Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> The authors were trying to understand the relationship between the development of large trunks and longirrostrine mandibles in bunodont proboscideans of Miocene, and how it reflects the variation in diet patterns.

Strengths:<br /> The study is very well supported, written, and illustrated, with plenty of supplementary material. The findings are highly significant for the understanding of the diversification of bunodont proboscideans in Asia during Miocene, as well as explaining the cranial/jaw disparity of fossil lineages. This work elucidates the diversification of paleobiological aspects of fossil proboscideans and their evolutionary response to open environments in the Neogene using several methods. The authors included all Asian bunodont proboscideans with long mandibles and I suggest that they should use the expression "bunodont proboscideans" instead of gomphotheres.

Weaknesses:<br /> I believe that the only weakness is the lack of discussion comparing their results with the development of gigantism and long limbs in proboscideans from the same epoch.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This study focuses on the eco-morphology, the feeding behaviors, and the co-evolution of feeding organs of longirostrine gomphotheres (Amebelodontidae, Choerolophodontidae, and Gomphotheriidae) which are characterised by their distinctive mandible and mandible tusk morphologies. They also have different evolutionary stages of food acquisition organs which may have co-evolve with extremely elongated mandibular symphysis and tusks. Although these three longirostrine gomphothere families were widely distributed in Northern China in the Early-Middle Miocene, the relative abundances and the distribution of these groups were different through time as a result of the climatic changes and ecosysytems.

These three groups have different feeding behaviors indicated by different mandibular symphysis and tusk morphologies. Additionally, they have different evolutionary stages of trunks which are reflected by the narial region morphology. To be able to construct the feeding behavior and the relation between the mandible and the trunk of early elephantiformes, the authors examined the crania and mandibles of these three groups from the Early and Middle Miocene of northern China from three different museums and also made different analyses.

The analyses made in the study are:<br /> 1. Finite Element (FE) analysis: They conducted two kinds of tests: the distal forces test, and the twig-cutting test. With the distal forces test, advantageous and disadvantageous mechanical performances under distal vertical and horizontal external forces of each group are established. With the twig-cutting test, a cylindrical twig model of orthotropic elastoplasity was posed in three directions to the distal end of the mandibular task to calculate the sum of the equivalent plastic strain (SEPS). It is indicated that all three groups have different mandible specializations for cutting plants.

2. Phylogenetic reconstruction: These groups have different narial region morphology, and in connection with this, have different stages of trunk evolution. The phylogenetic tree shows the degree of specialization of the narial morphology. And narial region evolutionary level is correlated with that of character-combine in relation to horizontal cutting. In the trilophodont longirostrine gomphotheres, co-evolution between the narial region and horizontal cutting behaviour is strongly suggested.

3. Enamel isotopes analysis: The results of stable isotope analysis indicate an open environment with a diverse range of habitats and that the niches of these groups overlapped without obvious differentiation.

The analysis shows that different eco-adaptations have led to the diverse mandibular morphology and open-land grazing has driven the development of trunk-specific functions and loss of the long mandible. This conclusion has been achieved with evidence on palaecological reconstruction, the reconstruction of feeding behaviors, and the examination of mandibular and narial region morphology from the detailed analysis during the study.

All of the analyses are explained in detail in the supplementary files. The 3D models and movies in the supplementary files are detailed and understandable and explain the conclusion. The conclusions of the study are well supported by data.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> This study presents careful biochemical experiments to understand the relationship between LRRK2 GTP hydrolysis parameters and LRRK2 kinase activity. The authors report that incubation of LRRK2 with ATP increases the KM for GTP and decreases the kcat. From this, they suppose an autophosphorylation process is responsible for enzyme inhibition. LRRK2 T1343A showed no change, consistent with it needing to be phosphorylated to explain the changes in G-domain properties. The authors propose that phosphorylation of T1343 inhibits kinase activity and influences monomer-dimer transitions.

Strengths:<br /> The strengths of the work are the very careful biochemical analyses and the interesting result for wild-type LRRK2.

Weaknesses:<br /> A major unexplained weakness is why the mutant T1343A starts out with so much lower activity--it should be the same as wild-type, non-phosphorylated protein. Also, if a monomer-dimer transition is involved, it should be either all or nothing. Other approaches would add confidence to the findings.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This study addresses the catalytic activity of a Ras-like ROC GTPase domain of LRRK2 kinase, a Ser/Thr kinase linked to Parkinson's disease (PD). The enzyme is associated with gain-of-function variants that hyper-phosphorylate substrate Rab GTPases. However, the link between the regulatory ROC domain and activation of the kinase domain is not well understood.

It is within this context that the authors detail the kinetics of the ROC GTPase domain of pathogenic variants of LRRK2, in comparison to the WT enzyme. Their data suggest that LRRK2 kinase activity negatively regulates the ROC GTPase activity and that PD variants of LRRK2 have differential effects on the Km and catalytic efficiency of GTP hydrolysis.

Based on mutagenesis, kinetics, and biophysical experiments, the authors suggest a model in which autophosphorylation shifts the equilibrium toward monomeric LRRK2 (locked GTP state of ROC). The authors further conclude that T1343 is a crucial regulatory site, located in the P-loop of the ROC domain, which is necessary for the negative feedback mechanism. Unfortunately, the data do not support this hypothesis, and further experiments are required to confirm this model for the regulation of LRRK2 activity.

Specific comments are below:

- Although a couple of papers are cited, the rationale for focusing on the T1343 site is not evident to readers. It should be clarified that this locus, and perhaps other similar loci in the wider ROCO family, are likely important for direct interactions with the GTP molecule.

- Similar to the above, readers are kept in the dark about auto-phosphorylation and its effects on the monomer/dimer equilibrium. This is a critical aspect of this manuscript and a major conceptual finding that the authors are making from their data. However, the idea that auto-phosphorylation is (likely) to shift the monomer/dimer equilibrium toward monomer, thereby inactivating the enzyme, is not presented until page 6, AFTER describing much of their kinetics data. This is very confusing to readers, as it is difficult to understand the meaning of the data without a conceptual framework. If the model for the LRRK2 function is that dimerization is necessary for the phosphorylation of substrates, then this idea should be presented early in the introduction, and perhaps also in the abstract. If there are caveats, then they should be discussed before data are presented. A clear literature trail and the current accepted (or consensus) mechanism for LRRK2 activity is necessary to better understand the context for these data.

- Following on the above concepts, I find it interesting that the authors mention monomeric cyotosolic states, and kinase-active oligomers (dimers??), with citations. Again here, it would be useful to be more precise. Are dimers (oligomers?) only formed at the membrane? That would suggest mechanisms involving lipid or membrane-attached protein interactions. Also, what do the authors mean by oligomers? Are there more than dimers found localized to the membrane?

- Fig 5 is a key part of their findings, regarding the auto-phosphorylation induced monomer formation of LRRK2. From these two bar graphs, the authors state unequivocally that the 'monomer/dimer equilibrium is abolished', and therefore, that the underlying mechanism might be increased monomerization (through maintenance of a GTP-locked state). My view is that the authors should temper these conclusions with caveats. One is that there are still plenty of dimers in the auto-phosphorylated WT, and also in the T1343A mutant. Why is that the case? Can the authors explain why only perhaps a 10% shift is sufficient? Secondly, the T1343A mutant appears to have fewer overall dimers to begin with, so it appears to readers that 'abolition' is mainly due to different levels prior to ATP treatment at 30 deg. I feel these various issues need to be clarified in a revised manuscript, with additional supporting data. Finally, on a minor note, I presume that there are no statistically significant differences between the two sets of bar graphs on the right panel. It would be wise to place 'n.s.' above the graphs for readers, and in the figure legend, so readers are not confused.

- Figure 6B, Westerns of phosphorylation, the lanes are not identified and it is unclear what these data mean.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Actin filaments and their kinetics have been the subject of extensive research, with several models for filament length control already existing in the literature. The work by Rosario et al. focuses instead on bundle length dynamics and how their fluctuations can inform us of the underlying kinetics. Surprisingly, the authors show that irrespective of the details, typical "balance point" models for filament kinetics give the wrong scaling of bundle length variance with mean length compared to experiments. Instead, the authors show that if one considers a bundle made of several individual filaments, length control for the bundle naturally emerges even in the absence of such a mechanism at the individual filament level. Furthermore, the authors show that the fluctuations of the bundle length display the same scaling with respect to the average as experimental measurements from different systems. This work constitutes a simple yet nuanced and powerful theoretical result that challenges our current understanding of actin filament kinetics and helps relate accessible experimental measurements such as actin bundle length fluctuations to their underlying kinetics. Finally, I found the manuscript to be very well written, with a particularly clear structure and development which made it very accessible.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> Du et al. report 16 new well-preserved specimens of atiopodan arthropods from the Chengjiang biota, which demonstrate both dorsal and ventral anatomies of a potential new taxon of antipodeans that are closely related to trilobites. Authors assigned their specimens to Acanthomeridion serratum and proposed A. anacanthus as a junior subjective synonym of Acanthomeridion serratum. Critically, the presence of ventral plates (interpreted as cephalic liberigenae), together with phylogenic results, lead authors to conclude that the cephalic sutures originated multiple times within the Artiopoda.

Strengths:<br /> New specimens are highly qualified and informative. The morphology of the dorsal exoskeleton, except for the supposed free cheek, was well illustrated and described in detail, which provides a wealth of information for taxonomic and phylogenic analyses.

Weaknesses:<br /> The weaknesses of this work are obvious in a number of aspects. Technically, ventral morphology is less well revealed and is poorly illustrated. Additional diagrams are necessary to show the trunk appendages and suture lines. Taxonomically, I am not convinced by the authors' placement. The specimens are markedly different from either Acanthomeridion serratum Hou et al. 1989 or A. anacanthus Hou et al. 2017. The ontogenetic description is extremely weak and the morpholical continuity is not established. Geometric and morphometric analyses might be helpful to resolve the taxonomic and ontogenic uncertainties. I am confused by the author's description of the free cheek (libragena) and ventral plate. Are they the same object? How do they connect with other parts of the cephalic shield, e.g. hypostome, and fixgena? Critically, the homology of cephalic slits (eye slits, eye notch, dorsal suture, facial suture) is not extensively discussed either morphologically or functionally. Finally, the authors claimed that phylogenic results support two separate origins rather than a deep origin. However, the results in Figure 4 can explain a deep homology of the cephalic suture at molecular level and multiple co-options within the Atiopoda.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary: Well-illustrated new material is documented for Acanthomeridion, a formerly incompletely known Cambrian arthropod. The formerly known facial sutures are shown to be associated with ventral plates that the authors very reasonably homologise with the free cheeks of trilobites. A slight update of a phylogenetic dataset developed by Du et al, then refined slightly by Chen et al, then by Schmidt et al, and again here, permits another attempt to optimise the number of origins of dorsal ecdysial sutures in trilobites and their relatives.

Strengths: Documentation of an ontogenetic series makes a sound case that the proposed diagnostic characters of a second species of Acanthomeridion are variations within a single species. New microtomographic data shed some light on appendage morphology that was not formerly known. The new data on ventral plates and their association with the ecdysial sutures are valuable in underpinning homologies with trilobites.

Weaknesses: The main conclusion remains clouded in ambiguity because of a poorly resolved Bayesian consensus and is consistent with work led by the lead author in 2019 (thus compromising the novelty of the findings). The Bayesian trees being majority rules consensus trees, optimising characters onto them (Figure 7b, d) is problematic. Optimising on a consensus tree can produce spurious optimisations that inflate tree length or distort other metrics of fit. Line 264 refers to at least three independent origins of cephalic sutures in artiopodans but the fully resolved Figure 7c requires only two origins. We can't say how many origins are required by Figures 7b and 7d.

The question of how many times dorsal ecdysial sutures evolved in Artiopoda was addressed by Hou et al (2017), who first documented the facial sutures of Acanthomeridion and optimised them onto a phylogeny to infer multiple origins, as well as in a paper led by the lead author in Cladistics in 2019. Du et al. (2019) presented a phylogeny based on an earlier version of the current dataset wherein they discussed how many times sutures evolved or were lost based on their presence in Zhiwenia/Protosutura, Acanthomeridion, and Trilobita. To their credit, the authors acknowledge this (lines 62-65). The answer here is slightly different (because some topologies unite Acanthomeridion and trilobites).

The following points are not meant to be "Weaknesses" but rather are refinements:

I recommend changing the title of the paper from "cephalic sutures" to "dorsal ecdysial sutures" to be more precise about the character that is being tracked evolutionarily. Lots of arthropods have cephalic sutures (e.g., the ventral marginal suture of xiphosurans; the Y-shaped dorsomedian ecdysial line in insects). The text might also be updated to change other instances of "cephalic sutures" to a more precise wording.

The authors have provided (but not explicitly identified) support values for nodes in their Bayesian trees but not in their parsimony ones. Please do the jackknife or bootstrap for the parsimony analyses and make it clear that the Bayesian values are posterior probabilities.

In line 65 or somewhere else, it might be noted that a single origin of the dorsal facial sutures in trilobites has itself been called into question. Jell (2003) proposed that separate lineages of Eutrilobita evolved their facial sutures independently from separate sister groups within Olenellina.

I have provided minor typographic or terminological corrections to the authors in a list of recommendations that may not be publicly available.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> The authors use truncations, fragments, and HCN2/4 chimeras to narrow down the interaction and regulatory domains for LRMP inhibition of cAMP-dependent shifts in the voltage dependence of activation of HCN4 channels. They identify the N-terminal domain of HCN4 as a binding domain for LRMP, and highlight two residues in the C-linker as critical for the regulatory effect. Notably, whereas HCN2 is normally insensitive to LRMP, putting the N-terminus and 5 additional C-linker and S5 residues from HCN4 into HCN2 confers LRMP regulation in HCN2.

Strengths:<br /> The work is excellent, the paper well written, and the data convincingly support the conclusions which shed new light on the interaction and mechanism for LRMP regulation of HCN4, as well as identifying critical differences that explain why LRMP does not regulate other isoforms such as HCN2.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> HCN-4 isoform is found primarily in the sino-atrial node where it contributes to the pacemaking activity. LRMP is an accessory subunit that prevents cAMP-dependent potentiation of HCN4 isoform but does not have any effect on HCN2 regulation. In this study, the authors combine electrophysiology, FRET with standard molecular genetics to determine the molecular mechanism of LRMP action on HCN4 activity. Their study shows that parts of N- and C-termini along with specific residues in C-linker and S5 of HCN4 are crucial for mediating LRMP action on these channels. Furthermore, they show that the initial 224 residues of LRMP are sufficient to account for most of the activity. In my view, the highlight of this study is Fig. 7 which recapitulates LRMP modulation on HCN2-HCN4 chimera. Overall, this study is an excellent example of using time-tested methods to probe the molecular mechanisms of regulation of channel function by an accessory subunit.

Weaknesses:<br /> 1. Figure 5A- I am a bit confused with this figure and perhaps it needs better labeling. When it states Citrine, does it mean just free Citrine, and "LRMP 1-230" means LRMP fused to Citrine which is an "LF" construct? Why not simply call it "LF"? If there is no Citrine fused to "LRMP 1-230", this figure would not make sense to me.

2. Related to the above point- Why is there very little FRET between NF and LRMP 1-230? The FRET distance range is 2-8 nm which is quite large. To observe baseline FRET for this construct more explanation is required. Even if one assumes that about 100 amino are completely disordered (not extended) polymers, I think you would still expect significant FRET.

3. Unless I missed this, have all the Cerulean and Citrine constructs been tested for functional activity?

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> Using patch clamp electrophysiology and Förster resonance energy transfer (FRET), Peters and co-workers showed that the disordered N-terminus of both LRMP and HCN4 are necessary for LRMP to interact with HCN4 and inhibit the cAMP-dependent potentiation of channel opening. Strikingly, they identified two HCN4-specific residues, P545 and T547 in the C-linker of HCN4, that are close in proximity to the cAMP transduction centre (elbow Clinker, S4/S5-linker, HCND) and account for the LRMP effect.

Strengths:<br /> Based on these data, the authors propose a mechanism in which LRMP specifically binds to HCN4 via its isotype-specific N-terminal sequence and thus prevents the cAMP transduction mechanism by acting at the interface between the elbow Clinker, the S4S5-linker, the HCND.

Weaknesses:<br /> Although the work is interesting, there are some discrepancies between data that need to be addressed.

1. I suggest inserting in Table 1 and in the text, the Δ shift values (+cAMP; + LRMP; +cAMP/LRMP). This will help readers.

2. Figure 1 is not clear, the distribution of values is anomalously high. For instance, in 1B the distribution of values of V1/2 in the presence of cAMP goes from - 85 to -115. I agree that in the absence of cAMP, HCN4 in HEK293 cells shows some variability in V1/2 values, that nonetheless cannot be so wide (here the variability spans sometimes even 30 mV) and usually disappears with cAMP (here not).

This problem is spread throughout the manuscript, and the measured mean effects are indeed always at the limit of statistical significance. Why so? Is this a problem with the analysis, or with the recordings?

There are several other problems with Figure 1 and in all figures of the manuscript: the Y scale is very narrow while the mean values are marked with large square boxes. Moreover, the exemplary activation curve of Figure 1A is not representative of the mean values reported in Figure 1B, and the values of 1B are different from those reported in Table 1.

On this ground, it is difficult to judge the conclusions and it would also greatly help if exemplary current traces would be also shown.

3. "....HCN4-P545A/T547F was insensitive to LRMP (Figs. 6B and 6C; Table 1), indicating that the unique HCN4 C-linker is necessary for regulation by LRMP. Thus, LRMP appears to regulate HCN4 by altering the interactions between the C-linker, S4-S5 linker, and N-terminus at the cAMP transduction centre."

Although this is an interesting theory, there are no data supporting it. Indeed, P545 and T547 at the tip of the C-linker elbow (fig 6A) are crucial for LRMP effect, but these two residues are not involved in the cAMP transduction centre (interface between HCND, S4S5 linker, and Clinker elbow), at least for the data accumulated till now in the literature. Indeed, the hypothesis that LRMP somehow inhibits the cAMP transduction mechanism of HCN4 given the fact that the two necessary residues P545 and T547 are close to the cAMP transduction centre, remains to be proven.

Moreover, I suggest analysing the putative role of P545 and T547 in light of the available HCN4 structures. In particular, T547 (elbow) points towards the underlying shoulder of the adjacent subunit and, therefore, is in a key position for the cAMP transduction mechanism. The presence of bulky hydrophobic residues (very different nature compared to T) in the equivalent position of HCN1 and HCN2 also favours this hypothesis. In this light, it will be also interesting to see whether a single T547F mutation is sufficient to prevent the LRMP effect.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> As the scientific community identifies increasing numbers of genetic variants that cause rare human diseases, a challenge is how the field can most quickly identify pharmacological interventions to address known deficits. The authors point out that defining phenotypic outcomes required for drug screen assays is often challenging, and emphasize how invertebrate models can be used for quick ID of compounds that may address genetic deficits. A major contribution of this work is to establish a framework for potential intervention drug screening based on quantitative imaging of morphology and mobility behavior, using methods that the authors show can define subtle phenotypes in a high proportion of disease gene knockout mutants.

Overall, the work constitutes an elegant combination of previously developed high-volume imaging with highly detailed quantitative phenotyping (and some paring down to specific phenotypes) to establish proof of principle on how the combined applications can contribute to screens for compounds that may address specific genetic deficits, which can suggest both mechanism and therapy.

In brief, the authors selected 25 genes for which loss of function is implicated in human neuro-muscular disease and engineered deletions in the corresponding C. elegans homologs. The authors then imaged morphological features and behaviors prior to, during, and after blue light stimuli, quantitating features, and clustering outcomes as they elegantly developed previously (PMID 35322206; 30171234; 30201839). In doing so, phenotypes in 23/25 tested mutants could be separated enough to distinguish WT from mutant and half of those with adequate robustness to permit high-throughput screens, an outcome that supports the utility of general efforts to ID phenotypes in C. elegans disease orthologs using this approach. A detailed discussion of 4 ciliopathy gene defects, and NACLN-related channelopathy mutants reveals both expected and novel phenotypes, validating the basic approach to modeling vetted targets and underscoring that quantitative imaging approaches reiterate known biology. The authors then screened a library of nearly 750 FDA-approved drugs for the capacity to shift the unc-80 NACLN channel-disrupted phenotype closer to the wild type. Top "mover" compound move outcome in the experimental outcome space; and also reveal how "side effects" can be evaluated to prioritize compounds that confer the fewest changes of other parameters away from the center.

Strengths:<br /> Although the imaging and data analysis approaches have been reported and the screen is limited in scope and intervention exposure, it is important that the authors strongly combine individual approach elements to demonstrate how quantitative imaging phenotypes can be integrated with C. elegans genetics to accelerate the identification of potential modulators of disease (easily extendable to other goals). Generation of deletion alleles and documentation of their associated phenotypes (available in supplemental data) provide potentially useful reagents/data to the field. The capacity to identify "over-shooting" of compound applications with suggestions for scale back and to sort efficacious interventions to minimize other changes to behavioral and physical profiles is a strong contribution.

Weaknesses:<br /> The work does not have major weaknesses, although it may be possible to expand the discussion to increase utility in the field:

1) Increased discussion of the challenges and limitations of the approach may enhance successful adaptation application in the field.

--It is quite possible that morphological and behavioral phenotypes have nothing to do with disease mechanisms and rather reflect secondary outcomes, such that positive hits will address "off-target" consequences.

--The deletion approach is adequately justified in the text, but the authors may make the point somewhere that screening target outcomes might be enhanced by the inclusion of engineered alleles that match the human disease condition. Their work on sod-1 alleles (PMID 35322206) might be noted in this discussion.

--Drug testing here involved a strikingly brief exposure to a compound, which holds implications for how a given drug might engage in adult animals. The authors might comment more extensively on extended treatments that include earlier life or more extended targeting. The assumption is that administering different exposure periods and durations, but if the authors are aware as to whether there are challenges associated with more prolonged applications, larger scale etc. it would be useful to note them.

2) More justification of the shift to only a few target parameters for judging compound effectiveness.<br /> -In the screen in Figure 4D and text around 313, 3 selected core features of the unc-80 mutant (fraction that blue-light pause, speed, and curvature) were used to avoid the high replicate requirements to identify subtle phenotypes. Although this strategy was successful as reported in Figure 5, the pared-down approach seems a bit at odds with the emphasis on the range of features that can be compared mutant/wt with the author's powerful image analysis. Adding details about the reduced statistical power upon multiple comparisons, with a concrete example calculated, might help interested scientists better assess how to apply this tool in experimental design.

3) More development of the side-effect concept. The side effects analysis is interesting and potentially powerful. Prioritization of an intervention because of minimal perturbation of other phenotypes might be better documented and discussed a bit further; how reliably does the metric of low side effects correlate with drug effectiveness?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary and strengths:

O'Brien et al. present a compelling strategy to both understand rare disease that could have a neuronal focus and discover drugs for repurposing that can affect rare disease phenotypes. Using C. elegans, they optimize the Brown lab worm tracker and Tierpsy analysis platform to look at the movement behaviors of 25 knockout strains. These gene knockouts were chosen based on a process to identify human orthologs that could underlie rare diseases. I found the manuscript interesting and a powerful approach to making genotype-phenotype connections using C. elegans. Given the rate at which rare Mendelian diseases are found and candidate genes suggested, human geneticists need to consider orthologous approaches to understand the disease and seek treatments on a rapid time scale. This approach is one such way. Overall, I have a few minor suggestions and some specific edits.

Weaknesses:<br /> (1) Throughout the text on figures, labels are nearly impossible to read. I had to zoom into the PDF to determine what the figure was showing. Please make text in all figures a minimum of 10-point font. Similarly, the Figure 2D point type is impossible to read. Points should be larger in all figures. Gene names should be in italics in all figures, following C. elegans convention.

(2) I have a strong bias against the second point in Figure 1A. Sequencing of trios, cohorts, or individuals NEVER identifies causal genes in the disease. This technique proposes a candidate gene. Future experiments (oftentimes in model organisms) are required to make those connections to causality. Please edit this figure and parts of the text.

(3) How were the high-confidence orthologs filtered from 767 to 543 (lines 128-131)? Also, the choice of the final list of 25 genes is not well justified. Please expand more about how these choices were made.

(4) Figures 3 and 4, why show all 8289 features? It might be easier to understand and read if only the 256 Tierpsy features were plotted in the heat maps.

(5) The unc-80 mutant screen is clever. In the feature space, it is likely better to focus on the 256 less-redundant Tierpsy features instead of just a number of features. It is unclear to me how many of these features are correlated and not providing more information. In other words, the "worsening" of less-redundant features is far more of a concern than the "worsening" of 1000 correlated features.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this study, O'Brien et al. address the need for scalable and cost-effective approaches to finding lead compounds for the treatment of the growing number of Mendelian diseases. They used state-of-the-art phenotypic screening based on an established high-dimensional phenotypic analysis pipeline in the nematode C. elegans.

First, a panel of 25 C. elegans models was created by generating CRISPR/Cas9 knock-out lines for conserved human disease genes. These mutant strains underwent behavioral analysis using the group's published methodology. Clustering analysis revealed common features for genes likely operating in similar genetic pathways or biological functions. The study also presents results from a more focused examination of ciliopathy disease models.

Subsequently, the study focuses on the NALCN channel gene family, comparing the phenotypes of mutants of nca-1, unc-77, and unc-80. This initial characterization identifies three behavioral parameters that exhibit significant differences from the wild type and could serve as indicators for pharmacological modulation.

As a proof-of-concept, O'Brien et al. present a drug repurposing screen using an FDA-approved compound library, identifying two compounds capable of rescuing the behavioral phenotype in a model with UNC80 deficiency. The relatively short time and low cost associated with creating and phenotyping these strains suggest that high-throughput worm tracking could serve as a scalable approach for drug repurposing, addressing the multitude of Mendelian diseases. Interestingly, by measuring a wide range of behavioural parameters, this strategy also simultaneously reveals deleterious side effects of tested drugs that may confound the analysis.

Considering the wealth of data generated in this study regarding important human disease genes, it is regrettable that the data is not actually made accessible. This diminishes the study's utility. It would have a far greater impact if an accessible and user-friendly online interface were established to facilitate data querying and feature extraction for specific mutants. This would empower researchers to compare their findings with the extensive dataset created here. Otherwise, one is left with a very limited set of exploitable data.

Another technical limitation of the study is the use of single alleles. Large deletion alleles were generated by CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing. At first glance, this seems like a good idea because it limits the risk that background mutations, present in chemically-generated alleles, will affect behavioral parameters. However, these large deletions can also remove non-coding RNAs or other regulatory genetic elements, as found, for example, in introns. Therefore, it would be prudent to validate the behavioral effects by testing additional loss-of-function alleles produced through early stop codons or targeted deletion of key functional domains.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

De Seze et al. investigated the role of guanine exchange factors (GEFs) in controlling cell protrusion and retraction. In order to causally link protein activities to the switch between the opposing cell phenotypes, they employed optogenetic versions of GEFs which can be recruited to the plasma membrane upon light exposure and activate their downstream effectors. Particularly the RhoGEF PRG could elicit both protruding and retracting phenotypes. Interestingly, the phenotype depended on the basal expression level of the optoPRG. By assessing the activity of RhoA and Cdc42, the downstream effectors of PRG, the mechanism of this switch was elucidated: at low PRG levels, RhoA is predominantly activated and leads to cell retraction, whereas at high PRG levels, both RhoA and Cdc42 are activated but PRG also sequesters the active RhoA, therefore Cdc42 dominates and triggers cell protrusion. Finally, they create a minimal model that captures the key dynamics of this protein interaction network and the switch in cell behavior.

The conclusions of this study are strongly supported by data. Perhaps the manuscript could include some further discussion to for example address the low number of cells (3 out of 90) that can be switched between protrusion and retraction by varying the frequency of the light pulses to activate opto-PRG. Also, the authors could further describe their "Cell finder" software solution that allows the identification of positive cells at low cell density, as this approach will be of interest for a wide range of applications.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This manuscript builds from the interesting observation that local recruitment of the DHPH domain of the RhoGEF PRG can induce local retraction, protrusion, or neither. The authors convincingly show that these differential responses are tied to the level of expression of the PRG transgene. This response depends on the Rho-binding activity of the recruited PH domain and is associated with and requires (co?)-activation of Cdc42. This begs the question of why this switch in response occurs. They use a computational model to predict that the timing of protein recruitment can dictate the output of the response in cells expressing intermediate levels and found that, "While the majority of cells showed mixed phenotypes irrespectively of the activation pattern, in few cells (3 out of 90) we were able to alternate the phenotype between retraction and protrusion several times at different places of the cell by changing the frequency while keeping the same total integrated intensity (Figure 6F and Supp Movie)."

Strengths:

The experiments are well-performed and nicely documented. However, the molecular mechanism underlying the shift in response is not clear (or at least clearly described). In addition, it is not clear that a prediction that is observed in ~3% of cells should be interpreted as confirming a model, though the fit to the data in 6B is impressive.

Overall, the main general biological significance of this work is that RhoGEF can have "off target effects". This finding is significant in that an orthologous GEF is widely used in optogenetic experiments in drosophila. It's possible that these findings may likewise involve phenotypes that reflect the (co-)activation of other Rho family GTPases.

Weaknesses:

The manuscript makes a number of untested assumptions and the underlying mechanism for this phenotypic shift is not clearly defined.

This manuscript is missing a direct phenotypic comparison of control cells to complement that of cells expressing RhoGEF2-DHPH at "low levels" (the cells that would respond to optogenetic stimulation by retracting); and cells expressing RhoGEF2-DHPH at "high levels" (the cells that would respond to optogenetic stimulation by protruding). In other words, the authors should examine cell area, the distribution of actin and myosin, etc in all three groups of cells (akin to the time zero data from figures 3 and 5, with a negative control). For example, does the basal expression meaningfully affect the PRG low-expressing cells before activation e.g. ectopic stress fibers? This need not be an optogenetic experiment, the authors could express RhoGEF2DHPH without SspB (as in Fig 4G).

Relatedly, the authors seem to assume ("recruitment of the same DH-PH domain of PRG at the membrane, in the same cell line, which means in the same biochemical environment." supplement) that the only difference between the high and low expressors are the level of expression. Given the chronic overexpression and the fact that the capacity for this phenotypic shift is not recruitment-dependent, this is not necessarily a safe assumption. The expression of this GEF could well induce e.g. gene expression changes.

The third paragraph of the introduction, which begins with the sentence, "Yet, a large body of works on the regulation of GTPases has revealed a much more complex picture with numerous crosstalks and feedbacks allowing the fine spatiotemporal patterning of GTPase activities" is potentially confusing to readers. This paragraph suggests that an individual GTPase may have different functions whereas the evidence in this manuscript demonstrates, instead, that *a particular GEF* can have multiple activities because it can differentially activate two different GTPases depending on expression levels. It does not show that a particular GTPase has two distinct activities. The notion that a particular GEF can impact multiple GTPases is not particularly novel, though it is novel (to my knowledge) that the different activities depend on expression levels.

These descriptions are not precise. What is the nature of the competition between RhoA and Cdc42? Is this competition for activation by the GEFs? Is it a competition between the phenotypic output resulting from the effectors of the GEFs? Is it competition from the optogenetic probe and Rho effectors and the Rho biosensors? In all likelihood, all of these effects are involved, but the authors should more precisely explain the underlying nature of this phenotypic switch. Some of these points are clarified in the supplement, but should also be explicit in the main text.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Sex differences in the liver gene expression and function have previously been proposed to be caused by sex differences in the pattern growth hormone (GH) secretion by the pituitary, which are established by the effects of testicular hormones that act on the hypothalamus perinatally to masculinize control of pituitary GH secretion beginning at puberty and for the rest of the animal's life. The Waxman lab has previously implicated GH control of STAT5 as a critical event leading to a masculine pattern of gene expression. The present study separates male-biased regulatory sites associated with the male-biased genes into different classes based on their responsiveness to the cyclic male pattern of STAT5 activity, and investigates DNAse hypersensitivity sites (DHS) of different classes showing cyclic sex-bias or not. It further reports on the binding of transcription factors to STAT5-sensitive DHS, and involvement of specific histone marks at these sites. The study argues that STAT5 is the proximate factor regulating chromatin accessibility in about 1/3 of male-biased DHS that are sexually differentiated by GH secretion. The authors propose the pulsatile GH secretion as a novel proximate mechanism of regulating chromatin accessibility to cause sex differences.

Strengths:

The study offers new insight into the effects of hypophysectomy and injection of GH on different classes of sex-biased genes in mouse liver. The results support the general conclusion of the authors. Cyclic secretion of other hormones (for example, estrous secretion of estrogens and progesterone) are well known to cause sex differences in multiple organs in rodents, and it will be interesting to assess if these cyclic secretions induce similar changes in chromatin accessibility causing female tissue gene expression to differ from that of males.

Weaknesses:

The authors argue for two major mechanisms controlling sexual bias in liver gene expression, and analyze in depth one of these mechanisms. The focus is on the group of DHS (about 1/3 of all male-biased DHS) in which the sex bias is controlled by cyclic secretion of growth hormone (GH) in males, compared to static and low growth hormone in adult females. The sex difference in pituitary secretion of GH is induced by permanent effects of androgens acting on the hypothalamus perinatally. The manuscript study would be improved by further discussion of the mechanistic relationship between this class of sex-biased DHS and the other 2/3 of liver DHS that also show male-biased accessibility but whose chromatin does not respond directly to GH-stimulated STAT5. Previous studies, including those in the Waxman lab (PMIDs: 26959237, 18974276, 35396276) suggest castration of males or gonadectomy of both sexes eliminates most sex differences in mRNA expression in mouse liver, and/or that androgens such as DHT or testosterone administered in adulthood potentially reverses the effects of gonadectomy and/or masculinizes liver gene expression. It is not clear from the present discussion whether the GH/STAT5 cyclic effects to masculinize chromatin status require the presence of androgens in adulthood to masculinize pituitary GH secretion. Are there analyses of the present (or past) data that might provide evidence about a dual role for GH and androgen acting on the same genes? For example, are sex-biased DHS bound by androgen-dependent factors or show other signs of androgen sensitivity? Are histone marks associated with DHS regulated by androgens? Moreover, it would help if the authors indicate whether they believe that the "constitutive" static sex differences in the larger 2/3 set of male-biased DHS are the result of "constitutive" (but variable) action of testicular androgens in adulthood. Although the present study is nicely focused on the GH pulse-sensitive DHS, is there mechanistic overlap in sex-biasing mechanisms with the larger static class of sex-biased liver DHS?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> The present work addresses the mechanisms linking the sex-dependent temporal GH secretion patterns to the robust sex differences in chromatin accessibility and transcription factor binding that ultimately regulate sexually dimorphic liver gene expression. Using DNAseq analysis genomic sites hypersensitive to cleavage by DNase I, DNase hypersensitive sites [DHS] were studied in hepatocytes from male and female mice. DHS in the genome correspond to accessible chromatin regions and encompass key regulatory elements, including enhancers, promoters, insulators, and silencers, often flanked by specific histone modifications, and all of these players were described in different settings of GH action. Importantly, the dynamics of sex-dependent and independent chromatin accessibility linked to STAT5 binding were evaluated. For that purpose, hepatic samples from mice were divided into STAT high and STAT low binding by EMSA screening. With this information changes in DHS related to STAT binding were calculated in both sexes, giving an approximation of chromatin opening in response to STAT5, or alternatively to hypophsectomy, or a single GH pulse. More the 800 male-biased DHS (from a total of more than 70000 DHS) regions were identified in the STAT5 high groups, implying that the binding of a plasma GH pulse activates STAT5, and evokes a dynamic cycle of male liver chromatin opening and closing at sites that comprised 31% of all male-biased DHS. This proves that the pulsatility of plasma GH stimulation confers significant male bias in chromatin accessibility, and STAT5 binding at a fraction of the genomic sites linked to sex-biased liver gene expression and liver disease. As a proof of concept, authors show that a single physiological replacement dose or pulse of GH given to hypophysectomized mice recapitulate, within 30 min, the pulsatile re-opening of chromatin seen in pituitary-intact male mouse liver.

In another male-biased DHS set (69% of male-biased DHS), chromatin accessibility was static, that is unchanged across the peaks and valleys of GH-induced liver STAT5 activity and mapped to a set of target genes and processes distinct though sometimes overlapping those of the dynamic male-biased DHS.

