SUB1, Figures S7E,F,G provided some answers. But NPM1 KD is also needed to fully understand such. Related to this, there are many other proteins perhaps changed in addition to SUB1 and NPM1, this renders it concerning how many of the EPB41L4A-AS1 KD-induced changes are directly caused by this RNA. In addition to the suggested study of cist targets, the alternative mechanism needs to be fully discussed in the paper as it remains difficult to fully conclude direct versus indirect effect due to such changes of key proteins or ncRNAs (such as snoRNAs or histone mRNAs).

As requested by both Reviewer #2 and #3, we have performed WB for SUB1, NPM1 and FBL following EPB41L4A-AS1 KD with two targeting (LNA1 and LNA2) and the previous control GapmeRs. Interestingly, we did not detect any significant downregulation of either proteins (Author response image 3), although this might be the result of the high variability observed in the control samples. Moreover, the short timeframe in which the experiments have been conducted━that is, transient transfections for 3 days━might not be sufficient time for the existing proteins to be degraded, and thus, the downregulation is more evident at the RNA (Fig. 3B and Supplementary Figure 6C) rather than protein level.

We acknowledge that many proteins might change simultaneously, and to pinpoint which ones act upstream of the plethora of indirect changes is extremely challenging when considering such large-scale changes in gene expression. In the case of SUB1 and NPM1━which were prioritized for their predicted binding to the lncRNA (Fig. 3A)━we show that the depletion of the former affects the latter in a similar way than that of the lncRNA (Fig. 5F). Moreover, snoRNAs changes are also similarly affected (as the reviewer pointed out, Fig. 4F), suggesting that at least this phenomenon is predominantly mediated by SUB1. Other effects might also be indirect consequences of cellular responses, such as the decrease in histone mRNAs (Fig. 4A) that might reflect the decrease in cellular replication (Fig. 8C) and cell cycle genes (Fig. 2I) (although a link between SUB1 and histone mRNA expression has been described (Brzek et al., 2018)). 

Supporting the notion that additional proteins might be involved in driving the observed phenotypes, one of the genes that most consistently was affected by EPB41L4A-AS1 KD with GapmeRs is MTREX (also known as MTR4), that becomes downregulated at both the RNA and protein levels (now presented in the main text as Supplementary Figure 12). MTREX it’s part of the NEXT and PAXT complexes (Contreras et al., 2023), that target several short-lived RNAs for degradation, and the depletion of either MTREX or other complex members leads to the upregulation of such RNAs, that include PROMPTs, uaRNAs and eRNAs, among others. Given the lack in our understanding in snoRNA biogenesis from introns in mammalian systems(Monziani & Ulitsky, 2023), it is tempting to hypothesize a role for MTREX-containing complexes in trimming and degrading those introns and release the mature snoRNAs.  

We updated the discussion section to include these observations:

“Beyond its site of transcription, EPB41L4A-AS1 associates with SUB1, an abundant protein linked to various functions, and these two players are required for proper distribution of various nuclear proteins. Their dysregulation results in large-scale changes in gene expression, including up-regulation of snoRNA expression, mostly through increased transcription of their hosts, and possibly through a somewhat impaired snoRNA processing and/or stability. To further hinder our efforts in discerning between these two possibilities, the exact molecular pathways involved in snoRNAs biogenesis, maturation and decay are still not completely understood. One of the genes that most consistently was affected by EPB41L4A-AS1 KD with GapmeRs is MTREX (also known as MTR4), that becomes downregulated at both the RNA and protein levels (Fig. S12A-C). Interestingly, MTREX it is part of the NEXT and PAXT complexes(Contreras et al., 2023), that target several short-lived RNAs for degradation, and the depletion of either MTREX or other complex members leads to the upregulation of such RNAs, that include PROMPTs, uaRNAs and eRNAs, among others. It is therefore tempting to hypothesize a role for MTREX-containing complexes in trimming and degrading those introns, and releasing the mature snoRNAs. Future studies specifically aimed at uncovering novel players in mammalian snoRNA biology will both conclusively elucidate whether MTREX is indeed involved in these processes.”

With regards to the changes in gene expression between the two LNAs, we provide a more detailed answer above and to the other reviewers as well.

(3) A Strong discrepancy of results by different approaches of knockdown or overexpression:

(a) CRISPRa versus LNA knockdown: Figure S4 - CRISPRa of EPB41L4A-AS1 did not affect EPB41L4A expression (Figure S4B). The authors should discuss how to interpret this result. Did CRISPRa not work to increase the nuclear/chromatin portion of EPB41L4A-AS1? Did CRISPRa of EPB41L4A-AS1 affect the gene in the upstream, the STARD4? Did CRISPRa of EPB41L4A-AS1 also affect chromatin interactions between EPB41L4A-AS1 and the EPB41L4A gene? If so, this may argue that chromatin interaction is not necessary for cis-gene regulation.

There are indeed several possible explanations, the most parsimonious is that since the lncRNA is already very highly transcribed, the relatively modest effect of additional transcription mediated by CRISPRa is not sufficient to elicit a measurable effect. For this reason, we did not check by UMI-4C the contact frequency between the lncRNA and EPB41L4A upon CRISPRa.

CRISPRa augments transcription at target loci, and thus, the nuclear and chromatin retention of EPB41L4A-AS1 are not expected to be affected. We did not check the expression of STARD4, because we focused on EPB41L4A which appears to be the main target locus according to Hi-C (Fig. 2A), UMI-4C (Fig. 2E and S4J) and GeneHancer (Fig. S1). 

We already provide extensive evidence of a cis-regulation of EPB41L4A-AS1 over EPB41L4A, and show that EPB41L4A is lowly-expressed and likely has a limited role in our experimental settings. Thus, we respectfully propose that an in-deep exploration of the mechanism of action of this regulatory axis is out of scope of the current study, that instead focused more on the global effects of EPB41L4A-AS1 perturbation.

(b) Related to this, while CRISPRa alone did not show an effect, upon LNA knockdown of EPB41L4A-AS1, CRISPRa of EPB41L4A-AS1 can increase EPB41L4A expression. It is perplexing as to why, upon LNA treatment, CRISPRa will show an effect (Figure S4H)? Actually, Figures S4H and I are very confusing in the way they are currently presented. They will benefit from being separated into two panels (H into 2 and I into two). And for Ectopic expression, please show controls by empty vector versus EPB41L4A-AS1, and for CRISPRa, please show sgRNA pool versus sgRNA control.

The results are consistent with the parsimonious assumption mentioned above that the high transcription of the lncRNA at baseline is sufficient for maximal positive regulation of EPB41L4A, and that upon KD, the reduced transcription and/or RNA levels are no longer at saturating levels, and so CRISPRa can have an effect. We now mention this interpretation in the text:

“Levels of EPB41L4A were not affected by increased expression of EPB41L4A-AS1 from the endogenous locus by CRISPR activation (CRISPRa), nor by its exogenous expression from a plasmid (Fig. S4B and S4C). The former suggests that endogenous levels of EPB41L4A-AS1—that are far greater than those of EPB41L4A—are sufficient to sustain the maximal expression of this target gene in MCF7 cells.”

We apologize for the confusion regarding the control used in the rescue experiments in Fig. S4H and S4I. The “-” in the Ectopic overexpression and CRISPRa correspond to the Empty Vector and sgControl, respectively, and not the absence of any vector. We changed the text in the figure legends:

“(H) Changes in EPB41L4A-AS1 expression after rescuing EPB41L4A-AS1 with an ectopic plasmid or CRISPRa following its KD with GapmeRs. In both panels (Ectopic OE and CRISPRa) the “-” samples represent those transfected with the Empty Vector or sgControl. Asterisks indicate significance relative to the –/– control (transfected with both the control GapmeR and vector). (I) Same as in (H), but for changes in EPB41L4A expression.”

(c) siRNA versus LNA knockdown: Figure S3A showed that siRNA KD of EPB41L4A-AS1 does not affect EPB41L4A expression. How to understand this data versus LNA?

As explained in the text, siRNA-mediated KD presumably affects mostly the cytoplasmic pool of EPB41L4A-AS1 and not the nuclear one, which we assume explains the different effects of the two perturbations, as observed for other lncRNAs (e.g., (Ntini et al., 2018)). However, we acknowledge that we do not know what aspect of the nuclear RNA biology is relevant, let it be the nascent EPB41L4A-AS1 transcription, premature transcriptional termination or even the nuclear pool of this lncRNA, and this can be elucidated further in future studies.

(d) EPB41L4A-AS1 OE versus LNA knockdown: Figure 6F showed that EPB41L4A-AS1 OE caused reduction of EPB41L4A mRNA, particularly at 24hr. How to interpret that both LNA KD and OE of EPB41L4A-AS1 reduce the expression of EPB41L4A mRNA?

We do not believe that the OE of EPB41L4A-AS1, and in particular the one elicited by an ectopic plasmid affects EPB41L4A RNA levels. In the experiment in Fig. 6F, EPB41L4A relative expression at 24h is ~0.65 (please note the log₂ scale in the graph), which is significant as reported. However, throughout this study (and as shown in Fig. S4C for the ectopic and Fig. S4B for the CRISPRa overexpression, respectively), we observed no such behavior, suggesting that the effect reported in Fig. 6F is the result of either that particular setting, and unlikely to reflect a general phenomenon.

(e) Did any of the effects on snoRNAs or trans target genes after EPB41L4A-AS1 knockdown still appear by CRISPRa?

As mentioned above, we did a limited number of experiments after CRISPRa, prompted by the fact that endogenous levels of EPB41L4A-AS1 are already high enough to sustain its functions. Pushing the expression even higher will likely result in no or artifactual effects, which is why we respectfully propose such experiments are not essential in this current work, which instead mostly relies on loss-of-function experiments.

For issue 3, extensive data repetition using all these methods may be unrealistic, but key data discrepancy needs to be fully discussed and interpreted.

Other comments on weakness:

(1) This manuscript will benefit from having line numbers so comments from Reviewers can be made more specifically.

We added line numbers as suggested by the reviewer.

(2) Figure 2G, to distinguish if any effects of EPB41L4A-AS1 come from the cytoplasmic or nuclear portion of EPB41L4A-AS1, an siRNA KD RNA-seq will help to filter out the genes affected by EPB41L4A-AS1 in the cytoplasm, as siRNA likely mainly acts in the cytoplasm.

This experiment would be difficult to interpret as while the siRNAs mostly deplete the cytoplasmic pool of their target, they can have some effects in the nucleus as well (e.g., (Sarshad et al., 2018)) and so siRNAs knockdown will not necessarily report strictly on the cytoplasmic functions.

(3) Figure 2H, LNA knockdown of EPB41L4A should check the protein level reduction, is it similar to the change caused by knockdown of EPB41L4A-AS1?

As suggested by reviewer #2, we have now replaced the EPB41L4A Western Blot that now shows the results with both LNA1 and LNA2. Please note that the previous Fig. 2C was a subset of this, i.e., we have previously cropped the results obtained with LNA1. Unfortunately, we did not have sufficient antibody to check for EPB41L4A protein reduction following LNA KD of EPB41L4A in a timely manner.

(4) There are two LNA Gapmers used by the paper to knock down EPB41L4A-AS1, but some figures used LNA1, some used LNA2, preventing a consistent interpretation of the results. For example, in Figures 2A-D, LNA2 was used. But in Figures 2E-H, LNA1 was used. How consistent are the two in changing histone H3K27ac (like in Figure 2D) versus gene expression in RNA-seq? The changes in chromatin interaction appear to be weaker by LNA2 (Figure S4J) versus LNA1 (Figure 2E).

As explained above and in response to Reviewer #1, we now provide more RNA-seq data for LNA1 and LNA2. We note that besides the unwanted and/or off-target effects, these two GapmeRs might be not equally effective in knocking down EPB41L4A-AS1, which could explain why LNA1 seems to have a stronger effect on chromatin than LNA2. Nonetheless, when we have employed both we have obtained similar and consistent results (e.g., Fig. 5A-D and 8A-C), suggesting that these and the other effects are indeed on target effects due to EPB41L4A-AS1 depletion.

(5) It will be helpful if the authors provide information on how long they conducted EPB41L4A-AS1 knockdown for most experiments to help discern direct or indirect effects.

The length of all perturbations was indicated in the Methods section, and we now mention them also  in the Results. Unless specified otherwise, they were carried out for 72 hours. We agree with the reviewer that having time course experiments can have added value, but due to the extensive effort that these will require, we suggest that they are out of scope of the current study.

(6) In Figures 1C and F, the authors showed results about EPB41L4A-AS1 overlapping a strong chromatin boundary. But these are not mentioned anymore in the later part of the paper. Does this imply any mechanism? Does EPB41L4A-AS1 knockdown or OE, or CRISPRa affect the expression of genes near the other interacting site, STARD4? Do genes located in the two adjacent TADs change more strongly as compared to other genes far away?

We discuss this point in the Discussion section:

“At the site of its own transcription, which overlaps a strong TAD boundary, EPB41L4A-AS1 is required to maintain expression of several adjacent genes, regulated at the level of transcription. Strikingly, the promoter of EPB41L4A-AS1 ranks in the 99.8th percentile of the strongest TAD boundaries in human H1 embryonic stem cells(Open2C et al., 2024; Salnikov et al., 2024). It features several CTCF binding sites (Fig. 2A), and in MCF-7 cells, we demonstrate that it blocks the propagation of the 4C signal between the two flanking TADSs (Fig. 1F). Future studies will help elucidate how EPB41L4A-AS1 transcription and/or the RNA product regulate this boundary. So far, we found that EPB41L4A-AS1 did not affect CTCF binding to the boundary, and while some peaks in the vicinity of EPB41L4A-AS1 were significantly affected by its loss, they did not appear to be found near genes that were dysregulated by its KD (Fig. S11C). We also found that KD of EPB41L4A-AS1—which depletes the RNA product, but may also affect the nascent RNA transcription(Lai et al., 2020; Lee & Mendell, 2020)—reduces the spatial contacts between the TAD boundary and the EPB41L4A promoter (Fig. 2E). Further elucidation of the exact functional entity needed for the cis-acting regulation will require detailed genetic perturbations of the locus, that are difficult to carry out in the polypoid MCF-7 cells, without affecting other functional elements of this locus or cell survival as we were unable to generate deletion clones despite several attempts.”

As mentioned in the text (pasted below) and in Fig. 2F, most genes in the two flanking TADs become downregulated following EPB41L4A-AS1 KD. While STARD4 – which was chosen because it had spatial contacts above background with EPB41L4A-AS1 – did not reach statistical significance, others did and are highlighted. Those included NREP, which we also discuss:

“Consistently with the RT-qPCR data, KD of EPB41L4A-AS1 reduced EPB41L4A expression, and also reduced expression of several, but not all other genes in the TADs flanking the lncRNA (Fig. 2F).Based on these data, EPB41L4A-AS1 is a significant cis-acting activator according to TransCistor (Dhaka et al., 2024) (P=0.005 using the digital mode). The cis-regulated genes reduced by EPB41L4A-AS1 KD included NREP, a gene important for brain development, whose homolog was downregulated by genetic manipulations of regions homologous to the lncRNA locus in mice(Salnikov et al., 2024). Depletion of EPB41L4A-AS1 thus affects several genes in its vicinity.”

(7) Related to the description of SUB1 regulation of genes are DNA and RNA levels: "Of these genes, transcripts of only 56 genes were also bound by SUB1 at the RNA level, suggesting largely distinct sets of genes targeted by SUB1 at both the DNA and the RNA levels." SUB1 binding to chromatin by Cut&Run only indicates that it is close to DNA/chromatin, and this interaction with chromatin may still likely be mediated by RNAs. The authors used SUB1 binding sites in eCLIP-seq to suggest whether it acts via RNAs, but these binding sites are often from highly expressed gene mRNAs/exons. Standard analysis may not have examined low-abundance RNAs close to the gene promoters, such as promoter antisense RNAs. The authors can examine whether, for the promoters with cut&run peaks of SUB1, SUB1 eCLIP-seq shows binding to the low-abundance nascent RNAs near these promoters.

In response to a related comment by Reviewer 1, we now show that when considering expression level–matched control genes, knockdown of EPB41L4A-AS1 still significantly affects expression of SUB1 targets over controls. The results are presented in Supplementary Figure 7 (Fig. S7C).

Based on this analysis, while there is a tendency of increased expression with increased SUB1 binding, when controlling for expression levels the effect of down-regulation of SUB1-bound RNAs upon lncRNA knockdown remains, suggesting that it is not merely a confounding effect. We have updated the text as follows:

“We hypothesized that loss of EPB41L4A-AS1 might affect SUB1, either via the reduction in its expression or by affecting its functions. We stratified SUB1 eCLIP targets into confidence intervals, based on the number, strength and confidence of the reported binding sites. Indeed, eCLIP targets of SUB1 (from HepG2 cells profiled by ENCODE) were significantly downregulated following. EPB41L4A-AS1 KD in MCF-7, with more confident targets experiencing stronger downregulation (Fig. 3C). Importantly, this still holds true when controlling for gene expression levels (Fig. S7C), suggesting that this negative trend is not due to differences in their baseline expression.”

(8) Figure 8, the cellular phenotype is interesting. As EPB41L4A-AS1 is quite widely expressed, did it affect the phenotypes similarly in other breast cancer cells? MCF7 is not a particularly relevant metastasis model. Can a similar phenotype be seen in commonly used metastatic cell models such as MDA-MB-231?

We agree that further expanding the models in which EPB41L4A-AS1 affects cellular proliferation, migration and any other relevant phenotype is of potential interest before considering targeting this lncRNA as a therapeutic approach. However, given that 1) others have already identified similar phenotypes upon the modulation of EPB41L4A-AS1 in a variety of different systems (see Results and Discussion), and 2) we were most interested in the molecular consequences following the loss of this lncRNA, we respectfully suggest that these experiments are out of scope of the current study.

References

Bahar Halpern, K., Caspi, I., Lemze, D., Levy, M., Landen, S., Elinav, E., Ulitsky, I., & Itzkovitz, S. (2015). Nuclear Retention of mRNA in Mammalian Tissues. Cell Reports, 13(12), 2653–2662.

Brabletz, T., Kalluri, R., Nieto, M. A., & Weinberg, R. A. (2018). EMT in cancer. Nature Reviews. Cancer, 18(2), 128–134.

Brzek, A., Cichocka, M., Dolata, J., Juzwa, W., Schümperli, D., & Raczynska, K. D. (2018). Positive cofactor 4 (PC4) contributes to the regulation of replication-dependent canonical histone gene expression. BMC Molecular Biology, 19(1), 9.

Cheng, Y., Wang, S., Zhang, H., Lee, J.-S., Ni, C., Guo, J., Chen, E., Wang, S., Acharya, A., Chang, T.-C., Buszczak, M., Zhu, H., & Mendell, J. T. (2024). A non-canonical role for a small nucleolar RNA in ribosome biogenesis and senescence. Cell, 187(17), 4770–4789.e23.

