Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The present study combines quantitative histomorphometry, live cell imaging and tracking, functional analyses, and computational modeling to define potentially pathologic interactions between lung CD8 T cells and fibrocytes in human COPD. The authors use multiple technical approaches to establish the close proximity of CD8 T cells with fibrocytes in peri-bronchial tissue in COPD subjects that notably correlate with functional disease parameters (FEV1/FEV). Their follow-on studies identify specific chemokine pathways and inflammatory consequences of these interactions. Collectively, these seminal data acquired in a unified experimental context, provide support for pathogenic interactions between lung CD8 T cells and fibrocytes and now offer the consideration of mediators and pathways that may be amenable to therapeutic targeting. The strength of the study is the integration of the multi-modality approach, the quality of the quantitative data, and the creation of a tenable model for the interaction role in COPD of CD8 T cells and fibrocytes. While both have been previously implicated in COPD, this new study is more definitive by using this integrated approach.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors use a series of elegant methods to describe the nature of the interrelationship among CD8+ T cells and fibrocytes in the airways of COPD patients. They find an increased presence of these interactions in COPD and show that CXCL8-CXCR2 interactions are crucial for this interaction, leading to increased CD8+ T cell proliferation.

Major strengths of the work include the detailed functional experiments used to describe the nature of the CD8+ T cell - fibrocyte interaction. Another key strength is the translational approach of the work, building on clinical data and connecting back to these same clinical data. The conclusions of the authors are supported by the data. The impact of the work is significant and key to our understanding of the interrelationship between inflammation and tissue remodeling in COPD. Understanding this relationship holds strong potential for the identification of new drug targets and for the identification of patients at risk.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Eyraud and colleagues examine how fibrocytes and CD8 cells can interact with each other to promote COPD. The key findings include that CD8 cells and fibrocytes are found to exist in close proximity to each other in COPD lungs using histopathological analysis of patient samples. The authors leverage pre-existing transcriptomic data on CD8 cells to focus on chemokine release by CD8 cells as a potential pathogenic mechanism by which they could affect fibrocyte migration. In vitro studies using peripheral blood-derived CD8 cells and fibrocytes confirm increased fibrocyte migration in the presence of CD8 cells. as drivers of COPD progression. Conversely, in vitro studies show that fibrocytes exert a pro-proliferative effect on CD8 cells. The authors also use a computational model to assess how these interactions could promote the development of fibrocyte-CD8 clusters as COPD progresses over the course of 20 years.

The strengths of the study include:

1. The multi-faceted research approach that integrates histopathology from clinical COPD lung sections, in vitro co-culture studies, and computational modeling.

2. Applying computational modeling to determine how cell-cell interactions of migration and proliferation can result in distribution patterns within the lung that approximate what is found in actual clinical samples

3. Propose a feedback loop of CD8 cells and fibrocytes that could become a potential therapeutic target to interrupt a vicious cycle that promotes COPD

However, there are also some weaknesses:

1. Specificity of the role of CD8 cells: While much of the focus is on the proximity of and interactions between CD8 cells and fibrocytes, it is not clear whether other cells similarly interact with fibrocytes. For example, CD4 cells, dendritic cells, or interstitial macrophages may similarly interact with fibrocytes as several of these also release chemokines. In the absence of a more comprehensive assessment, it becomes difficult to parse out how specific and relevant the fibrocyte-CD8 cell interactions are for COPD progression when compared to other putative interactions.

2. The transcriptomic analysis which in many ways sets the stage for the chemokine studies uses a pre-existing dataset of COPD and non-COPD samples with only n=2. The robustness of such a sample size is limited and the narrow focus on chemokines or adhesion receptors of CD8 cells in this limited sample size does not provide a more comprehensive analysis that would require larger samples sizes, studying the transcriptomes of other cell types and a broader analysis of which pathways are the most likely to be dysregulated in the cells that surround fibrocytes.

3. Specificity of the findings for COPD: The in vitro studies use circulating cells which are different from lung cells and this is appropriately acknowledged by the authors. However, it appears from the description that the cells are all from COPD patients. It is therefore not clear whether these interactions between fibrocytes and CD8 cells are unique to COPD, whether they also occur between control CD8 and fibrocytes, or only in cells obtained from patients with inflammatory/pulmonary diseases. This limitation is appropriately acknowledged in the manuscript.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The cerebral cortex, or surface of the brain, is where humans do most of their conscious thinking. In humans, the grooves (sulci) and bumps (convolutions) have a particular pattern in a region of the frontal lobe called Broca's area, which is important for language. Specialists study features imprinted on the internal surfaces of braincases in early hominins by casting their interiors, which produces so-called endocasts. A major question about hominin brain evolution concerns when, where, and in which fossils a humanlike Broca's area first emerged, the answer to which may have implications for the emergence of language. The researchers used advanced imaging technology to study the endocast of a hominin (KNM-ER 3732) that lived about 1.9 million years ago (Ma) in Kenya to test a recently published hypothesis that Broca's remained primitive (apelike) prior to around 1.5 Ma. The results are consistent with the hypothesis and raise new questions about whether endocasts can be used to identify the genus and/or species of fossils.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors tried to support the hypothesis that early Homo still had a primitive condition of Broca's cap (the region in fossil endocasts corresponding to Broca's area in the brain), being more similar to the condition in chimpanzees than in humans. The evidence from the described individual points to this direction but there are some flaws in the argumentation.

First, only one human and one chimpanzee were used for comparison, although we know that patterns of brain convolutions (and in addition how they leave imprints in the endocranial bones) are very variable.

Second, the evidence from this fossil specimen adds to the evidence of previously describe individuals but still not yet fully prove the hypothesis.

Third, there is a vicious circle in using primitive and derived features to define a fossil species and then using (the same or different) features to argue that one feature is primitive or derived in a given species. In this case, we expect members of early Homo to be derived compared to their predecessors of the genus Australopithecus and that's why it seems intriguing and/or surprising to argue that early Homo has primitive features. However, we should expect that there is some kind of continuum or mosaic in a time in which a genus "evolves into" another genus. This discussion requires far more discussions about the concepts we use, maybe less discussion about what is different between the two groups but more discussion about the evolutionary processes behind them.

Fourth, the data of convolutional imprints presented are rather subjective when identifying which impressions represent which brain convolutions. Not seeing an impression does not necessarily mean that the corresponding brain feature did not exist. Interestingly, the manuscript does not mention and discuss at all the frontoorbital sulcus. This is a sulcus that usually runs from the orbital surface of the frontal lobe up to divide the inferior frontal gyrus in chimpanzees, a condition totally different than in humans who do not have a frontoorbital sulcus. Could such a sulcus be identified, this would provide a far more convincing argument for a primitive condition in this specimen. In Australopithecus sediba, e.g., the condition in this region seems to be a mosaic in which some aspects of the morphology seem to be more modern while one of the sulcual impressions can well be interpreted as a short frontoorbital sulcus. For this specimen, by the way, I would come back to my third point above: some experts in the field might argue that this specimen could belong to Homo rather than Australopithecus...

According to my arguments above, I think that this manuscript might revive interesting discussions about this topic but it is not likely to settle them because the data presented are not strong enough to fully support the hypothesis.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The authors provide a detailed analysis of the sulcal and sutural imprints preserved on the natural endocast and associated cranial vault fragments of the KNM-ER3732 early Homo specimen. The analyses indicate a primitive ape-like organization of this specimen's frontal cortex. Given the geological age of around 1.9 million years, this is the earliest well-documented evidence of a primitive brain organization in African Homo.

In the discussion, the authors re-assess one of the central questions regarding the evolution of early Homo: was there species diversity, and if yes, how can we ascertain it? The specimen KNM-ER1470 has assumed a central role in this debate because it purportedly shows a more advanced organization of the frontal cortex compared to other largely coeval specimens (Falk, 1983). However, as outlined in Ponce de León et al. 2021 (Supplementary Materials), the imprints on the ER1470 endocranium are unlikely to represent sulcal structures and are more likely to reflect taphonomic fracturing and distortion. Dean Falk, the author of the 1983 study, basically shares this view (personal communication). Overall, I agree with the authors that the hypothesis to be tested is the following: did early Homo populations with primitive versus derived frontal lobe organizations coexist in Africa, and did they represent distinct species?

I greatly appreciate that the authors make available the 3D surface data of this interesting endocast.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Recent works have documented the observation that transcription factors (TFs) and other transcriptional machinery proteins, e.g., Pol2 and mediator, can form high-concentration clusters at target genes within the nucleus and such behavior plays an important role in transcriptional activation. It is also well-established that the intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs) within many of the transcriptional regulators can undergo multivalent protein-protein interactions, which can lead to phase separation under certain conditions. It is thus thought that the IDRs are essential drivers of the clustering behaviors of transcriptional regulators. However, direct proof of this hypothesis remains missing. To fill this gap, Hannon and Eisen conducted a survey of the subnuclear localization of 75 IDRs derived from Drosophila TFs. They found that many full-length TFs but not IDRs alone form subnuclear clusters. They also did not detect a change in the clustering of TFs after deleting IDRs. Based on these data, they concluded that IDRs are unlikely to be the primary molecular drivers of the clustering phenomenon observed during transcription.

This study tackles an interesting question related to transcriptional regulation and IDR behaviors. The subnuclear distribution of many Drosophila TFs and TF IDRs measured in this work provides a valuable resource for future studies of these TFs and IDRs. The authors' finding that the distribution of an IDR alone is distinct from a full-length TF containing the IDR is new and informative though not surprising. Protein-chromatin binding is known to be stoichiometric with a clear structural basis, which is likely stronger than IDR-IDR interactions that are known to be weaker and more transient. Thus, adding a chromatin-binding capability to an IDR of interest indeed likely significantly affects the distribution of the IDR. Despite being a natural hypothesis based on existing knowledge, it was not previously verified until this current work that systematically compared TF and TF IDR distributions. However, the authors' other conclusion that deleting the IDR from a TF does not affect the TF's clustering behavior is not fully supported. This is because the change of TF's clustering behavior due to IDR deletion, if any, is likely quantitative (decreasing) instead of qualitative (completely disappearing), due to the fact that protein-chromatin binding is stronger than IDR-IDR interactions. This work lacks quantitative characterization of TF clusters before and after IDR deletion. The spinning disk confocal microscopy used here likely does not provide the necessary spatial resolution to quantitatively characterize TF clusters, which often have dimensions near or below the diffraction limit of light.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This work by Hannon and Eisen focuses on the sequence and structural features of transcription factors (TFs) that dictate their sub-nuclear localization. The authors test the hypothesis that intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs) in TFs are drivers of subnuclear localization and clustering by first identifying IDRs in the drosophila proteome using a novel approach and then expressing a subset of IDRs from TFs important during the development of an early embryo. The authors then perform an extensive and high-throughput imaging screen in S2 cells and drosophila embryos and find that subnuclear clustering does not occur when IDRs are expressed alone but happens frequently in full-length TFs, even sometimes without the IDRs. A significant strength of the study is the extensive amount of imaging data that support well the conclusions in the paper. A potential weakness is that the conclusions are based on qualitative analysis only; the work would be strengthened considerably if the authors could provide quantification that allows the reader to distinguish clearly between a homogenous distribution and clustering of TFs. The work tackles an important functional question regarding IDRs in TFs and is of high relevance to the field. There is an impressive amount of data that generally support the conclusion of the paper, which is that IDRs are insufficient to drive TF clustering in the nucleus. The manuscript is very well written, pleasing to read, and easy to follow. This work advances the field considerably, providing valuable mechanistic insights into transcription.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The expression and localization of Foxc2 strongly suggest that its role is mainly confined to As undifferentiated spermatogonia (uSPGs). Lineage tracing demonstrated that all germ cells were derived from the FOXC2+ uSPGs. Specific ablation of the FOXC2+ uSPGs led to the depletion of all uSPG populations. Full spermatogenesis can be achieved through the transplantation of Foxc2+ uSPGs. Male germ cell-specific ablation of Foxc2 caused Sertoli-only testes in mice. CUT&Tag sequencing revealed that FOXC2 regulates the factors that inhibit the mitotic cell cycle, consistent with its potential role in maintaining a quiescent state in As spermatogonia. These data made the authors conclude that the FOXC2+ uSPG may be the true SSCs, essential for maintaining spermatogenesis. The conclusion is supported by the data presented.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors found FOXC2 is mainly expressed in As of mouse undifferentiated spermatogonia (uSPG). About 60% of As uSPG were FOXC2+ MKI67-, indicating that FOXC2 uSPG were quiescent. Similar spermatogonia (ZBTB16+ FOXC2+ MKI67-) were also found in human testis.

The lineage tracing experiment using Foxc2CRE/+;R26T/Gf/f mice demonstrated that all germ cells were derived from the FOXC2+ uSPG. Furthermore, specific ablation of the FOXC2+ uSPGs using Foxc2Cre/+;R26DTA/+ mice resulted in the depletion of all uSPG population. In the regenerative condition created by busulfan injection, all FOXC2+ uSPG survived and began to proliferate at around 30 days after busulfan injection. The survived FOXC2+ uSPGs generated all germ cells eventually. To examine the role of FOXC2 in the adult testis, spermatogenesis of Foxc2f/-;Ddx4-cre mice was analyzed. From a 2-month-old, the degenerative seminiferous tubules were increased and became Sertoli cell-only seminiferous tubules, indicating FOXC2 is required to maintain normal spermatogenesis in adult testes. To get insight into the role of FOXC2 in the uSPG, CUT&Tag sequencing was performed in sorted FOXC2+ uSPG from Foxc2CRE/+;R26T/Gf/f mice 3 days after TAM diet feeding. The results showed some unique biological processes, including negative regulation of the mitotic cell cycle, were enriched, suggesting the FOXC2 maintains a quiescent state in spermatogonia.

Lineage tracing experiments using transgenic mice of the TAM-inducing system was well-designed and demonstrated interesting results. Based on all data presented, the authors concluded that the FOXC2+ uSPG are primitive SSCs, an indispensable subpopulation to maintain adult spermatogenesis. The conclusion of the mouse study is supported by the data presented.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

By popular single-cell RNA-seq, the authors identified FOXC2 as an undifferentiated spermatogonia-specific expressed gene. The FOXC2+-SSCs can sufficiently initiate and sustain spermatogenesis, the ablation of this subgroup results in the depletion of the uSPG pool. The authors provide further evidence to show that this gene is essential for SSCs maintenance by negatively regulating the cell cycle in adult mice, thus well-established FOXC2 as a key regulator of SSCs quiescent state.

The experiments are well-designed and conducted, the overall conclusions are convincing. This work will be of interest to stem cell and reproductive biologists.

Joint Public Review:

The study has main limitations which need to be addressed and there is lack of functional explanation of carriage. These limitations are: a) the lack of inclusion of non-Black patients; and b) the lack of appropriate explanation if results are false-positive since APOL1 provides risk for chronic renal disease (CRD) and patients with CRD are predisposed to sepsis. Sepsis occurred in 565 Black subjects, of whom 105 (29% ) had APOL1 high-risk genotype and 460 had-low risk genotype. Importantly, the risk for sepsis associated with APOL1 HR variants was no longer significant after adjusting for subjects pre-existing severe renal disease or after excluding these subjects. Thus, the susceptibility pathway seems to be: APOL1 variants > CKD > sepsis diathesis.

Suggestions to the authors:<br /> • The authors need to provide analysis of patients of non-Black origin.<br /> • The Table of demographics needs to include the type of infections and the underlying pathogen.<br /> • The authors need to provide convincing analysis if results are false-positive since APOL1 provides risk for chronic renal disease (CRD) and patients with CRD are predisposed to sepsis. For this purpose, they have to provide evidence if the sepsis causes (both type of infection and implicated pathogens) in patients with CRD who are carriers of APOL1 variants are different than in patients with CRD who are not carriers of APOL1 variants.<br /> • Why concentrations of APOL1 were not measured in the plasma of patients?<br /> • Why analysis towards risk for death is not done?<br /> • The authors need to explain why functional information is not provided.<br /> • n 162-172: too many assumptions have been used for the trial; thus, progression to sepsis is difficult to define. According to Sepsis-3 sepsis is no more a continuum from infection to sepsis and septic shock. Some patients presented with sepsis (-1, 0, 1 days considered by the authors) and when electronic health records are used, we are not able to detect the exact timepoint of SOFA score turning to a 2-point increase. This is a major limitation of the methodology presented.<br /> Same applies for all comorbidities and data extracted from electronic health records.<br /> • P value significance thresholds were set at 0.05, except for the PWAS where the threshold was set at 0.05/5 (p13). It would be helpful to list at this point what the 5 outcomes were that led to this adjusted threshold.<br /> "Risk of sepsis was significantly increased among patients with high-risk genotypes (OR 1.29, 1.0 to 1.67, P1.29, CI 1.00-1.67, P<0.47)." Some would argue that a confidence interval that includes 1.0 indicates non-significance.<br /> • The Discussion is too long and should be shortened.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this manuscript Budinska and colleagues aim to align morphologically distinct areas of colorectal cancers with the gene expression profiles and published signatures. They observe that distinct morphotypes such as serrated or mucinous align with certain subtypes but that these contradict the bulk subtype assignment. Although these data are of interest they may not be as novel as suggested by the authors and lack clarity in terms of patient selection and subtype definition.

1. Patient selection and tumor area selection are crucial for this study but not very carefully defined. Why are some core and others not? Figure referral is an issue here (sup figure 6 where all core and non-core samples are supposed to be according to the legend of Fig 4 is likely sup fig 7 but this is then a complete copy paste of Figure 4). In the methods it is stated that the core samples are based on limited contamination of additional morphotypes (<20%) but Fig 4 suggests that all tumours listed have multiple morphotypes.

2. CMS subtype should be performed with single sample predictor rather than CMScaller.

3. A couple of surprising observations need specification. MUC2 is a strong CMS3 reporter gene yet Mucinous tumours appear to end up in CMS4 rather than 3. Can the authors show that indeed stroma cells are very evident in these samples?

4. The SE PP and CT are assigned to CMS2, but in Figure 4 this appears a lot more variable than the authors would make the reader believe. The full data are not completely clear (see point 1)

5. The tumor response rates are rather weird as this is likely dependent on the complete tumour and not so much the subareas. It is not very well described what we see in this analysis.

6. Serrated adenomas have previously been aligned with CMS4. Is this different from serrated areas in cancers?

7. The fact that iCMS2 and iCMS3 align rather well with the current analysis of the distinct regions suggests that the analysis that was reported last year is the proper way to view tumor intrinsic signatures. The authors now propose a rather similar outcome to this issue which does take away a lot of the novelty of the findings of this study.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this paper, Budinská et al. consider whether morphological heterogeneity in colorectal cancer (CRC) might impact gene-expression based classifiers typically applied to bulk CRC tissues. To investigate this, the authors generated and analysed whole transcriptome microarrray profiling data from macro-dissected morphotype-specific tumour regions, bulk tumor and surrounding normal and stromal tissues.

The authors make a number of claims based on their analyses. Namely that<br /> (1) morphotype-specific gene expression profiles and active molecular pathways can be identified and that (2) most gene expression-based classifiers make different predictions when applied to different morphotypes within the same tumour and when applied to morphotype-specific tumor regions versus bulk tumor tissue.

Overall, the manuscript provides an interesting histological/morphological framework through which we can consider heterogeneity in colorectal carcinoma and an approach by which we might improve the performance of gene expression-based classifiers in predicting clinical behaviour and/or responses to therapy. Exploration of CRC morphotypes and their differences was quite interesting. However, more work is needed to support the claims made by the authors. While I appreciate that the authors themselves identify limitations of their study within the manuscript, I believe awareness of these limitations is not reflected in some of the claims made in the abstract and at points in the main text when discussing the use of expression-based classifiers.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This is an interesting, timely and informative article. The authors used publicly available data (made available by a funding agency) to examine some of the academic characteristics of the individuals recipients of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) k99/R00 award program during the entire history of this funding mechanism (17 years, total ~ 4 billion US dollars (annual investment of ~230 million USD)). The analysis focuses on the pedigree and the NIH funding portfolio of the institutions hosting the k99 awardees as postdoctoral researchers and the institutions hiring these individuals. The authors also analyze the data by gender, by whether the R00 portion of the awards eventually gets activated and based on whether the awardees stayed/were hired as faculty at their k99 (postdoctoral) host institution or moved elsewhere. The authors further sought to examine the rates of funding for those in systematically marginalized groups by analyzing the patterns of receiving k99 awards and hiring k99 awardees at historically black colleges and universities.

The goals and analysis are reasonable and the limitations of the data are described adequately. It is worth noting that some of the observed funding and hiring traits are in line with the Matthew effect in science (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.159.3810.56) and in science funding (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1719557115). Overall, the article is a valuable addition to the research culture literature examining the academic funding and hiring traits in the United States. The findings can provide further insights for the leadership at funding and hiring institutions and science policy makers for individual and large-scale improvements that can benefit the scientific community.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Early career funding success has an immense impact on later funding success and faculty persistence, as evidenced by well-documented "rich-get-richer" or "Matthew effect" phenomena in science (e.g., Bol et al. 2018, PNAS). Woitowich et al. examined publicly available data on the distribution of the National Institutes of Health's K99/R00 awards - an early career postdoc-to-faculty transition funding mechanism - and showed that although 85% of K99 awardees successfully transitioned into faculty, disparities in subsequent R01 grant obtainment emerged along three characteristics: researcher mobility, gender, and institution. Men who moved to a top-25 NIH funded institution in their postdoc-to-faculty transition experienced the shortest median time to receiving a R01 award, 4.6 years, in contrast to the median 7.4 years for women working at less well-funded schools who remained at their postdoc institutions. This result is consistent with prior evidence of funding disparities by gender and institution type. The finding that researcher mobility has the largest effect on subsequent funding success is key and novel, and enhances previous work showing the relationship between mobility and ones' access to resources, collaborators, or research objects (e.g., Sugimoto and Larivière, 2023, Equity for Women in Science (Harvard University Press)).

These results empirically demonstrate that even after receiving a prestigious early career grant, researchers with less mobility belonging to disadvantaged groups at less-resourced institutions continue to experience barriers that delay them from receiving their next major grant. This result has important policy implications aimed at reducing funding disparities - mainly that interventions that focus solely on early career or early stage investigator funding alone will not achieve the desired outcome of improving faculty diversity.

The authors also highlight two incredible facts: No postdoc at a historically Black college or university (HBCU) has been awarded a K99 since the program's launch. And out of all 2,847 R00 awards given thus far, only two have been made to faculty at HBCUs. Given the track record of HBCUs for improving diversity in STEM contexts, this distribution of awards is a massive oversight that demands attention.

At no fault of the authors, the analysis is limited to only examining K99 awardees and not those who applied but did not receive the award. This limitation is solely due to the lack of data made publicly available by the NIH. If this data were available, this study would have been able to compare the trajectory of winners versus losers and therefore could potentially quantify the impact of the award itself on later funding success, much like the landmark Bol et al. (2018) paper that followed the careers of winners of an early career grant scheme in the Netherlands. Such an analysis would also provide new insights that would inform policy.

Although data on applications versus awards for the K99/R00 mechanism are limited, there exists data for applicant race and ethnicity for the 2007-2017 period, which were made available by a Freedom of Information Act request through the now defunct Rescuing Biomedical Research Initiative: https://web.archive.org/web/20180723171128/http://rescuingbiomedicalresearch.org/blog/examining-distribution-k99r00-awards-race/ These results are not presently discussed in the paper, but are highly relevant given the discussion of K99 award impacts on the sociodemographic composition of U.S. biomedical faculty. From 2007 to 2017, the K99 award rate for white applicants was 31.0% compared to 26.7% for Asian applicants and 16.2% for Black applicants. In terms of award totals, these funding rates amount to 1,384 awards to white applicants, 610 to Asian applicants, and 25 to Black applicants for the entire 2007-2017 period. And in terms of R00 awards, or successful faculty transitions: whereas 77.0% of white K99 awardees received an R00 award, the conversion rate for Asian and Black K99 awardees was lower, at 76.1% and 60.0%, respectively. Regarding this K99-to-R00 transition rate, Woitowich et al. found no difference by gender (Table 2). These results are consistent with a growing body of literature that shows that while there have been improvements to equity in funding outcomes by gender, similar improvements for achieving racial equity are lagging.

The conclusions are well-supported by the data, and limitations of the data and the name-gender matching algorithm are described satisfactorily.

One aspect that the authors should expand or comment on is the change in the rate of K99 to R00 conversions. Since 2016, while the absolute number of K99 and R00 awards has been increasing, the percentage of R00 conversions appears to be decreasing, especially in 2020 and 2021. This observation is not clearly stated or shown in Figure 1 but is an important point - if the effectiveness of the K99/R00 mechanism for postdoc-to-faculty transitions has been decreasing lately, then something is undermining the purpose of this mechanism. This result bears emphasis and potentially discussion for possible reasons for why this is happening.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The researchers aim add to the literature on faculty career pathways with particular attention to how gender disparities persist in the career and funding opportunities of researchers. The researchers also examine aspects of institutional prestige that can further amplify funding and career disparities. While some factors about individuals' pathways to faculty lines are known, including the prospects of certain K award recipients, the current study provides the only known examination of the K99/R00 awardees and their pathways.

Strengths:

The authors establish a clear overview of the institutional locations of K99 and R00 awardees and the pathways for K99-to-R00 researchers and the gendered and institutional patterns of such pathways. For example, there's a clear institutional hierarchy of hiring for K99/R00 researchers that echo previous research on the rigid faculty hiring networks across fields, and a pivotal difference in the time between awards that can impact faculty careers. Moreover, there's regional clusters of hiring in certain parts of the US where multiple research universities are located. Moreover, documenting the pathways of HBCU faculty is an important extension of the Wapman et al. study (among others from that research group), and provides a more nuanced look at the pathways of faculty beyond the oft-discussed high status institutions. (However, there is a need for more refinement in this segment of the analyses as discussed further below.). Also, the authors provide important caveats throughout the manuscript about the study's findings that show careful attention to the complexity of these patterns and attempting to limit misinterpretations of readers.

Weaknesses:

The authors reference institutional prestige in relation to some of the findings, but there's no specific measure of institutional prestige included in the analyses. If being identified as a top 25 NIH-funded institution is the proximate measure for prestige in the study, then more justification of how that relates to previous studies' measures of institutional prestige and status are needed to further clarify the interpretations offered in the manuscript.

The identification of institutional funding disparities impacting HBCUs is an important finding and highlights another aspect of how faculty at these institutions are under resourced and arguably undervalued in their research contributions. However, a lingering question exists: why compare HBCUs with Harvard? What are the theoretical and/or methodological justifications for such comparisons? This comparison lends itself to reifying the status hierarchy of institutions that perpetuate funding and career inequalities at the heart of the current manuscript. If aggregating all HBCU faculty together, then a comparable grouping for comparison is needed, not just one institution. Perhaps looking at the top 25 NIH funded institutions could be one way of providing a clearer comparison. Related to this point is the confusing inclusion of Gallaudet in Figure 6 as it is not an officially identified HBCU. Was this institution also included in the HBCU-related calculations?

There is a clear connection that is missed in the current iteration of the manuscript derived from the work of Robert Merton and others about cumulative advantages in science and the "Matthew effect." While aspects of this connection are noted in the manuscript such as well-resourced institutions (those with the most NIH funding in this circumstance) hire each others' K99/R00 awardees, elaborating on these connections are important for readers to understand the central processes of how a rigid hierarchy of funding and career opportunities exist around these pathways. The work the authors build on from Daniel Larremore, Aaron Clauset, and their colleagues have also incorporated these important theoretical connections from the sociology of knowledge and science, and it would provide a more interdisciplinary lens and further depth to understanding the faculty career inequalities documented in the current study.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This paper proposes and evaluates a new approach for the registration of human hippocampal anatomy between individuals. Such registration is an essential step in group analysis of hippocampal structure and function, and in most studies to date, volumetric registration of MRI scans has been employed. However, it is known that volumetric deformable registration, due to its formulation as an optimization problem that minimizes the combination of an image similarity term and relatively simple geometric regularization terms, fails to preserve the topology of complex structures. In the cerebral cortex, surface-based registration of inflated cortical surfaces is broadly preferred over volumetric registration, which often causes voxels of different tissue types to be matched (e.g., voxels belonging to a sulcus in one individual mapping onto voxels belonging to a gurys in another). The authors recognize that hippocampal anatomy is similarly complex, and, with proper tools, can benefit from surface-based registration. They propose to first unfold the hippocampus to a two-dimensional rectangle domain using their prior HippUnfold technique, and then to perform deformable registration in this rectangle domain, matching geometric features (curvature, thickness, gyrification) between individuals. This registration approach is evaluated by comparing how well hippocampal subfields traced by experts using cytoarchitectural information align between individuals after registration. The authors indeed show that surface-based registration aligns subfields better than volumetric registration applied to binary segmentations of the hippocampal gray matter.

Overall, I find the methods and results in this paper to be convincing. The authors framed the comparison between surface-based and volumetric registration in a fair way, and the results convincingly show the advantage of surface-based registration. One slight limitation of the current study is that it is uncertain whether the benefits demonstrated here translate to in vivo MRI data for which the authors' HippUnfold algorithm is tailored. The current study utilized the unfolding technique used in HippUnfold on manual segmentations of high-resolution ex vivo MRI and blockface 3D volumes, which are likely closer to anatomical ground truth than automated segmentations of in vivo MRI. However, it is reasonable to assume that given that the volumetric registration to which the proposed approach was compared also used this high-detail data, the advantages of surface-based over volumetric registration would extend to in vivo MRI as well. However, I would encourage the authors to perform future evaluations on datasets with available in vivo and ex vivo MRI from the same individuals.

I would also like to point out the relevance of the 2021 paper "Unfolding the Medial Temporal Lobe Cortex to Characterize Neurodegeneration Due to Alzheimer's Disease Pathology Using Ex vivo Imaging" by Ravikumar et al. (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-87586-2_1) to the current work. This paper applied an earlier version of the unfolding method in HippUnfold to ex vivo extrahippocampal cortex and performed registration using curvature features in the rectangular unfolded space, also finding slight improvement with surface-based vs. volumetric registration, so its findings support the current paper.

Overall, the paper has the potential to significantly influence future research on hippocampal involvement in cognition and disease. Outside of simple volumetry studies, most hippocampal morphometry studies rely on volumetric deformable registration of some kind, typically applied to whole-brain T1-weighted MRI scans. With HippUnfold available for anyone to use and not requiring manual registration, the paper provides a strong impetus for using this approach in future studies, particularly where one is interested in localizing effects of interest to specific areas of the hippocampus. Additional evaluation of in vivo HippUnfold using in vivo / ex vivo datasets, would make the use of this approach even more appealing.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

DeKraker et al. propose a new method for hippocampal registration using a surface-based approach that preserves the topology of the curvature of the hippocampus and boundaries of hippocampal subfields. The surface-based registration method proved to be more precise and resulted in better alignment compared to traditional volumetric-based registration. Moreover, the authors demonstrated that this method can be performed across image modalities by testing the method with seven different histological samples. While the conclusions of this paper are mostly well supported by data, some aspects of the method need to be clarified. This work has the potential to be a powerful new registration technique that can enable precise hippocampal registration and alignment across subjects, datasets, and image modalities.

Regarding the methodological clarification of the surfaced-based registration method, the last step of the process needs further clarification. Specifically, after creating the averaged 2D template, it is unclear how each individual sample is registered to sample1's space. If I understand correctly, after creating the averaged 2D template, each individual sample is then registered to sample1's space via the transform from each sample to the averaged template and then the inverse transform from the template to sample1's space. Samples included both left and right hemispheres, so were all samples being propagated to left hemisphere sample 1 space? The authors also note that a measure of the subfield labels overlap with that sample's ground-truth subfield definitions was calculated. Is this a measure of overlap, for example, between sample 3 (registered to sample 1 space) and the ground-truth (unfolded, not registered) sample 3 labels? It would be beneficial to provide a full walkthrough of one example sample to clarify the steps. Clarification of this aspect of the method is critical for understanding the evaluation of the method.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Dekraker and colleagues previously developed a new computational tool that creates a "surface representation" of the hippocampal subfields. This surface representation was previously constructed using histology from a single case. However, it was previously unclear how to best register and compare these surface-based representations to other cases with different morphology.

In the current manuscript, Dekraker and colleagues have demonstrated the ability to align hippocampal subfield parcellations across disparate 3D histology samples that differ in contrast, resolution, and processing/staining methods. In doing so, they validated the previously generated Big-Brain atlas by comparing seven different ground-truth subfield definitions. This is an impressive and valuable effort that provides important groundwork for future in vivo multi-atlas methods.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Mignerot et al. performed a Herculean effort to measure and describe natural variation in C. elegans egg-laying behavior and egg retention. The paper is well written and organized, but almost seems like two papers in one. However, I understand the desire to put these stories together. The authors show wild strains vary in egg retention with some extremes that appear phenotypically similar to species with viviparity (or live birth / internal hatching of offspring). They previously published a rare variant in the gene kcnl-1 that plays a role in egg retention but identify common variants in this study. They classify wild strains based on egg-retention to separate out the extremely different isolates. Egg laying has been extensively studied in the laboratory strain N2, but rarely addressed in natural strains. The authors investigate egg-laying behaviors using standard assays and find that their classified egg-laying groups have differences in sub-behaviors suggesting diverse roles in the ultimate egg-laying output. Then, they turn to the egg-laying circuit using both exogenous serotonin (5-HT), 5-HT modulatory drugs (e.g. SSRIs), and even genome editing to test epistasis with the mod-5 5-HT reuptake. The effects of 5-HT modulation and mutants are not predictive based on the basal behaviors and egg-retention phenotypes with the most extreme egg-retention strains differing in their responses. Interestingly, strains with more egg retention have decreased fitness (in their laboratory) measures but also provide a protective environment for offspring when exposed to common "natural" stressors. Their final conclusion that egg retention could be a trade-off between antagonistic effects of maternal vs. offspring fitness is supported well and sets the stage for future mechanistic studies across Caenorhabditis.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Mignerot et al. study variations in egg retention in a large set of wild C. elegans strains using detailed analysis of a subset of these strains to those that these variations in egg retention appear to arise from variations in egg-laying behavior. The authors then take advantage of the advanced genetic technology available in C. elegans, and the fact that the cellular and molecular mechanisms that drive egg-laying behavior in the N2 laboratory strain of C. elegans have been studied intensely for decades. Thus, they demonstrate that variations in multiple genetic loci appear to drive variations in egg laying across species, although they are unable to identify the specific genes that vary other than a potassium channel already identified in a previous study from some of these same authors (Vigne et al., 2021). Mignerot et al. also present evidence that variations in the response of the egg-laying system to the neuromodulator serotonin appear to underlie variations in egg-laying behavior across species. Finally, the authors present a series of studies examining how the retention of eggs in utero affects the fertility and survival of mothers versus the survival of their progeny in a variety of adverse conditions, including limiting food, and the presence of acute environmental insults such as alcohol or acid. The results suggest that variations in egg-laying behavior evolved as a response to adverse environmental conditions that impose a trade-off between survival of the mothers versus their progeny.

Strengths:

The analysis of variations in egg laying by a large set of wild species significantly extends the previous work of Vigne et al. (2021), who focused on just one wild variant strain. Mignerot finds that variations in egg laying are widespread across C. elegans strains and result from changes in multiple genetic loci.

To determine why various strains vary in their egg-laying behavior, the authors take advantage of the genetic tractability of C. elegans and the huge body of previous studies on the cellular and molecular basis of egg-laying behavior in the laboratory N2 strain. Since serotonin is one signal that induces egg laying, the authors subject various strains to serotonin and to drugs thought to alter serotonin signaling, and they also use CRISPR induced gene editing to mutate a serotonin reuptake transporter in some strains. The results are largely consistent with the idea that variations across strains alter how the egg-laying system responds to serotonin.

The final figures in the paper present a far more detailed analysis than Vigne et al. (2021) of how variations in egg retention across species can affect fitness under various environmental stresses. Thus, Mignerot et al. look at competition under conditions of limiting food, and response to acute environmental insults, and compare the ability of adults, in utero eggs, and ex vivo eggs to survive. The results lead to an interesting discussion of how variations in behavior result in a trade-off in survival of mothers versus their progeny. The authors in their Discussion do a good job describing the challenges in interpreting the relevance of these laboratory results to the poorly-understood environmental conditions that C. elegans may experience in the wild. The Discussion also had an excellent section about how the ability of a single species to strongly regulate egg-laying behavior in response to its environment, and how this ability could be adaptive. Overall, these were the strongest and most interesting aspects of Mignerot et al.

Weaknesses<br /> The specific potassium channel variation studied by Vigne et al. (2021) has by far the strongest effect on egg laying seen in the Mignerot et al. study and remains the only genetic variation that has been molecularly identified. So, Mignerot et al. were not able to identify any additional specific genes that vary across species to cause changes in egg laying, and this limited their ability to generate new insights into the specific cellular and molecular mechanisms that have changed across species to result in changes in egg laying behavior.

The authors' use of drug treatments and CRISPR to alter serotonin signaling yielded some insights into mechanistic variations in how the egg-laying system functions across strains, but these experiments only allow very indirect inferences into what is going on. The analysis in Figures 4 and 5 generates a complex set of results that are not easy to interpret. The clearest result seems to be that strains carrying the KCNL-1 point mutation lay eggs poorly and exogenous serotonin inhibits rather than stimulates egg laying in these strains. This basic result was to a large extent reported previously in Vigne et al. 2021.

The analysis of egg-laying behavior in Figure 3 is relatively weak. Whereas the state of the art in analyzing this behavior is to take videos of animals and track exactly when they lay eggs, the authors used a lower-tech method of just examining how many eggs were laid within 5 minute intervals. It is not clear that this allows adequate resolution to determine if the strains examined actually have clusters of egg-laying events (i.e. active phases) or not, so the entire analysis of active and inactive phase intervals seemed dubious. It was unclear that this analysis demonstrated differences in the patterns of egg-laying behavior between strains that could be sufficient to explain the differences in accumulation of unlaid eggs between these strains. In contrast, the variations in Fig 3G and 3H between strains were very strong. It is not clear why the authors did not focus more on these differences as being possibly largely responsible for the differences in egg retention between strains. In the discussion, the authors extensively write about the work of the Collins lab showing that retained eggs stretch the uterus to produce a signal that activates egg-laying muscles. Could it be that really this mechanism is the main one that varies between strains, leading to the observed variations in time to laying the first egg as well as variations in the number of retained eggs throughout adulthood?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, Scheer and Bargmann investigate how behavioral arousal state affects foraging decisions in the nematode C. elegans. Previous work has shown that when placed on a lawn of bacterial food, C. elegans spontaneously switch between two behavioral states, termed roaming and dwelling, during which they exploit or explore the food environment, respectively. It has also been shown that animals spontaneously leave bacterial lawns depending on factors such as food quality or mate availability.

Here, the authors use quantitative behavioral analyses to describe in unprecedented detail the various behavioral choices animals make when encountering the lawn edge. They report that leaving the lawn is a rare outcome compared to other choices such as pausing or reversing back into the lawn. It occurs predominantly out of the roaming state and has a characteristic preceding fast crawling profile. They developed a refined analysis method, the result of which suggests that the arousal state of animals on food can be described by a 4-state behavior (as opposed to the 2-state roaming - dwelling classification); leaving the lawn occurs predominantly from "state 3", which corresponds to the highest level of arousal during roaming. They further show that various manipulations, such as optogenetic inhibition of feeding, stimulation of RIB neurons, or mutations of neuromodulator pathways, all of which have previously been reported to affect crawling speed and/or roaming/dwelling, maintain the coupling between roaming states and leaving, suggesting a dedicated mechanism for coupling leaving to the roaming state. Finally, they use genetics to implicate chemosensory neurons as neuronal circuit elements mediating this coupling.

How arousal states affect decision making is an active area of neuroscience research; therefore, the current manuscript will impact the field beyond the small community of C. elegans researchers. Also, in the past, roaming/dwelling and leaving have been treated as independent behaviors; the current manuscript is very intriguing, demonstrating both the interconnectedness of different behavioral programs and the importance of the animal's behavioral context for specific decisions.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Scheer and Bargmann use a combination of computational and experimental approaches in C. elegans to investigate the neuronal mechanisms underlying the regulation of foraging decisions by the state of arousal. They showed that, in C. elegans, the decision to leave food substrates is linked to a high arousal state, roaming, and that an increase in speed at different timescale preceded the food leaving decisions. They found that mutants that exhibit increased roaming also leave food substrates more frequently and that both behaviors can be triggered if food intake is inhibited. They further identify a set of chemosensory neurons that express the transduction channel tax-4 that couple the roaming state and the food-leaving decisions. The authors postulate that these neurons integrate foraging decisions with behavioral states and internal feeding cues.

The strength of the paper relies on using quantitative and detailed behavioral analysis over multiple time scales in combination with the manipulation of genes and neurons to tackle the state-dependent control of behavioral decisions in C. elegans. The evidence is convincing, the analysis rigorous, and the writing is clear and to the point.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Genetic, physiological, and environmental manipulations that increase roaming increase leaving rates. The connection between increased roaming and increased leaving is lost when tax4-expressing sensory neurons are inactivated. This study is conceptually important in its characterization of worm behaviors as time-series of discrete states, a promising framework for understanding behavioral decisions as algorithms that govern state transitions. This framework is well-established in other animals, thanks to Berman and others, but relatively new to worms.

A key discovery is that lawn leaving behavior is probabilistically favored in states of behavioral arousal. I like the use of response-triggered averages (triggered on leaving events) that illustrate a "state-dependent receptive field" of the behavioral response. Response-triggered averages are common in sensory neuroscience, used, for example, to characterize the diverse "stimulus-dependent receptive fields" of different retinal ganglion cell types. It's nice to adapt the idea to illustrate the state-dependence of behavioral state transitions.

The simplest metric of arousal state is crawling speed. When animals crawl faster, they are more likely to leave lawns. A more sophisticated metric of behavioral context is whether the animal is in a "roaming" or "dwelling" state, two-state HMM modeling from previous work (Flavell et al., 2013). Roaming animals are more likely to leave lawns than dwelling animals. Different autoregressive HMM tools can segment worm behavior into 4-states. Also with ARHMMs, the most aroused state is again the state that promotes lawn-leaving.

(With the AR-HMM, I have a small quibble in its characterization as "orthogonal" to the 2-state HMM. Orthogonal has a precise mathematical meaning, but here orthogonal is taken loosely to only mean "very different". I'd prefer the authors just call them "very different" and not use mathematical terms so loosely.)

HMM analysis seems to disentangle effects that were lumped by the simpler metric of overall speed. Crawling speed before lawn leaving events, when analyzed only within roaming periods, is only higher for ¡1 min before the event. I presume that the higher speed that is observed for several minutes before lawn leaving when all states are taken into account (e.g., Fig 1J, Fig 2A, and others) reflects the tendency to be in the faster roaming state than the slower dwelling state for several minutes before lawn leaving? If this is correct, it would be nice for the authors to be explicit about this interpretation, to help the reader understand what is going on.

My principal worry is about the possible artifact if worms are more likely to be at lawn boundaries when moving quickly or in an arousal state (roaming in the 2-state HMM or in state 3 in the AR-HMM)? Lawn-leaving events only occur when the animal is at lawn boundaries. If animals are more likely to be at lawn boundaries when aroused, this should artificially increase the likelihood that these states precede lawn-leaving behaviors for a trivial environment-dependent reason instead of their interesting internal state-dependent reason. The authors might consider trying to disentangle the state-dependent statistics of lawn edge proximity when assessing by how much arousal states precede lawn-leaving events. I realize this is could be a formidable analytical challenge.

One recourse is to align speed, HMM, and AR-HMM states to the other behavioral events that only happen at lawn boundaries. When they do this for head poke-reversals in Figure 2-supplement 3, they also observe an (albeit modest) increase in arousal states before head poke-reversals. It should be easy to also compare what happens with head poke-forward and head poke-pause to better understand potential artifacts in quantifying edge-associated events. In any case, this concern and their strategies to address it should be discussed for clarity and transparency.

The authors use diverse environmental, genetic, and optogenetic perturbations to regulate the roaming state, thereby regulating the statistics of leaving in the expected manner. One surprise is that feeding inhibition evokes roaming and lawn-leaving in both pdfr-1 and tph-1 mutants, even though the tph-1-expressing NSM neurons have been shown to sense bacterial ingestion and food availability. I'm curious, is there anything in these new results that is inconsistent with previous claims by Rhoades et al., 2019, or did Rhoades et al. simply not do these tests?

Another surprise is that evoking roaming does not evoke leaving in tax-4 mutants (which is something of an internal control that argues against the worry that roaming artificially increases the likelihood of leaving, see above). Without sensory neuron activity, worms are only more likely to roam for a minute before leaving rather than roaming for several minutes before leaving like wild-type (Figure 6C). ASJ seems to be the most important sensory neuron in this coupling between roaming and leaving (which is uncoupled when sensory neurons are inactivated).

I'm a little puzzled why the wild-type animals shown in Figure 6C show elevated roaming for several minutes before leaving events, whereas the wild-type animals shown in Figures 4I,J,K show elevated roaming for only about a minute, not much different than tax-4 mutants. Am I missing something? What is different about these different wild-type animals?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The manuscript examined the behavioural and neural profile of weak and strong fear memories. The data provide strong evidence that weak but not strong fear memories are subject to extinction and reconsolidation disruption. Strong memories also show greater generalization. These differences were echoed in differential neural connectivity with weak fear memories showing greater connectivity between brains areas than strong fear memories.

Strengths:

The findings are of great importance and offer insight into why resistance to extinction and reconsolidation may underlie fear-related psychopathology.<br /> The study uses key behavioural tests to study the durability of weak vs strong memories (extinction and reconsolidation) as well as studies the generalisation of those memories. These behavioural effects nicely dovetail with the neural connectivity analyses that were performed.

The data presented in this paper will be the basis for future hypothesis driven examinations on the causal influence of specific pathways involved in contextual fear.<br /> Excellent use of the open field to control for motor effects.

Weaknesses:

One alternative account to the weak vs. strong memory distinction made in the paper is the opportunity for extinction in the 2S compared to the 10S group. In the 2S group, the last shock occurs in the 3rd minute, leaving 9 minutes of context exposure without reinforcement to follow. This is not the case for the 10S group. If context fear extinction is engaged during this time, then this would mean that two memories (acquisition and extinction) are taking place in the 2S group, weakening the fear memory in this group, setting up the ground for stronger effects of extinction, less generalization and of course potential greater connectivity required for representing and linking these memories. Indeed, the IL, a brain area linked to extinction, is more predominant in the connectivity map of the 2S compared to the 10S group. While testing this alternative is beyond the scope of this paper, it will need to be discussed.<br /> Methodological detail is lacking re the timeline of study, and connectivity analyses.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors demonstrate that reactivation of mild vs strong aversive contextual associations produces dissociable effects on fos expression across a wide network of relevant brain regions. Mild, 2-shock memory recruits a 'small-world' network in which amygdalar regions are functionally connected to other regions that modulate their activity and behavioral output, whereas strong, 10-shock memory isolates amygdalar nuclei from the rest of the network. These different patterns of correlated neural activity correspond with functional/behavioral differences - the authors confirm that weak, 2-shock memory is more effectively extinguished and is susceptible to reconsolidation relative to strong, 10-shock memory.

One major drawback of the manuscript is the fact that the data were collected from male subjects only. One might expect similar behavioral outcomes from male and female rats receiving 2-shock and 10-shock training. However, increasing attention to sex as a biological variable has revealed an interesting truth, namely that males and females can engage distinct neural pathways to arrive at the same behavioral destination. It should not be taken for granted that retrieval of aversive contextual associations would reproduce the same networks in females, and, as such, the manuscript does not give a complete accounting of the phenomenon under study.