In view of these distinct dynamic and static DHS in males, authors evaluated key epigenetic features distinguishing the dynamic STAT5-driven mechanism of chromatin opening from that of static male-biased DHS, which are constitutively open in the male liver but closed in the female liver. The analysis of histone marks enriched at each class of sex-biased DHS indicated exquisite differences in the epigenetic mechanisms that mediate sex-specific gene repression in each sex. For example, H3K27me3 and H3K9me3, two widely used repressive histone marks, are used in a unique way in each sex to enforce sex differences in chromatin states at sex-biased DHS.

Finally, the work recapitulates and explains the classifications of sex dimorphic genes made in previous works. Sex-biased and pituitary hormone-dependent DHS act as regulatory elements with a positive enhancer potential, to induce or maintain gene expression in the intact liver by sustaining an open chromatin in the case of class I male-biased DHS and class I male-biased genes in the male liver. Contrariwise DHS may participate in the inhibition of gene expression by maintaining a closed chromatin state, as in the case of class II male-biased DHS and class II female-biased genes in male liver.

These results as a whole present a complex mechanism by which GH regulates the sexual dimorphism of liver genes in order to cope with the metabolic needs of each sex. In a complete story, the information on chromatin accessibility, histone modification, and transcription factor binding was integrated to elucidate the complex patterns of transcriptional regulation, which is sexually dimorphic in the liver.

Strengths:<br /> The work presents a novel insight into the fundamental underlying epigenetic mechanisms of sex-biased gene regulation.<br /> Results are supported by numerous Tables, and Supplementary Tables with the raw data, which present the advantage that they may be reanalyzed in the future to prove new hypotheses.

Weaknesses<br /> It is a complicated work to analyze, even though the main messages are clearly conveyed.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Although Trabid missense mutations are identified across a range of neurodevelopmental disorders, its role in neurodevelopment is not understood. Here the authors study two different patient mutations and implicate defects in its deubiquitylating activity and interactions with STRIPAK. Knockin mice for these mutations impaired trafficking of APC to microtubule plus ends, with consequent defects in neuronal growth cone and neurite outgrowth.

The authors focus on R438W and A451V, two missense mutations seen in patients. Recombinant fragments showed R438W is nearly completely DUB-dead whereas A451V showed normal activity but failed to efficiently precipitate STRIPAK. Knockin of these mutations showed a partially penetrant reduced cortical neuronal and glial cell numbers and reduced TH+ neurons and their neuronal processes. Cell culture demonstrated that both DUB and STRIPAK-binding activities of Trabid are required for efficient deubiquitylation of APC in cells, and alter APC transport along neurites. APC-tdTomato fluorescent reporter mice crossed with the Trabid mutants confirmed these results. The results suggest that Trabid's mechanism of action is to suppress APC ubiquitylation to regulate its intracellular trafficking and neurite formation.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this work, Frank, Bergamasco, Mlodzianoski et al study two microcephaly-associated patient variants in TRABID to identify and characterize a previously unrecognized role of this deubiquitylation enzyme during neurodevelopment. The authors generate TRABID p.R438W and p.A451V knock in mice, which exhibit smaller neuronal and glial cell densities as well as motor deficits, phenotypes that are consistent with the congenital defects observed in the patients. Through in vitro and cellular immunoprecipitation assays, the authors demonstrate that the p.R438W variant impairs the K29- and K63-chain cleavage activity of TRABID, while the p.A451V variant reduces binding to the STRIPAK complex, a previously identified TRABID interactor with established functions in cytoskeletal organization and neural development. Ubiquitylation assays performed in HEK293T cells further reveal that the hypomorphic patient variants are deficient in deubiquitylating APC, a previously identified substrate of TRABID that has been shown to control the neuronal cortical cytoskeleton during neurite outgrowth. Ex vivo experiments provide evidence that axonal APC trafficking and neurite outgrowth is disturbed in differentiating neural progenitors isolated from mouse embryos carrying Trabid patient alleles. From these experiments the authors propose a model in which TRABID- and STRIPAK-dependent APC deubiquitylation regulates its axonal trafficking to ensure faithful neurite outgrowth and misregulation of this function leads to neurodevelopmental phenotypes in TRABID/ZRANB1 patients.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Because of the role of membrane tension in the process, and that caveloae regulate membrane tension, the authors looked at the formation of TEMs in cells depleted of Caveolin1 and Cavin1 (PTRF): They found a higher propensity to form TEMs, spontaneously (a rare event) and after toxin treatment, in both Caveolin 1 and Cavin 1. They show that in both siRNA-Caveolin1 and siRNA-Cavin1 cells, the cytoplasm is thinner. They show that in siCaveolin1 only, the dynamics of opening are different, with notably much larger TEMs. From the dynamic model of opening, they predict that this should be due to a lower bending rigidity of the membrane. They measure the bending rigidity from Cell-generated Giant liposomes and find that the bending rigidity is reduced by approx. 50%.

Strengths:

They also nicely show that caveolin1 KO mice are more susceptible to death from infections with pathogens that create TEMs.

Overall, the paper is well-conducted and nicely written. There are however a few details that should be addressed.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Morel et al. aims to identify some potential mechano-regulators of transendothelial cell macro-aperture (TEM). Guided by the recognized role of caveolar invaginations in buffering the membrane tension of cells, the authors focused on caveolin-1 and associated regulator PTRF. They report a comprehensive in vitro work based on siRNA knockdown and optical imaging approach complemented with an in vivo work on mice, a biophysical assay allowing measurement of the mechanical properties of membranes, and a theoretical analysis inspired by soft matter physics.

Strengths:

The authors should be complimented for this multi-faceted and rigorous work. The accumulation of pieces of evidence collected from each type of approach makes the conclusion drawn by the authors very convincing, regarding the new role of cavolin-1 as an individual protein instead of the main molecular component of caveolae. On a personal note, I was very impressed by the quality of STORM images (Fig. 2) which are very illuminating and useful, in particular for validating some hypotheses of the theoretical analysis.

Weaknesses:

While this work pins down the key role of caveolin-, its mechanism remains to be further investigated. The hypotheses proposed by the authors in the discussions about the link between caveolin and lipids/cholesterol are very plausible though challenging. Even though we may feel slightly frustrated by the absence of data in this direction, the quality and merit of this paper remain.

- The analogy with dewetting processes drawn to derive the theoretical model is very attractive. However, although part of the model has already been published several times by the same group of authors, the definition of the effective membrane rigidity of a plasma membrane including the underlying actin cortex, was very vague and confusing. Here, for the first time, thanks to the STORM analysis, the authors show that HUVECs intoxicated by ExoC3 exhibit a loose and defective cortex with a significantly increased mesh size. This argues in favor of the validity of Helfrich formalism in this context. Nonetheless, there remains a puzzle. Experimentally, several TEMs are visible within one cell. Theoretically, the authors consider a simultaneous opening of several pores and treat them in an additive manner. However, when one pore opens, the tension relaxes and should prevent the opening of subsequent pores. Yet, experimentally, as seen from the beautiful supplementary videos, several pores open one after the other. This would suggest that the tension is not homogeneous within an intoxicated cell or that equilibration times are long. One possibility is that some undegraded actin pieces of the actin cortex may form a barrier that somehow isolates one TEM from a neighboring one. Could the authors look back at their STORM data and check whether intoxicated cells do not exhibit a bimodal population of mesh sizes and possibly provide a mapping of mesh size at the scale of a cell? In particular, it is quite striking that while bending rigidity of the lipid membrane is expected to set the maximal size of the aperture, most TEMs are well delimited with actin rings before closing. Is it because the surrounding loose actin is pushed back by the rim of the aperture? Could the authors better explain why they do not consider actin as a player in TEM opening?

- Instead of delegating to the discussion the possible link between caveolin and lipids as a mechanism for the enhanced bending rigidity provided by caveolin-1, it could be of interest for the readership to insert the attempted (and failed) experiments in the result section. For instance, did the authors try treatment with methyl-beta-cyclodextrin that extracts cholesterol (and disrupts caveolar and clathrin pits) but supposedly keeps the majority of the pool of individual caveolins at the membrane?

- Tether pulling experiments on Plasma membrane spheres (PMS) are real tours de force and the results are quite convincing: a clear difference in bending rigidity is observed in controlled and caveolin knock-out PMS. However, one recurrent concern in these tether-pulling experiments is to be sure that the membrane pulled in the tether has the same composition as the one in the PMS body. The presence of the highly curved neck may impede or slow down membrane proteins from reaching the tether by convective or diffusive motion. Could the authors propose an experiment to demonstrate that caveolin-1 proteins are not restricted to the body of the PMS and can access to the nanometric tether?

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors develop a memory consolidation theory utilizing the recall quality in the short-term memory system to decide what to consolidate in the long-term memory (LTM). The theory is based on a set of previously proposed models identifying memories and synaptic weights (without neuronal activity) with an addition of the second set of weights responsible for long-term storage. The rigorous analysis and numerical experiments show that under some assumptions, the long-term system achieves a high signal-to-noise ratio, particularly much higher than concurrently learning or localized in the same synapses LTM.

Strengths:

The authors take on an important problem of designing robust memory consolidation that fits the numerous experimental observations and, to a large extent, they succeed. The proposed solution is general and generalized to multiple contexts. The mathematical treatment is solid and convincing.

Weaknesses:

The presented model seems to be tuned for learning repetitive events. However, single-shot learning, for example, under fear conditioning or if a presented stimulus is astonishing, seems to contradict the proposed framework. I would assume that part of the load could be taken by a reply system that could vigorously replay more surprising events, but it seems to still not exactly match the proposed scheme.

For context, I would like to see the comparison/discussion of the wide range of models on synaptic tagging for consolidation by various types of signals. Notably, studies from Wulfram Gerstner's group (e.g., Brea, J., Clayton, N. S., & Gerstner, W. (2023). Computational models of episodic-like memory in food-caching birds. Nature Communications, 14(1); and studies on surprise).

The models that are taken for comparison with the slow but otherwise identical to STM LTM could be incapable per design. Reducing the probability of switching independently of the previous presentation does not make the system "slow"; instead, it should integrate previous signals (and thus slowly remove independent noise).

The usage of terms and streamlining of writing could be improved for better understanding.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In the manuscript "Recall-Gated Consolidation: A Model for Learning and Memory in Neural Systems," the authors suggest a computational mechanism called recall-gated consolidation, which prioritizes the storage of previously experienced synaptic updates in memory. The authors investigate the mechanism with different types of learning problems including supervised learning, reinforcement learning, and unsupervised auto-associative memory. They rigorously analyse the general mechanism and provide valuable insights into its benefits.

Strengths:

The authors establish a general theoretical framework, which they translate into three concrete learning problems. For each, they define an individual mathematical formulation. Finally, they extensively analyse the suggested mechanism in terms of memory recall, consolidation dynamics, and learnable timescales.

The presented model of recall-gated consolidation covers various aspects of synaptic plasticity, memory recall, and the influence of gating functions on memory storage and retrieval. The model's predictions align with observed spaced learning effects.

The authors conduct simulations to validate the recall-gated consolidation model's predictions, and their simulated results align with theoretical predictions. These simulations demonstrate the model's advantages over consolidating any memory and showcase its potential application to various learning tasks.

The suggestion of a novel consolidation mechanism provides a good starting point to investigate memory consolidation in diverse neural systems and may inspire artificial learning algorithms.

Weaknesses:

I appreciate that the authors devoted a specific section to the model's predictions, and point out how the model connects to experimental findings in various model organisms. However, the connection is rather weak and the model needs to make more specific predictions to be distinguishable from other theories of memory consolidation (e.g. those that the authors discuss) and verifiable by experimental data.

While the article extensively discusses the strengths and advantages of the recall-gated consolidation model, it provides a limited discussion of potential limitations or shortcomings of the model, such as the missing feature of generalization, which is part of previous consolidation models. The model is not compared to other consolidation models in terms of performance and how much it increases the signal-to-noise ratio. It is only compared to a simple STM or a parallel LTM, which I understand to be essentially the same as the STM but with a different timescale (so not really an alternative consolidation model). It would be nice to compare the model to an actual or more sophisticated existing consolidation model to allow for a fairer comparison.

The article is lengthy and dense and it could be clearer. Some sections are highly technical and may be challenging to follow. It could benefit from more concise summaries and visual aids to help convey key points.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

In their article "Theory of systems memory consolidation via recall-gated plasticity ", Jack Lindsey and Ashok Litwin-Kumar describe a new model for systems memory consolidation. Their idea is that a short-term memory acts not as a teacher for a long-term memory - as is common in most complementary learning systems - but as a selection module that determines which memories are eligible for long-term storage. The criterion for the consolidation of a given memory is a sufficient strength of recall in the short-term memory.

The authors provide an in-depth analysis of the suggested mechanism. They demonstrate that it allows substantially higher SNRs than previous synaptic consolidation models, provide an extensive mathematical treatment of the suggested mechanism, show that the required recall strength can be computed in a biologically plausible way for three different learning paradigms, and illustrate how the mechanism can explain spaced training effects.

Strengths:

The suggested consolidation mechanism is novel and provides a very interesting alternative to the classical view of complementary learning systems. The analysis is thorough and convincing.

Weaknesses:

The main weakness of the paper is the equation of recall strength with the synaptic changes brought about by the presentation of a stimulus. In most models of learning, synaptic changes are driven by an error signal and hence cease once the task has been learned. The suggested consolidation mechanism would stop at that point, although recall is still fine. The authors should discuss other notions of recall strength that would allow memory consolidation to continue after the initial learning phase. Aside from that, I have only a few technical comments that I'm sure the authors can address with a reasonable amount of work.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The goal of Pawel et al. is to provide a more rigorous and quantitative approach for judging whether or not an initial null finding (conventionally with p >= 0.05) has been replicated by a second similarly null finding. They discuss important objections to relying on the qualitative significant/non-significant dichotomy to make this judgement. They present two complementary methods (one frequentist and the other Bayesian) which provide a superior quantitative framework for assessing the replicability of null findings.

Strengths:

Clear presentation; illuminating examples drawn from the well-known Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology data set; R-code that implements suggested analyses. Using both methods as suggested provides a superior procedure for judging the replicability of null findings.

Weaknesses:

The proposed frequentist and the Bayesian methods both rely on binary assessments of an original finding and its replication. I'm not sure if this is a weakness or is inherent to making binary decisions based on continuous data.

For the frequentist method, a null finding is considered replicated if the original and replication 90% confidence intervals for the effects both fall within the equivalence range. According to this approach, a null finding would be considered replicated if p-values of both equivalences tests (original and replication) were, say, 0.049, whereas would not be considered replicated if, for example, the equivalence test of the original study had a p-value of 0.051 and the replication had a p-value of 0.001. Intuitively, the evidence for replication would seem to be stronger in the second instance. The recommended Bayesian approach similarly relies on a dichotomy (e.g. Bayes factor > 1).

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The study demonstrates how inconclusive replications of studies initially with p > 0.05 can be and employs equivalence tests and Bayesian factor approaches to illustrate this concept. Interestingly, the study reveals that achieving a success rate of 11 out of 15, or 73%, as was accomplished with the non-significance criterion from the RPCB (Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology), requires unrealistic margins of Δ > 2 for equivalence testing.

Strengths:

The study uses reliable and sharable/open data to demonstrate its findings, sharing as well the code for statistical analysis. The study provides sensitivity analysis for different scenarios of equivalence margin and alfa level, as well as for different scenarios of standard deviations for the prior of Bayes factors and different thresholds to consider. All analysis and code of the work is open and can be replicated. As well, the study demonstrates on a case-by-case basis how the different criteria can diverge, regarding one sample of a field of science: preclinical cancer biology. It also explains clearly what Bayes factors and equivalence tests are.

Weaknesses:

It would be interesting to investigate whether using Bayes factors and equivalence tests in addition to p-values results in a clearer scenario when applied to replication data from other fields. As mentioned by the authors, the Reproducibility Project: Experimental Philosophy (RPEP) and the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RPP) have data attempting to replicate some original studies with null results. While the RPCB analysis yielded a similar picture when using both criteria, it is worth exploring whether this holds true for RPP and RPEP. Considerations for further research in this direction are suggested. Even if the original null results were excluded in the calculation of an overall replicability rate based on significance, sensitivity analyses considering them could have been conducted. The present authors can demonstrate replication success using the significance criteria in these two projects with initially p < 0.05 studies, both positive and non-positive.

Other comments:

- Introduction: The study demonstrates how inconclusive replications of studies initially with p > 0.05 can be and employs equivalence tests and Bayesian factor approaches to illustrate this concept. Interestingly, the study reveals that achieving a success rate of 11 out of 15, or 73%, as was accomplished with the non-significance criterion from the RPCB (Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology), requires unrealistic margins of Δ > 2 for equivalence testing.

- Overall picture vs. case-by-case scenario: An interesting finding is that the authors observe that in most cases, there is no substantial evidence for either the absence or the presence of an effect, as evidenced by the equivalence tests. Thus, using both suggested criteria results in a picture similar to the one initially raised by the paper itself. The work done by the authors highlights additional criteria that can be used to further analyze replication success on a case-by-case basis, and I believe that this is where the paper's main contributions lie. Despite not changing the overall picture much, I agree that the p-value criterion by itself does not distinguish between (1) a situation where the original study had low statistical power, resulting in a highly inconclusive non-significant result that does not provide evidence for the absence of an effect and (2) a scenario where the original study was adequately powered, and a non-significant result may indeed provide some evidence for the absence of an effect when analyzed with appropriate methods. Equivalence testing and Bayesian factor approaches are valuable tools in both cases.

Regarding the 0.05 threshold, the choice of the prior distribution for the SMD under the alternative 𝐻1 is debatable, and this also applies to the equivalence margin. Sensitivity analyses, as highlighted by the authors, are helpful in these scenarios.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

The paper points out that non-significance in both the original study and a replication does not ensure that the studies provide evidence for the absence of an effect. Also, it can not be considered a "replication success". The main point of the paper is rather obvious. It may be that both studies are underpowered, in which case their non-significance does not prove anything. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! On the other hand, statistical significance is a confusing concept for many, so some extra clarification is always welcome.

One might wonder if the problem that the paper addresses is really a big issue. The authors point to the "Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology" (RPCB, Errington et al., 2021). They criticize Errington et al. because they "explicitly defined null results in both the original and the replication study as a criterion for replication success." This is true in a literal sense, but it is also a little bit uncharitable. Errington et al. assessed replication success of "null results" with respect to 5 criteria, just one of which was statistical (non-)significance.

It is very hard to decide if a replication was "successful" or not. After all, the original significant result could have been a false positive, and the original null-result a false negative. In light of these difficulties, I found the paper of Errington et al. quite balanced and thoughtful. Replication has been called "the cornerstone of science" but it turns out that it's actually very difficult to define "replication success". I find the paper of Pawel, Heyard, Micheloud, and Held to be a useful addition to the discussion.

Strengths:

This is a clearly written paper that is a useful addition to the important discussion of what constitutes a successful replication.

Weaknesses:

To me, it seems rather obvious that non-significance in both the original study and a replication does not ensure that the studies provide evidence for the absence of an effect. I'm not sure how often this mistake is made.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> The authors report the results of QM/MM simulations and kinetic measurements for the phosphoryl-transfer step in adenylate kinase. The main assertion of the paper is that a wide transition state ensemble is a key concept in enzyme catalysis as a strategy to circumvent entropic barriers. This assertion is based on the observation of a "structurally wide" set of energetically equivalent configurations that lie along the reaction coordinate in QM/MM simulations, together with kinetic measurements that suggest a decrease in the entropy of activation.

Strengths:<br /> The study combines theoretical calculations and supporting experiments.

Weaknesses:<br /> The role(s) of entropy in enzyme catalysis has been discussed extensively in the literature, from the Circe effect proposed by Jencks and many other works. The current paper hypothesizes a "wide" transition state ensemble as a catalytic strategy and key concept in enzyme catalysis. Overall, it is not clear the degree to which this hypothesis is supported by the data. The reasons are as follows:

1. Enzyme catalysis reflects a rate enhancement with respect to a baseline reaction in solution. In order to assert that something is part of a catalytic strategy of an enzyme, it would be necessary to demonstrate from simulations that the activation entropy for the baseline reaction is indeed greater and the transition state ensemble less "wide". Alternatively stated, when indicating there is a "wide transition state ensemble" for the enzyme system - one needs to indicate that is with respect to the non-enzymatic reaction. However, these simulations were not performed and the comparisons were not demonstrated.

2. The observation of a "wide conformational ensemble" is not a quantitative measure of entropy. In order to make a meaningful computational prediction of the entropic contribution to the activation of free energy, one would need to perform free energy simulations over a range of temperatures (for the enzymatic and non-enzymatic systems). Such simulations were not performed, and the entropy of activation was thus not quantified by the computational predictions.

3. The authors indicate that lid-opening, essential for product release, and not P-transfer is the rate-limiting step in the catalytic cycle and Mg2+ accelerates both steps. How is it certain that the kinetic measurements are reporting on the chemical steps of the reaction, and not other factors such as metal ion binding or conformational changes?

4. The authors explore different starting states for the chemical steps of the reaction (e.g., different metal ion binding and protonation states), and conclude that the most reactive enzyme configuration is the one with the more favorable reaction-free energy barrier. However, it is not clear what is the probability of observing the system in these different states as a function of pH and metal ion concentration without performing appropriate pKa and metal ion binding calculations. This was not done, and hence these results seem somewhat inconclusive.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> This study investigated the phosphoryl transfer mechanism of the enzyme adenylate kinase, using SCC-DFTB quantum mechanical/molecular mechanical (QM/MM) simulations, along with kinetic studies exploring the temperature and pH dependence of the enzyme's activity, as well as the effects of various active site mutants. Based on a broad free energy landscape near the transition state, the authors proposed the existence of wide transition states (TS), characterized by the transferring phosphoryl group adopting a meta-phosphate-like geometry with asymmetric bond distances to the nucleophilic and leaving oxygens. In support of this finding, kinetic experiments were conducted with Ca2+ ions (instead of Mg2+) at different temperatures, which revealed a negative entropy of activation. Overall, in its present form, the manuscript has more weaknesses in terms of interpretation of the simulation results than strengths, which need to be addressed by the authors.

There are several major concerns:

First, the authors' claim that the catalytic mechanism of adenylate kinase (Adk) has not been previously studied by QM/MM free energy simulations is somewhat inaccurate. In fact, two different groups have previously investigated the catalytic mechanism of Adk. The first study, cited by the authors themselves, used the string method to determine the minimum free energy profile, but resulted in an unexpected intermediate; note that they obtained a minimum free energy profile, not a minimum energy profile. The second study (Ojedat-May et al., Biochemistry 2021 and Dulko-Smith et al., J Chem Inf Model 2023) overlaps substantially with the present study, but its main conclusions differ from those of the present study. Therefore, a thorough discussion comparing the results of these studies is needed.

Second, the interpretation of the TS ensemble needs deeper scrutiny. In general, the TS is defined as the hypersurface separating the reactant and product states. Consequently, if a correct reaction coordinate is defined, trajectories initiated at the TS should have equal probabilities of reaching either the reactant or product state; if an approximate reaction coordinate, such as the distance difference used in this study, is used, recrossing may be introduced as a correction into the probabilities. Thus, in order to establish the presence of a wide TS region, it is necessary to characterize the TS ensemble through a commitment analysis across the TS region.

The relatively flat free energy surface observed near TS in Figures 1c and 2a, may be attributed to the cleavage and formation of P-O bonds relative to the marginally stable phosphorane intermediate, as described in Zhou et al.'s work (Chem Rev 1998, 98:991). This scenario is clearly different from a wide TS ensemble concept. In addition, given the inherent similarity in reactivity of the two oxygens towards the phosphoryl atom, it is reasonable to expect a single TS as shown in Figure 1 - supplement 9, rather than two TSs with a marginally stable intermediate as shown in Figure 1c. Consequently, it remains uncertain whether the elongated P-O bonds observed near the TS and their asymmetry are realistic or potentially an artifact of the pulling/non-equilibrium MD simulations. Further validation in this regard is required.

Third, there are several inconsistencies in the free energy results and their discussion. First, the data from Kerns et al. (Kerns, NSMB, 2015, 22:124) indicate that the ATP/AMP -> ADP/ADP reaction proceeds at a faster rate than the ADP/ADP -> ATP/AMP reaction, suggesting that the ADP/ADP state has a lower free energy (approximately -1.0 kcal/mol) compared to the ATP/ATP state. This contrasts with Figure 1c, which shows a higher free energy of 6.0 kcal/mol for the ATP/ADP state. This discrepancy needs to be discussed. Furthermore, the barrier for ATP/AMP -> ADP/ADP, calculated to be 20 kcal/mol for the fully charged state, exceeds the corresponding barrier for the monoprotonated state. This cautions against the conclusion that the fully charged state is the reactive state. In addition, the difference in the barrier for the no-Mg2+ system compared to the barriers with Mg2+ is substantially too large (21 kcal/mol from the calculation versus 7 kcal/mol from the experimental values). These inconsistencies raise questions as to their origins, whether they result from the use of the pulling/non-equilibrium MD simulation approach, which may yield unrealistic TS geometries, or from potential issues related to the convergence of the determined free energy values. To address this issue, a comparison of results obtained by umbrella sampling and similar methodologies is necessary.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> By conducting QM/MM free energy simulations, the authors aimed to characterize the mechanism and transition state for the phosphoryl transfer in adenylate kinase. The qualitative reliability of the QM/MM results has been supported by several interesting experimental kinetic studies. However, the interpretation of the QM/MM results is not well supported by the current calculations.

Strengths:<br /> The QM/MM free energy simulations have been carefully conducted. The accuracy of the semi-empirical QM/MM results was further supported by DFT/MM calculations, as well as qualitatively by several experimental studies.

Weaknesses:<br /> 1. One key issue is the definition of the transition state ensemble. The authors appear to define this by simply considering structures that lie within a given free energy range from the barrier. However, this is not the rigorous definition of transition state ensemble, which should be defined in terms of committor distribution. This is not simply an issue of semantics, since only a rigorous definition allows a fair comparison between different cases - such as the transition state in an enzyme vs in solution, or with and without the metal ion. For a chemical reaction in a complex environment, it is also possible that many other variables (in addition to the breaking and forming P-O bonds) should be considered when one measures the diversity in the conformational ensemble.

2. While the experimental observation that the activation entropy differs significantly with and without the Ca2+ ion is interesting, it is difficult to connect this result with the "wide" transition state ensemble observed in the QM/MM simulations so far. Even without considering the definition of the transition state ensemble mentioned above, it is unlikely that a broader range of P-O distances would explain the substantial difference in the activation entropy measured in the experiment. Since the difference is sufficiently large, it should be possible to compute the value by repeating the free energy simulations at different temperatures, which would lead to a much more direct evaluation of the QM/MM model/result and the interpretation.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> Using a state-of-the-art image analysis pipeline the authors report that muscle cell hypertrophy in mice and humans occurs primarily through an increase in the number of myofibrils (myofibrillogenesis) and not myofibril hypertrophy.

Strengths:<br /> A strength of the study is the development and validation of an automated image analysis pipeline to quantify myofibril size and abundance in mouse and human muscle cells. In addition to the pipeline, which requires relatively readily available microscopy equipment (an additional strength) is the development of a methodology to optimally prepare muscle samples for high-resolution imaging.

Weaknesses:<br /> A weakness of the study was that only one time-point was assessed during hypertrophy. As mentioned by the authors, this precluded an assessment of the myofibril splitting mechanism. The second weakness was the criteria (aspect ratio of <2.5:1) used to identify a myofibril which excluded a significant number of myofibrils from analysis. How might the inclusion of these odd-shaped myofibrils impact the outcome of the study?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> In this work, the authors sought to 1) establish a method for measuring muscle fiber subcellular structure (myofibrils) using common, non-specialized laboratory techniques and equipment, and 2) use this method to provide evidence on whether loading-induced muscle fiber growth was the result of myofibril growth (of existing myofibrils) or myofbrillogenesis (creation of new myofibrils) in mice and humans. The latter is a fundamental question in the muscle field. The authors succeeded in their aims and provided useful methods for the muscle field and detailed insight into muscle fiber hypertrophy; specifically, that loading-induced muscle fiber hypertrophy may be driven mostly by myofibrillogenesis.

Strengths:<br /> 1) The usage of murine and human samples to provide evidence on myofibril hypertrophy vs myofibrillogenesis.<br /> 2) A nice historical perspective on myofibrillogenesis in skeletal muscle.<br /> 3) The description of a useful and tractable IHC imaging method for the muscle biology field supported by extensive validation against electron microscopy.<br /> 4) Fundamental information on how myofiber hypertrophy ensues.

Weaknesses:<br /> 1) The usage of young growing mice (8-10 weeks) versus adult mice (>4 months) in the murine mechanical overload experiments, as well as no consideration for biological sex. The former point is partly curtailed by the adult human data that is provided (male only). Still, the usage of adult mice would be preferable for these experiments given that maturational growth may somehow affect the outcomes. For the latter point, it is not clear whether male or female mice were used.

2) Information on whether myofibrillogenesis is dependent on hypertrophy induced by loading, or just hypertrophy in general. To provide information on this, the authors could use, for instance, inducible Myostatin KO mice (a model where hypertrophy and force production are not always in lockstep) to see whether hypertrophy independent from load induces the same result as muscle loading regarding myofibrillogenesis.

3) Limited information on Type 1 fiber hypertrophy. A "dual overload" model is used for the mouse where the soleus is also overloaded, but presumably, the soleus was too damaged to analyze. Exploring hypertrophy of murine Type 1 fibers using a different model (weight pulling, weighted wheel running, or forced treadmill running) would be a welcome addition.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> Radial muscle growth involves an increase in overall muscle cross-sectional area. For decades this process has been described as the splitting of myofibrils to produce more myofibrils during the growth process. However, a closer look at the original papers shows that the evidence underlying this description was incomplete. In this paper, the authors have developed a novel method using fluorescence microscopy to directly measure myofibril size and number. Using a mouse model of mechanical loading and a human model of resistance exercise they discovered that myofibrillogenesis is playing a key role in the radial growth of muscle fibers.

Strengths:<br /> 1. Well-written and clear description of hypothesis, background, and experiments.<br /> 2. Compelling series of experiments.<br /> 3. Different approaches to test the hypothesis.<br /> 4. Rigorous study design.<br /> 5. Clear interpretation of results.<br /> 6. Novel findings that will be beneficial to the muscle biology field.<br /> 7. Innovative microscopy methods that should be widely available for use in other muscle biology labs.

Weaknesses:<br /> Supplemental Figure 1 is not very clear.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

With the data presented in this manuscript, the authors help complete the set of high-resolution HER2-associated complex heterodimer structures as well as HER4 homodimer structures in the presence of NRG1b and BTC. Purification of HER2-HER4 heterodimers appears to be inherently challenging due to the propensity of HER4 to form homodimers. The authors have used an effective scheme to isolate these HER2-HER4 heterodimers and have employed graphene-oxide grid chemistry to presumably overcome the issues of low sample yield for solving cryo-EM structures of these complexes. The authors conclude HER2-HER4 heterodimers with either ligand are conformationally homogeneous relative to the HER4 homodimers. The HER2-HER4 heterodimers also appear to be better stabilized compared to other published HER2 heterodimers. The ability to model glycans in the context of HER4 homodimers is exciting to see and provides a strong rationale for the stability of these structures. Overall, the work is of great interest and the methods described in this work would benefit a wide variety of structural biology projects.

Major comments-<br /> 1. The HER2-HER4 heterodimer with BTC appears to be the lowest resolution of the reported structures. Although the authors claim the overall structure is similar to the HER2-HER4 heterodimer with NRG1b, it is therefore unclear whether the lower resolution of the BTC is due to challenging data collection conditions, sample preparation, or conformational dynamics not discernible due to the lower resolution. The authors should minimally clarify where they see the possible issues arising for the lower resolution as this is a key aspect of the work.

2. For all maps, authors should display Euler angle plots from their final refinements to assess the degree of preferred orientation. Judging by the sphericity, it appears all the structures, except HER2-HER4-BTC, have well-sampled projection distributions. However, a formal clarification would be useful to the reader.

3. The authors should also include map-model FSCs to ascertain the quality of the map with respect to model building, as this is currently missing in the submission.

Minor comments-<br /> 1. With respect to complex formation, is there a reason why HER2 expression is dramatically lower than HER4?

2. Figures S1e authors should clarify if HER2 substitutions are VR alone or do these include GD substitutions as well. These should be suitably clarified in the main text.

3. The validation reports for all 4 reported structures suggest the user-provided FSC-derived resolutions are different from those calculated by the deposition server. Are the masks deposited significantly different compared to the ones generated within cryoSPARC?

4. For interpretation regarding activation through phosphorylation in Figure 2e, have the authors considered HER4 could homodimerize as well? It appears from the data presented in Figure 4 and S12 that the propensity to form homodimers is greater for HER4 than to heterodimerize with HER2, despite the VR/IQ substitutions. This also appears to be supported by the reasonable amount of signal for pERK in lanes with HER4-IQ alone in the presence of NRG1b. It is recommended that the authors comment on this possibility.

5. In the following line, "NRG1b-induced phosphorylation of HER2, HER4, ERK and AKT was not notably affected by substitution of the HER4 dimerization arm to a GS-arm relative to wild type receptors", it is unclear what the authors mean by wild-type receptors? There is presently no wild-type HER2 and/or HER4 tested in this blot.

6. Considering the asparagine residues can potentially mediate stabilization of HER2-HER4 dimers through glycosylation, the authors should include western blot data for receptor-activation for mutants where glycosylation can be disrupted. This could minimally instruct the reader on how functionally relevant the identified interactions like N576-N358 are.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> This work is an extension of the authors' earlier work published in Sci Adv in 2001, wherein the authors showed that DTD2 deacylates N-ethyl-D-aminoacyl-tRNAs arising from acetaldehyde toxicity. The authors in this study, investigate the role of archaeal/plant DTD2 in the deacylation/detoxification of D-Tyr-tRNATyr modified by multiple other aldehydes and methylglyoxal (produced by plants). Importantly, the authors take their biochemical observations to plants, to show that deletion of DTD2 gene from a model plant (Arabidopsis thaliana) makes them sensitive to the aldehyde supplementation in the media especially in the presence of D-Tyr. These conclusions are further supported by the observation that the model plant shows increased tolerance to the aldehyde stress when DTD2 is overproduced from the CaMV 35S promoter. The authors propose a model for the role of DTD2 in the evolution of land plants. Finally, the authors suggest that the transgenic crops carrying DTD2 may offer a strategy for stress-tolerant crop development. Overall, the authors present a convincing story, and the data are supportive of the central theme of the story.

Strengths:<br /> Data are novel and they provide a new perspective on the role of DTD2, and propose possible use of the DTD2 lines in crop improvement.

Weaknesses:<br /> (a) Data obtained from a single aminoacyl-tRNA (D-Tyr-tRNATyr) have been generalized to imply that what is relevant to this model substrate is true for all other D-aa-tRNAs (term modified aa-tRNAs has been used synonymously with the modified Tyr-tRNATyr). This is not a risk-free extrapolation. For example, the authors see that DTD2 removes modified D-Tyr from tRNATyr in a chain-length dependent manner of the modifier. Why do the authors believe that the length of the amino acid side chain will not matter in the activity of DTD2?<br /> (b) While the use of EFTu supports that the ternary complex formation by the elongation factor can resist modifications of L-Tyr-tRNATyr by the aldehydes or other agents, in the context of the present work on the role of DTD2 in plants, one would want to see the data using eEF1alpha. This is particularly relevant because there are likely to be differences in the way EFTu and eEF1alpha may protect aminoacyl-tRNAs (for example see description in the latter half of the article by Wolfson and Knight 2005, FEBS Letters 579, 3467-3472).

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In bacteria and mammals, metabolically generated aldehydes become toxic at high concentrations because they irreversibly modify the free amino group of various essential biological macromolecules. However, these aldehydes can be present in extremely high amounts in archaea and plants without causing major toxic side effects. This fact suggests that archaea and plants have evolved specialized mechanisms to prevent the harmful effects of aldehyde accumulation.

In this study, the authors show that the plant enzyme DTD2, originating from archaea, functions as a D-aminoacyl-tRNA deacylase. This enzyme effectively removes stable D-aminoacyl adducts from tRNAs, enabling these molecules to be recycled for translation. Furthermore, they demonstrate that DTD2 serves as a broad detoxifier for various aldehydes in vivo, extending its function beyond acetaldehyde, as previously believed. Notably, the absence of DTD2 makes plants more susceptible to reactive aldehydes, while its overexpression offers protection against them. These findings underscore the physiological significance of this enzyme.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors aimed to investigate if 2-hydroxybutyrate (2HB), a metabolite induced by exercise, influences physiological changes, particularly metabolic alterations post-exercise training. They treated young mice and cultured myoblasts with 2HB, conducted exercise tests, metabolomic profiling, gene expression analysis, and knockdown experiments to understand 2HB's mechanisms. Their findings indicate that 2HB enhances exercise tolerance, boosts branch chain amino acid (BCAA) enzyme gene expression in skeletal muscles, and increases oxidative capacity. They also highlight the role of SIRT4 in these effects. This study establishes 2HB, once considered a waste product, as a regulator of exercise-induced metabolic processes. The study's strength lies in its consistent results across in vitro, in vivo, and ex vivo analyses. The authors propose a mechanism in which 2HB inhibits BCAA breakdown, raises NAD+/NADH ratio, activates SIRT4, increases ADP ribosylation, and controls gene expression.