Conesa, C., & Acker, J. (2010). Sub1/PC4 a chromatin associated protein with multiple functions in transcription. RNA Biology, 7(3), 287–290.

Contreras, X., Depierre, D., Akkawi, C., Srbic, M., Helsmoortel, M., Nogaret, M., LeHars, M., Salifou, K., Heurteau, A., Cuvier, O., & Kiernan, R. (2023). PAPγ associates with PAXT nuclear exosome to control the abundance of PROMPT ncRNAs. Nature Communications, 14(1), 6745.

Costea, J., Schoeberl, U. E., Malzl, D., von der Linde, M., Fitz, J., Gupta, A., Makharova, M., Goloborodko, A., & Pavri, R. (2023). A de novo transcription-dependent TAD boundary underpins critical multiway interactions during antibody class switch recombination. Molecular Cell, 83(5), 681–697.e7.

Das, C., Hizume, K., Batta, K., Kumar, B. R. P., Gadad, S. S., Ganguly, S., Lorain, S., Verreault, A., Sadhale, P. P., Takeyasu, K., & Kundu, T. K. (2006). Transcriptional coactivator PC4, a chromatin-associated protein, induces chromatin condensation. Molecular and Cellular Biology, 26(22), 8303–8315.

Dhaka, B., Zimmerli, M., Hanhart, D., Moser, M. B., Guillen-Ramirez, H., Mishra, S., Esposito, R., Polidori, T., Widmer, M., García-Pérez, R., Julio, M. K., Pervouchine, D., Melé, M., Chouvardas, P., & Johnson, R. (2024). Functional identification of cis-regulatory long noncoding RNAs at controlled false discovery rates. Nucleic Acids Research, 52(6), 2821–2835.

Didiot, M.-C., Ferguson, C. M., Ly, S., Coles, A. H., Smith, A. O., Bicknell, A. A., Hall, L. M., Sapp, E., Echeverria, D., Pai, A. A., DiFiglia, M., Moore, M. J., Hayward, L. J., Aronin, N., & Khvorova, A. (2018). Nuclear Localization of Huntingtin mRNA Is Specific to Cells of Neuronal Origin. Cell Reports, 24(10), 2553–2560.e5.

Dongre, A., & Weinberg, R. A. (2019). New insights into the mechanisms of epithelial-mesenchymal transition and implications for cancer. Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology, 20(2), 69–84.

Dubois, J.-C., Bonnell, E., Filion, A., Frion, J., Zimmer, S., Riaz Khan, M., Teplitz, G. M., Casimir, L., Méthot, É., Marois, I., Idrissou, M., Jacques, P.-É., Wellinger, R. J., & Maréchal, A. (2025). The single-stranded DNA-binding factor SUB1/PC4 alleviates replication stress at telomeres and is a vulnerability of ALT cancer cells. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 122(2), e2419712122.

Garavís, M., & Calvo, O. (2017). Sub1/PC4, a multifaceted factor: from transcription to genome stability. Current Genetics, 63(6), 1023–1035.

Gil, N., & Ulitsky, I. (2020). Regulation of gene expression by cis-acting long non-coding RNAs. Nature Reviews. Genetics, 21(2), 102–117.

Hou, Y., Gan, T., Fang, T., Zhao, Y., Luo, Q., Liu, X., Qi, L., Zhang, Y., Jia, F., Han, J., Li, S., Wang, S., & Wang, F. (2022). G-quadruplex inducer/stabilizer pyridostatin targets SUB1 to promote cytotoxicity of a transplatinum complex. Nucleic Acids Research, 50(6), 3070–3082.

Jan, C. H., Friedman, R. C., Ruby, J. G., & Bartel, D. P. (2011). Formation, regulation and evolution of Caenorhabditis elegans 3’UTRs. Nature, 469(7328), 97–101.

Kaypee, S., Ochiai, K., Shima, H., Matsumoto, M., Alam, M., Ikura, T., Kundu, T. K., & Igarashi, K. (2025). Positive coactivator PC4 shows dynamic nucleolar distribution required for rDNA transcription and protein synthesis. Cell Communication and Signaling : CCS, 23(1), 283.

Lai, F., Damle, S. S., Ling, K. K., & Rigo, F. (2020). Directed RNase H Cleavage of Nascent Transcripts Causes Transcription Termination. Molecular Cell, 77(5), 1032–1043.e4.

Lee, J.-S., & Mendell, J. T. (2020). Antisense-Mediated Transcript Knockdown Triggers Premature Transcription Termination. Molecular Cell, 77(5), 1044–1054.e3.

Lubelsky, Y., & Ulitsky, I. (2018). Sequences enriched in Alu repeats drive nuclear localization of long RNAs in human cells. Nature, 555(7694), 107–111.

Ly, S., Didiot, M.-C., Ferguson, C. M., Coles, A. H., Miller, R., Chase, K., Echeverria, D., Wang, F., Sadri-Vakili, G., Aronin, N., & Khvorova, A. (2022). Mutant huntingtin messenger RNA forms neuronal nuclear clusters in rodent and human brains. Brain Communications, 4(6), fcac248.

Maranon, D. G., & Wilusz, J. (2020). Mind the Gapmer: Implications of Co-transcriptional Cleavage by Antisense Oligonucleotides. Molecular Cell, 77(5), 932–933.

Monziani, A., & Ulitsky, I. (2023). Noncoding snoRNA host genes are a distinct subclass of long noncoding RNAs. Trends in Genetics : TIG, 39(12), 908–923.

Mortusewicz, O., Roth, W., Li, N., Cardoso, M. C., Meisterernst, M., & Leonhardt, H. (2008). Recruitment of RNA polymerase II cofactor PC4 to DNA damage sites. The Journal of Cell Biology, 183(5), 769–776.

Much, C., Lasda, E. L., Pereira, I. T., Vallery, T. K., Ramirez, D., Lewandowski, J. P., Dowell, R. D., Smallegan, M. J., & Rinn, J. L. (2024). The temporal dynamics of lncRNA Firre-mediated epigenetic and transcriptional regulation. Nature Communications, 15(1), 6821.

Ntini, E., Louloupi, A., Liz, J., Muino, J. M., Marsico, A., & Ørom, U. A. V. (2018). Long ncRNA A-ROD activates its target gene DKK1 at its release from chromatin. Nature Communications, 9(1), 1636.

Oo, J. A., Warwick, T., Pálfi, K., Lam, F., McNicoll, F., Prieto-Garcia, C., Günther, S., Cao, C., Zhou, YGavrilov, A. A., Razin, S. V., Cabrera-Orefice, A., Wittig, I., Pullamsetti, S. S., Kurian, L., Gilsbach, R., Schulz, M. H., Dikic, I., Müller-McNicoll, M., … Leisegang, M. S. (2025). Long non-coding RNAs direct the SWI/SNF complex to cell type-specific enhancers. Nature Communications, 16(1), 131.

Open2C, Abdennur, N., Abraham, S., Fudenberg, G., Flyamer, I. M., Galitsyna, A. A., Goloborodko, A., Imakaev, M., Oksuz, B. A., Venev, S. V., & Xiao, Y. (2024). Cooltools: Enabling high-resolution Hi-C analysis in Python. PLoS Computational Biology, 20(5), e1012067.

Potapova, T. A., Unruh, J. R., Conkright-Fincham, J., Banks, C. A. S., Florens, L., Schneider, D. A., & Gerton, J. L. (2023). Distinct states of nucleolar stress induced by anticancer drugs. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.88799.

Ray, D., Laverty, K. U., Jolma, A., Nie, K., Samson, R., Pour, S. E., Tam, C. L., von Krosigk, N., Nabeel-Shah, S., Albu, M., Zheng, H., Perron, G., Lee, H., Najafabadi, H., Blencowe, B., Greenblatt, J., Morris, Q., & Hughes, T. R. (2023). RNA-binding proteins that lack canonical RNA-binding domains are rarely sequence-specific. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 5238.

Salgado, S., Abreu, P. L., Moleirinho, B., Guedes, D. S., Larcombe, L., & Azzalin, C. M. (2024). Human PC4 supports telomere stability and viability in cells utilizing the alternative lengthening of telomeres mechanism. EMBO Reports, 25(12), 5294–5315.

Salnikov, P., Korablev, A., Serova, I., Belokopytova, P., Yan, A., Stepanchuk, Y., Tikhomirov, S., & Fishman, V. (2024). Structural variants in the Epb41l4a locus: TAD disruption and Nrep gene misregulation as hypothetical drivers of neurodevelopmental outcomes. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 5288.

Sarshad, A. A., Juan, A. H., Muler, A. I. C., Anastasakis, D. G., Wang, X., Genzor, P., Feng, X., Tsai, P.-F., Sun, H.-W., Haase, A. D., Sartorelli, V., & Hafner, M. (2018). Argonaute-miRNA Complexes Silence Target mRNAs in the Nucleus of Mammalian Stem Cells. Molecular Cell, 71(6), 1040–1050.e8.

Tafforeau, L., Zorbas, C., Langhendries, J.-L., Mullineux, S.-T., Stamatopoulou, V., Mullier, R., Wacheul, L., & Lafontaine, D. L. J. (2013). The complexity of human ribosome biogenesis revealed by systematic nucleolar screening of Pre-rRNA processing factors. Molecular Cell, 51(4), 539–551.

Unfried, J. P., & Ulitsky, I. (2022). Substoichiometric action of long noncoding RNAs. Nature Cell Biology, 24(5), 608–615.

Van Nostrand, E. L., Freese, P., Pratt, G. A., Wang, X., Wei, X., Xiao, R., Blue, S. M., Chen, J.-Y.,Cody, N. A. L., Dominguez, D., Olson, S., Sundararaman, B., Zhan, L., Bazile, C., Bouvrette, L. P. B., Bergalet, J., Duff, M. O., Garcia, K. E., Gelboin-Burkhart, C., … Yeo, G. W. (2020). A large-scale binding and functional map of human RNA-binding proteins. Nature, 583(7818), 711–719.

Yang, K., Wang, M., Zhao, Y., Sun, X., Yang, Y., Li, X., Zhou, A., Chu, H., Zhou, H., Xu, J., Wu, M., Yang, J., & Yi, J. (2016). A redox mechanism underlying nucleolar stress sensing by nucleophosmin. Nature Communications, 7, 13599.

Youssef, K. K., Narwade, N., Arcas, A., Marquez-Galera, A., Jiménez-Castaño, R., Lopez-Blau, C., Fazilaty, H., García-Gutierrez, D., Cano, A., Galcerán, J., Moreno-Bueno, G., Lopez-Atalaya, J. P., & Nieto, M. A. (2024). Two distinct epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition programs control invasion and inflammation in segregated tumor cell populations. Nature Cancer, 5(11), 1660–1680.

Yu, L., Ma, H., Ji, X., & Volkert, M. R. (2016). The Sub1 nuclear protein protects DNA from oxidative damage. Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry, 412(1-2), 165–171.

DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2026.114804

Resource: Change-O (RRID:SCR_023986)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_023986

What is this?

I like the way this was phrased.

defintion?

creo que habría que especificar si se refiere a gráficos comparativos por países o entre estudios (2019 - 2025) porque son análisis distintos

¿presentación de resultados o hallazgos?

DOI: 10.1210/endocr/bqaf006

Resource: (Thermo Fisher Scientific Cat# A-21208, RRID:AB_2535794)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2535794

What is this?

De forma conexa podría enlazarse con El Diseño Suizo de posguerra o llamado Estilo Tipográfico Internacional, cuando algunos de sus representantes promulgaron la eliminación de cajas altas porque en el mundo real no se habla en Mayusculas.

1- intenção de implementação: hora e local que o hábito será executado 2- empilhamento: pareamento com outro hábito já existente

Author response:

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Dixit and colleagues investigate the role of FRG1 in modulating nonsense-mediated mRNA decay using human cell lines and zebrafish embryos. They present data from experiments that test the effect of normal, reduced or elevated levels of FRG1 on NMD of a luciferase-based NMD reporter and on endogenous mRNA substrates of NMD. They also carry out experiments to investigate FRG1's influence on UPF1 mRNA and protein levels, with a particular focus on the possibility that FRG1 regulates UPF1 protein levels through ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis of UPF1. The experiments described also test whether DUX4's effect on UPF1 protein levels and NMD could be mediated through FRG1. Finally, the authors also present experiments that test for physical interaction between UPF1, the spliceosome and components of the exon junction complex.

Strengths:

A key strength of the work is its focus on an intriguing model of NMD regulation by FRG1, which is of particular interest as FRG1 is positively regulated by DUX4, which has been previously implicated in subjecting UPF1 to proteosome-mediated degradation and thereby causing NMD inhibition. The data that shows that DUX4-mediated effect on UPF1 levels is diminished upon FRG1 depletion suggests that DUX4's regulation of NMD could be mediated by FRG1.

Weaknesses:

A major weakness and concern is that many of the key conclusions drawn by the authors are not supported by the data, and there are also some significant concerns with experimental design. More specific comments below describe these issues:

(1) Multiple issues lower the confidence in the experiments testing the effect of FRG1 on NMD.

(a) All reporter assays presented in the manuscript are based on quantification of luciferase activity, and in most cases, the effect on luciferase activity is quite small. This assay is the key experimental approach throughout the manuscript. However, no evidence is provided that the effect captured by this assay is due to enhanced degradation of the mRNA encoding the luciferase reporter, which is what is implied in the interpretation of these experiments. Crucially, there is also no control for the reporter that can account for the effects of experimental manipulations on transcriptional versus post-transcriptional effects. A control reporter lacking a 3'UTR intron is described in Barid et al, where the authors got their NMD reporter from. Due to small effects observed on luciferase activity upon FRG1 depletion, it is necessary to not only measure NMD reporter mRNA steady state levels, but it will be equally important to ascertain that the effect of FRG1 on NMD is at the level of mRNA decay and not altered transcription of NMD substrates. This can be accomplished by testing decay rates of the beta-globin reporter mRNA.

We thank the reviewer for raising these points and for the careful evaluation of our experimental approach. Here we provide our response to comment (a) in three parts

Reliance on luciferase-based reporter assays

While luciferase-based NMD reporter assays represent an important experimental component of this study, our conclusions do not rely exclusively on this approach. The reporter-based findings are independently supported by RNA sequencing analyses of FRG1-perturbed cells, which demonstrate altered abundance of established PTC-containing NMD target transcripts. This genome-wide analysis provides an unbiased and physiologically relevant validation of FRG1 involvement in NMD regulation.

All reporter assays presented in the manuscript are based on quantification of luciferase activity, and in most cases, the effect on luciferase activity is quite small.

We respectfully disagree with the comment that the magnitude of the luciferase effects is low. Increased expression of FRG1, which leads to reduced UPF1 levels, results in a ~3.5-fold increase in relative luciferase activity (Fig. 1C), indicating a robust effect. Furthermore, in the in vivo zebrafish model, FRG1 knockout causes a pronounced decrease in relative luciferase activity (Fig. 1H), consistent with elevated UPF1 levels and enhanced NMD activity.

It is also important to note that FRG1 functions as a negative regulator of UPF1; therefore, its depletion is expected to increase UPF1 levels. However, excessive elevation of UPF1 is likely constrained by additional regulatory mechanisms, which may limit the observable effects of FRG1 knockdown or knockout. In line with this, our previous study (1) demonstrated that FRG1 positively regulates multiple NMD factors while exerting an inverse regulatory effect on UPF1. This dual role suggests that FRG1 may act as a compensatory modulator of the NMD machinery, which likely explains the relatively subtle net effects observed in FRG1 knockdown/knockout conditions in vitro (Fig. 1A and 1B). This interpretation is explicitly discussed in the manuscript (Discussion, paragraph para 4).

However, no evidence is provided that the effect captured by this assay is due to enhanced degradation of the mRNA encoding the luciferase reporter, which is what is implied in the interpretation of these experiments. Crucially, there is also no control for the reporter that can account for the effects of experimental manipulations on transcriptional versus post-transcriptional effects. A control reporter lacking a 3'UTR intron is described in Barid et al, where the authors got their NMD reporter from. Due to small effects observed on luciferase activity upon FRG1 depletion, it is necessary to not only measure NMD reporter mRNA steady state levels, but it will be equally important to ascertain that the effect of FRG1 on NMD is at the level of mRNA decay and not altered transcription of NMD substrates. This can be accomplished by testing decay rates of the beta-globin reporter mRNA.

Thank you for your suggestion. We will test decay rates of the beta-globin reporter mRNA.

(b) It is unusual to use luciferase enzymatic activity as a measurement of RNA decay status. Such an approach can at least be justified if the authors can test how many-fold the luciferase activity changes when NMD is inhibited using a chemical inhibitor (e.g., SMG1 inhibitor) or knockdown of a core NMD factor.

We respectfully disagree that the use of luciferase enzymatic activity as a readout for NMD is unusual. Multiple prior studies have successfully employed identical or closely related luciferase-based/fluorescence-based reporters to quantify NMD activity (2–5). Importantly, the goal of our study was not to measure RNA decay kinetics per se, but rather to assess how altered FRG1 levels influence the functional efficiency of the NMD pathway. Given that FRG1 is a structural component of the spliceosome C complex (6) and is previously indirectly linked to NMD regulation (1,7) this approach was well-suited to address our central question.

As suggested by the reviewer, we will also assess luciferase activity following pharmacological inhibition of NMD to further validate the reporter system's responsiveness.

(c) The concern about the direct effect of FRG1 on NMD is further amplified by the small effects of FRG1 knockout on steady-state levels of endogenous NMD targets (Figure 1A and B: ~20% reduction in reporter mRNA in MCF7 cells; Figure 1M, only 18 endogenous NMD targets shared between FRG1_KO and FRG1_KD).

The modest changes observed upon FRG1 loss do not preclude a direct role in NMD. As detailed in our response to comment (a) and discussed in paragraph 4 of the Discussion, limited effects on steady-state levels of endogenous NMD targets are expected given the buffering capacity of the NMD pathway and the contribution of compensatory regulatory mechanisms.

(d) The question about transcriptional versus post-transcriptional effects is also important in light of the authors' previous work that FRG1 can act as a transcriptional regulator.

We agree that distinguishing between transcriptional and post-transcriptional effects is important, particularly in light of our previous work demonstrating that FRG1 can function as a transcriptional regulator of multiple NMD genes (1). Consistent with this, the current manuscript shows that FRG1 influences the transcript levels of UPF1. In addition, we demonstrate that FRG1 regulates UPF1 at the protein level. We therefore conclude that FRG1 regulates UPF1 dually, at both transcriptional and post-transcriptional levels, supporting a dual role for FRG1 in the regulation of NMD.