The aversive associative memories described by the authors are characterized as mild or strong. More analysis of the meaning of memory strength, and its relationship to conditioning parameters, is needed. In particular, the authors should discuss issues such as amount of training, US magnitude, and rate of shock delivery. If amount of training is important, would 2 vs 10 presentations of a milder shock produce the same networks at retrieval? Would a larger shock require fewer presentations to isolate amygdalar regions from the rest of the network? If the shocks were presented at the same rate during training, would you get the same result in both groups? More data examining these questions would be ideal, but, in the absence of that, a discussion of these issues is needed and missing from the manuscript in its current form.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, Haubrich and Nader investigated the difference between mild and strong fear memory mechanisms at the circuit levels. Previous studies have shown the difference in mechanisms and functions of mild and strong fear memory. Interestingly, memory retrieval induces reconsolidation of mild fear memory, but not always strong fear memory; retrieved mild fear memory is disrupted by protein synthesis inhibition, whereas retrieved fear memory is more immune to this inhibition compared to mild memory. The authors measured c-fos expression following retrieval of mild and strong fear memories and compared functional connectivity of brain regions associated with retrieval of them using computation analyses. The authors suggested that mind and strong fear memories differ in neural networks at the circuit levels.<br /> These are interesting findings.

Major concerns:

1) Previous studies including Karim's lab have shown that protein synthesis in the hippocampus is required for the reconsolidation of contextual fear memory and that the retrieval of contextual fear memory activates gene expression such as c-fos in the hippocampus. However, the authors failed to confirm this observation. This may be due to the small number of rats or some technical problems.

2) The author's computation analyses suggested differences in neural networks activated by the retrieval of mild and strong fear memories. The results of computer analysis are interesting. However, it is not clear whether such results are actually occurring in vivo. At this moment, the author's findings are not a conclusion, but rather a suggestion or hypothesis. Therefore, it is also important to conduct interventional experiments to evaluate the validity of the authors' findings. Specifically, the authors' results could be validated by analyzing the effects of inhibition of specific brain regions on mild and strong fear memories retrieval using such as DREADD and other methods. These experiments seem hard, but would greatly improve the quality of the manuscript.

Joint Public Review:

It has been shown previously that maternal aging in mice is associated with an increase in accumulation of damaged mitochondria and activation of parkin-mediated autophagy (see DOI: 10.1080/15548627.2021.1946739). It has also been shown that C-natriuretic peptide (CNP) regulates oocyte meiotic arrest and that its use during in vitro oocyte maturation can improve parameters associated with decreased oocyte quality. Here the authors tested whether use of CNP treatment in vivo could improve oocyte quality and fertility of aged mice, for which they provided convincing evidence. They also attempted to determine how CNP improves oocyte developmental competence. They showed a correlation between CNP use in vivo and the appearance (and some functional qualities) of cytoplasmic organelles more closely approximating those of oocytes from young mice. However, this correlation could not be interpreted to imply causation. Additional experiments performed using CNP during in vitro maturation were not properly controlled and so are not possible to interpret.

A strength of the manuscript is that the authors use an in vivo treatment to improve oocyte quality rather than just using CNP during oocyte maturation in vitro as has been done previously. This strategy provides more potential for improving oocyte quality - over the course of oocyte growth and maturation - rather than just the final few hours of maturation alone. This strategy also has the potential to be translated into a more generally useful clinical therapeutic method that using CNP during in vitro maturation. However, it is difficult to glean information regarding how CNP might have its effects in vivo. A range of models are used in the manuscript with a mix of in vivo studies with in vitro experiments, which results in some disconnect between systemic CNP and its reported intrafollicular action as well as in the short-term versus longer-term actions of CNP on oocyte quality. Specifically, CNP was shown to be reduced in the plasma of aged mice, but this was not shown in the granulosa cells, which are the reported source of CNP that acts on oocytes. Whether the ovarian source of CNP is reduced in aged females was not demonstrated, and CNP is not known to act on oocytes through an endocrine effect. In vivo treatments with CNP by i.p. injection were performed, but the dose (120 ug/kg) and time (14 days) of treatment were not validated by any prior experiments to give them physiological relevance.

Weaknesses:

1. There are errors in the manuscript writing that make the Results difficult to follow. Reference to the Figures in the Results section does not match what is shown in the Figure panels. For example, the Results text reports differences in CNP levels in aged and young mice shown in Figure 1C, but the relevant panel is actually shown in Figure 1F. Other Figures have the same problem.<br /> 2. The Results section is not always clear regarding what CNP treatment was done - in vivo injections or in vitro maturation. For example, what is the difference, if any, between Figures 2C-D and Figures S2A-B?<br /> 3. Immature oocytes from aged females (~1 year) were treated with a two-step culture system with a pre-IVM step with CNP. Controls included oocytes from young (6-8 weeks) females or oocytes from aged females treated by conventional IVM. The description of these methods suggests that control oocytes did not receive an equivalent pre-IVM culture, hence the relevance of comparisons of CNP-treated versus control oocyte is questionable. It was observed that aged oocytes pre-cultured in CNP improved polar body extrusion rates and meiotic spindle morphology compared to oocytes in conventional IVM, as has been well established. The description of statistical methods does not make clear whether the PBE rate in CNP-treated old oocytes remained significantly lower than young controls.<br /> 4. The main effect of the CNP 2-week treatment appears to be increasing the number of follicles that grow into secondary and antral stages, but there is no attempt made to discover the mechanism by which this occurs and therefore to understand why there might be an increase in the number of ovulated eggs, quality of the eggs, and litter size. It is also not clear how an intraperitoneal injection can guarantee its effectiveness because the half-life of CNP is very short, only a few minutes.<br /> 5. Meiotic spindle morphology, as well as a number of putative markers of cytoplasmic maturation are also suggested to be improved after pre-culture with CNP. In each case a subjective interpretation of "normal" morphology of these markers is derived from observations of the young controls and the proportions of oocytes with normal or abnormal appearance is evaluated. However, parameters that define abnormal patterns of these markers appear to be subjective judgements, and whether these morphological patterns can be mechanistically attributed to the differences in developmental potential cannot be concluded.<br /> 6. In addition to the localization patterns of mitochondria, the mitochondrial membrane potential, oocyte ATP content and ROS levels were assessed through more objective quantitative methods. These are well known to be defective in oocytes of aged females and CNP treatment improved these measures. Mitochondrial dysfunction is the most obvious link between oocyte apoptosis, autophagy, cytoplasmic organelle miss-localization and aberrant spindle morphology. Among the most intriguing results is the finding that CNP mediated a cAMP-dependent protein kinase (PKA) dependent reduction in mitochondrial autophagy mediators PINK and Parkin and reduced the recruitment of Parkin to mitochondria in oocytes. However, it may not be possible to directly link this observation to the improvements in IVM oocyte quality, since PINK/Parkin assessments were performed in oocytes from cultured follicles treated with CNP for 6 days.<br /> 7. The gold standard assay for oocyte quality is embryo transfer and live birth. The authors assessed the impact of maturing oocytes in vitro in the presence of CNP on oocyte quality by less robust assays (e.g., preimplantation embryo development in vitro), so the impact on oocyte quality is less certain.<br /> 8. The terminology used to describe many of the Results exaggerates the findings. For example, the authors claim that many of their immunofluorescent markers of the various organelles have a pattern that is "restored" by CNP. However, in most cases the pattern is "improved" toward the control condition but is not fully restored.<br /> 9. The numbers of embryos should have been corrected for the number of eggs fertilized as a starting point so that the percentage that developed to each stage could be expressed as a percentage of successfully fertilized eggs rather than overall percentages. As currently shown in the Figures and described in the Legend, there is no information regarding what the percentage on the y-axis means. For example, does Figure 4B show the number of 2C embryos divided by the number of eggs inseminated? Or is it divided by the number of successfully fertilized eggs, and if so, how was that assessed?<br /> 10. When fewer eggs are fertilized, the numbers of embryos per group are lower and so the impact of culturing multiple embryos together is lost. As a result, it is possible that culture conditions rather than oocyte quality drove the differences in the numbers of embryos that achieved each stage of development.<br /> 11. Not all claims in the Discussion are supported by the evidence provided. For example, "In addition, the findings demonstrated that CNP improved cytoplasmic maturation events by maintaining normal CG, ER and Golgi apparatus distribution and function in aged oocytes" but it was never demonstrated that the altered distribution had any functional impact.<br /> 12. Incompleteness and errors in the Methods section reduce confidence in many of the results reported.<br /> 13. The methods used for Statistical Analysis are never explained in either the Methods or the Figure legends. It is unclear whether appropriate analyses were done, and it is frequently unclear what was the sample size and how many times a particular experiment was repeated. These weaknesses detract from confidence in the data.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, the authors used an unbiased method to identify proteins from porcine oocyte extracts associated with permeabilised boar spermatozoa in vitro. The identification of the proteins is done by mass spectrometry. A previous publication of this lab validated the cell-free extract purification methods as recapitulating early events after sperm entry in the oocyte. This novel method with mammalian gametes has the advantage that it can be done with many spermatozoa at the time and allows the identification of proteins associated with many permeabilised boar spermatozoa at the time. This allowed the authors to establish a list of proteins either enriched or depleted after incubation with the oocytes extract or even only associated with spermatozoa after incubation for 4h or 24h. The total number of proteins identified in their test is around 200 and with very few present in the sample only when spermatozoa were incubated with the extracts.

The list of proteins identified using this approach and these criteria provide a list of proteins likely associated with spermatozoa remnants after their entry and either removed or recruited for the transformation of spermatozoa-derived structures. Using WB and histochemistry labelling of spermatozoa and early embryos using specific antibodies the authors confirmed the association/dissociation of 6 proteins suspected to be involved in autophagy.

While this unique approach provides a list of potential proteins involved in sperm mitochondria clearance it is (only) a starting point for many future studies and does not provide the demonstration that any of these proteins has indeed a role in the processes leading to sperm mitochondria clearance. The protein identified may also be involved in other processes going on in the oocyte at this time of early development.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Mitochondria are essential cellular organelles that generate ATPs as the energy source for maintaining regular cellular functions. However, the degradation of sperm-borne mitochondria after fertilization is a conserved event known as mitophagy to ensure the exclusively maternal inheritance of the mitochondrial DNA genome. Defects on post-fertilization sperm mitophagy will lead to fatal consequences in patients. Therefore, understanding the cellular and molecular regulation of the post-fertilization sperm mitophagy process is critically important. In this study, Zuidema et. al applied mass spectrometry in conjunction with a porcine cell-free system to identify potential autophagic cofactors involved in post-fertilization sperm mitophagy. They identified a list of 185 proteins that might be candidates for mitophagy determinants (or their co-factors). Despite the fact that 6 (out of 185) proteins were further studied, based on their known functions, using a porcine cell-free system in conjunction with immunocytochemistry and Western blotting, to characterize the localization and modification changes these proteins, no further functional validation experiments were performed. Nevertheless, the data presented in the current study is of great interest and could be important for future studies in this field.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, a cytosolic extract of porcine oocytes is prepared. To this end, the authors have aspirated follicles from ovaries obtained by first maturing oocytes to meiose 2 metaphase stage (one polar body) from the slaughterhouse. Cumulus cells (hyaluronidase treatment) and the zona pellucida (pronase treatment) were removed and the resulting naked mature oocytes (1000 per portion) were extracted in a buffer containing divalent cation chelator, beta-mercaptoethanol, protease inhibitors, and a creatine kinase phosphocreatine cocktail for energy regeneration which was subsequently triple frozen/thawed in liquid nitrogen and crushed by 16 kG centrifugation. The supernatant (1.5 mL) was harvested and 10 microliters of it were used for interaction with 10,000 permeabilized boar sperm per 10 microliter extract (which thus represents the cytosol fraction of 6.67 oocytes).

The sperm were in this assay treated with DTT and lysoPC to prime the sperm's mitochondrial sheath.

After incubation and washing these preps were used for Western blot for Fluorescence microscopy and for proteomic identification of proteins. I am very positive about the porcine cell-free assay approach and the results presented here.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The first synapses of the pain pathway are concentrated in the superficial spinal cord dorsal horn. Here peripheral inputs are processed by local interneuron circuitry before ascending to the brain. The spinal dorsal horn is organized into lamina with the resident interneurons differentiated by their anatomy, physiological and molecular properties. Over the past decade, the restricted expression of select genes has been used to assign potential function to dorsal horn neuron "cell types". This type of work has relied on the genesis of Cre-reporter mouse strains and intersectional tools to generate mice where select sets of neurons can be activated, inhibited, or ablated. The picture that has emerged from these types of experiments is murky but favors the model where there exist genetically defined cell-types play distinct roles in the detection of painful, itchy, thermal, and mechanical stimuli under normal and pathological situations. The current work by Boyle and colleagues concerns itself with the dorsal horn neurons expressing the neuropeptide NPY. This study is directly related to previously published work that demonstrated that ablating spinal cord neurons that express Npy, including those who express this gene transiently during development, resulted in mice that had heightened touch-evoked itch that seemed different from the canonical chemical itch pathways previously identified. A major conclusion from this previous work was that other modalities were unaffected. Subsequent work built on these findings to identify the potential touch inputs and spinal neuron expressing the Npy receptor as part of a mechanical itch circuit.

This current work by Boyle and colleagues challenge challenges this view by providing evidence that in adult mice, the dorsal horn neurons expressing Npy function to broadly inhibit pain and itch. The authors use direct injection of viral vectors, chemogenetics and synaptic silencing to probe the behavioral effects of stimulating or silencing Npy-expressing dorsal horn neurons in a variety of assays under normal and pathological conditions known to produce allodynia and hyperalgesia. Overall, this is a rather carefully conducted study with the appropriate controls. The data are clear, the effect sizes robust and the presentation easy to follow. These findings challenge the conclusion that these neurons are involved selectively in mechanical itch and instead reveal a potentially clinically important group of neurons for pain.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Whether and how molecularly defined neuronal groups in the spinal cord process distinct modalities are of great interest. In this study, Boyle et al. characterized roles of inhibitory neurons expressing NPY in adult mice. By using chemogenetic, electrophysiological tools and behavioral measurements, the authors discovered that activating NPY+ interneurons strongly reduced pruritogen-evoked itch and reflexive behaviors (acute nociception or under inflammation / neuropathic pain states). Silencing NPY+ spinal interneurons enhanced spontaneous and chemical itch in a GRPR+ neurons dependent manner. The authors concluded that, unlike previous findings suggesting that these neurons are selective for mechanical itch, adult NPY+ interneurons play dual roles in gating various types of itch and pain.

The authors performed careful characterization and comparisons between development lineage and adult spinal neurons expressing NPY. This lays the foundation of the current study. The behavioral measurements were also well designed with proper controls.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In the present study by Boyle et al., the function of NPY expressing spinal neurons in pain and itch perception is studied. While the function of these neurons has been addressed previously, the difference to previous studies is the combinatorial use of AAV encoded effectors and cre transgenic mice whereas previous studies relied on cre transgenic mice and reporter mice encoding the effector or only viruses. Boyle at al. demonstrate that their strategy enabled them to restrict the analysis to only those neurons expressing NPY in the adult mouse compared to a more heterogenous population that had been studied before. By using a combination of morphology, electrophysiology and behavioral paradigms they convincingly show that NPY neurons impact pruritoception via inhibiting GRPR neurons. Furthermore, they indicate a role of NPY neurons also in nociception as activation attenuates not only responses to acute nociceptive stimuli but also blocks inflammation or nerve injury induced mechanical and heat hypersensitivity. Selectively activating NPY neurons in vivo may therefore be a promising strategy to treat neuropathic pain.

The result of this study extends and partially contrast previous studies. The authors argue that contrasting results may be due to the different experimental strategies (e.g. only neurons expressing NPY adult in the present study versus a more heterogeneous population before).

Overall, the experiments are convincing, and the quality of the data/figures is exceptionally high.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The study utilizes a variety of methods, chemical and expressed probes, caged release of IP3, as well as oocytes with mutations that alter zinc availability, that provide an elegant examination of how zinc deficiency and zinc excess modulate the transient and cyclic release of calcium during egg activation. In this manuscript, the authors sought to determine if there is any interplay between zinc and calcium, two divalent cations that have been demonstrated to have important roles during fertilization. They employ agents that disrupt normal zinc homeostasis and then monitor the resulting calcium oscillations during egg activation. If zinc was made unavailable via chelation with TPEN, then the calcium oscillations halted. This occurred regardless of the activation method, which included ICSI, PLC𝛇, Acetylcholine, strontium chloride, and thimerosal. This phenotype could be rescued by introducing zinc back into the egg via an ionophore, such as zinc pyrithione; however, too much zinc pyrithione also halted calcium oscillations. Taken together, these two results demonstrate that there is a threshold level of zinc that is required for proper calcium oscillations to occur.

Furthermore, the authors sought to understand how zinc affects the IP3 receptor, IP3R1. IP3R1 is the receptor that modulates the release of calcium from the endoplasmic reticulum. The authors cited a previous study that identified zinc binding sites on IP3R1. The authors highlight that there exist no studies regarding the regulation of IP3R1 by zinc; however, such studies were cited for a similar calcium channel, the RyRs. The authors use thapsigargin to inhibit the SERCA pump, leading to calcium leak from the IP3R1. TPEN blunted the amount of calcium leaked from the ER following treatment, suggesting that zinc occupancy is necessary for IP3R1 function.

The results of these experiments support the authors conclusions that zinc is essential for the IP3R1-mediated release of calcium in an oscillatory manner during egg activation. These results provide further insight into signals necessary for proper egg activation and the ultimate success of the resulting embryo.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The manuscript describes more fully the relationship between zinc fluxes and calcium oscillations during egg activation by directly manipulating the level of zinc ions inside and outside the cell with chelators and ionophores and then measuring resulting changes in Ca++ oscillations. The authors have provided solid evidence consistent with their hypothesis that zinc ions regulate Ca++ oscillations by directly modulating the gating of the IP3-R which is the main calcium channel responsible for calcium release into the cytoplasm. The authors employ well established methods of calcium measurement along with various chelators, ionophores and a wide variety of methods that cause egg activation to demonstrate that an optimal level of zinc ions are required for Ca++ oscillations to occur.

Helpfully, the authors provide a model to explain their observations in Figure 7. In the model, the increase in zinc during maturation is permissive for later IP3-R gating in response to IP3 generated at fertilization. The experiments with TPEN solidly demonstrate that Zn is required because lowering free zinc, as indicated by Fluozin staining), abrogates Ca++ oscillations. This is true regardless of the method of activation. What is not clearly described in the model or in the manuscript is whether the levels of zinc at MII are simply permissive for IP3-R gating or whether there is a more acute relationship between zinc fluxes and Ca++ oscillations. In the original paper describing the zinc spark (Kim et al., ACS Chem Biol 6:716-723), the authors show that zinc efflux very closely mirrors Ca++ oscillations suggesting a more active relationship such that zinc efflux associate with each calcium spike could be necessary for terminating the Ca spike by depleting cytoplasmic Zn. There is some evidence in the present manuscript to support this. For example, in figure 3B, TPEN appears to acutely terminate a Ca spike. Whether this is repeatable is not known. Conversely, in Figure 5C and 5E, PyT leads to a rapid restoration of Ca oscillations within minutes demonstrating that changes in free Zn can cause rapid changes in Ca++ oscillations. Perhaps, rather than simply a permissive role, the normal Zn fluxes during activation may be acutely changing IP3-R gating sensitivity.

The role of TRPv3 and Trpm7 in Zn homeostasis during egg activation seems to be minor and the results in the dKO oocytes compared to TPEN are a bit confusing. In the dKO oocytes, zinc acquisition was sufficient to make it to MII suggesting Zn transport through these channels is dispensable for maturation. During activation, however, the response to Tg in dKO eggs was opposite that of TPEN, higher cytosolic Ca and increase amplitude (Figure 4G) vs lower cytoplasmic Ca and frequency for TPEN (Figure 4A). Perhaps loss of these two channels changes Ca gating independent of Zinc.

The effect of PyT on the apparent rise in cytoplasmic Ca++ in figure 6 is interpreted as caused by an artifact of high Zn concentrations. However, it is not clear that 0.05 uM PyT would necessarily increase cytoplasmic Zn to the point where FURA-2 fluorescence would increase. A simpler interpretation is that PyT allows sufficient Zn to enter the cell and keeps the IP3-R channels open causing a sustained rise in cytoplasmic Ca and preventing oscillations in Ca++. This interpretation would also preclude inhibitory effects of high Zn concentrations as shown in figure 7 which may or may not be present but are simply speculation.

Overall, this study significantly advances our understanding of egg activation and could lead to better ways of in vitro egg activation in women undergoing assisted reproduction.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This study investigated the role of Zn2+ on the maintenance of Ca2+ oscillation upon fertilization. TPEN was used to reduce the level of available Zn2+ in fertilized oocytes and different inhibitors were used to pinpoint the mechanistic involvement of intracellular Zn2+ on the maintenance of Ca2+ oscillation. As also stated in the manuscript, previous studies have demonstrated the role of Zn2+ for the successful completion of meiosis/fertilization. However, the mechanistic actions of Zn2+ on the hallmark of fertilization processes such as Ca2+ oscillation has not been elucidated. A previous publication used TPEN to cease Ca2+ oscillation, but the study was not focused on the involvement of Zn2+ signal. The manuscript expands our understanding of fertilization process by describing how the level of Zn2+ regulates Ca2+ channels and stores. The manuscript is well-organized and the topic is important in early embryo development fields.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This paper introduces a new transgenic mouse line that allows the labelling of the AIS and nodes of Ranvier (noR) by tagging Ank-G with GFP in a Cre-dependent manner. The authors characterise the properties of the AIS and noR when labelled with GFP to show that it has no adverse effects on the properties of the AIS and noR, as well as the intrinsic excitability of neurons. They also show that this mouse line can be used to follow AIS plasticity in vitro and visualise the AIS of neurons in vivo. This is a very useful and timely tool that will make an important impact in the field.

In general, it is clear that this mouse line can label the AIS and noR and will certainly be a useful tool for the community. Although the authors provide a thorough description of the intrinsic properties of neurons and some of the structural properties of the AIS and noR, there are some aspects of these experiments that could be refined to help show that tagging Ank-G with GFP is mostly inert. In particular, some of the basal properties of the AIS (length, position, molecular distribution) following tagging with GFP are not fully explored.

An important advantage of this mouse line is the ability to follow the AIS in live neurons. This is particularly important for imaging the dynamics and plasticity of the AIS, which the authors show is possible both in vitro and ex vivo. Finally, they also show that it is possible to image the AIS in vivo, a finding that opens many experimental doors for the future.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The axon initial segment (AIS) is the axonal domain where most neurons integrate inputs and generate action potentials. Though structural and electrophysiological studies have allowed to better understand the mechanisms of assembly and maintenance of this domain, as well as its functions, there is still a need for efficient tools to study its structural organization and plasticity in vivo.

In this article, the authors describe the generation of a knock-in mouse reporter line allowing the conditional expression of a GFP-tagged version of AnkyrinG (Ank-G), which is a major protein of the axon initial segment and the nodes of Ranvier in neurons. This reporter line can in particular be used to study axon initial segment assembly and plasticity, by combining it with mouse lines or viruses expressing the Cre recombinase under the control of a neuronal promoter. Furthermore, the design of the line should allow to preserve the expression of the main Ank-G isoforms observed in neurons and could thus allow to study Ank-G related mechanisms in various neuronal subcompartments.

Some mouse lines allowing the neuronal expression of AIS/node of Ranvier markers coupled to a fluorescent protein exist, however they correspond to transgenic lines leading to potential overexpression of the tagged protein. Depending on the promoter used, their expression can vary and be absent in some neuronal populations (in particular, the Thy-1 promoter can lead to variable expression depending on the transgene insertion locus). Furthermore, these lines do not allow conditional expression of the protein regarding neuronal subtypes nor controlled temporal expression. Finally, a thorough description of the in vivo expression of the tagged protein at the AIS, and its impact on the structural and electrophysiological properties of the AIS are missing for these lines.

The present reporter line is thus definitely of interest, as the authors convincingly show that it can be used to visualize AIS ans Nodes of Ranvier in various contexts (from in vitro to in vivo). It could in particular be useful to study the assembly and plasticity of the domains where Ank-G is expressed. In this work, the authors thoroughly characterize the Ank-G-GFP reporter line generated and show that the structural and electrophysiological properties of the labeled neurons are not altered by the expression of the tagged Ank-G.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The present study provides a phylogenetic analysis of the size prefrontal areas in primates, aiming to investigate whether relative size of the rostral prefrontal cortex (frontal pole) and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex volume vary according to known ecological or social variables.

I am very much in favor of the general approach taken in this study. Neuroimaging now allows us to obtain more detailed anatomical data in a much larger range of species than ever before and this study shows the questions that can be asked using these types of data. In general, the study is conducted with care, focusing on anatomical precision in definition of the cortical areas and using appropriate statistical techniques, such as PGLS. That said, there are some points where I feel the authors could have taken their care a bit further and, as a result, inform the community even more about what is in their data.

The introduction sets up the contrast of 'ecological' (mostly foraging) and social variables of a primate's life that can be reflected in the relative size of brain regions. This debate is for a large part a relic of the literature and the authors themselves state in a number of places that perhaps the contrast is a bit artificial. I feel that they could go further in this. Social behavior could easily be a solution to foraging problems, making them variables that are not in competition, but simply different levels of explanation. This point has been made in some of the recent work by Robin Dunbar and Susanne Shultz.

In a similar vein, the hypotheses of relating frontal pole to 'meta-cognition' and dorsolateral PFC to 'working memory' is a dramatic oversimplification of the complexity of cognitive function and does a disservice to the careful approach of the rest of the manuscript. One can also question the predicted relationship between frontal pole meta-cognition and social abilities versus foraging, as Passingham and Wise show in their 2012 book that it is frontal pole size that correlates with learning ability-an argument that they used to relate this part of the brain to foraging abilities. I would strongly suggest the authors refrain from using such descriptive terms. Why not simply use the names of the variables actually showing significant correlations with relative size of the areas?

The major methodological judgements in this paper are of course in the delineation of the frontal pole and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. As I said above, I appreciate how carefully the authors describe their anatomical procedure, allowing researchers to replicate and extend their work. They are also careful not to relate their regions of interest to precise cytoarchitectonic areas, as such a claim would be impossible to make without more evidence. That said, there is a judgement call made in using the principal sulcus as a boundary defining landmark for FP in monkeys and the superior frontal sulcus in apes. I do not believe that these sulci are homologous. Indeed, the authors themselves go on to argue that dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, where studied using cytoarchitecture, stretches to the fundus of principal sulcus in monkeys, but all the way to the inferior frontal sulcus in apes. That means that using the fundus of PS is not a good landmark. Of course, any definition will attract criticism, so the best solution might be to run the analysis multiple times, using different definitions for the areas, and see how this affects results.

If I understand correctly, the PGLS was run separately for the three brain measure (whole brain, FP, DLPFC). However, given that the measures are so highly correlated, is there an argument for an analysis that allows testing on residuals. In other words, to test effects of relative size of FP and DLPFC over and above brain size?

In the discussion and introduction, the authors discuss how size of the area is a proxy for number of neurons. However, as shown by Herculano-Houzel, this assumption does not hold across species. Across monkeys and apes, for instance, there is a different in how many neurons can be packed per volume of brain. There is even earlier work from Semendeferi showing how frontal pole especially shows distinct neuron-to-volume ratios.

Overall, I think this is a very valuable approach and the study demonstrates what can now be achieved in evolutionary neuroscience. I do believe that they authors can be even more thorough and precise in their measurements and claims.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In the manuscript entitled "Linking the evolution of two prefrontal brain regions to social and foraging challenges in primates" the authors measure the volume of the frontal pole (FP, related to metacognition) and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC, related to working memory) in 16 primate species to evaluate the influence of socio-ecological factors on the size of these cortical regions. The authors select 11 socio-ecological variables and use a phylogenetic generalized least squares (PGLS) approach to evaluate the joint influence of these socio-ecological variables on the neuro-anatomical variability of FP and DLPFC across the 16 selected primate species; in this way, the authors take into account the phylogenetic relations across primate species in their attempt to discover the influence of socio-ecological variables on FP and DLPF evolution.

The authors run their studies on brains collected from 1920 to 1970 and preserved in formalin solution. Also, they obtained data from the Mussée National d´Histoire Naturelle in Paris and from the Allen Brain Institute in California. The main findings consist in showing that the volume of the FP, the DLPFC, and the Rest of the Brain (ROB) across the 16 selected primate species is related to three socio-ecological variables: body mass, daily traveled distance, and population density. The authors conclude that metacognition and working memory are critical for foraging in primates and that FP volume is more sensitive to social constraints than DLPFC volume.

The topic addressed in the present manuscript is relevant for understanding human brain evolution from the point of view of primate research, which, unfortunately, is a shrinking field in neuroscience. But the experimental design has two major weak points: the absence of lissencephalic primates among the selected species and the delimitation of FP and DLPFC. Also, a general theoretical and experimental frame linking evolution (phylogeny) and development (ontogeny) is lacking.

Major comments.<br /> 1.- Is the brain modular? Is there modularity in brain evolution?: The entire manuscript is organized around the idea that the brain is a mosaic of units that have separate evolutionary trajectories:

"In terms of evolution, the functional heterogeneity of distinct brain regions is captured by the notion of 'mosaic brain', where distinct brain regions could show a specific relation with various socio-ecological challenges, and therefore have relatively separate evolutionary trajectories".

This hypothesis is problematic for several reasons. One of them is that each evolutionary module of the brain mosaic should originate in embryological development from a defined progenitor (or progenitors) domain [see García-Calero and Puelles (2020)]. Also, each evolutionary module should comprise connections with other modules; in the present case, FP and DLPFC have not evolved alone but in concert with, at least, their corresponding thalamic nuclei and striatal sector. Did those nuclei and sectors also expand across the selected primate species? Can the authors relate FP and DLPFC expansion to a shared progenitor domain across the analyzed species? This would be key to proposing homology hypotheses for FP and DLPFC across the selected species. The authors use all the time the comparative approach but never explicitly their criteria for defining homology of the cerebral cortex sectors analyzed.

Contemporary developmental biology has showed that the selection of morphological brain features happens within severe developmental constrains. Thus, the authors need a hypothesis linking the evolutionary expansion of FP and DLPFC during development. Otherwise, the claims form the mosaic brain and modularity lack fundamental support.

Also, the authors refer most of the time to brain regions, which is confusing because they are analyzing cerebral cortex regions.

2.- Definition and delimitation of FP and DLPFC: The precedent questions are also related to the definition and parcellation of FP and DLPFC. How homologous cortical sectors are defined across primate species? And then, how are those sectors parcellated?

The authors delimited the FP:

"...according to different criteria: it should match the functional anatomy for known species (macaques and humans, essentially) and be reliable enough to be applied to other species using macroscopic neuroanatomical landmarks".

There is an implicit homology criterion here: two cortical regions in two primate species are homologs if these regions have similar functional anatomy based on cortico-cortical connections. Also, macroscopic neuroanatomical landmarks serve to limit the homologs across species.

This is highly problematic. First, because similar function means analogy and not necessarily homology [for further explanation see Puelles et al. (2019); García-Cabezas et al. (2022)]. Second, because there are several lissencephalic primate species; in these primates, like marmosets and squirrel monkeys, the whole approach of the authors could not have been implemented. Should we suppose that lissencephalic primates lack FP or DLPFC? Do these primates have significantly more simplistic ways of life than gyrencephalic primates? Marmosets and squirrel monkeys have quite small brains; does it imply that they have not experience the influence of socio-ecological factors on the size of FP, DLPFC, and the rest of the brain?

The authors state that:

"the strong development of executive functions in species with larger prefrontal cortices is related to an absolute increase in number of neurons, rather than in an increase in the ration between the number of neurons in the PFC vs the rest of the brain".

How does it apply to marmosets and squirrel monkeys?

References:<br /> García-Cabezas MA, Hacker JL, Zikopoulos B (2022) Homology of neocortical areas in rats and primates based on cortical type analysis: an update of the Hypothesis on the Dual Origin of the Neocortex. Brain structure & function Online ahead of print. doi:doi.org/10.1007/s00429-022-02548-0

García-Calero E, Puelles L (2020) Histogenetic radial models as aids to understanding complex brain structures: The amygdalar radial model as a recent example. Front Neuroanat 14:590011. doi:10.3389/fnana.2020.590011

Nieuwenhuys R, Puelles L (2016) Towards a New Neuromorphology. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-25693-1

Puelles L, Alonso A, Garcia-Calero E, Martinez-de-la-Torre M (2019) Concentric ring topology of mammalian cortical sectors and relevance for patterning studies. J Comp Neurol 527 (10):1731-1752. doi:10.1002/cne.24650

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This is an interesting manuscript that addresses a longstanding debate in evolutionary biology - whether social or ecological factors are primarily responsible for the evolution of the large human brain. To address this, the authors examine the relationship between the size of two prefrontal regions involved in metacognition and working memory (DLPFC and FP) and socioecological variables across 16 primate species. I recommend major revisions to this manuscript due to: 1) a lack of clarity surrounding model construction; and 2) an inappropriate treatment of the relative importance of different predictors (due to a lack of scaling/normalization of predictor variables prior to analysis). My comments are organized by section below:

Introduction:<br /> • Well written and thorough, but the questions presented could use restructuring.

Methods:<br /> • It is unclear which combinations of models were compared or why only population density and distance travelled tested appear to have been included.<br /> • Brain size (vs. body size) should be used as a predictor in the models.<br /> • It is not appropriate to compare the impact of different predictors using their coefficients if the variables were not scaled prior to analysis.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this study, the authors have compared object recognition in humans and rats. To this end, they trained rats to touch a target object shown along with a distractor object. The rats were initially trained on a base pair, and then tested on sets of variant pairs where the target or distractor could be transformed through size, position, 3d rotation or lighting variations. In addition, the authors then used a cDNN to find image pairs that would elicit different performance from early vs late layers, and tested rats and humans on these pairs (zero vs high and high vs zero protocols). A similar protocol was used for humans as well to get their performance on the base pair and test pairs. Finally the authors find the correlation between cDNN performance on each layer and rat or human performance across all test protocols. The main finding is that rats show the best match to earlier cDNN layers compared to humans. Based on this the authors conclude that humans and rats show contrasting performance on object recognition.

General comments<br /> Whether rats and humans have similar object representations is an interesting and fundamental question, and I commend the authors for their extensive matched experiments on rats and humans. However, the conclusions must be tempered by the fact that the authors are testing a limited set of object variations derived from just two objects. There are also potentially substantial differences in the tasks given to rats and humans, if I understand the methods and procedures correctly. My concerns are detailed below.

My main concern is that the authors find very low agreement between rats and humans on comparable tasks, but it would be important if they can identify qualitative differences in the performance. For instance, can they say that rats are using low-level visual cues compared to humans. They could compare several low-level visual models (see below) and report how human and rat accuracy compares to each of these models. Since the visual representations of cDNNs are unknown, such a comparison would be useful.

The authors should also discuss the potential reason for the human-rat differences too, and importantly discuss whether these differences are coming from the rather unusual approach of training used in rats (i.e. to identify one item among a single pair of images), or perhaps due to the visual differences in the stimuli used (what were the image sizes used in rats and humans?). Can they address whether rats trained on more generic visual tasks (e.g. same-different, or category matching tasks) would show similar performance as humans?

I also found that a lot of essential information is not conveyed clearly in the manuscript. Perhaps it is there in earlier studies but it is very tedious for a reader to go back to some other studies to understand this one. For instance, the exact number of image pairs used for training and testing for rats and humans was either missing or hard to find out. The task used on rats was also extremely difficult to understand. An image of the experimental setup or a timeline graphic showing the entire trial with screenshots would have helped greatly.

The authors state that the rats received random reward on 80% of the trials, but is that on 80% of the correctly responded trials or on 80% of trials regardless of the correctness of the response? If these are free choice experiments, then the task demands are quite different. This needs to be clarified. Similarly, the authors mention that 1/3 of the trials in a given test block contained the old base pair - are these included in the accuracy calculations?

It would be good for the authors to articulate more clearly the nature of the differences between humans and rats. For instance, rat behaviour was found to be correlated with low-level image properties like brightness, whereas presumably, human behaviour is not. It would be useful if the authors can compare rat behaviour against several possible alternative models, including the dCNN layers in Figure 4. These models could include other rats (giving a reliability estimate), luminance based models, contrast based models, models based on V1 simple cells, etc - these models would elucidate further the nature of the rat performance. A similar analysis could be done for human performance.

The authors were injecting noise with stimuli to cDNN to match its accuracy to rat. However, that noise potentially can interacted with the signal in cDNN and further influence the results. That could generate hidden confound in the results. Can they acknowledge/discuss this possibility?

The authors claimed that discrimination task in rats was more dependent on concavity than component arrangement (figure 1 left panel). But that could be just an artifact due to sampling more values of concavity than component arrangement. In that case these two attributes are not comparable at all. Could the authors address this issue in some way.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Schnell et al. performed two extensive behavioral experiments concerning the processing of objects in rats and humans. To this aim, they designed a set of objects parametrically varying along alignment and concavity and then they used activations from a pretrained deep convolutional neural network to select stimuli that would require one of two different discrimination strategies, i.e. relying on either low- or high-level processing exclusively. The results show that rodents rely more on low-level processing than humans.

Strengths:

1. The results are challenging and call for a different interpretation of previous evidence. Indeed, this work shows that common assumptions about task complexity and visual processing are probably biased by our personal intuitions and are not equivalent in rodents, which instead tend to rely more on low-level properties.<br /> 2. This is an innovative (and assumption-free) approach that will prove useful to many visual neuroscientists. Personally, I second the authors' excitement about the proposed approach, and its potential to overcome the limits of experimenters' creativity and intuitions. In general, the claims seem well supported and the effects sufficiently clear.<br /> 3. This work provides an insightful link between rodent and human literature on object processing. Given the increasing number of studies on visual perception involving rodents, these kinds of comparisons are becoming crucial.<br /> 4. The paper raises several novel questions that will prompt more research in this direction.

Weaknesses:

1. There are a few inconsistencies in the number of subjects reported. Sometimes 45 humans are mentioned and sometimes 50. Probably they are just typos, but it's unclear.<br /> 2. A few aspects mentioned in the introduction and results are only defined in the Methods thus making the manuscript a bit hard to follow (e.g. the alignment dimension), htus I had to jump often from the main text to the methods to get a sense of their meaning.<br /> 3. The choices related to the stimulus design and the network used to categorize them are not fully described and would benefit from some further clarification/justification. The choice of alignment and concavity as baseline properties of the stimuli is not properly discussed. Also, from the low-correlations I got the feeling that AlexNet is just not a good model of rat visual processing. Which indeed can be interpreted as further evidence of what the authors are trying to demonstrate, but it might also be an isolated case.<br /> 4. Many important aspects of the task are not fully described in the Methods (e.g. size of the stimuli, reaction times and basic statistics on the responses).

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Schnell and colleagues trained rats on a visual categorization task. They found that rats could discriminate objects across various image transformations. Rat performance correlated best with late convolutional layers of an artificial neural network. In contrast, human performance showed the strongest correlation with higher, fully connected layers, indicating that rats employed simpler strategies to accomplish this task as compared to humans. This is a methodologically rigorous study. The authors tested a substantial number of rats across a large variety of stimuli. One notable strength is the use of neural networks to generate stimuli with varying levels of complexity. This approach shows significant potential as a principled model for conducting studies on object recognition and other related visual behavioral phenomena. The data strongly support the conclusion that rats and humans rely on different visual features for discrimination tasks. Overall, this is a valuable study that provides novel, important insights into the visual capabilities of rats. However, some aspects of the study need further clarification. The study does not provide clear insights into the visual features that enable rats to perform these discriminations. The relationship between neural network layers and specific aspects of visual behavior is not well-defined, representing a key limitation of the current work. Further, the current analyses do not adequately address the consistency of visual behaviors across different rats or whether different rats rely on the same visual features to accomplish the task. Lastly, rodent performance was substantially lower compared to humans and generally worse than neural network classification. The factors contributing to this disparity are unclear.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors were trying to investigate whether viral IBs are involved in antagonizing IFN-I production during EBOV trVLPs infection. They found that IRF3 is hijacked and sequestered into EBOV IBs after viral infection, thereby leading to the spatial isolation of IRF3 with TBK1 and IKKε. In such a progress, the activity of IRF3 is suppressed and downstream IFN-I induction is inhibited. The authors designed many experiments, such as the PLA that examined the colocalization, to support their conclusions. However, necessary negative controls were missed in several assays. More key index is needed to be examined in several assays.

The paper is well organized and most data in this paper could support the conclusions, while there are several issues that need to be further solved.

1) In Figure 2-4, authors should examine the expression of downstream IFNs as well as the phosphorylation and nuclear localization of IRF3 to further prove the suppression of IRF3 activity by infecting with trVLPs.

2) In Figure 5, to better prove the conclusion that EBOV NP and VP35 play an important role in sequestering IRF3 in IBS, authors should add the "NP+VP35+VP30" and "NP+VP35+VP24" groups to reperform the assay.

3) In Figure 6f, the expression of STING should be examined by immunostaining to show the knockdown efficiency in trVLPs-infected cells.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The manuscript by Zhu et al explored molecular mechanisms by which Ebola virus (EBOV) evades host innate immune response. EBOV has a number of means to shut down the type I interferon induction (by viral VP35 protein) and block type I interferon action (by viral VP24 protein). This study reported a new mechanism that inclusion body (IB) used for viral replication sequesters IRF3, a key transcription factor involved in the interferon signaling, resulting in blockade of downstream type I interferon gene transcription. This finding is potentially interesting and may provide a new insight into EBOV's evasion of innate immunity. However, there are some flaws in the experimentations and analyses that need to be addressed.

1) Most of experiments were performed by transfection of trVLP plasmids, which is very different from virus infection. The conclusions should be examined and verified in the context of virus infection.

2) Fig 1 - VP35 displayed a classical IB staining only in Panel A, while much less so in Panel C and not in panel B. It seemed that the VP35 staining images were chosen in a way towards the authors' favor. The statistical analysis of co-localization of VP35 and IRF3, TBK1 or IKKe should be performed to draw the conclusion. Another concern is that IKKe is normally lowly expressed under a rest condition and becomes induced only when the interferon signaling is activated. It seemed to be expressed at a high level even when the interferon signaling is blocked in Panel C. The authors should comment on this discrepancy.

3) Fig 2 - Was this experiment done by transfection or infection? The description of result is not consistent with the figure legend. The labeling was also not consistent between panel A and B. I would suggest performing Western blot to analyze the expression level of IRF3.

4) Fig 3 and 4 - As VP35 is well known for its highly efficient blockade of type I interferon activation, how would the authors differentiate the effect of VP35 alone from the sequestration of IRF3 in IBs in these experiments?

5) Fig 3 - PolyIC can activate both RLR and TLR signaling pathways. Can the author comment on which pathway it activates in this experiment?

6) The authors demonstrated that VP35 interacts with STING and recruit the latter to IBs. How would this affect the function of STING given that STING plays essential roles in cGAS/cGAMP pathway?

7) It is difficult to follow the logics of Fig 7. The expression level of each viral protein should be determined. Ideally, a mutation in VP35 that disrupts its ability to antagonize the interferon signaling but still allows for the IB formation can be used to assess the relative contribution of IB sequestering IRF3.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The enteroviruses comprise a medically important genus in the large and diverse picornavirus family, and are known to be released without lysis from infected cells in large vesicles containing numerous RNA genome-containing capsids - a feature allowing for en bloc transmission of multiple viral genomes to newly infected cells that engulf these vesicles. SIRT-1 is an NAD-dependent protein deacetylase that has numerous and wide ranging effects on cellular physiology and homeostasis, and it is known to be engaged in cellular responses to stress and autophagy.

Jassey et al. show that RNAi depletion of SIRT-1 impairs the release of enterovirus D-68 (EV-D68) in EVs recovered from the supernatant fluids of infected cells using a commercial exosome isolation kit. The many functions attributed to SIRT-1 in the literature reflect its capacity to deacetylate various cell proteins engaged in transcription, DNA repair, and regulation of metabolism, apoptosis and autophagy. However, Jassey et al. make the surprising claim that the proviral role of SIRT-1 in promoting enterovirus release is not dependent on its deacetylase activity. Fig. S1C is crucial to this suggestion, as it is said to show that reconstituting expression with a catalytically-inactive mutant can rescue virus release from SIRT-1 depleted cells. However, no information is provided concerning the levels of endogenous and ectopically-expressed SIRT-1 proteins in this experiment, making it very difficult to interpret the results. Is the mutant SIRT-1 protein expressed at a higher level than the non-mutant protein? Is there a 'sponging' effect with these transfections that lessens the siRNA efficiency and reduces knockdown of the endogenous protein? Fig. S1B and Fig. 4C convincingly show that EX527, a small molecule inhibitor of the deacetylase activity of SIRT-1, inhibits extracellular release of the virus. This suggests that the deacetylase activity of SIRT-1 is in fact required for the proviral effect of SIRT-1. This is a fundamentally important question that will require more investigation.

Fig. 6 shows how SIRT-I knockdown impacts the release of enterovirus D68 in EVs recovered from cell culture supernatant using a commercial 'Total Exosome Isolation Kit'. The authors should describe the principle this kit exploits to isolate 'exosomes' (affinity isolation?) and specify which antibodies it involves (anti-phosphatidylserine, anti-CD63, others?) This could impact the outcome of these experiments, and moreover is important to include in the long-term scientific record. The authors are appropriately cautious in describing the vesicles they presume to be isolated by the kit as simply 'extracellular vesicles', since there are multiple types of EVs with very different mechanisms of biogenesis, of which 'exosomes' are but one specific type. It would have been more elegant had the authors shown that SIRT-1 is required for EV-D68 release in detergent-sensitive vesicles with low buoyant density in isopycnic gradients, and to characterize the size and number of viral capsids in these vesicles by electron microscopy.

Fig. 6 shows that SIRT-1 depletion upregulates CD63 expression, but has no apparent impact on the release of CD63-positive 'EVs' from uninfected cells. EV-D68 infection also upregulates CD63 expression in SIRT-1 replete cells, and in this case, increases the release of CD63-positive EVs. The combination of infection and SIRT-1 depletion massively upregulates CD63 expression, but appears to eliminate the enhanced release of CD63-positive EVs resulting from infection alone. These are interesting results, from which the authors infer CD63 is associated with EVs containing EV-D68. But, do we know this? Can a CD63 pulldown immunoprecipitate EV-D68 capsid proteins or viral RNA? CD63 is strongly associated with exosomes released from cells through the multi-vesicular body pathway, which are distinct from the LC3-positive EVs released by secretory autophagy that have previously been associated with enteroviruses. The authors suggest that 'knockdown of SIRT-1 may prevent the exocytosis of CD63-positive EVs", but this is a very broad claim (and not really demonstrated by Fig. 6): it requires a clearer definition of what the authors mean by 'exocytosis' and a much more detailed analysis of the size and buoyant density of EVs released in a SIRT-1-dependent process.

The authors suggest that almost all EV-D68 released from infected cells is released without cell lysis in EVs. However, they generally show data from only a single time point following infection (5 or 6 hrs post-infection). It would have been interesting to see a more complete temporal analysis, and to know whether a high proportion of virus continues to be released in EVs, or if it is swamped out ultimately by lytic release of nonenveloped virus.

Fig. 1D indicates that a small fraction of SIRT-1 leaks from the nucleus in EV-D68 infected cells. The authors suggest this is due to targeted nuclear export, rather than simply leaky nuclear pores which are well known to exist in enterovirus-infected cells. The authors present similar fluorescent microscopy data showing inhibition of TFEB export in leptomycin-B treated cells in Fig. S2A in support of their claim that this is specific SIRT-1 export, but these data are far from convincing - there is equivalent residual TFEB and SIRT-1 in the cytoplasm of the treated cells. Quantitative immunoblots of cytoplasmic and nuclear cell fractions might prove more compelling.