However, some questions remain unclear based on these findings:

This study focused on the effects of short-term exercise (1 or 5 bouts of treadmill running) and short-term 2HB treatment (1 or 4 days of treatment). Adaptations to exercise training typically occur progressively over an extended period. It's important to investigate the effects of long-term 2HB treatment and whether extended combined 2HB treatment and exercise training have independent, synergistic, or antagonistic effects.

Exercise training leads to significant mitochondrial changes, including increased mitochondrial biogenesis in skeletal muscle. It would be valuable to compare the impact of 2HB treatment on mitochondrial content and oxidative capacity in treated mice to that in exercised mice.

The authors demonstrate that 2-ketobutyrate (2KB) can serve as an oxidative fuel, suggesting a role for the intact BCAA catabolic pathway. However, it's puzzling that the knockout of BCKDHA, a subunit crucial for the second step of BCAA catabolism, did not result in changes in oxidative capacity in cultured myoblasts.

Nevertheless, this innovative model of metabolic signaling during exercise will serve as a valuable reference for informing future.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> The manuscript entitled "A 2-HB-mediated feedback loop regulates muscular fatigue" by the Johnson group reports interesting findings with implications for the health benefits of exercise. The authors use a combination of metabolic/biochemical in vivo and in vitro assays to delineate a metabolic route triggered by 2-HB (a relatively stable metabolite induced by exercise in humans and mice) that controls branched-chain amino transferase enzymes and mitochondrial oxidative capacity. Mechanistically, the author shows that 2-HB is a direct inhibitor of BCAT enzymes that in turn control levels of SIRT4 activity and ADp-ribosylation in the nucleus targeting C/EBP transcription factor, affecting BCAA oxidation genes (see Fig 4i in the paper). Overall, these are interesting and novel observations and findings with relevance to human exercise, with the potential implication of using these metabolites to mimic exercise benefits, or conditions or muscular fatigue that occurs in different human chronic diseases including rheumatic diseases or long COVID.

Weaknesses:<br /> There are several experiments/comments that will strengthen the manuscript-

1- A final model in Figure 6 integrating the exercise/mechanistic findings, expanding on Fig 4i) will clarify the findings.

2- In some of the graphs, statistics are missing (e.g Fig 6G).

3- The conclusions on SIRT4 dependency should be carefully written, as it is likely that this is only one potential mechanism, further validation with mouse models would be necessary.

4- One of the needed experiments to support the oxidative capacity effects that could be done in cultured cells, is the use of radiosotope metabolites including BCCAs to determine the ability to produce CO2. Alternatively or in combination metabolite flux using isotopes would be useful to strengthen the current results.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> The OSCA/TMEM63 channels have recently been identified as mechanosensitive channels. In a previous study, the authors found that OSCA subtypes (1, 2, and 3) respond differently to stretch and poke stimuli. For example, OSCA1.2 is activated by both poke and stretch, while OSCA3.1, responds strongly to stretch but poorly to poke stimuli. In this study, the authors use cryo-EM, mutagenesis, and electrophysiology to dissect the mechanistic determinants that underlie the channels' ability to respond to poke and stretch stimuli.

The starting hypothesis of the study is that the mechanical activation of OSCA channels relies on the interactions between the protein and the lipid bilayer and that the differential responses to poke and stretch might stem from variations in the lipid-interacting regions of OSCA proteins. The authors specifically identify the amphipathic helix (AH), the fenestration, and the Beam Like Domain (BLD) as elements that might play a role in mechanosensing.

The strength of this paper lies in the technically sound data - the structural work and electrophysiology are both very well done. For example, the authors produce a high-resolution OSCA3.1 structure which will be a useful tool for many future studies. Also, the study identifies several interesting mutants that seemingly uncouple the OSCA1.2 poke and stretch responses. These might be valuable in future studies of OSCA mechanosensation.

However, the experimental approach employed by the authors to dissect the molecular mechanisms of poke and stretch falls short of enabling meaningful mechanistic conclusions. For example, we are left with several unanswered questions surrounding the role of AH and the fenestration lipids in mechanosensation: Is the AH really important for the poke response if mutating residues conserved between OSCA1.2 and OSCA3.1 disrupts the OSCA1.2 ability to respond to poke but mutating the OSCA1.2 AH to resemble that of OSCA3.1 results in no change to its "pokability"? Similar questions arise in response to the study of the fenestration-lining residues.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> Jojoa-Cruz et al. determined a high-resolution cryo-EM structure in the Arabidopsis thaliana (At) OSCA3.1 channel. Based on a structural comparison between OSCA3.1 and OSCA1.2 and the difference between these two paralogs in their mechanosensitivity to poking and membrane stretch, the authors performed structural-guided mutagenesis and tested the roles of three structural domains, including an amphipathic helix, a beam-like domain, and a lipid fenestration site at the pore domain, for mechanosensation of OSCA channels.

Strengths:<br /> The authors successfully determined a structure of the AtOSCA3.1 channel reconstituted in lipid nanodiscs by cryo-EM to a high resolution of 2.6 Å. The high-resolution EM map enabled the authors to observe putative lipid EM densities at various sites where lipid molecules are associated with the channel. Overall, the structural data provides the information for comparison with other OSCA paralogs.

In addition, the authors identified OSCA1.2 mutants that exhibit differential responses to mechanical stimulation by poking and membrane stretch (i.e., impaired response to poke assay but intact response to membrane stretch). This interesting behavior will be useful for further study on differentiating the mechanisms of OSCA activation by distinct mechanical stimuli.

Major weakness:<br /> 1. The major weaknesses of this study are the mutagenesis design and the functional characterization of the three structural domains - an amphipathic helix (AH), a beam-like domain (BLD), and the fenestration site at the pore, in OSCA mechanosensation.

1) First of all, it is confusing to the reviewer, whether the authors set out to test these structural domains as a direct sensor(s) of mechanical stimuli or as a coupling domain(s) for downstream channel opening and closing (gating). The data interpretations are vague in this regard as the authors tend to interpret the effects of mutations on the channel 'sensitivity' to different mechanical stimuli (poking or membrane stretch). The authors ought to dissect the molecular bases of sensing mechanical force and opening/closing (gating) the channel pore domain for the structural elements that they want to study.

Furthermore, the authors relied on the functional discrepancies between OSCA1.2 (sensitive to both membrane poking and stretch) and OSCA3.1 (little or weak sensitivity to poking but sensitive to membrane stretch). But the experimental data presented in the study are not clear to address the mechanisms of channel activation by poking vs. by stretch, and why the channels behave differently.

2) The reviewer questions if the "apparent threshold" of poke-induced membrane displacement and the threshold of membrane stretch are good measures of the change in the channel sensitivity to the different mechanical stimuli.

3) Overall, the mutagenesis design in the various structural domains lacks logical coherence and the interpretation of the functional data is not sufficient to support the authors' hypothesis. Essentially the authors mutated several residues on the hotspot domains, observed some effects on the channel response to poking and membrane stretch, then interpreted the mutated residues/regions are critical for OSCA mechanosensation. Examples are as follows.

In the section "Mutation of key residues in the amphipathic helix", the authors mutated W75 and L80, which are located on the N- and C-terminal of the AH in OSCA1.2, and mutated Pro in the OSCA1.2 AH to Arg at the equivalent position in OSCA3.1 AH. W75 and L80 are conserved between OSCA 1.2 and OSCA3.1. Mutations of W75 and/or L80 impaired OSCA1.2 activation by poking, but not by membrane stretch. In comparison, the wildtype OSCA3.1 which contains W and L at the equivalent position of its AH exhibits little or weak response to poking. The loss of response to poking in the OSCA1.2 W/L mutants does not indicate their roles in poking-induced activation.

Besides, the P2R mutation on OSCA1.2 AH showed no effect on the channel activation by poking, suggesting Arg in OSCA3.1 AH is not responsible for its weak response to poking. Together the mutagenesis of W75, L80, and P2R on OSCA1.2 AH does not support the hypothesis of the role of AH involved in OSCA mechanosensation.

In the section "Replacing the OSCA3.1 BLD in OSCA1.2", the authors replaced the BLD in OSCA 1.2 with that from OSCA3.1, and only observed slightly stronger displacement by poking stimuli. The authors still suggest that BLD "appears to play a role" in the channel sensitivity to poke despite the evidence not being strong.

OSCA1.2 has four Lys residues in TM4 and TM6b at the pore fenestration site, which were shown to interact with the lipid phosphate head group, whereas two of the equivalent residues in OSCA3.1 are Ile. In the section "Substitution of potential lipid-interacting lysine residues", the authors made K435I/K536I double mutant for OSCA1.2 to mimic OSCA3.1 and observed poor response to poking but an intact response to stretch. Did the authors mutate the Ile residues in OSCA3.1 to Lys, and did the mutation confer channel sensitivity to poking stimuli resembling OSCA1.2? The reviewer thinks it is necessary to perform such an experiment, to thoroughly suggest the importance of the four Lys residues in lipid interaction for channel mechanoactivation.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> Jojoa-Cruz et al provide a new structure of At-OSCA3.1. The structure of OSCA 3.1 is similar to previous OSCA cryo-em structures of both OSCA3.1 and other homologues validating the new structure. Using the novel structure of OSCA3.1 as a guide they created several point mutations to investigate two different mechanosensitive modalities: poking and stretching. To investigate the ability of OSCA channels to gate in response to poking they created point mutations in OSCA1.2 to reduce sensitivity to poking based on the differences between the OSCA1.2 and 3.1 structures. Their results suggest that two separate regions are responsible for gating in response to poking and stretching.

Strengths:<br /> Through a detailed structure-based analysis, the authors identified structural differences between OSCA3.1 and OSCA1.2. These subtle structural changes identify regions in the amphipathic helix and near the pore that are essential for the gating of OSCA1.2 in response to poking and stretching. The use of point mutations to understand how these regions are involved in mechanosensation clearly shows the role of these residues in mechanosensation.

Weaknesses:<br /> In general, the point mutations selected all show significant alterations to the inherent mechanosensitive regions. This often suggests that any mutation would disrupt the function of the region, additional mutations that are similar in function to the WT channel would support the claims in the manuscript. Mutations in the amphipathic helix at W75 and L80 show reduced gating in response to poking stimuli. The gating observed occurs at poking depths similar to cellular rupture, the similarity in depths suggests that these mutations could be a complete loss of function. For example, a mutation to L80I or L80Q would show that the addition of the negative charge is responsible for this disruption not just a change in the steric space of the residue in an essential region.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This manuscript by Tan et al is using cryo-electron tomography to investigate the structure of yeast nucleosomes both ex vivo (nuclear lysates) and in situ (lamellae and cryosections). The sheer number of experiments and results are astounding and comparable with an entire PhD thesis. However, as is always the case, it is hard to prove that something is not there. In this case, canonical nucleosomes. In their path to find the nucleosomes, the authors also stumble over new insights into nucleosome arrangement that indicates that the positions of the histones is more flexible than previously believed.

Major strengths and weaknesses:

Personally, I am not ready to agree with their conclusion that heterogenous non-canonical nucleosomes predominate in yeast cells, but this reviewer is not an expert in the field of nucleosomes and can't judge how well these results fit into previous results in the field. As a technological expert though, I think the authors have done everything possible to test that hypothesis with today's available methods. One can debate whether it is necessary to have 35 supplementary figures, but after working through them all, I see that the nature of the argument needs all that support, precisely because it is so hard to show what is not there. The massive amount of work that has gone into this manuscript and the state-of-the art nature of the technology should be warmly commended. I also think the authors have done a really great job with including all their results to the benefit of the scientific community. Yet, I am left with some questions and comments:

Could the nucleosomes change into other shapes that were predetermined in situ? Could the authors expand on if there was a structure or two that was more common than the others of the classes they found? Or would this not have been found because of the template matching and later reference particle used?

Could it simply be that the yeast nucleoplasm is differently structured than that of HeLa cells and it was harder to find nucleosomes by template matching in these cells? The authors argue against crowding in the discussion, but maybe it is just a nucleoplasm texture that side-tracks the programs?

The title of the paper is not well reflected in the main figures. The title of Figure 2 says "Canonical nucleosomes are rare in wild-type cells", but that is not shown/quantified in that figure. Rare is comparison to what? I suggest adding a comparative view from the HeLa cells, like the text does in lines 195-199. A measure of nucleosomes detected per volume nucleoplasm would also facilitate a comparison.

If the cell contains mostly non-canonical nucleosomes, are they really non-canonical? Maybe a change of language is required once this is somewhat sure (say, after line 303).

The authors could explain more why they sometimes use conventional the 2D followed by 3D classification approach and sometimes "direct 3-D classification". Why, for example, do they do 2D followed by 3D in Figure S5A? This Figure could be considered a regular figure since it shows the main message of the paper.

Figure 1: Why is there a gap in the middle of the nucleosome in panel B? The authors write that this is a higher resolution structure (18Å), but in the even higher resolution crystallography structure (3Å resolution), there is no gap in the middle.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Nucleosome structures inside cells remain unclear. Tan et al. tackled this problem using cryo-ET and 3-D classification analysis of yeast cells. The authors found that the fraction of canonical nucleosomes in the cell could be less than 10% of total nucleosomes. The finding is consistent with the unstable property of yeast nucleosomes and the high proportion of the actively transcribed yeast genome. The authors made an important point in understanding chromatin structure in situ. Overall, the paper is well-written and informative to the chromatin/chromosome field.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Several labs in the 1970s published fundamental work revealing that almost all eukaryotes organize their DNA into repeating units called nucleosomes, which form the chromatin fiber. Decades of elegant biochemical and structural work indicated a primarily octameric organization of the nucleosome with 2 copies of each histone H2A, H2B, H3 and H4, wrapping 147bp of DNA in a left handed toroid, to which linker histone would bind.

This was true for most species studied (except, yeast lack linker histone) and was recapitulated in stunning detail by in vitro reconstitutions by salt dialysis or chaperone-mediated assembly of nucleosomes. Thus, these landmark studies set the stage for an exploding number of papers on the topic of chromatin in the past 45 years.

An emerging counterpoint to the prevailing idea of static particles is that nucleosomes are much more dynamic and can undergo spontaneous transformation. Such dynamics could arise from intrinsic instability due to DNA structural deformation, specific histone variants or their mutations, post-translational histone modifications which weaken the main contacts, protein partners, and predominantly, from active processes like ATP-dependent chromatin remodeling, transcription, repair and replication.

This paper is important because it tests this idea whole-scale, applying novel cryo-EM tomography tools to examine the state of chromatin in yeast lysates or cryo-sections. The experimental work is meticulously performed, with vast amount of data collected. The main findings are interpreted by the authors to suggest that majority of yeast nucleosomes lack a stable octameric conformation. The findings are not surprising in that alternative conformations of nucleosomes might exist in vivo, but rather in the sheer scale of such particles reported, relative to the traditional form expected from decades of biochemical, biophysical and structural data. Thus, it is likely that this work will be perceived as controversial. Nonetheless, we believe these kinds of tools represent an important advance for in situ analysis of chromatin. We also think the field should have the opportunity to carefully evaluate the data and assess whether the claims are supported, or consider what additional experiments could be done to further test the conceptual claims made. It is our hope that such work will spark thought-provoking debate in a collegial fashion, and lead to the development of exciting new tools which can interrogate native chromatin shape in vivo. Most importantly, it will be critical to assess biological implications associated with more dynamic - or static forms- of nucleosomes, the associated chromatin fiber, and its three-dimensional organization, for nuclear or mitotic function.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This manuscript by Tan et al is using cryo-electron tomography to investigate the structure of yeast nucleosomes both ex vivo (nuclear lysates) and in situ (lamellae and cryosections). The sheer number of experiments and results are astounding and comparable with an entire PhD thesis. However, as is always the case, it is hard to prove that something is not there. In this case, canonical nucleosomes. In their path to find the nucleosomes, the authors also stumble over new insights into nucleosome arrangement that indicates that the positions of the histones is more flexible than previously believed.

Major strengths and weaknesses:

Personally, I am not ready to agree with their conclusion that heterogenous non-canonical nucleosomes predominate in yeast cells, but this reviewer is not an expert in the field of nucleosomes and can't judge how well these results fit into previous results in the field. As a technological expert though, I think the authors have done everything possible to test that hypothesis with today's available methods. One can debate whether it is necessary to have 35 supplementary figures, but after working through them all, I see that the nature of the argument needs all that support, precisely because it is so hard to show what is not there. The massive amount of work that has gone into this manuscript and the state-of-the art nature of the technology should be warmly commended. I also think the authors have done a really great job with including all their results to the benefit of the scientific community. Yet, I am left with some questions and comments:

Could the nucleosomes change into other shapes that were predetermined in situ? Could the authors expand on if there was a structure or two that was more common than the others of the classes they found? Or would this not have been found because of the template matching and later reference particle used?

Could it simply be that the yeast nucleoplasm is differently structured than that of HeLa cells and it was harder to find nucleosomes by template matching in these cells? The authors argue against crowding in the discussion, but maybe it is just a nucleoplasm texture that side-tracks the programs?

The title of the paper is not well reflected in the main figures. The title of Figure 2 says "Canonical nucleosomes are rare in wild-type cells", but that is not shown/quantified in that figure. Rare is comparison to what? I suggest adding a comparative view from the HeLa cells, like the text does in lines 195-199. A measure of nucleosomes detected per volume nucleoplasm would also facilitate a comparison.

If the cell contains mostly non-canonical nucleosomes, are they really non-canonical? Maybe a change of language is required once this is somewhat sure (say, after line 303).

The authors could explain more why they sometimes use conventional the 2D followed by 3D classification approach and sometimes "direct 3-D classification". Why, for example, do they do 2D followed by 3D in Figure S5A? This Figure could be considered a regular figure since it shows the main message of the paper.

Figure 1: Why is there a gap in the middle of the nucleosome in panel B? The authors write that this is a higher resolution structure (18Å), but in the even higher resolution crystallography structure (3Å resolution), there is no gap in the middle.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Nucleosome structures inside cells remain unclear. Tan et al. tackled this problem using cryo-ET and 3-D classification analysis of yeast cells. The authors found that the fraction of canonical nucleosomes in the cell could be less than 10% of total nucleosomes. The finding is consistent with the unstable property of yeast nucleosomes and the high proportion of the actively transcribed yeast genome. The authors made an important point in understanding chromatin structure in situ. Overall, the paper is well-written and informative to the chromatin/chromosome field.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Several labs in the 1970s published fundamental work revealing that almost all eukaryotes organize their DNA into repeating units called nucleosomes, which form the chromatin fiber. Decades of elegant biochemical and structural work indicated a primarily octameric organization of the nucleosome with 2 copies of each histone H2A, H2B, H3 and H4, wrapping 147bp of DNA in a left handed toroid, to which linker histone would bind.

This was true for most species studied (except, yeast lack linker histone) and was recapitulated in stunning detail by in vitro reconstitutions by salt dialysis or chaperone-mediated assembly of nucleosomes. Thus, these landmark studies set the stage for an exploding number of papers on the topic of chromatin in the past 45 years.

An emerging counterpoint to the prevailing idea of static particles is that nucleosomes are much more dynamic and can undergo spontaneous transformation. Such dynamics could arise from intrinsic instability due to DNA structural deformation, specific histone variants or their mutations, post-translational histone modifications which weaken the main contacts, protein partners, and predominantly, from active processes like ATP-dependent chromatin remodeling, transcription, repair and replication.

This paper is important because it tests this idea whole-scale, applying novel cryo-EM tomography tools to examine the state of chromatin in yeast lysates or cryo-sections. The experimental work is meticulously performed, with vast amount of data collected. The main findings are interpreted by the authors to suggest that majority of yeast nucleosomes lack a stable octameric conformation. The findings are not surprising in that alternative conformations of nucleosomes might exist in vivo, but rather in the sheer scale of such particles reported, relative to the traditional form expected from decades of biochemical, biophysical and structural data. Thus, it is likely that this work will be perceived as controversial. Nonetheless, we believe these kinds of tools represent an important advance for in situ analysis of chromatin. We also think the field should have the opportunity to carefully evaluate the data and assess whether the claims are supported, or consider what additional experiments could be done to further test the conceptual claims made. It is our hope that such work will spark thought-provoking debate in a collegial fashion, and lead to the development of exciting new tools which can interrogate native chromatin shape in vivo. Most importantly, it will be critical to assess biological implications associated with more dynamic - or static forms- of nucleosomes, the associated chromatin fiber, and its three-dimensional organization, for nuclear or mitotic function.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The goal of this study was to determine whether short (1 month) internships for biomedical science trainees (mostly graduate students but some post-docs) were beneficial for the trainees, their mentors, and internship hosts. Over a 5 year period, the outcomes of trainees who completed internships were compared with peers who did not. Both quantitative results in terms of survey responses and qualitative results obtained from discussion groups were provided. Overall, the data suggest that internships aid graduate students in multiple ways and do not harm progress on dissertation projects. 'Buy-in' from mentors and prospective mentors appeared to increase over time, and hosts also gained from the contributions of the interns even in a short time period. While the program also appeared valuable for post-doctoral trainees, it was less favorably considered by post-doc mentors.

Strengths:

The internship program that was examined here appears to have been very well designed in terms of availability to students, range of internship offerings, length of time away from PhD lab, and assessments.<br /> Having a built-in peer control group of graduate students who did not do internships was valuable for much of the quantitative analyses. However, as the authors acknowledge, those who did opt for internships are a self-selected group who may have character traits that would help them overcome the potential negative impacts of the internship.<br /> The quantitative data is convincing and addresses important considerations for all stakeholders.<br /> The manuscript is well-constructed to individually address the impact of the program on each set of stakeholders, while also showcasing areas of mutual benefit.<br /> The discussion of challenges and limitations, from the perspectives of participating stakeholders, program leaders, and also institutions, is comprehensive and very thoughtful.

Weaknesses:

The qualitative data that resulted from the 'focus groups' of faculty mentors was somewhat difficult to evaluate given the very limited number of participants (n=7).

Overall, the data support the authors' conclusions with respect to the utility of internship programs for all stakeholders. As the authors note, the data relate to a specific program where internship length was defined, costs were covered by a grant or institutional funding, and there were multiple off-site internship hosts available. Thus, the results here may not replicate for other programs with different criteria.

This work provides a valuable assessment of how relatively short internships can impact graduate students, both in terms of their graduate tenure and in their decision-making for careers post-graduation. As more graduate programs are heeding calls from funding agencies and professional societies to increase knowledge about, and familiarity with, multiple career paths beyond academia for PhD students, there is a need to evaluate the best ways to accomplish that goal. Hands-on internships are valuable across many spheres so it makes sense that they would be for life science graduates too. However, the fear that time-to-degree and/or productivity would be negatively impacted is important to acknowledge. By providing clear data that this is not the case, these investigators have increased the likelihood that internships could be considered by more institutions. The one big drawback, and one that the authors discuss at some length, is the funding model that could enable internship programs to be used more widely.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors describe five-year outcomes of an internship program for graduate students and postdoctoral fellows at their institution spurred by pilot funding from an NIH BEST grant. They hypothesized that such a program would be beneficial to interns, internship hosts, and research advisors. The mixed methods study used surveys and focus groups to gather qualitative and quantitative data from the stakeholder groups, and the authors acknowledge the limitation that the study subjects were self-selected and also had research advisors who agreed to allow them to participate. Thus the generally favorable outcomes may not be applicable to students such as those who are struggling in the lab and/or lack career focus or supportive research advisors. Nonetheless, the overall findings support the hypothesis and also suggest additional benefits, including in some cases positive impact for the lab, improved communication between the intern and their research advisor, and an advantage for recruitment of students to the institution. The data refute one of the principal concerns of research advisors: that by taking students out of the lab, internships reduce individual and overall lab productivity. Students who did internships were significantly less likely to pursue postdoctoral fellowships before entering the biomedical workforce and were more likely to have science-related careers versus research careers than control students who did not do internships, although the study design cannot determine whether this was due to selection bias or to the internship.

Strengths:

1. The sample size is good (123 internships).

2. The internship program is well described. Outcomes are clearly defined.

3. Methods and statistical analyses appear to be appropriate (although I am not an expert in mixed methods).

4. "Take-home" lessons for institutions considering implementing internship programs are clearly stated.

Weaknesses:

1. It is possible that interns, hosts, and research advisers with positive experiences were more likely to respond to surveys than those with negative experiences. The response rate and potential bias in responses should be discussed in the Results, not just given in a table legend in Methods.

2. With regard to the biased selection of participants, do the authors know many subjects requested but were not permitted to do internships?

3. While the authors mention internships in professional degree programs in fields such as law and business, some mention of internship practices in non-biomedical STEM PhD programs such as engineering or computer science would be helpful. Is biomedical science rediscovering lessons learned when it comes to internships?

4. Figure 1 k, l - internships did not appear to change career goals, but are the 76% who agreed pre-internship the same individuals as the 75% who agreed post-internship? What percentage gave discordant responses?

Appraisal:

Overall the authors achieve their aims of describing outcomes of an internship program for graduate career development and offering lessons learned for other institutions seeking to create their own internship programs.

Impact:

The paper will be very useful for other institutions to dispel some of the concerns of research advisers about internships for PhD students (although not necessarily for postdoctoral fellows). In the long run, wider adoption of internships as part of PhD training will depend not only on faculty buy-in but also on the availability of resources and changes to the graduate school funding model so that such programs are not viewed as another "unfunded mandate" in graduate education. Perhaps the industry will be motivated to support internships by the positive outcomes for hosts reported in this paper. Additionally, NIH could allow a certain amount of F, T, or even RPG funds to be used to support internships for purposes of career development.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> Huang and colleagues present a method for approximation of linkage disequilibrium (LD) matrices. The problem of computing LD matrices is the problem of computing a correlation matrix. In the cases considered by the authors, the number of rows (n), corresponding to individuals, is small compared to the number of columns (m), corresponding to the number of variants. Computing the correlation matrix has cubic time complexity [O(nm^2)], which is prohibitive for large samples. The authors approach this using three main strategies: 1. they compute a coarsened approximation of the LD matrix by dividing the genome into variant-wise blocks which statistics are effectively averaged over; 2. they use a trick to get the coarsened LD matrix from a coarsened genomic relatedness matrix (GRM), which, with O(n^2 m) time complexity, is faster when n << m; 3. they use the Mailman algorithm to improve the speed of basic linear algebra operations by a factor of log(max(m,n)). The authors apply this approach to several datasets.

Strengths:<br /> - the authors demonstrate that their proposed method performs in line with theoretical explanations<br /> - the coarsened LD matrix is useful for describing global patterns of LD, which do not necessarily require variant-level resolution<br /> - they provide an open-source implementation of their software

Weaknesses:<br /> - the coarsened LD matrix is of limited utility outside of analyzing macroscale LD characteristics<br /> - the method still essentially has cubic complexity--albeit the factors are smaller and Mailman reduces this appreciably. It would be interesting if the authors were able to apply randomized or iterative approaches to achieve more fundamental gains. The algorithm remains slow when n is large and/or the grid resolution is increased.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> In this paper, the authors point out that the standard approach of estimating LD is inefficient for datasets with large numbers of SNPs, with a computational cost of O(nm^2), where n is the number of individuals and m is the number of SNPs. Using the known relationship between the LD matrix and the genomic-relatedness matrix, they can calculate the mean level of LD within the genome or across genomic segments with a computational cost of O(n^2m). Since in most datasets, n<<br /> Strengths:<br /> Generally, for computational papers like this, the proof is in the pudding, and the authors appear to have been successful at their aim of producing an efficient computational tool. The most compelling evidence of this in the paper is Figure 2 and Supplementary Figure S2. In Figure 2, they report how well their X-LD estimates of LD compare to estimates based on the standard approach using PLINK. They appear to have very good agreement. In Figure S2, they report the computational runtime of X-LD vs PLINK, and as expected X-LD is faster than PLINK as long as it is evaluating LD for more than 8000 SNPs.

Weakness:<br /> While the X-LD software appears to work well, I had a hard time following the manuscript enough to make a very good assessment of the work. This is partly because many parameters used are not defined clearly or at all in some cases. My best effort to intuit what the parameters meant often led me to find what appeared to be errors in their derivation. As a result, I am left worrying if the performance of X-LD is due to errors cancelling out in the particular setting they consider, making it potentially prone to errors when taken to different contexts.

Impact:<br /> I feel like there is value in the work that has been done here if there were more clarity in the writing. Currently, LD calculations are a costly step in tools like LD score regression and Bayesian prediction algorithms, so a more efficient way to conduct these calculations would be useful broadly. However, given the difficulty I had following the manuscript, I was not able to assess when the authors' approach would be appropriate for an extension such as that.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The manuscript by Lin, Sosnick et al investigates the functional conformational dynamics of two members of the SLC26 family of anion transporters (Prestin and SLC26A9). A key aspect of the work is that the authors use HDX-MS to convincingly identify that the folding of the unstable anion binding site is related to the fast electromechanical changes that are important for the function of Prestin. In good apparent agreement, such folding-related changes upon anion binding are absent in the related non-piezoelectric SLC26A9 that it does not exhibit similar electro-motile transport. Overall, I find the work very interesting and generally well carried out - and it should be of considerable interest to researchers studying transmembrane transporters or just membrane proteins in general.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, Xiaoxuan Lin and colleagues provide new insights into the dynamics of prestin using H/D exchange coupled with mass spectrometry. The authors aim to reveal how local changes in folding upon anion binding sustain the unique electro-transduction capabilities of prestin.

Prestin is an unusual member of the SLC26 family, that changes its cross-sectional area in the membrane upon binding of a chloride ion. In contrast to SLC26 homologs, prestin is not an anion transporter per se but requires an anion to sense voltage. Binding of Cl- at a conserved binding site located between the end of TM3 and TM10 drives the displacement of a conserved arginine (R399), that causes major conformational changes, transmitting the voltage sensing into a mechanical force exerted on the membrane.

Cryo-EM structures are available for the protein bound to various anions, including Cl-, but these structures do not explain how a conserved couple of positive (R399) and negative (the Cl- anion) charge pair transforms voltage sensitivity into mechanical changes in the membrane. To address this challenge, the authors explore local dynamics of the anion binding site and compare it with that of a "real" anion transporter SLC26A9. The authors make a convincing case that the differences in local dynamics they measure are the molecular basis for voltage sensing and its translation into electromotility.

Practically the authors make a thorough HDX-MS investigation of prestin in the presence of different anions Cl-, SO4-, salicylate as well as in the apo form, and provide insight mostly on local dynamics of the anion binding site. The experiments are well-designed and conducted and their quality and reproducibility allows for quantitative interpretation by deriving ΔΔG values of changes in dynamics at specific sites. Furthermore, the authors show by comparing the apo condition with Cl- bound condition that the absence of Cl- causes fraying of the TM3 and TM10 helices. They deduce that Cl- binding allows for directional helix structuration, leading to local structural changes that cause a rearrangement of the charge configuration at the anion binding site that lays the molecular basis for voltage sensitivity. They demonstrate based on a detailed analysis of their HDX data that such helix fraying is a specific feature of the binding site and differs from the cooperative unfolding happening elsewhere on the prestin.

However, the main question that the authors are addressing is how voltage sensitivity translates at the molecular level in the requirement for a negative-positive charge pair. The interpretation that the binding site instability observed only for prestin is a feature required for this voltage dependent is a bit speculative. Could other lines of evidence support the claim that the charge ion gap is reduced upon Cl- binding and that this leads to cross-section area expansion? An obvious option that comes to mind is MD simulations There are differences in time-scale between HDX and simulations, but the propensity for H-bond destabilization can be quantified even at short timescales. It might be that such data is already available out there but it should be explicit in the discussion. The discussion section itself is a bit narrow in scope at the moment. Discussing the data in the context of the available structures would help the non-specialist reader.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Synopsis:<br /> The lack of visualizing the dynamic nature of biomolecules is a major weakness of crystallography or electron microscopy to study structure-function relationship of proteins. Such a challenge can be exemplified by the case of prestin, which shares high structural similarity to SLC26A9 anion transporter but is not an ion transporter. In this study, Lin et al aimed to use hydrogen-deuterium exchange and mass spectrometry (HDX-MS) to investigate the mobility of prestin and its response to anions. The authors exploited the nature of anion-dependent folding of this type of transporter to systematically analyze the mobility of transmembrane helices of both transporters by HDX. The authors found that the anion-binding helices engage in the stabilization of the anion-binding site. When stripped from Cl-, the site exposes to the transporter's extracellular side. More importantly, the authors narrowed down TM3 and TM10 with experimental data supporting the notion of R399's unique role in prestin's function. The results thus provide a working model of how the charged residue works in conjunction with the cooperativity of helix unfolding at the anion-binding site to drive the electromotive force of prestin.

Strengths:<br /> The use of HDX-MS to probe the dynamic nature of prestin is a major strength of this study, which provides experimental evidence revealing the global and local differences in the folding events between prestin and SLC26A9. The mass experimental data led to the identification of TM3 and TM10 as the primary contributors to the folding changes, as well as a calculation of ΔΔG of ~2.4 kcal/mol, within the thermodynamic range of the dipole between the two helices. The latter also suggests the role of R399 as previously speculated in cryo-EM structures.

This study went further to dissect the cooperativity during the folding and unfolding events on TM3, in which the authors observed a helix fraying at the anion-binding site and cooperative unfolding at the distal lipid-facing helices. This provides strong evidence of why prestin can undergo fast electromechanical rearrangement.

Weakness:<br /> The authors tried to investigate the allostery by probing the intermediate folding/unfolding states by using sulfate or salicylate in the absence of chloride. Sulfate-bound proteins appear in an apo state earlier than normal chloride binding, and salicylate treatment led to a stable TMD state with slower HDX. It is unclear from the data (Fig 4) how the allostery works without titrating chloride ions into the reaction. The sulfate or salicylate experiments seem to show two extreme folding events outside the normal chloride conditions.

TM3 and TM10 contribute to the anion-binding site together, and the authors beautifully showed the cooperativity of TM3. Does TM10 show the same cooperativity in prestin and SLC26A9? In addition, it is unclear whether the folding model at the anion-binding helices (Fig. 5B) remains the same when expressing prestin on live cells, such as thermodynamic data derived from electrophysiology studies.

The authors observed increased stability upon chloride binding at the subunit interface in the cytosol for both prestin and SLC26A9 (Fig 1). How does this similarity in the cytosolic region contribute to the differential mechanisms as seen in the TMD in both transporters? It is unclear in this version of the manuscript.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This is an interesting and somewhat unusual paper supporting the idea that creatine is a neurotransmitter in the central nervous system of vertebrates. The idea is not entirely new, and the authors carefully weigh the evidence, both past and newly acquired, to make their case. The strength of the paper lies in the importance of the potential discovery - as the authors point out, creatine ticks more boxes on criteria of neurotransmitters than some of the ones listed in textbooks - and the list of known transmitters (currently 16) certainly is textbook material. A further strength of the manuscript is the careful consideration of a list of criteria for transmitters and newly acquired evidence for four of these criteria: 1. evidence that creatine is stored in synaptic vesicles, 2. mutants for creatine synthesis and a vesicular transporter show reduced storage and release of creatine, 3. functional measurement that creatine release has an excitatory or inhibitory (here inhibitory) effect in vivo, and 4. ATP-dependence. The key weakness of the paper is that there is no single clear 'smoking gun', like a postsynaptic creatine receptor, that would really demonstrate the function as a transmitter. Instead, the evidence is of a cumulative nature, and not all bits of evidence are equally strong. On balance, I found the path to discovery and the evidence assembled in this manuscript to establish a clear possibility, positive evidence, and to provide a foundation for further work in this direction.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> Bian et al studied creatine (Cr) in the context of central nervous system (CNS) function. They detected Cr in synaptic vesicles purified from mouse brains with anti-Synaptophysin using capillary electrophoresis-mass spectrometry. Cr levels in the synaptic vesicle fraction were reduced in mice lacking the Cr synthetase AGAT, or the Cr transporter SLC6A8. They provide evidence for Cr release within several minutes after treating brain slices with KCl. This KCl-induced Cr release was partially calcium-dependent and was attenuated in slices obtained from AGAT and SLC6A8 mutant mice. Cr application also decreased the excitability of cortical pyramidal cells in one third of the cells tested. Finally, they provide evidence for SLC6A8-dependent Cr uptake into synaptosomes, and ATP-dependent Cr loading into synaptic vesicles. Based on these data, the authors propose that Cr may act as a neurotransmitter in the CNS.