This conclusion is further supported by prior studies indicating post-transcriptional functions of FRG1. FRG1 is a nucleocytoplasmic shuttling protein(8), interacts with the NMD factor ROD1 (7), and has been identified as a component of the spliceosomal C complex (6). FRG1 has also been reported to associate with the hnRNPK family of proteins (8), which participate in extensive protein–protein interaction networks. Collectively, these observations are consistent with a role for FRG1 in regulating NMD components at multiple levels.

(2) In the experiments probing the relationship between DUX4 and FRG1 in NMD regulation, there are some inconsistencies that need to be resolved.

(a) Figure 3 shows that the inhibition of NMD reporter activity caused by DUX4 induction is reversed by FRG1 knockdown. Although levels of FRG1 and UPF1 in DUX4 uninduced and DUX4 induced + FRG1 knockdown conditions are similar (Figure 5A), why is the reporter activity in DUX4 induced + FRG1 knockdown cells much lower than DUX4 uninduced cells in Figure 3?

We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. Figures 3 and 5A represent independent experiments in which FRG1 knockdown was achieved by transient transfection. As such, variability in transfection efficiency is expected and likely accounts for the quantitative difference. We want to highlight that compared to DUX4_induced lane (Fig. 5A, lane 2), when we knock down FRG1 on the DUX4_induced background, it shows a clear increase in the UPF1 level (Fig. 5A, lane 3). We will add one more replicate to 5 A with better FRG1_KD transfection to the experiment.

(b) In Figure 3, it is important to know the effect of FRG1 knockdown in DUX4 uninduced conditions.

We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful suggestion. The effect of FRG1 knockdown under DUX4-uninduced conditions is presented in Figure 1A, where FRG1 levels are reduced without altering DUX4 expression. In contrast, Figure 3 is specifically designed to assess the rescue effect—namely, how reduction of FRG1 expression under DUX4-induced conditions influences NMD efficiency. Therefore, inclusion of an FRG1 knockdown–only group in Figure 3 was not relevant to the objective of this experiment.

(c) On line 401, the authors claim that MG132 treatment leads to "time-dependent increase in UPF1 protein levels" in Figure 5C. However, upon proteasome inhibition, UPF1 levels significantly increase only at 8h time point, while the change at 12 and 24 hours is not significantly different from the control.

We thank the reviewer for this observation and agree that the statement of a “time-dependent increase in UPF1 protein levels” was inaccurate. A significant increase is observed only at the 8 h time point following MG132 treatment, with no significant changes at 12 h or 24 h. The text will be revised accordingly to reflect Figure 5C.

(3) There are multiple issues with experiments investigating ubiquitination of UPF1:

(a) Ubiquitin blots in Figure 6 are very difficult to interpret. There is no information provided either in the text or figure legends as to which bands in the blots are being compared, or about what the sizes of these bands are, as compared to UPF1. Also, the signal for Ub in most IP samples looks very similar to or even lower than the input.

We agree that the ubiquitin blots in Figure 6 require clearer presentation. In the revised figure, we will annotate the ubiquitin immunoblots to indicate the region corresponding to UPF1 (~140 kDa), which is the relevant molecular weight for interpretation. Because UPF1 is polyubiquitinated, ubiquitinated species are expected to appear as multiple bands rather than a single discrete signal; therefore, ubiquitination was assessed across the full blot. Importantly, interpretation is based on comparisons between UPF1 immunoprecipitated samples within each panel (Fig. 6C–F), rather than between input and IP lanes. For example, in Figure 6 C UPF1 IP FRG1_KD compared to UPF1 IP FRG1_Ex, in Figure 6 D UPF1 IP FRG1_WT compared to UPF1 IP FRG1_KO, in Figure 6 E UPF1 IP FRG1_KO compared to UPF1 IP FRG1_KO+FRG1_Ex, and in Figure 6 F UPF1 IP FRG1_Ex compared to UPF1 IP FRG1_Ex+MG132 TRT.

(b) Western blot images in Figure 6D appear to be adjusted for brightness/contrast to reduce background, but are done in such a way that pixel intensities are not linearly altered. This image appears to be the most affected, although some others have also similar patterns (e.g., Figure 5C).

We thank the reviewer for raising this point. The appearance noted in Figure 6D was not due to non-linear alteration of pixel intensities, but rather resulted from the poor quality of the ubiquitin antibody, which required prolonged exposure times. To address this, we replaced the antibody and repeated the ubiquitin immunoblots shown in Figures 6D, 6E, and 6F.

For Figure 5C, only uniform contrast adjustment was applied for clarity. Importantly, all adjustments were performed linearly and applied to the entire image. Raw, unprocessed images for all blots are provided in the Supplementary Information. Updated versions of Figures 5 and 6 will be included in the revised manuscript.

(4) The experiments probing physical interactions of FRG1 with UPF1, spliceosome and EJC proteins need to consider the following points:

(a) There is no information provided in the results or methods section on whether immunoprecipitations were carried out in the absence or presence of RNases. Each RNA can be bound by a plethora of proteins that may not be functionally engaged with each other. Without RNase treatment, even such interactions will lead to co-immunoprecipitation. Thus, experiments in Figure 6 and Figure 7A-D should be repeated with and without RNase treatment.

We thank the reviewer for this important point. The co-immunoprecipitation experiments shown in Figures 6 and 7A–D were performed in the absence of RNase treatment; this information was inadvertently omitted and will be added to the Methods section and the relevant figure legends. To directly assess whether the observed interactions are RNA-dependent, we will repeat the key co-immunoprecipitation experiments in the presence of RNase treatment and include these results in the revised manuscript.

(b) Also, the authors claim that FRG1 is a "structural component" of EJC and NMD complexes seems to be an overinterpretation. As noted in the previous comment, these interactions could be mediated by a connecting RNA molecule.

We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. As noted, previous studies have suggested that FRG1 interacts with components of the EJC and NMD machinery. Specifically, Bertram et al. (6) identified FRG1 as a component of the spliceosomal C complex via Cryo-EM structural analysis, and pull-down studies have shown direct interaction between FRG1 and ROD1, a known EJC component (7). These findings support a protein-protein interaction rather than one mediated solely by RNA. To further address the reviewer’s concern, we will perform key co-immunoprecipitation experiments in the presence of RNase treatment to distinguish RNA-dependent from RNA-independent interactions.

(c) A negative control (non-precipitating protein) is missing in Figure 7 co-IP experiments.

We agree that including a non-precipitating protein as a negative control is important, and we will perform the co-IP experiment incorporating this control.

(d) Polysome analysis is missing important controls. FRG1 and EIF4A3 co-sedimentation with polysomes could simply be due to their association with another large complex (e.g., spliceosome), which will also co-sediment in these gradients. This possibility can at least be tested by Western blotting for some spliceosome components across the gradient fractions. More importantly, a puromycin treatment control needs to be performed to confirm that FRG1 and EIF4A3 are indeed bound to polysomes, which are separated into ribosome subunits upon puromycin treatment. This leads to a shift of the signal for ribosomal proteins and any polysome-associated proteins to the left.

As recommended, we will examine the distribution of a spliceosome component across the gradient fractions to assess potential co-sedimentation. Additionally, we will perform a puromycin treatment control to confirm that FRG1 and EIF4A3 are genuinely associated with polysomes.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Palo et al present a novel role for FRG1 as a multifaceted regulator of nonsense-mediated mRNA decay (NMD). Through a combination of reporter assays, transcriptome-wide analyses, genetic models, protein-protein interaction studies, ubiquitination assays, and ribosome-associated complex analyses, the authors propose that FRG1 acts as a negative regulator of NMD by destabilizing UPF1 and associating with spliceosomal, EJC, and translation-related complexes. Overall, the data, while consistent with the authors' central conclusions, are undermined by several claims-particularly regarding structural roles and mechanistic exclusivity. To really make the claims presented, further experimental evidence would be required.

Strengths:

(1) The integration of multiple experimental systems (zebrafish and cell culture).

(2) Attempts to go into a mechanistic understanding of the relationship between FGR1 and UPF1.

Weaknesses:

(1) Overstatement of FRG1 as a structural NMD component.

Although FRG1 interacts with UPF1, eIF4A3, PRP8, and CWC22, core spliceosomal and EJC interactions (PRP8-CWC22 and eIF4A3-UPF3B) remain intact in FRG1-deficient cells. This suggests that, while FRG1 associates with these complexes, this interaction is not required for their assembly or structural stability. Without further functional or reconstitution experiments, the presented data are more consistent with an interpretation of FRG1 acting as a regulatory or accessory factor rather than a core structural component.

We thank the reviewer for this clarification. We would like to emphasize that we do not claim FRG1 to be a core structural component of either the spliceosome or the EJC. Consistent with the reviewer’s interpretation, our data indicate that FRG1 deficiency does not disrupt the structural integrity of these complexes. Our intended conclusion is that FRG1 functions as a regulatory or accessory factor in NMD rather than being required for complex assembly or stability. We will carefully revise the manuscript to remove any language that could be interpreted as an overstatement. In addition, we are currently performing further experiments to better define the association of FRG1 with the EJC.

(2) Causality between UPF1 depletion and NMD inhibition is not fully established.

While reduced UPF1 levels provide a plausible explanation for decreased NMD efficiency, the manuscript does not conclusively demonstrate that UPF1 depletion drives all observed effects. Given FRG1's known roles in transcription, splicing, and RNA metabolism, alterations in transcript isoform composition and apparent NMD sensitivity may arise from mechanisms independent of UPF1 abundance. To directly link UPF1 depletion to altered NMD efficiency, rescue experiments testing whether UPF1 re-expression restores NMD activity in FRG1-overexpressing cells would be important.

As suggested, to directly test causality, we will perform rescue experiments to determine whether UPF1 re-expression restores NMD activity in FRG1-overexpressing MCF7 cells.

(3) Mechanism of FRG1-mediated UPF1 ubiquitination requires clarification.

The ubiquitination assays support a role for FRG1 in promoting UPF1 degradation; however, the mechanism underlying this remains unexplored. The relationship between FRG1-UPF1 what role FRG1 plays in this is unclear (does it function as an adaptor, recruits an E3 ubiquitin ligase, or influences UPF1 ubiquitination indirectly through transcriptional or signaling pathways?).

We agree with the reviewer that the precise mechanism by which FRG1 promotes UPF1 ubiquitination remains to be defined. Our ubiquitination assays support a role for FRG1 in facilitating UPF1 degradation; however, whether FRG1 functions directly as an adaptor or E3 ligase, or instead influences UPF1 stability indirectly, is currently unclear. Notably, a prior study by Geng et al. reported that DUX4 expression alters the expression of numerous genes involved in protein ubiquitination, including multiple E3 ubiquitin ligases (9), and FRG1 itself has been reported to be upregulated upon DUX4 expression in muscle cells. We will expand the Discussion to address these potential mechanisms and place our findings in the context of indirect transcriptional or signaling pathways that may regulate UPF1 proteolysis. A detailed mechanistic dissection of FRG1-mediated ubiquitination is beyond the scope of the present study.

(4) Limited transcriptome-wide interpretation of RNA-seq data.

Although the RNA-seq data analysis relies heavily on a small subset of "top 10" genes. Additionally, the criteria used to define NMD-sensitive isoforms are unclear. A more comprehensive transcriptome-wide summary-indicating how many NMD-sensitive isoforms are detected and how many are significantly altered-would substantially strengthen the analysis.

We thank the reviewer for this comment and agree that the current presentation may place a disproportionate emphasis on a limited subset of genes. These genes were selected as illustrative examples from an isoform-level analysis performed using IsoformSwitchAnalyzeR (ISAR) (10); however, we acknowledge that this approach does not fully convey the transcriptome-wide scope of the analysis.

Using quantified RNA-seq data, ISAR was employed to identify significant isoform switches and transcripts predicted to be NMD-sensitive. Isoforms were annotated using GENCODE v47, and NMD sensitivity was assigned based on the established 50-nucleotide rule, as described in the Materials and Methods. To address the reviewer’s concern, we will revise the Results section to include a transcriptome-wide summary derived from the ISAR analysis.

(5) Clarification of NMD sensor assay interpretation.

The logic underlying the NMD sensor assay should be explained more clearly early in the manuscript, as the inverse relationship between luciferase signal and NMD efficiency may be counterintuitive to readers unfamiliar with this reporter system. Inclusion of a schematic or brief explanatory diagram would improve accessibility.

We agree with the reviewer and would provide a schematic as well as the experimental setup diagram to improve accessibility to the readers.

(6) Potential confounding effects of high MG132 concentration.

The MG132 concentration used (50 µM) is relatively high and may induce broad cellular stress responses, including inhibition of global translation (its known that proteosome inhibition shuts down translation). Controls addressing these secondary effects would strengthen the conclusion that UPF1 stabilization specifically reflects proteasome-dependent degradation would be essential.

We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern regarding the relatively high concentration of MG132 used in this study. While proteasome inhibition can indeed induce global translation inhibition, our interpretation is based on the specific stabilization of UPF1 observed under these conditions. Since inhibition of global translation would generally reduce protein levels rather than cause selective accumulation, the observed increase in UPF1 is unlikely to result from translational effects. To address this point, we plan to repeat selected experiments using a lower MG132 concentration to further confirm that UPF1 stabilization reflects proteasome-dependent degradation.

(7) Interpretation of polysome co-sedimentation data.

While the co-sedimentation of FRG1 with polysomes is intriguing, this approach does not distinguish between direct ribosomal association and co-migration with ribosome-associated complexes. This limitation should be explicitly acknowledged in the interpretation.

We acknowledge that polysome co-sedimentation alone cannot definitively distinguish between direct ribosomal binding and co-migration with ribosome-associated complexes. Importantly, our interpretation does not rely solely on this assay; when combined with co-immunoprecipitation and proximity ligation assay results, the data consistently support an association of FRG1 with the exon junction complex. We are also conducting additional experiments with appropriate controls to further validate the specificity of FRG1’s association with ribosomes and to address the possibility of nonspecific co-migration.

(8) Limitations of PLA-based interaction evidence.

The PLA data convincingly demonstrate close spatial proximity between FRG1 and eIF4A3; however, PLA does not provide definitive evidence of direct interaction and is known to be susceptible to artefacts. Moreover, a distance threshold of ~40 nm still allows for proteins to be in proximity without being part of the same complex. These limitations should be clearly acknowledged, and conclusions should be framed accordingly.

We thank the reviewer for highlighting this important point. We agree that PLA indicates close spatial proximity but does not constitute definitive evidence of direct interaction and can be susceptible to artefacts. We will explicitly acknowledge this limitation in the revised manuscript. Importantly, our conclusions are not solely based on PLA data; they are supported by complementary co-immunoprecipitation and polysome co-sedimentation assays, which provide biochemical evidence consistent with an association between FRG1 and eIF4A3.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The manuscript by Palo and colleagues demonstrates identification of FRG1 as a novel regulator of nonsense-mediated mRNA decay (NMD), showing that FRG1 inversely modulates NMD efficiency by controlling UPF1 abundance. Using cell-based models and a frg1 knockout zebrafish, the authors show that FRG1 promotes UPF1 ubiquitination and proteasomal degradation, independently of DUX4. The work further positions FRG1 as a structural component of the spliceosome and exon junction complex without compromising its integrity. Overall, the manuscript provides mechanistic insight into FRG1-mediated post-transcriptional regulation and expands understanding of NMD homeostasis. The authors should address the following issues to improve the quality of their manuscript.

(1) Figure 7A-D, appropriate positive controls for the nuclear fraction (e.g., Histone H3) and the cytoplasmic fraction (e.g., GAPDH or α-tubulin) should be included to validate the efficiency and purity of the subcellular fractionation.

We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We will include appropriate positive controls for the nuclear fraction (Histone H3) and the cytoplasmic fraction (GAPDH or α-tubulin) in Figure 7A–D to validate the efficiency and purity of the subcellular fractionation.

(2) To strengthen the conclusion that FRG1 broadly impacts the NMD pathway, qRT-PCR analysis of additional core NMD factors (beyond UPF1) in the frg1⁻/⁻ zebrafish at 48 hpf would be informative.

We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comment. We will perform qRT-PCR analysis of additional core NMD factors in the frg1⁻/⁻ zebrafish at 48 hpf to further strengthen the conclusion that FRG1 broadly impacts the NMD pathway.

(3) Figure labels should be standardized throughout the manuscript (e.g., consistent use of "Ex" instead of mixed terms such as "Oex") to improve clarity and readability.

We thank the reviewer for noticing the inconsistency. We will ensure that all figure labels are standardized throughout the manuscript (e.g., using “Ex” consistently) to improve clarity and readability.

(4) The methods describing the generation of the frg1 knockout zebrafish could be expanded to include additional detail, and a schematic illustrating the CRISPR design, genotyping workflow, and validation strategy would enhance transparency and reproducibility.

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion and will expand the Methods section to provide additional detail on the generation of the frg1 knockout zebrafish. A schematic illustrating the CRISPR design, genotyping workflow, and validation strategy will also be included to enhance transparency and reproducibility.

(5) As FRG1 is a well-established tumor suppressor, additional cell-based functional assays under combined FRG1 and UPF1 perturbation (e.g., proliferation, migration, or survival assays) could help determine whether FRG1 influences cancer-associated phenotypes through modulation of the NMD pathway.

We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful and constructive suggestion. While FRG1 is indeed a well-established tumor suppressor, incorporating additional cell-based functional assays under combined FRG1 and UPF1 perturbation would significantly broaden the scope of the current study. The present work is focused on elucidating the molecular relationship between FRG1 and the NMD pathway. Investigation of downstream cancer-associated phenotypes represents an important and interesting direction for future studies, but is beyond the scope of the current manuscript.

(6) Given the claim that FRG1 inversely regulates NMD efficacy via UPF1, an epistasis experiment such as UPF1 overexpression in an FRG1-overexpressing background followed by an NMD reporter assay would provide stronger functional validation of pathway hierarchy.

We agree with the reviewer’s suggestion. To strengthen the functional validation of the proposed pathway hierarchy, we will perform an epistasis experiment by overexpressing UPF1 in an FRG1-overexpressing background and assess NMD activity using an established NMD reporter assay. The results of this experiment will be included in the revised manuscript.

References

(1) Palo A, Patel SA, Shubhanjali S, Dixit M. Dynamic interplay of Sp1, YY1, and DUX4 in regulating FRG1 transcription with intricate balance. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Basis Dis. 2025 Mar;1871(3):167636.

(2) Sato H, Singer RH. Cellular variability of nonsense-mediated mRNA decay. Nat Commun. 2021 Dec 10;12(1):7203.

(3) Baird TD, Cheng KCC, Chen YC, Buehler E, Martin SE, Inglese J, et al. ICE1 promotes the link between splicing and nonsense-mediated mRNA decay. eLife. 2018 Mar 12;7:e33178.