Finally, the authors should be more specific in describing the viruses they have studied (EV-D68 and PV). It would be preferable to describe these as 'enteroviruses' (including in the title of the manuscript), rather than more broadly as 'picornaviruses'. There is no certainty that the requirement for SIRT-1 in non-lytic release of virus extends to hepatoviruses or other picornaviral genera, for which mechanisms of nonlytic release may be quite different.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors aimed to connect SIRT-1 to EV-D68 virus release through mediating ER stress. They are successful in robustly connecting these pathways experimentally and show a new role for SIRT-1 in EV-D68 infection. These results extend to additional viruses, suggesting role(s) for SIRT-1 in diverse virus infection.

The authors note that EV-D68 does not significantly impact SIRT-1 protein levels (Fig 1E and F), though this has been described for other picornaviruses (Xander et al., J Immunol 2019; Han et al., J Cell Sci 2016; Kanda et al Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2015). This may be of interest to note in the manuscript.

The data regarding CVB3 (Fig S4) are especially interesting because they show no discernable impact on infection. The manuscript should describe this further and perhaps speculate on potential reasons. Could it be due to inefficient knockdown?

SIRT-1 (and other sirtuins) have been linked to an innate interferon response. Are any of the phenotypes observed here due to IFN responses? The use of H1HeLa cells would suggest this is not the case.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Nitta et al, in their manuscript titled, "Drosophila model to clarify the pathological significance of OPA1 in autosomal dominant optic atrophy." The novelty of this paper lies in its use of human (hOPA1) to try to rescue the phenotype of an OPA1 +/- Drosophilia DOA model (dOPA). The authors then use this model to investigate the differences between dominant-negative and haploinsufficient OPA1 variants. The value of this paper lies in the study of DN/HI variants rather than the establishment of the drosophila model per se as this has existed for some time and does have some significant disadvantages compared to existing models, particularly in the extra-ocular phenotype which is common with some OPA1 variants but not in humans. I judge the findings of this paper to be valuable with regards to significance and solid with regards to the strength of the evidence.

Suggestions for improvements:

1. Stylistically the results section appears to have significant discussion/conclusion/inferences in each section with reference to existing literature. I feel that this information would be better placed in the separate discussion section. E.g. lines 149-154

2. I do think further investigation as to why a reduction of mitochondria was noticed in the knockdown. There are conflicting reports on this in the literature. My own experience of this is fairly uniform mitochondrial number in WT vs OPA1 variant lines but with an increased level of mitophagy presumably reflecting a greater turnover. There are a number of ways to quantify mitochondrial load e.g. mtDNA quantification, protein quantification for tom20/hsp60 or equivalent. I feel the reliance on ICC here is not enough to draw conclusions. Furthermore, mitophagy markers could be checked at the same time either at the transcript or protein level. I feel this is important as it helps validate the drosophila model as we already have a lot of experimental data about the number and function of mitochondria in OPA+/- human/mammalian cells.

3. Could the authors comment on the failure of the dOPA1 rescue to return their biomarker, axonal number to control levels. In Figure 4D is there significance between the control and rescue. Presumably so as there is between the mutant and rescue and the difference looks less.

4. The authors have chosen an interesting if complicated missense variant to study, namely the I382M with several studies showing this is insufficient to cause disease in isolation and appears in high frequency on gnomAD but appears to worsen the phenotype when it appears as a compound het. I think this is worth discussing in the context of the results, particularly with regard to the ability for this variant to partially rescue the dOPA1 model as shown in Figure 5.

5. I feel the main limitation of this paper is the reliance on axonal number as a biomarker for OPA1 function and ultimately rescue. I have concerns because a) this is not a well validated biomarker within the context of OPA1 variants b) we have little understanding of how this is affected by over/under expression and c) if it is a threshold effect e.g. once OPA1 levels reach x%. I think this is particularly relevant when the authors are using this model to make conclusions on dominant negativity/HI with the authors proposing that if expression of a hOPA1 transcript does not increase opa1 expression in a dOPA1 KO then this means that the variant is DN. The authors have used other biomarkers in parts of this manuscript e.g. ROS measurement and mito trafficking but I feel this would benefit from something else particularly in the latter experiments demonstrated in figure 5 and 6.

6. Could the authors clarify what exons in Figure 5 are included in their transcript. My understanding is transcript NM_015560.3 contains exon 4,4b but not 5b. According to Song 2007 this transcript produces invariably s-OPA1 as it contains the exon 4b cleavage site. If this is true, this is a critical limitation in this study and in my opinion significantly undermines the likelihood of the proposed explanation of the findings presented in Figure 6. The primarily functional location of OPA1 is at the IMM and l-OPA1 is the primary opa1 isoform probably only that localizes here as the additional AA act as a IMM anchor. Given this is where GTPase likely oligomerizes the expression of s-OPA1 only is unlikely to interact anyway with native protein. I am not aware of any evidence s-OPA1 is involved in oligomerization. Therefore I don't think this method and specifically expression of a hOPA1 transcript which only makes s-OPA1 to be a reliable indicator of dominant negativity/interference with WT protein function. This could be checked by blotting UAS-hOPA1 protein with a OPA1 antibody specific to human OPA1 only and not to dOPA1. There are several available on the market and if the authors see only s-OPA1 then it confirms they are not expressing l-OPA1 with their hOPA1 construct.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The data presented support and extend some previously published data using Drosophila as a model to unravel the cellular and genetic basis of human Autosomal dominant optic atrophy (DOA). In human, mutations in OPA1, a mitochondrial dynamin like GTPase (amongst others), are the most common cause for DOA. By using a Drosophila loss-of-function mutations, RNAi-mediated knockdown and overexpression, the authors could recapitulate some aspects of the disease phenotype, which could be rescued by the wild-type version of the human gene. Their assays allowed them to distinguish between mutations causing human DOA, affecting the optic system and supposed to be loss-of-function mutations, and those mutations supposed to act as dominant negative, resulting in DOA plus, in which other tissues/organs are affected as well.

Based on the lack of information in the Materials and Methods section and in several figure legends, it was not in all cases possible to follow the conclusions of the authors. Similarly, how the knowledge gained could help to "inform early treatment decisions in patients with mutations in hOPA1" (Line 38) cannot be followed.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Nitta et al. establish a fly model of autosomal dominant optic atrophy, of which hundreds of different OPA1 mutations are the cause with wide phenotypic variance. It has long been hypothesized that missense OPA1 mutations affecting the GTPase domain, which are associated with more severe optic atrophy and extra-ophthalmic neurologic conditions such as sensorineural hearing loss (DOA plus), impart their effects through a dominant negative mechanism, but no clear direct evidence for this exists particularly in an animal model. The authors execute a well-designed study to establish their model, demonstrating a clear mitochondrial phenotype with multiple clinical analogs including optic atrophy measured as axonal degeneration. They then show that hOPA1 mitigates optic atrophy with the same efficacy as dOPA1, setting up the utility of their model to test disease-causing hOPA1 variants. Finally, they leverage this model to provide the first direct evidence for a dominant negative mechanism for 2 mutations causing DOA plus by expressing these variants in the background of a full hOPA1 complement.

Strengths of the paper include well-motivated objectives and hypotheses, overall solid design and execution, and a generally clear and thorough interpretation of their results. The results technically support their primary conclusions with caveats. The first is that both dOPA1 and hOPA1 fail to fully restore optic axonal integrity, yet the authors fail to acknowledge that this only constitutes a partial rescue nor do they discuss how this fact might influence our interpretation of their subsequent results. The second caveat is that their effect sizes are small. Statistically, the results indeed support a dominant negative effect of DOA plus-associated variants, yet the data show a marginal impact on axonal degeneration for these variants. The authors might have considered exploring the impact of these variants on other mitochondrial outcome measures they established earlier on. They might also consider providing some functional context for this marginal difference in axonal optic nerve degeneration.

Despite these caveats, the authors provide the first animal model of DOA that also allows for rapid assessment and mechanistic testing of suspected OPA1 variants. The impact of this work in providing the first direct evidence of a dominant negative mechanism is under-stated considering how important this question is in development of genetic treatments for DOA. The authors discuss important points regarding the potential utility of this model in clinical science. Comments on the potential use of this model to investigate variants of unknown significance in clinical diagnosis requires further discussion of whether there is indeed precedent for this in other genetic conditions (since the model is nevertheless so evolutionarily removed from humans).

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Favate et al. measure the relative levels of metabolites in 12 Escherichia coli strains isolated from different replicate populations after 50,000 generations of the Lenski long-term laboratory evolution experiment. They use untargeted LC/MS methods that include standards and report both positive and negative ionization mode measurements. They initially use principal component analysis (PCA) to broadly compare how the metabolomes of these strains are similar and different. Then, they describe several instances where the changes in metabolite abundance they see in specific pathways correlate with mutations that lead to changes in the expression of genes that encode enzymes in those pathways.

Strengths:

The statistical analyses and presentation of the high-throughput data are excellent. The most compelling results are communicated in wonderful figures that integrate their measurements of metabolite levels in this study with results from a prior study they conducted looking at changes in gene expression levels in the same bacterial strains. These sections include the ones describing large increases in NAD(P) pools due to mutations in nadR, changes in the levels of arginine and related compounds due to mutations in argR, and changes in metabolites from glycolysis and the TCA cycle related to iclR and arcB.

Weaknesses:

After addressing prior reviews, the main remaining weaknesses of the study are limitations inherent to the metabolomics approach that are noted by the authors. Namely, that it gives a static and incomplete picture of cellular metabolism, lacking any information about flux and missing measurements for many metabolites. Additional biochemical and genetic experiments will be necessary to fully test the hypotheses suggested by the metabolomics data.

Impact and Significance:

While there has been past speculation about the effects of LTEE mutations on metabolism, this study measures changes in the levels of metabolites in related metabolic pathways for the first time. Therefore, it provides useful information about how metabolism evolves, in general, and will also be a useful resource those studying other aspects of the LTEE related to metabolism, such as contingency in the evolution of citrate utilization.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This preprint presents a compelling study examining the relationship between genotypic changes and phenotypic traits in bacteria over an extended period using the Long-Term Evolution Experiment (LTEE) as a model. The primary advances in methodology include employing high-resolution mass spectrometry for comprehensive metabolic profiling and combining it with previous gene expression and DNA sequencing datasets. This approach provides insight into how specific genetic mutations can alter metabolic pathways over 50,000 generations, enabling a deeper understanding of how genetic changes lead to observed differences in evolved bacterial strains. The findings reveal that evolved bacteria possess more diverse metabolic profiles compared to their ancestors, suggesting that these populations have uniquely adapted to their environment. The work also attempts to uncover the molecular basis for this adaptive evolution, demonstrating how specific genetic changes have influenced the bacteria's metabolic pathways.

Overall, this is a significant and well-executed research study. It offers new insights into the complex relationship between genetic changes and observable traits in evolving populations and utilizes metabolomics in the LTEE, a novel approach in combination with RNA-seq and mutation datasets.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors investigate the origin of asexual reproduction through hybridization between species. In loaches, diploid, polyploid, and asexual forms have been described in natural populations. The authors experimentally cross multiple species of loaches and conduct an impressively detailed characterization of gametogenesis using molecular cytogenetics to show that although meiosis arrests early in male hybrids, a subset of cells in females undergo endoreplication before meiosis, producing diploid eggs. This only occurred in hybrids of parental species that were of intermediate divergence. This work supports an expanding view of speciation where asexuality could emerge during a narrow evolutionary window where genomic divergence between species is not too high to cause hybrid inviability, but high enough to disrupt normal meiotic processes.

I enjoyed reading this study and I appreciate the amount of work it takes to conduct these types of cytogenetic experiments. But, my main concern with this study is I was left wondering if the sample sizes are large enough to get a sense how variable endoreplication is in these loach species. Most of the hybrids between species are the result of crosses between 1-2 families. Within males and females, meiocyte observations are limited to a handful of pachytene and diplotene stages. I think it would be helpful to be more transparent about the sample sizes in the main text.

Along these lines, the authors argue against the possibility that endoreplication may be predisposed to occur at a higher rate in some species (line 291). Instead, they suggest that endoreplication is a result of perturbing the cell cycle by combining the genomes of two different species. Their main argument is based on gonocyte counts from parental females in a previous reference. It is essential to include counts from the parents used in this study to make a clear comparison with the F1s.

In the discussion (lines 320-333), the authors postulate the sex-specific clonality they observe could be a result of Haldane's rule. Given these fish do not have known sex chromosomes, I do not find this argument strong. Haldane's rule refers to the exposure of recessive incompatibilities with the sex chromosomes in the hybrid heterogametic sex. This effect would therefore be limited to degenerated sex chromosomes where much of the sequence content on the Y or W has been lost. These species may have homomorphic sex chromosomes, but if this is the case, they likely are not very degenerated. Instead, it seems more plausible that the sex-specific effect the authors observe is due to intrinsic differences of spermatogenesis and oogenesis. Is there any information about sex-specific differences in the fidelity of gametogenesis from other species that would support a higher likelihood of endoreplication?

The final thing I was left wondering about was this missing link between endoreplication and activating embryonic development of the diploid egg. In these loach species, a sperm is required to activate egg development, but the sperm genome is discarded (line 100). What is the mechanism of this and how does it evolve concurrently during hybridization?

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This paper provides new evidence on the relationship between genetic/chromosome divergence and capacity for asexual reproduction (via unreduced, clonal gametes) in hybrid males or females. Whereas previous studies have focussed just on the hybrid combinations that have yielded asexual lineages in nature, the authors take an experimental approach, analysing meiotic processes in F1 hybrids for combinations of species spanning different levels of divergence, whether or not they form asexual lineages in nature. As such, the findings here are a substantial advance towards understanding how new asexual lineages form.

The quality of the work is high, the analyses are sound, and the authors sensibly link their observations to the speciation continuum. I should also add that the cytogenetic work here is just beautiful!

A key finding is that the precondition for asexual reproduction - the formation of unreduced gametes - is not unusual among hybrid females, so that we have to consider other factors to explain the rarity of asexual species - a major unresolved issue in evolutionary biology. This work also highlights a previously overlooked effect of chromosome organisation on speciation.

Joint Public Review:

The flowering plant Capsella bursa-pastoris is an allotetraploid formed from the genomes of Capsella orientalis and Capsella grandiflora. An outstanding question in the evolution of allotetraploids is the relative contribution of immediate consequences of allopolyploidization vs. long-term evolution after the event. The authors address this question by re-synthesizing the allotetraploid in the lab using the two progenitor species, and comparing its phenotypic and gene expression variation to naturally occurring C. bursa-pastoris. They compared five categories of plant: the two progenitors of the allopolyploid, hybrids resynthesized from the progenitors with a whole-genome duplication either before or after the hybridization event, and the naturally occurring allopolyploid. Two lines of evidence were used: phenotypic data from the plants grown in a common environment, and RNAseq data from a subset of the plants.

The phenotypic data indicate that the selfing syndrome of C. bursa-pastoris likely evolved after the initial allopolyploidization event, and that pollen and seed viability recovered following the allopolyploidization event. They find evidence primarily for long-term phenotypic evolution towards a selfing syndrome in C. bursa-pastoris, and a combination of short and long-term changes to gene expression.

The manuscript is thorough and provides lots of new insights into the mechanisms driving evolution in allopolyploids. The work provides an interesting and valuable contribution to the field's understanding of how expression evolves in interaction with hybridization and polyploidy. Particularly in combination with the team's previous study on these lines, this experimental design is effective for separating the contributions of hybridization, WGD, and evolution over time.

>>The results are compelling but would benefit from small clarifications to the methods and statistics to account for possible positional effects in the growth chamber. Using a linear mixed model rather than a simple ANOVA would solve this problem.

>>The RNAseq data are used to explore overall expression patterns (using multi-dimensional scaling), patterns of differential expression (additive, dominant, or transgressive), and homeolog expression bias, and to determine the relative contributions of the original allopolyploidization event and subsequent evolution. Statistical cutoffs were used to categorize gene expression patterns, but the description and categorization of these patterns appears to have been largely qualitative and might be strengthened by including more statistical detail in questions like whether homeologous expression bias did indeed show more variation in resynthesized and evolved allopolyploids.

>>The study includes evidence that homeolog expression bias (overrepresentation of an allele from one species) results in part from homeologous synapsis (uneven inheritance of chromosome segments). These deviations from patterns consistent with 2:2 inheritance of genomic regions are highly variable between individuals in resynthesized allopolyploids but appeared to be mostly consistent within (but not between) populations in natural C. bursa-pastoris. This is intriguing evidence that segregation can be an important source of variation in allopolyploids. However, it was limited by the difficulty of inferring homeologous recombination breakpoints with RNAseq data because of the scale of recombination in wild populations (rather than resynthesized allopolyploids). In the future identifying such breakpoints will be an interesting direction for this and other allopolyploid systems.

>>The study could also valuably explore what kinds of genes experienced what forms of expression evolution. A brief description of GO terms frequently represented in genes which showed strong patterns of expression evolution might be suggestive of which selective pressures led to the changes in expression in the C. bursa-pastoris lineage, and to what extent they related to adaptation to polyploidization (e.g. cell-cycle regulators), compensating for the initial pollen and seed inviability or adapting to selfing (endosperm- or pollen-specific genes), or adaptation to abiotic conditions.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The paper offers some potentially interesting insight into the allosteric communication pathways of the CTFR protein. A mutation to this protein can cause cystic fibrosis and both synthetic and endogenous ligands exert allosteric control of the function of this pivotal enzyme. The current study utilizes Gaussian Network Models (GNMs) of various substrate and mutational states of CFTR to quantify and characterize the role of individual residues in contributing to two main quantities that the authors deem important for allostery: transfer entropy (TE) and cross correlation. I found the TE of the Apo system and the corresponding statistical analysis particularly compelling. I found it difficult, however, to assess the limitations of the chosen model (GNM) and thus the degree of confidence I should have in the results. This mainly stems from a lack of a proposed mechanism by which allostery is achieved in the protein. Proposing a mechanism and presenting logical alternatives in the introduction would greatly benefit this manuscript. It would also allow the authors to place the allosteric mechanism of this protein in the broader context of protein allostery.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this study, the authors used ANM-LD and GNM-based Transfer Entropy to investigate the allosteric communications network of CFTR. The modeling results are validated with experimental observations. Key residues were identified as pivotal allosteric sources and transducers and may account for disease mutations.

The paper is well written and the results are significant for understanding CFTR biology.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This study of CFTR, its mutants, dynamics, and effects of ATP binding, and drug binding is well written and highly informative. They have employed coarse-grained dynamics that help to interpret the dynamics in useful and highly informative ways. Overall the paper is highly informative and a pleasure to read.

The investigation of the effects of drugs is particularly interesting, but perhaps not fully formed.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Liu et al. investigated the brain functional lateralization in typically developing infants and infants with congenital sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) to understand how early auditory deprivation disrupts the development of functional network organization using resting-state fNIRS imaging and the graph theory approach. They found that hemispheric asymmetry formed in early life and the initial lack of auditory exposure affected the typical development of functional network asymmetry in infants with hearing loss. Although the infants with hearing loss exhibited a balance between information segregation and integration within two hemispheres, consistent with the typically developing (TD) controls, the development of the leftward hemispheric asymmetry in network efficiency measures was disrupted. At the regional level, infants with hearing loss exhibited aberrant development of hemispheric network asymmetry especially in frontal regions.

Strengths:<br /> The strengths of this study include its focus on a relatively understudied area of research, namely the impact of hearing loss on brain network asymmetry in infants. The study used advanced neuroimaging techniques to examine the development of cerebral asymmetry in infants with hearing loss and compared their results to typically developing controls. The study's findings provide valuable insights into the importance of early auditory exposure for typical brain development. Overall, this study contributes to our understanding of the brain functional network changes underlying hearing loss and has important implications for early intervention and treatment strategies.

Weaknesses:<br /> Although this study does have strengths in principle, the weaknesses of this work are that the key claims cannot be fully supported due to inappropriate statistical analyses, the theoretical significance and the narrative logic are not well presented. In particular:

Theoretical significance: In the Introduction, the authors did not nicely explain why it is important to investigate how the brain functional network asymmetry develops in SNHL infants, and what new knowledge this analytical approach can tell the readers. It is insufficient to merely state that few studies have focused on this. The authors did not elaborate on the broader significance of studying the hemispherical asymmetry in SNHL infants.

Narrative logic: The organization of the Results part needs substantial improvement. The authors did not provide an overview of the analysis at the beginning of each results section, including the relationships between different measurements, the purpose of each analysis, the specific methods employed, and the meaning of the neural index used. It is therefore very difficult to understand why the authors conducted each analysis and how it contributes to the main narrative of the study. For instance, what is the relationship between the small-world properties within the hemisphere and the hemispherical asymmetry of network efficiency? What is the relationship between global/local efficiency and regional nodal efficiency? What global efficiency and local efficiency reflect? It is crucial to clarify and justify the analysis.

Problems on the statistics:<br /> 1) To support the major claim that the left hemisphere dominance of the functional network organization was significantly disrupted in SNHL infants, the authors should also report a statistically significant interaction (between leftward hemispheric asymmetry and type of infants), but instead they only reported that one effect (the leftward hemispheric asymmetry in the TD infants) was statistically significant, whereas the other effect (the leftward hemispheric asymmetry in the infants with SNHL) was not. And why not directly use asymmetry index and compare it between groups?<br /> 2) The necessary statistical values to support the conclusions are missing in several places. For example, Lines 111 - 113 and section 2.4.<br /> 3) The authors conducted multiple comparisons without correction in section 2.3 and section 2.5. It is likely that some of these comparisons would not survive the multiple comparison correction; therefore, the results need to be rephrased and the findings reinterpreted accordingly.<br /> 4) Inconsistent results exist. If "a significant group × age interaction effect on the mean AI of nodal efficiency was observed only in the frontal cortex, while other regions did not exhibit such an interaction" (Line 170-172), and the authors "investigated the group × age interaction effect on the mean nodal efficiencies of the frontal regions for each hemisphere" (Line 178-179), why "a significant interaction effect was observed in the frontal, temporal, parietal, and occipital regions of the left hemisphere" (Line 179-182)?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Using fNIRS and resting state recordings of brain activity, authors have compared functional network organization in infants with congenital sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) as well as typically developing infants. The manuscript reports a disruption in the development of leftward hemispheric lateralization in SNHL infants as compared to typically developing infants, across several network measures. The study used an adapted methodology for infants, and involved an adequate number of infants for cross-sectional studies and the findings are valuable. However, a number of methodological points and controls need to be taken into account to better explain the results and to remove redundancy. Moreover, the discussion can be improved by a more detailed comparison between the current work and the past literature.

- My major concern is that functional connectivity patterns change importantly depending on the sleep stage (Uchitel et al., 2021 Pediatric Research; Tóth et al., 2017 Human Brain mapping), it is therefore not enough to have all infants sleep, but to have them on the same sleep stage. Therefore, authors need to re-analyze their dataset taking into account sleep stage as a factor, i.e. grouping infants based on the sleep stage (otherwise it can be a confounding factor - as one can imagine that infants with sensorineural hearing loss may enter "quiet sleep" faster in a short recording session - given the environmental noise does not bother them etc.). This could completely change the interpretation of the results. Do authors have a mean in the data or via additional recordings (respiration, EMG, ECG?) to separate the sleep stages?

- Several statistical analyses are performed with redundancy, i.e. several effects are looked at in more than one test: for example one ANOVA analysis with several factors including group (SNHL/typical) as a factor, is followed by two other separate ANOVAs with the same variables as before but redone for each group separately. The latter tests are redundant. This has happened across different sections, making the manuscript unnecessarily long while also reporting effects that are redundant.

- Given the number of statistical comparisons performed, it would be helpful that authors better explain how corrections are performed: number of comparisons for each correction or which tests are considered independent (i.e. across which correction of multiple comparisons are not performed).

- The discussion generally needs to be improved: both for the position of the current study/novelty/strength and its limitations with respect to the previous works (Cui et al 2022- also looking into early functional organization in SNHL, etc) and also in terms of the differences in findings (i.e. associations of functional connectivity measures to hearing loss severity)

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors examine the transport of chemical compounds from a surrounding fluid environment to the surface of the polyp Hydra. They propose that spontaneous contractions of the body, which are known to occur roughly three times per hour, provide a new fluid environment near the body surface and thereby increase the total rate of compound uptake. Experimental measurements and a mathematical model are used to support the main claim. Active probes of the system involve the use of ion channel inhibitors, which can affect the frequency of contractions. But there is a useful feature of Hydra already present which the authors also use for a comparative study, namely the different microbial environments near the Hydra's motionless foot and near its moving head. The evidence which is provided puts the claim on solid footing. The main result represents an important observation about the role of hydrodynamics on organism behavior, in particular in its relation to diffusive chemical transport processes.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The manuscript studies the spontaneous contractions (SC) of the Hydra body wall and presents a detailed simple mathematical model of nutrient transport to hypothesize the role of SC on maintaining the microbiota. This work provides valuable insights on the functional im- plications of the SC and the increased nutrient update obtained from mixing the local fluid environment through body wall contractions.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors wanted to determine if the mRNA modification m6A is involved in axonal regeneration pathways. They performed a small-scale siRNA screen targeting major components of this pathway to determine if not down if any of these genes would influence axonal regeneration. They identified ALKBH5, an m6A demethylating enzyme, as a gene that represses axonal regeneration after injury, and when knocked down, promotes axonal growth. They identify a putative mRNA target of ALKBH5, Lpin2, which they believe is demethylated by ALKBH5, resulting in higher levels of m6A on this transcript and thus greater mRNA degradation and reduced expression.

This study has major weaknesses. The ALKBH5 knockout mouse is not used. Thus the experiment relies on the selectivity of the siRNA. Many experiments relied on the single siRNA. The knockdown efficiency was relatively poor, with only a small change in ALKBH5 protein levels. The authors never assess whether m6A levels are indeed affected by ALKBH5 depletion using their approach. The results are therefore unconvincing because of not using the appropriate mouse model. Additionally, the authors' attempt to identify a target of ALKBH5 was not done using the appropriate approach, which would involve globally profiling m6A levels in control and ALKBH5 knockout conditions. Since they did not do global profiling of m6A, the authors cannot report how the exact stoichiometry of m6A sites in Lpin2 is affected (and if other mRNAs are affected which might be the true targets of ALKBH5). Attempts by other investigators to identify bona fide targets of ALKBH5 have been difficult, and the authors did not do the appropriate unbiased transcriptome-wide screen but instead used generic gene expression approaches to come to their target. It is not clear if they have a direct or indirect target of ALKBH5 based on the presented data.

Overall, the authors have not achieved their aims and the results do not support the overall conclusions. However, some studies related to Lpin2 overexpression and not down suggest that this gene indeed can influence axonal regeneration in some way. But whether it is a direct target of ALKBH5 and whether ALKBH5 indeed has any role in axonal regeneration is still not clear.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Olszyński and colleagues present data showing variability from canonical "aversive calls", typically described as long 22 kHz calls rodents emit in aversive situations. Similarly long but higher-frequency (44 kHz) calls are presented as a distinct call type, including analyses both of their acoustic properties and animals' responses to hearing playback of these calls. While this work adds an intriguing and important reminder, namely that animal behavior is often more variable and complex than perhaps we would like it to be, there is some caution warranted in the interpretation of these data. The authors also do not provide adequate justification for the use of solely male rodents. With several reported sex differences in rat vocal behaviors this means caution should be exercised when generalizing from these findings.

Firstly, the authors argue that the shift to higher-frequency aversive calls is due to an increase in arousal (caused by the animals having received multiple aversive foot shocks towards the end of the protocols). However, it cannot be ruled out that this shift would be due to factors such as the passage of time and increase in fatigue of the animals as they make vocalizations (and other responses) for extended periods of time. In fact the gradual frequency increase reported for 22kHz calls and the drop in 44 kHz calls the next day in testing is in line with this.

Secondly, regarding the analysis where calls were sorted using DBSCAN based on peak frequency and duration, it is not surprising that the calls cluster based on frequency and duration, i.e. the features that are used to define the 44 kHz calls in the first place. Thus presenting this clustering as evidence of them being truly distinct call types comes across as a circular argument. The sparsity of calls in the 30-40 kHz range (shown in the individual animal panels in Figure 2C) could in theory be explained by some bioacoustics properties of rat vocal cords, without necessarily the calls below and above that range being ethologically distinct.

The behavioral response to call playback is intriguing, although again more in line with the hypothesis that these are not a distinct type of call but merely represent expected variation in vocalization parameters. Across the board animals respond rather similarly to hearing 22 kHz calls as they do to hearing 44 kHz calls, with occasional shifts of 44 kHz call responses to an intermediate between appetitive and aversive calls. This does raise interesting questions about how, ethologically, animals may interpret such variation and integrate this interpretation in their responses. However, the categorical approach employed here does not address these questions fully.

In sum, rather than describing the 44kHz long calls as a new call type, it may be more accurate to say that sometimes aversive calls can occur at frequencies above 22 kHz. Individual and situational variability in vocalization parameters seems to be expected, much more so than all members of a species strictly adhering to extremely non-variable behavioral outputs.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Olszyński et al. claim that they identified a "new-type" ultrasonic vocalization around 44 kHz that occurs in response to prolonged fear conditioning (using foot-shocks of relatively high intensity, i.e. 1 mA) in rats. Typically, negative 22-kHz calls and positive 50-kHz calls are distinguished in rats, commonly by using a frequency threshold of 30 or 32 kHz. Olszyński et al. now observed so-called "44-kHz" calls in a substantial number of subjects exposed to 10 tone-shock pairings, yet call emission rate was low (according to Fig. 1G around 15%, according to the result text around 7.5%). They also performed playback experiments and concluded that "the responses to 44-kHz aversive calls presented from the speaker were either similar to 22-kHz vocalizations or in-between responses to 22-kHz and 50-kHz playbacks".

Strengths: Detailed spectrographic analysis of a substantial data set of ultrasonic vocalizations recorded during prolonged fear conditioning, combined with playback experiments.

Weaknesses: I see a number of major weaknesses.

While the descriptive approach applied is useful, the findings have only focused importance and scope, given the low prevalence of "44 kHz" calls and limited attempts made to systematically manipulate factors that lead to their emission. In fact, the data presented appear to be derived from reanalyses of previously conducted studies in most cases and the main claims are only partially supported. While reading the manuscript, I got the impression that the data presented here are linked to two or three previously published studies (Olszyński et al., 2020, 2021, 2023). This is important to emphasize for two reasons: 1) It is often difficult (if not impossible) to link the reported data to the different experiments conducted before (and the individual experimental conditions therein). While reanalyzing previously collected data can lead to important insight, it is important to describe in a clear and transparent manner what data were obtained in what experiment (and more specifically, in what exact experimental condition) to allow appropriate interpretation of the data. For example, it is said that in the "trace fear conditioning experiment" both single- and group-housed rats were included, yet I was not able to tell what data were obtained in single- versus group-housed rats. This may sound like a side aspect, however, in my view this is not a side aspect given the fact that ultrasonic vocalizations are used for communication and communication is affected by the social housing conditions. 2) In at least two of the previously published manuscripts (Olszyński et al., 2021, 2023), emission of ultrasonic vocalizations was analyzed (Figure S1 in Olszyński et al., 2021, and Fig. 1 in Olszyński et al., 2023). This includes detailed spectrographic analyses covering the frequency range between 20 and 100 kHz, i.e. including the frequency range, where the "new-type" ultrasonic vocalization, now named "44 kHz" call, occurs, as reflected in the examples provided in Fig. 1 of Olszyński et al. (2023). In the materials and methods there, it was said: "USV were assigned to one of three categories: 50-kHz (mean peak frequency, MPF >32 kHz), short 22-kHz (MPF of 18-32 kHz, <0.3 s duration), long 22-kHz (MPF of 18-32 kHz, >0.3 s duration)". Does that mean that the "44 kHz" calls were previously included in the count for 50-kHz calls? Or were 44 kHz calls (intentionally?) left out? What does that mean for the interpretation of the previously published data? What does that mean for the current data set? In my view, there is a lack of transparency here.

Moreover, whether the newly identified call type is indeed novel is questionable, as also mentioned by the authors in their discussion section. While they wrote in the introduction that "high-pitch (>32 kHz), long and monotonous ultrasonic vocalizations have not yet been described", they wrote in the discussion that "long (or not that long (Biały et al., 2019)), frequency-stable high-pitch vocalizations have been reported before (e.g. Sales, 1979; Shimoju et al., 2020), notably as caused by intense cholinergic stimulation (Brudzynski and Bihari, 1990) or higher shock-dose fear conditioning (Wöhr et al., 2005)" (and I wish to add that to my knowledge this list provided by the authors is incomplete). Therefore, I believe, the strong claims made in abstract ("we are the first to describe a new-type..."), introduction ("have not yet been described"), and results ("new calls") are not justified.

In general, the manuscript is not well written/ not well organized, the description of the methods is insufficient, and it is often difficult (if not impossible) to link the reported data to the experiments/ experimental conditions described in the materials and methods section. For example, I miss a clear presentation of basic information: 1) How many rats emitted "44 kHz" calls (in total, per experiment, and importantly, also per experimental condition, i.e. single- versus group-housed)? 2) Out of the ones emitting "44 kHz" calls, what was the prevalence of "44 kHz" calls (relative to 22- and 50-kHz calls, e.g. shown as percentage)? 3) How did this ratio differ between experiments and experimental conditions? 4) Was there a link to freezing? Freezing was apparently analyzed before (Olszyński et al., 2021, 2023) and it would be important to see whether there is a correlation between "44-kHz" calls and freezing. Moreover, it would be important to know what behavior the rats are displaying while such "44-kHz" calls are emitted? (Note: Even not all 22-kHz calls are synced to freezing.) All this could help to substantiate the currently highly speculative claims made in the discussion section ("frequency increases with an increase in arousal" and "it could be argued that our prolonged fear conditioning increased the arousal of the rats with no change in the valence of the aversive stimuli"). Such more detailed analyses are also important to rule out the possibility that the "new-type" ultrasonic vocalization, the so-called "44 kHz" call, is simply associated with movement/ thorax compression.

The figures currently included are purely descriptive in most cases - and many of them are just examples of individual rats (e.g. majority of Fig. 1, all of Fig. 2 to my understanding, with the exception of the time course, which in case of D is only a subset of rats ("only rats that emitted 44-kHz calls in at least seven ITI are plotted" - is there any rationale for this criterion?)), or, in fact, just representative spectrograms of calls (all of Fig. 3, with the exception of G, all of Fig. 4). Moreover, the differences between Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 are not clear to me. It seems Fig. 5B is included three times - what is the benefit of including the same figure three times? A systematic comparison of experimental conditions is limited to Fig. 7 and Fig. 8, the figures depicting the playback results (which led to the conclusion that "the responses to 44-kHz aversive calls presented from the speaker were either similar to 22-kHz vocalizations or in-between responses to 22-kHz and 50-kHz playbacks", although it remains unclear to me why differences were seen b e f o r e the experimental manipulation, i.e. the different playback types in Fig. 8B).

Related to that, I miss a clear presentation of relevant methodological aspects: 1) Why were some rats single-housed but not the others? 2) Is the experimental design of the playback study not confounded? It is said that "one group (n = 13) heard 50-kHz appetitive vocalization playback while the other (n = 16) 22-kHz and 44-kHz aversive calls". How can one compare "44 kHz" calls to 22- and 50-kHz calls when "44 kHz" calls are presented together with 22-kHz calls but not 50-kHz calls? What about carry-over effects? Hearing one type of call most likely affects the response to the other type of call. It appears likely that rats are a bit more anxious after hearing aversive 22-kHz calls, for example. Therefore, it would not be very surprising to see that the response to "44 kHz" calls is more similar to 22-kHz calls than 50-kHz calls. Of note, in case of the other playback experiment it is just said that rats "received appetitive and aversive ultrasonic vocalization playback" but it remains unclear whether "44 kHz" calls are seen as appetitive or aversive. Later it says that "rats were presented with two 10-s-long playback sets of either 22-kHz or 44-kHz calls, followed by one 50-kHz modulated call 10-s set and another two playback sets of either 44-kHz or 22-kHz calls not previously heard" (and wonder what data set was included in the figures and how - pooled?). Again, I am worried about carry-over effects here. This does not seem to be an experimental design that allows to compare the response to the three main call types in an unbiased manner. Of note, what exactly is meant by "control rats" in the context of fear conditioning is also not clear to me. One can think of many different controls in a fear conditioning experiment. More concrete information is needed.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This paper presents several eyetracking experiments measuring task-directed reading behavior where subjects read texts and answered questions.<br /> It then models the measured reading times using attention patterns derived from deep-neural network models from the natural language processing literature.<br /> Results are taken to support the theoretical claim that human reading reflects task-optimized attention allocation.

Strengths:

1) The paper leverages modern machine learning to model a high-level behavioral task (reading comprehension). While the claim that human attention reflects optimal behavior is not new, the paper considers a substantially more high-level task in comparison to prior work. The paper leverages recent models from the NLP literature which are known to provide strong performance on such question-answering tasks, and is methodologically well grounded in the NLP literature.

2) The modeling uses text- and question-based features in addition to DNNs, specifically evaluates relevant effects, and compares vanilla pretrained and task-finetuned models. This makes the results more transparent and helps assess the contributions of task optimization. In particular, besides fine-tuned DNNs, the role of the task is further established by directly modeling the question relevance of each word. Specifically, the claim that human reading is predicted better by task-optimized attention distributions rests on (i) a role of question relevance in influencing reading in Expts 1-2 but not 4, and (ii) the fact that fine-tuned DNNs improve prediction of gaze in Expts 1-2 but not 4.

3) The paper conducts experiments on both L2 and L1 speakers.

Weaknesses:

1) The paper aims to show that human gaze is predicted the the DNN-derived task-optimal attention distribution, but the paper does not actually derive a task-optimal attention distribution. Rather, the DNNs are used to extract 144 different attention distributions, which are then put into a regression with coefficients fitted to predict human attention. As a consequence, the model has 144 free parameters without apparent a-priori constraint or theoretical interpretation. In this sense, there is a slight mismatch between what the modeling aims to establish and what it actually does.

2) While Experiment 1 tests questions from different types in blocks, and the paper mentions that this might encourage the development of question-type-specific reading strategies -- indeed, this specifically motivates Experiment 2, and is confirmed indirectly in the comparison of the effects found in the two experiments ("all these results indicated that the readers developed question-type-specific strategies in Experiment 1") -- the paper seems to miss the opportunity to also test whether DNNs fine-tuned for each of the question-types predict specifically the reading times on the respective question types in Experiment 1. Testing not only whether DNN-derived features can differentially predict normal reading vs targeted reading, but also different targeted reading tasks, would be a strong test of the approach.

3) The paper compares the DNN-derived features to word-related features such as frequency and surprisal and reports that the DNN features are predictive even when the others are regressed out (Figure S3). However, these features are operationalized in a way that puts them at an unfair disadvantage when compared to the DNNs: word frequency is estimated from the BNC corpus; surprisal is derived from the same corpus and derived using a trigram model. The BNC corpus contains 100 Million words, whereas BERT was trained on several Billions of words. Relatedly, trigram models are now far surpassed by DNN-based language models. Specifically, it is known that such models do not fit human eyetracking reading times as well as modern DNN-based models (e.g., Figure 2 Dundee in: Wilcox et al, On the Predictive Power of Neural Language Models for Human Real-Time Comprehension Behavior, CogSci 2020). This means that the predictive power of the word-related features is likely to be underestimated and that some residual predictive power is contained in the DNNs, which may implicitly compute quantities related to frequency and surprisal, but were trained on more data. In order to establish that the DNN models are predictive over and above word-related features, and to reliably quantify the predictive power gained by this, the authors could draw on (1) frequency estimated from the corpora used for BERT (BookCorpus + Wikipedia), (2) either train a strong DNN language model, or simply estimate surprisal from a strong off-the-shelf model such as GPT-2.

This concern does not fundamentally cast doubt on the conclusions, since the authors found a clear effect of the task relevance of individual words, which by definition is not contained in those baseline models. However, Figure S3 -- specifically Figure S3C -- is likely to inflate the contribution of the DNN model over and above the text-based features.

The results broadly support the conclusions; however, with the qualification that the paper provides a somewhat indirect test, by testing DNN-derived features without deriving a single task-optimized attention distribution for each task.

The data are likely to be useful as a benchmark in further modeling of eye-movements, an area of interest to computational research on psycholinguistics.<br /> The modeling results contribute to theoretical understanding of human reading behavior, and strengthens a line of research arguing that it reflects task-adaptive behavior.

The theoretical claim, and some basic features of the research, are quite similar to other recent work (Hahn and Keller, Modeling task effects in human reading with neural network-based attention, Cognition, 2023; cited with very little discussion as ref 44), which also considered task-directed reading in a question-answering task and derived task-optimized attention distributions. There are various differences, and the paper under consideration has both weaknesses and strengths when compared to that existing work -- e.g., that paper derived a single attention distribution from task optimization, but the paper under consideration provides more detailed qualitative analysis of the task effects, uses questions requiring more high-level reasoning, and uses more state-of-the-art DNNs.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This manuscript describes a set of four passage-reading experiments which are paired with computational modeling to evaluate how task-optimization might modulate attention during reading. Broadly, participants show faster reading and modulated eye-movement patterns of short passages when given a preview of a question they will be asked. The attention weights of a Transformer-based neural network (BERT and variants) show a statistically reliable fit to these reading patterns above-and-beyond text- and semantic-similarity baseline metrics, as well as a recurrent-network-based baseline. Reading strategies are modulated when questions are not previewed, and when participants are L1 versus L2 readers, and these patterns are also statistically tracked by the same transformer-based network.

I should note that I served as a reviewer on an earlier version of this manuscript at a different venue. I had an overall positive view of the paper at that point, and the same opinion holds here as well.

Strengths:

- Task-optimization is a key notion in current models of reading and the current effort provides a computationally rigorous account of how such task effects might be modeled<br /> - Multiple experiments provide reasonable effort towards generalization across readers and different reading scenarios<br /> - Use of RNN-based baseline, text-based features, and semantic features provides a useful baseline for comparing Transformer-based models like BERT

Weaknesses:

- Generalization across neural network models seems, to me, somewhat limited: The transformer-based models differ from baseline models in numerous ways (model size, training data, scoring algorithm); it is thus not clear what properties of these models necessarily supports their fit to human reading patterns.<br /> - Inferential statistics are based on a series of linear regressions, but these differ markedly in model size (BERT models involve 144 attention-based regressor, while the RNN-based model uses just 1 attention-based regressor). How are improvements in model fit balanced against changes in model size? Also, it was not clear to me how participant-level variance was accounted for in the modeling effort (mixed-effects regression?) These questions may well be easily remedied by more complete reporting.<br /> - Experiment 1 was paired with a relatively comprehensive discussion of how attention weights mapped to reading times, but the same sort of analysis was not reported for Exps 2-4; this seems like a missed opportunity given the broader interest in testing how reading strategies might change across the different parameters of the four experiments.<br /> - Comparison of predictive power of BERT weights to human annotations of text relevance is limited: The annotation task asked participants to chose the 5 "most relevant" words for a given question; if >5 words carried utility in answering a question, this would not be captured by the annotation. It seems to me that the improvement of BERT over human annotations discussed around page 10-11 could well be due to this arbitrary limitation of the annotations.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this study, researchers aim to understand the computational principles behind attention allocation in goal-directed reading tasks. They explore how deep neural networks (DNNs) optimized for reading tasks can predict reading time and attention distribution. The findings show that attention weights in transformer-based DNNs predict reading time for each word. Eye tracking reveals that readers focus on basic text features and question-relevant information during initial reading and rereading, respectively. Attention weights in shallow and deep DNN layers are separately influenced by text features and question relevance. Additionally, when readers read without a specific question in mind, DNNs optimized for word prediction tasks can predict their reading time. Based on these findings, the authors suggest that attention in real-world reading can be understood as a result of task optimization.

The research question pursued by the study is interesting and important. The manuscript was well written and enjoyable to read. However, I do have some concerns.

1. In the first paragraph of the manuscript, it appears that the purpose of the study was to test the optimization hypothesis in natural tasks. However, the cited papers mainly focus on covert visual attention, while the present study primarily focuses on overt attention (eye movements). It is crucial to clearly distinguish between these two types of attention and state that the study mainly focuses on overt attention at the beginning of the manuscript.

2. The manuscript correctly describes attention in DNN as a mechanism to selectively extract useful information. However, eye-movement measures such as gaze duration and total reading time are primarily influenced by the time needed to process words. Therefore, there is a doubt whether the argument stating that attention in DNN is conceptually similar to the human attention mechanism at the computational level is correct. It is strongly suggested that the authors thoroughly discuss whether these concepts describe the same or different things.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors have studied the effect of temperature on the interspecific interaction strength of coastal marine fish communities, using eDNA samples. Their introduction describes the state of the art concerning the dynamics of interspecific interactions in ecological communities. This introduction is well written and highly information dense, summarizing all that the reader needs to know to further understand their study setup and execution.

The authors hypothesize that water temperature changes could have an effect on the interspecific interaction strength between marine fishes, and they studied this with a two year long, bi-weekly eDNA sampling campaign at 11 study sites in Japan with different temperature gradients. These 550 water samples were analysed for fish biodiversity through eDNA-metabarcoding using MiFish primers. By using the most abundant fish species as an internal spike in and quantifying the copy numbers from this species by qPCR, the authors were able estimate DNA copy numbers for the total dataset. From the 50 most frequently detected fish species in these samples they showed that temperature affected the interspecific interaction strength between some species. Their work provides a highly relevant approach to perform species-interaction strength analysis based on eDNA biodiversity assessments, and as such provides a research framework to study marine community dynamics by eDNA, which is highly relevant in the study of ecosystem dynamics. The models and analytical methods used are clearly described and made available, enabling application of these methods by anyone interested in applying it to their own site and species group of interest.

Strengths:

The authors have a study setup that is suitable to measure the effects of temperature of the eDNA diversity, and have taken a large number of samples and all appropriate controls to be able to accurately measure and describe these dynamics. The applied internal spike in to enable relative eDNA copy number quantification is convincing.

Weaknesses:

The authors were able to find a correlation between water temperature and interaction strengths observed. However, since water temperature is dependent on many environmental variables that are either directly or indirectly influencing ecosystem dynamics, it is hard to prove a direct correlation between the observed changes in community dynamics and the temperature alone

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This study by Cao et al. demonstrates role of Neutrophil in clearing apoptotic hepatocytes by directly burrowing into the apoptotic hepatocytes and ingesting the effete cells from inside without causing inflammation. The authors applied intravital microscopy, Immunostaining and electron microscopy to visualize perforocytosis of neutrophil in hepatocytes. They also found that neutrophil depletion impairs the clearance of apoptotic hepatocytes causing impaired liver function and generation of autoantibodies, implying a role of defective neutrophil- mediated clearance of apoptotic cells in Autoimmune Liver disease. The experiments were well designed and conducted, the results were reasonably interpreted, and the manuscript was clearly written with logical inputs.

Further studies to explore the signals/mechanisms that determine why neutrophil specifically target apoptotic hepatocytes in liver would be of great clinical significance.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Neutrophils are not known to be the cells responsible for removal of apoptotic cells through efferocytosis. This report provides strong evidence that neutrophils can remove apoptotic hepatocytes in vivo and in vitro. In addition, neutrophils, which are much smaller in size than hepatocytes, can burrow into apoptotic hepatocytes.