Strengths:<br /> 1. A major strength of the paper is the broad spectrum of tools used to investigate Cr.<br /> 2. The study provides strong evidence that Cr is present in/loaded into synaptic vesicles.

Weaknesses:<br /> (in sequential order)<br /> 1. Are Cr levels indeed reduced in Agat-/-? The decrease in Cr IgG in Agat-/- (and Agat+/-) is similar to the corresponding decrease in Syp (Fig. 3B). What is the explanation for this? Is the decrease in Cr in Agat-/- significant when considering the drop in IgG? The data should be normalized to the respective IgG control.<br /> 2. The data supporting that depolarization-induced Cr release is SLC6A8 dependent is not convincing because the relative increase in KCl-induced Cr release is similar between SLC6A8-/Y and SLC6A8+/Y (Fig. 5D). The data should be also normalized to the respective controls.<br /> 3. The majority (almost 3/4) of depolarization-induced Cr release is Ca2+ independent (Fig. 5G). Furthermore, KCl-induced, Ca2+-independent release persists in SLC6A8-/Y (Fig. 5G). What is the model for Ca2+-independent Cr release? Why is there Ca2+-independent Cr release from SLC6A8 KO neurons?<br /> How does this relate to the prominent decrease in Ca2+-dependent Cr release in SLC6A8-/Y (Fig. 5G)? They show a prominent decrease in Cr control levels in SLC6A8-/Y in Fig. 5D. Were the data shown in Fig. 5D obtained in the presence or absence of Ca2+? Could the decrease in Ca2+-dependent Cr release in SLC6A8-/Y (Fig. 5G) be due to decreased Cr baseline levels in the presence of Ca2+ (Fig. 5D)?<br /> 4. Cr levels are strongly reduced in Agat-/- (Fig. 6B). However, KCl-induced Cr release persists after loss of AGAT (Fig. 6B). These data do not support that Cr release is Agat dependent.<br /> 5. The authors show that Cr application decreases excitability in ~1/3 of the tested neurons (Fig. 7). How were responders and non-responders defined? What justifies this classification? The data for all Cr-treated cells should be pooled. Are there indeed two distributions (responders/non-responders)? Running statistics on pre-selected groups (Fig. 7H-J) is meaningless. Given that the effects could be seen 2-8 minutes after Cr application - at what time points were the data shown in Fig. 7E-J collected? Is the Cr group shown in Fig. 7F significantly different from the control group/wash?<br /> 6. Indirect effects: The phenotypes could be partially caused by indirect effects of perturbing the Cr/PCr/CK system, which is known to play essential roles in ATP regeneration, Ca2+ homeostasis, neurotransmission, intracellular signaling systems, axonal and dendritic transport... Similarly, high GAMT levels were reported for astrocytes (e.g., Schmidt et al. 2004; doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddh112), and changes in astrocytic Cr may underlie the phenotypes. Cr has been also reported to be an osmolyte: a hyperosmotic shock of astrocytes induced an increase in Cr uptake, suggesting that Cr can work as a compensatory osmolyte (Alfieri et al. 2006; doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2006.115006). Potential indirect effects are also consistent with a trend towards decreased KCl-induced GABA (and Glutamate) release in SLC6A8-/Y (Fig. 5C). These indirect effects may in part explain the phenotypes seen after perturbing Agat, SLC6A8, and should be thoroughly discussed.<br /> 7. As stated by the authors, there is some evidence that Cr may act as a co-transmitter for GABAA receptors (although only at high concentrations). Would a GABAA blocker decrease the fraction of cells with decreased excitability after Cr exposure?<br /> 8. The statement "Our results have also satisfied the criteria of Purves et al. 67,68, because the presence of postsynaptic receptors can be inferred by postsynaptic responses." (l.568) is not supported by the data and should be removed.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

SUMMARY:<br /> The manuscript by Bian et al. promotes the idea that creatine is a new neurotransmitter. The authors conduct an impressive combination of mass spectrometry (Fig. 1), genetics (Figs. 2, 3, 6), biochemistry (Figs. 2, 3, 8), immunostaining (Fig. 4), electrophysiology (Figs. 5, 6, 7), and EM (Fig. 8) in order to offer support for the hypothesis that creatine is a CNS neurotransmitter.

STRENGTHS:<br /> There are many strengths to this study.<br /> • The combinatorial approach is a strength. There is no shortage of data in this study.<br /> • The careful consideration of specific criteria that creatine would need to meet in order to be considered a neurotransmitter is a strength.<br /> • The comparison studies that the authors have done in parallel with classical neurotransmitters are helpful.<br /> • Demonstration that creatine has inhibitory effects is another strength.<br /> • The new genetic mutations for Slc6a8 and AGAT are strengths and potentially incredibly helpful for downstream work.

WEAKNESSES:<br /> • Some data are indirect. Even though Slc6a8 and AGAT are helpful sentinels for the presence of creatine, they are not creatine themselves. Therefore, the conclusions that are drawn should be circumspect.<br /> • Regarding Slc6a8, it seems to work only as a reuptake transporter - not as a transporter into SVs. Therefore, we do not know what the transporter is.<br /> • Puzzlingly, Slc6a8 and AGAT are in different cells, setting up the complicated model that creatine is created in one cell type and then processed as a neurotransmitter in another.<br /> • No candidate receptor for creatine has been identified postsynaptically.<br /> • Because no candidate receptor has been identified, is it possible that creatine is exerting its effects indirectly through other inhibitory receptors (e.g., GABAergic Rs)?<br /> • More broadly, what are the other possibilities for roles of creatine that would explain these observations other than it being a neurotransmitter? Could it simply be a modifier that exists in the SVs (lots of molecules exist in SVs)?<br /> • The biochemical studies are helpful in terms of comparing relevant molecules (e.g., Figs. 8 and S1), but the images of the westerns are all so fuzzy that there are questions about processing and the accuracy of the quantification.

APPRAISAL OF WHETHER THE AUTHORS ACHIEVED THEIR AIMS AND WHETHER THE RESULTS SUPPORT THE CONCLUSIONS:<br /> There are several criteria that define a neurotransmitter. The authors nicely delineated many criteria in their discussion, but it is worth it for readers to do the same with their own understanding of the data.

By this reviewer's understanding (and the Purves' textbook definition) a neurotransmitter: 1) must be present within the presynaptic neuron and stored in vesicles; 2) must be released by depolarization of the presynaptic terminal; 3) must require Ca2+ influx upon depolarization prior to release; 4) must bind specific receptors present on the postsynaptic cell; 5) exogenous transmitter can mimic presynaptic release; 6) there exists a mechanism of removal of the neurotransmitter from the synaptic cleft.

For a paper to claim that the work has identified a new neurotransmitter, several of these criteria would be met - and the paper would acknowledge in the discussion which ones have not been met. For this particular paper, this reviewer finds that condition 1 is clearly met.

Conditions 2 and 3 seem to be met by electrophysiology, but there are caveats here. High KCl stimulation is a blunt instrument that will depolarize absolutely everything in the prep all at once and could result in any number of non-specific biological reactions as a result of K+ rushing into all neurons in the prep. Moreover, the results in 0 Ca2+ are puzzling. For creatine (and for the other neurotransmitters), why is there such a massive uptick in release, even when the extracellular saline is devoid of calcium?

Condition 4 is not discussed in detail at all. In the discussion, the authors elide the criterion of receptors specified by Purves by inferring that the existence of postsynaptic responses implies the existence of receptors. True, but does it specifically imply the existence of creatinergic receptors? This reviewer does not think that is necessarily the case. The authors should be appropriately circumspect and consider other modes of inhibition that are induced by activation or potentiation of other receptors (e.g., GABAergic or glycinergic).

Condition 5 may be met, because the authors applied exogenous creatine and observed inhibition (Fig. 7). However, this is tough to know without understanding the effects of endogenous release of creatine. if they were to test if the absence of creatine caused excess excitation (at putative creatinergic synapses), then that would be supportive of the same.

For condition 6, the authors made a great effort with Slc6a8. This is a very tough criterion to understand for many synapses and neurotransmitters.

DISCUSSION OF THE LIKELY IMPACT OF THE WORK:<br /> In terms of fundamental neuroscience, the story would be impactful if proven correct. There are certainly more neurotransmitters out there than currently identified.

The impact as framed by the authors in the abstract and introduction for intellectual disability is uncertain (forming a "new basis for ID pathogenesis") and it seems quite speculative beyond the data in this paper.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Soudi, Jahani et al. provide a valuable comparative study of local adaptation in four species of sunflowers and investigate the repeatability of observed genomic signals of adaptation and their link to haploblocks, known to be numerous and important in this system. The study builds on previous work in sunflowers that have investigated haploblocks in those species and on methodologies developed to look at repeated signals of local adaptations. The authors provide solid evidence of both genotype-environment associations (GEA) and genome-wide association study (GWAS), as well as phenotypic correlations with the environment, to show that part of the local adaptation signal is repeatable and significantly co-occur in regions harboring haploblocks. Results also show that part of the signal is species specific and points to high genetic redundancy. The authors rightfully point out the complexities of the adaptation process and that the truth must lie somewhere between two extreme models of evolutionary genetics, i.e. a population genetics view of large effect loci and a quantitative genetics model. The authors take great care in acknowledging and investigating the multiple biases inherent to the used methods (GEA and GWAS) and use a conservative approach to draw their conclusions. The multiplicity of analyses and their interdependence make them slightly hard to understand and the manuscript would benefit from more careful explanations of concepts and logical links throughout. This work will be of interest to evolutionary biologists and population geneticists in particular, and constitutes an additional applied example to the comparative local adaptation literature.

Some thoughts on the last paragraph of the discussion (L481-497): I think it would be fine to have some more thoughts here on the processes that could contribute to the presence/absence of inversions, maybe in an "Ideas and Speculation" subsection. To me, your results point to the fact that though inversions are often presented as important for local adaptation, they seem to be highly contingent on the context of adaptation in each species. First, repeatability results are only at the window/gene level in your results, the specific mutations are not under scrutiny. Is it possible that inversions are only necessary when sets of small effect mutations are used, opposite to a large effect mutation in other species? Additionally, in a model with epistasis, fitness effects of mutations are dependent on the genomic background and it is possible that inversions were necessary in only certain contexts, even for the same mutations, i.e. some adaptive path contingency. Finally, do you have specific demographic history knowledge in this system that maps to the observations of the presence of inversions or not? For example, have the species "using" inversions been subject to more gene flow compared to others?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this study the authors sought to understand the extent of similarity among species in intraspecific adaptation to environmental heterogeneity at the phenotypic and genetic levels. A particular focus was to evaluate if regions that were associated with adaptation within putative inversions in one species were also candidates for adaptation in another species that lacked those inversions. This study is timely for the field of evolutionary genomics, due to recent interest surrounding how inversions arise and become established in adaptation.

Major strengths

Their study system was well suited to addressing the aims, given that the different species of sunflower all had GWAS data on the same phenotypes from common garden experiments as well as landscape genomic data, and orthologous SNPs could be identified. Organizing a dataset of this magnitude is no small feat. The authors integrate many state-of-the-art statistical methods that they have developed in previous research into a framework for correlating genomic Windows of Repeated Association (WRA, also amalgamated into Clusters of Repeated Association based on LD among windows) with Similarity In Phenotype-Environment Correlation (SIPEC). The WRA/CRA methods are very useful and the authors do an excellent job at outlining the rationale for these methods.

Major weaknesses

The study results rely heavily on the SIPEC measure, but I found the values reported difficult to interpret biologically. For example, in Figure 4 there is a range of SIPEC from 0 to 0.03 for most species pairs, with some pairs only as high as ~0.01. This does not appear to be a high degree of similarity in phenotype-environment correlation. For example, given the equation on line 517 for a single phenotype, if one species has a phenotype-environment correlation of 1.0 and the other has a correlation of 0.02, I would postulate that these two species do not have similar evolutionary responses, but the equation would give a value of (1+0.02)*1*0.02/1 = 0.02 which is pretty typical "higher" value in Figure 4. I also question the logic behind using absolute values of the correlations for the SIPEC, because if a trait increases with an environment in one species but decreases with the environment in another species, I would not predict that the genetic basis of adaptation would be similar (as a side note, I would not question the logic behind using absolute correlations for associations with alleles, due to the arbitrary nature of signing alleles). I might be missing something here, so I look forward to reading the author's responses on these thoughts.

An additional potential problem with the analysis is that from the way the analysis is presented, it appears that the 33 environmental variables were essentially treated as independent data points (e.g. in Figure 4, Figure 5). It's not appropriate to treat the environmental variables independently because many of them are highly correlated. For example in Figure 4, many of the high similarity/CRA values tend to be categorized as temperature variables, which are likely to be highly correlated with each other. This seems like a type of pseudo replication and is a major weakness of the framework.

Below I highlight the main claims from the study and evaluate how well the results support the conclusions.

* "We find evidence of significant genome-wide repeatability in signatures of association to phenotypes and environments" (abstract)<br /> * Given the questions above about SIPEC, I did not find this conclusion well supported with the way the data are presented in the manuscript.

* "We find evidence of significant genome-wide repeatability in signatures of association to phenotypes and environments, which are particularly enriched within regions of the genome harbouring an  inversion in one species. " (Abstract) And "increased repeatability found in regions of the genome that harbour inversions" (Discussion)<br /> * These claims are supported by the data shown in Figure 4, which shows that haploblocks are enriched for WRAs. I want to clarify a point about the wording here, as my understanding of the analysis is that the authors test if *haploblocks* are enriched with *WRAs*, not whether *WRAs* are enriched for *haploblocks*. The wording of the abstract is claiming the latter, but I think what they tested was the former. Let me know if I'm missing something here.<br /> * Notwithstanding the concerns about highly correlated environments potentially inflating some of the patterns in the manuscript, to my knowledge this is the first attempt in the literature to try this kind of comparison, and the results does generally suggest that inversions are more likely capturing, rather than accumulating adaptive variation. However, I don't think the authors can claim that repeated signatures are enriched with haploblock regions, and the authors should take care to refrain from stating the relative importance of different regions of the genome to adaptation without an analysis.


* "While a large number of genomic regions show evidence of repeated adaptation, most of the strongest signatures of association still tend to be species-specific, indicating substantial genotypic redundancy for local adaptation in these species." (Abstract)<br /> * Figure 3B certainly makes it look like there is very little similarity among species in the genetic basis of adaptation, which leaves the question as to how important the repeated signatures really are for adaptation if there are very few of them. (Is 3B for the whole genome or only that region?). This result seems to be at odds with the large number of CRAs and the claims about the importance of haploblock regions to adaptation, which extend from my previous point.


* "we have shown evidence of significant repeatability in the basis of local adaptation (Figure 4, 5), but also an abundance of species-specific, non-repeated signatures (Figure 3)"<br /> * While the claim is a solid one, I am left wondering how much of these genomes show repeated vs. non-repeated signatures, how much of these genomes have haploblocks, and how much overlap there really is. Finding a way to intuitively represent these unknowns would greatly strengthen the manuscript.

Overall, I think the main claims from the study, the statistical framework, and the results could be revised to better support each other.

Although the current version of the manuscript has some potential shortcomings with regards to the statistical approaches, and the impact of this paper in its present form could be stifled because the biology tended to get lost in the statistics, these shortcomings may be addressed by the authors.

With some revisions, the framework and data could have a high impact and be of high utility to the community.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The work by Combrisson and colleagues investigates the degree to which reward and punishment learning signals overlap in the human brain using intracranial EEG recordings. The authors used information theory approaches to show that local field potential signals in the anterior insula and the three sub regions of the prefrontal cortex encode both reward and punishment prediction errors, albeit to different degrees. Specifically, the authors found that all four regions have electrodes that can selectively encode either the reward or the punishment prediction errors. Additionally, the authors analyzed the neural dynamics across pairs of brain regions and found that the anterior insula to dorsolateral prefrontal cortex neural interactions were specific for punishment prediction errors whereas the ventromedial prefrontal cortex to lateral orbitofrontal cortex interactions were specific to reward prediction errors. This work contributes to the ongoing efforts in both systems neuroscience and learning theory by demonstrating how two differing behavioral signals can be differentiated to a greater extent by analyzing neural interactions between regions as opposed to studying neural signals within one region.

Strengths:

The experimental paradigm incorporates both a reward and punishment component that enables investigating both types of learning in the same group of subjects allowing direct comparisons.

The use of intracranial EEG signals provides much needed insight into the timing of when reward and punishment prediction errors signals emerge in the studied brain regions.

Information theory methods provide important insight into the interregional dynamics associated with reward and punishment learning and allows the authors to assess that reward versus punishment learning can be better dissociated based on interregional dynamics over local activity alone.

Weaknesses:

The analysis presented in the manuscript focuses solely on gamma band activity. The presence and potential relevance of other frequency bands is not discussed. It is possible that slow oscillations, which are thought to be important for coordinating neural activity across brain regions could provide additional insight.

The data is averaged across all electrodes which could introduce biases if some subjects had many more electrodes than others. Controlling for this variation in electrode number across subjects would ensure that the results are not driven by a small subset of subjects with more electrodes.

The potential variation in reward versus punishment learning across subjects is not included in the manuscript. While the time course of reward versus punishment prediction errors is symmetrical at the group level, it is possible that some subjects show faster learning for one versus the other type which can bias the group average. Subject level behavioral data along with subject level electrode numbers would provide more convincing evidence that the observed effects are not arising from these potential confounds.

It is unclear if the findings in Figures 3 and 4 truly reflect the differential interregional dynamics in reward versus punishment learning or if these results arise as a statistical byproduct of the reward vs punishment bias observed within each region. For instance, the authors show that information transfer from anterior insula to dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is specific to punishment prediction error. However, both anterior insula and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex have higher prevalence of punishment prediction error selective electrodes to begin with. Therefore the findings in Fig 3 may simply be reflecting the prevalence of punishment specificity in these two regions above and beyond a punishment specific neural interaction between the two regions. Either mathematical or analytical evidence that assesses if the interaction effect is simply reflecting the local dynamics would be important to make this result convincing.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Reward and punishment learning have long been seen as emerging from separate networks of frontal and subcortical areas, often studied separately. Nevertheless, both systems are complimentary and distributed representations of rewards and punishments have been repeatedly observed within multiple areas. This raised the unsolved question of the possible mechanisms by which both systems might interact, which this manuscript went after. The authors skillfully leveraged intracranial recordings in epileptic patients performing a probabilistic learning task combined with model-based information theoretical analyses of gamma activities to reveal that information about reward and punishment was not only distributed across multiple prefrontal and insular regions, but that each system showed specific redundant interactions. The reward subsystem was characterized by redundant interactions between orbitofrontal and ventromedial prefrontal cortex, while the punishment subsystem relied on insular and dorsolateral redundant interactions. Finally, the authors revealed a way by which the two systems might interact, through synergistic interaction between ventromedial and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.

Strengths:

Here, the authors performed an excellent reanalysis of a unique dataset using innovative approaches, pushing our understanding on the interaction at play between prefrontal and insular cortex regions during learning. Importantly, the description of the methods and results is truly made accessible, making it an excellent resource to the community.

This manuscript goes beyond what is classically performed using intracranial EEG dataset, by not only reporting where a given information, like reward and punishment prediction errors, is represented but also by characterizing the functional interactions that might underlie such representations. The authors highlight the distributed nature of frontal cortex representations and propose new ways by which the information specifically flows between nodes. This work is well placed to unify our understanding of the complementarity and specificity of the reward and punishment learning systems.

Weaknesses:

The conclusions of this paper are mostly supported by the data, but whether the findings are entirely generalizable would require further information/analyses.

First, the authors found that prediction errors very quickly converge toward 0 (less than 10 trials) while subjects performed the task for sets of 96 trials. Considering all trials, and therefore having a non-uniform distribution of prediction errors, could potentially bias the various estimates the authors are extracting. Separating trials between learning (at the start of a set) and exploiting periods could prove that the observed functional interactions are specific to the learning stages, which would strengthen the results.

Importantly, it is unclear whether the results described are a common feature observed across subjects or the results of a minority of them. The authors should report and assess the reliability of each result across subjects. For example, the authors found RPE-specific interactions between vmPFC and lOFC, even though less than 10% of sites represent RPE or both RPE/PPE in lOFC. It is questionable whether such a low proportion of sites might come from different subjects, and therefore whether the interactions observed are truly observed in multiple subjects. The nature of the dataset obviously precludes from requiring all subjects to show all effects (given the known limits inherent to intracerebral recording in patients), but it should be proven that the effects were reproducibly seen across multiple subjects.

Finally, the timings of the observed interactions between areas preclude one of the authors' main conclusions. Specifically, the authors repeatedly concluded that the encoding of RPE/PPE signals are "emerging" from redundancy-dominated prefrontal-insular interactions. However, the between-region information and transfer entropy between vmPFC and lOFC for example is observed almost 500ms after the encoding of RPE/PPE in these regions, questioning how it could possibly lead to the encoding of RPE/PPE. It is also noteworthy that the two information measures, interaction information and transfer entropy, between these areas happened at non overlapping time windows, questioning the underlying mechanism of the communication at play (see Figures 3/4). As an aside, when assessing the direction of information flow, the authors also found delays between pairs of signals peaking at 176ms, far beyond what would be expected for direct communication between nodes. Discussing this aspect might also be of importance as it raises the possibility of third-party involvement.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors investigated that learning processes relied on distinct reward or punishment outcomes in probabilistic instrumental learning tasks were involved in functional interactions of two different cortico-cortical gamma-band modulations, suggesting that learning signals like reward or punishment prediction errors can be processed by two dominated interactions, such as areas lOFC-vmPFC and areas aINS-dlPFC, and later on integrated together in support of switching conditions between reward and punishment learning. By performing the well-known analyses of mutual information, interaction information, and transfer entropy, the conclusion was accomplished by identifying directional task information flow between redundancy-dominated and synergy-dominated interactions. Also, this integral concept provided a unifying view to explain how functional distributed reward and/or punishment information were segregated and integrated across cortical areas.

Strengths:

The dataset used in this manuscript may come from previously published works (Gueguen et al., 2021) or from the same grant project due to the methods. Previous works have shown strong evidence about why gamma-band activities and those 4 areas are important. For further analyses, the current manuscript moved the ideas forward to examine how reward/punishment information transfer between recorded areas corresponding to the task conditions. The standard measurements such mutual information, interaction information, and transfer entropy showed time-series activities in the millisecond level and allowed us to learn the directional information flow during a certain window. In addition, the diagram in Figure 6 summarized the results and proposed an integral concept with functional heterogeneities in cortical areas. These findings in this manuscript will support the ideas from human fMRI studies and add a new insight to electrophysiological studies with the non-human primates.

Weaknesses:

After reading through the manuscript, the term "non-selective" in the abstract confused me and I did not actually know what it meant and how it fits the conclusion. If I learned the methods correctly, the 4 areas were studied in this manuscript because of their selective responses to the RPE and PPE signals (Figure 2). The redundancy- and synergy-dominated subsystems indicated that two areas shared similar and complementary information, respectively, due to the negative and positive value of interaction information (Page 6). For me, it doesn't mean they are "non-selective", especially in redundancy-dominated subsystem. I may miss something about how you calculate the mutual information or interaction information. Could you elaborate this and explain what the "non-selective" means?

The directional information flows identified in this manuscript were evidenced by the recording contacts of iEEG with levels of concurrent neural activities to the task conditions. However, are the conclusions well supported by the anatomical connections? Is it possible that the information was transferred to the target via another area? These questions may remain to be elucidated by using other approaches or animal models. It would be great to point this out here for further investigation.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The current work by Kulich et al. examines the dynamic relocalization of NGR1 (LAZY2) a member of the LAZY protein family which is key for auxin redistribution during gravitropic responses. After gravistimulation of the triple mutant ngr123 (lazy234), the PIN3 activating kinase D6PK is not polarized in the columella cells.

Strengths:

The authors show a thorough characterization of NGR1 relocalization dynamics after gravistimulation.

Weaknesses:

Genetically the relocalization of D6PK depends on the LAZY protein family, but some essential details are missing in this study. On the one hand, NGR1-GFP does not associate with the BFA compartments and maintains its association with the PM and amyloplasts. On the other hand, D6PK relies on GNOM, via vesicle trafficking sensitive to BFA, suggesting that D6PK follows a different relocalization route than NGR1 which is BFA-insensitive. Based on these observations, D6PK relocalization requires the LAZY proteins, but D6PK and NGR1 relocalize through independent routes. How can this be interpreted or reconciled?

Two other works (now published) provide valuable and fundamental findings related to the mechanism examined in the current manuscript and display complementary and similar results to the ones shown in the current manuscript. Given the similarities in the examined mechanisms, these preprints should be referenced, recognized, and discussed in the manuscript under review. It is assumed that the three projects were independently developed, but the results of these previous works should be addressed and taken into account at least during the discussion and when drawing any conclusions. This does not mean that this work is less relevant. On the contrary, some of the observations that seem to be redundant are more solid, and firm conclusions can now be drawn from them.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary: This manuscript addresses what rapid molecular events underly the earliest responses after gravity-sensing via the sedimentation of starch-enriched amyloplasts in columella cells of the plant root cap. The LAZY or NEGATIVE GRAVITROPIC RESPONSE OF ROOTS (NGR) protein family is involved in this process and localizes to both the amyloplast and to the plasma membrane (PM) of columella cells.

The current manuscript complements and extends Nishimura et al., Science, 2023. Kulich and colleagues describe the role of the LZY2 protein, also called NGR1, during this process, imaging its fast relocation and addressing additional novel points such as molecular mechanisms underlying NGR1 plasma membrane association as well as revealing the requirement of NGR1/LZY2, 3,4 for the polar localization of the AGCVIII D6 protein kinase at the PM of columella cells, in which NGR1/LZY2 acts redundantly with LZY3 and LZY4.

The authors initially monitored relocalization of functional NGR1-GFP in columella cells of the ngr1 ngr2 ngr3 triple mutant after 180-degree reorientation of the roots. Within 10 -15 min NGR1-GFP signal disappeared from the upper PM after reorientation and reappeared at the lower PM of the reoriented cells in close proximity to the sedimented amyloplasts. Reorientation of NGR1-GFP occurred substantially faster than PIN3-GFP reorientation, at about the same time or slightly later than a rise in a calcium sensor (GCaMP3) just preceding a change in D2-Venus auxin sensor alterations. Reorientation of NGR1-GFP proved to be fast and not dependent on a brefeldin A-sensitive ARF GEF-mediated vesicle trafficking, unlike the trafficking of PIN proteins, like PIN3, or the AGCVIII D6 protein kinase. Strikingly, the PM association of NGR1-GFP was highly sensitive to pharmacological interference with sterol composition or concentration and phosphatidylinositol (4)kinase inhibition as well as dithiothreitol (DTT) treatment interfering with thioester bond formation e.g. during S-acylation. Indeed, combined mutation of a palmitoylation site and polybasic regions of NRG1 abolished its PM but not its amyloplast localization and rendered the protein non-functional during the gravitropic response, suggesting NRG1 PM localization is essential for the gravitropic response. Targeting the protein to the PM via an artificially introduced N-terminal myristoylation and an ROP2-derived polybasic region and geranylgeranylation site partially restored its functionality in the gravitropic response.

Strengths: This timely work should be of broad interest to plant, cell and developmental biologists across the field as gravity sensing and signaling may well be of general interest. The point that NGR1 is rapidly responsive to gravistimulation, polarizes at the PM in the vicinity to amyloplast and that this is required for repolarization of D6 protein kinase, prior to PIN relocation is really compelling. The manuscript is generally well-written and accessible to a general readership. The figures are clear and of high quality, and the methods are sufficiently explained for reproduction of the experiments.

Weaknesses: Statistical analysis has been performed for some figures but is lacking for most of the quantitative analyses in the figure legends.

The title claims a bit more than what is actually shown in the manuscript: While auxin response reporter alterations are monitored, "rapid redirection of auxin fluxes" are not really directly addressed and, while D6PK can activate PIN proteins in other contexts, it is not explicitly shown in the manuscript that PIN3 is a target in the context of columella cells in vivo. A title such as "Rapid redirection of D6 protein kinase during Arabidopsis root gravitropism relies on plasma membrane translocation of NGR proteins" would reflect the results better.

Fig. 4: The point that D6PK is transcytosed cannot be made here based on the data of these authors. They should have used a photoswitchable version of NGR1 to show that the same molecules observed at the upper PM are translocated to the lower PM. Nishimura and colleagues actually did that for NGR4. However, this is a lot of work and maybe for NGR1 that fusion would have too low fluorescence intensity (as it was the case for NGR3). So, I think a rewording would be sufficient such as NGR-dependent reorientation of D6PK plasma membrane localization" as this does not say, from where it comes to the lower PM. Theoretically, the signal could also be amyloplast-derived or newly synthesized (or just folded) NGR1-GFP.

The authors make a model in which D6PK AGCVIII kinase-dependent on NGRs activates PIN3 to drive auxin fluxes. However, alterations in auxin responses are observed prior to PIN3 reorientation. They should explain this discrepancy better and clearly describe that this is a working hypothesis for the future rather than explicitly proven, yet.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The mechanism controlling plant gravity sensing has fascinated researchers for centuries. It has been clear for at least the past decade that starch-filled plastids (termed statoliths) in specialised gravity-sensing columella cells sense changes in root orientation, triggering an asymmetric auxin gradient that alters root growth direction. Nevertheless, exactly how statolith movement triggers PIN auxin efflux carrier activation and auxin gradient formation has remained unclear until very recently. A series of new papers (in Science and Cell) and this manuscript report how LAZY proteins (also referred to as NEGATIVE GRAVITROPIC 50 RESPONSE OF ROOTS; NGR) play a pivotal role in regulating root gravitropism. In terms of their overall significance, their collective findings provide seminal insights into the very earliest steps for how plant roots sense gravity which are arguably the most important papers about root gravitropism in the past decade.

In the current manuscript, Kulich et al initially report (through creating a functional NGR1-GFP reporter) that "NGR1-GFP displayed a highly specific columella expression, which was most prominent at the PM and the statolith periphery." Is NGR1-GFP expressed in shoot tissues? If yes, is it in starch sheath (the gravity-sensing equivalent of root columella cells)? The authors also note "NGR1-GFP signal from the PM was not evenly distributed, but rather polarized to the lower side of the columella cells in the vicinity of the sedimented statoliths (Fig. 1A)." and (when overexpressing NGR-GFP) "chloroplasts in the vicinity of the PM strongly correlated with NGR1 accumulating at the PM nearby, similar to the scenario in columella" suggesting that NGR1 does not require additional tissue-specific factors (i.e. trafficking proteins or lipids) to assist in its intracellular movement from plastid to PM.

Next, the authors study the spatiotemporal dynamics of NGR1-GFP re-localisation with other early gravitropic signals and/or components Calcium, auxin, and PIN3. The temporal data presented in Figure 1 illustrates how the GCaMP calcium reporter (in panel E) revealed "the first signaling event in the root gravitropic bending is the statolith removal from the top membrane, rather than its arrival at the bottom" It appeared that the auxin DII-VENUS reporter was also changing rapidly (panel G) - was this detectable BEFORE statolith re-sedimentation?<br /> Please can the authors explain their NPA result in Fig 1E? Why would treatment with the auxin transport inhibitor NPA block Ca signalling (unless the latter was dependent on the former)?<br /> They go on to note "This initial auxin asymmetry is mediated by PIN-dependent auxin transport, despite visible polarization of PIN3 can be detected only later" which suggests that PIN activity was being modified prior to PIN polarisation.

In contrast to other proteins involved in gravity response like RLDs and PINs, NGR1 localization and gravity-induced polarization does not undergo BFA-sensitive endocytic recycling by ARF-GEF GNOM. This makes sense given NGR1 is initially targeted to plastids, THEN the PM. Does NGR1 contain a cleavable plastid targeting signal? The authors go on to elegantly demonstrate that NGR1 PM targeting relies on palmitoylation through imaging and mutagenesis-based transgenic ngr rescue assays.

Finally, the authors demonstrate that gravitropic-induced auxin gradient formation is initially dependent on PIN3 auxin efflux activation (prior to PIN3 re-localisation). This early PIN3 activation process is dependent on NGR1 re-targeting D6PK (a PIN3 activating kinase). This elegant molecular mechanism integrates all the regulatory components described in the paper into a comprehensive root gravity sensing model.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> "Phosphorylation, disorder, and phase separation govern the behavior of Frequency in the fungal circadian clock" is a convincing manuscript that delves into the structural and biochemical aspects of FRQ and the FFC under both LLPS and non-LLPS conditions. Circadian clocks serve as adaptations to the daily rhythms of sunlight, providing a reliable internal representation of local time.

All circadian clocks are composed of positive and negative components. The FFC contributes negative feedback to the Neurospora circadian oscillator. It consists of FRQ, CK1, and FRH. The FFC facilitates close interaction between CK1 and the WCC, with CK1-mediated phosphorylation disrupting WCC:c-box interactions necessary for restarting the circadian cycle.

Despite the significance of FRQ and the FFC, challenges associated with purifying and stabilizing FRQ have hindered in vitro studies. Here, researchers successfully developed a protocol for purifying recombinant FRQ expressed in E. coli.

Armed with full-length FRQ, they utilized spin-labeled FRQ, CK1, and FRH to gain structural insights into FRQ and the FFC using ESR. These studies revealed a somewhat ordered core and a disordered periphery in FRQ, consistent with prior investigations using limited proteolysis assays. Additionally, p-FRQ exhibited greater conformational flexibility than np-FRQ, and CK1 and FRH were found in close proximity within the FFC. The study further demonstrated that under LLPS conditions in vitro, FRQ undergoes phase separation, encapsulating FRH and CK1 within LLPS droplets, ultimately diminishing CK1 activity within the FFC. Intriguingly, higher temperatures enhanced LLPS formation, suggesting a potential role of LLPS in the fungal clock's temperature compensation mechanism.

Biological significance was supported by live imaging of Neurospora, revealing FRQ foci at the periphery of nuclei consistent with LLPS. The amino acid sequence of FRQ conferred LLPS properties, and a comparison of clock repressor protein sequences in other eukaryotes indicated that LLPS formation might be a conserved process within the negative arms of these circadian clocks.

In summary, this manuscript represents a valuable advancement with solid evidence in the understanding of a circadian clock system that has proven challenging to characterize structurally due to obstacles linked to FRQ purification and stability. The implications of LLPS formation in the negative arm of other eukaryotic clocks and its role in temperature compensation are highly intriguing.

Strengths:<br /> The strengths of the manuscript include the scientific rigor of the experiments, the importance of the topic to the field of chronobiology, and new mechanistic insights obtained.

Weaknesses:<br /> This reviewer had questions regarding some of the conclusions reached.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> This study presents data from a broad range of methods (biochemical, EPR, SAXS, microscopy, etc.) on the large disordered protein FRQ relevant to circadian clocks and its interaction partners FRH and CK1, providing novel and fundamental insight into oligomerization state, local dynamics, and overall structure as a function of phosphorylation and association. Liquid-liquid phase separation is observed. These findings have bearings on the mechanistic understanding of circadian clocks, and on functional aspects of disordered proteins in general.

Strengths:<br /> This is a thorough work that is well presented. The data are of overall high quality given the difficulty of working with an intrinsically disordered protein, and the conclusions are sufficiently circumspect and qualitative to not overinterpret the mostly low-resolution data.

Weaknesses:<br /> None

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> The manuscript from Tariq and Maurici et al. presents important biochemical and biophysical data linking protein phosphorylation to phase separation behavior in the repressive arm of the Neurospora circadian clock. This is an important topic that contributes to what is likely a conceptual shift in the field. While I find the connection to the in vivo physiology of the clock to be still unclear, this can be a topic handled in future studies.

Strengths: The ability to prepare purified versions of unphosphorylated FRQ and P-FRQ phosphorylated by CK-1 is a major advance that allowed the authors to characterize the role of phosphorylation in structural changes in FRQ and its impact on phase separation in vitro.