(4) Chu V, Feng Q, Lim Y, Shao S. Selective destabilization of polypeptides synthesized from NMD-targeted transcripts. Mol Biol Cell. 2021 Dec 1;32(22):ar38.

(5) Udy DB, Bradley RK. Nonsense-mediated mRNA decay uses complementary mechanisms to suppress mRNA and protein accumulation. Life Sci Alliance. 2022 Mar;5(3):e202101217.

(6) Bertram K, El Ayoubi L, Dybkov O, Agafonov DE, Will CL, Hartmuth K, et al. Structural Insights into the Roles of Metazoan-Specific Splicing Factors in the Human Step 1 Spliceosome. Mol Cell. 2020 Oct 1;80(1):127-139.e6.

(7) Brazão TF, Demmers J, van IJcken W, Strouboulis J, Fornerod M, Romão L, et al. A new function of ROD1 in nonsense-mediated mRNA decay. FEBS Lett. 2012 Apr 24;586(8):1101–10.

(8) Sun CYJ, van Koningsbruggen S, Long SW, Straasheijm K, Klooster R, Jones TI, et al. Facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy region gene 1 is a dynamic RNA-associated and actin-bundling protein. J Mol Biol. 2011 Aug 12;411(2):397–416.

(9) Geng LN, Yao Z, Snider L, Fong AP, Cech JN, Young JM, et al. DUX4 activates germline genes, retroelements, and immune mediators: implications for facioscapulohumeral dystrophy. Dev Cell. 2012 Jan 17;22(1):38–51.

(10) Vitting-Seerup K, Sandelin A. The Landscape of Isoform Switches in Human Cancers. Mol Cancer Res MCR. 2017 Sep;15(9):1206–20.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Comment to both reviewers:

We are very grateful for the thoughtful and constructive comments from both reviewers. During the revision, and in direct response to these comments, we performed additional control experiments for the cellular fluorescence measurements. These new data revealed that the weak increase in green fluorescence reported in our original submission does not depend on retron-expressed Lettuce RT-DNA or the DFHBI-1T fluorophore, but instead reflects stress-induced autofluorescence of E. coli (e.g. upon inducer and antibiotic treatment).

We also benchmarked the fluorogenic properties of Lettuce against the RNA FLAP Broccoli and found that Lettuce is ~100-fold less fluorogenic under optimal in vitro conditions. Consequently, with the currently available, in vitro- but not in vivo-optimized Lettuce variants, intracellular fluorescence cannot be reliably detected by microscopy or flow cytometry. We have therefore removed the original flow cytometry / and in-culture-fluorescence data and no longer claim detectable intracellular Lettuce fluorescence.

In the revised manuscript, we now directly demonstrate that retron-produced Lettuce RT-DNA can be purified from cells and remains functional ex vivo with a gel-based fluorophore-binding assays. Together, these data clarify the current limitations of DNA-based FLAPs for in vivo imaging, while still establishing retrons as a viable platform for intracellular production of functional DNA aptamers.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors use an interesting expression system called a retron to express single-stranded DNA aptamers. Expressing DNA as a single-stranded sequence is very hard - DNA is naturally double-stranded. However, the successful demonstration by the authors of expressing Lettuce, which is a fluorogenic DNA aptamer, allowed visual demonstration of both expression and folding. This method will likely be the main method for expressing and testing DNA aptamers of all kinds, including fluorogenic aptamers like Lettuce and future variants/alternatives.

Strengths:

This has an overall simplicity which will lead to ready adoption. I am very excited about this work. People will be able to express other fluorogenic aptamers or DNA aptamers tagged with Lettuce with this system.

We thank the reviewer for their thoughtful assessment and appreciate their encouraging remarks.

Weaknesses:

Several things are not addressed/shown:

(1) How stable are these DNA in cells? Half-life?

We thank the reviewer for this insightful question.

Retron RT-DNA forms a phage surveillance complex with the associated RT and effector protein[1-4]. Moreover, considering the unique ‘closed’ structure of RT-DNA[5] (with the ends of msr and msd bound either by 2’-5’ linkage and base paired region) and its noncoding function, we hypothesized that the RT-DNA must be exceptionally stable. Nevertheless, we attempted to determine half-life of the RT-DNA using qPCR for Eco2 RT-DNA. To this end, we designed an assay where we would first induce RT-DNA expression, use the induced cells to start a fresh culture without the inducers. We would then take aliquots from this fresh culture at different timepoints and determine RT-DNA abundance by qPCR.

We induced RT-DNA expression of retron Eco2 in BL21AI cells as described in the Methods. After overnight induction, cells were washed to remove IPTG and arabinose, diluted to OD₆₀₀ = 0.2 into fresh LB without inducers, and grown at 37°C. At the indicated time points, aliquots corresponding to OD₆₀₀ = 0.1 were boiled (95°C, 5 min), and 1 µL of the lysate was used as template in 20 µL qPCR reactions (see revised Methods for details).

Assuming RT-DNA degradation would occur by active degradation mechanisms (nuclease-mediated degradation) and dilution (cell growth and division), we determined the rate of degradation by the following equation

where  is the degradation rate constant and the ratio is the dilution factor which takes into account dilution by cell division. OD₆₀₀(t) was determined by fitting the OD₆₀₀ measurements by the following the equation describing logistic growth:

Which yields the plots shown in Figure 2–figure supplement 1.

After substituting OD₆₀₀(t) by the function in equation (2), we fit the experimental data for the fold-change of the RT-DNA to equation (1). Interestingly, the best fit (red) was obtained with a  converging towards zero suggesting that the half-life of the RT-DNA is beyond the detection limit of our assay. To showcase typical half-lives of RNA, which are in the range of minutes in growing E. coli cells[6], we refitted the data using constant half-life of 15 and 30 minutes. In both cases, simulated curve deviated significantly from the experimental data further confirming that the half-life of the RT-DNA is probably orders of magnitude higher than the doubling time of E. coli under these optimal conditions. While we cannot exclude that the RT-DNA is still produced as a result of promotor leakiness, but we expect this effect to be low as the expression of RT-DNA in E. coli AI cells requires both the presence of IPGT and arabinose, which were thoroughly removed before inoculating the growth media with the starter culture. Overall, our data therefore argues for an exceptional stability of the RT-DNA in growing bacterial cells.

We have now included this new experimental data in the supplementary information.

(2) What concentration do they achieve in cells/copy numbers? This is important since it relates to the total fluorescence output and, if the aptamer is meant to bind a protein, it will reveal if the copy number is sufficient to stoichiometrically bind target proteins. Perhaps the gels could have standards with known amounts in order to get exact amounts of aptamer expression per cell?

The copy number of RT-DNA can be estimated based on the qPCR experiments. We use a pET28a plasmid, which is low-copy with typical copy number 15-20 per cell[7]. We determined the abundance of RT-DNA over plasmid/RT-DNA, upon induction, to be 8-fold, thereby indicating copy number of Eco2 RT-DNA to be roughly around 100-200. Assuming an average aqueous volume of E. coli of 1 femtoliter[6], the concentration of RT-DNA is ~250-500 nM. We have added this information to the revised version of the manuscript.

(3) Microscopic images of the fluorescent E. coli - why are these not shown (unless I missed them)? It would be good to see that cells are fluorescent rather than just showing flow sorting data.

In the original submission, we used flow cytometry as an orthogonal method to quantify the fluorescence output of intracellularly expressed Lettuce aptamer, anticipating that it would provide high-throughput, quantitative information on a large population of cells. During the revision, additional controls revealed that the weak increase in fluorescence we had previously attributed to Lettuce expression was in fact a stress-induced autofluorescence signal that occurred independently of retron RT-DNA and DFHBI-1T. We have therefore removed these data from the manuscript and no longer claim detectable intracellular Lettuce fluorescence.

To understand this limitation, we compared the in vitro fluorescence of Lettuce with that of the RNA FLAP Broccoli, which is commonly used for RNA live-cell imaging. Under optimal in vitro conditions, Lettuce shows ~100-fold lower fluorescence output than Broccoli (new Figure 3–figure supplement 5). Given this poor fluorogenicity and the low intracellular concentration of retron RT-DNA (now derived from the qPCR experiments), we conclude that the current Lettuce variants are below the detection threshold for in vivo imaging in our system. We now explicitly discuss this limitation and the need for further (in vivo) evolution of DNA-based FLAPs in the revised manuscript.

(4) I would appreciate a better Figure 1 to show all the intermediate steps in the RNA processing, the subsequent beginning of the RT step, and then the final production of the ssDNA. I did not understand all the processing steps that lead to the final product, and the role of the 2'OH.

We thank the referee for this comment. We have now made changes to Figure 1, showing the intermediate steps as well as a better illustration of the 2’-5’ linkage.

(5) I would like a better understanding or a protocol for choosing insertion sites into MSD for other aptamers - people will need simple instructions.

We appreciate the reviewer for bringing up this important point. We simulated the ssDNA structure using Vienna RNA fold with DNA parameters. Based on the resulting structure, we inserted Lettuce sequence in the single stranded and/or loop regions to minimise interference with the native msd fold. We have now included this information in the description of Figure 3.

(6) Can the gels be stained with DFHBI/other dyes to see the Lettuce as has been done for fluorogenic RNAs?

Yes. We have now included experiments where we performed in-gel staining with DFHBI-1T for both chemically synthesized Eco2-Lettuce surrogates as well as the heterologously expressed Eco2-Lettuce RT-DNA. We have added this data to the revised Figure 3 (panel C and E).

(7) Sometimes FLAPs are called fluorogenic RNA aptamers - it might be good to mention both terms initially since some people use fluorogenic aptamer as their search term.

We thank the referee for this useful suggestion. We have now included both terms in the introduction of the revised version.

(8) What E coli strains are compatible with this retron system?

Experimental and bioinformatic analysis have shown that retrons abundance varies drastically across different strains of E. coli[8-10]. For example, in an experimental investigation of 113 independent clinical isolates of E. coli, only 7 strains contained RT-DNA[8]. In our experiments, we have found that BL21AI strain is compatible with plasmid-borne Eco2. The fact that this strain has a native retron system (Eco1) allowed us to use it as internal standard. However, we were also able express Eco2 RT-DNA in conventional lab strains such as E. coli Top 10 (data not shown), indicating both ncRNA and the RT alone are sufficient for intracellular RT-DNA synthesis.

(9) What steps would be needed to use in mammalian cells?

We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful inquiry. Expression of retrons has been demonstrated in mammalian cells by Mirochnitchenko et al[11] and Lopez et al[12]. For example, Lopez et al demonstrate expression of retrons in mammalian cell lines using the Lipofectamine 3000 transfection protocol (Invitrogen) and a PiggyBac transposase system[12]. We also mention this in the discussion section of the revised manuscript. Expression of retron-encoded DNA aptamers in mammalian cells should be possible with these systems.

(10) Is the conjugated RNA stable and does it degrade to leave just the DNA aptamer?

We are grateful to the reviewer for their perceptive question. This usually depends on the specific retron system. For example, in case of certain retron systems such as retron Sen2, Eco4 and Eco7, the RNA is cleaved off, leaving behind just the ssDNA. In our case, with retron Eco2, the RNA remains stably bound to the ssDNA, thereby maintaining a stable hybrid RNA-DNA structure[10,13]. During the extraction of RT-DNA, the conjugated RNA is degraded during the RNase digestion step, and therefore is not visible in the gel images.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This manuscript explores a DNA fluorescent light-up aptamer (FLAP) with the specific goal of comparing activity in vitro to that in bacterial cells. In order to achieve expression in bacteria, the authors devise an expression strategy based on retrons and test four different constructs with the aptamer inserted at different points in the retron scaffold. They only observe binding for one scaffold in vitro, but achieve fluorescence enhancement for all four scaffolds in bacterial cells. These results demonstrate that aptamer performance can be very different in these two contexts.

Strengths:

Given the importance of FLAPs for use in cellular imaging and the fact that these are typically evolved in vitro, understanding the difference in performance between a buffer and a cellular environment is an important research question.

The return strategy utilized by the authors is thoughtful and well-described.

The observation that some aptamers fail to show binding in vitro but do show enhancement in cells is interesting and surprising.

We appreciate the reviewer’s thorough assessment.

Weaknesses:

This study hints toward an interesting observation, but would benefit from greater depth to more fully understand this phenomenon. Particularly challenging is that FLAP performance is measured in vitro by affinity and in cells by enhancement, and these may not be directly proportional. For example, it may be that some constructs have much lower affinity but a greater enhancement and this is the explanation for the seemingly different performance.

We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. In response, we conducted a series of additional control experiments to better understand the apparent discrepancy between the in vitro and in vivo data. These experiments revealed that the previously reported increase in intracellular green fluorescence is independent of retron-expressed Lettuce RT-DNA and DFHBI-1T, and instead reflects stress-induced autofluorescence of E. coli upon inducer and antibiotic treatment. Our original negative controls (empty wild-type Eco2, uninduced cells in the presence of DFHBI-1T) were therefore not sufficient to rule out this effect.

As a consequence, we have removed the earlier FACS data from the manuscript and no longer claim detectable intracellular Lettuce fluorescence. The reviewer’s comment prompted us to re-examine the fluorogenicity of our constructs in vitro. We found that the 4Lev4 construct folds poorly and produces very low signal in in-gel staining assays with DFHBI-1T. In contrast, the 8LE variant (8-nt P1 stem at position v4) shows the highest fluorescence in these in-gel assays (new Figure 3C). Nevertheless, even this construct remains 100-fold less fluorogenic than the RNA-based FLAP Broccoli (new Figure 3–figure supplement 5), and we were unable to detect its intracellular fluorescence above background (new Figure 3–figure supplement 4).

To still directly demonstrate that retron-embedded Lettuce domains that are synthesized under intracellular conditions are functional, we modified our strategy in the revision and purified the expressed RT-DNA from E. coli, followed by in-gel staining with DFHBI-1T (new Figure 3E). Despite the challenge of obtaining sufficient amounts of ssDNA, this ex vivo approach clearly shows that the retron-produced Lettuce RT-DNA retains fluorogenic activity.

The authors only test enhancement at one concentration of fluorophore in cells (and this experimental detail is difficult to find and would be helpful to include in the figure legend). This limits the conclusions that can be drawn from the data and limits utility for other researchers aiming to use these constructs.

We appreciate this excellent suggestion. In the original experiments, the DFHBI-1T concentration in cells was chosen based on published conditions for live-cell imaging of the Broccoli RNA aptamer[14], which is substantially more fluorogenic than Lettuce. Motivated by the reviewer’s comment, we explored different fluorophore concentrations and additional controls to optimize the in vivo readout. These experiments showed that the weak intracellular fluorescence signal is dominated by stress-induced autofluorescence[15] (possibly due to the weaker antitoxin activity of the modified msd) and does not depend on the presence of Lettuce RT-DNA or DFHBI-1T.

Given the combination of low Lettuce fluorogenicity and low intracellular RT-DNA levels, we concluded that varying the fluorophore concentration alone does not provide a meaningful way to deconvolute these confounding factors in cells. Instead, we shifted our focus to a more direct assessment of Lettuce activity: we now demonstrate that retron-produced Lettuce RT-DNA can be purified from E. coli and retains fluorogenic activity in an in-gel staining assay with DFHBI-1T (new Figure 3E). We believe this revised strategy provides a clearer and more quantitative characterization of the system’s capabilities and limitations than the initial in vivo fluorescence measurements.

The FLAP that is used seems to have a relatively low fluorescence enhancement of only 2-3 fold in cells. It would be interesting to know if this is also the case in vitro. This is lower than typical FLAPs and it would be helpful for the authors to comment on what level of enhancement is needed for the FLAP to be of practical use for cellular imaging.

In the revised manuscript, we directly address this point by comparing the in vitro fluorescence of Lettuce (DNA) and Broccoli (RNA) under optimized buffer conditions. These experiments show that Broccoli is nearly two orders of magnitude more fluorogenic than Lettuce (new Figure 3-figure supplement 5). Thus, the low enhancement observed for Lettuce in cells is consistent with its intrinsically poor fluorogenicity in vitro.

Based on this comparison and on reported properties of RNA FLAPs such as Broccoli, we conclude that robust cellular imaging typically requires substantially higher fluorogenicity and dynamic range than currently provided by DNA-based Lettuce. In other words, under our conditions, Lettuce is close to or below the practical detection limit for in vivo imaging, whereas Broccoli performs well. We now explicitly state in the Discussion that further evolution and optimization of DNA FLAPs will be required to achieve fluorescence enhancements that are suitable for routine cellular imaging, and we position our work as a first demonstration that functional DNA aptamers can be produced in cells via retrons, while also delineating the current sensitivity limits.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Addgene accession numbers are not listed - how is this plasmid obtained?

The sequence was obtained from Millman et al[16], and ordered as gblock from IDT. The gblock was then cloned into a pET28a vector by Gibson assembly. We have now included this in the methods section.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Page 2, line 40 - FLAPS should be FLAPs

We have corrected this typo in the revised version.

References

(1) Rousset, F. & Sorek, R. The evolutionary success of regulated cell death in bacterial immunity. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 74, 102312; 10.1016/j.mib.2023.102312 (2023).

(2) Gao, L. et al. Diverse enzymatic activities mediate antiviral immunity in prokaryotes. Science 369, 1077–1084; 10.1126/science.aba0372 (2020).

(3) Carabias, A. et al. Retron-Eco1 assembles NAD+-hydrolyzing filaments that provide immunity against bacteriophages. Mol. Cell 84, 2185-2202.e12; 10.1016/j.molcel.2024.05.001 (2024).

(4) Wang, Y. et al. DNA methylation activates retron Ec86 filaments for antiphage defense. Cell Rep. 43, 114857; 10.1016/j.celrep.2024.114857 (2024).

(5) Wang, Y. et al. Cryo-EM structures of Escherichia coli Ec86 retron complexes reveal architecture and defence mechanism. Nat. Microbiol. 7, 1480–1489; 10.1038/s41564-022-01197-7 (2022).

(6) Milo, R. & Phillips, R. Cell biology by the numbers (Garland Science Taylor & Francis Group, New York NY, 2016).

(7) Sathiamoorthy, S. & Shin, J. A. Boundaries of the origin of replication: creation of a pET-28a-derived vector with p15A copy control allowing compatible coexistence with pET vectors. PLOS ONE 7, e47259; 10.1371/journal.pone.0047259 (2012).

(8) Sun, J. et al. Extensive diversity of branched-RNA-linked multicopy single-stranded DNAs in clinical strains of Escherichia coli. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 86, 7208–7212; 10.1073/pnas.86.18.7208 (1989).

(9) Rice, S. A. & Lampson, B. C. Bacterial reverse transcriptase and msDNA. Virus Genes 11, 95–104; 10.1007/BF01728651 (1995).