Neutrophils are the most abundant circulating leukocytes in human. They play important roles in innate immune responses to infections and tissue injuries. Although they are dept in phagocytosis of microbes, neutrophils are not known to normally conduct efferocytosis or phagocytose host cells including apoptotic cells and play a significant role in apoptotic cell removal. In this report the authors provide evidence to suggest that neutrophils are involved in removal of apoptotic hepatocytes with certain specificity (i.e., they do not remove HEK293 or HUVEC endothelial cells). Moreover, the authors also show that neutrophils can burrow into the target cells and possibly ingest the target cells from the inside. The authors thus term this neutrophil-mediated efferocytosis process as "perforocytosis". Furthermore, evidence is provided to suggest that this neutrophil-mediated efferocytosis process keeps the number of apoptotic cells low in the livers and that defects in the processes may associate with autoimmune liver (AIL) disease phenotypes. Therefore, many of these findings are novel and the study is of important implications in our understanding of the role of neutrophils in autoimmune disease. Overall speaking, as the first report describing this novel finding, the authors have provided reasonably strong evidence for the conclusion that neutrophils burrow into apoptotic hepatocytes to perform "perforocytosis" to eliminate apoptotic hepatocytes. The importance, particularly in vivo significance, of this phenomenon needs to be further substantiated in future studies.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> Codol et al. present a toolbox that allows simulating biomechanically realistic effectors and training Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) to control them. The paper provides a detailed explanation of how the toolbox is structured and several examples that demonstrate its usefulness.

Main comments:<br /> 1. The paper is well written and easy to follow. The schematics help in understanding how the toolbox works and the examples provide an idea of the results that the user can obtain.

2. As I understand it, the main purpose of the paper should be to facilitate the usage of the toolbox. For this reason, I have missed a more explicit link to the actual code. As I see it, researchers will read this paper to figure out whether they can use MotorNet to simulate their experiments, and how they should proceed if they decide to use it. I'd say the paper provides an answer to the first question and assures that the toolbox is very easy to install and use. Maybe the authors could support this claim by adding "snippets" of code that show the key steps in building an actual example.

3. The results provided in Figures 1, 4, 5 and 6 are useful, because they provide examples of the type of things one can do with the toolbox. I have a few comments that might help improving them:<br /> a. The examples in Figures 1 and 5 seem a bit redundant (same effector, similar task). Maybe the authors could show an example with a different effector or task? (see point 4).<br /> b. I missed a discussion on the relevance of the results shown in Figure 4. The moment arms are barely mentioned outside section 2.3. Are these results new? How can they help with motor control research?<br /> c. The results in Figure 6 are important, since one key asset of ANNs is that they provide access to the activity of the whole population of units that produces a given behavior. For this reason, I think it would be interesting to show the actual "empirical observations" that the results shown in Fig. 6 are replicating, hence allowing a direct comparison between the results obtained for biological and simulated neurons.

4. All examples in the paper use the arm26 plant as effector. Although the authors say that "users can easily declare their own custom-made effector and task objects if desired by subclassing the base Plant and Task class, respectively", this does not sound straightforward. Table 1 does not really clarify how to do it. Maybe an example that shows the actual code (see point 2) that creates a new plant (e.g. the 3-joint arm in Figure 7) would be useful.

5. One potential limitation of the toolbox is that it is based on Tensorflow, when the field of Computational Neuroscience seems to be, or at least that's my impression, transitioning to pyTorch. How easy would it be to translate MotorNet to pyTorch? Maybe the authors could comment on this in the discussion.

6. Supervised learning (SL) is widely used in Systems Neuroscience, especially because it is faster than reinforcement learning (RL). Thus providing the possibility of training the ANNs with SL is an important asset of the toolbox. However, SL is not always ideal, especially when the optimal strategy is not known or when there are different alternative strategies and we want to know which is the one preferred by the subject. For instance, would it be possible to implement a setup in which the ANN has to choose between 2 different paths to reach a target? (e.g. Kaufman et al. 2015 eLife). In such a scenario, RL seems to be a more natural option Would it be easy to extend MotorNet so it allows training with RL? Maybe the authors could comment on this in the discussion.

Impact:<br /> MotorNet aims at simplifying the process of simulating complex experimental setups to rapidly test hypotheses about how the brain produces a specific movement. By providing an end-to-end pipeline to train ANNs on the simulated setup, it can greatly help guide experimenters to decide where to focus their experimental efforts.

Additional context:<br /> Being the main result a toolbox, the paper is complemented by a GitHub repository and a documentation webpage. Both the repository and the webpage are well organized and easy to navigate. The webpage walks the user through the installation of the toolbox and the building of the effectors and the ANNs.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

MotorNet aims to provide a unified interface where the trained RNN controller exists within the same TensorFlow environment as the end effectors being controlled. This architecture provides a much simpler interface for the researcher to develop and iterate through computational hypotheses. In addition, the authors have built a set of biomechanically realistic end effectors (e.g., an 2 joint arm model with realistic muscles) within TensorFlow that are fully differentiable.

MotorNet will prove a highly useful starting point for researchers interested in exploring the challenges of controlling movement with realistic muscle and joint dynamics. The architecture features a conveniently modular design and the inclusion of simpler arm models provides an approachable learning curve. Other state-of-the-art simulation engines offer realistic models of muscles and multi-joint arms and afford more complex object manipulation and contact dynamics than MotorNet. However, MotorNet's approach allows for direct optimization of the controller network via gradient descent rather than reinforcement learning, which is a compromise currently required when other simulation engines (as these engines' code cannot be differentiated through).

The paper could be reorganized to provide clearer signposts as to what role each section plays (e.g., that the explanation of the moment arms of different joint models serves to illustrate the complexity of realistic biomechanics, rather than a novel discovery/exposition of this manuscript). Also, if possible, it would be valuable if the authors could provide more insight into whether gradient descent finds qualitatively different solutions to RL or other non gradient-based methods. This would strengthen the argument that a fully differentiable plant is useful beyond improving training time / computational power required (although this is a sufficiently important rationale per se).

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Artificial neural networks have developed into a new research tool across various disciplines of neuroscience. However, specifically for studying neural control of movement it was extremely difficult to train those models, as they require not only simulating the neural network, but also the body parts one is interested in studying. The authors provide a solution to this problem which is built upon one of the main software packages used for deep learning (Tensorflow). This allows them to make use of state-of-the-art tools for training neural networks.

They show that their toolbox is able to (re-)produce several commonly studied experiments e.g., planar reaching with and without loads. The toolbox is described in sufficient detail to get an overview of the functionality and the current state of what can be done with it. Although the authors state that only a few lines of code can reproduce such an experiment, they unfortunately don't provide any source code to reproduce their results (nor is it given in the respective repository).

The modularity of the presented toolbox makes it easy to exchange or modify single parts of an experiment e.g., the task or the neural network used as a controller. Together with the open-source nature of the toolbox, this will facilitate sharing and reproducibility across research labs.

I can see how this paper can enable a whole set of new studies on neural control of movement and accelerate the turnover time for new ideas or hypotheses, as stated in the first paragraph of the Discussion section. Having such a low effort to run computational experiments will be definitely beneficial for the field of neural control of movement.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This study explored how expectations influence tactile perception. In summary, anticipating a tactile event enhances detection compared to when knowledge is lacking or ambiguous. However, prior information can also impair performance if the expected and actual stimuli are incongruent. The authors used fMRI and multivariate decoding analyses to investigate the underlying mechanisms of this behavioural phenomenon.

They stimulated two fingers (thumb and ring) of the left hand and analysed activity patterns in contralateral and ipsilateral somatosensory regions during and before stimulation. They were able to distinguish activity patterns for the two fingers during both stimulation and the pre-stimulation stage, specifically for the congruent condition. The authors suggest that congruent vibrotactile stimulation leads to higher multivariate information content and improved behavioural detection performance. They also found that the expectation of vibrotactile stimulation elicits somatotopic activity in contralateral S1, similar to the activity generated by actual stimulation.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this well-written and clear work. The incorporation of multivariate decoding analysis alongside univariate analysis is a good choice for addressing the claimed questions. In the following sections, I will highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the study. While I generally agree with the authors' conclusions regarding the functional mechanisms underlying behavioural improvements, I believe there are limitations in the experimental design and chosen measures that constrain the interpretations drawn from the results. I hope that my comments can contribute to clarifying certain details and improving aspects of the study that may be considered weak. I believe this study holds significance for the field and provides a foundation for future investigations into the influence of top-down processing on tactile processing.

Strengths:<br /> 1) The research question is highly intriguing as it delves into the unexplored territory of top-down processes within the tactile domain that still needs to be well characterised.

2) The addition of multivariate decoding analysis alongside the univariate analysis was a good choice in my opinion, since activity level per se may not accurately reflect the underlying information content. Both high activity levels and absence of activity (as observed in this study) can still contain information. To be more specific, Figure 2C shows no significant activity in the congruent condition, but significant decoding for the two finger activity patterns is still possible in this condition (Figure 3A).

3) The utilization of a staircase before each functional run was also a good approach, although a potential limitation is noted (discussed below). Considering that prior knowledge can be particularly influential in the presence of weak or noisy stimuli, it is crucial to confirm that the stimulation was at threshold to maximize the likelihood of detecting differences in the pre-stimulus stage.

Weaknesses:<br /> 1) My main concern regarding this study lies in the choice of a detection paradigm, which may introduce response biases and affect the interpretation of results. If the threshold was set too low for some participants, it is possible that they reported feeling the touch more frequently on the cued finger, even when no actual sensation was present. Consequently, accuracy may be inflated for the congruent condition and reduced for the incongruent condition, making it difficult to attribute the observed improvements solely to enhanced detection. I think it would have been more appropriate to use a discriminatory task (e.g., discriminating pin patterns), as employed in Kok et al., 2012, where behavioural performance can be directly linked to decoding accuracy between related activity patterns. Additionally, incorporating trials with no stimulation (I am not sure whether this was the case in this study) and utilizing "None" responses to calculate accuracy could provide a more reliable measure of performance. Using dprime as a performance measure, which is bias-free, may be more appropriate. However, I remain concerned that participant responses are influenced more by the cue than the actual detection of stimuli.

2) While I appreciate the use of the staircase method, I was somewhat surprised by the relatively short length of each staircase (only 7 trials). I might not have extensive experience in this area, therefore this might still be ok for fingers, but I want to emphasize the importance of accurately determining the threshold for this study (as discussed in the previous point). However, I can see from Figure 1B that there seems to be consistency across runs (at least in the shown participant).

3) The absence of significant decoding in the incongruent condition (Figure 3A) raises some questions. It seems reasonable to expect that discrimination between the two finger activity patterns should still be possible in this condition, albeit with reduced accuracy as observed in Kok et al., 2012. Could this lack of significant decoding result from the detection task or possibly due to the smaller number of trials in the incongruent condition?

4) I am a bit confused about which specific region of interest (ROI) was used for both the univariate and decoding analysis during the stimulation stage, and the decoding analysis and RSA during the pre-stimulation phase. From my understanding, the entire S1 region (as defined using the SPM Anatomy toolbox) was included, encompassing not only the hand territory but the entire body. However, I may have misinterpreted the methodology. Given that an independent localizer was used to define ROIs for the univariate analysis during the pre-stimulation phase, it raises the question of why the same approach was not applied to the analyses during the stimulation phase and the multivariate analysis during the pre-stimulation phase.

5) By using a large ROI for analysis (as mentioned in point 4), the straightforward interpretation of BOLD level (i.e., no significant activity) in the congruent condition (Figure 2C) becomes less clear. It raises the question of whether there is truly no activity in the congruent condition or if the activity would be observed with a smaller region. This aligns with the findings of Kok et al., 2012, where they demonstrate activity in both expected and unexpected conditions, albeit reduced in the expected condition.

6) Point 5 raises another issue regarding the suggestion that significant decoding results imply higher multivariate information content in finger representations of congruent vibrotactile stimulations. Suppose a smaller ROI were used, revealing activity in the congruent condition and differential activity between the two finger conditions. In that case, the substantial difference in activation levels suggests that increased decoding accuracy may not necessarily require higher multivariate information content. It is conceivable that discrimination between the two conditions could be achieved with just two voxels-one in the thumb territory and one in the index territory.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary

The authors conducted a study where participants were perceiving near-threshold touch at either the thumb or ring finger while lying in the MR scanner. Prior to stimulation, a visual cue indicated to them with 80% probability which finger would be touched next (thumb or ring finger), or did not provide meaningful information on which finger would be touched. Subsequently, participants were asked to indicate which finger was actually touched via button press. By showing that 1. participants were more accurate in responding which finger was touched in the congruent compared to the incongruent and neutral conditions, 2. S1 responses were higher in the incongruent compared to the congruent and neutral conditions, 3. decoding accuracies were higher for the congruent compared to incongruent and neutral conditions, and 4. decoding was also successful in the period after cueing and before stimulation, the authors argue that similar to V1, S1 shows decreased BOLD activation in response to expected versus non-expected stimuli, whereas the finger-specific response is more precise for expected versus non-expected stimuli. The authors also argue that behavioral improvement is associated to a tactile stimulus being predicted in location.

Strengths

The manuscript combines a behavioral threshold task that can be analyzed using psychophysics with BOLD responses in S1, providing a rich paradigm to understand the relationship between S1 responsively and tactile perception. The authors combine GLM with both ROI-based and whole-brain searchlight-based decoding analyses, and therefore offer different analyses methods to obtain a comprehensive picture of the S1 responsively during expected versus non-expected touch. It is also a strength of the paper that two different fingers were investigated, hence addressing the aspect of topography.

Weaknesses

The behavioral paradigm that was chosen is not ideal to address the authors' questions on whether or not behavior improves for expected versus non-expected touch. More precisely, in 80% of the cases when it was indicated that the ring finger would be touched, in fact later the ring finger was touched, whereas in 80% of the cases when it was indicated that the thumb would be touched, in fact later the thumb was touched. In the congruent conditions where later the indicated finger was indeed touched, participants showed on average 70% accuracy. Therefore, they could have reached this accuracy level simply by choosing the indicated finger unless they had a strong sensation that indicated to them to respond otherwise. In order to show that the cueing can improve behavioral performance, one would have to choose a tactile task that is not related to finger identity (which was cued), such as frequency detection or spatial acuity.

The correlation between accuracy and decoding accuracies as shown in Figure 3b does not seem to be correct. The decoding accuracies indicate how well the algorithm can differentiate between D1 versus D4 stimulation in the congruent condition, whereas the behavior indicates the difference between congruent and incongruent responses. I think those two measures should not directly be compared, in addition to the general problem that is inherent in the behavioral paradigm, as outlined above. I would therefore treat this correction and the behavioral analyses in general with great caution.

Alternative ways to interpret the data

It is worth noting that the incongruent stimulation condition did not reveal significant D1 versus D4 decoding results neither when ROI-based decoding was used nor when searchlight-based decoding was used (see Figure 3a,c). Therefore, it seems that when the wrong finger was cued, the finger representation of the actually touched finger did not respond. Given the decoding accuracy is even below 50% for the incongruent ROI-based decoding, this seems to indicate that the finger-specific response in S1 to the cued finger is even stronger than the finger-specific response in S1 to the actually touched finger. This may be the major take-home-message of the paper. This hypothesis could be directly tested by showing the the plot in Figure 2c for each finger: The results may show that the higher activation in the incongruent condition is actually due to the fact that in this condition, both the non-touched and finger the touched finger respond, whereas this is not the case for the other conditions.

When discussing this finding, the authors write that "finger representations of congruent vibrotactile stimulations are associated with higher multivariate information content, are more aligned with the somatotropin organization in contralateral S1, and that the enhanced representation of these stimuli is strongly associated with behavioral detection performance." - A better formulation may be that for threshold tactile stimulation, the expectation of finger touch can override the actual finger touch, indicating a strong influence of top-down control on S1 finger maps. This is also supported by the analyses that there is finger-specific activation in the cue-stimulation interval. However, as indicated above, finger- and condition-specific BOLD activation needs to be shown to explore this in more detail.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The authors have devised a clever experimental design involving the provision of cues to participants, indicating the finger that is more likely to be stimulated in each trial (e.g., ring finger or thumb). Employing fMRI analyses, the authors have leveraged the distinct and well-defined finger representations in the somatosensory cortex to investigate how prior knowledge influences the processing of haptic stimuli in a probability cueing paradigm. The authors successfully replicate key neural phenomena associated with predictive processing, encompassing expectation suppression, the sharpening of expected information representation, and the pre-activation of sensory templates associated with the anticipated stimulus. The methodology employed in this study is straightforward, and the obtained results are convincing.

However, it is worth noting that the cue-finger and finger associations were explicitly conveyed to the participants in this study. Additionally, the inter-stimulus interval (ISI) between the finger-cue and the cue varied randomly across trials, rendering the onset of the cue unpredictable (in time) for the participants. These experimental manipulations lead me to consider that the observed results may not be solely explained by predictive mechanisms but could also involve top-down controlled attention. It would be valuable for the authors to include a task similar to Experiment 2 in Kok et al. (2012), where participants' attention was diverted away from the gratings contrast, yet decoding sharpening for expected but task-irrelevant stimulus orientations was still evident. By incorporating such a task, it would help elucidate whether the authors would replicate similar results when predictive information remains intact but the predicted stimulus feature becomes task-irrelevant.

Furthermore, I have concerns regarding potential issues related to the training of the multivariate decoder. If I understand correctly, instead of using the functional localiser to train the SVM classifier, the authors directly employed the experimental data from the congruent, incongruent, and non-informative conditions together. It is noted that the number of trials used in each training fold was downsampled to achieve an equal number of trials from each condition, controlling for the asymmetry in number of trials between the incongruent and congruent conditions. However, I am concerned that if there are univariate differences between the activity patterns in the training datasets (e.g., congruent < incongruent), the decoder might exhibit a bias towards relying more on the activity of one specific condition, thereby potentially performing better in decoding that particular condition. To address this, I suggest presenting Representational Similarity Analysis (RSA) results using the activity patterns evoked by congruent, incongruent, and non-informative stimuli. This analysis would offer a simpler, more interpretable representation of changes in the representational geometry of the stimuli based on previous predictions (see Blank & Davis, 2016), and might shed some light on whether your results correspond on sharpening or dampening of the expected information.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The modeling approaches are very sophisticated, and clearly demonstrate the selective nature of acute ketamine to reduce the impact of trial losses on subsequent performance, relative to neutral or gain outcomes. The authors then, not unreasonably, suggest that this effect is important in the context of the negative bias in interpreting events that is prominent in depression, in that if ketamine reduces the ability of negative outcomes to alter behavior, this may be a mechanism for its rapid acting antidepressant effects. However, there is a very strong assumption in this regard, as shown by the first sentence of the discussion which implies this is a systematic study of ketamine's acute antidepressant effects. In actuality, this is a study of the acute effects of ketamine on reinforcement learning (RL) modeled parameters. A primary concern here is that an effect presented as a "robust antidepressant-like behavioral effect" should be more enduring than just an alteration during the acute administration. As it is, the link to an "anti-depressant effect" is based solely on the selective effects on losses. This is not to say this is not an interesting observation, worthy of exploration. It is noted that a similar lack of enduring effects on outcome evaluation is observed in humans, as shown in supplemental fig. S4, but there is not accompanying citation for the human work. One question that comes to mind in terms of the selectivity observed is whether similar work has been done to examine the acute effects of any other drugs. If ketamine is unique in this regard, that would be quite interesting.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Oemisch and Seo set out to examine the effects of low-dose ketamine on reinforcement learning, with the idea that alterations in reinforcement learning and/or motivation might inform our understanding of what alterations co-occur with potential antidepressant effects. Macaques performed a reinforced/punished matching pennies task while under effects of saline or ketamine administration and the data were fit to a series of reinforcement learning models to determine which model described behavior under saline most closely and then what parameters of this best-fitting model were altered by ketamine. They found a mixed effect, with two out of three macaques primarily exhibiting an effect of ketamine on processing of losses and one out of three macaques exhibiting an effect of ketamine on processing of losses and perseveration. They found that these effects of ketamine appeared to be dissociable from the nystagmus effects of the ketamine.<br /> The findings are novel and the data suggesting that ketamine is primarily having its effects on processing of losses (under the procedures used) are solid. However, it is unclear whether the connection between processing of losses and the antidepressant effects of ketamine is justified and the current findings may be more useful for those studying reinforcement learning than those studying depression and antidepressant effects. In addition, the co-occurrence of different behavioral procedures with different patterns of ketamine effects, with one macaque tested with different parameters than the other two exhibiting effects of ketamine that were best fit with a different model than the other two macaques, suggests that there may be difficulty in generalizing these findings to reinforcement learning more generally.

1) First, the authors should be more explicit and careful in the connection they are trying to make about the link between loss processing and depression. The authors call their effect a "robust antidepressant-like behavioral effect" but there are no references to support this or discussion of how the altered loss processing would relate directly to the antidepressant effects.<br /> 2) It appears that the monkey P was given smaller rewards and punishers than the other two monkeys and this monkey had an effect of ketamine on perseveration that was not observed in the other two monkeys. Is this believed to be due to the different task, or was this animal given a different task because of some behavioral differences that preceded the experiment? The authors should also discuss what these differences may mean for the generality of their findings. For example, might there be some set of parameters where ketamine would only alter perseveration and not processing of losses?<br /> 3) The authors should discuss whether the plasma ketamine levels they observed are similar to those seen with rapid antidepressant ketamine or are higher or lower.<br /> 4) For Figure 4 or S3, the authors should show the data fitted to model 7, which was the best for one of the animals.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this article, Vardakalis et al. propose a novel model of hippocampal oscillations whereby an external input (emulating the medial septum) can drive theta rhythms. This model displays phase-amplitude coupling of gamma oscillations, as well as theta resetting, which are known features of physiological theta that have been missing in previous models. The end goal proposed by the authors is to have a framework to explore the mechanisms of neurostimulation, which have shown promising applications in pathological conditions, but for which the underlying dynamics remain largely unknown. To reach this objective, the authors implement an existing biophysical model of the hippocampus that is able to generate gamma oscillations, and receives inputs from a set of Kuramoto oscillators to emulate theta drive originating from the medial septum.

Overall, the hypotheses and results are clearly presented and supported by high quality figures. The study is presented in a didactic way, making it easy for a broad audience to understand the significance of the results. The study does present some weaknesses that could easily be addressed by the authors. First, there are some anatomical inaccuracies: line 129 and fig1C, the authors omit medial septum projections to area CA1 (in addition to the entorhinal cortex). Moreover, in addition to CA1, CA3 also provides monosynaptic feedback projections to the medial septum CA3. Finally, an indirect projection from CA1/3 excitatory neurons to the lateral septum, which in turn sends inhibitory projections to the medial septum could be included or mentioned by the authors. This could be of particular relevance to support claims related to effects of neurostimulations, whereby minutious implementation of anatomical data could be key. If not updating their model, the authors could add this point to their limitation section, where they already do a good job of mentioning some limitations of using the EC as a sole oscillatory input to CA1. The authors test conditions of low theta inputs, which they liken to pathological states (line 112). It is not clear what pathology the authors are referring to, especially since a large amount of 'oscillopathies' in the septohippocampal system are associated with decreased gamma/PAC, but not theta oscillations (e.g. Alzheimer's disease conditions). While relevant for the clinical field, there is overall a missed opportunity to explain many experimental accounts with this novel model. Although to this day, clinical use of DBS is mostly restricted to electrical (and thus cell-type agnostic) stimulation, recent studies focusing on mechanisms of neurostimulations have manipulated specific subtypes in the medial septum and observed effects on hippocampal oscillations (e.g. see Muller & Remy, 2017 for review). Focusing stimulations in CA1 is of course relevant for clinical studies but testing mechanistic hypotheses by focusing stimulation on specific cell types could be highly informative. For instance, could the author reproduce recent optogenetic studies (e.g. Bender et al. 2015 for stimulation of fornix fibers; Etter et al., 2019 & Zutshi et al. 2018 for stimulation of septal inhibitory neurons)? Cell specific manipulations should at least be discussed by the authors.

Beyond these weaknesses, this study has a strong utility for researchers wanting to explore hypotheses in the field of neurostimulations. In particular, I see value in such models for exploring more intricate, phase specific effects of continuous, as well as close loop stimulations which are on the rise in systems neuroscience.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Theta-nested gamma oscillations (TNGO) play an important role in hippocampal memory and cognitive processes and are disrupted in pathology. Deep brain stimulation has been shown to affect memory encoding. To investigate the effect of pulsed CA1 neurostimulation on hippocampal TNGO the authors coupled a physiologically realistic model of the hippocampus comprising EC, DG, CA1, and CA3 subfields with an abstract theta oscillator model of the medial septum (MS). Pathology was modeled as weakened theta input from the MS to EC simulating MS neurodegeneration known to occur in Alzheimer's disease. The authors show that if the input from the MS to EC is strong (the healthy state) the model autonomously generates TNGO in all hippocampal subfields while a single neurostimulation pulse has the effect of resetting the TNGO phase. When the MS input strength is weaker the network is quiescent but the authors find that a single CA1 neurostimulation pulse can switch it into the persistent TNGO state, provided the neurostimulation pulse is applied at the peak of the EC theta. If the MS theta oscillator model is supplemented by an additional phase-reset mechanism a single CA1 neurostimulation pulse applied at the trough of EC theta also produces the same effect. If the MS input to EC is weaker still, only a short burst of TNGO is generated by a single neurostimulation pulse. The authors investigate the physiological origin of this burst and find it results from an interplay of CAN and M currents in the CA1 excitatory cells. In this case, the authors find that TNGO can only be rescued by a theta frequency train of CA1 pulses applied at the peak of the EC theta or again at either the peak or trough if the MS oscillator model is supplemented by the phase-reset mechanism.

The main strength of this model is its use of a fairly physiologically detailed model of the hippocampus. The cells are single-compartment models but do include multiple ion channels and are spatially arranged in accordance with the hippocampal structure. This allows the understanding of how ion channels (possibly modifiable by pharmacological agents) interact with system-level oscillations and neurostimulation. The model also includes all the main hippocampal subfields. The other strength is its attention to an important topic, which may be relevant for dementia treatment or prevention, which few modeling studies have addressed.

The work has several weaknesses. First, while investigations of hippocampal neurostimulation are important there are few experimental studies from which one could judge the validity of the model findings. All its findings are therefore predictions. It would be much more convincing to first show the model is able to reproduce some measured empirical neurostimulation effect before proceeding to make predictions. Second, the model is very specific. Or if its behavior is to be considered general it has not been explained why. For example, the model shows bistability between quiescence and TNGO, however what aspect of the model underlies this, be it some particular network structure or particular ion channel, for example, is not addressed. Similarly for the various phase reset behaviors that are found. We may wonder whether a different hippocampal model of TNGO, of which there are many published (for example [1-6]) would show the same effect under neurostimulation. This seems very unlikely and indeed the quiescent state itself shown by this model seems quite artificial. Some indication that particular ion channels, CAN and M are relevant is briefly provided and the work would be much improved by examining this aspect in more detail. In summary, the work would benefit from an intuitive analysis of the basic model ingredients underlying its neurostimulation response properties. Third, while the model is fairly realistic, considerable important factors are not included and in fact, there are much more detailed hippocampal models out there (for example [5,6]). In particular, it includes only excitatory cells and a single type of inhibitory cell. This is particularly important since there are many models and experimental studies where specific cell types, for example, OLM and VIP cells, are strongly implicated in TNGO. Other missing ingredients one may think might have a strong impact on model response to neurostimulation (in particular stimulation trains) include the well-known short-term plasticity between different hippocampal cell types and active dendritic properties. Fourth the MS model seems somewhat unsupported. It is modeled as a set of coupled oscillators that synchronize. However, there is also a phase reset mechanism included. This mechanism is important because it underlies several of the phase reset behaviors shown by the full model. However, it is not derived from experimental phase response curves of septal neurons of which there is no direct measurement. The work would benefit from the use of a more biologically validated MS model.

[1] Hyafil A, Giraud AL, Fontolan L, Gutkin B. Neural cross-frequency coupling: connecting architectures, mechanisms, and functions. Trends in neurosciences. 2015 Nov 1;38(11):725-40.

[2] Tort AB, Rotstein HG, Dugladze T, Gloveli T, Kopell NJ. On the formation of gamma-coherent cell assemblies by oriens lacunosum-moleculare interneurons in the hippocampus. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2007 Aug 14;104(33):13490-5.

[3] Neymotin SA, Lazarewicz MT, Sherif M, Contreras D, Finkel LH, Lytton WW. Ketamine disrupts theta modulation of gamma in a computer model of hippocampus. Journal of Neuroscience. 2011 Aug 10;31(32):11733-43.

[4] Ponzi A, Dura-Bernal S, Migliore M. Theta-gamma phase-amplitude coupling in a hippocampal CA1 microcircuit. PLOS Computational Biology. 2023 Mar 23;19(3):e1010942.

[5] Bezaire MJ, Raikov I, Burk K, Vyas D, Soltesz I. Interneuronal mechanisms of hippocampal theta oscillations in a full-scale model of the rodent CA1 circuit. Elife. 2016 Dec 23;5:e18566.

[6] Chatzikalymniou AP, Gumus M, Skinner FK. Linking minimal and detailed models of CA1 microcircuits reveals how theta rhythms emerge and their frequencies controlled. Hippocampus. 2021 Sep;31(9):982-1002.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

It is known that aberrant habit formation is a characteristic of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Habits can be defined according to the following features (Balleine and Dezfouli, 2019): rapid execution, invariant response topography and action 'chunking'. The extent to which OCD behavior is derived from enhanced habit formation relative to deficits in goal-directed behavior is a topic of debate in the current literature. This study examined habit-learning specifically (cf. deficits in goal-directed behavior) by regularly presenting, via smartphone, sequential learning tasks to patients with OCD and healthy controls. Participants engaged in the tasks every day over the course of a month. Automaticity, including the extent to which individual actions in the sequence become part of a unified 'chunk', was an important outcome variable. Following the 30 days of training, in-laboratory tasks were then administered to examine 1) if performing the learned sequences themselves had become rewarding 2) differences in goal-directed vs. habitual behavior.

Several hypotheses were tested, including:<br /> Patients would have impaired procedural learning vs. healthy volunteers (this was not supported, possibly because there were fewer demands on memory in the task used here)<br /> Once the task had been learned, patients would display automaticity faster (unexpectedly, patients were slower to display automaticity)<br /> Habits would form faster under a continuous (vs. variable) reinforcement schedule

Exploratory analyses were also conducted: an interesting finding was that OCD patients with higher self-reported symptoms voluntarily completed more sessions with the habit-training app and reported a reduction in symptoms.

Strengths

This paper is well situated theoretically within the habit learning/OCD literature.<br /> Daily training in a motor-learning task, delivered via smartphone, was innovative, ecologically valid and more likely to assay habitual behaviors specifically. Daily training is also more similar to studies with non-humans, making a better link with that literature. The use of a sequential-learning task (cf. tasks that require a single response) is also more ecologically valid.<br /> The in-laboratory tests (after the 1 month of training) allowed the researchers to test if the OCD group preferred familiar, but more difficult, sequences over newer, simpler sequences.

Weaknesses

The sample size was relatively small. Some potentially interesting individual differences within the OCD group could have been examined more thoroughly with a bigger sample (e.g., preference for familiar sequences). A larger sample may have allowed the statistical testing of any effects due to medication status.<br /> The authors were not able to test one criterion of habits, namely resistance to devaluation, due to the nature of the task

The authors achieved their aims in that two groups of participants (patients with OCD and controls) engaged with the task over the course of 30 days. The repeated nature of the task meant that 'overtraining' was almost certainly established, and automaticity was demonstrated. This allowed the authors to test their hypotheses about habit learning. The results are supportive of the author's conclusions.

This article is likely to be impactful -- the delivery of a task across 30 days to a patient group is innovative and represents a new approach for the study of habit learning that is superior to an in-laboratory approach.

An interesting aspect of this manuscript is that it prompts a comparison with previous studies of goal-directed/habitual responding in OCD that used devaluation protocols, and which may have had their effects due to deficits in goal-directed behavior and not enhanced habit learning per se.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this study, the researchers employed a recently developed smartphone application to provide 30 days of training on action sequences to both OCD patients and healthy volunteers. The study tested learning and automaticity-related measures and investigated the effects of several factors on these measures. Upon training completion, the researchers conducted two preference tests comparing a learned and unlearned action sequences under different conditions. While the study provides some interesting findings, I have a few substantial concerns:

1. Throughout the entire paper, the authors' interpretations and claims revolve around the domain of habits and goal-directed behavior, despite the methods and evidence clearly focusing on motor sequence learning/procedural learning/skill learning. There is no evidence to support this framing and interpretation and thus I find them overreaching and hyperbolic, and I think they should be avoided. Although skills and habits share many characteristics, they are meaningfully distinguishable and should not be conflated or mixed up. Furthermore, if anything, the evidence in this study suggests that participants attained procedural learning, but these actions did not become habitual, as they remained deliberate actions that were not chosen to be performed when they were not in line with participants' current goals.<br /> 2. Some methodological aspects need more detail and clarification.<br /> 3. There are concerns regarding some of the analyses, which require addressing.

Please see details below, ordered by the paper sections.

Introduction:<br /> It is stated that "extensive training of sequential actions would more rapidly engage the 'habit system' as compared to single-action instrumental learning". In an attempt to describe the rationale for this statement the authors describe the concept of action chunking, its benefits and relevance to habits but there is no explanation for why sequential actions would engage the habit system more rapidly than a single-action. Clarifying this would be helpful.

In the Hypothesis section the authors state: "we expected that OCD patients... show enhanced habit attainment through a greater preference for performing familiar app sequences when given the choice to select any other, easier sequence." I find it particularly difficult to interpret preference for familiar sequences as enhanced habit attainment.

A few notes on the task description and other task components:<br /> It would be useful to give more details on the task. This includes more details on the time/condition of the gradual removal of visual and auditory stimuli and also on the within practice dynamic structure (i.e., different levels appear in the video).

Some more information on engagement-related exclusion criteria would be useful (what happened if participants did not use the app for more than one day, how many times were allowed to skip a day etc.).

According to the (very useful) video demonstrating the task and the paper describing the task in detail (Banca et al., 2020), the task seems to include other relevant components that were not mentioned in this paper. I refer to the daily speed test, the daily random switch test, and daily ratings of each sequence's enjoyment and confidence of knowledge.<br /> If these components were not included in this procedure, then the deviations from the procedure described in the video and Banca al. (2020) should be explicitly mentioned. If these components were included, at least some of them may be relevant, at least in part, to automaticity, habitual action control, formulation of participants' enjoyment from the app etc. I think these components should be mentioned and analyzed (or at least provide an explanation for why it has been decided not to analyze them).<br /> This is also true for the reward removal (extinction) from the 21st day onwards which is potentially of particular relevance for the research questions.

Training engagement analysis:<br /> I find referring to the number of trials including successful and unsuccessful trials as representing participants "commitment to training" (e.g. in Figure legend 2b) potentially inadequate. Given that participants need at least 20 successful trials to complete each practice, more errors would lead to more trials. Therefore, I think this measure may mostly represent weaker performance (of the OCD patients as shown in Figure 2b). Therefore, I find the number of performed practice runs, as used in Figure 2a (which should be perfectly aligned with the number of successful trials), a "clean" and proper measure of engagement/commitment to training.

Also, to provide stronger support for the claim about different diurnal training patterns (as presented in Figure 2c and the text) between patients and healthy individuals, it would be beneficial to conduct a statistical test comparing the two distributions. If the results of this test are not significant, I suggest emphasizing that this is a descriptive finding.

Learning results:<br /> When describing the Learning results (p10) I think it would be useful to provide the descriptive stats for the MT0 parameter (as done above for the other two parameters).

Sensitivity of sequence duration and IKI consistency (C) to reward:<br /> I think it is important to add details on how incorrect trials were handled when calculating ∆MT (or C) and ∆R, specifically in cases where the trial preceding a successful trial was unsuccessful. If incorrect trials were simply ignored, this may not adequately represent trial-by-trial changes, particularly when testing the effect of a trial's outcome on performance change in the next trial.

I have a serious concern with respect to how the sensitivity of sequence duration to reward is framed and analyzed. Since reward is proportional to performance, a reduction in reward essentially indicates a trial with poor performance, and thus even regression to the mean (along with a floor effect in performance [asymptote]) could explain the observed effects. It is possible that even occasional poor performance could lead to a participant demonstrating this effect, potentially regardless of the reward. Accordingly, the reduced improvement in performance following a reward decrease as a function of training length described in Figure 5b legend may reflect training-induced increased performance that leaves less room for improvement after poor trials, which are no longer as poor as before. To address this concern, controlling for performance (e.g., by taking into consideration the baseline MT for the previous trial) may be helpful. If the authors can conduct such an analysis and still show the observed effect, it would establish the validity of their findings."<br /> Another way to support the claim of reward change directionality effects on performance (rather than performance on performance), at least to some extent, would be to analyze the data from the last 10 days of the training, during which no rewards were given (pretending for analysis purposes that the reward was calculated and presented to participants). If the effect persists, it is less unlikely that the effect in question can be attributed to the reward dynamics.<br /> This concern is also relevant and should be considered with respect to the Sensitivity of IKI consistency (C) to reward (even though the relationship between previous reward/performance and future performance in terms of C is of a different structure).<br /> This concern is also relevant and should be considered with respect to the sensitivity of IKI consistency (C) to reward. While the relationship between previous reward/performance and future performance in terms of C is of a different structure, the similar potential confounding effects could still be present.

Another related question (which is also of general interest) is whether the preferred app sequence (as indicated by the participants for Phase B) was consistently the one that yielded more reward? Was the continuous sequence the preferred one? This might tell something about the effectiveness of the reward in the task.

Regarding both experiments 2 and 3:<br /> The change in context in experiment 2 and 3 is substantial and include many different components. These changes should be mentioned in more detail in the Results section before describing the results of experiments 2 and 3.

Experiment 2:<br /> In Experiment 2, the authors sometimes refer to the "explicit preference task" as testing for habitual and goal-seeking sequences. However, I do not think there is any justification for interpreting it as such. The other framings used by the authors - testing whether trained action sequences gain intrinsic/rewarding properties or value, and preference for familiar versus novel action sequences - are more suitable and justified. In support of the point I raised here, assigning intrinsic rewarding properties to the learned sequences and thereby preferring these sequences can be conceptually aligned with goal-directed behavior just as much as it could be with habit.

Experiment 3:<br /> Similar to Experiment 2, I find the framing of arbitration between goal-directed/habitual behavior in Experiment 3 inadequate and unjustified. The results of the experiment suggest that participants were primarily goal-directed and there is no evidence to support the idea that this re-evaluation led participants to switch from habitual to goal-directed behavior.<br /> Also, given the explicit choice of the sequence to perform participants had to make prior to performing it, it is reasonable to assume that this experiment mainly tested bias towards familiar sequence/stimulus and/or towards intrinsic reward associated with the sequence in value-based decision making.

Mobile-app performance effect on symptomatology: exploratory analyses:<br /> Maybe it would be worth testing if the patients with improved symptomatology (that contribute some of their symptom improvement to the app) also chose to play more during the training stage.

Discussion:<br /> Based on my earlier comments highlighting the inadequacy and mis-framing of the work in terms of habit and goal-directed behavior, I suggest that the discussion section be substantially revised to reflect these concerns.

In the sentence "Nevertheless, OCD patients disadvantageously preferred the previously trained/familiar action sequence under certain conditions" the term "disadvantageously" is not necessarily accurate. While there was potentially more effort required, considering the possible presence of intrinsic reward and chunking, this preference may not necessarily be disadvantageous. Therefore, a more cautious and accurate phrasing that better reflects the associated results would be useful.

Materials and Methods:<br /> The authors mention: "The novel sequence (in condition 3) was a 6-move sequence of similar complexity and difficulty as the app sequences, but only learned on the day, before starting this task (therefore, not overtrained)." - for the sake of completeness, more details on the pre-training done on that day would be useful.

Minor comments:<br /> In the section discussing the sensitivity of sequence duration to reward, the authors state that they only analyzed continuous reward trials because "a larger number of trials in each subsample were available to fit the Gaussian distributions, due to feedback being provided on all trials." However, feedback was also provided on all trials in the variable reward condition, even though the reward was not necessarily aligned with participants' performance. Therefore, it may be beneficial to rephrase this statement for clarity.

With regard to experiment 2 (Preference for familiar versus novel action sequences) in the following statement "A positive correlation between COHS and the app sequence choice (Pearson r = 0.36, p = 0.005) further showed that those participants with greater habitual tendencies had a greater propensity to prefer the trained app sequence under this condition." I find the use of the word "further" here potentially misleading.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This manuscript describes extensive transcriptomic and epigenomic profiling for high-grade serous 'ovarian' cancer (HGSC) and its precancerous precursor the fallopian tube secretory epithelium cells (FTSEC). This study identifies MECOM, PAX8, SOX17 and WT1 as master transcription factors that regulate HGSC and FTSEC, as well as the transition from FTSEC to HGSC.

Overall, most the experiments described in the manuscript are well designed and executed. The data presented are of high quality, convincing, and in general support the conclusions made in the manuscript.

Given the complexity of the data and analysis, some clarification is needed to guide readers to better understand the results.

1) The definition of super enhancers should be clarified. In general, super enhancers are defined by large domains of enhancer clusters with high levels of H3K27ac, typically at least 10KB in size. The "super enhancers" presented in Figure 2 do not appear to be large clusters of enhancers.

2) Fig. 4D. Difficult to understand. Multiple bars seem to be represented by the same binding patterns by the four TFs. Need better description in both the text and figure legends.

3) "These data suggest that the antiproliferative effects of THZ1 and THZ531 in HGSC cells may be due to tumor-specific inhibition of MECOM, PAX8 and SOX17 expression by these drugs." Can the author expand the discussion on how CDK7/12 inhibitors could achieve tumor-specific inhibition of MECOM, PAX8 and SOX17?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This study found that MECOM, PAX8, SOX17, and WT1, as the main regulators of high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSC), their transcriptional regulation related to the super-enhancer, were reconnected in the process of tumor development. These four TFS are essential for the clonality and survival of HGSC, while the absence of PAX8 and WT1 in non-cancerous fallopian tube secretory epithelium (FTSEC) can impair the survival of cells. These four TFS are only pharmacologically inhibited by transcriptional inhibitors in HGSCs, while not in FTSECs, making them potential targets for tumor-specific therapy.

I am thrilled to see such an exciting and scientific manuscript. The results will significantly impact the basic theory of cancer occurrence and clinical applications.

However, there were some issues with the data presentation. We hope that the author will carefully and rigorously review the data and visualization results. In addition, there is key information missing in the methods section, which does not meet the current requirements for the repeatability of scientific conclusions.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors prepared several Acinetobacter baumannii strains from which an essential protein of known or unknown function can be depleted. They chose to study one of the proteins (AdvA) in more detail. AdvA is a known essential cell division protein that accumulates at cell division sites together with other such proteins. No clear homologs are present in model bacteria such as E.coli, and the precise role(s) of AdvA is still unclear. The authors rename AdvA here as Aeg1. The authors searched for suppressors of lethality caused by AdvA-depletion and recovered an allele of ftsA (E202K) that is capable of doing so. Based on similar superfission alleles previously recovered in other division genes in E.coli, they test several mutant genes and find that certain alleles in ftsB, L and W can also suppress lethality of AdvA-minus cells.

In addition, the authors perform bacterial two-hybrid assays and protein sublocalization studies of AdvA and of other division proteins, but the results of these studies are either not new (confirming previous work) or not convincing.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this study the authors confirm that one of the genes classified as essential in a Tn-mutagenesis study in A. baumannii is in fact an essential gene. It is also present in other closely related Gram negative bacteria and the authors designated it Aeg1. Depletion of Aeg1 leads to cell filamentation and it appears that the requirement for Aeg1 can be suppressed by what appear to be activation mutations in various genes. Overall, it appears that Aeg1 is involved in cell division but many of the images suffer from poor quality - it may be due to conversion to PDF. One of the main issues is that depletion of Aeg1 is carried out for such long times (18 hr) (Fig. 2, 4 and 5). Depleting a cell division protein for such long times may have pleiotropic effects on cell physiology. A. baumannii grows quite fast and even with a small inoculum, cells will probably be in stationary phase. If Aeg1 is that essential cells should be quite filamentous 2-3 hours after Ara removal when they are still in exponential phase. Also, it would be better to see the recovery to small cells if cells are not grown such a long time before Ara is added back. Overall, Aeg1 is potentially interesting but studies are needed to define its place in the assembly pathway. What proteins are at the division site when Aeg1 is depleted and what proteins are required for Aeg1 to localize to the division site. These experiments should be done when cell are depleted of proteins for only 1 -2 hours.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Bolumar et al. isolated and characterized EV subpopulations, apoptotic bodies (AB), Microvesicles (MV), and Exosomes (EXO), from endometrial fluid through the female menstrual cycle. By performing DNA sequencing, they found the MVs contain more specific DNA sequences than other EVs, and specifically, more mtDNA were encapsulated in MVs. They also found a reduction of mtDNA content in the human endometrium at the receptive and post-receptive period that is associated with an increase in mitophagy activity in the cells, and a higher mtDNA content in the secreted MVs was found at the same time. Last, they demonstrated that the endometrial Ishikawa cell-derived EVs could be taken by the mouse embryos and resulted in altered embryo metabolism.

This is a very interesting study and is the first one demonstrating the direct transmission of maternal mtDNA to embryos through EVs.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In Bolumar, Moncayo-Arlandi et al. the authors explore whether endometrium-derived extracellular vesicles contribute mtDNA to embryos and therefore influence embryo metabolism and respiration. The manuscript combines techniques for isolating different populations of extracellular vesicles, DNA sequencing, embryo culture, and respiration assays performed on human endometrial samples and mouse embryos.

Vesicle isolation is technically difficult and therefore collection from human samples is commendable. Also, the influence of maternally derived mtDNA on the bioenergetics of embryos is unknown and therefore novel. However, several experiments presented in the manuscript fail to reach statistical significance, likely due to the small sample sizes. Additionally, the experiments do not demonstrate a direct effect of mtDNA transfer on embryo bioenergetics. This has the unfortunate consequence of making several of the authors' conclusions speculative.

In my opinion the manuscript supports the following of the authors' claims:

1. Different amounts of mtDNA are shed in human endometrial extracellular vesicles during different phases of the menstrual cycle.<br /> 2. Endometrial microvesicles are more enriched for mitochondrial DNA sequences compared to other types of microvesicles present in the human samples.<br /> 3. Fluorescently labelled DNA from extracellular vesicles derived from an endometrial adenocarcinoma cell line can be incorporated into hatched mouse embryos.<br /> 4. Culture of mouse embryos with endometrial extracellular vesicles can influence embryo respiration and the effect is greater when cultured with isolated exosomes compared to other isolated microvesicles.

My main concerns with the manuscript:

1. The authors demonstrate that microvesicles contain the most mtDNA, however, they also demonstrate that only isolated exosomes influence embryo respiration. These are two separate populations of extracellular vesicles.<br /> 2. mtDNA is not specifically identified as being taken up by embryos only DNA.<br /> 3. The authors do not rule out that other components packaged in extracellular vesicles could be the factors influencing embryo metabolism.

Taken together, these concerns seem to contradict the implication of the title of the manuscript - the authors do not demonstrate that inheritance of maternal mtDNA has a direct causative effect on embryo metabolism.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Huan Wang et al. analyzed more than 10 million sequences and find that T12I, T102I and A104V were the top 3 frequently occurring mutations. They verified whether these mutations affect the stability and binding ability of NSP10, and whether there are structural changes. They find that three mutations destabilize the NSP10 by NMA prediction and determine their prediction by TSA. In addition, the Kd values shows that variants have similar binding ability or slightly improved affinity to NSP14 and NSP16 than native NSP10. Even though crystallization of the two variants is missing, the comparison of the crystallization of the T102I crystalline protein with the native shows that there is no structural change. Simultaneously, the dihedral angles in the variants do not explore any additional minima than that observed in wild-type NSP10, and there is no major conformational change.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors of this study levered large-scale genomics data on SARS-CoV2, and extracted non-synonymous mutations of NSP10. The overall frequency was little, compared to other significantly mutating Spike protein. Further they performed stability and binding analysis to report changes in three variants and found modest differences. However, crystallography and simulations study reported almost no changes.