Weaknesses: The major question that remains unanswered from my perspective is whether phase separation plays a key role in the feedback loop that sustains oscillation (for example by creating a nonlinear dependence on overall FRQ phosphorylation) or whether it has a distinct physiological role that is not required for sustained oscillation.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Single-molecule visualization of chromatin remodelers on long chromatin templates-a long sought-after goal-is still in its infancy. This work describes the behaviors of two remodelers RSC and ISW2, from SWI/SNF and ISWI families respectively, with well-conducted experiments and rigorous quantitative analysis, thus representing a significant advance in the field of chromatin biology and biophysics. Overall, the conclusions are supported by the data and the manuscript is clearly written. However, there are a few occasions where the strength of the conclusion suffers from low statistics. Some of the statements are too strong given the evidence presented.

Specific comments:

1. It is confusing what is the difference between the "non-diffusive" behavior of the remodeler upon nucleosome encounter and the nucleosome-translocating behavior in the presence of ATP. For example, in Figure 3F, readers can see a bit of nucleosome translocation in the first segment. Is the lower half-life of "non-diffusive" ISW2 with ATP on a nucleosome array because it is spending more time translocating nucleosomes? The solid and dashed green lines in Figure 3F and 3G are not explained. It is also not explained why Figure 3H and 3I are fit by double exponentials.<br /> 2. What is the fraction of 1D vs. 3D nucleosome encountered by the remodelers? This is an important parameter to compare between RSC and ISW2.<br /> 3. A major conclusion stated repeatedly in the manuscript is that nucleosome translocation by a remodeler is terminated by a downstream nucleosome. But this is based on a total of 4 events. The problem of dye photobleaching was mentioned, which is a bit surprising considering that the green excitation was already pulsed. The authors should try to get more events by lowering the laser power or toning down the conclusion that translocation termination is prominently due to blockage by a downstream nucleosome. Quantifying the translocation distances before termination, in addition to the durations (Figure 4G and 4H), would also be helpful.<br /> 4. The claim on nucleosome translocation directionality is also based on a small number of events, particularly for RSC. 6/9 is hardly over 50% if one considers the Poisson counting error (RSC was also found to switch directions.) If the authors would like to make a firm statement to support the "push-pull" model, they should obtain more events.<br /> 5. At 5 pN of tether tension, the outer wrap of nucleosomes is destabilized, which could impact nucleosome translocation dynamics. Additionally, a low buffer flow was kept on during data acquisition, which could bias remodeler diffusion behavior. The authors should rule out or at a minimum discuss these possibilities.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> The authors use a dual optical trap instrument combined with 2-color fluorescence imaging to analyze the diffusion of RSC and ISW2 on DNA, both in the presence and absence of nucleosomes, as well as long-range nucleosome sliding by these remodelers. This allowed them to demonstrate that both enzymes can participate in 1D diffusion along DNA for rather long ranges, with ISW2 predominantly tracking the DNA strand, while RSC diffusion involves hopping. In an elegant two-color assay, the authors were able to analyze interactions of diffusing remodeler molecules, both of the same or different types, observing their collisions, co-diffusion, and bypassing. The authors demonstrate that nucleosomes act as barriers for remodeler diffusion, either repelling or sequestering them upon collision. In the presence of ATP, they observed surprisingly processive unidirectional nucleosome sliding with a strong bias in the direction opposite to where the remodeler approached the nucleosome from for ISW2. These results have fundamentally important implications for the mechanism of nucleosome positioning at promoters in vivo, will be of great interest to the scientific community, and will undoubtedly spark exciting future research.

Strengths:<br /> The mechanism of target search for chromatin-interacting protein machines is a 'hot' topic, and this manuscript provides extremely important and timely new information about how RSC and ISW2 find the nucleosomes they slide. Intriguingly, although both remodelers analyzed in this study can diffuse along DNA, the diffusion mechanisms are substantially different, with extremely interesting mechanistic implications.<br /> The strong directional preference in nucleosome sliding by ISW2 dictated by the direction it approaches the nucleosomes from during 1D sliding on DNA is a very intriguing result with interesting implications for the regulation of nucleosome organization around promoters. It will be of great interest to the scientific community and will undoubtedly inspire future research.<br /> Relatively little is known about nucleosome sliding at longer ranges (>100bp), and this manuscript provides a unique view into such sliding and also establishes a versatile methodology for future studies.

Weaknesses:<br /> All measurements were conducted at 5pN tension, which induces unwrapping of the outer DNA gyre from nucleosomes. This could potentially represent a limitation for experiments involving nucleosomes, since partial nucleosome unwrapping could affect the behavior of remodelers, especially their sliding of nucleosomes.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Trebino et al. investigated the BRAF activation process by analysing the interactions of BRAF N-terminal regulatory regions (CRD, RBD and BSR) with the C-terminal kinase domain and with the upstream regulators HRAS and KRAS. To this end, they generated four constructs comprising different combinations of N-terminal domains of BRAF and analysed their interaction with HRAS as well as conformational changes that occur. By HDX-MS they confirmed that the RBD is indeed the main mediator of interaction with HRAS. Moreover, they observed that HRAS binding leads to conformational changes exposing the BSR to the environment. Next, the authors used OpenSPR to determine the binding affinities of HRAS to the different BRAF constructs. While BSR+RBD, RBD+CRD and RBD bound HRAS with nanomolar affinity, no binding was observed with the construct comprising all three domains. Based on these experiments, the authors concluded that BSR and CRD negatively regulate binding to HRAS and hypothesised that BSR may confer some RAS isoform specificity. They corroborated this notion by showing that KRAS bound to BRAF-NT1 (BSR+RBD+CRD) while HRAS did not. Next, the authors analysed the autoinhibitory interaction occurring between the N-terminal regions and the kinase domain. Through pulldown and OpenSPR experiments, they confirm that it is mainly the CRD that makes the necessary contacts with the kinase domain. In addition, they show that the BSR stabilizes these interactions and that the addition of HRAS abolishes them. Finally, the D594G mutation within the KD of BRAF is shown to destabilise these autoinhibitory interactions, which could explain its oncogenic potential.

Overall, the in vitro study provides new insights into the regulation of BRAF and its interactions with HRAS and KRAS through a comprehensive in vitro analysis of the BRAF N-terminal region. Also, the authors report the first KD values for the N- and C-terminal interactions of BRAF and show that the BSR might provide isoform specificity towards KRAS. While these findings could be useful for the development of a new generation of inhibitors, the overall impact of the manuscript could probably be enhanced if the authors were to investigate in more detail how the BSR-mediated specificity of BRAF towards certain RAS isoforms is achieved. Moreover, though the very "clean" in vitro approach is appreciated, it also seems useful to examine whether the observed interactions and conformational changes occur in the full-length BRAF molecule and in more physiological contexts. Some of the results could be compared with studies including full length constructs.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In the manuscript the authors conduct a series of in vitro experiments using N-terminal and C-terminal BRAF fragments (SPR, HDX-MS, pull-down assays) to interrogate BRAF domain-specific autoinhibitory interactions and engagement by H- and KRAS GTPases. Of the three RAF isoforms, BRAF contains an extended N-terminal domain that has yet to be detected in X-ray and cryoEM reconstructions but has been proposed to interact with the KRAS hypervariable region. The investigators probe binding interactions between 4 N-terminal (NT) BRAF fragments (containing one more NT domain (BRS, RBD, and CRD)), with full-length bacterial expressed HRAS, KRAS as well as two BRAF C-terminal kinase fragments to tease out the underlying contribution of domain-specific binding events. They find, consistent with previous studies, that the BRAF BSR domain may negatively regulate RAS binding and propose that the presence of the BSR domain in BRAF provides an additional layer of autoinhibitory constraints that mediate BRAF activity in a RAS-isoform-specific manner. One of the fragments studied contains an oncogenic mutation in the kinase domain (BRAF-KDD594G). The investigators find that this mutant shows reduced interactions with an N-terminal regulatory fragment and postulate that this oncogenic BRAF mutant may promote BRAF activation by weakening autoinhibitory interactions between the N- and C-terminus.

The manuscript is now significantly improved. The inclusion of additional controls and new experiments with KRAS strengthen the manuscript and aid in establishing RAS isoform-specific BRAF interactions.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

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

Strength:<br /> This paper addresses an important question in the DMG field.

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

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

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

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

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

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

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

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

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> The paper titled "GABRD promotes the progression of breast cancer through CDK1-dependent cell cycle regulation" investigates the role of GABRD, a subunit of the GABAA receptor, in breast cancer progression and its potential association with CDK1-dependent cell cycle regulation. The study is commendable for shedding light on the role of GABRD in breast cancer, but a few areas can be further improved to enhance the significance and completeness of the research.

Strengths:<br /> The study presents valuable insights into the role of GABRD and its potential interaction with CDK1 in breast cancer progression.

Recent literature suggests that the neurotransmitter GABA and its receptors play a vital role in regulating various tumors. The paper's innovation lies in revealing GABRD as the most relevant subunit within the GABA receptor family concerning breast cancer and exploring its potential mechanisms in regulating breast cancer progression, including the proposed GABRD-CDK1 axis.

The methods in the study are sufficiently documented to allow replication studies and the quality of the figures and tables is very satisfactory.

In general, this manuscript is well-crafted and addresses a compelling and pertinent topic.

Weaknesses:<br /> The following minor issues should be addressed:

1. While the study demonstrates the impact of GABRD expression on patient overall survival, it would be beneficial to supplement this with additional survival indicators. Analyzing other survival metrics, such as disease-free survival or progression-free survival, could provide a more comprehensive understanding of GABRD's clinical relevance in breast cancer.

2. The manuscript alludes to GABRD's regulation of the cell cycle through its interaction with CDK1. Elaborating on the specific binding mechanisms and molecular interactions involved in this regulation would provide a more detailed insight into the proposed GABRD-CDK1 axis.

3. The criteria for high and low expression of GABRD In Table 1 and Fig. 1D should be clearly defined.

4. It would be helpful to explain the reason for classifying the tumor size with 3cm (not 2 or 5cm) in Table 2. It would also be helpful to explain whether the differences in GABRD expression in breast cancer subtypes with different HR and HER-2 expression statuses were analyzed.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> The study demonstrated that GABRD was significantly overexpressed in breast cancer tissues and had correlations with disease progression and patient survival rates. When GABRD was downregulated in breast cancer cells, it resulted in reduced cell growth, increased apoptosis, and hindered cell migration and invasion. The study has identified CDK1 as a downstream target of GABRD in mediating its effects on breast cancer. These findings suggest that GABRD is a promising target for therapies related to cell cycle regulation in breast cancer, potentially enhancing the effectiveness of CDK1 inhibitors.

Strengths:<br /> The study identifies GABRD as a potential target in breast cancer and provides a new direction for developing breast cancer treatments. The study presents strong clinical correlations of GABARD and the functional studies show that CDK1 is a downstream target of GABARD. The in-vivo studies highlight its therapeutic potential for breast cancer.

Weaknesses:<br /> The data heavily relies on cell lines and the results lack the mechanistic details on GABARD/CDK1 regulation.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary: Crohn's disease is a prevalent inflammatory bowel disease that often results in patient relapse post anti-TNF blockades. This study employs a multifaceted approach utilizing single-cell RNA sequencing, flow cytometry, and histological analyses to elucidate the cellular alterations in pediatric Crohn's disease patients pre and post-anti-TNF treatment and comparing them with non-inflamed pediatric controls. Utilizing an innovative clustering approach, the research distinguishes distinct cellular states that signify the disease's progression and response to treatment. Notably, the study suggests that the anti-TNF treatment pushes pediatric patients towards a cellular state resembling adult patients with persistent relapses. This study's depth offers a nuanced understanding of cell states in CD progression that might forecast the disease trajectory and therapy response.

Robust Data Integration: The authors adeptly integrate diverse data types: scRNA-seq, histological images, flow cytometry, and clinical metadata, providing a holistic view of the disease mechanism and response to treatment.

Novel Clustering Approach: The introduction and utilization of ARBOL, a tiered clustering approach, enhances the granularity and reliability of cell type identification from scRNA-seq data.

Clinical Relevance: By associating scRNA-seq findings with clinical metadata, the study offers potentially significant insights into the trajectory of disease severity and anti-TNF response; which might help with the personalized treatment regimens.

Treatment Dynamics: The transition of the pediatric cellular ecosystem towards an adult, more treatment-refractory state upon anti-TNF treatment is a significant finding. It would be beneficial to probe deeper into the temporal dynamics and the mechanisms underlying this transition.

Comparative Analysis with Adult CD: The positioning of on-treatment biopsies between treatment-naïve pediCD and on-treatment adult CD is intriguing. A more in-depth exploration comparing pediatric and adult cellular ecosystems could provide valuable insights into disease evolution.

Areas of improvement:<br /> 1. The legends accompanying the figures are quite concise. It would be beneficial to provide a more detailed description within the legends, incorporating specifics about the experiments conducted and a clearer representation of the data points.

2. Statistical significance is missing from Fig. 1c WBC count plot, Fig. 2 b-e panels. Please provide it even if it's not significant. Also, the legend should have the details of stat test used.

3. In the study, the NOA group is characterized by patients who, after thorough clinical evaluations, were deemed to exhibit milder symptoms, negating the need for anti-TNF prescriptions. This mild nature could potentially align the NOA group closer to FIGD-a condition intrinsically defined by its low to non-inflammatory characteristics. Such an alignment sparks curiosity: is there a marked correlation between these two groups? A preliminary observation suggesting such a relationship can be spotted in Figure 6, particularly panels A and B. Given the prevalence of FIGD among the pediatric population, it might be prudent for the authors to delve deeper into this potential overlap, as insights gained from mild-CD cases could provide valuable information for managing FIGD.

4. Furthermore, Figure 7 employs multi-dimensional immunofluorescence to compare CD, encompassing all its subtypes, with FIGD. If the data permits, subdividing CD into PR, FR, and NOA for this comparison could offer a more nuanced understanding of the disease spectrum. Such a granular perspective is invaluable for clinical assessments. The key question then remains: do the sample categorizations for the immunofluorescence study accommodate this proposed stratification?

5. The study's most captivating revelation is the proximity of anti-TNF-treated pediatric CD (pediCD) biopsies to adult treatment-refractory CD. Such an observation naturally raises the question: How does this alignment compare to a standard adult colon, and what proportion of this similarity is genuinely disease-specific versus reflective of an adult state? To what degree does the similarity highlight disease-specific traits?<br /> Delving deeper, it will be of interest to see whether anti-TNF treatment is nudging the transcriptional state of the cells towards a more mature adult stage or veering them into a treatment-resistant trajectory. If anti-TNF therapy is indeed steering cells toward a more adult-like state, it might signify a natural maturation process; however, if it's directing them toward a treatment-refractory state, the long-term therapeutic strategies for pediatric patients might need reconsideration.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> Through this study, the authors combine a number of innovative technologies including scRNAseq to provide insight into Crohn's disease. Importantly samples from pediatric patients are included. The authors develop a principled and unbiased tiered clustering approach, termed ARBOL. Through high-resolution scRNAseq analysis the authors identify differences in cell subsets and states during pediCD relative to FGID. The authors provide histology data demonstrating T cell localisation within the epithelium. Importantly, the authors find anti-TNF treatment pushes the pediatric cellular ecosystem toward an adult state.

Strengths:<br /> This study is well presented. The introduction clearly explains the important knowledge gaps in the field, the importance of this research, the samples that are used, and study design.<br /> The results clearly explain the data, without overstating any findings. The data is well presented. The discussion expands on key findings and any limitations to the study are clearly explained.

I think the biological findings from, and bioinformatic approach used in this study, will be of interest to many and significantly add to the field.

Weaknesses:<br /> 1. The ARBOL approach for iterative tiered clustering on a specific disease condition was demonstrated to work very well on the datasets generated in this study where there were no obvious batch effects across patients. What if strong batch effects are present across donors where PCA fails to mitigate such effects? Are there any batch correction tools implemented in ARBOL for such cases?

2. The authors mentioned that the clustering tree from the recursive sub-clustering contained too much noise, and they therefore used another approach to build a hierarchical clustering tree for the bottom-level clusters based on unified gene space. But in general, how consistent are these two trees?

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Ye et al. used Mendelian randomization method to evaluate the causative association between circulating immune cells and periodontitis and finally screened out three risk immune cells related to periodontitis. Overall, this is an important and novel piece of work that has the potential to contribute to our understanding of the causal relationship between circulating immune cells related to periodontitis. However, there are still some concerns that need to be addressed.

1. The authors used 1e-9 as the threshold to select effective instrumental variables (IVs), which should give the corresponding references. Meanwhile, the authors should test and discuss the potential impact of inconsistent thresholds for exposure (1e-9, 5e-6 were selected by the author respectively) and outcome IVs (5e-8) on the robustness of the results.<br /> 2. What is the reference for selecting Smoking, Fasting plasma glucose, and BMI as covariates? They do not seem to be directly related to immune cells as confounding factors.<br /> 3. It is not entirely clear about the correction of P-value for the total number of independent statistical tests.<br /> 4. The author used whole blood data to apply FUSION algorithm. Although whole blood is a representative site, the authors should add FUSION testing of periodontally relevant tissues, such as oral mucosa.<br /> 5. The authors chose gingival hyperplasia as a secondary validation phenotype of periodontitis in this study. However, gingival recession, as another important phenotype associated with periodontitis, should also be tested and discussed.<br /> 6. This study used GLIDE data as a replicated validation, but the results were inconsistent with FinnGen's dataset.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This manuscript presents a well-designed study that combines multiple Mendelian randomization analyses to investigate the causal relationship between circulating immune cells and periodontitis. The main conclusions of the manuscript are appropriately supported by the statistics, and the methodologies used are comprehensive and rigorous.

These findings have significant implications for periodontal care and highlight the potential for systemic immunomodulation management on periodontitis, which is of interest to readers in the fields of periodontology, immunology, and epidemiology.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary<br /> The authors use an elegant but somewhat artificial heterodimerisation approach to activate the isolated cytoplasmic domains of different receptor kinases (RKs) including the receptor kinase BRI1 and EFR. The developmental RK BRI1 is known to be activated by the co-receptor BAK1. Active BRI1 is then able to phosphorylate downstream substrates. The immune receptor EFR is also an active protein kinase also activated by the co-receptor BAK1. EFR however appears to have little or no kinase activity but seems to use an allosteric mechanism to in turn enable BAK1 to phosphorylate the substrate kinase BIK1. EFR tyrosine phosphorylation by BAK1 appears to trigger a conformational change in EFR, activating the receptor. Likewise, kinase activating mutations can cause similar conformational transitions in EFR and also in BAK1 in vitro and in planta.

Strengths: I particularly liked The HDX experiments coupled with mutational analysis (Fig. 2) and the design and testing of the kinase activating mutations (Fig. 3), as they provide novel mechanistic insights into the activation mechanisms of EFR and of BAK1. These findings are nicely extended by the large-scale identification of EFR-related RKs from different species with potentially similar activation mechanisms (Fig. 5).

Weaknesses: In my opinion, there are currently two major issues with the present manuscript. (1) Due o the small effect sizes it is absolutely critical that the EFRD849N mutant is indeed 100% inactive and based on previous reports from the same group I am not certain it is (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34531323/) (Fig. 1). Along these lines quantitative enzyme kinetic assays and additional controls in the immune assays could help to improve and substantiate the different trans-phosphorylation events depicted in Fig.1 (2) How the active-like conformation of EFR is in turn activating BAK1 is poorly characterized, but appears to be the main step in the activation of the receptor complex. Extending the HDX analyses to resting and Rap-activated receptor complexes could be a first step to address this question.

Overall this is an interesting study that aims to advance our understanding of the activation mechanisms of different plant receptor kinases with important functions in plant immunity.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> Transmembrane signaling in plants is crucial for homeostasis. In this study, the authors set out to understand to what extent catalytic activity in the EFR tyrosine kinase is required in order to transmit a signal. This work was driven by mounting data that suggest many eukaryotic kinases do not rely on catalysis for signal transduction, relying instead on conformational switching to relay information. The crucial findings reported here involve the realisation that a kinase-inactive EFR can still activate (ie lead to downstream phosphorylation) its partner protein BAK1. Using a convincing set of biochemical, mass spectrometric (HD-exchange), and in vivo assays, the team suggests a model in which EFR is likely phosphorylated in the canonical activation segment (where two Ser residues are present), which is sufficient to generate a conformation that can activate BAK1 through dimerisation. A model is put forward involving C-helix positioning in BAK1, and the model is extended to other 'non-RD' kinases in Arabidopsis kinases that likely do not require activity for signaling.

Strengths:<br /> The work uses logical and well-controlled approaches throughout, and is clear and convincing in most areas, linking data from IPs, kinase assays (including clear 32P-based biochemistry), HD-MX data (from non-phosphorylated EFR) structural biology, oxidative burst data, and infectivity assays. Repetitions and statistical analysis all appear appropriate.

Overall, the work builds a convincing story and the discussion does a clear job of explaining the potential impact of these findings (and perhaps an explanation of why so many Arabidopsis kinases are 'pseudokinases', including XPS1 and XIIa6, where this is shown explicitly).

Weaknesses:<br /> No major weaknesses are noted from reviewing the data and the paper follows a logical course built on solid foundations; the use of Tables to explain various experimental data pertinent to the reported studies is appreciated.

1. The use of a, b,c, d in Figures 2C and 3C etc is confusing to this referee.

2. The debate about kinase v pseudokinases is well over a decade old. For non-experts, the kinase alignments/issues raised are in PMID: 23863165 and might prove useful if cited.

3. Early on in the paper, the concept of kinases and pseudokinases related to R-spine (and extended R-spine) stability and regulation really needs to be more adequately introduced to explain what comes next; e.g. some of the key work in this area for RAF and Tyr kinases where mutual F-helix Phe amino acid changes are evaluated (conceptually similar to this study of the E-helix Tyr to Phe changes in EFR) should be cited (PMID: 17095602, 24567368 and 26925779).

4. In my version, some of the experimental text is also currently in the wrong order (and no page numbers, so hard for me to state exactly where in the manuscript); However, I am certain that Figure 2C is mentioned in the text when the data are actually shown in Figure 3C for the EFR-SSAA protein.

5. Tyr 156 in PKA is not shown in Supplement 1, 2A as suggested in the text; for readers, it will be important to show the alignment of the Tyr residue in other kinases. Although it is clearly challenging to generate phosphorylated EFR (seemingly through Codon-expansion here?), it appears unlikely that a phosphorylated EFR protein, even semi-pure, couldn't have been assayed to test the idea that the phosphorylation drives/supports downstream signaling. What about a DD or EE mutation, as commonly used (perhaps over-used) in MEK-type studies?

Impact:<br /> The work is an important new step in the huge amount of follow-up work needed to examine how kinases and pseudokinases 'talk' to each other in (especially) the plant kingdom, where significant genetic expansions have occurred. The broader impact is that we might understand better how to manipulate signaling for the benefit of plants and mankind; as the authors suggest, their study is a natural progression both of their own work, and the kingdom-wide study of the Kannan group.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The study presents strong evidence for allosteric activation of plant receptor kinases, which enhances our understanding of the non-catalytic mechanisms employed by this large family of receptors.

Plant receptor kinases (RKs) play a critical role in transducing extracellular signals. The activation of RKs involves homo- or heterodimerization of the RKs, and it is believed that mutual phosphorylation of their intracellular kinase domains initiates downstream signaling. However, this model faces a challenge in cases where the kinase domain exhibits pseudokinase characteristics. In their recent study, Mühlenbeck et al. reveal the non-catalytic activation mechanisms of the EFR-BAK1 complex in plant receptor kinase signaling. Specifically, they aimed to determine that the EFR kinase domain activates BAK1 not through its kinase activity, but rather by utilizing a "conformational toggle" mechanism to enter an active-like state, enabling allosteric trans-activation of BAK1. The study sought to elucidate the structural elements and mutations of EFR that affect this conformational switch, as well as explore the implications for immune signaling in plants. To investigate the activation mechanisms of the EFR-BAK1 complex, the research team employed a combination of mutational analysis, structural studies, and hydrogen-deuterium exchange mass spectrometry (HDX-MS) analysis. For instance, through HDX-MS analysis, Mühlenbeck et al. discovered that the EFR (Y836F) mutation impairs the accessibility of the active-like conformation. On the other hand, they identified the EFR (F761H) mutation as a potent intragenic suppressor capable of stabilizing the active-like conformation, highlighting the pivotal role of allosteric regulation in BAK1 kinase activation. The data obtained from this methodology strengthens their major conclusion. Moreover, the researchers propose that the allosteric activation mechanism may extend beyond the EFR-BAK1 complex, as it may also be partially conserved in the Arabidopsis LRR-RK XIIa kinases. This suggests a broader role for non-catalytic mechanisms in plant RK signaling.

The allosteric activation mechanism was demonstrated for receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) many years ago. A similar mechanism has been suggested for the activation of plant RKs, but experimental evidence for this conclusion is lacking. Data in this study represent a significant advancement in our understanding of non-catalytic mechanisms in plant RK signaling. By shedding light on the allosteric regulation of BAK1, the study provides a new paradigm for future research in this area.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> Gao et al. have demonstrated that the pesticide emamectin benzoate (EB) treatment of brown planthopper (BPH) leads to increased egg-laying in the insect, which is a common agricultural pest. The authors hypothesize that EB upregulates JH titer resulting in increased fecundity.

Strengths:<br /> The finding that a class of pesticide increases the fecundity of brown planthopper is interesting.

Weaknesses:<br /> 1. EB is an allosteric modulator of GluCl. That means EB physically interacts with GluCl initiating a structural change in the cannel protein. Yet the authors' central hypothesis here is about how EB can upregulate the mRNA of GluCl. I do not know whether there is any evidence that an allosteric modulator can function as a transcriptional activator for the same receptor protein. The basic premise of the paper sounds counterintuitive. This is a structural problem and should be addressed by the authors by giving sufficient evidence about such demonstrated mechanisms before.

2. I am surprised to see a 4th instar larval application or treatment with EB results in the upregulation of JH in the adult stages. Complicating the results further is the observation that a 4th instar EB application results in an immediate decrease in JH titer. There is a high possibility that this late JH titer increase is an indirect effect.

3. The writing quality of the paper needs improvement. Particularly with respect to describing processes and abbreviations. In several instances the authors have not adequately described the processes they have introduced, thus confusing readers.

4. In the section 'EB promotes ovarian development' the authors have shown that EB treatment results in increased detention of eggs which contradicts their own results which show that EB promotes egg laying. Again, this is a serious contradiction that nullifies their hypothesis.

5. Furthermore, the results suggest that oogenesis is not affected by EB application. The authors should devote a section to discussing how they are observing increased egg numbers in EB-treated insects while not impacting Oogenesis.

6. Met is the receptor of JH and to my understanding, remains mostly constant in terms of its mRNA or protein levels throughout various developmental periods in many different insects. Therefore, the presence of JH becomes the major driving factor for physiological events and not the presence of the receptor Met. Here the authors have demonstrated an increase in Met mRNA as a result of EB treatment. Their central hypothesis is that EB increases JH titer to result in enhanced fecundity. JH action will not result in the activation of Met. Although not contradictory to the hypothesis, the increase in mRNA content of Met is contrary to the findings of the JH field thus far.

7. As pointed out before, it is hard to rationalize how a 4th instar exposure to EB can result in the upregulation of key genes involved in JH synthesis at the adult stage. The authors must consider providing a plausible explanation and discussion in this regard.

8. I have strong reservations against such an irrational hypothesis that Met (the receptor for JH) and JH-Met target gene Kr-h1 regulate JH titer (Line 311, Fig 3 supplemental 2D). This would be the first report of such an event on the JH field and therefore must be analysed in depth. I strongly suggest the authors remove such claims from the manuscript without substantiating it.

9. Kr-h1 is JH/Met target gene. The authors demonstrate that silencing of Kr-h1 results in inhibition of FAMeT, which is a gene involved in JH synthesis. A feedback loop in JH synthesis is unreported. It is the view of this reviewer that the authors must go ahead with a mechanistic detail of Kr-h1 mediated JH upregulation before this can be concluded. Mere qPCR experiments are not sufficient to substantiate a claim that is completely contrary to the current understanding of the JH signalling pathway.

10. The authors have performed knockdowns of JHAMT, Met, and Kr-h1 to demonstrate the effect of these factors on fecundity in BPH. Additionally, they have performed rescue experiments with EB application on these knockdown insects (Figure 3K-M). This, I believe, is a very flawed experiment. The authors demonstrate EB works through JHAMT in upregulating JH titer. In the absence of JHAMT, EB application is not expected to rescue the phenotype. But the authors have reported a complete rescue here. In the absence of Met, the receptor of JH, either EB or JH is not expected to rescue the phenotype. But a complete rescue has been reported. These two experimental results contradict their own hypothesis.

11. A significant section of the paper deals with how EB upregulates JH titer. JH is a hormone synthesized in the Corpora Allata. Yet the authors have chosen to use the whole body for all of their experiment. Changes in the whole body for mRNA of those enzymes involved in JH synthesis may not reflect the situation in Corpora Allata. Although working with Corpora Allata is challenging, discarding the abdomen and thorax region and working with the head and neck region of the insect is easily doable. Results from such sampling are always more convincing when it comes to JH synthesis studies.

12. The phenomenon reported was specific to BPH and not found in other insects. This limits the implications of the study.

13. Overall, the molecular experiments are very poorly designed and can at best be termed superficial. There are several contradictions within the paper and no discussion or explanation has been provided for that.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The brown plant hopper (BPH) is a notorious crop pest and pesticides are the most widespread means of controlling its population. This manuscript shows that in response to sublethal doses of the pesticide (EB), BPH females show enhanced fecundity. This is in keeping with field reports of population resurgence post-pesticide treatment. The authors work out the mechanism behind this increase in fecundity. They show that in response to EB exposure, the expression of its target receptor, GluCl, increases. This, they show, results in an increase in the expression of genes that regulate the synthesis of juvenile hormone (JH) and JH itself, which, in turn, results in enhanced egg-production and egg-laying. Interestingly, these effects of EB exposure are species-specific, as the authors report that other species of plant hoppers either don't show enhanced fecundity or show reduced fecundity. As the authors point out, it is unclear how an increase in GluCl levels could result in increased JH regulatory genes.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this study the authors attempt to describe alterations in gene expression, protein expression, and protein phosphorylation as a consequence of chronic adenylyl cyclase 8 overexpression in a mouse model. This model is claimed to have resilience to cardiac stress.

Major strengths of the study include 1) the large dataset generated which will have utility further scientific inquiry for the authors and others in the field, 2) the innovative approach of using cross-analyses linking transcriptomic data to proteomic and phosphoproteomic data. One weakness is the lack of a focused question and clear relevance to human disease. These are all critical biological pathways that the authors are studying and essentially, they have compiled a database that could be surveyed to generate and test future hypotheses.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this study, the investigators describe an unbiased phosphoproteomic analysis of cardiac-specific overexpression of adenylyl cyclase type 8 (TGAC8) mice that was then integrated with transcriptomic and proteomic data. The phosphoproteomic analysis was performed using tandem mass tag-labeling mass spectrometry of left ventricular (LV) tissue in TGAC8 and wild-type mice. The initial principal component analysis showed differences between the TGAC8 and WT groups. The integrated analysis demonstrated that many stress-response, immune, and metabolic signaling pathways were activated at transcriptional, translational, and/or post-translational levels.

The authors are to be commended for a well-conducted study with quality control steps described for the various analyses. The rationale for following up on prior transcriptomic and proteomic analyses is described. The analysis appears thorough and well-integrated with the group's prior work. Confirmational data using Western blot is provided to support their conclusions. Their findings have the potential of identifying novel pathways involved in cardiac performance and cardioprotection.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> The authors characterize S. enterica WbaP biochemically and structurally. The enzyme catalyzes the initial step in O antigen biosynthesis by transferring a phospho-galactosyl unit from UDP-galactose to undecaprenyl-phosphate. This initial primer is then extended by other glycosyltransferases to form the O antigen repeat unit.

To preserve the biologically functional unit of WbaP, the authors chose a 'detergent-free' purification method based on membrane extraction using SMALP polymers. The obtained material was characterized biochemically and by single-particle cryo-electron microscopy.

Strengths:<br /> The authors were able to isolate WbaP in a catalytically active and oligomeric form and determined a low-resolution cryo-EM structure of the dimeric complex. Using a disulfide cross-linking approach and other biophysical methods, the authors validated an AlphaFold predicted WbaP model used to interpret the experimental cryo-EM map.

Weaknesses:<br /> The rationale for using SMALP to extract WbaP from the membrane was to 'preserve' the native lipid bilayer surrounding the protein. However, the physical properties of the lipids co-purifying with the protein are unclear. The volume of the EM map assigned to the SMALP polymers suggests a more micellar character.

Overall, the obtained cryo-EM map appears to be at fairly low resolution. Based on Figure 6, individual helices are not resolved, suggesting an overall resolution significantly below the stated 4.1 Å. Thus, the presented structure is the one of an AlphaFold WbaP model.

I believe the UMP titration analysis could be improved. The authors assume that a 'domain of unknown function (DUF)' binds UMP and regulates the enzyme's activity. UMP, a reaction product of WbaP, may also inhibit the enzyme competitively. Therefore, deleting the DUF for the UMP inhibition studies could help with data interpretation.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> The authors focused on delivering a comprehensive structural characterization of WbaP, a membrane-bound phosphoglycosyl transferase from Salmonella that is instrumental in bacterial glycoconjugate synthesis. Notably, the authors employed SMALP-200, an amphipathic copolymer, to extract WbaP in the form of native lipid bilayer nanodiscs. They then determined its oligomerization state through cross-linking and procured higher-resolution structural data via cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM). While the authors successfully characterized WbaP in a native-like lipid bilayer setting, and their findings support this, the paper's claim of introducing a novel methodology is not robust. The real contribution of this work lies in the newfound insights about WbaP's structure.

Strengths:<br /> The manuscript provides novel insights into WbaP's structure and oligomerization state, highlighting potentially significant interactions. The methodologies employed represent state-of-the-art practices in the field. Most of the drawn conclusions are well-supported by either experimental or computational data, with a few exceptions noted below.

Weaknesses:<br /> • Organization: The manuscript's organization lacks clarity. The authors seem to describe their processes in the sequence they occurred rather than a logical flow, leading to potential confusion. For instance, the authors delve into a series of inconclusive experiments to determine the oligomerization state of WbaP, utilizing techniques like SEC, SEC-MALS, mass photometry, and mass spectrometry. They then transition to cryo-EM but subsequently return to address the oligomerization issue, which they conclusively resolve using cross-linking experiments. Following this, they shift their focus to interpreting and discussing the structural features obtained from the cryo-EM data.


• Ambiguous and incorrect statements: There are instances of vague and at times inaccurate statements. Using more precise terminology like "native nanodiscs" or "lipid bilayer nanodiscs" would enhance clarity compared to the term "liponanoparticles." The claim on page 8 concerning the refractive index increment of SMA polymers needs rectification. The real reason why SEC-MALS cannot provide absolute particle masses in this case is that using two independent concentration detectors (typically, absorbance and refractive index), the decomposition of elution profiles is necessarily limited to two chemical species of a known molar or specific absorbance and refractive index. Thus, it is clear that nanodiscs containing a protein, a polymer, and a chemically undefined mixture of native lipids cannot be analyzed by this technique.

• Overstating of technical aspects: The technical aspects seem overstated. While the extraction of membrane proteins into native lipid bilayer nanodiscs and their characterization by cross-linking and cryo-EM are standard (and were published before by the same authors in ref. 29), the authors appear to promote them as groundbreaking. The statement that this study presents a novel, universal strategy and toolkit for examining small membrane proteins within liponanoparticles seems overstated, especially given the previous existence of similar methods.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Martinez-Gutierrez and colleagues presented a timeline of important bacteria and archaea groups in the ocean and based on this they correlated the emergence of these microbes with GOE and NOE, the two most important geological events leading to the oxygen accumulation of the Earth. The whole study builds on molecular clock analysis, but unfortunately, the clock analysis contains important errors in the calibration information the study used, and is also oversimplified, leaving many alternative parameters that are known to affect the posterior age estimates untested. Therefore, the main conclusion that the oxygen availability and redox state of the ocean is the main driver of marine microbial diversification is not convincing.

Basically, what the molecular clock does is to propagate the temporal information of the nodes with time calibrations to the remaining nodes of the phylogenetic tree. So, the first and the most important step is to set the time constraints appropriately. But four of the six calibrations used in this study are debatable and even wrong.

(1) The record for biogenic methane at 3460 Ma is not reliable. The authors cited Ueno et al. 2006, but that study was based on carbon isotope, which is insufficient to demonstrate biogenicity, as mentioned by Alleon and Summons 2019.