(10) Simon, A. J., Ellington, A. D. & Finkelstein, I. J. Retrons and their applications in genome engineering. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, 11007–11019; 10.1093/nar/gkz865 (2019).

(11) Mirochnitchenko, O., Inouye, S. & Inouye, M. Production of single-stranded DNA in mammalian cells by means of a bacterial retron. J. Biol. Chem. 269, 2380–2383; 10.1016/S0021-9258(17)41956-9 (1994).

(12) Lopez, S. C., Crawford, K. D., Lear, S. K., Bhattarai-Kline, S. & Shipman, S. L. Precise genome editing across kingdoms of life using retron-derived DNA. Nat. Chem. Biol. 18, 199–206; 10.1038/s41589-021-00927-y (2022).

(13) Lampson, B. C. et al. Reverse transcriptase in a clinical strain of Escherichia coli: production of branched RNA-linked msDNA. Science 243, 1033–1038; 10.1126/science.2466332 (1989).

(14) Filonov, G. S., Moon, J. D., Svensen, N. & Jaffrey, S. R. Broccoli: rapid selection of an RNA mimic of green fluorescent protein by fluorescence-based selection and directed evolution. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 136, 16299–16308; 10.1021/ja508478x (2014).

(15) Renggli Sabine, Keck Wolfgang, Jenal Urs & Ritz Daniel. Role of Autofluorescence in Flow Cytometric Analysis of Escherichia coli Treated with Bactericidal Antibiotics. J. Bacteriol. 195, 4067–4073; 10.1128/jb.00393-13. (2013).

(16) Millman, A. et al. Bacterial Retrons Function In Anti-Phage Defense. Cell 183, 1551-1561.e12; 10.1016/j.cell.2020.09.065 (2020).

Writing at a high level is important for many professions since they all require the use of rhetoric in some form. The purpose of this could be to analyze data, get a point across, persuade, or simply inform.

This is so well said.

EL LIMITE NUNCA SE RELACIONA CON EL PLAN, EL LIMITE SE RELACIONA CON EL SIM. VER ESTE OBJECT

Revisar workflow, si se va a separar en dos comandos o un solo comando.

esto no se necesita para activar

Author response:

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

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In the manuscript entitled "Ω-Loop mutations control dynamics 2 of the active site by modulating the 3 hydrogen-bonding network in PDC-3 4 β-lactamase", Chen and coworkers provide a computational investigation of the dynamics of the enzyme Pseudomonas-derived chephalosporinase 3 (PDC3) and some mutants associated with increased antibiotic resistance. After an initial analysis of the enzyme dynamics provided by RMSD/RMSF, the author conclude that the mutations alter the local dynamics within the omega loop and the R2 loop. The authors show that the network of hydrogen bonds in disrupted in the mutants. Constant pH calculations showed that the mutations also change the pKa of the catalytic lysine 67 and pocket volume calculations showed that the mutations expand the catalytic pocket. Finally, time-independent componente analysis (tiCA) showed different profiles for the mutant enzyme as compared to the wild type.

Strengths:

The scope of the manuscript is definitely relevant. Antibiotic resistance is an important problem and, in particular, Pseudomonas aeruginosa resistance is associated with an increasing number of deaths. The choice of the computational methods is also something to highlight here. Although I am not familiar with Adaptive Bandit Molecular Dynamics (ABMD), the description provided in the manuscript that this simulation strategy is well suited for the problem under evaluation.

Weaknesses:

In the revised version, the authors addressed my concerns regarding their use of the MSM, and in my view, their conclusions are now much more robust and well-supported by the data. While it would be very interesting to see a quantitative correlation between the effects of the mutations observed in the MD data and relevant experimental findings, I understand that this may be beyond the scope of the manuscript.

Thank you for the careful evaluation and constructive comments. Regarding the suggestion of a more quantitative correlation with experimental observables, we agree that this would be valuable, and we have noted it as an important direction for future work.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript aims to explore how mutations in the PDC-3 3 β-lactamase alter its ability to bind and catalyse reactions of antibiotic compounds. The topic is interesting and the study uses MD simulations and to provide hypotheses about how the size of the binding site is altered by mutations that change the conformation and flexibility of two loops that line the binding pocket. Some greater consideration of the uncertainties and how the method choice affect the ability to compare equilibrium properties would strengthen the quantitative conclusions. While many results appear significant by eye, quantifying this and ensuring convergence would strengthen the conclusions.

Strengths:

The significance of the problem is clearly described the relationship to prior literature is discussed extensively.

Comments on revised version:

I am concerned that the authors state in the response to reviews that it is not possible to get error bars on values due to the use of the AB-MD protocol that guides the simulations to unexplored basins. Yet the authors want to compare these values between the WT and mutants. This relates to RMSD, RMSF, % H-bond and volume calculations. I don't accept that you cannot calculate an uncertainty on a time averaged property calculated across the entire simulation. In these cases you can either run repeat simulations to get multiple values on which to do statistical analysis, or you can break the simulation into blocks and check both convergence and calculate uncertainties.

We thank the reviewer for raising this point. We would like to clarify that we did not intend to state that error bars are impossible to obtain under AB-MD. In fact, we reported error bars for several quantities derived from the AB-MD trajectories (we also broke the trajectories into blocks and calculated uncertainties for RMSF in our first-round response as you suggested). However, these data are closely related to your concern about comparing quantitative information without an appropriate reweighting of the ensemble. Therefore, in the revised manuscript, we removed quantitative analyses that were calculated directly from the raw AB-MD trajectories. Instead, the quantitative comparisons are now obtained from MSM analysis. We report pocket volumes and key interaction metrics for MSM metastable states, with corresponding error bars for these MSM-based quantities (Figure 6 and its supplementary figure).

I note that the authors do provide error bars on the volumes, but the statistics given for these need closer scrutiny (I cant test this without the raw data). For example the authors have p<0.0001 for the following pair of volumes 1072 {plus minus} 158 and 1115 {plus minus} 242, or for SASA p<0.0001 is given for 2 identical numbers 155+/- 3.

Thank you for this comment. As noted above, we have removed the table from the manuscript, and the pocket-volume results together with their error bars are now shown in Figure 6. To address the concern raised here and to avoid making the same mistake in future analyses, we re-examined how the statistics were computed. We believe the very small p-values were caused by treating per-frame MD values as independent observations in two-sample t-tests. Because consecutive MD frames are strongly time-correlated, they do not satisfy the independence assumption, which can greatly overestimate the effective sample size and lead to artificially small p-values. For the SASA, a p < 0.0001 is reported even though both values are shown as 155 ± 3. This is due to rounding, which can hide subtle underlying differences.

I also remain concerned about comparisons between simulations run with the AB-MD scheme. While each simulation is an equilibrium simulation run without biasing forces, new simulations are seeded to expand the conformational sampling of the system. This means that by definition the ensemble of simulations does not represent and equilibrium ensemble. For example, the frequency at which conformations are sampled would not be the same as in a single much longer equilibrium simulation. While you may be able to see trends in the differences between conditions run in this way, I still don't understand how you can compare quantitative information without some method of reweighing the ensemble. It is not clear that such a rewieghting exists for this methods, in which case I advise some more caution in the wording of the comparisons made from this data.

At this stage I don't feel the revision has directly addressed the main comments I raised in the earlier review, although there is a stronger response to the comments of Reviewer #2.

We thank the reviewer for reiterating this important point, and we agree with the underlying concern. Although AB-MD generates unbiased trajectories, the ensemble of simulations does not represent an equilibrium ensemble. As a result, statistics computed by simply concatenating all AB-MD trajectories should not be used for quantitative comparisons. In the original version, we acknowledge that we reported several quantitative descriptors directly from concatenated AB-MD frames, including (i) distributions of χ1 torsions, (ii) mean pocket volumes and SASA, and (iii) percentages of some key interactions. We agree that this was not appropriate given the adaptive sampling protocol. In the revised manuscript, we have removed these quantitative analyses.

We retained RMSD and RMSF analyses, but we have revised their wording and clarified their purpose. RMSD and RMSF are used only to summarize the structural variability and residue-level mobility observed across the collected trajectory segments and to motivate the selection of structural features for MSM construction. The manuscript now states: “Because AB-MD adaptively seeds new unbiased trajectories to expand conformational sampling, RMSD and RMSF are used here to summarize the structural variability and per-residue mobility observed across the collected trajectories.”

Regarding the reviewer’s question about reweighting, the Markov state model (MSM) provides a principled framework to obtain the stationary distribution π from the transition probability matrix T_τ. The resulting π<sub>i</sup> gives the equilibrium weight of each microstate i, and the corresponding discrete free energy can be written as Fⁱ=−k_BTln(π<sub>i</sup>). PCCA then coarse-grains the microstate space into a small number of metastable states. In the revised manuscript, quantitative comparisons are therefore derived from the MSM at the level of these metastable states, rather than from unweighted counts of concatenated AB-MD frames.

Accordingly, we have revised the sections “E219K and Y221A mutations facilitate proton transfer” and “Substitutions enlarge the active-site pocket to accommodate bulkier R1 and R2 groups of β-lactams”, and we have added new figures in Figure 6 and its figure supplement. The adjustments to the quantitative analyses do not affect our original conclusions.

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

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript uses adaptive sampling simulations to understand the impact of mutations on the specificity of the enzyme PDC-3 β-lactamase. The authors argue that mutations in the Ω-loop can expand the active site to accommodate larger substrates.

Strengths:

The authors simulate an array of variants and perform numerous analyses to support their conclusions. The use of constant pH simulations to connect structural differences with likely functional outcomes is a strength.

Weaknesses:

I would like to have seen more error bars on quantities reported (e.g., % populations reported in the text and Table 1).

We appreciate this point. Here, the population we analyze is intended to showcase conformational differences across variants rather than to estimate equilibrium occupancies. Although each system includes 100 trajectories, they were generated using an adaptive-bandit protocol. The protocol deliberately guides towards underexplored basins, therefore conformational heterogeneity betweentrajectories is expected by design. For example, in E219K the MSM decomposition shows that in states 1, 6, and 7 the K67(NZ)–S64(OG) distance is almost entirely > 6 Å, whereas in states 2 and 3 it is almost entirely < 3.5 Å (Figure 5—figure supplement 12). These distances suggest that the hydrogen bond fraction is approximately zero in states 1, 6, and 7, and close to one in states 2 and 3. In addition, the mean first passage time of the Markov state models suggests that the formation and disruption of this hydrogen bond occur on the microsecond timescale, which is far longer than the length of each individual trajectory (300 ns). Consequently, across the 100 replicas, some trajectories exhibit very low fractions, while others display the opposite trend. Under such bimodal, protocol-induced heterogeneity, computing an error bar across trajectories mainly visualizes the protocol’s dispersion and risks being misread as thermodynamic uncertainty, which is not central to our aim of comparing conformational differences between wild-type PDC-3 and variants. We therefore do not include the error bars. 

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In the manuscript entitled "Ω-Loop mutations control dynamics of the active site by modulating the 3 hydrogen-bonding network in PDC-3 4 β-lactamase", Chen and coworkers provide a computational investigation of the dynamics of the enzyme Pseudomonas-derived cephalosporinase 3 (PDC3) and some mutants associated with increased antibiotic resistance. After an initial analysis of the enzyme dynamics provided by RMSD/RMSF, the author concludes that the mutations alter the local dynamics within the omega loop and the R2 loop. The authors show that the network of hydrogen bonds is disrupted in the mutants. Constant pH calculations showed that the mutations also change the pKa of the catalytic lysine 67, and pocket volume calculations showed that the mutations expand the catalytic pocket. Finally, time-independent component analysis (tiCA) showed different profiles for the mutant enzyme as compared to the wild type.

Strengths:

The scope of the manuscript is definitely relevant. Antibiotic resistance is an important problem, and, in particular, Pseudomonas aeruginosa resistance is associated with an increasing number of deaths. The choice of the computational methods is also something to highlight here. Although I am not familiar with Adaptive Bandit Molecular Dynamics (ABMD), the description provided in the manuscript suggests that this simulation strategy is well-suited for the problem under evaluation.

Weaknesses:

In the description of many of their results, the authors do not provide enough information for a deep understanding of the biochemistry/biophysics involved. Without these issues addressed, the strength of the evidence is of concern.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out the need for deeper discussion of the biochemical and biophysical implications of our results. In our manuscript, we begin by examining basic structural metrics (e.g., RMSD and RMSF) which clearly indicate that the major conformational changes occur in the Ω-loop and the R2 loop. We have now added a paragraph to describe the importance of the Ωloop and highlighted it in the revised manuscript on lines 142-166 of page 6. This observation guided our subsequent focus on these regions, as well as on the catalytic site. Our analysis revealed notable alterations in the hydrogen bonding network—especially in interactions involving the K67-S64, K67N152, K67-G220, Y150-A292, and N287-N314 pairs. These observations led us to conclude that:

(1) Mutations E219K and Y221A facilitate the proton transfer of catalytic residues. This is consistent with prior experimental data showing that these substitutions produce the most pronounced increase in sensitivity to cephalosporin antibiotics (lines 210-212 in page 8 of the revised manuscript). 

(2) Substitutions enlarge the active-site pocket to accommodate bulkier R1 and R2 groups of β-lactams.This is in line with MIC measurements reported by Barnes et al. (2018), which showed that mutants with larger active-site pockets exhibit markedly greater sensitivity to cephalosporins with bulky side chains than others (lines 249-259 in pages 10).

Furthermore, we applied Markov state models (MSMs) to explore the timescales of the transitions between these different conformational states. We believe that these methodological steps support our conclusions.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript aims to explore how mutations in the PDC-3 3 β-lactamase alter its ability to bind and catalyse reactions of antibiotic compounds. The topic is interesting, and the study uses MD simulations to provide hypotheses about how the size of the binding site is altered by mutations that change the conformation and flexibility of two loops that line the binding pocket. However, the study doesn't clearly describe the way the data is generated. While many results appear significant by eye, quantifying this and ensuring convergence would strengthen the conclusions.

Strengths:

The significance of the problem is clearly described, and the relationship to prior literature is discussed extensively.

Weaknesses:

The methods used to gain the results are not explained clearly, meaning it was hard to determine exactly how some data was obtained. The convergence and uncertainties in the data were not adequately quantified. The text is also a little long, which obscures the main findings.

We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We respectfully ask the reviewer to specify which aspects of the data-generation methods are unclear so that we can include the necessary details in the next revision. Moreover, all statistics that are reported in the manuscript are obtained from extensive analyses of 300,000 simulation frames. The Markov state models have been validated by the ITS plots and Chapman-Kolmogorov (CK) test. The two-sample t-tests were also carried out for the volume and SASA.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) Figure 1D focus on the PDC3 catalytic site. However, the authors mentioned before that the enzyme has two domains, an alpha domain and an alpha/beta domain. The reader would benefit from a more detailed description of the enzyme, its active site, AND the location of the mutants under investigation in the figure.

We have updated Figure 1D and marked the positions of all mutations (V211A/G, G214A/R, E219A/G/K and Y221A/H), which have now been highlighted as spheres.

(2) Since in the journal format, the results come before the methods. It would be interesting to add a brief description of where the results came from. For example, in the first section of the results, the authors describe the flexibility of the omega loop and the R2 loop. However, the reader won't know what kind of simulation was used and for how long, for example. A sentence would add the required context for a deeper understanding here.

At the beginning of the Results and Discussion section we now state: “To investigate how the mutations in the Ω-loop affect PDC-3 dynamics, adaptive-bandit molecular dynamics (AB-MD) simulations were carried out for each system. 100 trajectories of 300 ns each (totaling 30 μs per system) were run.”

(3) Still in the same section, the authors don't define what change in RMSF is considered significant. For example, I can't see a relevant change in the RMSF for the omega loop between the et enzyme and the E219 mutants in Figure 2D. A more objective definition would be of benefit here.

Our analysis reveals that while the wild-type PDC-3 and the G214A, G214R, E214G, and Y221A variants exhibit an average per-residue RMSF of around 4 Å in the Ω-loop, the V211A and V211G variants show markedly lower values (around 1.5 Å), and the E219K and Y221H variants exhibit intermediate values between 2 and 2.5 Å. In addition, the fluctuations around the binding site should be seen collectively along with the fluctuations in the R2-loop. Importantly, we urge the reviewer to focus on the MDLovofit analysis in Figure 2C, where the dynamic differences between the core and the fluctuating loops is clearly evident.  

(4) In line 138, the authors state that "Therefore, the flexibility of these proteins is mainly caused by the fluctuations in the Ω-loops and R2-loop". This is quite a bold statement to be drawn at this point. First of all, there is no mention of it in the manuscript, but is there any domain movement? Figure 2C clearly shows that there is some mobility in omega and R2 loops. But there is no evidence shown in the manuscript that shows that "the flexibility of these proteins is mainly caused by the fluctuations in the" loops. Please consider rephrasing this sentence or adding more data, if available.

We have revised the wording to take the reviewer’s concern into account. The sentence now states: “Therefore, flexibility of PDC-3 is predominantly localized to the Ω- and R2-loops, whereas the remainder of the structure is comparatively rigid.” To further explain to the reviewer, the β lactamase enzymes are fairly rigid structures, where no large-scale domain motions occur. Instead, the enzyme communicates structurally via cross correlation of loop dynamics ( https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.66567 ).  

(5) I guess, the most relevant question for the scope of the paper is not answered in this section. The authors show that the mobility of the omega- and R2-loops is altered by some mutations. Why is that? I wish I could see a figure showing where the mutations are and where the loops are. This question will come back in other sections.

We have updated Figure 1D to mark the positions of all mutations (V211A/G, G214A/R, E219A/G/K and Y221A/H) as spheres. The Ω- and R2-loops are also highlighted. All mutations map to the Ω-loop, indicating that these substitutions directly perturb this region. Notably, K67 forms a hydrogen bond with the backbone of G220 within the Ω-loop and another with the phenolic hydroxyl of Y150. Y150, in turn, hydrogen-bonds with A292 in the R2 loop. Together, the residue interaction network (G220– K67–Y150–A292) suggest a pathway by which Ω-loop mutations propagate their effects to the R2 loop.

(6) The authors then analyze the network of polar residues in the active site and the hydrogen bonds observed there. For the K67-N152 hydrogen bond, for example, there is a reduction in the occupancy from ~70% in the wild-type enzyme to ~30% and 40% in the mutants E219K and Y221, respectively. This finding is interesting. The question that remains is "why is that"? From the structural point of view, how does the replacement of E219 with a Lysine alter the hydrogen bond formation between K67 and N152? Is it due to direct competition? Solvent rearrangement? The reader is left without a clue in this section. Also, Figure 3B won't help the reader, since the mutated residues are not shown there. Please consider adding some information about why the authors believe that the mutations are disrupting the active site hydrogen bond network and showing it in Figure 3B.