The strength of the work clearly is merging genomics data and reporting quantitative frequencies with high-resolution structural data. Some open ended questions remain. For instance, The DynaMut2 and thermal shift assays point towards less stable variants than wild type, with Tm values slightly lower. On the other hand, the Kd value of variants reported stronger binding of NSP10 with NSP16. How do authors explain this, as the change due to point mutation may not fall within error range?

The crystal structures and the simulations have been under-analysed. For instance, the conformational ensemble could be utilized for docking with NSP16 and NSP14 . There could be a potential alternative pathway for explaining the above changes in Kd. This should be attempted for understanding the role in its functional activity.

Previous extensive EM work on Spike protein variants also displayed subtle differences locally. However, allosteric pathways with D614G have been reported. Therefore, more quantitative analysis is required to explain structural changes. The free energy landscape reported in the paper may not capture rare transition events or slight rearrangements in side chain dynamics, both these could offer better understanding of mutations.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The manuscript by Goetz et al. takes a new perspective on sensory information processing in cells. In contrast to previous studies, which have used population data to build a response distribution and which estimate sensory information at about 1 bit, this work defines sensory information at the single cell level. To do so, the authors take two approaches. First, they estimate single cells' response distributions to various input levels from time-series data directly. Second, they infer these single-cell response distributions from the population data by assuming a biochemical model and extracting the cells' parameters with a maximum-entropy approach. In either case, they find, for two experimental examples, that single-cell sensory information is much higher than 1 bit, and that the reduction to 1 bit at the population level is due to the fact that cells' response functions are so different from each other. Finally, the authors identify examples of measurable cell properties that do or do not correlate with single-cell sensory information.

The work brings an important and distinct new insight to a research direction that generated strong interest about a decade ago: measuring sensory information in cells and understanding why it is so low. The manuscript is clear, the results are compelling, and the conclusions are well supported by the findings. Several contributions should be of interest to the quantitative biology community (e.g., the demonstration that single cells' sensory information is considerably larger than previously implied, and the approach of inferring single-cell data from population data with the help of a model and a maximum-entropy assumption).

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this paper the authors present an existing information theoretic framework to assess the ability of single cells to encode external signals sensed through membrane receptors.

The main point is to distinguish actual noise in the signaling pathway from cell-cell variability, which could be due to differences in their phenotypic state, and to formalize this difference using information theory.

After correcting for this cellular variability, the authors find that cells may encode more information than one would estimate from ignoring it, which is expected. The authors show this using simple models of different complexities, and also by analyzing an imaging dataset of the IGF/FoxO pathway.

The implications of the work are limited because the analysed data is not rich enough to draw clear conclusions. Specifically,<br /> - the authors do not distinguish what could be methodological noise inherent to microscopy techniques (segmentation etc), and actual intrinsic cell state. It's not clear that cell-cell variability in the analyzed dataset is not just a constant offset or normalization factor. Other authors (e.g. Gregor et al Cell 130, 153-164) have re-centered and re-normalized their data before further analysis, which is more or less equivalent to the idea of the conditional information in the sense that it aims to correct for this experimental noise.<br /> - in the experiment, each condition is shown only once and sequentially. This means that the reproducibility of the response upon repeated exposures in a single cell was not tested, casting doubt on the estimate of the response fidelity (estimated as the variance over time in a single response).<br /> - another dataset on the EGF/EGFR pathway is analyzed, but no conclusion can be drawn from it because single-cell information cannot be directly estimated from it. The authors instead use a maximum-entropy Ansatz, which cannot be validated for lack of data.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Goetz, Akl and Dixit investigated the heterogeneity in the fidelity of sensing the environment by individual cells in a population using computational modeling and analysis of experimental data for two important and well-studied mammalian signaling pathways: (insulin-like growth factor) IGF/FoxO and (epidermal growth factor) EFG/EFGR mammalian pathways. They quantified this heterogeneity using the conditional mutual information between the input (eg. level of IGF) and output (eg. level of FoxO in the nucleus), conditioned on the "state" variables which characterize the signaling pathway (such as abundances of key proteins, reaction rates, etc.) First, using a toy stochastic model of a receptor-ligand system - which constitutes the first step of both signaling pathways - they constructed the population average of the mutual information conditioned on the number of receptors and maximized over the input distribution and showed that it is always greater than or equal to the usual or "cell state agnostic" channel capacity. They constructed the probability distribution of cell state dependent mutual information for the two pathways, demonstrating agreement with experimental data in the case of the IGF/FoxO pathway using previously published data. Finally, for the IGF/FoxO pathway, they found the joint distribution of the cell state dependent mutual information and two experimentally accessible state variables: the response range of FoxO and total nuclear FoxO level prior to IGF stimulation. In both cases, the data approximately follow the contour lines of the joint distribution. Interestingly, high nuclear FoxO levels, and therefore lower associated noise in the number of output readout molecules, is not correlated with higher cell state dependent mutual information, as one might expect. This paper contributes to the vibrant body of work on information theoretic characterization of biochemical signaling pathways, using the distribution of cell state dependent mutual information as a metric to highlight the importance of heterogeneity in cell populations. The authors suggest that this metric can be used to infer "bottlenecks" in information transfer in signaling networks, where certain cell state variables have a lower joint distribution with the cell state dependent mutual information.

The utility of a metric based on the conditional mutual information to quantify fidelity of sensing and its heterogeneity (distribution) in a cell population is supported in the comparison with data. Some aspects of the analysis and claims in the main body of the paper and SI need to be clarified and extended.

1) The authors use their previously published (Ref. 32) maximum-entropy based method to extract the probability distribution of cell state variables, which is needed to construct their main result, namely p_CeeMI (I). The salient features of their method, and how it compares with other similar methods of parameter inference should be summarized in the section with this title. In SI 3.3, the Lagrangian, L, and Rm should be defined.<br /> 2) Throughout the text, the authors refer to "low" and "high" values of the channel capacity. For example, a value of 1-1.5 bits is claimed to be "low". The authors need to clarify the context in which this value is low: In some physically realistic cases, the signaling network may need to simply distinguish between the present or absence of a ligand, in which case this value would not be low.<br /> 3) Related to (2), the authors should comment on why in Fig. 3A, I_Cee=3. Importantly, where does the fact that the network is able to distinguish between 23 ligand levels come from? Is this related to the choice (and binning) of the input ligand distribution (described in the SI)?<br /> 4) The authors should justify the choice of the gamma distribution in a number of cases (eg. distribution of ligand, distribution cell state parameters, such as number of receptors, receptor degradation rate, etc.).<br /> 5) Referring to SI Section 2, it is stated that the probability of the response (receptor binding occupancy) conditioned on the input ligand concentration and number of receptors is a Poisson distribution. Indeed this is nicely demonstrated in Fig. S2. Therefore it is the coefficient of variation (std/mean) that decreases with increasing R0, not the noise (which is strictly the standard deviation) as stated in the paper.<br /> 6) In addition to explicitly stating what the input (IGF level) and the output (nuclear GFP-tagged FoxO level) are, it would be helpful if it is also stated what is the vector of state variables, theta, corresponding to the schematic diagram in Fig. 2C.<br /> 7) Related to Fig. 2C, the statement in the caption: "Phosphorylated Akt leads to phosphorylation of FoxO which effectively shuttles it out of the nucleus." needs clarification: From the figure, it appears that pFoxO does not cross the nuclear membrane, in which case it would be less confusing to say that phosphorylation prevents reentry of FoxO into the nucleus.<br /> 8) The explanations for Fig. 2D, E and insets are sparse and therefore not clear. The authors should expand on what is meant by model and experimental I(theta). What is CC input dose? Also in Fig. 2E, the overlap between the blue and pink histograms means that the value of the blue histogram for the final bin - and therefore agreement or lack thereof with the experimental result - is not visible. Also, the significance of the values 3.25 bits and 3 bits in these plots should be discussed in connection with the input distributions.<br /> 9) While the joint distribution of the cell state dependent mutual information and various biochemical parameters is given in Fig. S7, there is no explanation of what these results mean, either in the SI or main text. Related to this, while a central claim of the work is that establishing this joint distribution will allow determination of cell state variables that differentiate between high and low fidelity sensing, this claim would be stronger with more discussion of Figs. 3 and S7.<br /> 10) The related central claim that cell state dependent mutual information leads to higher fidelity sensing at the population level would be made stronger if it can be demonstrated that in the limit of rapidly varying cell state variables, the I_CSA is retrieved.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This manuscript sets out to implement a multi-stage fluorescence imaging essay to test two working models in understanding the folding states of RNA-binding proteins (RBPs) in stress-induced nuclear bodies. In conjunction with live-cell fluorescence lifetime imaging, the authors revealed and conformed a previously unclear phenomenon that the RBPs investigated in this work initially enter the nuclear bodies in native state in transient stress and then begin to misfold after prolonged stress. Comparing to conventional methods, the imaging strategy reported in this work is unique, comprehensive, and effective in surveying all three-stages (native, soluble oligomer, aggregates) of folding states for RBPs in one shot. Using this strategy, the authors then found that the heat shock protein 70 may protects RBPs from being degraded under stress. The manuscript is very well-written.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors combine the use of fluorogenic tools with fluorescence bioimaging to visualize how changes in the folding states of the RBPs TDP-43, FUS and TAF15 affect their subcellular localization and recruitment inside nuclear bodies, as well as protein fate. While the development of SNAP-tag substrates coupled with confocal microscopy in living cells (including FLIM) to monitor changes in protein folding states represents an important conceptual and technical advance for the field, I am not convinced that the authors fully achieved their aim. The authors cannot conclude on protein fate only based on the experiments performed here. Showing a correlation between a decrease in TDP-43 levels upon Hsp70 inhibition and colocalization at nuclear bodies with Hsp70 and DNAJA2 is not supporting their conclusion about protein degradation. A number of additional control experiments are needed to support their claims.

Yet, the optimization of these methods has unlimited potential since it may provide new ways to visualize and monitor a large variety of fundamental intracellular processes, including protein aggregation and fate.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This manuscript presents a novel fluorescence toolkit designed for investigating the folding states of RNA-binding proteins (RBPs) and their association with molecular chaperones during liquid-liquid phase separation (LLPS) in the formation of nuclear bodies under stress. The strategy is to use SNAP-tag technology including cell lines stably expressing three model proteins fused with SNAP tag and a series of environmentally sensitive fluorophores that can selectively label on the SNAP proteins. The changes in the microenvironment such as microviscosity and micropolarity can be well characterized by these fluorophores to reflect the conformational states of the RBPs.

The strength of this method is that the SNAP protein is smaller than classic fluorescent proteins like GFP and thus its impact on the conformation and behavior of the targeted proteins is much smaller. The experiment is carefully designed and well thought-out. Overall, this work is of very high quality.

This method can thus be adapted by other protein systems to study the LLPS process and thus I believe it will be of great interest to cell biologists and biophysicists.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In the manuscript titled "GABAergic synaptic scaling is triggered by changes in spiking activity rather than transmitter receptor activation," the authors present an investigation of the role of GABAergic synaptic scaling in the maintenance of spike rates in networks of cultured neurons. Their main findings suggest that GABAergic scaling exhibits features consistent with a key homeostatic mechanism that contributes to the stability of neuronal firing rates. Their data demonstrate that GABAergic scaling is multiplicative and emerges when postsynaptic spike rates are altered. Finally, their data suggest that, in contrast to their prior data on glutamatergic scaling, GABAergic scaling is driven by spike rates. The authors set the paper up as an argument that GABAergic scaling, rather than glutamatergic scaling, serves as the critical homeostatic mechanism for spike rate regulation.

While the paper is ambitious in its rhetorical scope and certainly presents intriguing findings, there are several serious concerns that need to be addressed to substantiate the interpretations of the data. For example, the CTZ data do not support the interpretations and conclusions drawn by the authors. Summarily, the authors argue that GABAergic scaling is measuring spiking (at the time scale of the homeostatic response, which they suggest is a key feature of a homeostat) yet their data in figure 5B show more convincingly that CTZ does not influence spiking levels - only one out of four time points is marginally significant (also, I suspect that the bootstrapping method mentioned in line 454-459 was conducted as a pairwise comparison of distributions. There is no mention of multiple comparisons corrections, and I have to assume that the significance at 3h would disappear with correction). Then, the fact that TTX applied on top of CTZ drives a increase in mIPSC amplitude is interpreted as a conclusive demonstration that GABAergic scaling is sensing spiking. It is inevitable, however, that TTX will also severely reduce AMAP-R activation - a very plausible alternative explanation is that the augmentation of AMPAR activation caused by CTZ is not sufficient to overcome the dramatic impact of TTX. All together, these data do not provide substantial evidence for the conclusion drawn by the authors.

Specific points:

- The logic of the basis for the argument is somewhat flawed: A homeostat does not require a multiplicative mechanism, nor does it even need to be synaptic. Membrane excitability is a locus of homeostatic regulation of firing, for example. In addition, synapse-specific modulation can also be homeostatic. The only requirement of the homeostat is that its deployment subserves the stabilization of a biological parameter (e.g., firing rate).<br /> - Line 63 parenthetically references an important, but contradictory study as a brief "however". Given the tone of the writing, it would be more balanced to give this study at least a full sentence of exposition.<br /> - The authors state (line 11) that expression of a hyperpolarizing conductance did not trigger scaling. More recent work ('Homeostatic synaptic scaling establishes the specificity of an associative memory') does this via expression of DREADDs and finds robust scaling.<br /> - Supplemental figure 1 looks largely linear to me? Out of curiosity, wouldn't you expect the left end to be aberrant because scaling up should theoretically increase the strength of some synapses that would have been previously below threshold for detection? Given that figure 2B also shows warping at the tail ends of similar distributions, how is this to be interpreted?<br /> - The readability of the figures is poor. Some of them have inconsistent boundary boxes, bizarre axes, text that appears skewed as if the figures were quickly thrown together and stretched to fit.<br /> - I'm concerned about the optogenetic restoration of activity experiment. Cortical pyramidal neuron mean firing rates are log normally distributed and span multiple orders of magnitude. The stimulation experiments can only address the total firing at a network-level - given than a network level "mean" is meaningless in a lognormal distribution, how are we to think about the effect of this manipulation when it comes to individual neurons homeostatically stabilizing their own activities? In essence, the argument is made at the single-neuron level, but the experiment is conducted with a network-level resolution.<br /> - Line 198-99: multiplicativity is not a requirement of a homeostatic mechanism.<br /> - Line 264-265 - again, neither multiplicativity and synaptic mechanisms are fundamentally any more necessary for a homeostatic locus than anything else that can modulate firing rate in via negative feedback.<br /> - 277: do you mean AMPAR?<br /> - Example: Figure 1A is frustratingly unreadable. The axes on the raster insets are microscopic, the arrows are strangely large, and it seems unnecessary to fill so much realestate with 4 rasters. Only one is necessary to show the concept of a network burst. The effect of time+CNQX on the frequency of burst is shown in B and C.<br /> - Example: Figure 2 appears warped and hastily assembled. Statistical indications are shown within and outside of bounding boxes. Axes are not aligned. Labels are not aligned. Font sizes are not equal on equivalent axes.<br /> - The discussion should include mention of the limitations and/or constraints of drawing general conclusions from cell culture.<br /> - The discussion should include mention of the role of developmental age in the expression of specific mechanisms. It is highly likely that what is studied at ~P14 is specific to early postnatal development.

It is essential to ensure that the data presented in the paper adequately supports the conclusions drawn. A more cautious approach in interpreting the results may lead to a stronger argument and a more robust understanding of the underlying mechanisms at play.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Synaptic scaling has long been proposed as a homeostatic mechanism for the regulation for the activity of individual neurons and networks. The question of whether homeostasis is controlled by neuronal spiking or by the activation of specific receptor populations in individual synapses has remained open. In a previous work, the Wenner group had shown that upscaling of glutamatergic transmission is triggered by direct blockade of glutamate receptors rather than by the concomitant reduction in firing rate (Nat Comm 2015). In this manuscript they investigate the mechanisms regulating scaling of GABA-mediated responses in cortical cell cultures using whole-cell recordings to detect GABAergic currents and multielectrode arrays to monitor global firing activity, and find that spiking plays a fundamental role in scaling.

Initially, the authors show that chronic blockade (24 h) of glutamatergic transmission by CNQX first reduces spontaneous spiking (at 2 h), but later (24 h) firing grows back towards higher frequencies, suggesting a compensatory mechanism. Then it is shown that either chronic CNQX treatment or TTX cause a reduction in the amplitude of GABAergic mIPSCs. Effects of CNQX on IPSCs are then reverted by replacing spontaneous network firing by chronic optogenetic stimulation of the entire culture, also indicating that GABAergic transmission is homeostatically regulated by global firing. Enhancing glutamatergic transmission with CTZ increases mIPSC amplitude, while addition of TTX in the presence of CTZ causes the opposite effect. Finally, increasing spiking activity using bicuculline also increases mIPSC amplitude, and the authors conclude that spiking activity rather than neurotransmission control homeostatic GABA scaling. The manuscript shows interesting properties in the regulation of global GABAergic transmission and highlight the important role of spiking activity in triggering GABA scaling. However, it is strongly recommended to address some caveats in order to better support the conclusions presented in the manuscript.

Major points:

1. The reason why CNQX does not completely eliminate spiking is unclear (Fig. 1). What is the circuit mechanism by which spiking continues, although at lower frequency, in the absence of AMPA-mediated transmission and what the mechanism by which spiking frequency grows back after 24h (still in the absence of AMPA transmission)?<br /> Is it possible that NMDA-mediated transmission takes over and triggers a different type of network plasticity?

2. A possible activation of NMDARs should be considered. One would think that experiments involving chronic glutamatergic blockade could have been conducted in the presence of NMDAR blockers. Why this was not the case?

Also, experiments with global ChR2 stimulation with coincident pre and postsynaptic firing might also activate NMDARs and result in additional effects that should be taken into consideration for the global scaling mechanism.

3. Cultures exposed to CTZ to enhance AMPA receptors generated variable results (Fig. 5), somewhat increasing spiking activity in a non-significant manner but, at the same time, strengthening mIPSC amplitude. This result seems to suggest that spiking might be involved in GABAergic scaling, but it does not seem to prove it.

Then, addition of TTX that blocked spiking reduced mIPSC amplitude. It was concluded here that the ability of CTZ to enhance GABAergic currents was primarily due to spiking, rather than the increase in AMPA-mediated currents. However, in addition to blocking action potentials, TTX would also prevent activation of AMPARs in the presence of CTZ due to the lack of glutamatergic release. Therefore, under these conditions, an effect of glutamatergic activation on GABAergic scaling cannot be ruled out.

4. The sample size is not mentioned in any figure. How many cells/culture dishes were used in each condition?

5. Cortical cultures may typically contain about 5-10% GABAergic interneurons and 90-95 % pyramidal cells. One would think that scaling mechanisms occurring in pyramidal cells and interneurons could be distinct, with different impact on the network. Although for whole-cell recordings the authors selected pyramidal looking cells, which might bias recordings towards excitatory neurons, naked eye selection of recording cells is quite difficult in primary cultures. Some of the variability in mIPSC amplitude values (Fig. 2A for example) might be attributed to the cell type? One could use cultures where interneurons are fluorescently labeled to obtain an accurate representation. The issue of the possible differential effects of scaling in pyramidal cells vs. interneurons and the consequences in the network should be discussed.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This paper concerns whether scaling (or homeostatic synaptic plasticity; HSP) occurs similarly at GABA and Glu synapses and comes to the surprising conclusion that these are regulated separately. This is surprising because these were thought to be co-regulated during HSP and in fact, the major mechanisms thought to underlie downscaling (TTX or CNQX driven), retinoic acid and TNF, have been shown to regulate both GABARs and AMPARs directly. (As a side note, it is unclear that the manipulations used in Josesph and Turrigiano represent HSP, and so might not be relevant). Thus the main result, that GABA HSP is dissociable from Glu HSP, is novel and exciting. This suggests either different mechanisms underlie the two processes, or that under certain conditions, another mechanism is engaged that scales one type of synapse and not the other.

However, strong claims require strong evidence, and the results presented here only address GABA HSP, relying on previous work from this lab on Glu HSP (Fong, et al., 2015). But the previous experiments were done in rat cultures, while these experiments are done in mice and at somewhat different ages (DIV). Even identical culture systems can drift over time (possibly due to changes in the components of B27 or other media and supplements). Therefore it is necessary to demonstrate in the same system the dissociation. To be convincing, they need to show the mEPSCs for Fig 4, clearly showing the dissociation. Doing the same for Fig 5 would be great, but I think Fig 4 is the key.

The paper also suggests that only receptor function or spiking could control HSP, and therefore if it is not receptor function then it must be spiking. This seems like a false dichotomy; there are of course other options. Details in the data may suggest that spiking is not the (or the only) homeostat, as TTX and CNQX causes identical changes in mIPSC amplitude but have different effects on spiking. Further, in Fig 5, CTZ had a minimal effect on spiking but a large effect on mIPSCs. Similar issues appear in Fig 6, where the induction of increased spiking is highly variable, with many cells showing control levels or lower spiking rates. Yet the synaptic changes are robust, across all cells. Overall, this is not persuasive that spiking is necessarily the homeostat for GABA synapses.

The paper also suggests that the timing of the GABA changes coincides with the spiking changes, but while they have the time course of the spiking changes and recovery, they only have the 24h time point for synaptic changes. It is impossible to conclude how the time courses align without more data.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This work shows how, in the formation of the immune synapse, the B cell controls the contraction phase, the formation and retraction of actin structures concentrating the antigen (actin foci), and, ultimately, global signal attenuation. The authors use a combination of TIRF microscopy and original image quantification to show that Arp2/3 activated by N-WASP controls a pool of actin concentrated in foci (situated in the synapse), formed and transported centripetally towards the center of the synapse through myosin II mediated contractions. These contractions concentrate the B cell receptors (BCRs) in the center, promote disassembly of the stimulatory kinase Syk as well as the the disassociation from the BCR of the inhibitory phosphatase SHIP, process which entails the attenuation of the BCR signal.

The author prove their claims by mean of thorough image analysis, mainly observing and quantifying the fluorescence and the dynamics of single clusters of antigen and actin foci and analyzing two-colors dynamical images. They perform their observation in control cells, on pharmacologically perturbed cells where the action of Arp2/3 or N-WASP is inhibited, and on modified primary cells (primary derived from genetically engineered mice) to silence N-WASP or WASP. The work is sound and complete, the experiments technically excellent and well explained. Some experiments and discussions are objectively harder to describe, and given the length of the work, the reader might find itself lost some times. A graphical abstract/summary of the main way NWASP ultimately control signal attenuation would solve this minor point.

This work adds an important information to the current view of B cell activation, in particular it links the contraction phase to the actin foci that have been recently characterized. Moreover, the late phase of the immune synapse formation is, in general, poorly investigated, but it is crucial for the fate of the cell: this work provides an explanation for the attenuation of the signal that might lead to the termination of the synapse.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this study, the authors demonstrated a new model that B cell contraction after antigen encountering was dependent on N-WASP-branched actin polymerization. This statement is achieved by a systemic comparison of genetic modified mice vs wild type mice or inhibitor treated cells vs control cells. By imaging how B cells interact with antigen-coated planar lipid bilayer, the authors further suggested that the contraction event may provide B cells a channel to dismiss downstream kinase for a purpose to attenuate B cell activation signaling. Even though this manuscript is well written and packaged, however there are a few points that should be carefully addressed and revised.

The first major issue is related to the imaging and tracking experiment to examine the formation and migration of F-actin foci as illustrated in figure 3. The formation and centripetally migration of F-actin foci is a significant finding of this MS for the promotion of B cells to switch from spreading to contraction response. Thus, I may suggest to recommend the authors to conduct one more rigorous fluorescent molecular tracking experiment to confirm this phenomenon. Molecular tracking usually requires low labeling density, and the lifeact-GFP labeling here do not meet this requirement which may cause misidentification of the moving molecules. Permeable dye-based fluorescent speckle microscopy is recommended here to track the actin foci if applicable (P. Risteski, Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol., 2023, DOI: 10.1038/s41580-023-00588-w & K. Hu, et al, Science, 2007, 315, 111-115). Additionally, kymograph is used for foci tracking in figure3 and figure4. Kymograph is indeed a powerful tool for tracking cell protrusion and retraction but is fairly suitable here, since a F-actin focus is a concentrated point which may not move strictly along the selected eight lines generating kymograph. Other imaging processing method should be used to track the foci, for example, time series max projection is recommended if applicable.

The second major issue is about the relationship between actin foci formation and NMII recruitment in figure 5. The author concludes that 'N-WASP and Arp2/3 mediated branched actin polymerization promotes the recruitment and the reorganization of NMII ring-like structures by generating inner F-actin foci in the contact zone'. However, there is a lack of strong evidence to directly show the mechanism by which myosin is recruited and the up and down stream relationship between actin foci migration and myosin recruitment. Since myosin-induced actin retrograde flow is a classical model in adherent cells, is it possible that, here also in activated B cells, the recruited myosin driven the formation and migration of actin foci? This reviewer may recommend the author to investigate whether Myosin blocking (e.g., using Y27632) can eliminate the F-actin foci formation and migration.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Bhanja et al have examined how actin polymerization switch B-cell receptor (BCR) signaling from amplification to attenuation. The authors have examined B cell spreading and contraction using lipid bilayers to assess the molecular regulation of BCR signalling during the contraction phase. Their data provide evidence for that N-WASP activated Arp2/3 generates centripetally moving actin foci and contractile actomyosin from lamellipodia actin networks. This generates BCR dense foci that pushes out both stimulatory kinases and inhibitory phosphatases. The study provides novel insight into how B cells upon activation attenuate BCR signalling by contraction of the actin cytoskeleton and clustering of BCR foci and this dynamic response is mediated by N-WASP and Arp2/3.

Strengths: The manuscript is well written and results, methods, figures and legends described in detail making it easy to follow the experimental setup, analysis, and conclusions. The authors achieved their aims, and the results support their conclusions.

Weaknesses: Minor as listed below. The working hypothesis of molecular crowding as a way to push out signalling molecules from the BCR dense foci is interesting. The authors provide evidence for that this is an active process mediated by N-WASP - Arp2/3 induced actin foci. Another possibility is that BCR dense foci formation is an indirect consequence of lamellipodia retraction. Future works should define the specific role of N-WASP, Arp2/3 and actin in the process to form BCR dense foci, especially as the BCR continue to signal in the cytoplasm.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors sought to address the longstanding question of which cell types are infected during congenital or perinatal rubella virus infection. They used brain slice and organoid-microglia experimental models to demonstrate that the main cell types targeted by rubella virus are microglia. The authors further show that infection results in augmented interferon responses in neighboring neuronal cells but not in the microglia themselves. The data convincingly support the conclusions, with major strengths being the sophisticated primary cell models and single-cell RNA-Seq used to pinpoint microglia as the main cellular targets of rubella virus, and neurons as the bystander targets of immune signaling. This study reveals a new cellular target that will have important implications for basic studies on rubella virus-host interactions and for the potential development of therapies or improved vaccines targeting this virus. As rubella virus is a pathogen of high concern during human pregnancy, this study is also relevant in the field of neonatal infectious diseases.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Maternal infection by Rubella virus (RV) early during pregnancy is a serious threat to the health of the fetus. It can cause brain malformation and later expose the newborn to a constellation of symptoms collectively named Congenital Rubella Syndrome (CRS). In this manuscript, the authors provide novel exciting findings on the pathophysiological mechanisms of RV infection during human brain development. By combining analyses of human fetal brain material and cerebral organoids, Popova and colleagues uncovered a selective tropism of RV for microglial cells. Their results suggest that the infection of microglia by RV relies on the presence of diffusible factors secreted by neighboring brain cells. Moreover, the authors showed that RV infection of human cerebral organoids leads to a strong interferon response and dysregulation of neurodevelopmental genes, which both may contribute to brain malformation. Altogether, these data shed some new light on the cellular tropism and the pathophysiological mechanisms triggered by RV infection in the developing brain. This study also raises the importance of using human cell-based models to further understand the pathophysiological mechanisms of CRS. Identifying the cellular and molecular targets of Rubella virus will also pave the way to develop therapies against CRS.

Joint Public Review:

As nucleoporins can function at intact nuclear pore complexes (NPCs) or outside of NPCs as individual proteins or subcomplexes, it remains challenging to molecularly define the pool of molecules that exert a specific function. To address this challenge, here the authors develop a new method for specifically mapping NPC-associated loci by DamID with a recombinant fusion protein of the Dam methylase and the nuclear transport receptor, importin b (Dam-Impb), in permeabilized cells. The authors demonstrate that Dam-Impb is active, accumulates at the NPC and, using super-resolution microscopy, methylates NPC-adjacent regions; other observations further support the assertion that the approach is specific for NPC-associate chromatin regions. Furthermore, NPC-DamID does not require genetic manipulation and they show that it can be applied to both diverse cell lines as well as tissues. The authors confirm the association of nucleoporins with super-enhancers (SEs) in line with their prior work, now confirmed to occur at NPCs based on this study. Among SEs categorized as hierarchical enhancers (Nat Commun 9, 943 (2018)), hub enhancers are over-represented for methylation by Dam-Impb. The association of such enhancers with cohesin and CTCF suggests these regions could have a critical role in chromatin folding; enhancer-associated factors and marks such as H3K27 acetylation, RNA polymerase II, P300, CTCF and BRD4 also enrich at Dam-Impb methylation peaks. Using proximity ligation, the authors provide further evidence that Tpr, which interacts with the NPC basket, colocalizes with CTCF, BRD4 and P300. Based on these observations, the authors hypothesized that nucleoporin phase separation at SEs might potentiate phase separation of other factors at these elements. Consistent with previous work, over-expression of the intrinsically disordered region (IDR) of Nup153, a component of the NPC basket, forms nuclear droplets that are largely dispersed by 1,6-hexanediol. In this same condition, colocalization RNAPII and both Tpr and BRD4 is reduced, although some interactions between IDRs were not sensitive to this treatment. Last, using a lac operator array as a tethering site, the authors show that tethered Nup153 IDR recruits the carboxy terminal domain of RNAPII and Med1. However, whether the biology of how nucleoporins at NPCs influence SEs depends on biomolecular condensation will require future study.

Overall, the reviewers agree that this is an excellent manuscript that will impact our understanding of nuclear pore complex-genome interactions and how nucleoporins impact super enhancer function. The data are generally of high quality and are reasonably interpreted. There are, however, several important controls or analyses that would strengthen the conclusions of the paper, as outlined below.

1. NPC vs nucleoplasmic interactions: One of the main claims of the paper is that it provides a way to study specifically the NPC-associated loci and contrast them to the nucleoplasmic Nup-associated loci. Unfortunately, the authors do not devote much space to this comparison and many of the manipulations involve proteins that are in both locations (see below). This seems like an important, missed opportunity. The choices of Tpr or Nup153 should be more clearly justified. The Dpn8 staining appeared in regions outside of the nuclear envelope, which is inconsistent with the text. This should be addressed.

2. The PLA experiments: Although Tpr exists both at the NPC and in the nucleoplasm, the authors interpret these experiments as if they are exclusively reporting on proximity of enhancer proteins to the NPC. The images (e.g. Figure 5a, supplementary Figure 5) make it clear that the foci are throughout the nucleus. Where are the antigens recognized by the antibodies to Tpr and what this may mean for the findings? Further, PLA experiments are prone to artefacts and, while the authors have included a knockdown of Tpr as a negative control, additional controls would strengthen their conclusions. For example, what is the result when Tpr colocalization with NPC-specific proteins is assessed? How is that affected by hexanediol? A better PLA experiment might be to assess colocalization of Dam-ImpB or Dpn8 (bound to Dam-ImpB methylated sites) with super enhancer proteins such as Med1, CTCF, Brd4, etc. With regards to the PLA with

3. Analysis of genomic data: The normalization of the DNA sequencing tracks is not sufficiently explained. Moreover, some of the correlations using meta-site plots are not convincing. For example, the peaks of Nup153 or Nup98 methylation over Imp-B peaks are apparently weak. Although the authors report local maxima, these may not be strong associations. This raises the possibility that the stronger Nup153 or Nup98 peaks are not ImpB peaks. A better way to test for this would be to correlate the ImpB peak intensity to the Nup153 or Nup98 peak intensity globally. The expectation is that there will be both correlated peaks that show strong methylation by Nup153/Nup98 and ImpB, as well as peaks that do not (i.e. those in the nucleoplasm). Along these lines, the Dam alone control can be used for comparison. Peaks identified by Dam alone should not be correlated with ImpB, Nup153, Nup98, CTCF, RNAPII, Cohesin, H3K27Ac, Brd4, Mediator, super enhancers, hubs, etc. Also, what is the source of the Nup93 CUT&RUN data? It was unclear if it was from this study or a prior publication.

4. FISH experiments: these should be in the main figures of the paper and better described. How many loci were assessed in each category? Are the differences between the three classes significant? Also, the order of the legend is the opposite of the order of the bar segments, which is confusing to the reader. Related to Figure 2j: What are the FISH probes used here? How many cells were quantified?

5. The focus on IDRs as the primary functional mechanism for the NPC-SE connection was felt to be the least well-justified of the authors' conclusions. In particular, the quantitative effects in Fig. 6 are over-stated while caveats including possible over-expression artifacts and changes in the nuclear concentration of the IDRs due to efflux out of the nucleus in response to 1,6 hexanediol treatment as a consequence of the effect on the barrier of NPCs are not addressed. Additional experimental follow-up - for example does critical depletion of Nup153 (now possible with auxin degrons) disrupt the NPC-DamID profile? - would strengthen the support for the model.

6. Recent evidence points to the fact that 1,6-HD treatment probes the presence of hydrophobic interactions, rather than distinguishing between LLPS and interactions with spatially clustered binding sites (ICBS). These possibilities should be taken into account when interpreting the data, and should be discussed more thoroughly.

Joint Public Review:

This study is concerned with the general question as to how pools of synaptic vesicles are organized in presynaptic terminals to support different types of transmitter release, such as fast synchronous and asynchronous release. To address this issue, the authors employed the classical method of loading synaptic vesicle membranes with FM-styryl dyes and assessing dye destaining during repetitive synapse stimulation by live imaging as a readout of the mobilization of vesicles for fusion. Among other findings, the authors provide evidence indicating that there are multiple reserve vesicle pools, that quickly and slowly mobilized reserves do not mix, and that vesicle fusion does not follow a mono-exponential time course, leading to the notion that two separate reserve pools of vesicles - slowly vs. rapidly mobilizing - feed two distinct releasable pools - reluctantly vs. rapidly releasing. These findings are valuable to the field of synapse biology, where the organization of synaptic vesicle pools that support synaptic transmission in different temporal and stimulation regimes has been a focus of intense experimentation and discussion for more than two decades.

On the other hand, the present study has limitations, so that the authors' key conclusions remain incompletely supported by the data, and alternative interpretations of the data remain possible. The approach of using bulk FM-styryl dye destaining as a readout of precise vesicle arrangements and pools in a population of functionally very diverse synapses bears problems. In essence, the approach is 'blind' to many additional processes and confounding factors that operate in the background, from other forms of release to inter-synaptic vesicle exchange. Further, averaging signals over many - functionally very diverse - synapses makes it difficult to distinguish the dynamics of separate vesicle pools within single synapses from a scenario where different kinetics of release originate from different types of synapses with different release probabilities.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This well written and designed study by Broca-Brisson et al describes the generation of a new in vitro model for creatine transporter deficiency (CTD), making use of human brain organoid cultures derived from CTD patients. This new model will certainly prove itself very useful to better understand this genetic disease essentially affecting CNS. As CTD has no satisfactory treatment so far (despite more than 20 years of research), this new model will also be very useful to design and develop new treatments.

In particular, through the use of immunohistochemistry, real time PCR, and proteomics combined with integrative bioinformatic and statistical analysis, authors provide very interesting new informations on the brain pathways affected in CTD (e.g. neurogenesis with down-regulation of SOX2 and PAX6 but up-regulation of GSK3b; and proteins involved in autistic spectrum, epilepsies or intellectual disabilities).

While the CTD human brain organoids show a decrease in Cr (in absence of Cr in the culture medium) as compared to control organoids (4 times less), they are not devoid of Cr. Do these organoids express the two enzymes allowing Cr synthesis (AGAT and GAMT), and in which brain cell types? If yes, how to explain the decrease in Cr in the CTD organoids?

The rescue experiment, re-establishing a functional Cr transporter (CRT or SLC6A8) in the CTD human brain organoids, is very interesting, as this may help the design and development of new treatments for CTD. However, authors claim that the functional CRT expressed in the rescued CTD organoids was expressed in each cell. This may be a difficulty in the development of new CTD treatments, as CRT should be expressed in neurons and oligodendrocytes, but not in astrocytes. Authors may want to comment on this point.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In their recent manuscript, Broca-Brisson et al. deliver a multidisciplinary approach to investigate creatine transporter deficiency (CTD) using human-derived brain organoids. The authors have provided a compelling CTD human brain organoid model using induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) derived from individuals with CTD. This model shows distinct differences in creatine uptake between organoids originating from CTD patients and their healthy counterparts. Furthermore, the researchers effectively restored creatine uptake by reintroducing the wild-type CRT in the iPSCs.

The team used advanced molecular biology techniques and sophisticated mass spectrometry to identify changes in protein regulation within these CTD brain organoids. They propose an intriguing theory linking reduced creatine uptake to abnormalities in the GSK3β kinase pathway and mitochondrial function, which might underlie intellectual disability seen in CTD patients.<br /> This study is well-structured and easy to follow, with clear and concise explanations of the experiments. The authors present an important idea: a dysfunction in just one protein transporter (CRT) can cause significant biochemical changes in the brain. Their findings are well-presented and backed by high-quality figures and comprehensive data analysis.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Qin et al., demonstrate, convincingly, that plasticity of ocular dominance of binocular neurons in the visual thalamus persists in adulthood. The adult plasticity is similar to that described in critical period juveniles in that it is absent in transgenic mice with the deletion of the GABA a1 receptor in thalamus, which also blocks ocular dominance plasticity in primary visual cortex. However, the adult plasticity is not dependent on feedback from primary visual cortex, an important difference from juveniles. These findings are an important contribution of a growing body of work identifying plasticity in the adult visual system, and identifies the visual thalamus as a potential target for therapies to reverse adult amblyopia.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this work, the authors found in the mouse line of GABAA a1 subunit KO in thalamic neurons, which was previously reported lacking ocular dominance (OD) plasticity in juvenile V1 and dLGN (Sommeijer et al., 2017), the adult V1 and dLGN OD plasticity was also missing. Through muscimol inhibiting the V1 feedback, thalamic OD plasticity was unaffected in both WT and KO adult mice. However, during the critical period, the thalamic OD plasticity was dependent on V1 feedback in WT mice.

Strengths:

1. The experiments were well designed. The authors used both MD and No MD controls with both WT and KO mice. The authors used in vivo SU recording, which is broadly accepted as the major method for evaluating OD plasticity.

2. The data analysis was solid. The authors used proper statistical tests for non-parametric data set.

Weaknesses:

1. The current work was basically a follow-up of a previous study in juvenile mice, and the results were also very similar to the juvenile results (Sommeijer et al., 2017). One possible interpretation of the results is that the lack of OD plasticity in adult V1 and dLGN was caused by an early blockade of the development of the inhibitory circuit in dLGN, which retains the dLGN in an immature stage till adulthood. The authors indeed claimed in the discussion that the 2-day OD shift is intact in juvenile dLGN and V1 in KO mice, and provided evidence in supplementary figure that GABAergic and cholinergic synapse amount are similar between WT and KO mice. However, the 7-day OD shift is indeed defected in juvenile V1 and dLGN in KO mice (Sommeijer et al., 2017), and it is possible that this early functional deficit didn't induce a structural remodeling in adulthood. To better support the author's claim that the lack of adult V1 OD plasticity is specifically due to reduced dLGN synaptic inhibition, the author should generate conditional KO mice that dLGN synaptic inhibition was only interfered in adulthood.

2. The authors found that in juveniles, dLGN OD shift is dependent on V1 feedback, but not in adults. However, a recent work showed that the effects of V1 silencing on dLGN OD plasticity could differ with various starting points and duration of the V1 silencing and MD (Li et al., 2023). Could the authors provide more details of the MD and V1 silencing for an in-depth discussion?

References<br /> Li, N., Liu, Q., Zhang, Y., Yang, Z., Shi, X., and Gu, Y. (2023). Cortical feedback modulates distinct critical period development in mouse visual thalamus. iScience 26, 105752.<br /> Sommeijer, J.P., Ahmadlou, M., Saiepour, M.H., Seignette, K., Min, R., Heimel, J.A., and Levelt, C.N. (2017). Thalamic inhibition regulates critical-period plasticity in visual cortex and thalamus. Nat Neurosci 20, 1715-1721.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This manuscript tackles an important question, namely how K+ affects substrate transport in the SLC6 family. K+ effects have previously been reported for DAT and SERT, but the prototypical SLC6-fold transporter LeuT was not known to be sensitive to the K+ concentration. In this manuscript, the authors demonstrate convincingly that K+ inhibits Na+ binding, and Na+-dependent amino acid binding at high concentrations, and that K+ inside of vesicles containing LeuT increases the transport rate. However, outside K+ apparently had very little effect. Uptake data are supplemented with binding data, using the scintillation proximity assay, and transition metal FRET, allowing the observation of the distribution of distinct conformational states of the transporter.<br /> Overall, the data are of high quality. I was initially concerned about the use of solutions of very high ionic strength (the Km for K+ is in the 200 mM range), however, the authors performed good controls with lower ionic strength solutions, suggesting that the K+ effect is specific and not caused by artifacts from the high salt concentrations.

The major issue I have with this manuscript is with the interpretation of the experimental data. Granted that the K+ effect seems to be complex. However, it seems counterintuitive that K+ competes with Na+ for the same binding site, while at the same time accelerating the transport rate. Even if K+ prevents rebinding of Na+ on the inside of vesicles, it would be expected that K+ then stabilizes this Na+-free conformation, resulting in a slowing of the transport rate. However, the opposite is found. I feel that it would be useful to perform some kinetic modeling of the transport cycle to identify a mechanism that would allow K+ to act as a competitive inhibitor of Na+ binding and rate-accelerator at the same time.

This ties into the second point: It is not mentioned in the manuscript what the configuration of the vesicles is after LeuT reconstitution. Are they right-side out? Is LeuT distributed evenly in inside-out and right-side out orientation? Is the distribution known? If yes, how does it affect the interpretation of the uptake data with and without K+ gradient?

Finally, mutations were only made to the Na1 cation binding site. These mutations have an effect mostly to be expected, if K+ would bind to this site. However, indirect effects of mutations can never be excluded, and the authors acknowledge this in the discussion section. It would be interesting to see the effect of K+ on a couple of mutants that are far away from Na+/substrate binding sites. This could be another piece of evidence to exclude indirect effects, if the K+ affinity is less affected.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

To characterize the relationship between Na+ and K+ binding to LeuT, the effect of K+ on Na+- dependent [3 H] leucine binding was studied using a scintillation proximity assay. In the presence of K+ the apparent affinity for sodium was reduced but the maximal binding capacity for this ion was unchanged, consistent with a competitive mechanism of inhibition between Na+ and K+.

To obtain a more direct readout of K+ binding to LeuT, tmFRET was used. This method relies on the distance-dependent quenching of a cysteine-conjugated fluorophore (FRET donor) by a transition metal (FRET acceptor). This method is a conformational readout for both ion- and ligand-binding. Along with the effect of K+ on Na+-dependent [3 H] leucine binding, the findings support the existence of a specific K+ binding site in LeuT and that K+ binding to this site induces an outward closed conformation.

It was previously shown that in liposomes inlaid with LeuT by reconstitution, intra-vesicular K+ increases the concentrative capacity of [ 3 H] alanine. To obtain insights into the mechanistic basis of this phenomenon, purified LeuT was reconstituted into liposomes containing a variety of cations, including Na+ and K+ followed by measurements of [ 3 H] alanine uptake driven by a Na+ gradient. The ionic composition of the external medium was manipulated to determine if the stimulation of [3 H] alanine uptake by K+ was due to an outward directed potassium gradient serving as a driving force for sodium-dependent substrate transport by moving in the direction opposite to that of sodium and the substrate. Remarkably it was found that it is the intra-liposomal K+ per se that increases the transport rate of alanine and not a K+ gradient, suggesting that binding of K+ to the intra-cellular face of the transporter could prevent the rebinding of sodium and the substrate thereby reducing their efflux from the cell. These conclusions assume that the measured radioactive transport is via right-side-out liposomes rather than from their inverted counterparts (in case of a random orientation of the transporters in the proteoliposomes). Even though this assumption is likely to be correct, it should be tested.

Since K+- and Na+-binding are competitive and K+ excludes substrate binding, the Authors chose to focus on the Na1 site where the carboxyl group of the substrate serves as one of the groups which coordinate the sodium ion. This was done by the introduction of conservative mutations of the amino acid residues forming the Na1 site. The potassium interaction in these mutants was monitored by sodium dependent radioactive leucine binding. Moreover, the effect the effect of Na+ with and without substrate as well as that of potassium on the conformational equilibria was measured by tmFRET measurements on the mutants introduced in the construct enabling the measurements. The results suggest that K+-binding to LeuT modulates substrate transport and that the K+ affinity and selectivity for LeuT is sensitive to mutations in the Na1 site, pointing toward the Na1 site as a candidate site for facilitating the interaction between K+ in some NSS members.

The data presented in this manuscript are of very high quality. They are a detailed extension of results by the same group (Billesbolle et. al, Ref. 16 from the list) providing more detailed information on the importance of the Na1 site for potassium interaction. Clearly this begs for the identification of the binding site in a potassium bound LeuT structure in the future. Presumably LeuT was studied here because it appears that it is relatively easy to determine structures of many conformational states. Furthermore, convincing evidence showed that the stimulatory effect of K+ on transport is not because of energization of substrate accumulation but is rather due to the binding of this cation to a specific site.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Astrocytes are known to express neuroligins 1-3. Within neurons, these cell adhesion molecules perform important roles in synapse formation and function. Within astrocytes, a significant role for neuroligin 2 in determining excitatory synapse formation and astrocyte morphology was shown in 2017. However, there has been no assessment of what happens to synapses or astrocyte morphology when all three major forms of neuroligins within astrocytes (isoforms 1-3) are deleted using a well characterized, astrocyte specific, and inducible cre line. By using such selective mouse genetic methods, the authors here show that astrocytic neuroligin 1-3 expression in astrocytes is not consequential for synapse function or for astrocyte morphology. They reach these conclusions with careful experiments employing quantitative western blot analyses, imaging and electrophysiology. They also characterize the specificity of the cre line they used. Overall, this is a very clear and strong paper that is supported by rigorous experiments. The discussion considers the findings carefully in relation to past work. This paper is of high importance, because it now raises the fundamental question of exactly what neuroligins 1-3 are actually doing in astrocytes. In addition, it enriches our understanding of the mechanisms by which astrocytes participate in synapse formation and function. The paper is very clear, well written and well illustrated with raw and average data.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In the present manuscript, Golf et al. investigate the consequences of astrocyte-specific deletion of Neuroligin family cell adhesion proteins on synapse structure and function in the brain. Decades of prior research had shown that Neuroligins mediate their effects at synapses through their role in the postsynaptic compartment of neurons and their transsynaptic interaction with presynaptic Neurexins. More recently, it was proposed for the first time that Neuroligins expressed by astrocytes can also bind to presynaptic Neurexins to regulate synaptogenesis (Stogsdill et al. 2017, Nature). However, several aspects of the model proposed by Stogsdill et al. on astrocytic Neuroligin function conflict with prior evidence on the role of Neuroligins at synapses, prompting Golf et al. to further investigate astrocytic Neuroligin function in the current study. Using postnatal conditional deletion of Neuroligins 1, 2 and 3 specifically from astrocytes, Golf et al. show that virtually no changes in the expression of synaptic proteins or in the properties of synaptic transmission at either excitatory or inhibitory synapses are observed. Moreover, no alterations in the morphology of astrocytes themselves were found. The authors conclude that while Neuroligins are indeed expressed in astrocytes and are hence likely to play some role there, this role does not include any direct consequences on synaptic structure and function, in direct contrast to the model proposed by Stogsdill et al.