(2) Three calibrations at Aerobic Nitrososphaerales, Aerobic Marinimicrobia, and Nitrite oxidizing bacteria have the same problem - they are all assumed to have evolved after the GOE where the Earth started to accumulate oxygen in the atmosphere, so they were all capped at 2320 Ma. This is an important mistake and will significantly affect the age estimates because maximum constraint was used (maximum constraint has a much greater effect on age estimates and minimum constraint), and this was used in three nodes involving both Bacteria and Archaea. The main problem is that the authors ignored the numerous evidence showing that oxygen can be produced far before GOE by degradation of abiotically-produced abundant H2O2 by catalases equipped in many anaerobes, also produced by oxygenic cyanobacteria evolved at least 500 Ma earlier than the onset of GOE (2500 Ma), and even accumulated locally (oxygen oasis). It is well possible that aerobic microbes could have evolved in the Archaean.

Once the phylogenetic tree is appropriately calibrated with fossils and other time constraints, the next important step is to test different clock models and other factors that are known to significantly affect the posterior age estimates. For example, different genes vary in evolutionary history and evolutionary rate, which often give very different age estimates. So it is very important to demonstrate that these concerns are taken into account. These are done in many careful molecular dating studies but missing in this study.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this paper, Martinez-Gutierrez and colleagues present a dated, multidomain (= Archaea+Bacteria) phylogenetic tree, and use their analyses to directly compare the ages of various marine prokaryotic groups. They also perform ancestral gene content reconstruction using stochastic mapping to determine when particular types of genes evolved in marine groups.

Overall, there are not very many papers that attempt to infer a dated tree of all prokaryotes, and this is a distinctive and up-to-date new contribution to that oeuvre. There are several particularly novel and interesting aspects - for example, using the GOE as a (soft) maximum age for certain groups of strictly aerobic Bacteria, and using gene content enrichment to try to understand why and how particular marine groups radiated.

Comments:

One overall feature of the results is that marine groups tend to be quite young, and there don't seem to be any modern marine groups that were in the ocean prior to the GOE. It might be interesting to study the evolution of the marine phenotype itself over time; presumably some of the earlier branches were marine? What was the criterion for picking out the major groups being discussed in the paper? My (limited) understanding is that the earliest prokaryotes, potentially including LUCA, LBCA and LACA, was likely marine, in the sense that there would not yet have been any land above sea level at such times. This might merit discussion in the paper. Might there have been earlier exclusively marine groups that went extinct at some point?

What do the stochastic mapping analyses indicate about the respective ancestors of Gracilicutes and Terrabacteria? At least in the latter case, the original hypothesis for the group was that they possessed adaptations to life on land - which seems connected/relevant to the idea of radiating into the sea discussed here - so it might be interesting to discuss what your analyses say about that idea.

I very much appreciate that finding time calibrations for microbes is challenging, but I nonetheless have a couple of comments or concerns about the calibrations used here:

The minimum age for LBCA and LACA (Nodes 1 and 2 in Fig. 1) was calibrated with the earliest evidence of biogenic methane ~3.4Ga. In the case of LACA, I suppose this reflects the view that LACA was a methanogen, which is certainly plausible although perhaps not established with certainty. However, I'm less clear about the logic of calibrating the minimum age of Bacteria using this evidence, as I am not aware that there is much evidence that LBCA was a methanogen. Perhaps the line of reasoning here could be stated more explicitly. An alternative, slightly younger minimum age for Bacteria could perhaps be obtained from isotope data ~3.2Ga consistent with Cyanobacteria (e.g., see https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30127539/).

I am also unclear about the rationale for setting the minimum age of the photosynthetic Cyanobacteria crown to the time of the GOE. Presumably, oxygen-generating photosynthesis evolved on the stem of (photosynthetic) Cyanobacteria, and it therefore seems possible that the GOE might have been initiated by these stem Cyanobacteria, with the crown radiating later? My confusion here might be a comprehension error on my part - it is possible that in fact one node "deeper" than the crown was being calibrated here, which was not entirely clear to me from Figure 1. Perhaps mapping the node numbers directly to the node, rather than a connected branch, would help? (I am assuming, based on nodes 1 and 2, that the labels are being placed on the branch directly antecedent to the node of interest)?

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Martinez-Gutierrez and colleagues presented a timeline of important bacteria and archaea groups in the ocean and based on this they correlated the emergence of these microbes with GOE and NOE, the two most important geological events leading to the oxygen accumulation of the Earth.

The following suggestion is very important and requires additional clock analysis.

"Three calibrations at Aerobic Nitrososphaerales, Aerobic Marinimicrobia, and Nitrite oxidizing bacteria have the same problem - they are all assumed to have evolved after the GOE where the Earth started to accumulate oxygen in the atmosphere, so they were all capped at 2320 Ma. This is an important mistake and will significantly affect the age estimates because maximum constraint was used (maximum constraint has a much greater effect on age estimates and minimum constraint), and this was used in three nodes involving both Bacteria and Archaea. The main problem is that the authors ignored the numerous evidence showing that oxygen can be produced far before GOE by degradation of abiotically-produced abundant H2O2 by catalases equipped in many anaerobes, also produced by oxygenic cyanobacteria evolved at least 500 Ma earlier than the onset of GOE (2500 Ma), and even accumulated locally (oxygen oasis). It is well possible that aerobic microbes could have evolved in the Archaean."

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this paper, Martinez-Gutierrez and colleagues present a dated, multidomain (= Archaea+Bacteria) phylogenetic tree, and use their analyses to directly compare the ages of various marine prokaryotic groups. They also perform ancestral gene content reconstruction using stochastic mapping to determine when particular types of genes evolved in marine groups.

Overall, there are not very many papers that attempt to infer a dated tree of all prokaryotes, and this is a distinctive and up-to-date new contribution to that oeuvre. There are several particularly novel and interesting aspects - for example, using the GOE as a (soft) maximum age for certain groups of strictly aerobic Bacteria, and using gene content enrichment to try to understand why and how particular marine groups radiated.

One overall feature of the results is that marine groups tend to be quite young, and there don't seem to be any modern marine groups that were in the ocean prior to the GOE. This seems an interesting strand to pursue in future work. Presumably, the earliest branches of the bacterial tree were marine, so what happened in the intervening period? The authors' character mapping approach could also be used to infer the habitat of the Gracilicutes and Terrabacteria ancestors, and it might be interesting to revisit the question of the ancestral ecological differences between these groups, if any can be clearly distinguished.

Finally, some comments in which I disagree with a couple of the authors' methodological decisions. I don't think these disagreements are likely to have a major impact on the findings, but I feel it is worth mentioning them in any case, to stimulate future discussion and work. I very much appreciate that finding time calibrations for microbes is challenging, but I nonetheless have a couple of comments or concerns about the calibrations used here.

1. It is not clear that the earliest evidence for biogenic methane provides a minimum age for both Bacteria and Archaea. For Archaea, potentially --- if the methane is indeed biogenic, and if the last archaeal common ancestor was a methanogen. For Bacteria (and extant life as a whole), the link is harder to draw. The authors pointed out that there is other evidence from around this time for life, for example from the Strelley Pool at ~3.3Ga. This is a reasonable argument for a minimum on LUCA, but then the optimal approach would be to calibrate the root node with this minimum, rather than the two descendant clades.

2. I am also unclear about the rationale for setting the minimum age of the photosynthetic Cyanobacteria crown to the time of the GOE. Presumably, oxygen-generating photosynthesis evolved on the stem of (photosynthetic) Cyanobacteria - since the crown seems to have had it ancestrally - and it therefore seems possible that the GOE might have been initiated by these stem Cyanobacteria, with the crown radiating later. In their response to my comment, the authors confirm that they are calibrating the crown Cyanobacteria using the GOE as a minimum. I don't agree with the logic here: it seems a formal possibility that crown Cyanobacteriia are younger than the GOE. The authors argued that, although oxygenic photosynthesis likely evolved on the stem, due to extinction (or non-sampling) of intervening lineages there are no nodes on the tree that directly sample that event. I agree, but I would then suggest placing the minimum on the older, not the younger, end of the stem.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This is an interesting manuscript that builds off of this group's previous work focused on the interface between Hsf1, heat shock protein (HSP) mRNA production, and 3D genome topology. Here the group subjects the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae to either heat stress (HS) or ethanol stress (ES) and examines Hsf1 and Pol II chromatin binding, Histone occupancy, Hsf1 condensates, HSP gene coalescence (by 3C and live cell imaging), and HSP mRNA expression (by RT-qPCR and live cell imaging). The manuscript is well written, and the experiments seem well done, and generally rigorous, with orthogonal approaches performed to support conclusions. The main findings are that both HS and ES result in Hsf1/Pol II-dependent intergenic interactions, along with the formation of Hsf1 condensates. Yet, while HS results in rapid and strong induction of HSP gene expression and Hsf1 condensate resolution, ES results in slow and weak induction of HSP gene expression without Hsf1 condensate resolution. Thus, the conclusion is somewhat phenomenological - that the same transcription factor can drive distinct transcription, topologic, and phase-separation behavior in response to different types of stress. While identifying a mechanistic basis for these results would be a tough task perhaps beyond the scope of this study, it would nevertheless be helpful to place these results in context with a series of other studies demonstrating across various organisms showing Hsf1 driving distinct activities dependent on the context of activation. Perhaps even more importantly, this work left out PMID: 32015439 which is particularly relevant considering that it shows that it is human HSF1 condensate resolution rather than simple condensate formation that is associated with HSF1 transcriptional activity - which is similar to the findings here with this particular dose of HS resulting in resolution and high transcriptional activity versus ES resulting in resolution failure and lower activity. It is also worth noting that the stresses themselves are quite different - ethanol can be used as a carbon source and so beyond inducing proteotoxic stress, the yeast are presumably adapting to this distinct metabolic state. Basically, it is not clear whether these differences are due to the dose of stress, versus we are looking at an early timepoint as ES initiates a genome-wide chromatin restructuring and gene expression reprogramming that goes beyond a response to proteotoxic stress. This reviewer is not suggesting a barrage of new experiments, but perhaps discussion points to contextualize results.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> The study compares the transcriptional and epigenetic response of baker's yeast cells to heat shock and ethanol shock. The authors made several interesting observations. In response to heat shock, the transcription factor HSF1 rapidly forms foci, binds upstream elements of heat-shock-response genes, facilitates long-distance genomic contacts between heat-shock-response genes, and the genes are rapidly transcribed. In response to ethanol shock, the transcription factor HSF1 rapidly forms foci, binds upstream elements of heat-shock-response genes, facilitates long-distance genomic contacts between heat-shock-response genes, and yet transcription of the genes is substantially delayed. These insights are potentially important, as current models of eukaryotic gene control predict that physical contact between genes and regulatory elements is necessary, and in some cases sufficient to transcribe a gene. The current study indicates that the two effects are virtually decoupled in response to ethanol shock in yeast cells.

Overall, the conclusions appear appropriately supported by the data, and the data appear of high quality.

Strengths:<br /> The particular strengths of the paper include an impressive combination of genomic and imaging-based approaches and insightful genetically engineered cell systems. The manuscript reports interesting and potentially important findings. The text is generally very well written, the ideas are clearly explained, and the reasoning is easy to follow.

Weaknesses:<br /> The main weakness seems to be that the heat and ethanol shock approaches likely elicit pleiotropic effects, and therefore it is a challenge to test the causal relationship between various observations. Nevertheless, even as indirect effects might contribute to some of the authors' observations, the results are definitively worth reporting. Also, the presentation of some of the data could be improved.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Significance<br /> Rubio et al. study the behavior of the transcription factor Hsf1 under ethanol stress, examining its distribution within the nucleus and the coalescence of heat shock response genes in budding yeast. In comparison to the heat shock response, the response to ethanol stress shows similar gene coalescence and Hsf1 binding. However, there is a notable delay in the transcriptional response to ethanol, and a disconnect between it and the appearance of irreversible Hsf1 condensates/puncta, highlighting important differences in how Hsf1 responds to these two related but distinct environmental stresses.

Overview and general concerns<br /> The authors studied how yeast responds to ethanol stress (8.5%) and compared it to the heat shock response (from 25{degree sign}C to 39{degree sign}C). They observed a more gradual increase in the expression of heat shock response (HSR) genes during ethanol stress compared to heat shock. Additionally, the recruitment of Hsf1 and Pol II to HSR genes, and the inter- and intrachromosomal interactions among these genes, showed slower kinetics under ethanol stress. They attribute the delay in transcriptional response to chromatin compaction induced by ethanol. Despite this delay, these interactions persisted longer. Hsf1 clusters, previously documented during the heat shock response, were also observed during ethanol stress and persisted for an extended period. The conditional degradation of Hsf1 and Rpb1 eliminated most inter- and intrachromosomal interactions for heat shock responsive genes in both ethanol stress and heat shock conditions, indicating the importance of these factors for long-distance interactions between HSR genes. Overall, this manuscript provides novel insights into the differential behavior of HSR genes under different stress conditions. This contributes to the broader understanding of how different stressors might elicit unique responses at the genomic and topographical level under the regulation of transcription factor Hsf1.

The central finding of the study highlights the different dynamics of Hsf1, Pol II, and gene organization in response to heat shock versus ethanol stress. However, one important limitation to consider is that the two chosen conditions may not be directly comparable. For a balanced assessment, the authors should ideally expose yeast to various ethanol concentrations and different heat shock temperatures, ensuring the observed differences stem from the nature of the stressor rather than suboptimal stress intensity. At the very least, an additional single ethanol concentration point on each side of 8.5% should be investigated to ensure that 8.5% is near the optimum. In fact, comparing the number of Hsp104 foci in the two conditions in Fig. 1E and F suggests that the yeast is likely experiencing different intensities of stress for the chosen heat shock condition and ethanol concentration used in this study.

A second significant concern is the use of the term "Hsf1 condensate". Chowdhary et al.'s 2022 Molecular Cell study highlighted an inhomogeneous distribution and rapid dynamics of Hsf1 clustering upon heat shock, with sensitivity to 1,6-hexandiol, which is interpreted as evidence for condensation by LLPS. However this interpretation has been criticized severely by McSwiggen et al. Genes Dev 2019 and Mussacchio EMBO J 2022. It is important to mention that 1,6-hexandiol is known to affect chromatin organization (Itoh et al. Life Science Alliance 2021). Describing such clusters as 'condensates' without further experimental evidence is premature. I encourage authors to settle on their neutral term 'puncta' which they use interchangeably with 'condensate' so as not to confuse the reader. The dynamic binding and unbinding of the low-abundance Hsf1 at coalescent chromatin target sites might explain the liquid-like properties of these clusters without the need for invoking the phase-separation hypothesis. While Hsf1 clusters exhibit features consistent with phase-separated condensates, other equally plausible alternative mechanisms, such as dynamic site-specific interactions (Musacchio, EMBO J, 2022), should also be considered. This is best left for the discussion where the underlying mechanism for puncta formation can be addressed.

Specific comments:

- Figure 1: Why does ethanol stress at 0 min display a larger number of Hsp104 foci per cell than heat shock at the same time? How are foci defined by the authors? In Fig. 1D, there are many smaller puncta. A comparative assessment of the number and size of foci for heat shock and ethanol stress would be beneficial.

- Figure 2: Selecting a housekeeping gene with consistent expression levels is crucial for meaningful qPCR analysis. Do SCR1 mRNA levels fluctuate during heat shock or ethanol stress? Additionally, certain genes, such as TMA10 and SSA4, lack visible bars at time 0. Are these levels undetectable? The varying y-axis scales are confusing; presenting data as relative fold changes could offer a clearer perspective.

- Line 239: The evidence for chromatin compaction is unconvincing. An increase in H3 occupancy by ChIP might indicate a reduction in histone exchange dynamics but may not relate to overall chromatin compaction. The authors use H2A-mCherry to suggest a decrease in chromatin volume, but this data is not persuasive. Did the authors observe any changes in nuclear size? Perhaps quantifying chromatin compaction more directly, using signal intensity per volume, would be informative.

- Line 340: The claim of a "strong spatiotemporal correlation" isn't evident from the data. Could correlation coefficients be provided? There is potential anti-correlation in Fig. 6 - Figure Supplement 1C.

- Figure 8: The WT data in Fig 8 seem inconsistent with Fig. 4 (e.g. the interaction frequency for HSP104 and SSA2). Are these fluctuations between experiments, or are they side effects of IAA treatment? The use of ethanol as an IAA solvent vehicle raises concerns. It would be beneficial if the authors could demonstrate that 1.7% ethanol in the control does not induce ethanol stress.

Joint Public Review:

In the manuscript by Rajan et al., the authors have highlighted the direct interaction between Dbp5 and tRNA, wherein Dbp5 serves as a mediator for tRNA export. This export process is subject to spatial regulation, as Dbp5 ATPase activation occurs specifically at nuclear pore complexes. Notably, this regulation is independent of the Los1-mediated pre-tRNA export route and instead relies on Gle1.

The manuscript is well constructed and nicely written. The authors have addressed the concerns as raised by the previous reviewers and added additional experiments.

I have a few comments for polishing the manuscript.

Major comments:<br /> 1. In their previous paper (Lari et al, 2019; Azra Lari Arvind Arul Nambi Rajan Rima Sandhu Taylor Reiter Rachel Montpetit Barry P Young Chris JR Loewen Ben Montpetit (2019) A nuclear role for the DEAD-box protein Dbp5 in tRNA export eLife 8:e48410.) as well as in the current manuscript the authors states that Dbp5 is involved in the export of tRNA that is independent of and parallel to Los1. They state that Dbp5 binds to the tRNA independent of known tRNA export proteins. The obtained conclusion is both intriguing and innovative, since it suggests that there are other variables, beyond the ones previously identified as tRNA factors, that might interact with Dbp5 to facilitate the export process. In order to find out additional factors aiding this process the authors may employ total RNA‐associated protein purification (TRAPP) experiments ( Shchepachevto et al., 2019; Shchepachev V, Bresson S, Spanos C, Petfalski E, Fischer L, Rappsilber J, Tollervey D. Defining the RNA interactome by total RNA-associated protein purification. Mol Syst Biol. 2019 Apr 8;15(4):e8689. doi: 10.15252/msb.20188689. PMID: 30962360; PMCID: PMC6452921) to identify extra factors involved in conjunction with Dbp5. The process elucidates hitherto uninvestigated tRNA export components that function in conjunction with Dbp5.

2. Various reports suggest that eukaryotic translation elongation factor 1 eEF1A is involved tRNA export Bohnsack et al., 2002 (Bohnsack MT, Regener K, Schwappach B, Saffrich R, Paraskeva E, Hartmann E, Görlich D. Exp5 exports eEF1A via tRNA from nuclei and synergizes with other transport pathways to confine translation to the cytoplasm. EMBO J. 2002 Nov 15;21(22):6205-15. doi: 10.1093/emboj/cdf613. PMID: 12426392; PMCID: PMC137205), Grosshans etal., 2002; Grosshans H, Hurt E, Simos G. An aminoacylation-dependent nuclear tRNA export pathway in yeast. Genes Dev. 2000 Apr 1;14(7):830-40. PMID: 10766739; PMCID: PMC316491). The presence of mutations in eEF1A has been seen to hinder the nuclear export process of all transfer RNAs (tRNAs). eEF1A has been shown to interact with Los1 aiding in tRNA export. The authors can also explore the crosstalk between Dbp5 and eEF1A in this study. Additionally, suppressor screening analysis in dbp5R423A , los1∆dbp5R423A los1∆msn∆dbp5R423A could shed more light on this.

3. Unfortunately, this article is not significantly different from that published in eLife in 2018. In fact, it raises more questions than it brings answers by not identifying a transporter for export and not identifying a role for the helicase activity of Dbp5. The addition of Gle1 is potentially novel but it's unclear why the authors didn't address the potential involvement of IP6.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors have shown the following:<br /> 1. SY1 aggregation enhances (in terms of number of aggregates) when Sphingolipid biosynthesis is blocked.<br /> 2. In a normal cell (where sphingolipid biosynthesis is not hampered), the aggregate of SY1 (primarily the Class I aggregate) is localized only on the mitochondrial endomembrane system.<br /> 3. The localization is due to the association of SY1 (aggregates) with mitochondrial proteins like Tom70, Tim44, etc. (Is the localization completely lost? What happens to the toxicity when the aggregates are not localized on mitochondria?)<br /> 4. This fuels the loss of mitochondrial function.<br /> 5. Mitochondrial function is further abrogated when there is a block in sphingolipid biosynthesis.<br /> 6. A similar phenomenon is conserved in mammalian cell lines.

However, my major concern is that the role of sphingolipid in the mitochondrial association of the aggregates is not proven beyond doubt. I am also missing the importance of mitochondrial association in the context of IB maturation and cellular toxicity.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> The authors used a yeast model for analyzing Parkinson's disease-associated synphilin-1 inclusion bodies (SY1 IBs). In this model system, large SY1 IBs are efficiently formed from smaller potentially more toxic SY1 aggregates. Using a genome-wide approach (synthetic genetic array, SGA, combined with a high-content imaging approach), the authors identified the sphingolipid metabolic pathway as pivotal for SY1 IBs formation. Disturbances of this pathway increased SY1-triggered growth deficits, loss of mitochondrial membrane potential, increased production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), and decreased cellular ATP levels pointing to an increased energy crisis within affected cells. Notably, SY1 IBs were found to be surrounded by mitochondrial membranes using state-of-the-art super-resolution microscopy. Finally, the effects observed in the yeast for SY1 IBs turned out to be evolutionarily conserved in mammalian cells. Thus, sphingolipid metabolism might play an important role in the detoxification of misfolded proteins by large IBs formation at the mitochondrial membrane.

Strengths:<br /> • The SY1 IB yeast model is very suitable for the analysis of genes involved in IB formation.<br /> • The genome-wide approach combining a synthetic genetic array (SGA) with a high-content imaging approach is a compelling approach and enables the reliable identification of novel genes. The authors tightly checked the output of the screen.<br /> • The authors clearly showed, including a couple of control experiments, that the sphingolipid metabolic pathway is crucial for SY1 IB formation and cytotoxicity.<br /> • The localization of SY1 IBs at mitochondrial membranes has been clearly demonstrated with state-of-the-art super-resolution microscopy and biochemical methods.<br /> • Pharmacological manipulation of the sphingolipid pathway influenced mitochondrial function and cell survival.

Weaknesses:<br /> • It remains unclear how sphingolipids are involved in SY1 IB formation.<br /> • It remains undefined whether failure of sphingolipid-dependent SY1 IB formation from smaller potentially more toxic aggregates occurs at the mitochondrial membrane.<br /> • It remains open whether mitochondrial activity (e.g., respiratory activity) is needed for sphingolipid-dependent SY1 IB formation.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> This study investigated the role of CD47 and TSP1 in extramedullary erythropoiesis by utilization of both global CD47-/- mice and TSP1-/- mice.

Strengths:<br /> Flow cytometry combined with spleen bulk and single-cell transcriptomics were employed. The authors found that stress-induced erythropoiesis markers were increased in CD47-/- spleen cells, particularly genes that are required for terminal erythroid differentiation. Moreover, CD47 dependent erythroid precursors population was identified by spleen scRNA sequencing. In contrast, the same cells were not detected in TSP1-/- spleen. These findings provide strong evidence to support the conclusion that the differential role of CD47 and TSP1 in extramedullary erythropoiesis in mouse spleen.

Weaknesses:<br /> Methods and data analysis are appropriate. However, some clarifications are required. The discussion section needs to be expanded.<br /> 1). The sex of mice that were used in the study is unknown.<br /> 2). In the method of Single-cell RNA sequencing (page 10), it mentioned that single cell suspensions from mouse spleens were depleted of all mature hematopoietic cell lineages by passing through CD8a microbeads and CD8a+ T cell isolation Kit. As described, it is confusing what cell types are obtained for performing scRNAseq. More information is required for clarity.<br /> 3). The constitutive CD47 knockout mouse model is utilized in this study. The observed accumulation of erythroid precursors in the spleens of CD47-/- mice suggests a chronic effect of CD47 on spleen function. Can the current findings be extrapolated to acute scenarios involving CD47 knockdown or loss, as this may have more direct relevance to the potential side effects associated with anti-CD47-mediated cancer therapy? Please expand on this topic in the discussion section.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> The authors used existing mouse models to compare the effects of ablating the CD47 receptor and its signaling ligand Thrombospondin. The CD47-KO model used in this study was generated by Kim et al, 2018, where hemolytic anemia and splenomegaly was reported. This study analyzes the cell composition of the spleens from CD47-KO and Thsp-KO, focusing on early hematopoietic and erythroid populations. The data broadly shows that splenomegaly in the CD47-KO is largely due to an increase in committed erythroid progenitors as seen by Flow Cytometry and single-cell sequencing, whereas the Thsp-KO shows a slight depletion of committed erythroid progenitors but is otherwise similar to WT in splenic cell composition.

Strengths: The techniques used are appropriate for the study and the data support the main conclusions of the study. This study provides novel insights into a putative role of Thsp-CD47 signaling in triggering definitive erythropoiesis in the mouse spleen in response to anemic stress and constitutes a good resource for researchers seeking to understand extramedullary erythropoiesis.

Weaknesses: The Flow cytometry data alone supports the authors' main conclusion and single-cell sequencing confirms them but does not add further information, other than those already observed in the Flow data. The single-cell sequencing analysis and presentation could be improved by using alternate clustering methods as well as separating the data by genotype and displaying them in order for readers to fully grasp the nuanced differences in marker expression between the genotypes. Further, it is not clear from the authors' description of their results whether the increased splenic erythropoiesis is a direct consequence of CD47-KO or a response to the anemic stress in this mouse model. The enrichment of cKit+ Ter119+ Sca1- cells in CD47-KO indicates that these are likely stress erythroid progenitors. Another CD47-KO mouse model (Lindberg et al 1996) has no reported erythroid defects and was also not examined in this study.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The work analyzes how centrosomes mature before cell division. A critical aspect is the accumulation of pericentriolar material (PCM) around the centrioles to build competent centrosomes that can organize the mitotic spindle. The present work builds on the idea that the accumulation of PCM is catalyzed either by the centrioles themselves (leading to a constant accumulation rate) or by enzymes activated by the PCM itself (leading to autocatalytic accumulation). These ideas are captured by a previous model derived for PCM accumulation in C. elegans (ref. 8) and are succinctly summarized by Eq. 1. The main addition of the present work is to allow the activated enzymes to diffuse in the cell, so they can also catalyze the accumulation of PCM in other centrosomes (captured by Eqs. 2-4). The authors claim that this helps centrosomes to reach the same size, independent of potential initial mismatches.

A strength of the paper is the simplicity of the equations, which are reduced to the bare minimum and thus allow a detailed inspection of the physical mechanism. One shortcoming of this approach is that all equations assume that the diffusion of molecules is much faster than any of the reactive time scales, although there is no experimental evidence for this.

Another shortcoming of the paper is that it is not clear what species the authors are investigating and how general the model is. There are huge differences in centrosome maturation and the involved proteins between species. However, this is not mentioned in the abstract or introduction. Moreover, in the main body of the paper, the authors mention C. elegans on pages 2 and 3, but refer to Drosophila on page 4, switching back to C. elegans on page 5, and discuss Drosophila on page 6. This is confusing and looks as if they are cherry-picking elements from various species. The original model in ref. 8 was constructed for C. elegans and it is not clear whether the autocatalytic model is more general than that. In any case, a more thorough discussion of experimental evidence would be helpful.

The authors show convincingly that their model compensates for initial size differences in centrosomes and leads to more similar final sizes. These conclusions rely on numerical simulations, but it is not clear how the parameters listed in Table 1 were chosen and whether they are representative of the real situation. Since all presented models have many parameters, a detailed discussion on how the values were picked is indispensable. Without such a discussion, it is not clear how realistic the drawn conclusions are. Some of this could have been alleviated using a linear stability analysis of the ordinary differential equations from which one could have gotten insight into how the physical parameters affect the tendency to produce equal-sized centrosomes.

The authors use the fact that their model stabilizes centrosome size to argue that their model is superior to the previously published one, but I think that this conclusion is not necessarily justified by the presented data. The authors claim that "[...] none of the existing quantitative models can account for robustness in centrosome size equality in the presence of positive feedback." (page 1; similar sentence on page 2). This is not shown convincingly. In fact, ref 8. already addresses this problem (see Fig. 5 in ref. 8) to some extent. More importantly, the conclusion seems to largely be based on the analysis shown in Fig. 2A, but the parameters going into this figure are not clear (see the previous paragraph). In particular, the initial size discrepancy of 0.1 µm^3 seems quite large, since it translates to a sphere of a radius of 300 nm. A similarly large initial discrepancy is used on page 3 without any justification. Since the original model itself already showed size stability, a careful quantitative comparison would be necessary.

The analysis of the size discrepancy relies on stochastic simulations (e.g., mentioned on pages 2 and 4), but all presented equations are deterministic. It's unclear what assumptions go into these stochastic equations, and how they are analyzed or simulated. Most importantly, the noise strength (presumably linked to the number of components) needs to be mentioned. How is this noise strength determined? What are the arguments for this choice? This is particularly crucial since the authors quote quantitative results (e.g., "a negligible difference in steady-state size (∼ 2% of mean size)" on page 4).

Moreover, the two sets of testable predictions that are offered at the end of the paper are not very illuminative: The first set of predictions, namely that the model would anticipate an "increase in centrosome size with increasing enzyme concentration, the ability to modify the shape of the sigmoidal growth curve, and the manipulation of centrosome size scaling patterns by perturbing growth rate constants or enzyme concentrations.", are so general that they apply to all models describing centrosome growth. Consequently, these observations do not set the shared enzyme pool apart and are thus not useful to discriminate between models. The second part of the first set of predictions about shifting "size scaling" is potentially more interesting, although I could not discern whether "size scaling" referred to scaling with cell size, total amount of material, or enzymatic activity at the centrioles. The second prediction is potentially also interesting and could be checked directly by analyzing published data of the original model (see Fig. 5 of ref. 8). It is unclear to me why the authors did not attempt this.

Taken together, I think the shared enzyme pool is an interesting idea, but the experimental evidence for it is currently lacking. Moreover, the model seems to make little testable predictions that differ from previous models.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this paper, Banerjee & Banerjee argue that a solely autocatalytic assembly model of the centrosome leads to size inequality. The authors instead propose a catalytic growth model with a shared enzyme pool. Using this model, the authors predict that size control is enzyme-mediate and are able to reproduce various experimental results such as centrosome size scaling with cell size and centrosome growth curves in C. elegans.

The paper contains interesting results and is well-written and easy to follow/understand.

Suggestions:

● In the Introduction, when the authors mention that their "theory is based on recent experiments uncovering the interactions of the molecular components of centrosome assembly" it would be useful to mention what particular interactions these are.<br /> ● In the Results and Discussion sections, the authors note various similarities and differences between what is known regarding centrosome formation in C. elegan and Drosophila. It would have been helpful to already make such distinctions in the Introduction (where some phenomena that may be C. elegans specific are implied to hold centrosomes universally). It would also be helpful to include more comments for the possible implications for other systems in which centrosomes have been studied, such as human, Zebrafish, and Xenopus.<br /> ● For Fig 1.C, the two axes are very close to being the same but are not. It makes the graph a little bit more difficult to interpret than if they were actually the same or distinctly different. It would be more useful to have them on the same scale and just have a legend.<br /> ● The authors refer to Equation 1 as resulting from an "active liquid-liquid phase separation", but it is unclear what that means in this context because the rheology of the centrosome does not appear to be relevant.<br /> ● The authors reject the non-cooperative limit of Eq 1 because, even though it leads to size control, it does not give sigmoidal dynamics (Figure 2B). While I appreciate that this is just meant to be illustrative, I still find it to be a weak argument because I would guess a number of different minor tweaks to the model might keep size control while inducing sigmoidal dynamics, such as size-dependent addition of loss rates (which could be due to reactions happen on the surface of the centrosome instead of in its bulk, for example). Is my intuition incorrect? Is there an alternative reason to reject such possible modifications?<br /> ● While the inset of Figure 3D is visually convincing, it would be good to include a statistical test for completeness.<br /> ● The authors note that the pulse in active enzyme in their model is reminiscent of the Polo kinase pulse observed in Drosophila. Can the authors use these published experimental results to more tightly constrain what parameter regime in their model would be relevant for Drosophila? Can the authors make predictions of how this pulse might vary in other systems such as C. elegans?<br /> ● The authors mention that the shared enzyme pool is likely not diffusion-limited in C. elegans embryos, but this might change in larger embryos such as Drosophila or Xenopus. It would be interesting for the authors to include a more in-depth discussion of when diffusion will or will not matter, and what the consequence of being in a diffusion-limit regime might be.<br /> ● The authors state "Firstly, our model posits the sharing of the enzyme between both centrosomes. This hypothesis can potentially be experimentally tested through immunofluorescent staining of the kinase or by constructing FRET reporter of PLK1 activity." I don't understand how such experiments would be helpful for determining if enzymes are shared between the two centrosomes. It would be helpful for the authors to elaborate.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This important study from Jahncke et al. demonstrates inhibitory synaptic defects and elevated seizure susceptibility in multiple models of dystroglycanopathy. A strength of the paper is the use of a wide range of genetic models to disrupt different aspects of dystroglycan protein or glycosylation in forebrain neurons. The authors use a combination of immunohistochemistry and electrophysiology to identify cellular migration, lamination, axonal targeting, synapse formation/function, and seizure phenotypes in forebrain neurons. This is an elegant study with extensive data supporting the conclusions. The role of dystroglycan and the dystrophin glycoprotein complex (DGC) in cellular migration and synapse formation are of broad interest.<br /> A strength of this paper is the use of several transgenic mouse lines with mutations in genes involved in glycosylation of dystroglycan. Knockout of POMT2 abolishes the majority of dystroglycan glycosylation, while point mutations in B4GAT and FKRP presumably produce more minor changes in glycosylation. This is a powerful approach to investigate the role of glycosylation in dystroglycan function.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The manuscript by Jahncke and colleagues is centered on the CCK+ synaptic defects that are a consequence of Dystroglycanopathy and/or impaired dystroglycan-related protein function. The authors use conditional mouse models for Dag1 and Pomt2 to ablate their function in mouse forebrain neurons and demonstrate significant impairment of CCK+/CB1R+ interneuron (IN) development in addition to being prone to seizures. Mice lacking the intracellular domain of Dystroglycan have milder defects, but impaired CCK+/CB1R+ IN axon targeting. The authors conclude that the milder dystroglycanopathy is due to the partially reduced glycosylation that occurs in the milder mouse models as opposed to the more severe Pomt2 models. Additionally, the authors postulate that inhibitory synaptic defects and elevated seizure susceptibility are hallmarks of severe dystroglycanopathy and are required for the organization of functional inhibitory synapse assembly.

The manuscript is overall, fairly well-written and the description of the phenotypic impact of disruption of Dystroglycan forebrain neurons (and similar glycosyltransferase pathway proteins) demonstrate impairment in axon targeting and organization. There are some questions with regards to interpretation of some of the results from these conditional mouse models. The study is mostly descriptive, and some validation of subunits of the dystroglycan-glycoprotein complex and laminin interactions would go towards defining the impact of disruption of dystroglycan's function in the brain. The statistics and basic analysis of the manuscript appear to be appropriate and within parameters for a study of this nature. Some clarification between the discrepancies between the Walker Warburg Syndrome (WWS) patient phenotypes and those observed in these conditional mouse models is warranted. This manuscript has the potential to be impactful in the Dystroglycanopathy and general neurobiology fields.

The authors have made significant improvements to address my concerns in this resubmission and the previous critiques of the other reviewers since the prior submission. The work is comprehensive in scope and the statistics are appropriate where required. I believe the conclusions to be valid for this study and I don't have any additional recommendations. I believe this work to be of importance to the Dystroglycanopathy and neurobiology fields.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The study presents a systematic analysis of how a range of dystroglycan mutations alter CCK/CB1 axonal targeting and inhibition in hippocampal CA1 and impact seizure susceptibility. The study follows up on prior literature identifying a role for dystroglycan in CCK/CB1 synapse formation. The careful assay includes comparison of 5 distinct dystroglycan mutation types known to be associated with varying degrees of muscular dystrophy phenotypes: a forebrain specific Dag1 knockout in excitatory neurons at 10.5, a forebrain specific knockout of the glycosyltransferase enzyme in excitatory neurons, mice with deletion of the intracellular domain of beta-Dag1 and 2 lines with missense mutations with milder phenotypes. They show that forebrain glutamatergic deletion of Dag1 or glycosyltransferase alters cortical lamination while lamination is preserved in mice with deletion of the intracellular domain or missense mutation. The study extends prior works by identifying that forebrain deletion of Dag1 or glycosyltransferase in excitatory neurons impairs CCK/CB1 and not PV axonal targeting and CB1 basket formation around CA1 pyramidal cells. Mice with deletion of the intracellular domain or missense mutation show<br /> limited reductions in CCK/CB1 fibers in CA1. Carbachol enhancement of CA1 IPSCs was reduced both in forebrain knockouts. Interestingly, carbachol enhancement of CA1 IPSCs was reduced when the intracellular domain of beta-Dag1was deleted, but not I the missense mutations, suggesting a role of the intracellular domain in synapse maintenance. All lines except the missense mutations , showed increased susceptibility to chemically induced behavioral seizures. Together, the study, is carefully designed, well controlled and systematic. The results advance prior findings of the role for dystroglycans in CCK/CB1 innervations of PCs by demonstrating effects of more selective cellular deletions and site specific mutations in extracellular and intracellular domains.