We appreciate the comment and have updated Figures 1D and 3B to highlight the mutation sites. The change from ~70% in the wild type to ~30–40% in the E219K and Y221T variants reported in Table 1 refers to the S64–K67 hydrogen bond. In the wild type, K67 forms an additional hydrogen bond with G220 on the Ω-loop, which helps anchor the K67 side chain in a geometry that favors the S64–K67 interaction. In the variants, the mutations reshape the Ω-loop and frequently disrupt the K67–G220 contact. The loss of this local anchor increases the conformational dispersion of K67, which is consistent with the observed reduction of the S64–K67 occupancy. Furthermore, our observation that the mutations are disrupting the active-site hydrogen-bond network is a data-driven conclusion rather than a subjective inference. Across ten systems, our AB-MD simulations provided 30 µs of sampling per system. Saving one frame every nanosecond yielded 30,000 conformations per system and 300,000 in total. All hydrogen-bond and salt-bridge statistics were computed over this full ensemble. Thus, the conclusion that the mutations disrupt the active-site hydrogen-bond network follows directly from these ensemble statistics. 

(7) The pKa calculations and the pocket volume calculations show that the mutations expand the volume of the catalytic site and alter the microenvironment. Is there any change in the solvation associated with these changes? If the volume expands and the environment becomes more acidic, are there more water molecules in the mutants as compared to the wt enzyme? If so, can changes in solvation be associated with the changes in the hydrogen bond network? Would a simulation in the presence of a substrate be meaningful here? ( I guess it would!).

Regarding solvation, we observe a modest increase in transient water occupancy associated with the increase in volume of the pocket. The conserved deacylation water molecule is the most important and is always present throughout the simulation. Additional waters enter and leave the pocket but do not form persistent interactions that measurably perturb the hydrogen-bond network of the Ω- and R2-loops. We agree that simulations with a bound substrate would be informative. However, our study focuses on how Ω-loop mutations modulate the active site of apo PDC-3 and its variants. Within this scope, we find: (i) Amino acid substitutions change the flexibility of Ω-loops and R2-loops; (ii) E219K and Y221A mutations facilitate the proton transfer; (iii) Substitutions enlarge the active-site pocket to accommodate bulkier R1 and R2 groups of β-lactams.

(8) I have some concerns regarding the Markov State Modeling as shown here. After a time-independent component analysis, the authors show the projections on the components, which is different between wild wild-type enzyme and the mutants, and draw some conclusions from these changes. For example, the authors state that "From the metastable state results, we observe that E219K adopts a highly stable conformation in which all the tridentate hydrogen-bonding interactions (K67(NZ)-S64(OG), K67(NZ)N152(OD1) and K67(NZ)-G220(O) mentioned above are broken". This is conclusion is very difficult to draw from Figure 5 alone. Unless the macrostates observed in the MSM can be shown (their structures) and could confirm the broken interactions, I really don't believe that the reader can come to the same conclusion as drawn by the authors here. I would recommend the authors to map the macrostates back to the coordinates and show them (what structure corresponds to what macrostate). After showing that, it makes sense to discuss what macrostate is being favored by what mutation. Taking conclusions from tiCA projections only is not recommended. I very strongly suggest that the authors revisit this entire section, adding more context so that the reader can draw conclusions from the data that is shown.

We appreciate the reviewer’s concern. In the Markov state modeling section, our objective is to quantify the timescales (via mean first passage times) associated with the formation and disruption of the critical hydrogen bonds (K67(NZ)-S64(OG), K67(NZ)-N152(OD1), K67(NZ)-G220(O), Y150(N)A292(O), N287(ND2)-N314(OD1)) mentioned above. Representative structures illustrating these interactions are shown in Figures 3B and 4A. We agree that the main Figure 5 alone does not convey structural information. Accordingly, we provide Figure 5—figure supplements 12–16. Together, Figure 5B and Figure 5—figure supplements 12–16 map structures to metastable states, whereas Figures 3B and 4A supply atomistic detail of the interactions. Author response image 1 presents selected subplots from Figure 5— figure supplements 12–14. Together with the free-energy landscape in Figure 5A, these data indicate that E219K adopts a highly stable conformation in which all three K67-centered hydrogen bonds (K67(NZ)–S64(OG), K67(NZ)–N152(OD1), and K67(NZ)–G220(O)) are broken.

Author response image 1.

TICA plot illustrates the distribution of E219K with the colour indicating the K67(NZ)-S64(OG), K67(NZ)-N152(OD1) and K67(NZ)-G220(O) distance.

(9) As a very minor issue, there are a few typos in the manuscript text. The authors might want to take some time to revisit their entire text. Examples in lines 70, 197, etc.

Thank you for your comment. We have corrected these typos.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

This manuscript aims to explore how mutations in the PDC-3 3 β-lactamase alter its ability to bind and catalyse reactions of antibiotic compounds. The topic is interesting, and the study uses MD simulations to provide hypotheses about how the size of the binding site is altered by mutations that change the conformation and flexibility of two loops that line the binding pocket.

However, the study doesn't clearly describe the way the data is generated and potentially lacks statistical rigour, which makes it uncertain if the key results are significant. As such, it is difficult to judge if the conclusions made are supported by data.

All necessary data-acquisition methods are described in the Methods section. The Markov state models have been validated by the ITS plot and the Chapman-Kolmogorov (CK) test (Figure 5—figure supplement 2–11) . The two-sample t-tests were also carried out for the volume and SASA (Table 2).

The results section jumps straight to reporting RMSD and RMSF values; however, it is not clear what simulations are used to generate this information. Indeed, the main text does not mention the simulations themselves at all. The methods section mentions that 10 independent MD simulations were set up for each system, but no information is given as to how long these were run or the equilibration protocol used. Then it says that AB-MD simulations were run, but it is not clear what starting coordinates were used for this or how the 10 replicates were fed into these simulations. Most importantly, are the RMSD and RMSF calculations and later distance distribution information derived from the equilibrium MD runs or from the AB-MD simulations?

Thank you for pointing this out. We have added “To investigate how the mutations in the Ω-loop affect PDC-3 dynamics, adaptive-bandit molecular dynamics (AB-MD) simulations were carried out for each system. 100 trajectories of 300 ns each (totaling 30 μs per system) were run.” to the Results and Discussion section. We didn’t run 10 independent MD simulations per system. We regret the typo in the Methods section that confused the reviewer. The sentence should have read – ‘All-atom MD simulations of wild-type PDC-3 and its variants were performed.’ Each system was equilibrated for 5 ns at 1 atmospheric pressure using Berendsen barostat. AB-MD simulations were initiated from these equilibrated structures. All analyses, apart from CpHMD, are based on the AB-MD trajectories.

If these are taken from the equilibrium simulations, then it is critical that the reproducibility and statistical significance of the simulations is established. This can be done by calculating the RMSD and RMSF values independently for each replicate and determining the error bars. From this, the significance of differences between WT and mutant simulations can be determined. Without this, I have no data to judge if the main conclusions are supported or not. If these are derived from the AB-MD simulations, then I want to know how the independent simulations were combined and reweighted to generate overall RMSD, RMSF, and distance distributions. Unless I misunderstand the approach, the individual simulations no longer sample all regions of conformational space the same relative amount you would see in a standard MD simulation - specific conformational regions are intentionally run more to enhance sampling, then the overall conformational distributions cannot be obtained from these simulations without some form of reweighting scheme. But no such scheme is described. In addition, convergence of the data is required to ensure that the RMSD, RMSF, and distances have reached stable values. It is possible that I am misunderstanding the approach here. But in that case, I hope the authors can clarify the method and provide a means of ensuring that the data presented is converged. Many of the differences are clear by eye, but it is important to know they are not random differences between simulations and rather reflect differences between them.

Thank you for raising this important point. In our AB-MD workflow, the adaptive bandit is used only for starting-structure selection (adaptive seeding). After each epoch, it chooses new starting snapshots from previously sampled conformations and launches the next runs. Each trajectory itself is standard, unbiased MD with no biasing potentials and no modification of the Hamiltonian. In other words, AB decides where we start, but does not alter the physics or sampling dynamics within an individual trajectory. In addition, our goal in this work is to compare variants under the same adaptive-bandit (AB) protocol, rather than to estimate equilibrium (Boltzmann) populations. Hence, we did not apply equilibrium reweighting to RMSD, RMSF, or distance distributions. However, MSM section provides reweighted reference results based on the MSM stationary distribution.

In the response to reviews, the authors state that the "RMSF is a statistical quantity derived from averaging the time series of atomic displacements, resulting in a fixed value without an inherent error bar." But normally we would run multiple replicates and get an error bar from the different values in each. To dismiss the request for uncertainties and error bars seems to miss the point. I strongly agree with the prior reviewer that comparisons between RMSF or other values should be accompanied by uncertainties and estimates of statistical significance.

Regarding the reviewers’ suggestion to present the data as a bar graph with error bars, we would like to note that RMSF is calculated as the time average of the fluctuations of each residue’s Cα atom over the entire simulation. As such, RMSF is a statistical quantity derived from averaging the time series of atomic displacements, resulting in a fixed value without an inherent error bar. We believe that our current presentation clearly and accurately reflects the local flexibility differences among the variants. Nearly all published studies report RMSF in this way, as indicated by the following examples:

Figure 3a in DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/jacsau.2c00077

Figure 2 in DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.4c00089

Supplementary Fig. 1, 2, 5, 9, 12, 20, 22, 24, and 26 in DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-293313

However, in response to the reviewers’ strong request, we present RMSF plots with error bars in our response letter. 

Author response image 2.

The root-mean-square fluctuation (RMSF) profiles of wild-type PDC-3 and its variants. Blue lines show the mean RMSF across 100 independent MD trajectories for each system; red translucent bands denote the standard deviation across trajectories. The Ω-loop (residues G183 to S226) is highlighted in yellow, and the R2-loop (residues L280 to Q310) is highlighted in blue.

It was good to see that convergence of the constant-pH simulations was shown. While it can be challenging to get absolute pH values from the implicit solvent-based simulations, the differences between the systems are large and the trends appear significant. I was not clear how the starting coordinates were chosen for these simulations. Is the end point of the classical simulations, or is a representative snapshot chosen somehow?

To ensure comparison, all systems used the X-ray crystal structure (PDB ID: 4HEF) with T79A substitution as the initial structure. The E219K and Y221A mutants were generated in silico using the ICM mutagenesis module. We have added the clarification in Methods section: “The starting structures were identical to those used for AB-MD.”

Significant figures: Throughout the text and tables, the authors present data with more figures than are significant. 1071.81+-157.55 should be reported as 1100 +/ 160 or 1070 =- 160 . See the eLife guidelines for advice on this.

Thank you for your suggestion. We have amended these now. 

The manuscript is very long for the results presented, and I feel that a clearer story would come across if the authors shortened the text so that the main conclusions and results were not lost.

We appreciate the suggestion. We examined the twenty most recent research articles published in eLife and found that they are either longer than or comparable in length to our manuscript.

A: Astronomers 19-2011.00 B: Analyze research data to determine its significance, using computers. Present research findings at scientific conferences and in papers written for scientific journals. C: I will have that person to explain or at least summarize this lab in one or two sentences.

reflect and compare and contrast to put together the article and annotations.

"The Prince of Aquitaine, of the ruined tower", a line which Eliot refers to its source in the sonnet ‘El Desdichado’ (‘The Disinherited’) by Gérard de Nerval.

"And O those children's voices, singing in the cupola!" "Parsifal" by Paul Verlaine.

Folk song.

In a typical architecture, the pixel goes through Self-Attention (pixels talking to pixels) and then immediately through Cross-Attention (pixels talking to text). It’s a "chain" where:

Pixel-to-Pixel: Ensures Coherence (it looks like a real object).

Pixel-to-Text: Ensures Adherence (it looks like what you asked for).

I find this section to describe a key part of the slave culture: gospel singing. We hear about the gospels that were written and sung out in the fields as they worked, but to have one documented in this book by Brown gives a stronger connection to their culture. We may not know how it was sung, but the words speak the song's message.

This moment captures a slave song that describes the suffering of enslaved Africans who are taken from their homes, sold in America, and separated from their families. Many spirituals express deep pain, especially over the loss of husbands, wives, and children; at the same time, the song brings about images of hope for a “better day” and “sounding the jubilee”.

efd ou data?

delete

use the same as on https://test2025.mitkoforevents.cz/nuzkove-stany/3x3/

Pískové závaží 27,5 kg Připevňuje se k noze stanu pomocí suchých zipů.

Pískové závaží 27,5 kg

Author response:

eLife Assessment

This study provides valuable mechanistic insight into the mutually exclusive distributions of the histone variant H2A.Z and DNA methylation by testing two hypotheses: (i) that DNA methylation destabilizes H2A.Z nucleosomes, thereby preventing H2A.Z retention, and (ii) that DNA methylation suppresses H2A.Z deposition by ATP-dependent chromatin remodeling complexes. Through a series of well-designed and carefully executed experiments, findings are presented in support of both hypotheses. However, the evidence in support of either hypothesis is incomplete, so that the proposed mechanisms underlying the enrichment of H2A.Z on unmethylated DNA remain somewhat speculative.

We would like to thank the editor and reviewers for their critical assessments of our manuscript. While we do acknowledge the limitations of our work, we believe that our results provide important mechanistic insights into the long-standing question of how H2A.Z is preferentially enriched in hypomethylated genomic DNA regions. First, our structural and biochemical data suggest that DNA methylation increases the openness and physical accessibility of H2A.Z, albeit the effect is relatively subtle and is sequence-dependent. Second, using Xenopus egg extracts and synthetic DNA templates, we provide the first clear and direct evidence that DNA methylation-sensitive H2A.Z deposition is due to the H2A.Z chaperone SRCAP-C, corroborated by our discovery that SRCAP-C binding to DNA is suppressed by DNA methylation. Although the molecular details by which DNA methylation inhibits binding of SRCAP-C is an important area of future study, in our current manuscript, we do provide evidence that directly links the presence of SRCAP-C to the establishment of the DNA methylation/H2A.Z antagonism in a physiological system. Thanks to criticisms by the reviewers, we realized that we did not clearly state in our Abstract that the impact of DNA methylation on intrinsic H2A.Z nucleosome stability is relatively subtle, although we did explain these observations and limitations in the main text. In our revised manuscript, we are willing to edit the text to better clarify the criticisms raised by the reviewers.

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors considered the mechanism underlying previous observations that H2A.Z is preferentially excluded from methylated DNA regions. They considered two non-mutually exclusive mechanisms. First, they tested the hypothesis that nucleosomes containing both methylated DNA and H2A.Z might be intrinsically unstable due to their structural features. Second, they explored the possibility that DNA methylation might impede SRCAP-C from efficiently depositing H2A.Z onto these DNA methylated regions.

Their structural analyses revealed subtle differences between H2A.Z-containing nucleosomes assembled on methylated versus unmethylated DNA. To test the second hypothesis, the authors allowed H2A.Z assembly on sperm chromatin in Xenopus egg extracts and mapped both H2A.Z localization and DNA methylation in this transcriptionally inactive system. They compared these data with corresponding maps from a transcriptionally active Xenopus fibroblast cell line. This comparison confirmed the preferential deposition or enrichment of H2A.Z on unmethylated DNA regions, an effect that was much more pronounced in the fibroblast genome than in sperm chromatin. Furthermore, nucleosome assembly on methylated versus unmethylated DNA, along with SRCAP-C depletion from Xenopus egg extracts, provided a means to test whether SRCAP-C contributes to the preferential loading of H2A.Z onto unmethylated DNA.

Strengths:

The strength and originality of this work lie in its focused attempt to dissect the unexplained observation that H2A.Z is excluded from methylated genomic regions.

Weaknesses:

The study has two weaknesses. First, although the authors identify specific structural effects of DNA methylation on H2A.Z-containing nucleosomes, they do not provide evidence demonstrating that these structural differences lead to altered histone dynamics or nucleosome instability. Second, building on the elegant work of Berta and colleagues (cited in the manuscript), the authors implicate SRCAP-C in the selective deposition of H2A.Z at unmethylated regions. Yet the role of SRCAP-C appears only partial, and the study does not address how the structural or molecular consequences of DNA methylation prevent efficient H2A.Z deposition. Finally, additional plausible mechanisms beyond the two scenarios the authors considered are not investigated or discussed in the manuscript.

Although we acknowledge the limitations of our study and are willing to expand our discussion to more thoroughly discuss these points, we believe our manuscript provides several important mechanistic insights which this reviewer may not have fully appreciated.

Our first conclusion that H2A.Z nucleosomes on methylated DNA are more open and accessible compared to their unmethylated counterparts is supported by both our cryo-EM study and the restriction enzyme accessibility assay. Although the physical effect of DNA methylation is relatively subtle and is likely sequence dependent, as we clearly noted within the manuscript, the difference does exist and is valuable information for the chromatin field at large to consider.

The second major conclusion of our manuscript is that SRCAP-C exhibits preferential binding to unmethylated DNA over methylated DNA, and that SRCAP-C represents the major mechanism that can explain the biased deposition of H2A.Z to unmethylated DNA in Xenopus egg extracts. Furthermore, our experiments using Xenopus egg extract clearly demonstrated that H2A.Z is deposited by both DNA-methylation sensitive and insensitive mechanisms. Depletion of SRCAP-C almost completely eliminated the levels of DNA-methylation-sensitive H2A.Z deposition and reduced the total level of H2A.Z on chromatin to less than half of that seen in non-depleted extract. This result demonstrated that DNA methylation-sensitive H2A.Z loading is primarily regulated by SRCAP-C, at least in our experimental context where transcription, replication, and other epigenetic modifications are not involved. It is likely that additional mechanisms do further contribute, implicated by our sequencing experiments, particularly at regions with active transcription, and we have noted these possibilities and the rationale for their existence in the Discussion.

Our study also suggests that a SRCAP-independent, DNA methylation-insensitive mechanism of H2A.Z loading exists, which we suspect to be mediated by Tip60-C. In line with this possibility, our data suggest that Tip60-C binds DNA in a DNA methylation-insensitive manner in Xenopus egg extract. Since antibodies to deplete Tip60-C from Xenopus egg extract are currently unavailable, we were unable to directly test that hypothesis and decided not to include Tip60-C into our final model as we lacked experimental evidence for its role. However, whether or not Tip60-C is the complex responsible for the DNA methylation-insensitive pathway does not influence our final conclusion that SRCAP-C plays a major role in DNA methylation-sensitive H2A.Z loading. We are planning to edit our manuscript to more comprehensively discuss these points.