Overall, this is a strong study that addresses an important and highly relevant question in the field of synaptic neuroscience. Neuroligins are not only key regulators of synaptic function, they have also been linked to numerous psychiatric and neurodevelopmental disorders, highlighting the need to precisely define their mechanisms of action. The authors take a wide range of approaches to convincingly demonstrate that under their experimental conditions, no alterations in the levels of synaptic proteins or in synaptic transmission at excitatory or inhibitory synapses, or in the morphology of astrocytes, are observed.

One caveat to this study is that the authors do not directly provide evidence that their Tamoxifen-inducible conditional deletion paradigm does indeed result in efficient deletion of all three Neuroligins from astrocytes. Using a Cre-dependent tdTomato reporter line, they show that tdTomato expression is efficiently induced by the current paradigm, and they refer to a prior study showing efficient deletion of Neuroligins from neurons using the same conditional Nlgn1-3 mouse lines but a different Cre driver strategy. However, neither of these approaches directly provide evidence that all three Neuroligins are indeed deleted from astrocytes in the current study. In contrast, Stogsdill et al. employed FACS and qPCR to directly quantify the loss of Nlgn2 mRNA from astrocytes. This leaves the current Golf et al. study somewhat vulnerable to the criticism, however unlikely, that their lack of synaptic effects may be a consequence of incomplete Neuroligin deletion, rather than a true lack of effect of astrocytic Neuroligins.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This study investigates the roles of astrocytes in the regulation of synapse development and astrocyte morphology using conditional KO mice carrying mutations of three neuroligins1-3 in astrocytes with the deletion starting at two different time points (P1 and P10/11). The authors use morphological, electrophysiological, and cell-biological approaches and find that there are no differences in synapse formation and astrocyte cytoarchitecture in the mutant hippocampus and visual cortex. These results differ from the previous results (Stogsdill et al., 2017), although the authors make several discussion points on how the differences could have been induced. This study provides important information on how astrocytes and neurons interact with each other to coordinate neural development and function. The experiments were well-designed, and the data are of high quality.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this paper, Scholz and colleagues introduce a new paradigm aimed to bridge the gap between two domains that rely on hierarchical processing: language and memory. They find that, generally in line with their hypotheses, hierarchical processing is associated with activation in hippocampus (especially anterior), medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), posterior superior temporal sulcus (pSTS), and inferior frontal gyrus (IFG). They also report that these effects in IFG are particularly strong late in the task, once participants have had a lot of experience and processing is presumably more automatic.

This work has many strengths. The goal to bridge these literatures by developing a new task is commendable. I appreciate also that the authors separately validated their new task behaviorally by comparing it to another accepted as tapping hierarchical processing. I also liked that the authors were transparent about their hypotheses, and certain analyses like the grid coding one that was planned but did not work out. I do however have a number of concerns about the interpretations of the findings, such as whether some patterns are ambiguous as to the true underlying effects. I also have a number of clarification questions. All concerns are described below.

1. Broadly, I would like to see the authors provide more information and logic on why hierarchical processing should be associated with a big reduction in univariate activation between P1 and P2-why would this signify item in contexts binding? How does this relate to existing work using other methods (e.g., like animal studies, which seem to make predictions more about representational structures)?

2. There are many differences between what kind of information participants are processing between Position 1 and Position 2 for the HIER but not ITER conditions, and these may not be related to the hierarchical structure specifically. Related to but I think distinct from some of the limitations mentioned in the Discussion is the fact that in the HIER condition, what is happening cognitively between Position 1 and Position 2 items is more distinct (attending to color for position 1, and shape for position 2), whereas the two positions are equivalent in the ITER condition. This is a bit different from the authors' intended manipulation of hierarchy, because it involves a specific dimension. A stronger design might have been to flip the dimensions with respect to position specifically, to make shape sometimes important for position 1, and color for position 2 (perhaps by counterbalancing across subjects, so half would see the current P1=color and P2=shape rules, and the other half P1=shape and P2=color rules). Another important difference between color and shape is that while color is a simple binary distinction that participants can make based on their preexisting knowledge of red versus green, and to which they can assign a verbal label; whereas, the shape distinction was something novel they acquired during the experiment, has no real-world validity or meaning, and would presumably rely more on visuospatial processing. The shape dimension was also much more variable, I believe. I should say that I do find comfort in a few things - (1) that behavior on this task is correlated with another one that also indexes hierarchy processing, and (2) that the results show regional specificity in a pattern at least not easily explained by this distinction. However, I do think future work will be needed to ask whether it is hierarchy processing per se or rather something to do with the particular cognitive states engaged during each phase in this particular task that is eliciting activation in this set of regions. It would strengthen the paper to discuss this issue directly so readers are alerted to the caveat.

3. I did not understand what data went into creating the schematic in Figure 2E. First, I think this depiction of a gradient might be easily misinterpreted because it seems to imply that the authors have a higher resolution analysis than they actually do. I believe the data were just analyzed in three subregions of hippocampus - head, body, and tail. Variability within each subregion (as seems to be implied by certain parts of a region being more grey and others more red/orange), is not something that could be assessed in this analysis. For example, why does the medial part of the head seem to be more "unspecific" whereas lateral regions look more HIER Pos1 specific? This type of depiction would only make sense in my mind if the authors had performed something like a voxelwise analysis to determine where specifically the interaction "peaks." I would recommend this visualization be cut or significantly changed to do away with the gradient.

4. I believe the authors have not reported enough information for us to know that hippocampus involvement indeed does not change with experience. It is interesting that hippocampus in the task x experience ROI analysis shows, if anything, bigger differentiation between the two tasks (numerically) for the late trials. This seems to go against the authors' hypothesis, and a lot of existing data, that hippocampus is preferentially involved in early (vs. late) learning. Given that the key signature in this region, though, is that it differentiates between position 1 and position 2 in HIER but not ITER, and doesn't show a big difference in magnitude across the two tasks, it makes me wonder whether the task x experience interaction collapsing across the two positions makes sense for this region. Did the authors consider a similar task x experience interaction within hippocampus, but additionally considering position? I think there are multiple ways to look at this question (e.g., either looking for a task x experience x position interaction, a task x experience within position 1, a task x position interaction separately in early vs. late portions of the task, or even a position x experience interaction only within the HIER task), and I'm sure the authors would be in a better place to decide on a specific path forward. The same logic might go for mPFC, which shows an interaction but no main effect of task. This relates to claims in the discussion as well, such as that "hippocampus was equally active in early and late trials," but given this analysis is collapsing across the dimension hippocampus (and mPFC) seem to be sensitive to (position), it seems like this could be masking an underlying effect in which hippocampus/mPFC might still be differentially involved early vs. late (i.e., they might show the task x position interaction preferentially during some task phases).

5. For the IFG regions, the task x experience interaction seems to be driven mainly by change (decrease in activation) for the ITER, rather than change in the HIER. The authors are at times careful to talk about this as "sustained" activity in IFG, which I appreciated, but other times talk about a "relative increase." I am not sure how I feel about that. I see the compelling evidence that there are task differences by experience, and that there is reduction for ITER that is interestingly not present for HIER, but I think I am still feeling uncomfortable with the term "increase" or even "relative increase" for HIER. For example, couldn't it simply be that the ITER task is requiring less processing with experience, whereas the HIER does not (perhaps because it requires more processing to begin with)? i.e., we do not know whether the reduction for ITER is simply a neural signal thing (i.e., activations diminish over time/experience) or a cognitive thing, specific to the ITER task. I think the authors are wanting to interpret the reductions as the former, but perhaps it would be more powerful to demonstrate if there was a baseline task that also showed reductions but for which not much would be expected in the way of cognitive change. Can the authors provide more justification for their choice of terminology (through either more logic or analyses), or if not, simply talk about it as sustained activity for HIER-which is especially interesting in the face of reductions for the ITER task?

6. Please define what is meant by the term "automaticity" in the introduction. A clearer definition of the concept would make the paper generally easier to follow, and it would also help foreshadow the hypotheses about mPFC activity in the introduction. To this end, it could be useful to elaborate on how learning takes place in this task, how it could foster increasing automaticity, and how automaticity maps onto behaviour (e.g., is it RT decrease alone, which happens for both conditions in this task?) the brain regions discussed.

7. There was no association between brain and behavior, which the authors interpret as a positive (as therefore task difficulty differences could not explain the effects). However in light of these null findings, it is on the flip side hard to know whether this neural engagement carries any behavioral significance. It seems to me as though the authors' framework makes predictions about brain-behavior correlations that were not tested in the manuscript. For example, I believe the authors asked whether behavior overall was correlated with activation. However, wouldn't the automaticity in IFG explanation for example predict that more engagement or an increase in engagement from early to late should be associated with e.g., faster RTs-not necessarily a relationship overall?

8. On p. 8, it is stated that "In the hippocampus, this effect is driven by higher betas for the presentation of the first object (H1 > I1) and lower betas for the second object (H2 < I2) when comparing across tasks." Can the authors confirm whether the pairwise comparisons following up on the interaction here are significant, or rather if they are referring to a numerical difference in the betas? It looked like the same (numerically) would be true for mPFC; is there a reason why the same information is not included for the mPFC ROI? Also, might the authors provide more speculation as to why one might see both enhanced and reduced activation for P1 and P2, respectively?

9. I was expecting some discussion of how hippocampus does not seem to show preferential involvement early, given that its potential role being restricted to early in learning (i.e., during acquisition only) was one of the primary motivators for using this task. As noted in my above comment (#4), I am not quite sure that I think there is evidence that the hippocampal role remains constant over this task, given the analyses provided (i.e., that they did not look at the position effect for early vs. late). However upon further analysis if it does seem to be more stable, and/or if it even increases over experience, the authors might want to talk about that in the Discussion.

10. The fact that the hierarchies in this paradigm unfolded over time makes them distinct on some level from the hierarchies present in the VRT task that was used to validate the HIER task's hierarchical processing demands. For example, there might be additional computations required to processes these temporally ordered structures, support online maintenance, and so on. It may be worth considering this aspect of the task, and whether/to what extent the results could be related to it, in the paper.

11. I also have many methodological and analytic clarification questions, which I detail in the recommendations for authors.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, Scholz et al., adopt a set of tasks to study how brain regions are differentially activated with temporal context clues. In one task, the first item in a two item sequence will dictate the value of the second. In another task, there is no hierarchy in temporal order, though subjects must still maintain information across the delay to add the value of the two presented items. Using univariate analyses, the authors found many regions that showed an interaction between item position and task, including: the mPFC, anterior hippocampus and the left prefrontal and posterior temporal cortices. The results are interpreted as evidence for a dedicated system for understanding hierarchical relationships across domains as various as spatial cognition, music, and language.

The question raised by the authors is important and fMRI may be an appropriate means of studying the neural basis for hierarchical computations. The main limitation of the manuscript, and one that is briefly mentioned and dismissed in the discussion is the task design, which confounds whether or not a hierarchical relationship must be formed, and the content of the information that must be held across working memory (color in the hierarchy task and number in the iterative task).

The authors also report an interesting difference between the activation observed in the head and tail of the hippocampus during the different tasks. However, the authors compare each region independently, show one is significant and the other is not, and then conclude "the effect of hierarchical context representation in the hippocampus is specific to its anterior regions." Such a conclusion requires direct comparison of the regions.

Finally, it isn't clear if the motivating prior work makes a simple univariate prediction. A strong prediction however is that the representational similarity should be very different for objects in the first versus second position in the hierarchy task and much less so in the iterative task. Such a representational similarity analysis would better connect this study to prior research and to the hypothesis that hierarchical processing affects the coding of items in sequence.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

My biggest concern is that I am not convinced that the HIER task is indeed hierarchical. Based on Figure 1B, it seems that the rules of the task can be listed as "Green and same = 2", "Green and different = 4", "Red and same = 1", "Red and different = 3". If so, the hierarchical organisation intended by the authors can be trumped by simply memorising these 4 options. The rote memory explanation is even more likely given that the other, ITER task, clearly required rote memory. Hence the two tasks may vary simply in the amount of difficulty/WM involvement.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The manuscript of Duewell et al has made critical observations that help to understand the mechanisms of activation of the class IA PI3Ks. By using single-molecule kinetic measurements, the authors have made outstanding progress toward understanding how PI3Kbeta is uniquely activated by phosphorylated tyrosine kinase receptors, Gbeta/gamma heterodimers and the small G protein Rac1. While previous studies have defined these as activators of PI3Kbeta, the current manuscript makes clear the quantitative limitations of these previous observations. Most previous quantitative in vitro studies of PI3Kbeta activation have used soluble peptides derived from bis-phosphorylated receptors to stimulate the enzyme. These soluble peptides stimulate the enzyme, and even stimulate membrane interaction. Although these previous studies showed that the release of p85-mediated autoinhibition unmasks an intrinsic affinity of the enzyme for lipid membranes, they ignored what would be the consequence of these peptide sequences being present in the context of intrinsic membrane proteins. The current manuscript shows that the effect of membrane-conjugated peptides on the enzyme activity is profound, in terms of recruiting the enzyme to membranes. In this context, the authors show that G proteins associated with the membranes have an important contribution to membrane recruitment, but they also have a profound allosteric effect on the activity on the membrane, These are observations that would not have been possible with bulk measurements, and they do not simply recapitulate observations that were made for other class IA PI3Ks.

An important observation that the authors have made is that Gbeta/gamma heterodimers and RAc1 alone have almost no ability to recruit PI3Kbeta to the membranes that they are using, and this is central to one of the most profoundly novel activation mechanisms offered by the manuscript. The authors propose that the nSH2- and Gbeta/gamma binding sites partially overlap, so that Gbeta/gamma can only bind once the nSH2 domain releases the p110beta subunit. This mechanism would mean that once the nSH2 is engaged by membrane-congugated pY, the Gbg heterodimer can bind and increase the association of the enzyme with membranes. Indeed, this increased membrane association is observed by the authors. However, the authors also show that this increased recruitment to membranes accounts for relatively little increase in activity, and that the far greater component of activation is due to an allosteric effect of the membrane association on the activity of the enzyme. The proposal for competition between Gbg binding and the nSH2 is consistent with the behavior of an nSH2 mutant that cannot bind to pY and which, consequently, does not vacate the Gbg-binding site. In addition to the outstanding contribution to understanding the kinetics of activation of PI3Kbeta, the authors have offered the first structural interpretation for the kinetics of Gbg activation in synergy with pY activation. The proposal for an overlapping nSH2/Gbg binding site is supported by predictions made by John Burke, using alphafold multimer. Although there is no experimental structure to support this structural model, it is consistent with HDX-MS analyses that were published previously.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The manuscript by Aguirre et al. describes an elegant approach for developing selective inhibitors of inositol hexakisphosphate kinases (IP6Ks). There are 3 IP6K isozymes (IP6K1-3) in humans, which catalyze the synthesis of inositol pyrophosphates. The lack of isozyme-selective inhibitors has hampered efforts to understand their individual physiological roles. While several inhibitors of IP6Ks have been described, their either lack isozyme selectivity or inhibit other kinases. To address this gap, Aguirre et al. used an analog-sensitive approach, which involves the identification of a mutant that, in an ideal world, doesn't impact the activity of the enzyme but renders it sensitive to an inhibitor that is absolutely selective for the engineered (analog-sensitive) enzyme. Initially, they generated the canonical gatekeeper (Leu210 in IP6K1) mutations (glycine and alanine); unfortunately, these mutations had a deleterious effect on the enzymatic activity of IP6K1. Interestingly, mutation of Leu210 to a valine, a subtly smaller amino acid, didn't affect enzymatic activity. The authors then designed a clever high-throughput assay to identify compounds that show selectivity for L210V IP6K1 versus WT IP6K1. The assay monitors the reverse reaction catalyzed by IP6Ks, monitoring the formation of ATP using a luminescence-based readout. After validating the screen, the authors screened 54,912 compounds. After culling the list of compounds using several criteria, the authors focused on one particular compound, referred to as FMP-201300. FMP-201300 was ~10-fold more potent against L210V IP6K1 compared to WT IP6K1. This selectivity was maintained for IP6K2. Mechanistic studies showed that FMP-201300 is an allosteric inhibitor of IP6K1. The authors also did a small SAR campaign to identify key functional groups required for inhibition.

Overall, this manuscript describes a unique and useful strategy for developing isozyme-selective inhibitors of IP6Ks. The serendipitous finding that subtle changes to the gatekeeper position can sensitize the IP6K1 mutant to allosteric inhibitors will undoubtedly inspire other analog-sensitive inhibitor studies. The manuscript is well-written and the experiments are generally well-controlled.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Fiedler and colleagues set out to establish an analog-sensitive approach for selective inhibition of the mammalian IP6K isozymes. IP6Ks are inositol hexakisphosphate kinases, and the authors found that the classic glycine and alanine gatekeeper mutation (established by Kevan Shokat as the "bump and hole approach" for various protein kinases) resulted in limited catalytic efficiency. Therefore, the authors decided to use a leucine-to-valine mutation, which did not affect kinase activity, but, unfortunately, was less amenable to any of the well-established analog-sensitive kinase inhibitors such as PP1 and naphthyl-PP1. To overcome this limitation, the authors performed an elegant HT screen and identified a benzimidazole-based mutant-selective small molecule inhibitor. A focused SAR analysis combined with detailed kinetic studies revealed the hit molecule FMP-201300 as an allosteric inhibitor of IP6K mutants. While co-crystallization experiments failed, the authors used high-end HDX-MS measurements to gain insight into the structural and conformational determinants of mutant selectivity.

Overall, this is an excellent study of high quality. The identified FMP-201300 has the potential for further compound and probe development. My only minor comment is that the authors could spend more time discussing the proposed allosteric binding mode of FMP-201300 and provide more detailed figures to highlight the proposed interactions with the protein and the conformational changes that must ultimately take place to accommodate the allosteric modulator. I appreciate that the co-crystallization experiments did not yield bound inhibitor structures, but perhaps the authors could consider MD simulations to complete their study.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Transcriptional readthrough, intron retention, and transposon expression have been previously shown to be elevated in mammalian aging and senescence by multiple studies. The current manuscript claims that the increased intron retention and readthrough could completely explain the findings of elevated transposon expression seen in these conditions. To that end, they analyze multiple RNA-seq expression datasets of human aging, human senescence, and mouse aging, and establish a series of correlations between the overall expression of these three entities in all datasets.

While the findings are useful, the strength of the evidence is incomplete, as the individual analyses unfortunately do not support the claims. Specifically, to establish this claim there is a burden of proof on the authors to analyze both intron-by-intron and gene-by-gene, using internal matched regions, and, in addition, thoroughly quantify the extent of transcription of completely intergenic transposons and show that they do not contribute to the increase in aging/senescence. Furthermore, the authors chose to analyze the datasets as unstranded, even though strand information is crucial to their claim, as both introns and readthrough are stranded, and if there is causality, than opposite strand transposons should show no preferential increase in aging/senescence. Finally, there are some unclear figures that do not seem to show what the authors claim. Overall, the study is not convincing.

Major concerns:

1. Why were all datasets treated as unstanded? Strand information seems critical, and should not be discarded. Specifically, stranded information is crucial to increase the confidence in the causality claimed by the authors, since readthrough and intron retention are both strand specific, and therefore should influence only the same strand transposons and not the opposite-strand ones.

2. "Altogether this data suggests that intron retention contributes to the age-related<br /> increase in the expression of transposons" - this analysis doesn't demonstrate the claim. In order to prove this they need to show that transposons that are independent of introns are either negligible, or non-changing with age.

3. Additionally, the correct control regions should be intronic regions other than the transposon, which overall contributed to the read counts of the intron.

4. Furthermore, analysis of read spanning intron and partly transposons should more directly show this contribution.

5. "This contrasts with the almost completely even distribution of randomly permuted transposons." How was random permutation of transposons performed? Why is this contract not trivial, and why is this a good control?

6. Fig 4: the choice to analyze only the 10kb-20kb region downstream to TSE for readthrough regions has probably reduced the number of regions substantially (there are only 200 left) and to what extent this faithfully represent the overall trend is unclear at this point.

7. Fig. 5B shows the opposite of the authors claims: in the control samples there are more transposon reads than in the KCl samples.

8. "induced readthrough led to preferential expression of gene proximal transposons (i.e. those within 25 kb of genes), when compared with senescence or aging". A convincing analysis would show if there is indeed preferential proximity of induced transposons to TSEs. Since readthrough transcription decays as a function of distance from TSEs, the expression of transposons should show the same trends if indeed simply caused by readthrough. Also, these should be compared to the extent of transposon expression (not induction) in intergenic regions without any readthrough, in these conditions.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, the authors examined the role of transcription readout and intron retention in increasing transcription of transposable elements during aging in mammals. It is assumed that most transposable elements have lost the regulatory elements necessary for transcription activation. Using available RNA-seq datasets, the authors showed that an increase in intron retention and readthrough transcription during aging contributes to an increase in the number of transcripts containing transposable elements.

Previously, it was assumed that the activation of transposable elements during aging is a consequence of a gradual imbalance of transcriptional repression and a decrease in the functionality of heterochromatin (de repression of transcription in heterochromatin). Therefore, this is an interesting study with important novel conclusion. However, there are many questions about bioinformatics analysis and the results obtained.

Major comments:

1. In Introduction the authors indicated that only small fraction of LINE-1 and SINE elements are expressed from functional promoters and most of LINE-1 are co-expressed with neighboring transcriptional units. What about other classes of mobile elements (LTR mobile element and transposons)?

2. Results: Why authors considered all classes of mobile elements together? It is likely that most of the LTR containing mobile elements and transposons contain active promoters that are repressed in heterochromatin or by KRAB-C2H2 proteins.

3. Fig. 2. A schematic model of transposon expression is not presented clearly. What is the purpose of showing three identical spliced transcripts?

4. The study analyzed the levels of RNA from cell cultures of human fibroblasts of different ages. The annotation to the dataset indicated that the cells were cultured and maintained. (The cells were cultured in high-glucose (4.5mg/ml) DMEM (Gibco) supplemented with 15% (vol/vol) fetal bovine serum (Gibco), 1X glutamax (Gibco), 1X non-essential amino acids (Gibco) and 1% (vol/vol) penicillin-streptomycin (Gibco). How correct that gene expression levels in cell cultures are the same as in body cells? In cell cultures, transcription is optimized for efficient division and is very different from that of cells in the body. In order to correlate a result on cells with an organism, there must be rigorous evidence that the transcriptomes match.

5. The results obtained for isolated cultures of fibroblasts are transferred to the whole organism, which has not been verified. The conclusions should be more accurate.

6. The full pipeline with all the configuration files IS NOT available on github (pabisk/aging_transposons).

7. Analysis of transcripts passing through repeating regions is a complex matter. There is always a high probability of incorrect mapping of multi-reads to the genome. Things worsen if unpaired short reads are used, as in the study (L=51). Therefore, the authors used the Expectation maximization algorithm to quantify transposon reads. Such an option is possible. But it is necessary to indicate how statistically reliable the calculated levels are. It would be nice to make a similar comparison of TE levels using only unique reads. The density of reads would drop, but in this case it would be possible to avoid the artifacts of the EM algorithm.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The manuscript entitled: "TCR-pMHC complex formation triggers CD3 dynamics" by Van Eerden et al. mainly uses coarse-grained molecular dynamics to probe the dynamic changes, in terms of CDε spatial arrangements around 226 TCRs, before and after the engagements of MCC/I-Ek. The broader distributions of CDε iso-occupancies after pMHC binding correlate with the decreases of TCR-CD3 contacts and extensions of TCR conformations. Given the observed release of motion restrictions upon antigen recognition, the authors proposed a "drawbridge" model to describe the initial triggering processes from pMHC association to TCR straightening, FG-loop getaway, and CD3 enhanced mobility. In addition, the authors briefly investigated the functional effects of the rigidified connecting peptide (CP) in T-cell activation using in silico and in vitro mutagenesis. The manuscript raises an important and exciting hypothesis about the allostery of TCR-CD3 during TCR triggering; however, due to current not-yet-convincing evidence, both computationally and experimentally, in supporting their conclusions.

1. As mentioned by the authors, the TCR triggering and T cell activation have been illustrated by a number of models, such as mechanosensing and kinetic proofreading, "in which TCRs discriminate agonistic from antagonistic pMHCs." However, the critical feature of antigen discrimination is lacking in the drawbridge model. So far, the CDε movements qualitatively distinguish on and off states. The simulation of the antagonist or weaker binder would strengthen the manuscript by demonstrating the relevance of CDε mobility in the triggering mechanism. 226 TCR associated with K99E/I-Ek has been resolved in Ref (DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.1100197), which can potentially serve as the "intermediate" system to formulate the gradual increase of CDε dynamics.

2. The linkage between conserved motifs in CP and CDε mobility is less apparent to this reviewer. The notion of the rigidified hinge (PP) requires further clarification. Computationally, the details of fine-grained simulations are required to justify the origin of the apparent mobility increase in PP. The direct comparison between Fig. 2 and Fig. 7 can help assess the relevance of CP through the alignment by FG-loop at a fixed direction in polar coordinates. Experimentally, anti-CD3 positive experiments and, ideally, another antagonist on 3A9 TCRs can strengthen the current functional assay. The baseline level of TCR expression (after positive selection) and 0h activation (Fig. S8) is missing.

3. Regarding the section "The TCRβ FG loop acts as a gatekeeper," besides contact analysis, additional motion analysis, such as RMSF or PCA, can further establish the importance of FG loops.

4. The discussion on anti-CD3 antibody effects and their potential contribution to CD3 mobility is highly recommended.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this research article a new allosteric mechanism for T cell receptor (TCR) triggering upon peptide-MHC complex binding is presented in which conformational change in the TCR facilitates activation by controlling CD3 dynamics around the TCR. The authors find that the Cb FG loop acts as a gatekeeper and Cb connecting peptide acts as a hinge to control TCR flexibility.

As an initial result, the authors set up two sets of simulations - TCR-CD3 and pMHC-TCR-CD3 in POPC bilayers and identified that the CD3e chains exhibit a wider range of mobility in the pMHC-TCR-CD3 system as compared to the TCR-CD3 system. Next, they examined the contacts between all subunits during the course of both simulations and established that CD3g and CD3eg made far fewer contacts with TCRb in the pMHC-TCR-CD3 simulations. Next, they identified that the TCR is extended in the pMHC-TCR-CD3 simulations with larger tilt angle of 150º and FG loop acts as gatekeeper that allows CD3 movements upon pMHC binding. Finally, Mutations in Cb connecting peptide regions indicated rigidified TCR leading to hypersensitive TCR, proved both by simulations and in vitro experiments.

The following major concerns must be addressed.

Major concerns:

1) The simulations were performed with intracellular regions unfolded and free from the membrane. A more complete system should have the intracellular regions embedded in the membrane. An NMR structure of CD3e is available (Xu et al., Cell, 2008) and could have been modeled into the TCR-CD3 system before the simulation. Prakaash et al., (PLoS, Comput Biol, 2021) studied cytoplasmic domain motions during in their simulation experiments.

2) Comparing Fig. 2C and Fig.7C, the movement of CD3eg is more restricted in Fig.7C. Is this because the simulation time is lower in the mutation experiments?

3) Only TCR-CD3 simulation were performed for PP and AA mutants. A simulation with pMHC (pMHC-TCRmutants-CD3) should be performed to show increased CD3 mobility.

4) Using CD3e antibody, OKT3, for activation instead of pMHC as a separate experiment would add more value to this study. They can look at CD3 mobility and TCR elongation in the system with OKT3 antibody and compare it to the CD3 mobility and TCR elongation with the pMHC system. They can also use OKT3 with AA and PP mutants and perform both simulation and in vitro activation experiments.

5) The activation experimental data is rather underwhelming. The difference between WT and PP in 2hr experiment at 0.016 ug/mL looks exceedingly low. A stronger TCR-pMHC system should be considered for the in vitro activation experiments.

6) There is some concern that the scientific work lacks solid experimental functional data and lack of novelty due to earlier TCR-CD3 simulation studies (Pandey et al., 2021, eLife) that already reported flexibility and elongation of the complex.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The authors first explore structural differences of unbound TCR-CD3 complexes and pMHC-bound TCR-CD3 complexes with coarse-grained simulations. In the simulations with pMHC-bound complexes, the transmembrane (TM) domains of the TCR-CD3 complex and of pMHC are embedded in two opposing membrane patches. In the pMHC membrane patch, a pore is created and stabilised in the simulation setup with the aim to allow water transport in and out of the compartment between the membranes. The authors report a more upright conformation of the TCR extracellular (EC) domain in the simulations in which this EC domain is bound to pMHC, compared to simulations with unbound TCR, and postulate an allosteric signalling model based on these apparent conformational changes and associated changes in TCR-CD3 quaternary arrangements. Subsequently, the authors identify a GxxG motif in the TCRbeta connecting peptide between EC domain and TM domain as putative hinge in allosteric signalling, and explore the effect of double proline and double alanine substitutions in atomistic simulations and experiments.

While these simulation and experimental setups and the addressed questions are of interest in the field, the following weaknesses prevail in my overall assessment of the work:

(1) I am not convinced that the reported coarse-grained simulation results are sound or allow to draw the conclusions stated in the work. In the simulations with a pMHC-bound TCR-CD3 complex, the intermembrane distance in the setup shown in Figure S1 appears excessively large and likely leads to a rather strong force in the membrane-vertical direction and to the reported upright conformation of the TCR EC domain. This upright confirmation thus appears to be a consequence of force from the simulation setup, rather than a consequence of pMHC binding alone as suggested by the authors. While the membrane pore in principle allows water exchange, the relaxation of the intermembrane distance resulting from this water exchange in the 10 microsecond long simulation trajectories is not (but needs to be) addressed. This relaxation eventually would lead to an equilibrated membrane separation, in which essentially no force is exerted on the TCR-pMHC EC complex. However, I suspect that this computationally demanding equilibration is not achieved in the simulations, with the consequence that forces on the TCR-pMHC EC complex in the membrane-vertical direction remain.

In addition, I am not convinced that the Martini force field of the coarse-grained simulations allows a reliable assessment of the quaternary interactions between the TCR and CD3 EC domains. Getting protein structures and interactions right in coarse-grained simulations is notoriously difficult. In simulations with the coarse-grained Martini force field, secondary protein structures are constrained as a standard procedure, and the authors also use a recommended Go-potential procedure, likely to stabilise tertiary protein structures. The quaternary interactions between the TCR EC domain and the pMHC EC domain are modelled by rather strong harmonic constraints to prevent dissociation. While the treatment of the quaternary interactions between the TCR EC domain and the CD3 EC domains in the simulations is not (but needs to be) addressed in detail, I suspect that there are no additional, or only weak constraints to stabilise these interactions. In any case, I think that a faithful representation of these quaternary interactions is beyond the reach of the Martini force field, as is the reported diffusion of the CD3 EC domains around the TCR EC domain, which plays a central role in the allosteric mechanism proposed by the authors (see Fig 2 and 5).

(2) The allosteric model suggested by the authors is motivated in an introduction that appears to omit central controversial aspects in the field, as well as experimental evidence that is not compatible with allosteric conformational changes in the TCR. These aspects are:

- The mechanosensor model is controversial. In original versions of this model, a transversal force has been postulated to be required for T cell activation. However, more recent single-molecule force-sensor experiments reported in J Goehring et al., Nat Commun 12, 1 (2021) provide no evidence for a scenario in which transversal forces beyond 2 pN are associated with T cell activation.

- The role of catch bonds is controversial. Evidence for TCR catch bonds has been mainly obtained in experimental setups using the biomembrane force probe, in which force is applied to TCRs on the surface of T cells, but is not reproduced in experimental setups using isolated TCRs, see e.g. L Limozin et al., PNAS 116, 16943 (2019)

- Ref. 1 of the manuscript prominently discusses the kinetic segregation model of T cell activation, which is not (but needs to be) addressed in the introduction. In this model, exclusion of CD45 from close-contact zones around pMHC-bound TCRs triggers T cell activation. The model is supported by evidence from diverse experiments, see for example M Aramesh et al., PNAS 118, e2107535118 (2021) and Ref. 1. At least part of this evidence is not compatible with mechanosensing or allosteric models of T cell activation.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

• The central component of the Nuclear Pore Complex (NPC) that controls nucleocytoplasmic transport is the assembly of the intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) that line its passageway. Nanopore based mimics functionalized with these IDPs have been an important tool in understanding the mechanisms of protein transport through the NPC. This paper develops a new type of nanopore NPC mimic that acts as Zero Mode Waveguide enabling optical detection of protein translocations on the single molecule level in pores of different diameters. This is a significant improvement over previous mimics, where optical detection was used only for measurement of bulk fluxes, while single molecule detection relied on electrochemical methods that potentially introduce substantial artifacts. Studying the dependence of transport on the pore diameter is interesting because of its important connections to mechanosensitivity of protein partitioning in cells, which can be difficult to directly control and study in live cells.

• The authors study the transport of individual transport proteins in the dilute regime, and compare the transport of the transport proteins that naturally carry cargoes through the NPC with the transport of BSA that serves as a neutral control. The paper confirms the insights of previous work by the same and other authors - IDP functionalized nanopores are selective in a sense that they conduct the transport proteins well while blocking the passage of BSA. As reported in the paper, the selectivity disappears at large pore diameters which become similar to empty pores because the IDPs don't stretch far enough to cover the pore cross-section.

• The authors use one-bead-per-amino acid coarse grained modeling of the IDPs that they developed and validated previously, to model the distribution of the IDPs in the pores. Combining the simulations with the recently developed "void" model of transport through IDP network and phenomenological transport models, they provide an explanation for the observed reduction in the flux of the neutral control proteins compared to that of transport proteins. The translocation of transport proteins is not modeled directly.

• Together, the experimental and the computational results constitute convincing evidence that points toward the correctness of our current understanding of the physical mechanisms of NPC transport.

• The authors study interference between the transport proteins and the neutral control proteins at high concentrations of the latter, where the pore is occupied by multiple transport proteins. The results appear to be different from previous observations (but more study is needed). I think more discussion of how the results seem with the previous work and what are the potential implication for NPC transport would be welcome.

• The authors use simulations and phenomenological models of transport to analyze the crowded regime. It appears there are some inconsistencies in the application of these models in the dilute and crowded regimes, that should be clarified.

• Some details of the experimental system and the appropriateness of the transport models should be explained more - such as the role of the hydrodynamic pressure gradient.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The contribution of Klughammer et al reports on the fabrication and functionalization of zero-mode waveguides of different diameters as a mimic system for nuclear pore complexes. Moreover, the researchers performed molecular transport measurements on these mimic systems (together with molecular dynamic simulations) to assess the contribution of pore diameter and Nsp functionalization on the translocation rates of BSA, the nuclear transport protein Kap95 and finally the impact of different Kap95 concentrations on BSA translocation and overall selectivity of the mimicked pores as a function of their diameter. In order to assess the effect of the Nsp1 on the coated pores to the translocation rates and molecular selectivity they also conducted separated experiments on bare nano-pores, i.e., without coating, and of different diameters. One of the most novel aspects of this contribution is the detection scheme used to assess the translocation rates & selectivity, i.e., the use of an optical scheme based on single molecule fluorescence detection as compared to previous works that have mostly relied on conductance measurements. The results are in general convincing, the experiments carefully performed and the procedures explained in detail. Some weaknesses are identified on the FDTD simulations and interpretation of the single molecule data since they might be affected by quenching of the dye in close proximity to the pore. These weaknesses should be clarified and discussed properly.

Importantly, this study provides new insights on the mechanisms of nuclear transport contributing to further our understanding on how real nuclear-pore complexes (i.e., in living cell) can regulate molecular transport. The recent findings that the nuclear pore complexes are sensitive to mechanical stimulation by modulating their effective diameters, adds an additional level of interest to the work reported here, since the authors thoroughly explored different nano-pore diameters and quantified their impact on translocation and selectivity. There are multiple avenues for future research based on the system developed here, including higher throughout detection, extending to truly multicolor schemes or expanding the range of FG-Nups, nuclear transport proteins or cargos that need to be efficiently l transported to the nucleus through the nuclear pore complexes. As a whole, this is an important contribution to the field.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this study, a minimalistic setup was used to investigate the selectivity of the nuclear pore complex as a function of its diameter. For this an array of solid-state pores was designed in a free-standing palladium membrane and attached to a PDMS-based fluidic cell, which could be mounted on a confocal microscope. In this way, the frequency of translocation events could be measured in an unbiased manner, i.e., no voltage was applied in this setup to facilitate them as it was done previously (Kowalczyk et al., 2011; Ananth et al, 2018; Fragasso et al., 2021, 2022), and therefore they can be considered as spontaneous. Moreover, the pores exhibited the key properties of the nuclear pore complex: (i) the size of the pore, (ii) disordered FG Nups specifically attached in the central channel; (ii) transport receptors that can shuttle through the central channel by binding to the FG Nups. Additionally, the properties of such minimalistic system could be well controlled. This gave the authors an advantage to monitor the translocation of multiple fluorescently labeled molecules (e.g. Kap95 and BSA) simultaneously, in real time and under well controlled conditions.

Strength:<br /> By being able to adjust each system parameter independently, the authors were able to monitor a reciprocal influence of active transporters, such as Kap95, and passive diffusion (using BSA as passive cargo) at different pore sizes and protein concentrations. It was discovered that up to a certain pore size (ca. 50-60 nm, which is close to the diameter of the physiological nuclear pore complex) and the Nsp1 density, Kap95 binding in the pore significantly increases selectivity as it was previously predicted by 'Kap-centric control' model (Kapinos, et al, 2014, Wagner et al, 2015). However, in pores larger than 60 nm, this effect was fading and becoming negligible in very large pores (> 60 nm), showing that the pores could become leaky and less selective due to stretching, as has been previously suggested (Andreu et al., 2022). It was also shown that passive molecules, such as BSA, had no effect on the Kap95 translocation frequency through the pore.

The experimental data were also supported by coarse-grained modelling of Nsp1-coated pores, and the theoretical prediction correlates qualitatively with the experimentally obtained data. These simulations show that there is a relationship between pore diameter and Nsp1 conformation. Based on these simulations, the authors suggest that in small pores (<60 nm) Kap95 increases selectivity by interacting with the Nsp1-FG domains across the pore, whereas this is less likely for larger pore diameters and Kap95 may collapse the Nsp1-FG domains along the pore walls, making them more permeable.

Weaknesses:<br /> However, the simulations did not consider an effect of Kap95 on the conformation of the Nsp1 layer within the pore, which weakens the conclusion of Kap95-induced collapse, even though it seems very plausible.<br /> In addition, there is a discrepancy in the frequency of translocation events in different experimental setups reported in different studies. The authors suggest that this may be due to differences in the sensitivity of detection methods.

Strength of evidence:<br /> However, this does not detract from the results obtained in this work, as the conclusions are based on the relative changes compared to the numerous controls within the same experimental setup and a careful evaluation of all possible sources of error.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Full activation of T cells requires not only antigen recognition through the T cell receptor, but also engagement of co-stimulation by the T cell. There are multiple co-stimulatory receptors that can be engaged by the T cell; yet, the downstream effects of signaling through these different receptors on T cell gene programs and function and are not yet fully understood. These questions are clinically important because genomic variants associated with immune and inflammatory disease map onto these different co-stimulatory receptors and, potentially, their downstream gene programs.

Based on these observations, the authors hypothesize that different modes of co-stimulation engage different genes and pathways that may be differentially associated with risk for inflammatory disease. To ask this question, the authors performs a comparative analysis of different co-stimulatory receptors, both CD28 - the most widely used form of co-stimulation for in vitro assays - as well as alternative modes of co-stimulation involving ICOS, CD6, CD27. They analyzing their effects on their T cell activation in vitro for human naive and memory CD4 cells, on gene expression using RNA-seq (at 24 hrs), on chromatin accessibility using ATAC-seq, and on specific proteins identified from transcriptomic data using flow cytometry.

From these experimental analysis, the authors conclude the following (1) alternative co-stimulation (ICOS, CD6, Cd27) can induce a *qualitatively* different gene and cellular program compared to canonical co-stim (CD28), resulting not only in less proliferation and cytokine production, as expected, but also in higher lysosome production and different metabolic programming. They also found that risk variants for inflammatory bowel disease mapped onto genes that were both shared across different modes of co-stimulation, as well as onto targets of specific co-stimulation.

This study and the authors' experimental system is well-designed to precisely identify genomic effects of co-stimulation, employing sorted subsets of human CD4 cells, as well as a in vitro setting that can effectively eliminate many confounding variables associated more complex scenarios. The transcriptome/chromatin accessibility measurements were also robustly analyzed and offer some support for the author's conclusion. However, there were two main weaknesses that limit that, if overcome, would enhance the authors' argument:

(1) It is not clear whether the qualitatively different effects of alternate co-stimulation compared to canonical CD28 co-stimulation, e.g. increased OXPHOS or lysosomal abundance for CD6, or heightened expression of genes or represent truly unique effects, or whether they simply represent effects of having quantitatively weaker strengths of CD28 co-stimulation. This concern would be addressed by an experiment doing a dose response curve for CD28 co-stimulation while measuring these variables (Fig. 6) or, more systematically, while performing RNA-seq. Also, to strengthen this argument, the authors would benefit from further in-depth literature discussion/analysis of the signaling pathways downstream of co-stimulation, to discuss molecular bases for different signaling, if any.

(2) There is no functional evidence to link differential activation of risk variant-associated genes by alternate co-stimulation with inflammatory disease. To show this, the authors can examine the activation of these genes (e.g. Bach2, Il18R1, from Table 2) using their assay, either using T cells from humans containing disease-associated variants at these gene loci, or by using T cells with a genetic disruption of the associated loci.

While providing insights for the pathogenesis of IBD, this study's main impact would be in the enhancing our understanding of how different modes of co-stimulation differ to activate T cells and prompt broader consideration of use of different co-stimulatory ligands in these in vitro assays and evaluation of their function in vivo.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Voda et al examined the role of multiple co-stimulations on gene expression and chromatin accessibility of T cells. They further linked the roles of co-stimulatory proteins to genetic variants associated with IBD. They reported a shared effect of co-stimulatory proteins on gene expression and chromatin accessibility. In particular they reported the induction of genes associated with lysosome production with alternative co-stimulatory proteins. In linking human genetics to the effect of costimulation, they reported the largest enrichment of IBD risk variants in open chromatin regions shared by all costimulatory molecules.

The question that is being investigated in this manuscript is significant considering the requirement of costimulatory proteins in controlling T cell responses. However, the data presented and analyzes performed remain exploratory and it is not clear how it can advance our understanding of the link between IBD risk association and immune responses. At least one locus ( a target of shared/unique costimulatory molecules) should be selected and mechanistic investigation of the locus, transcription factors involved, and perturbation studies for understanding gene regulation should be performed.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This manuscript provides an important case study for in-depth research on the adaptability of vertebrates in deep-sea environments. Through analysis of the genomic data of the hadal snailfish, the authors found that this species may have entered and fully adapted to extreme environments only in the last few million years. Additionally, the study revealed the adaptive features of hadal snailfish in terms of perceptions, circadian rhythms and metabolisms, and the role of ferritin in high-hydrostatic pressure adaptation. Besides, the reads mapping method used to identify events such as gene loss and duplication avoids false positives caused by genome assembly and annotation. This ensures the reliability of the results presented in this manuscript. Overall, these findings provide important clues for a better understanding of deep-sea ecosystems and vertebrate evolution.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This paper presents improved, chromosome level assemblies of the hadal snailfish and Tanaka's snailfish. This is an extension and update of previous work from the group on the hadal snailfish genome. The chromosomal assemblies allow comparisons of genome architecture between a shallow water snailfish and the hadal snailfish to aid inference on timing of colonization of trenches and genomic changes that may have been adaptive for that move.

The comparisons in genomic architecture are compelling: genes present in Tanaka's snailfish that are lost in hadal snailfish that involve whole regions of the genome that no longer map even though adjacent regions do map between the species and across a large evolutionary distance to stickleback. Or genes that are duplicated in hadal snailfish but only appear as single copy in other fishes. The paper focuses on genes in the eye, in hearing, in circadian rhythms, and in ROS scavaging. These are all functions that could play a role in adapting to the hadal environment.

The genomic comparisons all seem sound. Stylistically I would prefer if the authors could introduce the gene product and protein function every time they introduce a gene locus. They introduce a gene and general function, but don't usually note what the protein encoded by the gene is and what it's specific function is.

I found the paper generally well written, and the data compelling and creatively displayed. There is room for improvement in places where additional details could be added (e.g. the choice to show expression data as TPMs) and the writing could be clarified.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In the manuscript "Long‐read single‐cell sequencing reveals expressions of hypermutation clusters of isoforms in human liver cancer cells", S. Liu et al present a protocol combining 10x Genomics single-cell assay with Element LoopSeq synthetic long-read sequencing to study single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and gene fusions in Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at single‐cell level. The authors were the first to combine LoopSeq synthetic long‐read sequencing technology and 10x Genomics barcoding for single cell sequencing. For each cell and each somatic mutation, they obtain fractions of mutated transcripts per gene and per each transcript isoform. The manuscript states that these values (as well as gene fusion information) provide better features for tumor-normal classification than gene expression levels. The authors identified many SNVs in genes of the human major histocompatibility complex (HLA) with up to 25 SNVs in the same molecule of HLA‐DQB1 transcript. The analysis shows that most mutations occur in HLA genes and suggests evolution pathways that led to these hypermutation clusters. Yet, very little is said about novel isoforms and alternative splicing in HCC cells, differences in isoform ratio between cells carrying different mutations, or diversity of alternative isoforms across cells. While the manuscript by Liu et al. presents a promising combination of technologies, it lacks significant insights, a comprehensive introduction, and has significant problems with data description and presentation.

Major comments:

1. The introduction section is scarce. It lacks description of important previous works focused on clustered mutations in cancers (for example, PMID35140399), on deriving the process of cancer development through somatic evolution (PMID32025013, from single cell data PMID32807900). Moreover, some key concepts e.g. mutational gene expression and mutational isoform expression are not defined. The introduction and the abstract contain slang expressions e.g. "protein mutation', a combination of terms I teach my students not to use.

2. In the results section, to select the mutations of interest, the authors apply UMAP dimensionality reduction to the mutation isoforms expression and cluster samples in UMAP space, then select the mutations that are present only in one cluster, then apply UMAP to the selected mutations only and cluster the samples again. The motivation for such a procedure seems unclear, could it be replaced with a more straightforward feature selection?

3. As I understand, the first "mutated isoform"-based UMAP clustering was built from expression levels of 205 "mutational isoforms". What was the purpose and outcome of the second "mutated isoform"-based UMAP clustering (Figure 2E)? In the manuscript the authors just describe the clusters and do not draw any conclusions or use the results of the clustering anywhere further.

4. The authors just cluster the data three times based on expression levels of different sets of "mutational isoforms" and describe the clusters. What do we need to gather from these clustering attempts besides the set of 113 mutations used for further analysis? What was the point of the re-clusterings? Did the authors observe improvement of the classification at each step?

5. The alignment of short reads generated from hypermutated transcriptomes is non-trivial. The proposed approach could address the issue without need for whole genome sequencing and offer insights about the cancer development through somatic evolution. Why didn't the authors use modern phylogenetic approaches in the "Evolution of mutations in HLA molecules" section or at least utilize the already performed clustering to infer cell lineages?