Prior concerns regarding CCK/CB1 cell numbers and potential changes in basal synaptic inhibition are addressed in the revision.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Mature mammalian olfactory sensory neurons (OSN) express only one of the hundreds of possible odor receptors (ORs) encoded in the genome. The process of selecting this OR in each OSN is the consequence of both deterministic developmental processes involving transcription factors, and more stochastic processes. How this balance is implemented is a major problem in molecular neuroscience, one whose solution has significant systems-level implications for odor coding. In Bashkirova et al the authors substantially revise the canonical view of how this process works. By querying single cell transcriptomes and genetic architecture across OSN development, the authors demonstrate that OSN progenitors express ORs for their zone and for more dortsal zones, and that the degree of heterochromatinization of non-expressed ORs varies as a function of which zone a given OSN resides in. Through additional genetic experiments (including knockouts of transcription factors that seem to be associated with zonal identity, and the clever use of OR transgenes) they synthesize these findings into a model in which progenitors co-express many ORs - both ORs that are appropriate for their zone and ORs that are dorsal to their zone - and that this expression both facilitates heterochromatinzation of non-selected and extra-zonal ORs, and enables singular OR selection. The experiments are careful and the data are novel, and definitely revise our simplistic current view of how this process works; as such this work will have significant impact on the field. As presented the model requires additional experiments to fully flesh it out, and to definitively demonstrate that i.e., precocious expression leads to gene silencing, but with some additional clarifications in the discussion this paper both breaks new ground and sets the stage for future work exploring mechanisms of OSN development and OR selection.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this study, Bashkirova et al. analyzed how the gene choice of olfactory receptors (ORs) is regulated in olfactory sensory neurons (OSNs) during development. In the mouse olfactory system, there are more than 1000 functional OR genes and several hundred pseudogenes. It is well-established that each individual OSN expresses only one functional OR gene in a mono-allelic manner. This is referred to as the one neuron - one receptor rule. It is also known that OR gene choice is not entirely stochastic but restricted to a particular area or zone in the olfactory epithelium (OE) along the dorsoventral axis. It is interesting to study how this stochastic but biased gene-choice is regulated during OSN development, narrowing down the number of OR genes to be chosen to eventually achieve the monogenic OR expression in OSNs.

In the present study, the authors cell-sorted OSNs into three groups; immediate neuronal precursors (INPs), immature OSNs (iOSNs), and mature OSNs (mOSNs). They found that OR gene choice is differentially regulated positively by transcription factors in INPs and negatively by heterochromatin-mediated OR gene silencing in iOSNs. The authors propose that by the combination of two opposing forces of polygenic transcription (positive) and genomic silencing (negative), each OSN finally expresses only one OR gene out of over 2000 alleles in a stochastic but stereotypic manner.

The authors' model of OR gene choice is supported by well-designed experiments and by large amounts of data. In general, the paper is clearly written and easy to follow. It will attract a wide variety of readers in the fields of neuroscience, developmental biology, and immunology. The present finding will give new insight into our understanding of gene choice in the multigene family in the mammalian brain and shed light on the long-standing question of monogenic expression of OR genes.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This manuscript investigates how a seemingly random choice of odourant receptor (OR) gene expression is organised into sterotypic zones of OR expression along the olfactory epithelium. Using a varietty of functional genomics methods, the authors find that along the differentiation axis (progenitor to mature olfactory sensory neuron, OSN) multiple ORs are initally transcribed and from among these, only one OR is selected for expression. The rest are suppressed through chromatin silencing. In addition to this, the authors report a dorso-ventral gradient in OR expression at the immature stage - dorsally expressed ORs are also expressed ventrally and these then get silenced. The expression of the ventrally expressed ORs, on the other hand, are restricted to the ventral region. They suggest a role for the transcription factor NF1 in this dorsoventral process.

This is a valuable study. The data are compelling and generally well presented.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this study, Jiamin Lin et al. investigated the potential positive feedback loop between ZEB2 and ACSL4, which regulates lipid metabolism and breast cancer metastasis. They reported a correlation between high expression of ZEB2 and ACSL4 and poor survival of breast cancer patients, and showed that depletion of ZEB2 or ACSL4 significantly reduced lipid droplets abundance and cell migration in vitro. The authors also claimed that ZEB2 activated ACSL4 expression by directly binding to its promoter, while ACSL4 in turn stabilized ZEB2 by blocking its ubiquitination.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this study, the authors validated a positive feedback loop between ZEB2 and ACSL4 in breast cancer, which regulates lipid metabolism to promote metastasis.

Overall, the study is original, well structured, and easy to read.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The manuscript by Lin et al. reveals a novel positive regulatory loop between ZEB2 and ACSL4, which promotes lipid droplets storage to meet the energy needs of breast cancer metastasis.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In order to find small molecules capable of enhancing regenerative repair, this study employed a high throughput YAP-activity screen method to query the ReFRAME library, identifying CLK2 inhibitor as one of the hits. Further studies showed that CLK2 inhibition leads to AMOTL2 exon skipping, rendering it unable to suppress YAP.

The novelty of the study is that it showed that inhibition of a kinase not previously associated with the HIPPO pathway can influence YAP activity through modification of mRNA splicing. The major arguments appear solid.

In the revised manuscript, additional discussion was provided regarding drug concentration and molecular mechanisms, which helps clear some of the confusing points in the original manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, the authors have screened the ReFRAME library and identified candidate small molecules that can activate YAP. They found that SM04690, an inhibitor of the WNT signaling pathway, could efficiently activate YAP through CLK2 kinase which has been shown to phosphorylate SR proteins to alter gene alternative splicing. They further demonstrated that SM04690 mediated alternative splicing of AMOTL2 and rendered it unlocalized on the membrane. Alternatively spliced AMOTL2 prevented YAP from anchoring to the cell membrane which results in decreased YAP phosphorylation and activated YAP. Previous findings showed that WNT signaling more or less activates YAP. The authors revealed that an inhibitor of WNT signaling could activate YAP. Thus, these findings are potentially interesting and important. However, the present manuscript provided a lot of indirect data and lacked key experiments.

Major points:<br /> 1. In Figure S3, since inhibition of CLK2 resulted in extensive changes in alternative splicing, why did the authors choose AMOTL2? How to exclude other factors such as EEF1A1 and HSPA5, do they affect YAP activation? Angiomotin-related AMOTL1 and AMOTL2 were identified as negative regulators of YAP and TAZ by preventing their nuclear translocation. It has been reported that high cell density promoted assembly of the Crumbs complex, which recruited AMOTL2 to tight junctions. Ubiquitination of AMOTL2 K347 and K408 served as a docking site for LATS2, which phosphorylated YAP to promote its cytoplasmic retention and degradation. How to determine that alternative splicing rather than ubiquitination of AMOTL2 affects YAP activity? Does AMOTL2 Δ5 affect the ubiquitination of AMOTL2? Does overexpression of AMOTL2 Δ5Δ9 cause YAP and puncta to co-localize?<br /> 2. The author proposed that AMOTL2 splicing isoform formed biomolecular condensates,.However, there was no relevant experimental data to support this conclusion. AMOTL2 is located not only on the cell membrane but also on the circulating endosome of the cell, and the puncta formed after AMOTL2 dissociation from the membrane is likely to be the localization of the circulating endosome. The author should co-stain AMOTL2 with markers of circulating endosomes, or conduct experiments to prove the liquidity of puncta to verify the phase separation of AMOTL2 splicing isoform.<br /> 3. The localization of YAP in cells is regulated by cell density, and YAP usually translocates to the nucleus at low cell density. In Figure 2E, the cell densities of DMSO and SM04690-treated groups are inconsistent. In Figure 4A, the magnification of t DMSO and SM04690-treated groups is inconsistent, and the SM04690-treated group seems to have a higher magnification.<br /> 4. There have been many reports that the WNT signaling pathway and the Hippo signaling pathway can crosstalk with each other. The authors should exclude the influence of the WNT signaling pathway by using SM04690.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This study on drug repurposing presents the identification of potent activators of the Hippo pathway. The authors successfully screen a drug library and identify two CLK kinase inhibitors as YAP activators, with SM04690 targeting specifically CLK2. They further investigate the molecular basis of SM04690-induced YAP activity and identify splicing events in AMOTL2 as strongly affected by CLK2 inhibition. Exon skipping within AMOTL2 decreases the interactions with membrane bound proteins and is sufficient to induce YAP target gene expression. Importantly, inhibitor concentrations that are sufficient to change YAP target gene expression show differential alternative splicing of AMOTL2. Overall the study is well designed, the conclusions are supported by sufficient data and represent an exciting connection between alternative splicing and the HIPPO pathway.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The work in this paper is in general done carefully. Reconstructions are done appropriately and the effects of statistical uncertainty are quantified properly. I was glad to see that the tree and alignment are now deposited.

The paper identifies which mutations are crucial for the functional differences between the ancestors tested. This is done quite carefully - the authors even show that the same substitutions also work in extant proteins.<br /> These substitutions very slightly lower the affinity and increase the cooperativity of the C-terminal peptide binding to the alpha crystallin domain - a key oligomeric interaction. These relatively minor changes nevertheless apparently affect the subunit exchange behaviour and oligomerization of the sHSP.

Lastly, the authors use likelihood methods to test for signatures of selection. This reviewer is not a fan of these methods, as they are easily misled by common biological processes (see PMID 37395787 for a recent critique). The paper is relatively careful in the interpretation of this test though, and I think the importance of the other findings does not depend on the action of selection along this branch.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This was an interesting study, and I enjoyed seeing different experimental approaches used to compare the properties of the different native proteins, the ancestral reconstructions, and the other mutants. In the original manuscript, I felt that the authors had over-simplified their explanations, as the differences between the ancestral proteins, and the changes induced by the two mutations, only partially explain the differences between IbpA proteins from the two different species. However, with their revised version, I think the presentation and discussion of their results are much better. Overall, I think this represents a valuable contribution to the field, providing convincing mechanistic evidence as to how these small heat shock proteins have evolved.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The goal of this paper is to characterize the molecular mechanisms that lead to lung cyst formation in a murine model wherein the Bmpr1a receptor gene has been inactivated in the fetal lung mesenchyme. In this context, it is important to note that very little is known regarding how lung cysts form, and generally the presumption has been that these pathological structures result from dysregulated events in the epithelium. Thus, the emphasis in this paper on derangements in a fundamental developmental signaling pathway in the lung mesenchyme that results in cyst formation is both novel and significant.

In this manuscript, the authors seek to understand how abnormal lung development leads to the formation of cysts in the lung. Cysts are enlarged pathological balloon-like structures that interfere with normal gas exchange and characterize a variety of pediatric and adult lung diseases. To date, the molecular signals underlying cyst formation are poorly understood. Using genetically modified mice, the focus herein is on how inactivation of a specific gene known to transduce key developmental signals (Bmpr1a) leads to the development of cysts. One novelty of this work is that the gene inactivation has been targeted to a set of primitive fetal lung cells that give rise to structural and contractile cells supporting bronchial airways. Alterations in the function of this particular cell type has not previously been examined in the context of lung cyst pathogenesis.

Notably, the experiments and models are state-of-art and the authors are careful in their interpretations. It should be noted, however, that there are also several concerns that limit enthusiasm at this time. These include a lack of data evaluating relative histological similarities and differences between cysts generated in their murine model and human lung cysts, and whether there is information implicating a role for the gene studied in this paper in human cysts. Secondly, despite an abundance of data, at the end of the day, the key molecular signals are not clearly identified.

Additional Feedback

Overall, this is a well-executed paper that addresses how derangements in signals emanating from the fetal lung mesenchyme in embryonic life lead to cyst formation. This work, therefore, seeks to fill in basic deficiencies in knowledge since the pathogenesis of lung cyst formation is poorly understood and the role of altered mesenchymal cell activity in this process has not been carefully addressed. For the most part, the experiments are clearly presented, and the models are relevant and state-of-the art. Although enthusiasm is high, there are several overriding concerns, which the authors should consider.

While the paper seeks to understand the key molecular events leading to cyst formation and a plethora of data is provided, this goal is largely not clearly met. As a result, the paper ends up being descriptive. Further, without these data, a so-called definitive rescue experiment is not possible at this time. In addition, the experiments, particularly toward the end of the manuscript are not well integrated with the overall body of the Results. This is particularly true for figure 7. While interesting, the results in some of these latter figures are insufficiently linked to the primary observations. This issue further contributes to concerns that the manuscript is largely descriptive.

Importantly, it would be useful to have provided more detailed information on the structure and histological properties of the murine cysts and how such findings relate to human lung cysts. Also, the authors should examine whether there is any information on Bmpr1a in human cyst formation (i.e GWAS data).

Throughout the paper, there is a lack of quantification for the histological findings. Littermate controls should also be clearly defined genetically,

Specific Concerns by figure

Figure 1 suppl: "Doxycycline" is misspelled.

Figure1c Suppl: Hard to discern clear-cut expression of Bmpr1a protein in mesenchyme in WT. Comparable images with similar sizes of airways should be used.

Figure 2a: Expression of several genes studied and altered should be identified on scatter plot.

Figure 2c: Authors should also consider staining for other smooth muscle markers.

Figure 3: ELN expression should be defined in a clear quantitative manner.

Figure 4: Additional information on p38 dependent signaling (? Including in vivo studies) would potentially help to understand key molecular events and perhaps could help to address key mechanistic events, including their location and identity.

Figure 6: Would be helpful to know whether Bmpr1a receptor is expressed in Myocd KO.

Figure 7: Not clear how these findings, though interesting, relate to the body of studies and the pathogenesis of cyst formation. Other points: 1) The authors should re-examine/repeat co-staining in the KO mouse lung (right 2 images in the top group of 4) for Foxj1, Sox2, and CDH (right 2 images, Figure 7A). For one thing, the cadherin stain in the 2 KO images seems localized to the lumen. Secondly, the pattern of cadherin staining looks exactly the same in both KO images, suggesting an error and/or duplication 2) authors should place arrows on the heat map showing the location of SPC, Sox2, Sox9, and FoxJ1 bands 3) figure 7D graph needs numbers on y axis.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Congenital cystic airway abnormalities (CPAM) are a common disorder in airway lung development whose etiology is poorly understood and can be fatal if not effectively treated at birth. This study by Luo and colleagues provides compelling new evidence in mice and cultured fetal mesenchymal cells that loss of mesenchymal Bmpr1a signaling disrupts branching morphogenesis, leading to the formation of numerous pulmonary cysts. Their airways were deficient in underlying smooth muscle and subepithelial elastin fibers along with perturbations in Sox2-Sox9 proximal-distal epithelial development. Interestingly, these changes were independent of canonical Smad1/5 signaling and suggestive of non-canonical signaling perhaps through p38 signaling. They were also independent of simply ablating non-vascular mesenchymal cells using Myocd-ko mice. Although the study does not define how loss of Bmpr1a causes cystic formation or whether this pathway is related to human CPAM disease, the findings are considered highly significant because they provide new evidence for BMP signaling in branching morphogenesis. The knowledge may pave the way for future studies designed to understand and prevent or treat newborn infants with CPAM. There are only a few weaknesses.

Major Weaknesses:<br /> 1. The authors may be aware that a recent paper (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-24858-3) reported on transcriptional changes seen in human CPAM. It would seem that some of the molecular changes seen in human CPAM move in the opposite direction of what is reported in mice lacking mesenchymal Bmrp1a. Perhaps the authors could comment on these differences in the discussion and whether they potentially explain the etiology of CPAM or branching morphogenesis in general.<br /> 2. Figure 4 shows that BMP4 increases SMADs, p38, and several muscle genes in mesenchymal cells. Figure 5 extends this finding with a clever strategy to label airway and vascular smooth muscle with different fluorescent molecules used to isolate different types of mesenchymal cells. It shows that non-vascular smooth muscle cells but not perivascular smooth muscles are responsive to BMP4 signaling as defined by increased expression of Myh11. Are there cell-restricted responses to the other genes shown in Figure 4? Given the lack of SMAD signaling and the increase seen in p38 signaling, would blocking p38 signaling influence the BMP responsiveness of these nonvascular smooth muscle cells?<br /> 3. Figure 6 shows that mesenchymal loss of Myocd causes a deficiency of airway smooth muscle cells, but this was not sufficient to create cysts. Did the authors ever check to see if it changed Sox2-Sox9 staining in the airway epithelium?<br /> 4. Figure 7 shows that mesenchymal loss of Bmpr1a proximalizes the distal airway as defined by loss of Sox2 and FoxJ1 (a ciliated marker) and gain in (Sox9 and SP-C) staining. But Club cells expressing Scgb1a1 and Cyp2F2 are the predominant epithelial cells in the distal airway. The transcriptomics data in panel B shows expression of these genes is less in the mutant mice. Does this mean they fail to generate Club cells or there is just less expression per cell? In other words, what are the primary epithelial cells present in the airways of mice with loss of mesenchymal Bmpr1a?

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary<br /> This fascinating paper by M. Alfatah et al. describes work to uncover novel genes affecting lifespan in the budding yeast S. cerevisiae, eventually identifying and further characterizing a gene, YBR238C, now named AAG1 by the authors.<br /> The authors began by considering published gene sets pulled from the Saccharomyces genome database that described increases or decreases in either chronological lifespan or replicative lifespan in yeast. They also began with gene sets known to be downregulated upon treatment with the lifespan-extending TOR inhibitor rapamycin.

YBR283C was unique in being largely uncharacterized, downregulated upon rapamycin treatment, and linked to both increased replicative lifespan and increased chronological lifespan upon deletion.

The authors show that YBR283C may act to negatively regulate mitochondrial function, in ways that are both dependent on and independent of the stress-responsive transcription factor Hap4, largely by looking at relative expression levels of relevant mitochondrial genes.

In a hard-to-fully interpret but well-documented series of experiments the authors note that the two paralogues YBR283C and RMD9 (which have ~66% similarity) (a) have opposite effects when acting alone, and (b) appear to interact in that some phenotypes of ybr283c are dependent on RMD9.

A particularly interesting finding in light of the current literature and of the authors' strategy in identifying YBR283C is that changes in electron transport chain genes upon rapamycin treatment appear to be affected via YBR283C.

Based on a series of experiments the authors move to conclude the existence of "a feedback loop between TORC1 and mitochondria (the TORC1-Mitochondria-TORC1 (TOMITO) signaling process) that regulates cellular aging processes."

Strengths<br /> Overall, this study describes a great deal of new data from a large number of experiments, that shed light on the potential specific roles of YBR238C and its paralog RMD9 in aging in yeast, and also underscore the potential of an approach looking for "dark matter" such as uncharacterized genes when seining the increasing deluge of published datasets for new hypotheses to test. This work when revised will become a valuable addition to the field.

Weaknesses<br /> A paralog of YBR283C, RMD9, also exists in the yeast genome. While the authors indicate that part of their interest in YBR283C lies in its uncharacterized nature, its paralogue, RMD9, is not uncharacterized but is named due to its phenotype of Required for Meiotic nuclear Division, which is not mentioned or discussed anywhere in the manuscript currently.

In the context of the current work, in addition to the cited Hillen, H.S et al. and Nouet C. et al, the authors might be very interested in the 2007 Genetics paper "Translation initiation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae mitochondria: functional interactions among mitochondrial ribosomal protein Rsm28p, initiation factor 2, methionyl-tRNA-formyltransferase and novel protein Rmd9p" (PMID: 17194786), which does not appear to be cited or discussed in the current version of the manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The effectors of cellular aging in yeast have not been fully elucidated. To address this, the authors curated gene expression studies to link genes influenced by rapamycin - a well-known mediator of longevity across model systems - to genes known to affect chronological and replicative lifespan (RLS) in yeast. Through their analyses, they find one gene, ybr238c, whose deletion increases both CLS and RLS upon deletion and that is downregulated by rapamycin. Curiously, despite these selection criteria, the authors only use CLS as a proxy for cellular aging throughout their study and do not explore the effects of ybr238c deletion on RLS. This does not diminish their conclusions, but given the importance of this phenotype in their selection criteria, it is surprising that the authors did not choose to test both types of aging throughout their study.

Nonetheless, the authors demonstrate that deletion of ybr238c increases CLS across multiple yeast strains and through multiple assays. The authors also test the effects of YBR238C overexpression on lifespan and find the opposite effect, with overexpression yeast showing decreased survival relative to wild-type cells, consistent with "accelerated aging" as the authors propose. The authors also note that ybr238c has a paralog, rmd9, whose deletion decreases CLS and seems to be epistatic to ybr238c, as a double ybr238c/rmd9 mutant has decreased CLS relative to a wild-type strain.

Collectively, the data presented by the authors convincingly demonstrate that ybr238c influences lifespan in a manner that is distinct from (and likely opposite to) rmd9. However, the authors then link the increased CLS in Δybr238c yeast to mitochondrial function using only a handful of assays that do not directly test mitochondrial function. These include total cellular ATP levels, levels of reactive oxygen species, and the transcript levels of select nuclear-encoded mitochondrial genes. Yeast is well established to generate ATP through non-mitochondrial pathways such as glycolysis in fermentive conditions. While it is possible that the ATP levels assayed in the manuscript were tested in stationary phase, which would more likely reflect "mitochondrial function," the methods nor the figure legends contain these details, which are critical for the interpretation of these data. Similarly, ROS can be generated through non-mitochondrial pathways, and the transcription of nuclear-encoded mitochondrial genes is an indirect measure of mitochondrial function at best. Thus, the authors' proposed connection of ybr238c to mitochondrial function is correlative and should be substantiated with assays that more closely align with organellar function, such as respirometry or assaying the activity of oxidiative phosphorylation complexes. Finally, the authors attempt to tie the phenotypes of mitochondrial dysfunction caused by the deletion of ybr238c to TORC1 signaling, as the gene is influenced by rapamycin. However, the presentation of the data, such as reporting ATP levels as relative percentages or failing to perform appropriate statistical comparisons between conditions in which the authors derive conclusions, renders the data difficult to interpret. As such, this manuscript establishes that ybr238c is rapamycin responsive and influences CLS, but its influence on mitochondrial activity and ties to TORC1 signaling remain speculative.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> The study by Alfatah et al. presented a role for YBR238C in mediating lifespan through improved mitochondrial function in a TOR1-dependent metabolic pathway. The authors used a dataset comparison approach to identify genes positively modulating yeast chronological (CLS) and Replicative (RLS) lifespan when deleted, and their expression is reduced under Rapamycin treatment condition. This approach revealed an unknown, mitochondria-localized yeast gene YBR238C, and through mechanistic studies, they identified its paralogous gene RMD9 regulating lifespan in an antagonistic effect.

Strengths:<br /> Findings have valuable implications for understanding the YBR238C-mediated, mitochondrial-dependent yeast lifespan regulation, and the interplay between two paralogous genes in the regulation of mitochondrial function represents an inserting case for gene evolution.

Weaknesses:<br /> Overall, the implication/findings of this study are restricted only to the yeast model since these two genes do not have any homology in higher eukaryotes. The primary methods must be carefully designed by considering two different metabolic states: respiration-associated with CLS and fermentation-associated with RLS in a single comparative approach. Yeast CLS and RLS are two completely different processes. It is already known that most gene-regulating CLS is not associated with RLS or vice versa. The method section is poorly written and missing important information. The experimental approaches are poorly designed, and variability across the datasets (e.g., media condition "YPD," "SC" etc.) and their experimental conditions are not well described/considered; thus, presented data are not conclusive, which decreases the overall rigor of the study.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, the authors aimed to compare, from testis tissues at different ages from mice in vivo and after culture, multiple aspects of Leydig cells. These aspects included mRNA levels, proliferation, apoptosis, steroid levels, protein levels, etc. A lot of work was put into this manuscript in terms of experiments, systems, and approaches. The technical aspects of this work may be of interest to labs working on the specific topics of in vitro spermatogenesis for fertility preservation.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Moutard, Laura, et al. investigated the gene expression and functional aspects of Leydig cells in a cryopreservation/long-term culture system. The authors found that critical genetic markers for Leydig cells were diminished when compared to the in-vivo testis. The testis also showed less androgen production and androgen responsiveness. Although they did not produce normal testosterone concentrations in basal media conditions, the cultured testis still remained highly responsive to gonadotrophin exposure, exhibiting a large increase in androgen production. Even after the hCG-dependent increase in testosterone, genetic markers of Leydig cells remained low, which means there is still a missing factor in the culture media that facilitates proper Leydig cell differentiation. Optimizing this testis culture protocol to help maintain proper Leydig cell differentiation could be useful for future human testis biopsy cultures, which will help preserve fertility and child cancer patients.

Overall, the authors addressed most comments and questions from the previous review. The additional data regarding the necrotic area is helpful for interpreting the quality of the cultures.

The authors did not conduct multiple comparison tests although there are multiple comparisons conducted for a single dependent variable (Fig 2J, Fig 3F, among many others), however, the addition of this multiple comparison is unlikely to change the conclusions of the paper or the figure and, thus is a minor technical detail in this case.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> This paper provides strong evidence for the roles of JH in an ametabolous insect species. In particular, it demonstrates that:<br /> • JH shifts embryogenesis from a growth mode to a differentiation mode and is responsible for terminal differentiation during embryogenesis. This, and other JH roles, are first suggested as correlations, based on the timing of JH peaks, but then experimentally demonstrated using JH antagonists and rescue thereof with JH mimic. This is a robust approach and the experimental results are very convincing.<br /> • JH redirects ecdysone-induced molting to direct formation of a more mature cuticle<br /> • Kr-h1 is downstream of JH in Thermobia, as it is in other insects, and is a likely mediator of many JH effects<br /> • The results support the proposed model that an ancestral role of JH in promoting and maintaining differentiation was coopted during insect radiations to drive the evolution of metamorphosis. However, alternate evolutionary scenarios should also be considered.

Strengths:<br /> Overall, this is a beautiful, in-depth student. The paper is well-written and clear. The background places the work in a broad context and shows its importance in understanding fundamental questions about insect biology. The researchers are leaders in the field, and a strength of this manuscript is their use of a variety of different approaches (enzymatic assays, gene expression, agonists & antagonists, analysis of morphology using different types of microscopy and detection, and more) to attack their research questions. The experimental data is clearly presented and carefully executed with appropriate controls and attention to detail. The 'multi-pronged' approach provides support for the conclusions from different angles, strengthening conclusions. In sum, the data presented are convincing and the conclusions about experimental outcomes are well-justified based on the results obtained.

Weaknesses:<br /> This paper provides more detail than is likely needed for readers outside the field but also provides sufficient depth for those in the field. This is both a strength and a weakness. I would suggest the authors shorten some aspects of their text to make it more accessible to a broader audience. In particular, the discussion is very long and accompanied by two model figures. The discussion could be tightened up and much of the text used for a separate review article (perhaps along with Figure 11) that would bring more attention to the proposed evolution of JH roles.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors have studied in detail the embryogenesis of the ametabolan insect Thermobia domestica. They have also measured the levels of the two most important hormones in insect development: juvenile hormone (JH) and ecdysteroids. The work then focuses on JH, whose occurrence concentrates in the final part (between 70 and 100%) of embryo development. Then, the authors used a precocene compound (7-ethoxyprecocene, or 7EP) to destroy the JH producing tissues in the embryo of the firebrat T. domestica, which allowed to unveil that this hormone is critically involved in the last steps of embryogenesis. The 7EP-treated embryos failed to resorb the extraembryonic fluid and did not hatch. More detailed observations showed that processes like the maturational growth of the eye, the lengthening of the foregut and posterior displacement of the midgut, and the detachment of the E2 cuticle, were impaired after the 7EP treatment. Importantly, a treatment with a JH mimic subsequent to the 7EP treatment restored the correct maturation of both the eye and the gut. It is worth noting that the timing of JH mimic application was essential for correcting the defects triggered by the treatment with 7EP.

This is a relevant result in itself since the role of JH in insect embryogenesis is a controversial topic. It seems to have an important role in hemimetabolan embryogenesis, but not so much in holometabolans. Intriguingly, it appears important for hatching, an observation made in hemimetabolan and in holometabolan embryos. Knowing that this role was already present in ametabolans is relevant from an evolutionary point of view, and knowing exactly why embryos do not hatch in the absence of JH, is relevant from the point of view of developmental biology.

Then, the authors describe a series of experiments applying the JH mimic in early embryogenesis, before the natural peak of JH occurs, and its effects on embryo development. Observations were made under different doses of JHm, and under different temporal windows of treatment. Higher doses triggered more severe effects, as expected, and different windows of application produced different effects. The most used combination was 1 ng JHm applied 1.5 days AEL, checking the effects 3 days later. Of note, 1.5 days AEL is about 15% embryonic development, whereas the natural peak of JH occurs around 85% embryonic development. In general, the ectopic application of JHm triggered a diversity of effects, generally leading to an arrest of development. Intriguingly, however, a number of embryos treated with 1 ng of JHm at 1.5 days AEL showed a precocious formation of myofibrils in the longitudinal muscles. Also, a number of embryos treated in the same way showed enhanced chitin deposition in the E1 procuticle and showed an advancement of at least a day in the deposition of the E2 cuticle.

While the experiments and observations are done with great care and are very exhaustive, I am not sure that the results reveal genuine JH functions. The effects triggered by a significant pulse of ectopic JHm when the embryo is 15% of the development will depend on the context: the transcriptome existing at that time, especially the cocktail of transcription factors. This explains why different application times produce different effects. This also explains why the timing of JHm application was essential for correcting the effects of 7EP treatment. In this reasoning, we must consider that the context at 85% development, when the JH peaks in natural conditions and plays its genuine functions, must be very different from the context at 15% development, when the JHm was applied in most of the experiments. In summary, I believe that the observations after the application of JHm reveal effects of the ectopic JHm, but not necessarily functions of the JH. If so, then the subsequent inferences made from the premise that these ectopic treatments with JHm revealed JH functions are uncertain and should be interpreted with caution.

Those inferences affect not only the "JH and the progressive nature of embryonic molts" section, but also, the "Modifications in JH function during the evolution of hemimetabolous and holometabolous life histories" section, and the entire "Discussion". In addition to inferences built on uncertain functions, the sections mentioned, especially the Discussion, I think suffer from too many poorly justified speculations. I love speculation in science, it is necessary and fruitful. But it must be practiced within limits of reasonableness, especially when expressed in a formal journal.

Finally, In the section "Modifications in JH function during the evolution of hemimetabolous and holometabolous life", it is not clear the bridge that connects the observations on the embryo of Thermobia and the evolution of modified life cycles, hemimetabolan and holometabolan.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> In this manuscript, the authors use inhibitors and mimetics of juvenile hormone (JH) to demonstrate that JH has a key role in late embryonic development in Thermobia, specifically in gut and eye development but also resorption of the extraembryonic fluid and hatching. They then exogenously apply JH early in development (when it is not normally present) to examine the biological effects of JH at these stages. This causes a plethora of defects including developmental arrest, deposition of chitin, limb development, and enhanced muscle differentiation. The authors interpret these early effects on development as JH being important for the shift from morphogenetic growth to differentiation - a role that they speculate may have facilitated the evolution of metamorphosis (hemi- and holo-metaboly). This paper will be of interest to insect evo-devo researchers, particularly those with interests in the evolution of metamorphosis.

Strengths:<br /> The experiments are generally conducted very well with appropriate controls and the authors have included a very detailed analysis of the phenotypes.<br /> The manuscript significantly advances our understanding of Thermobia development and the role of JH in Thermobia development.<br /> The authors interpret this data to present some hypotheses regarding the role of JH in the evolution of metamorphosis, some aspects of which can be addressed by future studies.

Weaknesses:<br /> The results are based on using inhibitors and mimetics of JH and there was no attempt to discern immediate effects of JH from downstream effects. The authors show, for instance, that the transcription of myoglianin is responsive to JH levels, it would have been interesting to see if any of the phenotypic effects are due to myoglianin upregulation/suppression (using RNAi for example). These kinds of experiments will be necessary to fully work out if and how the JH regulatory network has been co-opted into metamorphosis.

The results generally support the authors' conclusions. However, the discussion contains a lot of speculation and some far-reaching conclusions are made about the role of JH and how it became co-opted into controlling metamorphosis. There are some interesting hypotheses presented and the author's speculations are consistent with the data presented. However, it is difficult to make evolutionary inferences from a single data point as although Thermobia is a basally branching insect, the lineage giving rise to Thermobia diverged from the lineages giving rise to the holo- and hemimetabolous insects approx.. 400 mya and it is possible that the effects of JH seen in Thermobia reflect lineage-specific effects rather than the 'ancestral state'. The authors ignore the possibility that there has been substantial rewiring of the networks that are JH responsive across these 400 my. I would encourage the authors to temper some of the discussion of these hypotheses and include some of the limitations of their inferences regarding the role of JH in the evolution of metamorphosis in their discussion.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Zhang et al. tackle the important topic of primate-specific structural features of the brain and the link with functional specialization. The authors explore and compare gyral peaks of the human and macaque cortex through non-invasive neuroimagery, using convincing techniques that have been previously validated elsewhere. They show that nearly 60% of the macaque peaks are shared with humans, and use a multi-modal parcellation scheme to describe the spatial distribution of shared and unique gyral peaks in both species.

The claim is made that shared peaks are mainly located in lower-order cortical areas whereas unique peaks are located in higher-order regions, however, no systematic comparison is made. The authors then show that shared peaks are more consistently found across individuals than unique peaks, and show a positive but small and non-significant correlation between cross-individual counts of the shared peaks of the human and the macaque i.e. the authors show a non-significant trend for shared peaks that are more consistently found across humans to be those that are also more found across macaques.

In order to identify if unique and shared peaks could be identified based on the structural features of the cortical regions containing them, the authors compared them with t-tests. A correction for multiple comparisons should be applied and t-values reported. Graph-theoretical measures were applied to functional connectivity datasets (resting-state fMRI) and compared between unique and shared peak regions for each species separately. Again the absence of multiple comparison correction and t-values make the results hard to interpret. The same comment applies to the analysis reporting that shared peaks are surrounded by a larger number of brain regions than unique peaks. Finally, the potentially extremely interesting results about differential human gene expression of shared and unique peaks regions are not systematically reported e.g. the 28 genes identified are not listed and the selection procedure of 7 genes is not fully reported.

The paper is well written and the methods used for data processing are very compelling i.e. the peak cluster extraction pipeline and cross-species registration. However, the analysis and especially the reporting of statistics, as they stand now, constitutes the main weakness of the paper. Some aspects of the statistical analysis need to be clarified.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors compared the cortical folding of human brains with folding in macaque monkey brains to reveal shared and unique locations of gyral peaks. The shared gyral peaks were located in cortical regions that are functionally similar and less changed in humans from those in macaques, while the locations of unique peaks in humans are in regions that have changed or expanded functions. These findings are important in that they suggest where human brains have changed more than macaque brains in their subsequent evolution from a common ancestor. The massive analysis of comparative results provides evidence of where humans and macaques are similar or different in cortical markers, as well as noting some of the variations within each of the two primates.

Strengths:

The study includes massive detail.

Weaknesses:

The manuscript is too long and there is not enough focus on the main points. A brief listing of previous views on why fissures form and what factors are important would be helpful.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> This study assumes and weakly tests that auditory rhythm processing is produced by internal oscillating systems, and it evaluates the properties of such putative oscillators across individuals. The authors designed an experiment and performed analyses that address individuals' preferred rate and flexibility, with a special focus on how much past rhythms influence subsequent trials. They find evidence for such historical dependence and show that we adapt less well to new rhythms as we age. While I have important doubts about the entrainment-based interpretation of the results, this work offers a useful contribution to our understanding of individual differences in rhythm processing regardless.

Strengths:<br /> The inclusion of two tasks -- a tapping and a listening task -- complement each other methodologically. By analysing both the production and tracking of rhythms, the authors emphasize the importance of the characteristics of the receiver, the external world, and their interplay. The relationship between the two tasks and components within tasks are explored using a range of analyses. The visual presentation of the results is very clear. The age-related changes in flexibility are useful and compelling.