Please note that while Berta et al reported that DNA methylation increases at H2A.Z loci in tumors defective in SRCAP-C, they selected those regions based off where H2A.Z is typically enriched within normal tissues (Berta et al., 2021). They did not show data indicating whether H2A.Z is still retained specifically at those analyzed loci upon mutation of SRCAP-C subunits. Thus, although we greatly admire their work and are pleased that many of our findings align with theirs, their paper did not directly address whether SRCAP-C itself differentiates between DNA methylation status nor the impact that has on H2A.Z and DNA methylation colocalization. In contrast, our Xenopus egg extract system, where de novo methylation is undetectable (Nishiyama et al., 2013; Wassing et al., 2024) offers a unique opportunity to examine the direct impact of DNA methylation on H2A.Z deposition using controlled synthetic DNA substrates. Corroborated with our demonstration that DNA binding of SRCAP-C is suppressed by DNA methylation, we believe that our manuscript provides a specific mechanism that can explain the preferential deposition of H2A.Z at hypomethylated genomic regions.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This manuscript aims to elucidate the mechanistic basis for the long-standing observation that DNA methylation and the histone variant H2A.Z occupy mutually exclusive genomic regions. The authors test two hypotheses: (i) that DNA methylation intrinsically destabilizes H2A.Z nucleosomes, thereby preventing H2A.Z retention, and (ii) that DNA methylation suppresses H2A.Z deposition by ATP-dependent chromatin-remodelling complexes. However, neither hypothesis is rigorously addressed. There are experimental caveats, issues with data interpretation, and conclusions that are not supported by the data. Substantial revision and additional experiments, including controls, would be required before mechanistic conclusions can be drawn. Major concerns are as follows:

We appreciate the critical assessment of our manuscript by this reviewer. Although we acknowledge the limitations of our study and will revise the manuscript to better describe them, we would like to respectfully argue against the statement that our "conclusions […] are not supported by the data".

(1) The cryo-EM structure of methylated H2A.Z nucleosomes is insufficiently resolved to address the central mechanistic question: where the methylated CpGs are located relative to DNA-histone contact points and how these modifications influence H2A.Z nucleosome structure. The structure provides no mechanistic insights into methylation-induced destabilization.

The fact that the DNA resolution in the methylated structure was not high enough to resolve the positions of methylated CpGs despite a high overall resolution of 2.78 Å implies that 1) the Sat2R-P DNA was not as stably registered as the 601L sequence, requiring us to create two alternative Sat2R-P atomic models to account for the variable positioning in our samples, and 2) that the presence of DNA methylation increases that positional variability. We understand that one may prefer to see highly resolved density around each methylation mark, but we do believe that our inability to accomplish that is actually a feature rather than a weakness and has important biological implications. The decrease in local DNA resolution on the methylated Sat2R-P structure compared to its unmethylated counterpart is meaningful and suggests to us that DNA methylation weakens overall DNA wrapping and positioning on the nucleosome, supported by the increased flexibility seen at the linker DNA ends as well as an increase in the population of highly shifted nucleosomes amongst the methylated particles. Additionally, one major view in the DNA methylation/nucleosome stability field is that the presence of DNA methylation can make DNA stiffer and harder to bend, causing opening and destabilization of nucleosomes (Ngo et al., 2016). The increased opening of linker DNA ends and accessibility of methylated H2A.Z nucleosomes in our hands also aligns with such an idea, again suggesting decreased histone-DNA contact stability on methylated DNA substrates. We plan to revise the writing in our manuscript to better reflect these ideas.

The experimental system also lacks physiological relevance. The template DNA sequence is artificial, despite the existence of well-characterised native genomic sequences for which DNA methylation is known to inhibit H2A.Z incorporation. Alternatively, there are a number of studies examining the effect of DNA methylation on nucleosome structure, stability, DNA unwrapping, and positioning. Choosing one of these DNA sequences would have at least allowed a direct comparison with a canonical nucleosome. Indeed, a major omission is the absence of a cryo-EM structure of a canonical nucleosome assembled on the same DNA template - this is essential to assess whether the observed effects are H2A.Z-specific.

The reviewer raises a fair question about whether canonical H2A would experience the same DNA methylation-dependent structural effects. We had considered solving the H2A structures, however, ultimately decided against it for a few reasons. First, there already exists crystal structures of canonical H2A nucleosomes using a DNA sequence highly similar to our Sat2R-P with and without the presence of DNA methylation (PDB: 5CPI and 5CPJ). The authors of this study did not see any physical differences present in their structures (Osakabe et al., 2015). Additionally, we had included canonical H2A conditions within our restriction enzyme accessibility assay and did not see a significant impact of DNA methylation on those samples (Fig 3). Because of the previous report and our own negative data, we expected that only limited additional insights would be obtained from the canonical H2A structures and decided not to pursue that analysis.

One of the primary reasons we chose the Sat2R-P sequence was, as noted above, that there already was a published study examining how DNA methylation affects nucleosome structure using a variant of this sequence which we could compare to our results, as the reviewer has suggested. We did have to modify the sequence, namely by making it palindromic, in order to increase the final achievable resolution. We viewed the Sat2R-P sequence as an attractive candidate because it is physiologically relevant; the initial sequence was taken directly from human satellite II. Several modifications were made for technical reasons, including making the sequence palindromic as described above and also ensuring that each CpG is recognizable by a methylation-sensitive restriction enzyme so that we could be certain about the degree of methylation on our substrates. These practical concerns outweighed the necessity of maintaining a strict physiological sequence to us. However, we still believe the final Sat2R-P more closely mimics physiological sequences than Widom 601. Additionally, human satellite II is a highly abundant sequence in the human genome that is known to undergo large methylation changes on the onset of many disorders, like cancer, as well as during aging. Thus, there are interesting biological questions surrounding how the methylation state of this particular sequence affects chromatin structure. Furthermore, it has been reported that satellite II is devoid of H2A.Z (Capurso et al., 2012). Beyond those reasons, the satellite II sequence is generally interesting to our lab because we have been studying genes involved in ICF syndrome, where hypomethylation of satellite II sequences forms one of the hallmarks of this disorder (Funabiki et al., 2023; Jenness et al., 2018; Wassing et al., 2024). We understand that sequence context plays a large role in nucleosome wrapping and stability. This is why we strived to test multiple sequences in each of our assays. We do agree that it would be interesting to use DNA sequences where H2A.Z binding has already been described to be affected in a DNA methylation-dependent manner, forming an exciting future study to pursue.

Furthermore, the DNA template is methylated at numerous random CpG sites. The authors' argument that only the global methylation level is relevant is inconsistent with the literature, which clearly demonstrates that methylation effects on canonical nucleosomes are position-dependent. Not all CpG sites contribute equally to nucleosome stability or unwrapping, and this critical factor is not considered.

We did not argue that only the global methylation level is relevant. We also would appreciate it if the reviewer could provide specific references that "clearly demonstrates that methylation effects on canonical nucleosomes are position-dependent". We are aware of a series of studies conducted by Chongli Yuan's group, including one testing the effect of placing methylated CpGs at different positions along the Widom 601 sequence. In that study (Jimenez-Useche et al., 2013), they did find that positioning of mCpGs has differential impacts on the salt resistance of the nucleosomes, with 5 tandem mCpG copies at the dyad causing the most dramatic nucleosome opening whereas having mCpGs only at the DNA major grooves, but not elsewhere, increased nucleosome stability. However, they did also find that methylation of the original Widom 601 sequence also caused destabilization, albeit to a lesser degree, and another study by the same group (Jimenez-Useche et al., 2014) also found that CpG methylation decreased nucleosome-forming ability for all tested variants of the Widom 601 sequence, regardless of CpG density or positioning.

Other studies monitored how distribution of methylated CpGs correlates with nucleosome positioning (Collings et al., 2013; Davey et al., 1997; Davey et al., 2004). However, these studies assessed the sequence-dependent effects specifically on nucleosome assembly during in vitro salt dialysis, which is a different physical process than the one our manuscript focuses on, especially when considering the fact that H2A.Z is deposited onto preassembled H2A-nucleosome. Our cryo-EM analysis examines the structural changes induced by DNA methylation on already formed nucleosomes rather than the process of formation. Thus, probing accessibility changes using a restriction enzyme was the more appropriate biochemical assay to verify our structures.

We do very much agree that DNA context can influence nucleosome stability under different conditions. A study of molecular dynamics simulations concluded that the "combination of overall DNA geometrical and shape properties upon methylation" makes nucleosomes resistant to unwrapping (Li et al., 2022), while another modeling study suggests that DNA methylation impacts nucleosome stability in a manner dependent on DNA sequence, where "[s]trong binding is weakened and weak binding is strengthened" (Minary and Levitt, 2014). While G/C-dinucleotides are preferentially placed at major groove-inward positions in the nucleosomes in vivo (Chodavarapu et al., 2010; Segal et al., 2006) and G/C-rich segments are excluded from major groove-outward positions in Widom 601-like nucleosomes (Chua et al., 2012), methylated CpG dinucleotides are preferably, if not exclusively, located at major groove-outward positions in vivo. Mechanisms behind this biased mCpG positioning on the nucleosome remain speculative, likely caused by a combination of multiple factors, but the fact that we did not observe clear structural impacts using the Widom 601L sequence, where mCpGs are located at the major groove-outward and -inward positions ((Chua et al., 2012) and our structure), deserves a space for discussion. On the other hand, positioning of mCpG on satellite II-derived sequences that we used in this study was based on a physiological sequence, and thus it may not be appropriate to say that those CpGs are placed at multiple "random" positions. Although we decided not to discuss the position of 5mC on our Sat2R nucleosome structure due to ambiguous base assignments, neither of our two atomic models is consistent with an idea that DNA methylation repositions the CpG to the outward major grooves. As the potential contribution of how DNA methylation affects the nucleosome structure via modulating DNA stiffness has been extensively studied (Choy et al., 2010; Li et al., 2022; Ngo et al., 2016; Perez et al., 2012), we believe that it is appropriate to consider overall DNA properties along the whole DNA sequence, though we are willing to discuss potential positional effects in the revised manuscript.

Perhaps one of the most important points that we did not emphasize enough in our original manuscript was that in contrast to the subtle intrinsic effect of DNA methylation that was DNA sequence dependent, we observed SRCAP-dependent preferential H2A.Z deposition to unmethylated DNA over methylated DNA in both 601 and satellite II DNAs. In the revised manuscript, we will make the value of comparative studies on 601 and satellite II in two distinct mechanisms.

Finally, and most importantly, the reported increase in accessibility of the methylated H2A.Z nucleosome is negligible compared with the much larger intrinsic DNA accessibility of the unmethylated H2A.Z nucleosome. These data do not support the authors' hypothesis and contradict the manuscript's conclusions. Claims that methylated H2A.Z nucleosomes are "more open and accessible" must therefore be removed, and the title is misleading, given that no meaningful impact of DNA methylation on H2A.Z nucleosome stability is demonstrated.

We respectfully disagree with this reviewer's criticism. We investigated the potential impact of DNA methylation on nucleosome stability to the best of our abilities through complementary assays and reported our observations. The effect of DNA methylation is smaller than the difference between H2A.Z and H2A, but we were able to see an effect. It is also not uncommon for small differences to have functional impacts in biological systems. We agree that further testing is required to determine whether this subtle effect is functionally important, and it remains the subject of future research due to the many technical challenges associated with addressing said question. We would like to note that 18 years have passed since Daniel Zilberman first reported the antagonistic relationship between H2AZ and DNA methylation (Zilberman et al., 2008) but very few studies have since directly tested specific mechanistic hypotheses. We believe that our study lays the groundwork for exciting future investigation that better elucidates the pathways that contribute to this antagonism and will have meaningful impacts on the field in general. However, thanks to the reviewer's criticism, we realized that we did not clearly state in the Abstract the relatively subtle effect of DNA methylation on the intrinsic H2A.Z nucleosome stability. Therefore, we will accordingly revise the Abstract to make this point clearer.

(2) The cryo-EM structures of methylated and unmethylated 601L H2A.Z nucleosomes show no detectable differences. As presented, this negative result adds little value. If anything, it reinforces the point that the positional context of CpG methylation is critical, which the manuscript does not consider.

We believe the inclusion and factual reporting of negative data is important for the scientific community as one of the major issues currently in biology research is biased omission of negative data. We considered eLife as a venue to publish this work for this reason. We understand that the reviewer believes our 601L structures may detract from the overall message of our manuscript. We believe this data rather emphasizes the importance of DNA sequence context, something that the reviewer also rightfully notes. It is standard practice in the nucleosome field to use the Widom 601 sequence, along with its variants. Our experience has shown that use of an artificially strong positioning sequence may mask weaker physical effects that could play a physiological role. Thus, we were careful to validate all further assays with multiple DNA sequences and believed it important to report these sequence-dependent effects on nucleosome structure.

(3) Very little H3 signal coincides with H2A.Z at TSSs in sperm pronuclei, yet this is neither explained nor discussed (Supplementary Figure 10D). The authors need to clarify this.

Our H3 signal, which represents the global nucleosome population, is more broadly distributed across the genome than H2A.Z, which is known to localize at specific genomic sites. Since both histone types were sequenced to similar read depths, H3 peaks are generally shallower than H2A.Z and peak heights cannot be directly compared (i.e. they should be represented in separate appropriate data ranges).

(4) In my view, the most conceptually important finding is that H2A.Z-associated reads in sperm pronuclei show ~43% CpG methylation. This directly contradicts the model of strict mutual exclusivity and suggests that the antagonism is context-dependent. Similarly, the finding that the depletion of SRCAP reduces H2A.Z deposition only on unmethylated templates is also very intriguing. Collectively, these result warrants further investigation (see below).

(5) Given that H2A.Z is located at diverse genomic elements (e.g., enhancers, repressed gene bodies, promoters), the manuscript requires a more rigorous genomic annotation comparing H2A.Z occupancy in sperm pronuclei versus XTC-2 cells. The authors should stratify H2A.Z-DNA methylation relationships across promoters, 5′UTRs, exons, gene bodies, enhancers, etc., as described in Supplementary Figure 10A.

(below is response to (4) and (5) together)

We agree that the substantial presence of co-localized H2A.Z and DNA methylation specifically in the sperm pronuclei samples and the changes in pattern between nuclear types are highly interesting and require further investigation. However, we faced technical challenges in our sequencing experiments that made us refrain from conducting a more detailed analysis for fear of over-interpreting potential artifacts. These challenges mainly stemmed from the difficulties in collecting enough material from Xenopus egg extracts and Tn5’s innate bias towards accessible regions of the genome. Because of this, open regions of the genome tend to be overrepresented in our data (as noted in our Discussion), making it challenging to rigorously compare methylation profiles and H2A.Z/H3 associated genomic elements.

While the degree of separation seems to be dependent on nuclei type, we still believe the antagonism exists in both the sperm pronuclei and XTC-2 samples when comparing H2A.Z methylation profiles to the corresponding H3 condition. Our study also demonstrates that H2A.Z is preferentially deposited to hypomethylated DNA in a manner dependent of SRCAP-C (the loss of SRCAP only reduces H2A.Z on unmethylated substrates) but an additional methylation-insensitive H2A.Z deposition mechanism also exists. We realized that this interesting point was not clearly highlighted in Abstract, so we will revise it accordingly.

(6) Although H2A.Z accumulates less efficiently on exogenous methylated substrates in egg extract, substantial deposition still occurs (~50%). This observation directly challenges the strong antagonistic model described in the manuscript, yet the authors do not acknowledge or discuss it. Moreover, differences between unmethylated and methylated 601 DNA raise further questions about the biological relevance of the cryo-EM 601 structures.

As depicted in Figure 6 and described in the Discussion, we clearly indicated that both methylation-sensitive and methylation-insensitive pathways exist to deposit H2A.Z within the genome. We also directly stated in our Discussion that a substantial proportion of H2A.Z colocalizes with DNA methylation both in our study as well as in previous reports, which is of major interest for future study. Additionally, we further discussed how the absence of transcription in Xenopus eggs is a likely reason for the more limited effect of DNA methylation restricting H2A.Z deposition in our egg extract system.

As noted in our response to (2), the lack of a clear impact on our 601L structures implies that this is due to the extraordinarily strong artificial nucleosome positioning capacity of the 601 sequence and its variants. Since 601 is heavily used in chromatin biology, including within DNA methylation research, such negative data are still useful to include and publish.

(7) The SRCAP depletion is insufficiently validated i.e., the antibody-mediated depletion of SRCAP lacks quantitative verification. A minimum of three biological replicates with quantification is required to substantiate the claims.

We are willing to address this concern. However, please note that our data showed that methylation-dependent H2A.Z deposition is almost completely erased upon SRCAP depletion, indicating functionally effective depletion. The specificity of the custom antibody against Xenopus SRCAP was verified by mass spectrometry. Additionally, we have obtained the same effect using another commercially available SRCAP antibody, though we did not include this preliminary result in our original manuscript. Due to its relatively low abundance and high molecular weight, SRCAP western blot signals are weak, making it challenging to quantify the degree of depletion. We also believe that the value of quantification in this context, with the points noted above, is rather limited. In the past, our lab has published papers on depleting the H3T3 kinase Haspin from Xenopus egg extracts (Ghenoiu et al., 2013; Kelly et al., 2010) but were never able to detect Haspin via western blot. This protein was only detected by mass spectrometry specifically on nucleosome array beads with H3K9me3 (Jenness et al., 2018). However, depletion of Haspin was readily monitored by erasure of H3T3ph, the enzymatic product of Haspin. In these experiments, it was impossible, and not critical, to quantitatively monitor the depletion of Haspin protein in order to investigate its molecular functions. Similarly, in this current study, the important fact is that depletion of SRCAP suppressed methylation-sensitive H2A.Z deposition and quantifying the degree of SRCAP depletion would not have a major impact on this conclusion.

(8) It appears that the role of p400-Tip60 has been completely overlooked. This complex is the second major H2A.Z deposition complex. Because p400 exhibits DNA methylation-insensitive binding (Supplementary Figure 14), it may account for the deposition of H2A.Z onto methylated DNA. This possibility is highly significant and must be addressed by repeating the key experiments in Figure 5 following p400-Tip60 depletion.

We are aware that the Tip60 complex is a very likely candidate for mediating DNA methylation-insensitive H2A.Z deposition, which is why we tested whether DNA binding of p400 is methylation sensitive. Therefore, the reviewer's statement that we "completely overlooked" Tip60-C’s role does not fairly report on our efforts. We wished to test the potential contribution of Tip60-C, but, unfortunately, the antibodies we currently have available to us were not successful in depleting the complex from egg extract. Since we had no direct experimental evidence indicating the role Tip60-C plays, we decided to take a conservative approach to our model and leave the methylation-insensitive pathway as mediated by something still unidentified. While further investigating Tip60-C’s contribution to this pathway is of definite value, we do not believe that it impacts our major conclusion that SRCAP-C is the main mediator responsible for H2A.Z deposition on unmethylated DNA and thus remains a subject for future study.