6. I am not sure I understood the definition of "mutated gene expression levels" and "mutated isoform expression levels" in the "Mutational gene expression and fusion transcript enhanced transcriptome clustering of benign hepatocytes and HCC" section. The authors mention that gene lists included all the isoforms within the same range of standard deviation. If I understand it correctly, they are equal if there is only one expressed transcript isoform. In that case, this overlap is not surprising at all.

7. "To investigate the roles of gene expression alterations that were not accompanied with isoform expression changes, UMAP analyses were performed based on the non‐overlapped genes." Venn diagrams (Sup Figure 8) show that there are much less "non-overlapped genes" than "genes that showed both gene and isoform level changes" for each SD threshold (for example, for SD>=0.8 59 vs 275). Could that be the reason why clustering based on the former group is worse i.e the cancer and normal cells are separated less clearly?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In the present study, Liu et al present an analysis of benign and HCC liver samples which were subjected to a new technology (LOOP-Seq) and paired WES.  By integrating these data, the authors find isoforms, fusions and mutations which uniquely cluster within HCC samples, such as in the HLA locus, which serve as candidate leads for further investigation.  The main appeal of the study is in the potential of LOOP-Seq as a method to present isoform-resolved data without actually performing long-read sequencing.   While this presents an exciting new method, the current study lacks systematic comparisons with other technologies/data to test the robustness, reproducibility and utility of LOOP-Seq.  Further, this study could be further improved by giving more physiologic context and examples from the analyses, thus providing a new resource to the HCC community.  A few suggestions based on these are below:    

A primary consideration is that this seems to be the first implementation of LOOP-Seq, where the technology, while intriguing, has not been evaluated systematically.  It seems like a standard 10x workflow is performed, where exons are selectively pulled down and amplified.  Subsequent ultra-deep sequencing is assumed to give isoform-resolution of the sc-seq data.  To demonstrate the utility of the approach it would benefit the study to compare the isoform-resolved results with studies where long-read sequencing was actually performed (ex: https://journals.lww.com/hep/Fulltext/2019/09000/Long_Read_RNA_Sequencing_Identifies_Alternative.19.aspx, https://www.jhep-reports.eu/article/S2589-5559(22)00021-0/fulltext,  https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1010342).  Presumably, a fair amount of overlap should occur to justify the usage.  

Related to this point, the sc-seq cell types and benign vs HCC genes should be compared with the wealth of data available for HCC sc-seq  (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-32283-3, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-84693-w).  These seem to be important to benchmark the technology in order to demonstrate that the probe-based selection and subsequent amplification does not bias cell type definition and clustering.  In particular, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03974-6 seems quite relevant to compare mutational landscapes from the data.<br /> <br /> From the initial UMAP clustering, it will be important to know what the identities are of the cells themselves.  Presumably there is quite a bit of immune cells and hepatocytes, but without giving identities, downstream mechanistic interpretation is difficult.  

In general, there are a fair amount of broad analyses, such as comparisons of hierarchical clustering of cell types, but very little physiologic interpretations of what these results mean.  For example, among the cell clusters from Fig 6, knowing the pathways and cell annotations would help to contextualize these results.  Without more biologically-meaningful aspects to highlight, most of the current appeal for the manuscript is dependent on the robustness of LOOP-seq and its implementation.  

Many of the specific analyses are difficult and the methods are brief.  Especially given that this technology is new and the dataset potentially useful, I would strongly recommend the authors set up a git repository, galaxy notebook or similar to maximize utility and reproducibility 

The authors claim that clustering between benign and HCC samples was improved by including isoform & gene (Suppl fig 8).  This seems like an important conclusion if true, especially to justify the use of long-read implementation.  Given that the combination of isoform + gene presents ~double the number of variables on which to cluster, it would be important to show that the improved separation on UMAP distance is actually due to the isoforms themselves and not just sampling more variables from either gene or isoform

SQANTI implementation to identify fusions relevant for the HCC/benign comparison. How do the fusions compare with those already identified for HCC?  These analyses can be quite messy when performed on WES alone so it seems that having such deep RNA-seq would improve the capacity to see which fused genes are strongly expressed/suppressed.  This doesn't seem as evident from current analysis.  There are quite a bit of WES datasets which could be compared:  https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3252, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03276-y

Figure 4 is fairly unclear.  The matrix graphs showing gene position mutations are tough to interpret and make out.  Usually, gene track views with bars or lollipop graphs can make these results more readily interpretable.  Also, how Figure 4 B infers causal directions from mutations is unclear.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The Liu, et al. manuscript focuses on the interesting topic of evaluating in an almost genome-wide-scale, the number of transcriptional isoforms and fusion gene are present in single cells across the annotated protein coding genome. They also seek to determine the occurrences of single nucleotide variations/mutations (SNV) in the same isoform molecule emanating from the same gene expressed in normal and normal and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cells. This study has been accomplished using modified LoopSeq long‐read technology (developed by several of the authors) and single cell isolation (10X) technologies. While this effort addresses a timely and important biological question, the reader encounters several issues in their report that are problematic.:

1) Much of the analysis of the evolution of mutations results and the biological effects of the fusion genes is conjecture and is not supported by empirical data. While their conclusions leave the reader with a sense that the results obtained from the LoopSeq has substantive biological implications. However, they are extended interpretations of the data. For example: The fusion protein likely functions as a decoy interference protein that negatively impacts the microtubule organization activity of EML4.(pg 9)... and other statements presented in a similar fashion.

2) LoopSeq has the advantage of using short read sequencing analyses to characterize the exome capture results and thus benefits from low error rate compared to standard long-read sequencing techniques. However, there is no evidence obtained from standard long read sequencing that the isoforms observed with LoopSeq are obtained with parallel technologies such as long read technologies. It is not made clear how much discordance there is in comparing the LoopSeq results are with either PacBio or ONT long read technologies.

3) There is no proteome evidence (empirically derived or present in proteome databases) from the HCC and normal samples that confirms the presence or importance of the identified novel isoforms, nor is there support that indicate that changes in levels HLA genes translate to effects observed at the protein level. Since the stability and transport differences of isoforms from the same gene are often regulated at the post-transcriptional level, the biological importance of the isoform variations is unclear.

4) It is unclear why certain thresholds were chosen for standard deviation (SD) <0.4 (page 5), SD >1.0 (pg 11).

5) HLA is known to accumulate considerable somatic variation. Of the many non-immunological genes determined to have multiple isoforms what are the isoform specific mutation rates in the same isoform molecule? Are the HLA genes unique in the number of mutations occurring in the same isoform?

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors sought to craft a method, applicable to biobank-scale data but without necessarily using genotyping or sequencing, to detect the presence of de novo mutations and rare variants that stand out from the polygenic background of a given trait. Their method depends essentially on sibling pairs where one sibling is in an extreme tail of the phenotypic distribution and whether the other sibling's regression to the mean shows a systematic deviation from what is expected under a simple polygenic architecture.

Their method is successful in that it builds on a compelling intuition, rests on a rigorous derivation, and seems to show reasonable statistical power in the UK Biobank. (More biobanks of this size will probably become available in the near future.) It is somewhat unsuccessful in that rejection of the null hypothesis does not necessarily point to the favored hypothesis of de novo or rare variants. The authors discuss the alternative possibility of rare environmental events of large effect. Maybe attention should be drawn to this in the abstract or the introduction of the paper. Nevertheless, since either of these possibilities is interesting, the method remains valuable.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Souaiaia et al. attempt to use sibling phenotype data to infer aspects of genetic architecture affecting the extremes of the trait distribution. They do this by considering deviations from the expected joint distribution of siblings' phenotypes under the standard additive genetic model, which forms their null model. They ascribe excess similarity compared to the null as due to rare variants shared between siblings (which they term 'Mendelian') and excess dissimilarity as due to de-novo variants. While this is a nice idea, there can be many explanations for rejection of their null model, which clouds interpretation of Souaiaia et al.'s empirical results.

The authors present their method as detecting aspects of genetic architecture affecting the extremes of the trait distribution. However, I think it would be better to characterize the method as detecting whether siblings are more or less likely to be aggregated in the extremes of the phenotype distribution than would be predicted under a common variant, additive genetic model.

Exactly how the rareness and penetrance of a genetic variant influence the conditional sibling phenotype distribution at the extremes is not made clear. The contrast between de-novo and 'Mendelian' architectures is somewhat odd since these are highly related phenomena: a 'Mendelian' architecture could be due to a de-novo variant of the previous generation. The fact that these two phenomena are surmised to give opposing signatures in the authors' statistical tests seems suboptimal to me: would it not be better to specify a parameter that characterizes the degree or sharing between siblings of rare factors of large effect? This could be related to the mixture components in the bimodal distribution displayed in Fig 1. In fact, won't the extremes of all phenotypes be influenced by all three types of variants (common, rare, de-novo) to greater or lesser degree? By framing the problem as a hypothesis testing problem, I think the authors are obscuring the fact that the extremes of real phenotypes likely reflect a mixture of causes: common, de-novo, and rare variants (and shared and non-shared environmental factors).

To better enable interpretation of the results of this method, a more comprehensive set of simulations is needed. Factors that may influence the conditional distribution of siblings' phenotypes beyond those considered include: non-normal distribution, assortative mating, shared environment, interactions between genetic and shared environmental factors, and genetic interactions.

In summary, I think this is a promising method that is revealing something interesting about extreme values of phenotypes. Determining exactly what is being revealed is going to take a lot more work, however.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In their manuscript entitled: "Is tumor mutational burden predictive of response to immunotherapy?", Gurjao and colleagues discuss the use of tumor mutational burden (TMB) as a predictive biomarker for cancer patients to respond to immune checkpoint blockage (ICB). By analyzing a large cohort of 882 patient samples across different tumor types they find either little or no association of TMB to the response of ICB. In addition, they showed that finding the optimal cutoff for patient stratification lead to a severe multiple testing problem. By rigorously addressing this multiple testing problem only non-small cell lung cancer out of 10 cancer types showed a statistically significant association of TMB and response to ICB. Nevertheless, it is clearly shown that in any case the rate of misclassification is too high that TMB alone would qualify as a clinically suitable biomarker for ICB response. Finally, the authors demonstrate with a simple mathematical model that only a few strong immunogenic mutations would be sufficient for an ICB response, thereby showing that also patients with a low TMB score could benefit from immunotherapy. The manuscript is clearly written, the results are well presented and the applied methods are state-of-the-art.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The manuscript points out that TMB cut-offs are not strong predictors of response to immunotherapy or overall survival. By randomly shuffling TMB values within cohorts to simulate a null distribution of log-rank test p-values, they show that under correction, the statistical significance of previously reported TMB cut-offs for predicting outcomes is questionable. There is a clinical need for a better prediction of treatment response than TMB alone can provide. However, no part of the analysis challenges the validity of the well-known pan-cancer correlation between TMB and immunotherapy response. The failure to detect significant TMB cut-offs may be due to insufficient power, as the examined cohorts have relatively low sample sizes. A power analysis would be informative of what cohort sizes are needed to detect small to modest effects of TMB on immune response.

The manuscript provides a simple model of immunogenicity that is tailored to be consistent with a claimed lack of relationship between TMB and response to immunotherapy. Under the model, if each mutation that a tumor has acquired has a relatively high probability of being immunogenic (~10%, they suggest), and if 1-2 immunogenic mutations is enough to induce an immune response, then most tumors produce an immune response, and TMB and response should be uncorrelated except in very low-TMB tumors. The question then becomes whether the response is sufficient to wipe out tumor cells in conjunction with immunotherapy, which is essentially the same question of predicting response that motivated the original analysis. While TMB alone is not an excellent predictor of treatment response, the pan-cancer correlation between TMB and response/survival is highly significant, so the model's only independent prediction is wrong. Additionally, experiments to predict and validate neoepitopes suggest that a much smaller fraction of nonsynonymous mutations produce immune responses1,2.

A key idea that is overlooked in this manuscript is that of survivorship bias: self-evidently, none of the mutations found at the time of sequencing have been immunogenic enough to provoke a response capable of eliminating the tumor. While the authors suggest that immunoediting "is inefficient, allowing tumors to accumulate a high TMB," the alternative explanation fits the neoepitope literature better: most mutations that reach high allele frequency in tumor cells are not immunogenic in typical (or patient-specific) tumor environments. Of course, immunotherapies sometimes succeed in overcoming the evolved immune evasion of tumors. Higher-TMB tumors are likely to continue to have higher mutation rates after sequencing; increased generation of new immunogenic mutations may partially explain their modestly improved responses to therapy.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This work presents findings on the cellular and ultrastructural organization of the nervous system in the freshwater polyp Hydra. Although the work presents potentially important data, there are several points that need to be addressed:

1) The antibody has to be properly validated as a tool for detecting all neurons. As it stands, the antibody might not recognize a cadherin and it is not clear whether it is specific and labels all neurons.

2) The lack of communication between the two nerve nets is an interesting observation, but its implications are limited due to technical reasons. This should be investigated further.

3) The apparent lack of typical terminal synaptic contacts and the predominant presence of "en passant" contacts in the neurite bundles could be the central element of the paper but this would have to be supported by more thorough observations and experiments.

4) The authors should highlight the novelty of the findings as compared to previous work that had already addressed some of these points.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In their manuscript, Keramidioti and co-authors investigate the cellular architecture of the nervous system in the freshwater polyp Hydra. Specifically, the authors attempt to improve the resolution, which is lacking in the previous studies, yet to generate a comprehensive overview of the entire nervous system's spatial organization and to infer communication between cells. To this end, Keramidioti et al. use state-of-the-art imaging approaches, such as confocal microscopy combined with the use of transgenic animals, transmission electron microscopy, and block face scanning electron microscopy. The authors present three major observations: i) A novel hyCADab antibody may be used to detect the entire nervous system of Hydra; ii) Nerve cells in the ectoderm and in the endoderm are organized in two separate nerve nets, which do not interact; iii) Both nerve nets are composed of bundles of overlapping nerve processes.

The manuscript addresses a long-standing and currently intensively studied question in developmental neurobiology biology - it attempts to reveal structural properties and principles that govern the function of the nervous systems in non-bilaterian animals. Hence, this study contributes to understanding the nervous system evolution trajectories. Therefore, the manuscript may represent interest to researchers interested in evolutionary and developmental neurobiology.

The manuscript reports a remarkably meticulous study and presents stunning imaging results. However, the manuscript would benefit from a more thorough presentation of immunochemical and electron microscopy data. The work would also greatly benefit from a more straightforward presentation of truly novel findings and a more concise summary of already-known aspects.

Major comments:

1) The novelty of findings.<br /> The authors present a lot of findings and illustrate them with numerous very impressive images. However, most observations have been actually reported before, and genuinely novel discoveries are obscured. For instance, the findings on the elongated morphology of the endodermal sensory cell (entire passage starting with "Figure 2B shows..."), qualitative ("Figure 3 shows..."), and quantitative estimation of neuronal densities in the different body compartments of Hydra - all these observations do not provide novel insights. Some co-authors of this manuscript or other authors have previously published all these features. A substantial advance would be performing in vivo experiments, addressing directly, for instance, the question of what is the function of sensory neurons reaching into the gastric cavity. What signals do they detect there? If the authors have access to such functional assays, any additional in vivo experiments will substantially improve the study.

2) The utility of the hyCADab as a pan-neuronal antibody.<br /> Most of the analysis in the manuscript relies on immunostaining of fixed polyps with a novel polyclonal antibody. The authors claim that this antibody recognizes a neuron-specific cadherin protein of Hydra and stains all neurons in the nerve net. However, a brief search in the publicly available resources (such as the Hydra Genome Portal: https://research.nhgri.nih.gov/HydraAEP/) indicates that the gene encoding a protein with a sequence similar to the epitope used by Keramidioti and co-authors is, in fact, not a neuron-specific. It is strongly expressed in nematocytes. Furthermore, the cytoplasmic staining hyCADab is puzzling. Given that the target Cadherin protein is a membrane-associated protein, one would anticipate the immunochemical signal to be localized on the cell's periphery, under the surface.

The authors compare the density of neurons related to epithelial cells detected in whole mounts by the antibody with counts on macerates. Perhaps, a more direct and accurate approach would be to stain macerates with the antibody. In this way, one would be able to identify neurons by their morphology and validate whether 100% of them are hyCADab-positive.

The nGreen strain used by the authors is a mosaic one (see Materials and Methods). Hence, not all neurons are, in fact, labeled by GFP. Therefore, the argument that 51/51 GFP-positive cells are also hyCADab-positive is not convincing and insufficient to claim that hyCADab is a pan-neuronal antibody.

Finally, it is truly surprising that transgenic GFP-positive neurons are, in most cases, hyCADab-negative. (It is particularly evident in Fig. 11B. If the hyCADab antibody is indeed a pan-neuronal one, the red signal in the transgenic neurons should be as high as in the surrounding cells, and the cells would appear yellow).

3) The apparent absence of contact between the ectodermal and endodermal nerve nets.<br /> A central claim of the manuscript is that there are no contacts between the nervous networks in the ectoderm and the endoderm. Therefore, the activities of these networks appear to be not coordinated. In support of these claims, the authors provide images of sections from the polyps' body column (Fig. 4). However, the mesoglea itself is not visible in these images.

Another limitation of the study by Keramidioti and co-authors is that they investigate sections only from the gastric region of a polyp. Earlier studies (for instance, Westfall, 1973) using TEM provided compelling evidence for communication between the ectodermal and endodermal nerve networks via neurites that cross the mesoglea. These neurites traversing mesoglea have been detected specifically in the hypostome of Hydra - the region not thoroughly investigated by Keramidioti et al. It is also surprising that transmesogleal bridges between ectodermal and endodermal epithelial cells, abundantly present not only in the hypostome but in the body column as well, can not be detected on any of the images provided by the authors. This suggests that their approach overall might be in general not suitable for addressing the question of connection and communication between the ectodermal and endodermal structures.

4) Formation of neurite bundles<br /> The most intriguing finding of the study by Keramidioti et al. is that neurites of nerve cells often run parallel to each other, forming conspicuous bundles in both ectodermal and endodermal nerve nets. The formation of such bundles per se is not surprising. It has already been documented by Takahashi-Iwanaga et al.,1994 (this study definitely did not escape the authors' attention) in Hydra's body column. Moreover, neurite bundles have been previously described in the hypostomes of other Hydra species (e.g., Davis et al., 1968; Grimmelikhuijzen, 1985; Yaross et al., 1986) and in other cnidarians (e.g., Mackie 1973, 1989; Garm et al., 2007). Hence, this appears to be a common, universal principle of the nervous system architecture in Cnidaria. I agree with the authors that such an organization of the nerve net is surprising and contrasts the neuronal architecture of most Bilateria. Could these observations, taken together, lead to a view of an alternative design of a nerve system? (a recently published description of the syncytial nerve net in Ctenophora is another revolutionary example of a nervous system architecture). The authors might compare the organization of the Hydra nerve plexus with the architecture of the vertebrate enteric nervous system - where bundles of neurites are also highly abundant, stimulating some thoughts on the evolutionary roots of the peripheral NS.

Another aspect worth discussing in this context is whether the nerve system of Hydra can be organized in any other way. Given the architecture of epithelia in Hydra, there's virtually no other way for the neurites to run other than to form bundles - they occupy the narrow spaces between the epithelial cells and between their muscular fibers. The growth of the neurites thus appears constrained.

Finally, the functional implications of such bundle formation appear extremely interesting. Do neurons really form contacts in these bundles? Unfortunately, the authors provide no evidence for synaptic contacts within the bundles. This is somehow surprising given that numerous studies have effectively localized chemical and electric synapses in Hydra cells (e.g., Westfall et al., 1971). Overlapping of neurites may suggest an alternative, non-synaptic mechanism of signal propagation - via ephaptic coupling. It would be beneficial if the authors provided more TEM data on the presence or absence of synapses between neurites in the body column of Hydra. Some experiments, such as the dye coupling approach, may also help probe the existence of synaptic connections between the neurons forming a bundle.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this paper by Keramidioti et al, the authors have characterized a polyclonal antibody from rabbit, which was raised against a peptide of the intracellular domain of the Hydra Cadherin. This antibody unexpectedly recognizes presumably all neurons in the Hydra polyp and indeed the specificity of the antibody is not fully convincing. Regardless, the antibody can be used to visualize and study the nerve net under a variety of conditions. The authors find that the endodermal and ectodermal nerve net do not make any contacts through the mesoglea, in contrast to earlier assumptions and data. They show that ectodermal neurons make close contacts to the myoepithelial muscles, in contrast to the endodermal muscles. Furthermore, they show that tentacle endoderm surprisingly does not have any neurons. Finally, a very nice tool to visualize the connections between the neurons is the staining of mosaic nGreen transgenic lines. This showed that the neurites align in parallel forming bundles of neurites over longer stretches, in particular in the ectoderm, which offers a mechanism how new neurons are added laterally to the existing nerve net. This has important implications about the way the neurons might communicate with each other.

Taken together, this paper adds to our knowledge of the Hydra nerve net and provides a new experimental tool. Although most of the study is rather descriptive the pictures are of spectacular quality, providing fascinating new insights into the arrangement and topology of the nerve net.

Joint Public Review:

Chen and collaborators first analysed in sheep embryonic gene editing using CRISPR-Cas9 technology to invalidate the two alleles of Mstn and Fgf5 genes by using different ratios of Cas9 mRNA and sgRNA. They showed that a ratio of 1:10 had highest efficiency and they successfully generated two sheep with biallelic mutations of both genes. Materials and Methods on the generation of gened edited sheep is entirely missing. The data on these gene edited sheep have been already published twice by the authors in different contexts. Other groups reported on gene editing of Mstn or Fgf5 in sheep embryos and the resulting phenotypes.

Although the findings are interesting, they do not provide sufficiently new scientific information or advancements in producing genetically modified livestock with improved production characteristics. While the MSTNDel273 sheep exhibited an increased number of muscle fibers, the data provided did not demonstrate a significant improvement in meat productions, quality or quantity in the MSTNDel273 sheep vs WT.

The authors indicate that sgRNA design changes in addition to changing the molar ratio of Cas9MRNA:sgRNA improved the ability to generate biallelic homozygous mutant sheep; however, the data provided to not demonstrate any significant difference. Given the small number of sheep that were actually produced and evaluated,it is extremely difficult to demonstrate anything that was analyzed to be significantly (statistically) different between MSTNDel273 sheep and WT, yet the authors seem to ignore this in much of their discussion. There is no explanation as to why the authors started with sheep that were FGF5 knockouts. The reviewer assumes that this was simply a line of sheep available from previous studies and the goal was to produce sheep with both improved hair/wool characteristics in addition to improved muscle development. However, the use of FGF5 knockout sheep complicates the ability to accurately decipher the unique aspects associated with targeting only myostatin for knock-out. At minimum, this is a variable that has to be considered in the statistical analysis. No information is provided on the methods used to produce the MSTNDel273 sheep, which is fundamentally important. It is assumed they were produced by injecting one-cell zygotes then transferring these into surrogate females. The methods employed might have a profound effect on the outcome.

Authors genotyped one sheep with a biallelic three base pair deletion in Mstn exon 3 and a compound heterozygote mutation in Fgf5 with a 5 nucleotides deletion on one allele and 37 nucleotides deletion on the other allele, partially spanning over the same region. This sheep developed a double muscle phenotype, which was documented using photography and CT scan. The hair phenotype was not further addressed, but authors referred to a previous publication.

Authors performed morphometric studies on two distinct muscles, longissimus dorsi and gluteus medius, and found a profound fiber hypotrophy in the Mstn-/-;Fgf5-/- double mutants, with a shift from larger fiber diameter to smaller fiber sizes. Morphometric studies showed only a low percentage of fibers in wt and mutant sheep had fiber cross sectional areas larger than 800 µm2, whereas about 30% in wt and about 60% in the mutant had CSA of <400 µm2. The report of one case, without reproducing the phenotype in other sheep, is scientifically insufficient. The fiber sizes in wt sheep remains far below previously published reports in sheep (about 3-5 times smaller) and as compared to other species, which suggests a methodological error in morphometric methods.

The authors also investigated the influence of Fgf5 mutation on muscle development. They determined fiber cross sectional area in heterozygous Fgf5 mutant (number of investigated animals not given) and conclude that Mstn mutation but not Fgf5 mutation caused the double muscle phenotype. Results are insufficient to support this conclusion. Firstly, authors investigated heterozygous FGF5 sheep and not homozygous mutants. Secondly, FGF5 has previously been shown to stimulate expansion of connective tissue fibroblasts and to inhibit skeletal muscle development during limb embryonic development (Clase et al. 2000). Of note, Mstn is also expressed during embryonic development. A combined knockout could therefore entail synergistic effects and cause muscle hyperplasia that is not found in individual knockout, a hypothesis that was not addressed by the authors.

The authors generated and studied an F1 generation of mutant sheep with heterozyogous mutation in Mstn and Fgf5. In Mstn+/-;Fgf5+/-, gluteus medius muscle was found to be larger compared to wt sheep, whereas other muscles were smaller, and overall meat quantity did not change. Morphometric studies revealed a similar muscle fiber hypotrophy and muscle hyperplasia as in the Mstn-/-;Fgf5-/- gluteus muscle.

In the next part of results, authors investigated the presence of myostatin protein in homozygous Mstn muscle using immunohistochemistry and found no differences compared to wt, however, positive and negative controls are missing. The also determined Mstn transcription and protein quantity using WB in heterozygous Mstn muscle and found no difference. The authors did not provide data to explain of why the herein generated Mstn mutation causes muscle fiber hypotrophy, whereas most work on myostatin abrogation demonstrated fiber hypertrophy.

Authors then isolated myoblasts from hind limbs of 3-month-old sheep fetuses and cultured in presence of 20% fetal bovine serum before switching to differentiation medium containing 2% horse serum. The cultures showed increased proliferation of Mstn+/-;Fgf5+/- myoblasts as well as downregulation of genes associated with muscle differentiation as well as reduced fusion index. No experiments were performed to assure whether the myostatin and FGF5 pathways were inhibited. No control experiments using supplementation with recombinant proteins and using growth factor depleted culture supplements were performed. As FGF5 and myostatin are secreted factors, evidence is missing whether this led to conditioning of the culture medium. Of note, previous work in mice demonstrated that the double muscle phenotype developed independent of satellite cells activity (Amthor et al. 2009).

Authors then performed RNA seq from Mstn+/-;Fgf5+/- muscle and found a number of differentially expressed genes, but none has been previously reported being involved in the myostatin signaling pathway, so the authors chose to only focus on FOSL1 and associated genes. Authors then demonstrated that Pdpn and Ankrd2 were upregulated during myogenic differentiation, whereas FOPSL1 was downregulated. Moreover, Fosl1 transcription was upregulated in myoblasts and myotubes from Mstn+/-;Fgf5+/- muscle. Authors showed an interaction between Fosl1 and Myod1. Moreover, authors demonstrated that Polsl1 directly binds to the Myod1 promoter. Authors also found decreased p38 MARPK protein levels in proliferating myoblasts from Mstn+/-;Fgf5+/- muscle and increased p38 MARPK in differentiating myotubes.

Furthermore, gain-of-function by overexpressing FOSL1 promoted cell proliferation and inhibited differentiation, and tert-butylhydroquinone, an indirect activator of FOSL1 also inhibited myogenic differentiation. The findings do not support the idea that FOSL1 is not involved, but neither do they strongly support the involvement of FOSL1. The observations made by the authors could be co-incidental and not causative in nature.

The manuscript by Chen et al. demonstrated successful gene editing in sheep embryos to obtain biallelic mutation of Mstn and FGF5. The resulting double muscle phenotype resulted from fiber hypotrophy and hyperplasia, which contradicts findings in the literature. Chen et al. generated F1 heterozygous offsprings, in which Mstn transcription and translation did not change. Myoblasts from these animals showed increased proliferation and decreased differentiation, which authors interpreted as the underlying cellular mechanism of the double muscle phenotype. However, no work on muscle development in these animals is presented. Important in vitro control experiments are missing. Chen and collaborators found Fosl1 as a differentially expressed gene in Mstn+/-;Fgf5+/- muscle. Fosl1 drives myoblast proliferation and has direct regulatory effect on the Myod1 promoter. The cellular and molecular mechanism of Fosl1 during myogenesis is novel and solid evidence. However, data remain inadequate to conclude whether Fosl1 indeed acts downstream of myostatin.

As the significant findings are minimal, the amount of text provided, figures and tables are disproportionally excessive. A large number of different molecular techniques are employed to try and decipher the mechanism(s) that result in the observed phenotype = double muscling. The authors focus on the MEK-ERK-FOSL1 pathway an suggest this the key pathway/mechanism resulting in the phenotype observed in MSTNDel273sheep. However, they provide very little solid evidence to support this notion.

The manuscript is very long, complicated and difficult to read, given the minimum amount of significant information that is provided. Further, it misses information in material methods, on the generation of animals, on histological techniques and morphometric studies. There is no information provided on the sex of the animals produced and then analyzed. There are also a number of editorial mistakes e.g. the authors refer to tables S1-S4 in the materials and methods and results section, but and there is no table S1-S4 provided.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The work presented here by Morgun et al is performed in the context of vaccine development, a field especially active in the context of tuberculosis (TB). The generation of a new vaccine either enhancing or replacing the 100-year-old BCG is urgently needed.

Most subunit vaccines integrate protein antigens formulated with adjuvants and there are few examples on the performance of subunit vaccines integrating lipid antigens. Considering the hydrophobic and lipid nature of the mycobacterial cell envelope studies assessing the suitability of mycobacterial lipids in vaccine formulations may contribute to generate new vaccines to tackle the disease.

The mycobacterial lipid antigens under study are mycolic acids (MA), which are located at the cell wall covalently linked to arabinogalactan. These lipids carry extremely long chain fatty acids of up to 60-90 carbons.

The group has previously shown that formulating MA into micellar nanocarriers and vaccinating mice intranasally it could activate CD1-restricted T cells. However, this formulation did not allow for the incorporation of protein antigens.

This work is novel, and it brings new data of high relevance for the TB vaccine field pointing to alternative formulations and antigens and immune mechanisms.

Authors assay different routes of vaccination but the main results are obtained using non-conventional vaccination routes. Although, it maybe out of the scope of the paper, no protection studies are provided.

Several recommendations are given to improve the quality and the readability of the manuscript.

1. Authors elaborate the introduction solely highlighting the relevance of antigen persistence in the context of vaccination. However, it is well known that several mycobacterial antigens (Lipids and proteins) can cause detrimental responses when overexposed to the immune system. In this regard, it would be appropriate to introduce the possibility of the occurrence of exhaustion when prolonged exposure to antigens is happening, which is the main theme of this paper.

2. Authors need to provide more information about the source of MA. It is briefly mentioned in the materials and methods section that it was obtained from Sigma. If that is the case, it would be ideal to show the integrity of the polysaccharide in term of balance and abundance between different MA species.

3. Building up on the previous comment, MA is a complex mixture of polysaccharides including multiple lengths of fatty acids and modifications. Could the authors comments on the potential variability of MA structure and potential impact on immune responses?

4. How do the authors explain the lack of stimulation of cell proliferation induced by MA-PLGA formulation? Does this result contradict previous findings?

5. Fig 3. Authors switch to IT administration simply arguing against the limitation of IN delivery regarding its low volume. However, administration via IN could be done in an iterative manner. According to this change, this reviewer asks whether the performance of MA-PLGA could now be comparable to BCN-MA using IT instead.

6. What would be the reasons of the no role of encapsulating NP in the persistence of MA?

7. Authors need to discuss to what extent the MA location into AM is route dependent.

8. Also, AM are programmed to sustain low immune responses because of their unique location in the lung. In fact, Mtb uses this to replicate while immune response is mounted. In this regard, accumulation of MA into this compartment may not be relevant for the overall immune response. In other words, what would be the contribution of this population to the T cell activation?

9. Could the T cells responses measured be due to the reduced fraction of DC loaded with BCN-MA at initial time points?

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

It is well established that tuberculosis (TB), which is caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb), is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide. However, the only vaccine licensed against tuberculosis is Bacille Calmette Guerin (BCG), has been around for nearly a century, and has limited efficacy in adults. Herein, the authors sought to investigate the effectiveness of a nanoparticle-based formulation of a subunit vaccine composed of Mtb lipid and protein antigens. The authors found that they were able to load the lipid, mycolic acid, into their nanoparticles without disrupting the architecture, and that the loaded particles activated T cells both in vitro and in vivo. Moreover, when they vaccinated with particles loaded with both lipid and protein antigens, they found that the lipid antigen persisted, and mycolic acid-specific T cells were able to be activated 6 weeks post-vaccination, in contrast to peptide-specific T cells. The authors investigated further and found that persistence required the nanoparticle encapsulation, rather than free lipid, and that it was independent of route (intratracheal, intravenous, or subcutaneous) of administration. To address the mechanisms underlying antigen persistence, the authors loaded the nanoparticles with a dye and demonstrated that the nanoparticle encapsulated lipid antigen was primarily stored in lung alveolar macrophages and that CD1b+ dendritic cells presented the antigen to mycolic acid specific T cells. Finally, the authors conducted mixed bone marrow chimera studies to examine the phenotype of the mycolic acid specific T cells and found that the memory T cell population phenotypically resembled T follicular helper, regulatory T cells, and exhausted T cells. Interestingly, while a large percentage of these lipid antigen specific T cells in the lymph nodes, lung and spleen were CXCR5+PD1+, the cells were still proliferating (Ki67+). Overall, this is a comprehensive study that has the potential to significantly enhance the field.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors investigate the roles of ACOT12/8 in the production of acetate by the liver. They observe that acetate concentration parallels ketone concentrations during fasting and T1DM. They show that acetate is produced from fatty acids in hepatocytes. They also provide data from human subjects who were classified as either "healthy" or "diabetic," but there is no other characterization or description of these people, making it difficult to ascertain the context by which they were studied. Nevertheless, these findings could be gleaned from the literature, and yet there remains surprising uncertainty regarding the mechanism of acetate production by the liver. The authors use ShACOT12/8 and liver-specific ACOT12/8 knockout mice to demonstrate that these acetyl-CoA hydrolases are largely necessary for acetate production. There is data on this role for ACOTs in the literature, but they have yet to be widely studied. Using a 3H-palmitate assay, the authors then find that loss of these ACOTs inhibit fatty acid oxidation and propose that the mechanism involves scavenging CoA, analogous to the canonical role of ketogenesis. The idea is plausible but only partially proven. A related finding is that loss of these ACOTs inhibit ketogenesis, which the authors attribute to the loss of function of HMGC2S, partially through acetylation. These mechanisms suffer some limitations based on the cytosolic and mitochondrial compartmentation of the two processes, but the observations appear sound. Finally, the authors try to demonstrate that hepatic ACOT-mediated acetate production is necessary for normal motor function. The tracer data used to support the importance of acetate metabolism do not include loss of function models and generally need to be reported more transparently. Conceptually, one may be skeptical of the rather dramatic loss of motor function in the context of a relatively minor circulating nutrient. This may be a significant finding but requires more supporting evidence. Overall, the authors convincingly show that ACOT12/8 are critical for hepatic acetate production in mice, which will be helpful for the field, but the ramifications will require further investigation.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Catabolic conditions lead to increased formation of ketone bodies in the liver, which under these conditions play an important role in supplying energy to metabolically active organs. In this manuscript, the authors explore the concept of whether and to what extent hepatic formation of acetate might contribute to energy supply under metabolic stress conditions. The authors show that patients with diabetes have increased acetate levels, which is explained as a consequence of the increased fatty acid flux from adipose tissue to the liver. This is confirmed in a preclinical model for type 1 diabetes, where acetate concentrations are in a similar range to ketone bodies. Acetate concentrations also increase under physiological conditions of fasting. Using stable isotopes, the authors show that palmitate is used as the primary source for acetate production in primary hepatocytes. Using cell culture studies and adenoviral-mediated knockdown in mice, it can be shown that the conversion of acetyl-CoA to acetate is catalyzed in peroxisomes by acyl-CoA thioesterase8 (ACOT8) and after transport of citrate from mitochondria and subsequent conversion to acetyl-CoA in the cytosol by ACOT12. Remarkably, ACOT8/12 not only regulate the formation of acetate but play a crucial role in the maintenance of cellular CoA concentration. Accordingly, depletion of ACOT8/12 activity leads to a reduction of other CoA derivatives such as HMG-CoA, which resulted in the inhibition of ketone body synthesis. In diabetic mice, ACOT 8 or ACOT12 knockdown appears to lead to some limitations in strength and behavior.

In summary, the authors clearly demonstrate that hepatic release-mediated by ACOT8 and ACOT12-determines the plasma concentration of acetate. This is a very remarkable observation, since most studies assume that short-chain fatty acids in plasma are primarily generated by fermentation of dietary fiber by intestinal bacteria. The authors demonstrate in very well performed studies the metabolic changes that result from impaired thiolysis. On the other hand, the ACOT12 phenotype has been demonstrated in a recently published study (PMID: 34285335). In this study, ACOT12 deficiency caused NAFLD, thus it would be worth to determine whether deficiency of ACOT12 and/or ACOT8 promotes de novo lipogenesis under the conditions of the present study. As a further limitation, it should be noted that the relevance of acetate production for the energy supply of peripheral organs including the central nervous system could not be clearly demonstrated. For instance, impaired ketone body production due to impaired CoA availability could affect the metabolic activity of various organs. Moreover, the human cohort is not very well described, e.g. it is unclear whether the patients have type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Wang et al. investigated the role of acetate production, a byproduct of fatty acid oxidation, in the context of metabolic stressors, including diabetes mellitus and prolonged fasting. Mechanistically, they show the importance of the liver enzymes ACOT8 (peroxisome) and ACOT12 (cytoplasm) in converting FFA-derived acetyl-CA into acetate and CoA. The regeneration of CoA allows for subsequent fatty acid oxidation. Inhibiting the generation of acetate has negative motor and behavioral consequences in streptozocin-treated mice, which are mitigated with acetate injection.

This paper's strengths include using multiple mouse models, metabolic stressors (db/db-/-, streptozocin, and prolonged starvation), numerous cell lines, precise knockout and rescue experiments, and complimentary use of mass spectrometry and nuclear magnetic resonance analytical platforms. The presented data support the conclusions of this paper, but some aspects need to be clarified.

For example, for all animal studies, please list the age and sex of the animals at the time of the experiments. Sex and age are important biological variables that can affect metabolism, and such characteristics are needed when comparing results from different research groups.

In clinical medicine, common ketones that are measured are acetoacetate, beta-hydroxybutyrate, and acetone. However, the data presented here suggest the importance of measuring acetate when patients present with ketoacidosis in uncontrolled diabetes or starvation.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Hermanns et al., investigated the virus diversity and prevalence patterns in conjunction with mosquito community compositions in natural and disturbed ecosystems (5 habitats) within the Tai National Park in Cote d'Ivorie. The ultimate aim was to analyse the interplay between viral biodiversity and prevalence with mosquito host biodiversity and prevalence. Pools of morphologically identified mosquitoes from pristine forest habitats through to habitats of high human disturbance were analysed for the presence of viruses of 12 major mosquito-borne virus taxa. While 15 of the viruses detected have been published previously, 34 potentially new viruses were detected of which the full genome of 5 was completely elucidated for phylogenetic analysis and temperature-dependent replication of 4 was performed. Via comprehensive analyses of the biodiversity of the viruses detected in mosquitoes collected within each habitat, it was shown that i) the highest virus richness was observed in the intermediately disturbed habitats, ii) that the prevalence of viruses corresponded to the relative abundance of the main mosquito host species that carried them, but iii) when just the main host mosquito for each virus was analysed alone in each habitat, that there was no trend in increasing or decreasing virus prevalence.

The conclusions within the paper were generally well-justified, but a caveat of the study is that the (likely) mechanisms of transmission of the viruses identified in the paper were not discussed. Many of these viruses are most likely maintained in nature via vertical transmission and thus, this information needs to be taken into consideration. Due to the fact that it is likely that many of these insect-specific viruses evolve with their mosquito host, it was not surprising that if there was an increased abundance of a particular mosquito species, that there was also increased prevalence of the virus which it hosts. Of course, this may differ depending on the viral family, but requires comment in the context of what is known. Furthermore, there requires clarification as to why analysing insect-specific virus prevalence and diversity will serve as a model for the study of typical arboviruses due to the differences in their maintenance in nature.

For many of the putative new viruses, only small sequences of less than 1200 nt were analysed. Granted that the RdRp is the most conserved gene, how was the 5% demarcation for a new species determined when established criteria differ to this.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this manuscript authors make an important contribution to the diversity of mosquito specific viruses, describing the genetic diversity of RNA viruses from the family Culicidae, along an anthropogenic-disturbance gradient in Côte d'Ivoire in 2004.<br /> The manuscript is methodologically rigorous from the virologic perspective; molecular techniques were standardized to perform virus detection, increasing the detection potential from a previous published work by the team from five to 49 viruses (331 viral sequences pertaining to 49 viruses of ten RNA-virus families).<br /> It is rich in terms of the genetic diversity of mosquito specific viruses, but not as strong from the entomological and ecological perspectives. Mosquito specific viruses are analyzed under the lens of pathogens with public health importance, which is confusing.<br /> One of the major information gaps are the potential transmission routes or sources of infection of the detected viruses. Mosquito specific viruses can be transmitted vertically or horizontally, and are in general strongly associated with the environment, but not related with other hosts such as vertebrates. From this perspective, the ecology of transmission of these viruses should not be compared to pathogens that use vertebrate hosts. The authors found 49 viruses, but emphasize the ecological relevance of their findings to five viruses with increased prevalence from pristine to disturbed habitats, to show a dilution effect.<br /> Another suggested important contribution is the finding of an "abundance effect", suggesting that higher prevalence in degraded ecosystems is the result of host abundance, but additional ecological information is missing on the potential mechanisms leading to this effect. Breeding sites may be a main source of variation in species composition and abundances among habitats, but no comments on this are found on the manuscript.<br /> Some additional useful information could be provided to better understand mosquito sampling, for instance: the number of traps used, duration of sampling in each locality, and sampling dates to understand if there could be seasonal variation.<br /> In conclusion the manuscript is interesting and well written. The virologic component is strong, but its relation to the ecological determinants should be improved.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

One challenge with this study doing descriptive mosquito and virus work in a remote location is the uncertainly with species identification for both mosquitoes and viruses. It appears that nearly half of the mosquitoes in three of the study sites could not be identified to species. This appears problematic for the estimation of host (mosquito) richness and diversity along the anthropogenic gradient. Viral taxonomy is also complicated and this study is presenting many new viruses which, based on partial or whole sequencing, are putative novel viruses. It is not clear how many of these novel viruses would be accepted by current practices endorsed by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. The viral taxa uncertainty add complexity for the current analysis. How many of these viral lineages that cluster together are variants of the same virus? How many are unique taxonomic units? This has important consequences on the application of these data to the analyses conducted in this study.

On a related front, many of these viruses the authors are documented are mostly Insect-specific viruses (ISVs). But it also appears that several could be amplified by vertebrate hosts with poorly understood natural history and for the purposes of this study, all of the viral taxa appear to be grouped together. The inclusion of all viruses is therefore somewhat confounding given the very different natural history associated with these viruses. You frequently refer to 'hosts' throughout the MS and for ISVs, the host would likely only be mosquitoes but for arboviruses involving vertebrate amplification hosts, the hosts would be both the mosquitoes and the vertebrates. This study did not quantify any aspect of vertebrate host abundance, diversity, or richness across the gradient. Since most of this study focuses just on the ISVs as a unique system to test the hypotheses, it would be interesting if the authors restricted the analysis to just those viruses with higher probability of being restricted to mosquitoes (e.g. based on phylogenetic placement) to see if the results remain the same.

You report an anthropogenic disturbance gradient from primary forest to village habitat but how was this quantified? How is a village more disturbed than an agricultural field (rice plantation?)? The method to rank these study sites, which becomes important for the analysis, was not described in the methods. Also, along this topic of study sites, it appears you really only had one replicate of each of the study site type. To test these hypotheses on how host communities influence viral communities it would seem prudent to have had multiple replicates of each study area.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this study, the authors study the effect of dynactin disruption on kinetochore fiber (k-fiber) length in spindles of dividing cultured mammalian cells. Dynactin disruption is known to interfere with dynein function and hence spindle pole formation. The main findings are that poles are not required for correct average k-fiber length and that severed k-fibers can regrow to their correct length both in the presence and absence of poles by modulating their dynamic properties at both k-fiber ends. In the presence of poles, regrowth is faster and the variation between k-fiber lengths is smaller. This is a very interesting study with high-quality quantitative imaging data that provides important new insight into potential mechanisms of spindle scaling, extending in an original manner previous work on this topic in cultured cells and in Xenopus egg extract. The Discussion is interesting to read as several possible mechanisms for k-fiber length control are discussed. The technical quality of the study is very high, the experiments are very original, and most conclusions are well supported by the data. Especially, the experiments observing the regrowth of k-fibers after severing and the study of the dynamic properties of these k-fibers provide very novel insight. Addressing the following concerns could potentially improve the manuscript:

(1) The phenotype generated here by disrupting dynactin via overexpressing p50 appears to be different from that caused by knocking down NuMA or dynein - as previously reported by the Dumont lab (Hueschen et al., 2019). In this study here, unfocused spindles are observed whereas earlier turbulent spindles were observed. This raises the question of whether dynein activity that contributes to pole focusing is really completely inhibited here. These discrepancies in phenotypes seem to deserve an explanation. Is k-fiber length in cultured mammalian cells only maintained in the case of this specific type of inhibition?

(2) p50 addition and also p150-cc1 addition was often used in Xenopus egg extract in order to inhibit dynein function. Considerably larger concentrations of p50 than p150-cc1 needed to be used. Can the authors estimate the level of overexpression of p50 in the cells they study? It seems that could be possible given that a mCherry fusion protein can be overexpressed. Was it necessary to select cells with a particular level of mCherry-p50 overexpression to observe the reported phenotypes?

(3) Some comparison to previous experiments using p50 and p150-cc1 addition to Xenopus egg extract spindles could put this study better into the context of the available literature. It seems from previous publications that the p50 addition produced short, unfocused, barrel-shaped spindles, indicating that spindle length is maintained without poles, whereas the p150-cc1 addition produced elongating spindles (e.g. Gaetz & Kapoor, 2004).

(4) In this context, it seems that some more explanation is required for the observations presented in Fig. 1D and 1E. It appears that spindle length and k-fiber length have been measured quite differently. Not much information is provided for how spindle length was defined and measured (please expand this part of the Methods). Could the two different methods of measurement be the reason for the mean k-fiber length remaining unaltered in dynactin-disrupted spindles, whereas the spindle length increases in these cells? If not, do non-k-fiber microtubules contribute to unfocused spindles being longer or are chromosomes not aligned in the metaphase plate causing the increase in spindle length by misalignment of k-fiber sister pairs?

(5) It seems that in the Discussion it is implied that k-fibers can respond to severing in both focused and unfocused spindles by modulating their dynamics at both ends of the k-fibers, but in the Results section the wording is more cautious because of the difference in 'flux' in severed and unsevered unfocused spindles is not significant (Fig. 4D, blue data). It appears indeed that there is also a difference in flux between severed and unsevered unfocused spindles, but the number of data points is too small. Depending on how difficult these experiments are, it could be worth increasing the size of the data set to come to a clear conclusion, given that the data shown in Figs. 3 and 4 are quite remarkable and form the core of the study.

(6) Can the authors exclude that the stopping of 'flux' at minus ends after severing is due to some sort of permanent damage induced by ablation? In other words, do severed spindles begin to flux again once they have regrown to their original length?

(7) To this reader, the conceptualization of distinguishing between 'global' and 'local' effects/behavior was a little confusing, both in the title and also later in the text. The concept of 'local' regulation of k-fiber length appears to contradict the observation that k-fiber length can be regained after severing by changes in the dynamics at both ends (so at two very different locations) which is a rather remarkable finding. Maybe distinguishing between 'individual' and 'collective' k-fiber behavior could be clearer.

(8) Can the authors exclude that some of the differences between unfocused and focused spindles could be due to altered dynein activity at kinetochores? Or due to the dynein-dependent accumulation of certain spindle proteins along microtubules towards the minus ends of k-fibers or other spindle microtubules, instead of being due to only the presence versus absence of poles? Could this be tested by ablating both poles? If this is too challenging, a discussion of these possibilities could be justified.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The mitotic spindle of eukaryotic cells is a microtubule-based assembly responsible for chromosome segregation during cell division. For a given cell type, the steady-state size and shape of this structure are remarkably consistent. How this morphologic consistency is achieved, particularly when one considers the complex interplay between dynamic microtubules, spatial and temporal regulation of microtubule nucleation, and the activities of several microtubule-based motor proteins, remains a fundamental unanswered question in cell biology. In this work by Richter et al., the authors use biochemical and biophysical perturbations to explore the feedback between mitotic spindle shape and the dynamics of one of its main structural elements, kinetochore fibers (k-fibers) - bundles of microtubules that extend from kinetochores to spindle poles. Overexpression of the p50 dynactin subunit in mammalian tissue culture cells (Ptk2) was used to inhibit the microtubule motor cytoplasmic dynein resulting in misshapen spindles with unfocused poles. Measurements of k-fiber lengths in control and unfocused conditions showed that although mean k-fiber length was not statistically different, the variation of length was significantly higher in unfocused spindles, suggesting that k-fiber length is set locally, occurring in the absence of focused poles. With a clever combination of live-cell imaging with photoablation and/or photobleaching of fluorescently-labeled k-fibers, the authors went on to explore the mechanistic bases of this length regulation. K-fiber regrowth following ablation occurred in both conditions, albeit more slowly in unfocused spindles. Paired ablation and localized photobleaching on the same k-fiber revealed that microtubule dynamics, specifically those at the plus-end, can be tuned at the level of individual k-fiber. Lastly, the authors show that chromosome segregation is severely impaired when cells with unfocused spindles are forced to enter mitosis. The work's biggest strength is the application of an innovative experimental approach to address thoughtful and well-articulated hypotheses and predictions. Conclusions stemming from the experiments are generally well-supported, though the experiments addressing the "tuning" of k-fiber dynamics could be bolstered by additional data points and perhaps better presented. The manuscript would also benefit from the inclusion of some investigation of spatial differences in the observed effects as well as the molecular and biophysical basis of the observed feedback between k-fiber length and focused poles.

Comments/Concerns/Questions:

1) In the discussion, the authors acknowledge that the changes in spindle morphology resulting from p50 overexpression are likely also causing changes in the well-characterized RanGTP/SAF gradients that radiate from chromosome surfaces. Why did the authors did not include an analysis of k-fiber length as a function of positioning within the spindle? The inclusion of this data would not require more experimentation and could be added as a plot showing K-fiber length versus distance from the geometric center of the spindle (defined by the intersection of the major and minor axes perhaps?).<br /> 2) The authors also acknowledge the established relationship between MT length and MT end dynamics, yet in their ablation studies, the average initial k-fiber length at ablation in control spindles was higher than that for k-fibers in unfocused spindles. It seems that this difference makes the interpretation of the data, particularly the conclusion that fiber growth rates differ due to the absence of focused poles, a bit tenuous. To address this, the authors should consider including plots of grow-back rates versus k-fiber length (again, this should not require additional experiments, just more analysis).<br /> 3) As presented, the data shown in Figure 4 is confusing and does not seem very compelling. The relationship between the kymographs and time series is unclear as is the relationship between the dashed lines in the kymographs and the triangles and the plots in the 4B time series and 4C, respectively. Furthermore, it's not always clear what the triangles are pointing to (e.g. in the unfocused condition time series). The authors might want to consider reworking this figure and providing more measurements of flux following ablation in both the control and unfocused conditions. Lastly, the authors should clarify what negative displacement means.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

One aim of this paper was to study historical migration from Botswana during the time of the development of the HIV epidemic. The second aim was to test whether the migration networks impacted the development of the epidemic. The first aim was achieved: this paper used historical census data in a clear way, to describe the qualities of characteristics of migration in the country at four points in time, from 1981 to 2011. Very detailed data are presented in clear ways, using network chord diagrams, sharing age- and sex-specific migration rates, and urban-rural classifications. However, data was not presented to achieve the second aim. The authors reviewed some important literature about migration and HIV. They suggested that the migration patterns, such as from specific mining towns and mostly between districts, could have been important in supporting the generalized spread of HIV. But without evidence linking HIV prevalence over time in the linked districts in Botswana, this aim was not supported.

One other limitation of the paper was that very little context, outside of migration rates, was provided. Is there any additional information about economic growth, or political event for example, that could clarify or add context to these migration flows? As it stands now, these analyses are quite basic and don't take into account underlying demographic, economic, or political trends.

The data presented in this paper has potential impact. As the paper stands now, it could be quite useful for future work when linked to additional data sources on HIV prevalence over time (or other questions that could have been influenced by migration patterns).

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

To provide context into the HIV epidemic in Botswana over the latter half of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st, the authors have analyzed micro census data to examine patterns of migration. They use this dataset to show how patterns between urban and rural areas have changed over several decades, and the demographic characteristics of migrants. The dataset used for this study is a very reliable source, and the insights in terms of migration patterns are interesting. The primary weakness of the analyses regards the link to HIV transmission: micro-census data only examine mobility that leads to individuals changing residence for longer periods of time, without accounting for shorter-term trips that may also lead to HIV transmission, such as seasonal migration or short trips. This is likely less of an issue with HIV than other diseases, however, due to its transmission often involving new sexual partners, which will generally be less likely to occur during short trips. Broadly, however, this is an interesting report on the migration patterns during a critical period for HIV transmission nationwide.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Studies of the p38g/d MAP kinase signaling pathways using loss-of-function approaches are compromised the finding that the expression of the ERK family MAP3K Tpl2 is down-regulated. Dissection of the specific roles of p38g/d is therefore difficult. Here the authors report that compound mutant mice with a kinase-inactive p38y MAPK mutation and p38d deficiency show no defects in Tpl2 expression. The importance of this study is therefore that they describe a mouse model that can be used to examine p38g/d MAP kinase function. The data presented are solid and convincing. The authors show that p38g/d MAP kinase signaling contributes to macrophage responses to endotoxin. Moreover, the authors identify Ser44 as an inhibitory site of MEF2D phosphorylation by p38d.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This paper addresses the specific function of p38γ/p38δ isoforms in inflammation. This was achieved by developing a novel mouse model in which p38γ was replaced by a kinase-inactive mutant (D171A mutation in a p38δ knock out background (p38γ/δKIKO). The results demonstrate that the p38γ/p38δ MAPKs are required for regulating the expression of inflammatory mediators implicated in the innate immune response. The phosphorylation of the transcription factor MEF2D at Ser444 constitutes one potential mechanism by which p38γ/p38δ suppresses iNOS and IL-1β mRNA expression.

The strength of this paper resides in the novelty of the mouse model that permitted to assess the specific requirement of p38γ/p38δ isoforms independently of the loss of TPL2 expression caused by compound deletion of the p38γ/p38δ alleles. The finding that p38γ/p38δ MAPKs inhibit MEF2D activity by phosphorylation at Ser444 is also novel.

One weakness lies in the lack of consistency between the expression profiles performed by RNA-seq/qPCR/cytokine arrays to identify inflammatory mediators whose expression is dependent on p38γ/δ in the two in vivo models of septic shock (i.e. fungal infection and induced by LPS) and in LPS activated macrophages in vitro.

The other issue is that gene expression analyses are performed using bone marrow-derived macrophages (BMDM) (Figs. 3 and 5A), whereas the proteomic analysis employs peritoneal macrophages given that "p38γ and p38δ are expressed at much higher levels in these macrophages than in BMDM (p11)" (Fig. 4). Although the authors state on p11 "Additionally, the LPS-induced cytokine production in peritoneal macrophages was comparable to that of BMDM", only two cytokines were measured, i.e. IL1b and IFNg (SI Appendix Fig. S4B). This really emphasises the importance of verifying that i) MEF2D is indeed a substrate of p38δ in macrophages and ii) p38γ/δ-mediated phosphorylation of MEF2D at Ser444 negatively regulates the expression of iNOS and IL-1β transcripts in macrophages.

Finally, no experiment was performed to demonstrate that the lower fungal burden or increased survival rate following LPS-induced sepsis in p38γ/δKIKO mice (Fig. 1) is a consequence of impaired production of inflammatory mediators by p38γ/δKIKO macrophages. This important issue should be addressed.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This paper investigates the role of the p38g and p38d kinases in the immune response using genetically modified mice that are deficient in p38d and express a kinase-inactive form of p38g. This model avoids the possible confounding effect of the downregulation of the ERK1/2 activator Tpl2, which is observed in mice that are deficient for both p38g and p38d, making it more straightforward to determine the contribution of p38g/p38d to specific phenotypes. The mice that express kinase-inactive p38g and lack p38d show reduced susceptibility to both C. albicans infection and LPS-induced septic shock. Macrophages derived from these mice show dysregulated expression of a number of genes involved in innate immunity. Phospho-proteomics analysis identifies the transcription factor MEF2D as one of the targets of p38g/p38d in macrophages, and in vitro assays show that p38d can phosphorylate several residues of MEF2D including Ser444. Reporter assays provide evidence that a MEF2D-S444A mutant has enhanced transcriptional activity compared with the WT MEF2D, and this is also supported by analyzing the mRNA levels of MEF2D targets in fibroblasts overexpressing both proteins. Taken together, these results support that S444A phosphorylation negatively regulates MEF2D activity.

The manuscript contains a number of interesting observations supporting a role for p38g/p38d in the control of the innate immune response independently of the regulation of the Tpl2-ERK1/2 pathway. It also provides evidence that p38d but not p38g can phosphorylate MEF2D, which inhibits its transcriptional activity, and it is therefore a candidate target for some of the gene expression changes observed. Altogether, the manuscript adds new and exciting information on the functions performed by p38 MAPKs in macrophages and introduces a new mouse model that will be useful for further studies.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, the authors have demonstrated the direct effect of androgen receptor activation on B - cell frequencies. In the clinical part of the research, they have found increased frequencies of age-associated double-negative B memory cells and elevated levels of circulating immunoglobulin M (IgM) in women with hyperandrogenic phenotypes of PCOS. The major study strengths are driven by their experimental part. It was shown that the transfer of serum IgG from women with PCOS into wild-type female mice increases body weight, whereas RAG1 knock-out mice, which lack mature T- and B cells, do not demonstrate any signs of hyperandrogenism. Simultaneously, an androgen receptor antagonist prevents increased B cell numbers induced by androgens, whereas B cell-deficient mice are not protected from developing a PCOS-like phenotype when exposed to DHT. Generally, the author's conclusions are based on evidence, and this study opens up a new direction of research in this area.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The significance of these findings is that the role of B cells in mediating cardiometabolic complications in PCOS is not completely understood. The approach taken by this research group is both innovative and translational. One of the clear strengths of this manuscript is that it combines basic research with clinical studies in PCOS women.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This paper provides valuable (and impressive) data on the geometry of cerebellar foliation among 56 species of mammals and gives novel insights into the evolution of cerebellar foliation and its relationship with the anatomy of the cerebrum. Thus far, the majority of the research on brain folding focuses on the cerebral cortex with little research on the cerebellum. The results from Heuer et al confirm that the evolution of the cerebellum and cerebrum follows a concerted fashion across mammals. Moreover, they suggest that both the cerebrum and cerebellum folding are explained by a similar mechanistic process.

1. Although I found the introduction well written, I think it lacks some information or needs to develop more on some ideas (e.g., differences between the cerebellum and cerebral cortex, and folding patterns of both structures). For example, after stating that "Many aspects of the organization of the cerebellum and cerebrum are, however, very different" (1st paragraph), I think the authors need to develop more on what these differences are. Perhaps just rearranging some of the text/paragraphs will help make it better for a broad audience (e.g., authors could move the next paragraph up, i.e., "While the cx is unique to mammals (...)").

2. Given that the authors compare the folding patterns between the cerebrum and cerebellum, another point that could be mentioned in the introduction is the fact that the cerebellum is convoluted in every mammalian species (and non-mammalian spp as well) while the cerebrum tends to be convoluted in species with larger brains. Why is that so? Do we know about it (check Van Essen et al., 2018)? I think this is an important point to raise in the introduction and to bring it back into the discussion with the results.

3. In the results, first paragraph, what do the authors mean by the volume of the medial cerebellum? This needs clarification.

4. In the results: When the authors mention 'frequency of cerebellar folding', do they mean the degree of folding in the cerebellum? At least in non-mammalian species, many studies have tried to compare the 'degree or frequency of folding' in the cerebellum by different proxies/measurements (see Iwaniuk et al., 2006; Yopak et al., 2007; Lisney et al., 2007; Yopak et al., 2016; Cunha et al., 2022). Perhaps change the phrase in the second paragraph of the result to: "There are no comparative analyses of the frequency of cerebellar folding in mammals, to our knowledge".

5. Sultan and Braitenberg (1993) measured cerebella that were sagittally sectioned (instead of coronal), right? Do you think this difference in the plane of the section could be one of the reasons explaining different results on folial width between studies? Why does the foliation index calculated by Sultan and Braitenberg (1993) not provide information about folding frequency?

6. Another point that needs to be clarified is the log transformation of the data. Did the authors use log-transformed data for all types of analyses done in the study? Write this information in the material and methods.

7. The discussion needs to be expanded. The focus of the paper is on the folding pattern of the cerebellum (among different mammalian species) and its relationship with the anatomy of the cerebrum. Therefore, the discussion on this topic needs to be better developed, in my opinion (especially given the interesting results of this paper). For example, with the findings of this study, what can we say about how the folding of the cerebellum is determined across mammals? The authors found that the folial width, folial perimeter, and thickness of the molecular layer increase at a relatively slow rate across the species studied. Does this mean that these parameters have little influence on the cerebellar folding pattern? What mostly defines the folding patterns of the cerebellum given the results? Is it the interaction between section length and area? Can the authors explain why size does not seem to be a "limiting factor" for the folding of the cerebellum (for example, even relatively small cerebella are folded)? Is that because the 'white matter' core of the cerebellum is relatively small (thus more stress on it)?

8. One caveat or point to be raised is the fact that the authors use the median of the variables measured for the whole cerebellum (e.g., median width and median perimeter across all folia). Although the cerebellum is highly uniform in its gross internal morphology and circuitry's organization across most vertebrates, there is evidence showing that the cerebellum may be organized in different functional modules. In that way, different regions or folia of the cerebellum would have different olivo-cortico-nuclear circuitries, forming, each one, a single cerebellar zone. Although it is not completely clear how these modules/zones are organized within the cerebellum, I think the authors could acknowledge this at the end of their discussion, and raise potential ideas for future studies (e.g., analyse folding of the cerebellum within the brain structure - vermis vs lateral cerebellum, for example). I think this would be a good way to emphasize the importance of the results of this study and what are the main questions remaining to be answered. For example, the expansion of the lateral cerebellum in mammals is suggested to be linked with the evolution of vocal learning in different clades (see Smaers et al., 2018). An interesting question would be to understand how foliation within the lateral cerebellum varies across mammalian clades and whether this has something to do with the cellular composition or any other aspect of the microanatomy as well as the evolution of different cognitive skills in mammals.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This study explores the variability of cerebellar anatomy in the mammal. By capturing a set of anatomical measures in the cerebellum and including previously reported cerebral and cerebellar metrics in a set of 58 different mammalian species, this study depicts both consistency and heterogeneity in the co-occurrence of different brain features, with a focus on cerebellar structures such as folial wavelength or median depth of the molecular layer. This is very informative as the cerebellum is currently under-explored and the phylogenetic aspect of this work gives insights into evolutionary processes linked to the morphology of the cerebellum.

Strengths:

- The methods used to capture the different brain features are relevant, and include the reuse of previously reported metrics, which makes sense and valorises the previous work of other teams.<br /> - One interesting novel method to detect the depth of the molecular layer is implemented.<br /> - A generous amount of results are reported (including correlations, phylogenetic principal component analyses, ancestor character state estimation, and allometries), with visually effective figures to support them.<br /> - A remarkable effort has been made to make data and code available, which will be of great use to the community.

Weaknesses:

- The methods section does not address all the numerical methods used to make sense of the different brain metrics. In the results section, it sometimes makes it difficult for the reader to understand the reason for a sub-analysis and the interpretation of the numerical findings.<br /> - The originality of the article is not sufficiently brought forward:<br /> a) the novel method to detect the depth of the molecular layer is not contextualized in order to understand the shortcomings of previously-established methods. This prevents the reader from understanding its added value and hinders its potential re-use in further studies.<br /> b) The numerous results reported are not sufficiently addressed in the discussion for the reader to get a full grasp of their implications, hindering the clarity of the overall conclusion of the article.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This paper enhances our understanding of the evolution of cerebellar size and structure and is a potentially valuable addition to the recent literature on this. The examination of both the correlated evolution and divergent patterns of folding in the cerebellum and cortex may help us to understand what processes are involved and how these relate to the structural organisation at macro- and micro-levels. The study combines careful anatomical measurements based on a curated, publicly available mammalian brain collection, consideration of theoretical explanation of folding patterns, and for the most part a good comparative sample size. However, questions about the sample size arise in the authors' more complex statistical models (see below).

The main issues I have are with the statistical analyses. The authors use a standard phylogenetic approach - Phylogenetic Generalised Least Squares - which is adequate for these questions. I think the authors need to be a bit more cautious in interpreting their results in two respects.

1. The first problem relates to their use of the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck (OU) model: they try fitting three evolutionary models, and conclude that the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck model provides the best fit. However, it has been known for a while that OU models are prone to bias and that the apparent superiority of OU models over Brownian Motion is often an artefact, a problem that increases with smaller sample sizes. (Cooper et al (2016) Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2016, 118, 64-77,

2. Second, for the partial correlations (e.g. fig 7) and Principal Components (fig 8) there is a concern about over-fitting: there are 9 variables and only 56 data points (violating the minimal rule of thumb that there should be >10 0bservations per parameter). Added to this, the inclusion of variables lacks a clear theoretical rationale. The high correlations between most variables will be in part because they are to some extent measuring the same things, e.g. the five different measures of cerebellar anatomy which include two measures of folial size. This makes it difficult to separate their effects. I get that the authors are trying to tease apart different aspects of size, but in practice, I think these results (e.g. the presence of negative coefficients in Fig 7) are really hard or impossible to interpret. The partial correlation network looks like a "correlational salad" rather than a theoretically motivated hypothesis test. It isn't clear to me that the PC analyses solve this problem, but it partly depends on the aims of these analyses, which are not made very clear.

The claim of concerted evolution between cortical and cerebellar values (P 11-12) seems to be based on analyses that exclude body size and brain size. It, therefore, seems possible - or even likely - that all these analyses reveal overall size effects that similarly influence the cortex and cerebellum. When the authors state that they performed a second PC analysis with body and brain size removed "to better understand the patterns of neuroanatomical evolution" it isn't clear to me that is what this achieves. A test would be a model something like [cerebellar measure ~ cortical measure + rest of the brain measure], and this would deal with the problem of 'correlation salad' noted below.

It is not quite clear from fig 6a that the result does indeed support isometry between the data sets (predicted 2/3 slope), and no coefficient confidence intervals are provided.

Referencing/discussion/attribution of previous findings<br /> - With respect to the discussion of the relationship between cerebellar architecture and function, and given the emphasis here on correlated evolution with cortex, Ramnani's excellent review paper goes into the issues in considerable detail, which may also help the authors develop their own discussion: Ramnani (2006) The primate cortico-cerebellar system: anatomy and function. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 7, 511-522 (2006<br /> - The result that humans are outliers with a more folded cerebellum than expected is interesting and adds to recent findings highlighting evolutionary changes in the hominin human cerebellum, cerebellar genes, and epigenetics. Whilst Sereno et al (2020) are cited, it would be good to explain that they found that the human cerebellum has 80% of the surface area of the cortex. It would surely also be relevant to highlight some of the molecular work here, such as Harrison & Montgomery (2017). Genetics of Cerebellar and Neocortical Expansion in Anthropoid Primates: A Comparative Approach. Brain Behav Evol. 2017;89(4):274-285. doi: 10.1159/000477432. Epub 2017 (especially since this paper looks at both cerebellar and cortical genes); also Guevara et al (2021) Comparative analysis reveals distinctive epigenetic features of the human cerebellum. PLoS Genet 17(5): e1009506. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pgen.1009506. Also relevant here is the complex folding anatomy of the dentate nucleus, which is the largest structure linking cerebellum to cortex: see Sultan et al (2010) The human dentate nucleus: a complex shape untangled. Neuroscience. 2010 Jun 2;167(4):965-8. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2010.03.007.<br /> - The authors state that results confirm previous findings of a strong relationship between cerebellum and cortex (P 3 and p 16): the earliest reference given is Herculano-Houzel (2010), but this pattern was discovered ten years earlier (Barton & Harvey 2000 Nature 405, 1055-1058. https://doi.org/10.1038/35016580; Fig 1 in Barton 2002 Nature 415, 134-135 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1038/415134a) and elaborated by Whiting & Barton (2003) whose study explored in more detail the relationship between anatomical connections and correlated evolution within the cortico-cerebellar system (this paper is cited later, but only with reference to suggestions about the importance of functions of the cerebellum in the context of conservative structure, which is not its main point). In fact, Herculano-Houzel's analysis, whilst being the first to examine the question in terms of numbers of neurons, was inconclusive on that issue as it did not control for overall size or rest of the brain (A subsequent analysis using her data did, and confirmed the partially correlated evolution - Barton 2012, Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 367:2097-107. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0112.)

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This is a very elegant study of the dynamics of the longitudinal surface pH profile in growing Arabidopsis roots. The authors first present a new powerful method for the visualization of the surface pH profiles using the pH-sensitive fluorescent dye fluoresceine-5 (or 6)-sulfonic acid. This is an interesting new tool for studying surface pH in plants and perhaps other organisms. The main findings are that the presence of an alkaline band at the transition zone does not depend on AHA abundance (shown by immunolocalization) or activity shown by pharmacology (FC treatment) or by using plants expressing hyperactive, or PP2CD1- inhibited AHA2 or by using KO mutants aha2 or pp2c-d respectively. This band depends on auxin and AUX1-mediated auxin influx and rapid auxin response components AFB1 and CNGC14. The latter has a distribution along the root fitting the longitudinal surface pH zonation and are both required for it. Canonical auxin signaling (TIR) has more quantitative effects on the extent of the auxin-induced alkalinization. They also observe that the rapid auxin response module is constantly activated and inactivated as shown by the time-dependent variations in surface pH within the alkaline zone on both sides of the root and the rapid AUX1, AFB1, and CNGC14-dependent acidification of the upper surface and alkalinisation of the lower surface during gravitropic responses. Finally, they provide some evidence for the role of the rapid auxin responses in avoiding physical obstacles in the environment of the root.

The data look very sound. The originality of the approach used is the observation of dynamic responses at a second-to-minute time scale and to systematically correlate between the observed changes in the longitudinal surface pH profile with changes in growth rate. The manuscript is well-written with clear figures.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Root growth is driven by cell elongation, and its local control allows roots to navigate the complex soil environment. Cell growth is driven by the relaxation of the cell wall, a process requiring a drop in pH. Auxin is a key regulator of root development that inhibits root growth. Auxin effects on proton dynamics are complex, it can promote both acidification and alkalinization of the extracellular space through different signaling modules, some only recently uncovered. Serre et al. report on using a new dye to monitor extracellular pH in the region surrounding the Arabidopsis thaliana root. Their manuscript aims to clarify the relationships between pH around the root, proton flux, auxin, cell elongation, and root growth with this tool. They show a typical zonation of pH values along the root: a more acidic domain corresponding to the transit-amplifying compartment, followed by a more alkaline one at the transition and early elongation zones and a more acidic one in the late elongation/root hair zone. This zonation is in agreement with previous reports obtained by other methods. A particularly puzzling aspect is the origin of the more alkaline domain. Serre et al. present evidence supporting the involvement of the AUX1-AFB1-CNGC14 module for the emergence of this more alkaline domain and how it can contribute to the ability of the root to navigate its environment.

Serre et al. show that the more alkaline domain in the transition zone is not directly determined by the activity or localization of the AHA proton pumps but rather by the auxin influx carrier AUX1. They show that the components of the rapid auxin response pathway, in particular, the auxin co-receptor AFB1 and the calcium channel CNGC14, contribute to the emergence of this more alkaline domain. Finally, they show that mutants in these two genes, impaired in the rapid auxin response pathway, show less efficient navigation of the root tip.

The manuscript is clear and well-written. The logic is sound, and the conclusions are supported by the data.

The new dye appears as a promising tool for monitoring the pH in the rhizosphere with advantages over the previous ones. Yet, as pointed out by the authors in the discussion, it reports on pH at the organ scale in the region around the root, not in the apoplast or the cell wall, which can eventually complexify the elaboration of a mechanistic model joining auxin, proton efflux, cell wall properties, cell elongation, and root growth. Although several of the findings confirm previous reports, the manuscript brings novelty by demonstrating the involvement of the rapid auxin response. I am overall supportive of the manuscript. Yet, several points should be addressed:

- The presentation of the more acidic and alkaline domains could be easier to visualize.<br /> - The authors refer to acidic and alkaline domains but do not report on absolute pH values; they monitor the emission ratio of the dye. They justify why to use relative pH value in the discussion and refer there to internal controls that are not clearly defined. In my opinion, the wording should be more consistent across the text and figures and refer to *more* acidic and *more* alkaline domains rather than acidic (pH<7) and alkaline (pH>7) domains.<br /> - The data related to the unaltered distribution of AHA using antibody staining should be backed up.<br /> - The way the pH profile and the statistical analyses should be improved.<br /> - The authors should test the effect of extracellular auxin perception (tmk, abp) mutants on pH zonation.<br /> - Conclusion could be strengthened by moving several pieces of data currently in supplemental material to the main text.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This manuscript provides a high amount of data supporting the author's hypothesis. Serre et al aimed to address the root surface pH and the molecular factors regulating the establishment of the root surface pH pattern important for root growth and gravitropic response. The authors are able to provide solid data on the role of AUX1, AFB1, and CNGC14 in establishing an alkalic patch in the transition zone on the root surface. A weak point in the manuscript is the absence of cellular resolution. The authors mention the technical problems to assess apoplastic pH with previously published tools. They offer Fluorescein106 5-(and-6)-Sulfonic Acid, Trisodium Salt (FS) as an alternative. Even though they were able to generate valuable data with FS, bringing in cellular resolution would increase the quality of the paper even more. Overall, Serre et al provide a solid manuscript with novel data which is of high importance for the field of root and auxin biology.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This paper studies color vision in anemonefish. The central conclusion of the paper is that anemonefish use signals from their UV cones to discriminate colors that would not otherwise be distinguishable; this differs from other fish in which UV cones extend the range of wavelengths of sensitivity but do not add a dimension to color vision. The work fits into a rich history of studies investigating how color vision fits into an animal's ecological niche. My primary concerns regard the microspectrophotometry data from single cones and some aspects of the presentation of the behavioral data.

Microspectrophotometry<br /> The spectral properties of the cone types are a key issue for interpreting the results. These were measured using MSP, and fits are shown in Figure 2. The raw data shown in Fig. S1 appears more complicated than indicated in the main text. The templates miss the measurements across broad wavelength bands in each cone type. Particularly concerning is the high UV absorbance across cone types and the long-wavelength absorbance in the UV cone. It is not clear how this picture supports the relatively simple description of cone types and spectral sensitivities given in the main text and which forms the basis of the modeling.

Presentation<br /> The results are not presented in a straightforward way - at least for this reviewer. What is missing for me is a clear link between the psychometric curves in Figure 3A and the discrimination thresholds indicated in Figure 3B and Figure 4. Figure 3A is only discussed in the text on line 289 - after Figure 4 has been introduced and discussed. It would have been very helpful for me if the psychometric curves were first introduced and described, then the relation to Figure 3B was clearly indicated (perhaps with a single psychometric curve as an example). Similarly for Figure 4 the relationship between specific psychometric curves and the threshold plotted would be quite helpful. Currently it takes a careful reading to understand why being below the dashed line in Figure 4 is important.

RNL model<br /> The data is fit and interpreted in the context of the receptor noise limited model. The paragraph in the discussion about complementary color pairs suggests that this model is incorrect (text around line 332). Consideration of how the results depend on the RNL model is important, especially given the interpretation here.

Figure 3B<br /> This is the key figure in the paper. But several issues make seeing the data in this figure difficult. First, the important part of the figure is buried near the origin and hard to see. Can you show a surface that connects the thresholds in the different chromatic directions, or otherwise highlight the regions of discriminable and not discriminable colors?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Mitchell and colleagues examined the contribution of a UV-sensitive cone photoreceptor to chromatic detection in Amphiprion ocellaris, a type of anemonefish. First, they used biophysical measurements to characterize the response properties of the retinal receptors, which come in four spectrally-distinct subtypes: UV, M1, M2, and L. They then used these spectral sensitivities to construct a 4-dimensional (tetrahedral) color space in which stimuli with known spectral power distributions can be represented according to the responses they elicit in the four cone types. A novel five-LED display was used to test the fish's ability to detect "chromatic" modulations in this color space against a background of random-intensity, "achromatic" distractors that produce roughly equal relative responses in the four cone types. A subset of stimuli, defined by their high positive UV contrast, were more readily detected than other colors that contained less UV information. A well-established model was used to link calculated receptor responses to behavioral thresholds. This framework also enabled statistical comparisons between models with varying number of cone types contributing to discrimination performance, allowing inferences to be drawn about the dimensionality of color vision in anemonefish.

The authors make a compelling case for how UV light in the anemonefish habitat is likely an important ecological source of information for guiding their behavior. The authors are to be commended for developing an elegant behavioral paradigm to assess visual performance and for incorporating a novel display device especially suited to addressing hypotheses about the role of UV light in color perception. While the data are suggestive of behavioral tetrachromacy in anemonefish, there are some aspects of the study that warrant additional consideration:

1) One challenge faced by many biological imaging systems is longitudinal chromatic aberration (LCA) - that is, the focal power of the system depends on wavelength. In general, focal power increases with decreasing wavelength, such that shorter wavelengths tend to focus in front of longer wavelengths. In the human eye, at least, this focal power changes nonlinearly with wavelength, with the steepest changes occurring in the shorter part of the visible spectrum (Atchison & Smith, 2005). In the fish eye, where the visible spectrum extends to even shorter wavelengths, it seems plausible that a considerable amount of LCA may exist, which could in turn cause UV-enriched stimuli to be more salient (relative to the distractor pixels) due to differences in perceived focus rather than due solely to differences in their respective spectral compositions. Such a mechanism has been proposed by Stubbs & Stubbs (2016) as a means for supporting "color vision" in monochromatic cephalopods (but see Gagnon et al. 2016). It would be worth discussing what is known about the dispersive properties of the crystalline lens in A. ocellaris (or similar species), and whether optical factors could produce sufficient cues in the retinal image that might explain aspects of the behavioral data presented in the current study.

2) The authors provide a quantitative description of anemonefish visual performance within the context of a well-developed receptor-based framework. However, it was less clear to me what inferences (if any) can be drawn from these data about the post-receptoral mechanisms that support tetrachromatic color vision in these organisms. Would specific cone-opponent processes account for instances where behavioral data diverged from predictions generated with the "receptor noise limited" model described in the text? The general reader may benefit from more discussion centered on what is known (or unknown) about the organization of cone-opponent processing in anemonefish and related species.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The comments below focus mainly on ways that the data and analysis as currently present do not to this reviewer compel the conclusions the authors wish to draw. It is possible that further analysis and/or clarification in the presentation would more persuasively bolster the authors' position. It also seems possible that a presentation with more limited conclusions but clarity on exactly what has been demonstrated and where additional future work is needed would make a strong contribution to the literature.

* Fig 3A. It might be worth emphasizing a bit more explicitly that the x-axis (delta S) is the result of a model fit to the data being shown, since this then means that if RNL model fit the data perfectly, all of the thresholds would fall at deltaS = 1. They don't, so I would like to see some evaluation from the authors' experience with this model as to whether they think the deviations (looks like the delta S range is ~0.4 to ~1.6 in Figure 4B) represent important deviations of the data from the model, the non-significant ANOVA notwithstanding. For example, Figure 4B suggests that the sign of the fit deviations is driven by the sign of the UV contrast and that this is systematic, something that would not be picked up by the ANOVA. Quite a bit is made of the deviations below, but that the model doesn't fully account for the data should be brought out here I think. As the authors note elsewhere, deviations of the data from the RNL model indicate that factors other than receptor noise are at play, and reminding the reader of this here at the first point it becomes clear would be helpful.

* Line 217 ff, Figure 4, Supplemental Figure 4). If I'm understanding what the ANOVA is telling us, it is that the deviations of the data across color directions and fish (I think these are the two factors based on line 649) is that the predictions deviate significantly from the data, relative to the inter-fish variability), for the trichromatic models but not the tetrachromatic model. If that's not correct, please interpret this comment to mean that more explanation of the logic of the test would be helpful.

Assuming that the above is right about the nature of the test, then I don't think the fact that the tetrachromatic model has an additional parameter (noise level for the added receptor type) is being taken into account in the model comparison. That is, the trichromatic models are all subsets of the tetrachromatic model, and must necessarily fit the data worse. What we want to know is whether the tetrachromatic model is fitting better because its extra parameter is allowing it to account for measurement noise (overfitting), or whether it is really doing a better job accounting for systematic features of the data. This comparison requires some method of taking the different number of parameters into account, and I don't think the ANOVA is doing that work. If the models being compared were nested linear models, than an F-ratio test could be deployed, but even this doesn't seem like what is being done. And the RNL model is not linear in its parameters, so I don't think that would be the right model comparison test in any case.

Typical model comparison approaches would include a likelihood ratio test, AIC/BIC sorts of comparisons, or a cross-validation approach.

If the authors feel their current method does persuasively handle the model comparison, how it does so needs to be brought out more carefully in the manuscript, since one of the central conclusions of the work hinges at least in part on the appropriateness of such a statistical comparison.

* Also on the general point on conclusions drawn from the model fits, it seems important to note that rejecting a trichromatic version of the RNL model is not the same as rejecting all trichromatic models. For example, a trichromatic model that postulates limiting noise added after a set of opponent transformations will make predictions that are not nested within those of RNL trichromatic models. This point seems particularly important given the systematic failures of even the tetrachromatic version of the RNL model.

* More generally, attempts to decide whether some human observers exhibit tetrachromacy have taught us how hard this is to do. Two issues, beyond the above, are the following. 1) If the properties of a trichromatic visual system vary across the retina, then by imaging stimuli on different parts of the visual field an observer can in principle make tetrachromatic discriminations even though visual system is locally trichromatic at each retinal location. 2) When trying to show that there is no direction in a tetrachromatic receptor space to which the observer is blind, a lot of color directions need to be sampled. Here, 9 directions are studied. Is that enough? How would we know? The following paper may be of interest in this regard: Horiguchi, Hiroshi, Jonathan Winawer, Robert F. Dougherty, and Brian A. Wandell. "Human trichromacy revisited." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, no. 3 (2013): E260-E269. Although I'm not suggesting that the authors conduct additional experiments to try to address these points, I do think they need to be discussed.

* Line 277 ff. After reading through the paper several times, I remain unsure about what the authors regard as their compelling evidence that the UV cone has a higher sensitivity or makes an omnibus higher contribution to sensitivity than other cones (as stated in various forms in the title, Lines 37-41, 56-57, 125, 313, 352 and perhaps elsewhere).

At first, I thought they key point was that the receptor noise inferred via the RNL model as slightly lower (0.11) for the UV cone than for the double cones (0.14). And this is the argument made explicitly at line 326 of the discussion. But if this is the argument, what needs to be shown is that the data reject a tetrachromatic version of the RNL model where the noise value of all the cones is locked to be the same (or something similar), with the analysis taking into account the fewer parametric degrees of freedom where the noise parameters are so constrained. That is, a careful model comparison analysis would be needed. Such an analysis is not presented that I see, and I need more convincing that the difference between 0.11 and 0.14 is a real effect driven by the data. Also, I am not sanguine that the parameters of a model that in some systematic ways fails to fit the data should be taken as characterizing properties of the receptors themselves (as sometimes seems to be stated as the conclusion we should draw).

Then, I thought maybe the argument is not that the noise levels differ, but rather that the failures of the model are in the direction of thresholds being under predicted for discriminations that involve UV cone signals. That's what seems to be being argued here at lines 277 ff, and then again at lines 328 ff of the discussion. But then the argument as I read it more detail in both places switches from being about the UV cones per se to being about postive versus negative UV contrast. That's fine, but it's distinct from an argument that favors omnibus enhanced UV sensitivity, since both the UV increments and decrements are conveyed by the UV cone; it's an argument for differential sensitivity for increments versus decrements in UV mediated discriminations. The authors get to this on lines 334 of the discussion, but if the point is an increment/decrement asymmetry the title and many of the terser earlier assertions should be reworked to be consistent with what is shown.

Perhaps the argument with respect to model deviations and UV contrast independent of sign could be elaborated to show more systematically that the way the covariation with the contrasts of the other cone stimulations in the stimulus set goes, the data do favor deviations from the RNL in the direction of enhanced sensitivity to UV cone signals, but if this is the intent I think the authors need to think more about how to present the data in a manner that makes it more compelling than currently, and walk the reader carefully through the argument.

* On this point, if the authors decide to stick with the enhanced UV sensitivity argument in the revision, a bit more care about what is meant by "the UV cone has a comparatively high sensitivity (line 313 and throughout)" needs more unpacking. If it is that these cones have lower inferred noise (in the context of a model that doesn't account for at least some aspects of the data), is this because of properties of the UV cones, or the way that post-receptoral processing handles the signals from these cones mimicking a cone effect in the model. And if it is thought that it is because of properties of the cones, some discussion of what those properties might be would be helpful. As I understand the RNL model, relative numbers of cones of each type are taken into account, so it isn't that. But could it be something as simple as higher photopigment density or larger entrance aperture (thus more quantum catches and higher SNR)?

* Line 288 ff. The fact that the slopes of the psychometric functions differed across color directions is, I think, a failure of the RNL model to describe this aspect of the data, and tells us that a simple summary of what happens for thresholds at delta S = 1 does not generalize across color directions for other performance levels. Since one of the directions where the slope is shallower is the UV direction, this fact would seem to place serious limits on the claim that discrimination in the UV direction is enhanced relative to other directions, but it goes by here without comment along those lines. Some comment here, both about implications for fit of RNL model and about implications for generalizations about efficacy of UV receptor mediated discrimination and UV increment/decrement asymmetries, seems important.

* Line 357 ff. Up until this point, all of the discussion of differences in threshold across stimulus sets has been in terms of sensitivity. Here the authors (correctly) raise the possibility that a difference in "preference" across stimulus sets could drive the difference in thresholds as measured. Although the discussion is interesting and germaine, it does to some extent further undercut the security of conclusions about differential sensitivity across color directions relative to the RNL model predictions, and that should be brought out for the reader here. The authors might also discuss about how a future experiment might differentiate between a preference explanation and a sensitivity explanation of threshold differences.

* RNL model. The paper cites a lot of earlier work that used the RNL model, but I think many readers will not be familiar with it. A bit more descriptive prose would be helpful, and particularly noting that in the full dimensional receptor space, if the limiting noise at the photoreceptors is Gaussian, then the isothreshold contour will be a hyper-ellipsoid with its axes aligned with the receptor directions.

* Use of cone isolating stimuli? For showing that all four cone classes contribute to what the authors call color discrimination, a more direct approach would seem to be to use stimuli that target stimulation of only one class of cone at a time. This might require a modified design in which the distractors and target were shown against a uniform background and approximately matched in their estimated effect on a putative achromatic mechanism. Did the authors consider this approach, and more generally could they discuss what they see as its advantages and disadvantages for future work.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The technical approach is novel, exciting, and very carefully calibrated, and can certainly lead to many interesting downstream applications, e.g. enhanced throughput and consistency for screening purposes. Compared to traditional single-assay designs, this solution eliminates some sources of human error associated with manual dilution of reagents and reproducibility and facilitates the study of a wide spectrum of concentrations particularly at the low-concentration (below nanomolar), high-sensitivity range.

However, the study itself does not generate any fundamentally novel insights or new understanding of the biology or biophysics of the chemotactic response. It mainly reproduces previously measured trends in a more efficient and controlled manner. The novelty of the paper is purely in the technology, whereas the major weakness is that this new technology was not used to demonstrate or discover some new biological phenomenon.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This manuscript develops a new microfluidic platform to study how the chemotactic response of motile cells varies in relation to its strength. Typically, chemotaxis is assayed using one microfluidic channel at a time, which limits throughput when researchers want to how to resolve how chemotaxis varies with chemoeffector concentration/gradient strength. The authors have automated this process by designing a device that can logarithmically dilute a chemoaffector with a buffer "on chip", simultaneously generating five different chemical gradients in five different channels where the maximum concentration varies by five orders of magnitude (in addition to a control lacking a gradient).

Technically, this is a major feat, requiring the design of a two-layered device, the use of herringbone mixers, and the careful consideration of the hydraulic resistance of each section to ensure that flow splits at junctions in a defined way to achieve the desired dilutions. It is clear the authors had to overcome many challenges before obtaining the final design. The authors have achieved their intended aims and the results from the multiplexed device are consistent with that from lower throughput devices.

Strengths:

- The multiplexed device allows researchers to greatly increase their experimental throughput when mapping out how a microbe responds to chemicals at different concentrations. While such data might be useful in its own right, such a device might make it much easier to quantify how chemotaxis varies in a multidimensional parameter space using multiple runs of this device (e.g. in analyses of fold-change detection where both the background concentration and gradient strength are varied, or in analyses that compare how the sensitivity of a microbe's chemosensory system varies in response to different chemoaffectors). Currently, it is difficult to map out how multiple parameters affect chemotaxis by running only one microfluidic experiment at a time.

- The same exact cell culture can be used in simultaneous experiments. This could potentially dramatically reduce biological variability, as cells obtained from batch cultures often differ in their metabolic state and significant variability is often observed in cultures inoculated on different days. The reduction of such variability is expected to be particularly important for strains that are very difficult/slow to grow in the laboratory or when testing cells obtained directly from environmental/clinical samples.

Weaknesses:

- Given the complexity of the device, it appears difficult to validate that the concentrations within multiplexed are the ones that are expected. It is not clear whether these devices can be used directly "off the shelf" or whether each device would need to be calibrated individually with dye beforehand. In contrast, it is relatively straightforward to serially dilute chemoaffectors manually using pipettors and obtain accurate results. It is not clear whether the on-chip dilution is a distinct advantage or whether it might add additional uncertainty/complexity.

- It is not feasible to track swimming cells in six channels simultaneously, as one cannot automatically move the microscope stage from one channel to another rapidly enough (e.g. the data collected here have 8 seconds between subsequent frames). Thus, multiplexed devices are best suited to measuring independent snapshots of the distribution of track swimming cells, rather than resolving the cellular behaviours that generate chemotaxis. However, tracking the response of slower moving, surface attached cells (e.g. eukaryotes that use ameboid movement on surfaces or bacteria that chemotax using pili) might be feasible if the gradient is maintained with constant flow. This is not explored by the authors, but if feasible it would open up a completely new avenue. Surface-attached cells move ~1000 times slower than swimming cells and experiments last for ~10-15 hours. Thus, using these multiplexed devices with surface-attached cells might facilitate much larger time savings compared to swimming cell assays, which only last for several minutes.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Croft, Pearce, and colleagues used a combination of spatial transcriptomics and analysis of publicly available scRNA-sequencing data of patients with PDAC to assess differences in the transcriptome of tumor proximal and distal stromal cells and associated these differences with survival data. Focusing on aSMA+ cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs), they find that tumor-proximal CAFs were defined by high expression of PDPN and Wnt ligands, and tumor-distal CAFs expressed inflammatory, complement, and Wnt inhibitor genes. While gene expression in relation to tumor distance did not per se correlate with clinical outcome, the authors find that individual genes within the tumor proximal and distal subsets were associated with increased or decreased survival. Based on this, the authors suggest a combination of targeting tumor-proximal CAFs defined by PDPN expression and inhibition of HIF-1a in the tumor distal stroma. Using an innovative approach to combine their spatial transcriptomics with single-cell transcriptomics data, the authors further identify an association between the expression of proximal CAF marker genes with elevated expression of complement and retinoic acid metabolism genes, and that complement genes were associated with increased survival.

While spatial differences in the abundance of different CAF subsets have been suggested before, the spatial transcriptomic data presented in this study provide a fresh look at CAF heterogeneity in PDAC and will be a useful resource for hypothesis generation and testing on the spatial regulation of CAF heterogeneity. However, there are major concerns associated with the interpretation of the data given the markers used to generate it, the association with single-cell data, and an overinterpretation of transcriptomic data, as detailed below.

1) The spatial transcriptomic data on fibroblasts relies on aSMA as a fibroblast marker. However, several studies in PDAC and other tumors have shown that there are subtypes of CAFs that do not (or only weakly) express aSMA, including inflammatory CAFs (iCAFs) and antigen-presenting CAFs (apCAFs) which therefore might have been missed by the authors. While there is no universal CAF marker, more recently the pancreatic cancer field has been using PDPN as a pan-CAF marker. aSMA is a classical myofibroblast marker across tissues and tumor types and the authors should state that they focused on myofibroblasts in their study.

2) While the association of the spatial data and single-cell data is innovative, it is flawed by the use of a single marker gene (DCN) to define the fibroblast population and the small number of cells (229) within this population. The authors need to corroborate their findings using a combination of fibroblast marker genes as well as other studies comprising a larger number of cells of fibroblast origin.

3) The authors find HIF1a expression to be associated with poor survival and enriched within the tumor-distal stroma. They interpret this as a reflection of the hypoxic environment of PDAC. However, the authors only ever look at HIF1a mRNA, but hypoxic regulation of HIF-1a occurs post-transcriptionally. Transcriptional regulation of HIF1a has been reported through pro-inflammatory cytokines and NFkB signaling. Therefore, the authors should either stain for HIF1a to confirm enrichment on the protein level or adjust their discussion to reflect the important biology behind HIF1a regulation.

4) The authors often misinterpret the correlations and associations they observe as causation and explanation - they should either adjust their language or perform experiments to show causation.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In the current manuscript, the authors select 24 surgically resected pancreatic cancer samples from patients who had a poor outcome (survival of less than one year) or better outcome (survival of at least 3 years). They use a Nanostring Geomx Digital Spatial profiler using a panel of 94 probes. The authors identify a proximal fibroblast population that expresses high levels of PDPN, while a distal fibroblast population expresses high levels of inflammatory genes such as IL6 and IL11, as well as complement genes. Using single-cell RNA sequencing, the authors are able to identify fibroblast populations reflecting those identified in the spatial data and identify other pathways that distinguish the two populations, and that define better or poorer outcomes (for instance, Hif signaling is associated with a poorer prognosis while markers of T cell activation are associated with better prognosis).

The manuscript addresses an important topic, namely whether fibroblasts, a heterogenous and relatively poorly understood cell population within the pancreatic cancer microenvironment, predict poor response. Further, the manuscript integrates spatial and single-cell data, in the quest to identify how the tissue composition of a tumor affects the overall prognosis. Some weaknesses are also noted and should be addressed. Most notably, the prognostic predictions are based on a relatively small number of samples. Further, as spatial transcriptomics is not a single cell-level technology, the authors could use co-immunofluorescence to validate their cell populations and specifically prove that the signatures correspond to genes expressed by fibroblasts, rather than infiltrating immune cells. Finally, the author shows that my-CAF-like fibroblasts correlate with worse prognosis, while inflammatory CAFs predict better prognosis: this finding should be discussed in the context of other CAF literature, some indicating that iCAFs are a negative prognostic predictor.