(9) The manuscript repeatedly states that H2A.Z nucleosomes are intrinsically unstable; however, this is an oversimplification. Although some DNA unwrapping is observed, multiple studies show that H3/H4 tetramer-H2A.Z/H2B interactions are more stable (important recent studies include the following: DOI: 10.1038/s41594-021-00589-3; 10.1038/s41467-021-22688-x; and reviewed in 10.1038/s41576-024-00759-1).

We understand that the H2A.Z stability field is highly controversial. We have introduced the many conflicting reports that have been published in the field but can further expand on the controversies if desired. We also understand that the term “nucleosome stability” is broad and encompasses many physical aspects. As noted in a prior response, we will better specify our use of the term within the manuscript. In our assays, we are most focused on the DNA wrapping stability of the nucleosome and have consistently seen in our hands that H2A.Z nucleosomes are much more open and accessible compared to canonical H2A on satellite II-derived sequences, regardless of methylation status. However, we do understand that many groups have observed the opposite findings while others have obtained results similar to us. We reported on our findings of the general H2A.Z stability with the hopes to help clarify some of the field’s controversies.

In summary, the current manuscript does not present a convincing mechanistic explanation for the antagonism between DNA methylation and H2A.Z. The observation that H2A.Z can substantially coexist with DNA methylation in sperm pronuclei, perhaps, should be the conceptual focus.

We appreciate this reviewer’s advice. However, please note that the first author who led this project has already successfully defended their PhD thesis primarily based on this project, making it impractical and unrealistic to completely change the focus of this manuscript to include an entirely new avenue of research. We believe that our data provide important insights into the mechanisms by which H2A.Z is excluded from methylated DNA, particularly via the DNA methylation-sensitive binding of SRCAP-C, which has never been described before. We agree that many questions are still left unanswered, including the exact molecular mechanism behind how DNA methylation prevents SRCAP-C binding. We have preliminary data that suggest none of the known DNA-binding modules of SRCAP-C, including ZNHIT1, by themselves can explain this sensitivity. This implies that domain dissection in the context of the holo-SRCAP complex is required to fully address this question. We believe this represents a very exciting future avenue of study; however, it does not negate our finding that SRCAP-C itself is important for maintaining the DNA methylation/H2A.Z antagonism. Therefore, we respectfully disagree with this reviewer's summary statement, which misleadingly undermines the impact of our work.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Histone variant H2A.Z is evolutionarily conserved among various species. The selective incorporation and removal of histone variants on the genome play crucial roles in regulating nuclear events, including transcription. Shih et al. aimed to address antagonistic mechanisms between histone variant H2A.Z deposition and DNA methylation. To this end, the authors reconstituted H2A.Z nucleosomes in vitro using methylated or unmethylated human satellite II DNA sequence and examined how DNA methylation affects H2A.Z nucleosome structure and dynamics. The cryo-EM analysis revealed that DNA methylation induces a more open conformation in H2A.Z nucleosomes. Consistent with this, their biochemical assays showed that DNA methylation subtly increases restriction enzyme accessibility in H2A.Z nucleosomes compared with canonical H2A nucleosomes. The authors identified genome-wide profiles of H2A.Z and DNA methylation using genomic assays and found their unique distribution between Xenopus sperm pronuclei and fibroblast cells. Using Xenopus egg extract systems, the authors showed SRCAP complex, the chromatin remodelers for H2A.Z deposition, preferentially deposit H2A.Z on unmethylated DNA.

Strengths:

The study is solid, and most conclusions are well-supported. The experiments are rigorously performed, and interpretations are clear. The study presents a high-resolution cryo-EM structure of human H2A.Z nucleosome with methylated DNA. The discovery that the SRCAP complex senses DNA methylation is novel and provides important mechanistic insight into the antagonism between H2A.Z and DNA methylation.

We are grateful that this reviewer recognizes the importance of our study.

Weaknesses:

The study is already strong, and most conclusions are well supported. However, it can be further strengthened in several ways.

(1) It is difficult to interpret how DNA methylation alters the orientation of the H4 tail and leads to the additional density on the acidic patch. The data do not convincingly support whether DNA methylation enhances interactions with H2A.Z mono-nucleosomes, nor whether this effect is specific to methylated H2A.Z nucleosomes.

The altered H4 tail orientation and extra density seen on the acidic patch were incidental findings that we thought could be interesting for the field to be aware of but decided not to follow up on as there were other structural differences that were more directly related to our central question. We do believe that the above two differences are linked to each other because we used a highly purified and homogenous sample for cryo-EM analysis and the H4 tail/acidic patch interaction is a well characterized contact that mediates inter-nucleosome interactions. Additionally, other groups have reported that the presence of DNA methylation causes condensation of both chromatin and bare DNA (cited within our manuscript), though the mechanics behind this phenomenon remain to be elucidated. We believed that our structure data may also align with those findings. However, the reviewer is fair in pointing out that we do not provide further experimental evidence in verifying the existence of these increased interactions. We can revise our writing to clarify that these points are currently hypotheses rather than validated results.

(2) It remains unclear whether DNA methylation alters global H2A.Z nucleosome stability or primarily affects local DNA end flexibility. Moreover, while the authors showed locus-specific accessibility by HinfI digestion, an unbiased assay such as MNase digestion would strengthen the conclusions.

We would like to thank the reviewer for bringing up these issues. Although our current data cannot explicitly clarify these possibilities, we favor an idea that DNA methylation specifically alters histone to DNA contacts and that this effect is felt globally across the entire nucleosome rather than only at specific locations. The intrinsic flexibility of linker DNA ends means that that region tends to exhibit the greatest differences under different physical influences, hence the focus on characterizing that area; flexibility of a thread on a spool is most pronounced at the ends. However, we also found that the DNA backbone of H2A.Z on methylated DNA had a lower local resolution compared to its unmethylated counterpart, despite that structure having a higher global resolution, which suggested to us that DNA positioning along the nucleosome is overall weaker under the presence of DNA methylation. This is corroborated by the increased population of open/shifted structures in our classification analysis. The reviewer raises a fair point about the use of a specific restriction enzyme versus MNase. We agree that our accessibility assay is highly influenced by the position of the restriction site and have previously seen that moving the cut site too close to the linker DNA end will abolish any DNA methylation-dependent differences. We did initially attempt an MNase digestion-based assay, but the data were not as reproducible as with the use of a specific restriction enzyme. We do not know the reason behind this irreproducibility though we believe that the processivity of MNase could make it difficult to capture subtle effects like those induced by DNA methylation on already highly accessible H2A.Z nucleosomes. Overall, while we believe that DNA methylation does exert a physical effect, its subtlety may explain the many contradictory studies present within the DNA methylation and nucleosome stability field.

References

Berta, D.G., H. Kuisma, N. Valimaki, M. Raisanen, M. Jantti, A. Pasanen, A. Karhu, J. Kaukomaa, A. Taira, T. Cajuso, S. Nieminen, R.M. Penttinen, S. Ahonen, R. Lehtonen, M. Mehine, P. Vahteristo, J. Jalkanen, B. Sahu, J. Ravantti, N. Makinen, K. Rajamaki, K. Palin, J. Taipale, O. Heikinheimo, R. Butzow, E. Kaasinen, and L.A. Aaltonen. 2021. Deficient H2A.Z deposition is associated with genesis of uterine leiomyoma. Nature. 596:398–403.

Capurso, D., H. Xiong, and M.R. Segal. 2012. A histone arginine methylation localizes to nucleosomes in satellite II and III DNA sequences in the human genome. BMC Genomics. 13:630.

Chodavarapu, R.K., S. Feng, Y.V. Bernatavichute, P.Y. Chen, H. Stroud, Y. Yu, J.A. Hetzel, F. Kuo, J. Kim, S.J. Cokus, D. Casero, M. Bernal, P. Huijser, A.T. Clark, U. Kramer, S.S. Merchant, X. Zhang, S.E. Jacobsen, and M. Pellegrini. 2010. Relationship between nucleosome positioning and DNA methylation. Nature. 466:388–392.

Choy, J.S., S. Wei, J.Y. Lee, S. Tan, S. Chu, and T.H. Lee. 2010. DNA methylation increases nucleosome compaction and rigidity. J Am Chem Soc. 132:1782–1783.

Chua, E.Y., D. Vasudevan, G.E. Davey, B. Wu, and C.A. Davey. 2012. The mechanics behind DNA sequence-dependent properties of the nucleosome. Nucleic Acids Res. 40:6338–6352.

Collings, C.K., P.J. Waddell, and J.N. Anderson. 2013. Effects of DNA methylation on nucleosome stability. Nucleic Acids Res. 41:2918–2931.

Davey, C., S. Pennings, and J. Allan. 1997. CpG methylation remodels chromatin structure in vitro. J Mol Biol. 267:276–288.

Davey, C.S., S. Pennings, C. Reilly, R.R. Meehan, and J. Allan. 2004. A determining influence for CpG dinucleotides on nucleosome positioning in vitro. Nucleic Acids Res. 32:4322–4331.

Funabiki, H., I.E. Wassing, Q. Jia, J.D. Luo, and T. Carroll. 2023. Coevolution of the CDCA7-HELLS ICF-related nucleosome remodeling complex and DNA methyltransferases. Elife. 12.

Ghenoiu, C., M.S. Wheelock, and H. Funabiki. 2013. Autoinhibition and polo-dependent multisite phosphorylation restrict activity of the histone h3 kinase haspin to mitosis. Mol Cell. 52:734–745.

Jenness, C., S. Giunta, M.M. Muller, H. Kimura, T.W. Muir, and H. Funabiki. 2018. HELLS and CDCA7 comprise a bipartite nucleosome remodeling complex defective in ICF syndrome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 115:E876–E885.

Jimenez-Useche, I., J. Ke, Y. Tian, D. Shim, S.C. Howell, X. Qiu, and C. Yuan. 2013. DNA methylation regulated nucleosome dynamics. Sci Rep. 3:2121.

Jimenez-Useche, I., D. Shim, J. Yu, and C. Yuan. 2014. Unmethylated and methylated CpG dinucleotides distinctively regulate the physical properties of DNA. Biopolymers. 101:517–524.

Kelly, A.E., C. Ghenoiu, J.Z. Xue, C. Zierhut, H. Kimura, and H. Funabiki. 2010. Survivin reads phosphorylated histone H3 threonine 3 to activate the mitotic kinase Aurora B. Science. 330:235–239.

Li, S., Y. Peng, D. Landsman, and A.R. Panchenko. 2022. DNA methylation cues in nucleosome geometry, stability and unwrapping. Nucleic Acids Res. 50:1864–1874.

Minary, P., and M. Levitt. 2014. Training-free atomistic prediction of nucleosome occupancy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 111:6293–6298.

Ngo, T.T., J. Yoo, Q. Dai, Q. Zhang, C. He, A. Aksimentiev, and T. Ha. 2016. Effects of cytosine modifications on DNA flexibility and nucleosome mechanical stability. Nat Commun. 7:10813.

Nishiyama, A., L. Yamaguchi, J. Sharif, Y. Johmura, T. Kawamura, K. Nakanishi, S. Shimamura, K. Arita, T. Kodama, F. Ishikawa, H. Koseki, and M. Nakanishi. 2013. Uhrf1-dependent H3K23 ubiquitylation couples maintenance DNA methylation and replication. Nature. 502:249–253.

Osakabe, A., F. Adachi, Y. Arimura, K. Maehara, Y. Ohkawa, and H. Kurumizaka. 2015. Influence of DNA methylation on positioning and DNA flexibility of nucleosomes with pericentric satellite DNA. Open Biol. 5.

Perez, A., C.L. Castellazzi, F. Battistini, K. Collinet, O. Flores, O. Deniz, M.L. Ruiz, D. Torrents, R. Eritja, M. Soler-Lopez, and M. Orozco. 2012. Impact of methylation on the physical properties of DNA. Biophys J. 102:2140–2148.

Segal, E., Y. Fondufe-Mittendorf, L. Chen, A. Thastrom, Y. Field, I.K. Moore, J.P. Wang, and J. Widom. 2006. A genomic code for nucleosome positioning. Nature. 442:772–778.

Wassing, I.E., A. Nishiyama, R. Shikimachi, Q. Jia, A. Kikuchi, M. Hiruta, K. Sugimura, X. Hong, Y. Chiba, J. Peng, C. Jenness, M. Nakanishi, L. Zhao, K. Arita, and H. Funabiki. 2024. CDCA7 is an evolutionarily conserved hemimethylated DNA sensor in eukaryotes. Sci Adv. 10:eadp5753.

Zilberman, D., D. Coleman-Derr, T. Ballinger, and S. Henikoff. 2008. Histone H2A.Z and DNA methylation are mutually antagonistic chromatin marks. Nature. 456:125–129.

DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1264-24.2025

Resource: (Rockland Cat# 600-901-215, RRID:AB_1537402)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_1537402

What is this?

DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.174230.1

Resource: None

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_10696317

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.12.019

Resource: (Thermo Fisher Scientific Cat# A-11008, RRID:AB_143165)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_143165

What is this?

DOI: 10.1002/1878-0261.70209

Resource: (Thermo Fisher Scientific Cat# H3569, RRID:AB_2651133)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2651133

What is this?

extract meaning and what they missed

In the chorus, which also opens the song, Jay-Z demonstrates his disillusion with equality. He argues that, no matter the level of status or celebrity a man or woman achieves in the United States, they will still be primarily judged by their race and marginalized.

In referring to the distinction between the "house nigga" and the "field nigga", he is quoting a speech delivered in 1965 by Malcolm X in Selma, Alabama, while Martin Luther King Jr. was being held in jail after his famous march on Selma:

Back during slavery (...) there were two kinds of Negroes. The house Negro always looked out for his master (...) But then you had some field Negroes (...)They hated their master.

In his disillusionmenr, his point of view is very different from that of Booker T. Washington, as he does not believe that elevating one's status actually shields them from racism.

In the second verse, the rapper expands on the concept of developing wealth and obtaining financial freedom, which he defines as his only hope.

He also makes reference to his streaming platform, Tidal, which offers a million dollars worth of game through its music catalog for $9.99 a month. Tidal is just one of the many business ventures of the rapper.

In the closing lines, he mocks rappers who take "advances" - a form of loan that record labels offer to artists to finance their albums - and also the trend followed by some rappers on Instagram of showing off money by holding it close to their ears. He reveals, with a clever play on words, that there's a disconnect, we don't call that money over here.

In this song, Jay-Z is constantly pointing out at the importance of property and wealth. He is, therefore, to be considered a Black capitalist. He shows how he strongly believes in economic success as the principal means reaching some form of equality or, at least, some form of upliftment.

However, he does not really believe that wealth and status can be a proper shield from racism; thus, wealth is only a way to obtain a very partial equality.

Insisting on the concepts of maintaining and acquiring wealth, Jay-Z refers here to the common stereotype about Jewish people in America and their wealth.

He uses this stereotype to be critical of the consumerism and materialism of a part of his own community, symbolized by the act of spending a lot of money in strip clubs. Instead of this, he is suggesting once again reaching empowerment through the acquisition of wealth, a solution that puts his ideas close to those of Booker T. Washington.

DUMBO stands for Down Under the Manhattan Bridge Overpass, a neighborhood in Brooklyn that acquired immense value due to gentrification. Playing with the words "DUMBO" and "dumb", he is explaining how he regrets not having invested in the said neighborhood despite being able to.

Jay-Z in this first verse is strongly underlining how much he considers acquiring property to be fundamental, as a mean of upliftment, for African-Americans.

In these lines, Jay-Z wishes he could actually have followed the same advice he is giving in the lines before, confessing that he should have invested in real estate the money he instead wasted on luxury cars.

A V12 Engine is a twelve-cylinder engine found in the most expensive cars.

Imagining himself talking to a young drug dealer hustling at the corners of his neighborhood, Jay-Z is basically suggesting him to be wise with his money and reinvest it in buying property in his surroundings, not only to ensure himself generational wealth, but also to give himself the chance to abandon the street life and the dangers associated with it.

Jay-Z starts his first verse by remembering once again the difference between the "house nigga" and the "field nigga".

During slavery, slaves working inside the master's house often developed a better relationship with him and, consequently, gained certain privileges they would often protect by perpetuating and favoring the mechanisms of slavery. Slaves working in the fields, on the contrary, had no kind of pleasant relationship with their masters and hated them, planning, when possible, to escape.

Jay-Z distances himself from the concept of the "house nigga", saying he cannot be found in gold-plated quarters, where the butlers be but on the corners where the hustlers be, referring to drug dealing on street corners.

In "Four Women", Nina Simone explores the lives of four different archetypes of African-American women to narrate their suffering and their struggle for identity.

reply to u/aleahey at https://reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/1qjzgtq/remington_postal_telegraph_mill/

On the paper guide, it definitely looks like a bend it back into shape issue.

While your model is obviously decaled as "Postal Telegraph", it's not a traditional mill machine as those are generally marked by having no lower case characters and having uppercase only. Sometimes it was uppercase with some "filler character" (often a + on Remingtons, a ~ on Underwoods, and a double dot on Olivettis) or uppercase on both the top and bottom of the slug. Generally the zero character had a slash through it to distinguish it specifically from the letter "O".

There are only two other exemplars on the typewriter database, so please be sure to upload your photos and data when you get a chance. https://typewriterdatabase.com/Remington.10+Postal+Telegraph.42.bmys You'll notice that one of the examplars by u/jbhusker doesn't appear to be a traditional mill while the other is. Perhaps James has some unwritten research on his Remington Postal Telegraph?

If you sift through the typewriter database you'll find other examples and research (especially if you're looking at commentary under individual examples while you're logged in). As an example of mills from Underwood in their Western Union Special: https://typewriterdatabase.com/Underwood.Western+Union+Special.4.bmys

Alexandre Sabino - Engenheiro de Sistemas | Fortinet Cristiano Borges - Engenheiro de Sistemas | Fortinet Mateus Pereira - Engenheiro de cibersegurança | Fortinet Rafael Righi - Engenheiro de Sistemas | Fortinet

Gostei bastante da Hero, mas senti falta de uma imagem do livro, já que é o "tema principal" do evento.

swietne, dokładnie o to chodzi w naszym USP, brawo, Katarzyno!

idealnie byłoby te dedykowana strone pod skills miec juz :) + pewnie jak bedzie mozna podlinkowac inne tematu englisharium czy blog postów pod nia - szczegolnie te o negocjacjach i prezentracjah

What do these five definitions have in common? - speech/expression => an action - persuasion

What is different? - some see it as part of somethings else; some see it as something in and of itself [this is a point the author makes in this section]

(the bacon phrase is confusing)

DOI: 10.1016/j.phymed.2026.157853

Resource: (IMSR Cat# JAX_025433,RRID:IMSR_JAX:025433)

Curator: @areedewitt04

SciCrunch record: RRID:IMSR_JAX:025433

What is this?