Weaknesses:<br /> At times, I found it challenging to evaluate the scientific merit of this study from what was provided in the introduction and methods. It is not clear what the experiment assumes, what it evaluates, and which competing accounts or predictions are at play. While some of these questions are answered, clear ordering and argumentative flow is lacking. With that said, I found the Abstract and General Discussion much clearer, and I would recommend reformulating the early part of the manuscript based on the structure of those segments.

Second, in my reading, it is not clear to what extent the study assumes versus demonstrates the entrainment of internal oscillators. I find the writing somewhat ambiguous on this count: on the one hand, an entrainment approach is assumed a priori to design the experiment ("an entrainment approach is adopted") yet a primary result of the study is that entrainment is how we perceive and produce rhythms ("Overall, the findings support the hypothesis that an oscillatory system with a stable preferred rate underlies perception and production of rhythm..."). While one could design an experiment assuming X and find evidence for X, this requires testing competing accounts with competing hypotheses -- and this was not done.

In my view, more evidence is required to bolster the findings as entrainment-based regardless of whether that is an assumption or a result. Indeed, while the effect of previous trials into the behaviour of the current trial is compatible with entrainment hypotheses, it may well be compatible with competing accounts as well. And that would call into question the interpretation of results as uncovering the properties of oscillating systems and age-related differences in such systems. Thus, I believe more evidence is needed to bolster the entrainment hypothesis.

For example, a key prediction of the entrainment model -- which assumes internal oscillators as the mechanism of action -- is that behaviour in the SMT and PTT tasks follows the principles of Arnold's Tongue. Specifically, tapping and listening performance should worsen systematically as a function of the distance between the presented and preferred rate. On a participant-by-participant, does performance scale monotonically with the distance between the presented and preferred rate? Some of the analyses hint at this question, such as the effect of 𝚫IOI on accuracy, but a recontextualization, further analyses, or additional visualizations would be helpful to demonstrate evidence of a tongue-like pattern in the behavioural data. Presumably, non-oscillating models do not follow a tongue-like pattern, but again, it would be very instructive to explicitly discuss that.

Fourth, harmonic structure in behaviour across tasks is a creative and useful metric for bolstering the entrainment hypothesis specifically because internal oscillators should display a preference across their own harmonics. However, I have some doubts that the analyses as currently implemented indicate such a relationship. Specifically, the main analysis to this end involves summing the residuals of the data closest to y=x, y=2*x and y=x/2 lines and evaluating whether this sum is significantly lower than for shuffled data. Out of these three dimensions, y=x does not comprise a harmonic, and this is an issue because it could by itself drive the difference of summed residuals with the shuffled data. I am uncertain whether rerunning the same analysis with the x=y dimension excluded constitutes a simple resolution because presumably there are baseline differences in the empirical and shuffled data that do not have to do with harmonics that would leak into the analysis. To address this, a simulation with ground truths could be helpful to justify analyses, or a different analysis that evaluates harmonic structure could be thought of.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> In the current work, authors deploy a set of behavioral tasks to explore individual differences in the preferred perceptual and motor rhythms. They found a consistent individual preference for a given perceptual and motor frequency across tasks and, while these were correlated, the latter is slower than the former one. Additionally, they show that the accuracy of adaptation to rate changes is proportional to the amount of rate variation and, crucially, the amount of adaptation decreases with age.

Strengths:<br /> Authors carefully designed several experiments to measure individual preferred motor and perceptual tempo. Furthermore, before completing the main experiment they validated the experimental design by testing the consistency across tasks and test-retest. Additionally, to the value of the reported findings, the introduced paradigm represents a useful tool for future research.<br /> The obtained data is rigorously analyzed using a diverse set of tools, each adapted to the specificities across the different research questions and tasks.<br /> This study identifies several relevant behavioral features: (i) each individual shows a preferred and reliable motor and perceptual tempo and, while both are related, the motor is consistently slower than the pure perceptual one; (ii) the existence of hysteresis in the adaptation to rate variations; and (iii) the decrement of this adaptation with age. All these observations are valuable for the auditory-motor integration field of research, and they could potentially inform existing biophysical models to increase their descriptive power.

Weaknesses:<br /> The current study is presented in the framework of the ongoing debate of oscillator vs. timekeeper mechanisms underlying perceptual and motor timing, and authors claim that the observed results support the former mechanism. In this line, every obtained result is related by the authors to a specific ambiguous (i.e., not clearly related to a biophysical parameter) feature of an internal oscillator. As pointed out by an essay on the topic (1), claiming that a pattern of results is compatible with an "oscillator" could be misleading, since some features typically used to validate or refute such mechanisms are not well grounded on real biophysical models. Relatedly, a recent study (2) shows that two quantitatively different computational algorithms (i.e., absolute vs relative timing) can be explained by the same biophysical model. This demonstrates that what could be interpreted as a timekeeper, or an oscillator can represent the same biophysical model working under different conditions. For this reason, if authors would like to argue for a given mechanism underlying their observations, they should include a specific biophysical model, and test its predictions against the observed behavior. For example, it's not clear why authors interpret the observation of the trial's response being modulated by the rate of the previous one, as an oscillator-like mechanism underlying behavior. As shown in (1) a simple oscillator returns to its natural frequency as soon as the stimulus disappears, which will not predict the long-lasting effect of the previous trial. Furthermore, a timekeeper-like mechanism with a long enough integration window is compatible with this observation.<br /> Still, authors can choose to disregard this suggestion, and not testing a specific model, but if so, they should restrict this paper to a descriptive study of the timing phenomena.

1. Doelling, K. B., & Assaneo, M. F. (2021). Neural oscillations are a start toward understanding brain activity rather than the end. PLoS biology, 19(5), e3001234.<br /> 2. Doelling, K. B., Arnal, L. H., & Assaneo, M. F. (2022). Adaptive oscillators provide a hard-coded Bayesian mechanism for rhythmic inference. bioRxiv, 2022-06.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> The authors conducted two tasks at 300 days of separation. First, a social perception task, where Ps responded whether a pictured person either deserved or needed help. Second, an altruism task, where Ps are offered monetary allocations for themselves and a partner. Ps decide whether to accept, or a default allocation of 20 dollars each. The partners differed in perceived merit, such that they were highly deserving, undeserving, or unknown. This categorisation was decided on the basis of a prisoner's dilemma game the partner played beforehand. "Need" was also manipulated, by altering the probability that the partner must have their hand in cold water at the end of the experiment and this partner can use the money to buy themselves out. These two tasks were conducted to assess the perception of need/merit in the first instance, and how this relates to social behaviour in the second. fMRI data were collected alongside behavioural.

The authors present many analyses of behaviour (including DDM results) and fMRI. E.g., they demonstrate that they could decode across the mentalising network whether someone was making a need or deserving judgement vs control judgement but couldn't decode need vs deserving. And that brain responses during merit inferences (merit - control) systematically covaried with participants' merit sensitivity scores in the rTPJ. They also found relationships between behaviour and rTPJ in the altruism task. And that merit sensitivity in the perception task predicted the influence of merit on social behaviour in the altruism task.

Strengths:<br /> This manuscript represents a sensible model to predict social perceptions and behaviours, and a tidy study design with interesting findings. The introduction introduced the field especially brilliantly for a general audience.

Weaknesses:<br /> 1. The authors do acknowledge right at the end that these are small samples. This is especially the case for the correlational questions. While the limitation is acknowledged at the end, it is not truly acknowledged in the way that the data are interpreted. I.e. much is concluded from absent relationships, where the likelihood of Type II error is high in this scenario. I suggest that throughout the manuscript, authors play down their conclusions about absence of effects.

2. I found the results section quite a marathon, and due to its length I started to lose the thread concerning the overarching aims - which had been established so neatly in the introduction. I am unsure whether all of these analyses were necessary for addressing the key questions or whether some were more exploratory. E.g. it's unclear to me what one would have predicted upfront about the decoding analyses.

3. More specifically, the decoding analyses were intriguing to me. If I understand the authors, they are decoding need vs merit, and need+merit vs control, not the content of these inferences. Do they consider that there is a distributed representation of merit that does not relate to its content but is an abstracted version that applies to all merit judgements? I certainly would not have predicted this and think the analyses raise many questions.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

When people help others is an important psychological and neuroscientific question. It has received much attention from the psychological side, but comparatively less from neuroscience. The paper translates some ideas from a social Psychology domain to neuroscience using a neuroeconomically oriented computational approach. In particular, the paper is concerned with the idea that people help others based on perceptions of merit/deservingness, but also because they require/need help. To this end, the authors conduct two experiments with an overlapping participant pool:

1) A social perception task in which people see images of people that have previously been rated on merit and need scales by other participants. In a blockwise fashion, people decide whether the depicted person a) deserves help, b) needs help, and c) whether the person uses both hands (== control condition).

2) In an altruism task, people make costly helping decisions by deciding between giving a certain amount of money to themselves or another person. How much the other person needs and deserves the money is manipulated.

The authors use a sound and robust computational modelling approach for both tasks using evidence accumulation models. They analyse behavioural data for both tasks, showing that the behaviour is indeed influenced, as expected, by the deservingness and the need of the shown people. Neurally, the authors use a block-wise analysis approach to find differences in activity levels across conditions of the social perception task (there is no fMRI data for the other task). The authors do find large activation clusters in areas related to the theory of mind. Interestingly, they also find that activity in TPJ that relates to the deservingness condition correlates with people's deservingness ratings while they do the task, but also with computational parameters related to helping others in the second task, the one that was conducted many months later. Also, some behavioural parameters correlate across the two tasks, suggesting that how deserving of help others are perceived reflects a relatively stable feature that translates into concrete helping decisions later-on.

The conclusions of the paper are overall well supported by the data.

1) I found that the modelling was done very thoroughly for both tasks. Overall, I had the impression that the methods are very solid with many supplementary analyses. The computational modelling is done very well.

2) A slight caveat, however, regarding this aspect, is that, in my view, the tasks are relatively simplistic, so even the complex computational models do not do as much as they can in the case of more complex paradigms. For example, the bias term in the model seems to correspond to the mean response rate in a very direct way (please correct me if I am wrong).

3) Related to the simple tasks: The fMRI data is analysed in a simple block-fashion. This is in my view not appropriate to discern the more subtle neural substrates of merit/need-based decision-making or person perception. Correspondingly, the neural activation patterns (merit > control, need > control) are relatively broad and unspecific. They do not seem to differ in the classic theory of mind regions, which are the focus of the analyses.

4) However, the relationship between neural signal and behavioural merit sensitivity in TPJ is noteworthy.

5) The latter is even more the case, as the neural signal and aspects of the behaviour are correlated across subjects with the second task that is conducted much later. Such a correlation is very impressive and suggests that the tasks are sensitive for important individual differences in helping perception/behaviour.

6) That being said, the number of participants in the latter analyses are at the lower end of the number of participants that are these days used for across-participant correlations.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> The paper aims to provide a neurocomputational account of how social perception translates into prosocial behaviors. Participants first completed a novel social perception task during fMRI scanning, in which they were asked to judge the merit or need of people depicted in different situations. Secondly, a separate altruistic choice task was used to examine how the perception of merit and need influences the weights people place on themselves, others, and fairness when deciding to provide help. Finally, a link between perception and action was drawn in those participants who completed both tasks.

Strengths:<br /> The paper is overall very well written and presented, leaving the reader at ease when describing complex methods and results. The approach used by the author is very compelling, as it combines computational modeling of behavior and neuroimaging data analyses. Despite not being able to comment on the computational model, I find the approach used (to disentangle sensitivity and biases, for merit and need) very well described and derived from previous theoretical work. Results are also clearly described and interpreted.

Weaknesses:<br /> My main concern relates to the selection of the social perception task, which to me is the weakest point. Such weakness has been also addressed by the same authors in the limitation section, and related to the fact that merit and need are evaluated by means of very different cues that rely on different cognitive processes (more abstract thinking for merit than need). I wonder whether and how such difference can bias the overall computational model and interpretation of the results (e.g. ideal you vary merit and need to leave all other aspects invariant).

A second weakness is related to the sample size which is quite small for study 2. I wonder, given that study 2 fRMI data are not analyzed, whether is possible to recover some of the participants' behavioral results, at least the ones excluded because of bad MR image quality.

Finally, on a theoretical note, I would elaborate more on the distinction of merit and need. These concepts tap into very specific aspects of morality, which I suspect have been widely explored. At the moment I am missing a more elaborate account of this.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

This is an important work showing that loss of LRRK function causes late-onset dopaminergic neurodegeneration in a cell-autonomous manner. One of the LRRK members, LRRK2, is of significant translational importance as mutations in LRRK2 cause late-onset autosomal dominant Parkinson's disease (PD). While many in the field assume that LRRK2 mutant causes PD via increased LRRK2 activity (i.e., kinase activity), it is not a settled issue as not all disease-causing mutant LRRK2 exhibit increased activity. Further, while LRRK2 inhibitors are under clinical trials for PD, the consequence of chronic, long-term LRRK2 inhibition is unknown. Thus, studies evaluating the long-term impact of LRRK deficit have important translational implications. Moreover, because LRRK proteins, particularly LRRK2, are known to modulate immune response and intracellular membrane trafficking, the study's results and the reagents will be valuable for others interested in LRRK function.

Strengths:

This report describes a mouse model where the LRRK1 and LRRK2 gene is conditionally deleted in dopaminergic neurons. Previously, this group showed that while loss of LRRK2 expression does not cause brain phenotype, loss of both LRRK1 and LRRK2 causes a later onset, progressive degeneration of catecholaminergic neurons and dopaminergic (DAergic) neurons in the substantia nigra (SN), and noradrenergic neurons in the locus coeruleus (LC). However, because LRRK genes are widely expressed with some peripheral phenotypes, it was unknown if the neurodegeneration in the LRRK double knockout (DKO) was cell autonomous. To rigorously test this question, the authors have generated a double conditional (cDKO) allele where both LRRK1 and LRRK2 genes were targeted to contain loxP sites. In my view, this was beyond what is usually required, as most investigators might might combine one KO allele with another floxed allele. The authors provide a rigorous validation showing that the Driver (DAT-Cre) is expressed in most DAergic neurons in the SN and that LRRK levers are decreased selectively in the ventral midbrain. Using these mice, the authors show that the number of DAergic neurons is normal at 15 but significantly decreased at 20 months of age. Moreover, the authors show that the number of apoptotic neurons is increased by ~2X in aged SN, demonstrating increased ongoing cell death, as well as an increase in activated microglia. The degeneration is limited to DAergic neurons as LC neurons are not lost as this population does not express DAT. Overall, the mouse genetics and experimental analysis were performed rigorously, and the results were statistically sound and compelling.

Weaknesses:

I only have a few minor comments. First is that in PD and other degenerative conditions, loss of axons and terminals occurs prior to cell bodies. It might be beneficial to show the status of DAergic markers in the striatum. Second, previous studies indicate that very little, if any, LRRK1 is expressed in SN DAergic neurons. This also the case with the Allen Brain Atlas profile. Thus, authors should discuss the discrepancy as authors seem to imply significant LRRK1 expression in DA neurons.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Shen and collaborators described the generation of cDKO mice lacking LRRK1 and LRRK2 selectively in DAT-positive DAergic neurons. The Authors asked whether selective deletion of both LRRK isoforms could lead to a Parkinsonian phenotype, as previously reported by the same group in germline double LRRK1 and LRRK2 knockout mice (PMID: 29056298). Indeed, cDKO mice developed a late reduction of TH+ neurons in SNpc that partially correlated with the reduction of NeuN+ cells. This was associated with increased apoptotic cell and microglial cell numbers in SNpc. Unlike the constitutive DKO mice described earlier, however, cDKO mice did not replicate the dramatic increase in the number of autophagic vacuoles. The study supports the authors' hypothesis that loss of function rather than gain of function of LRRK2 leads to PD.

Strengths:

The study described for the first time a model where both the PD-associated gene LRRK2 and its homolog LRRK1 are deleted selectively in DAergic neurons, offering a new tool to understand the physiopathological role of LRRK2 and the compensating role of LRRK1 in modulating DAergic cell function.

Weaknesses:

The model has no construct validity since loss of function mutations of LRRK2 are well-tolerated in humans and do not lead to PD. The evidence of a Parkinsonian phenotype in these cDKO mice is limited and should be considered preliminary.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Kang, Huang, and colleagues investigated the impact of LRRK1 and LRRK2 deletion, specifically in dopaminergic neurons, using a novel cDKO mouse model. They observed a significant reduction in DAergic neurons in the substantia nigra in their conditional LRRK1 and LRRK2 KO mice and a corresponding increase in markers of apoptosis and gliosis. This work set out to address a long-standing question within the field around the role and importance of LRRK1 and LRRK2 in DAergic neurons and suggests that the loss of both proteins triggers some neurodegeneration and glial activation.

The studies included in this work are carefully performed and clearly communicated, but additional studies are needed to strengthen further the authors' claims around the consequences of LRRK2 deletion in DAergic neurons.

1) In Figures 2E and F, the authors assess the protein levels of LRRK1 and LRRK2 in their cDKO mouse model to confirm the deletion of both proteins. They observe a mild loss of LRRK1 and LRRK2 signals in the ventral midbrain compared to wild-type animals. While this is not surprising given other cell types that still express LRRK1 and LRRK2 would be present in their dissected ventral midbrain samples, it does not sufficiently confirm that LRRK1 and LRRK2 are not expressed in DAergic neurons. Additional data is needed to more directly demonstrate that LRRK1 and LRRK2 protein levels are reduced in DAergic neurons, including analysis of LRRK1 and LRRK2 protein levels via immunohistochemistry or FACS-based analysis of TH+ neurons.

2) The authors observed a significant but modest effect of LRRK1 and LRRK2 deletion on the number of TH+ neurons in the substantia nigra (12-15% loss at 20-24 months of age). It is unclear whether this extent of neuron loss is functionally relevant. To strengthen the impact of these data, additional studies are warranted to determine whether this translates into any PD-relevant deficits in the mice, including motor deficits or alterations in alpha-synuclein accumulation/aggregation.

3) The authors demonstrate that, unlike in the germline LRRK DKO mice, they do not observe any alterations in electron-dense vacuoles via EM. Given their data showing increased apoptosis and gliosis, it remains unclear how the loss of LRRK proteins leads to DAergic neuronal cell loss. Mechanistic studies would be insightful to understand better potential explanations for how the loss of LRRK1 and LRRK2 may impair cellular survival, and additional text should be added to the discussion to discuss potential hypotheses for how this might occur.

4) The authors discuss the potential implications of the neuronal cell loss observed in cDKO mice for LRRK1 and LRRK2 for therapeutic approaches targeting LRRK2 and suggest this argues that LRRK2 variants may exert their effects through a loss-of-protein function. However, all of the data generated in this work focus on a mouse in which both LRRK1 and LRRK2 have been deleted, and it is therefore difficult to make any definitive conclusions about the consequences of specifically targeting LRRK2. The authors note potential redundancy between the two LRRK proteins, and they should soften some of their conclusions in the discussion section around implications for the effects of LRRK2 variants. Human subjects that carry LRRK2 loss-of-function alleles do not have an increased risk for developing PD, which argues against the author's conclusions that LRRK2 variants associated with PD are loss-of-function. Additional text should be included in their discussion to better address these nuances and caution should be used in terms of extrapolating their data to effects observed with PD-linked variants in LRRK2.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, the authors identified compound heterozygous mutations in CFAP52 recessively cosegregating with male infertility status in a non-consanguineous family. The Cfap52-mutant patient exhibits a mixed acephalic spermatozoa syndrome (ASS) and multiple morphological abnormalities of the sperm flagella (MMAF) phenotype. The influence of mutations on CFAP52 protein function is well validated by in vitro cell experiments and immunofluorescence staining. Cfap52-KO mice are further constructed and perfectly resemble the Cfap52-mutant patient's infertile phenotype, also showing a mixed ASS and MMAF phenotype. The phenotype and underlying mechanisms of the disruption of sperm head-tail connection and flagella development are carefully analyzed by TEM, Western blotting, and immunofluorescence staining. The data presented revealed a prominent role for CFAP52 in sperm development, suggesting that CFAP52 is a novel diagnostic target for male infertility with defects of sperm head-tail connection and flagella development.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> The authors tried to identify the genetic factors for asthenoteratozoospermia. Using whole-exome sequencing, they analyzed a family with an infertile male and identified CFAP52 variants. They further knockout mouse Cfap52 gene and the homozygous mice phenocopied the patient. CFAP52 interacts with several other sperm proteins to maintain normal sperm morphology. Finally, CFAP52-associated male infertility in humans and mice could be overcome by using intracytoplasmic sperm injections (ICSI).

Strengths:<br /> The major strength of this study is to identify genetic factors contributing to asthenoteratozoospermia, and to generate a mouse knockout model to validate the factor.

Weaknesses:<br /> The authors did not use the OMICS to dissect the potential mechanisms. Instead, they took the advantage of direct co-IP experiment to fish the binding partners. They also did not discuss in detail why other motile cilia have different behavior.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> In this study, Jin et al. report the first evidence of CFAP52 mutations in human male infertility by identifying deleterious compound heterozygous mutations of CFAP52 in infertile human patients with acephalic and multiple morphological abnormalities in flagella (MMAF) phenotypes but without other abnormalities in motile cilia. They validated the pathogenicity of the mutations by an in vitro minigene assay and the absence of proteins in the patient's spermatozoa. Using a Cfap52 knockout mouse model they generated, the authors showed that the animals are hydrocephalic and the sperm have coupling defects, head decapitation, and axonemal structure disruption, supporting what was observed in human patients.

Strengths:<br /> The major strengths of the study are the rigorous phenotypic and molecular analysis of normal and patient spermatozoa and the demonstration of infertility treatment by ICSI. The authors demonstrated the interaction between CFAP52 and SPATA6, a head-tail coupling regulator and structural protein, and showed that CFAP52 can interact with components of the microtubule inner protein (MIP), radial spoke, and outer dynein arm proteins.

Weaknesses:<br /> The weakness of the study is some inconsistency in the localization of the CFAP52 protein in human spermatozoa in the figures and the lack of such localization information completely missing in mouse spermatozoa. Putting their findings in the context of the newly available structural information from the recent series of unambiguous and unequivocal identification of CFAP52 as an MIP in the B tubule will not only greatly benefit the interpretation of the study, but also resolve the inconsistent sperm phenotypes reported by an independent study. Since the mouse model is not designed to exactly recapitulate the human mutations but a complete knockout and the knockout mice show hydrocephaly phenotype as well, some of the claims of causality and ICSI as a treatment need to be tempered. Discussing the frequency of acephaly and MMAF in primary male infertility will be beneficial to justify CFAP52 as a practical diagnostic tool.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> TRIP13/Pch2 is a conserved essential regulator of meiotic recombination from yeast to humans. In this manuscript, the authors generated TRIP13 null mice and Flag-tagged TRIP13 knock-in mice to study its role in meiosis. They demonstrate that TRIP13 regulates MORMA domain proteins and is essential for meiotic completion and fertility. The main impact of this manuscript is its clarification of the in vivo function of TRIP13 during mouse meiosis and its previously unrecognized role as a dose-sensitive regulator of meiosis.

Strengths:<br /> Two previously reported Trip13 mutations in mice are both hypomorphic alleles with distinct phenotypes, precluding a conclusion on its function. This study for the first time generated the TRIP13 null mice, definitively revealing the function of TRIP13 in meiosis. The authors also show the novel localization of TRIP13 at SC and its independence from the axial element components. The finding of dose-sensitive regulation of meiosis by TRIP13 has implications in understanding human meiosis and disease phenotypes.

Weaknesses:<br /> This manuscript would be more impactful if more mechanistic advancements could be made. For example, the authors could follow up with one of the new interactors identified by MS to offer new insight into the molecular function of TRIP13.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary and Strengths:<br /> In this manuscript, Chotiner and colleagues demonstrated the localization of TRIP13 and clarified the phenotypes of Trip13-null mice in mouse meiosis. The meiotic phenotypes of Trip13 have been well characterized using the hypomorph alleles in the literature. However, the null phenotypes have not been examined, and the localization of TRIP13 was not clearly demonstrated. The study fills these important knowledge gaps in the field. The demonstration of TRIP13 localization to SC in mice provides an explanation of how HOMRA domain proteins are evicted from SC in diverse organisms. This conclusion was confirmed in both IF and TRIP13-tagged Tg mice. Further, the phenotypes of Trip13-null mice are very clear. The manuscript is well crafted, and the discussion section is well organized and comprehends the topic in the field. All in all, the manuscript will provide important knowledge in the field of meiosis.

Weaknesses:<br /> The heterozygous phenotypes demonstrate that TRIP13 is a dosage-sensitive regulator of meiosis. In relation to this conclusion, as summarized in the discussion section, other mutants defective in meiotic recombination showed dosage-sensitive phenotypes. However, the authors did not examine meiotic recombination in the Trip13-null mice.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> The authors perform a thorough examination of the phenotypes of a newly generated Trip13 null allele in mice, noting defects in chromosome synapsis and impact on localization of other key proteins (namely HORMADs) on meiotic chromosomes. The vast majority of data confirms observations of several prior studies of Trip13 alleles (moderate and severe hypomorphs). The original or primary aims of the study aren't clear, but it can be assumed that the authors wanted to better study the role of this protein in evicting HORMADs upon synapsis by studying phenotypes of mutants and better characterizing TRIP13 localization data (which they find localizes to the central element of synapsed chromosomes using a new epitope-tagged allele). Their data confirm prior reports and are consistent with localization data of the orthologous Pch2 protein in many other organisms.

Strengths:<br /> The quality of data is high. Probably the most important data the authors find is that TRIP13 is localized along the CE of synapsed chromosomes. However, this was not unexpected because PCH2 is also similarly localized. Also, the authors use a clear null (deletion allele), whereas prior studies used hypomorphs.

Weaknesses:<br /> There is limited new data; most are confirmatory or expected (i.e., SC localization), and thus the impact of this report is not high. The claim that TRIP13 "functions as a dosage-sensitive regulator of meiosis" is exaggerated in my opinion. Indeed, the authors make the observation that hets have a phenotype, but numerous genes have haploinsufficient phenotypes. In my opinion, it is a leap to extrapolate this to infer that TRIP13 is a "regulator" of meiosis. What is the definition of a meiosis regulator? Is it at the apex of the meiosis process, or is it a crucial cog of any aspect of meiosis?

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> The authors appear to be attempting to describe dynamic changes in the chromatin landscape in spermatogonial cells during postnatal development ranging from prepubertal stages at postnatal days 8 or 15 to adult stages. The authors attempt to relate differences they observe in chromatin accessibility at these different stages to changes in gene expression to better understand the molecular mechanisms regulating this differential gene expression.

Strengths:<br /> The primary strength of the manuscript is that it provides additional datasets describing gene expression and chromatin accessibility patterns in spermatogonial cells at different postnatal ages.

Weaknesses:<br /> There appears to be a lack of basic knowledge of the process of spermatogenesis. For instance, the statement that "During the first week of postnatal life, a population of SCs continues to proliferate to give rise to undifferentiated Asingle (As), Apaired (Apr) and Aaligned (Aal) cells. The remaining SCs differentiate to form chains of daughter cells that become primary and secondary permatocytes around postnatal day (PND) 10 to 12." is inaccurate. The Aal cells are the spermatogonial chains, the two are not distinct from one another. In addition, the authors fail to mention spermatogonial stem cells which form the basis for steady-state spermatogenesis. The authors also do not acknowledge the well-known fact that, in the mouse, the first wave of spermatogenesis is distinct from subsequent waves. Finally, the authors do not mention the presence of both undifferentiated spermatogonia (aka - type A) and differentiating spermatogonia (aka - type B). The premise for the study they present appears to be the implication that little is known about the dynamics of chromatin during the development of spermatogonia. However, there are published studies on this topic that have already provided much of the information that is presented in the current manuscript.

It is not clear which spermatogonial subtype the authors intended to profile with their analyses. On the one hand, they used PLZF to FACS sort cells. This typically enriches for undifferentiated spermatogonia. On the other hand, they report detection in the sorted population of markers such as c-KIT which is a well-known marker of differentiating spermatogonia, and that is in the same population in which ID4, a well-known marker of spermatogonial stem cells, was detected. The authors cite multiple previously published studies of gene expression during spermatogenesis, including studies of gene expression in spermatogonia. It is not at all clear what the authors' data adds to the previously available data on this subject.

The authors analyzed cells recovered at PND 8 and 15 and compared those to cells recovered from the adult testis. The PND 8 and 15 cells would be from the initial wave of spermatogenesis whereas those from the adult testis would represent steady-state spermatogenesis. However, as noted above, there appears to be a lack of awareness of the well-established differences between spermatogenesis occurring at each of these stages.

In general, the authors present observational data of the sort that is generated by RNA-seq and ATAC-seq analyses, and they speculate on the potential significance of several of these observations. However, they provide no definitive data to support any of their speculations. This further illustrates the fact that this study contributes little if any new information beyond that already available from the numerous previously published RNA-seq and ATAC-seq studies of spermatogenesis. In short, the study described in this manuscript does not advance the field.

The phenomenon of epigenetic priming is discussed, but then it seems that there is some expression of surprise that the data demonstrate what this reviewer would argue are examples of that phenomenon. The authors discuss the "modest correspondence between transcription and chromatin accessibility in SCs." Chromatin accessibility is an example of an epigenetic parameter associated with the primed state. The primed state is not fully equivalent to the actively expressing state. It appears that certain histone modifications along with transcription factors are critical to the transition between the primed and actively expressing states (in either direction). The cell types that were investigated in this study are closely related spermatogenic, and predominantly spermatogonial cell types. It is very likely that the differentially expressed loci will be primed in both the early (PND 8 or 15) and adult stages, even though those genes are differentially expressed at those stages. Thus, it is not surprising that there is not a strict concordance between +/- chromatin accessibility and +/- active or elevated expression.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The objective of this study from Lazar-Contes et al. is to examine chromatin accessibility changes in "spermatogonial cells" (SCs) across testis development. Exactly what SCs are, however, remains a mystery. The authors mention in the abstract that SCs are undifferentiated male germ cells and have self-renewal and differentiation activity, which would be true for Spermatogonial STEM Cells (SSCs), a very small subset of total spermatogonia, but then the methods they use to retrieve such cells using antibodies that enrich for undifferentiated spermatogonia encompass both undifferentiated and differentiating spermatogonia. Data in Fig. 1B prove that most (85-95%) are PLZF+, but PLZF is known to be expressed both by undifferentiated and differentiating (KIT+) spermatogonia (Niedenberger et al., 2015; PMID: 25737569). Thus, the bulk RNA-seq and ATAC-seq data arising from these cells constitute the aggregate results comprising the phenotype of a highly heterogeneous mixture of spermatogonia (plus contaminating somatic cells), NOT SSCs. Indeed, Fig. 1C demonstrates this by showing the detection of Kit mRNA (a well-known marker of differentiating spermatogonia - which the authors claim on line 89 is a marker of SCs!), along with the detection of markers of various somatic cell populations (albeit at lower levels). This admixture problem influences the results - the authors show ATAC-seq accessibility traces for several genes in Fig. 2E (exhibiting differences between P15 and Adult), including Ihh, which is not expressed by spermatogenic cells, and Col6a1, which is expressed by peritubular myoid cells. Thus, the methods in this paper are fundamentally flawed, which precludes drawing any firm conclusions from the data about changes in chromatin accessibility among spermatogonia (SCs?) across postnatal testis development. In addition, there already are numerous scRNA-seq datasets from mouse spermatogenic cells at the same developmental stages in question. Moreover, several groups have used bulk ATAC-seq to profile enriched populations of spermatogonia, including from synchronized spermatogenesis which reflects a high degree of purity (see Maezawa et al., 2018 PMID: 29126117 and Schlief et al., 2023 PMID: 36983846 and in cultured spermatogonia - Suen et al., 2022 PMID: 36509798) - so this topic has already begun to be examined. None of these papers was cited, so it appears the authors were unaware of this work. The authors' methodological choice is even more surprising given the wealth of single-cell evidence in the literature since 2018 demonstrating the exceptional heterogeneity among spermatogonia at these developmental stages (the authors DID cite some of these papers, so they are aware). Indeed, it is currently possible to perform concurrent scATAC-seq and scRNA-seq (10x Genomics Multiome), which would have made these data quite useful and robust. As it stands, given the lack of novelty and critical methodological flaws, readers should be cautioned that there is little new information to be learned about spermatogenesis from this study, and in fact, the data in Figures 2-5 may lead readers astray because they do not reflect the biology of any one type of male germ cell. Indeed, not only do these data not add to our understanding of spermatogonial development, but they are damaging to the field if their source and identity are properly understood. Here are some specific examples of the problems with these data:

1. Fig. 2D - Gata4 and Lhcgr are not expressed by germ cells in the testis.

2. Fig. 3A - WT1 is expressed by Sertoli cells, so the change in accessibility of regions containing a WT1 motif suggests differential contamination with Sertoli cells. Since Wt1 mRNA was differentially high in P15 (Fig. 3B) - this seems to be the most likely explanation for the results. How was this excluded?

3. Fig. 3D - Since Dmrt1 is expressed by Sertoli cells, the "downregulation" likely represents a reduction in Sertoli cell contamination in the adult, like the point above. Did the authors consider this?

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this study, Lazar-Contes and colleagues aimed to determine whether chromatin accessibility changes in the spermatogonial population during different phases of postnatal mammalian testis development. Because actions of the spermatogonial population set the foundation for continual and robust spermatogenesis and the gene networks regulating their biology are undefined, the goal of the study has merit. To advance knowledge, the authors used mice as a model and isolated spermatogonia from three different postnatal developmental age points using a cell sorting methodology that was based on cell surface markers reported in previous studies and then performed bulk RNA-sequencing and ATAC-sequencing. Overall, the technical aspects of the sequencing analyses and computational/bioinformatics seem sound but there are several concerns with the cell population isolated from testes and lack of acknowledgment for previous studies that have also performed ATAC-sequencing on spermatogonia of mouse and human testes. The limitations, described below, call into question the validity of the interpretations and reduce the potential merit of the findings.

I suggest changing the acronym for spermatogonial cells from SC to SPG for two reasons. First, SPG is the commonly used acronym in the field of mammalian spermatogenesis. Second, SC is commonly used for Sertoli Cells.

The authors should provide a rationale for why they used postnatal day 8 and 15 mice.

The FACS sorting approach used was based on cell surface proteins that are not germline-specific so there were undoubtedly somatic cells in the samples used for both RNA and ATAC sequencing. Thus, it is essential to demonstrate the level of both germ cell and undifferentiated spermatogonial enrichment in the isolated and profiled cell populations. To achieve this, the authors used PLZF as a biomarker of undifferentiated spermatogonia. Although PLZF is indeed expressed by undifferentiated spermatogonia, there have been several studies demonstrating that expression extends into differentiating spermatogonia. In addition, PLZF is not germ-cell specific and single-cell RNA-seq analyses of testicular tissue have revealed that there are somatic cell populations that express Plzf, at least at the mRNA level. For these reasons, I suggest that the authors assess the isolated cell populations using a germ-cell specific biomarker such as DDX4 in combination with PLZF to get a more accurate assessment of the undifferentiated spermatogonial composition. This assessment is essential for the interpretation of the RNA-seq and ATAC-seq data that was generated.

A previous study by the Namekawa lab (PMID: 29126117) performed ATAC-seq on a similar cell population (THY1+ FACS sorted) that was isolated from pre-pubertal mouse testes. It was surprising to not see this study referenced in the current manuscript. In addition, it seems prudent to cross-reference the two ATAC-seq datasets for commonalities and differences. In addition, there are several published studies on scATAC-seq of human spermatogonia that might be of interest to cross-reference with the ATAC-seq data presented in the current study to provide an understanding of translational merit for the findings.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> Liao et al leveraged two powerful genomics techniques-CUT&RUN and RNA sequencing-to identify genomic regions bound by and activated or inactivated by SMAD1, SMAD5, and the progesterone receptor during endometrial stromal cell decidualization.

Strengths:<br /> The authors utilized powerful next generation sequencing and identified important transcriptional mechanisms of SMAD1/5 and PGR during decidualization in vivo.

Weaknesses:<br /> Overall, the manuscript and study are well structured and provide critical mechanistic updates on the roles of SMAD1/5 in decidualization and preparation of the maternal endometrium for pregnancy. Please consider the following to improve the manuscript:

• Figure 4: A and C show bar graphs, not histograms. Please alter this phrasing.<br /> • What post hoc test was performed on qPCR analyses? (Figure 6). It is evident that any assumptions of equal variance need to be negated due to the wide dispersion in experimental response invalidating the assumptions of a one-way ANOVA.<br /> • Figure 6: what data points are plotted? Are these technical replicates from individual wells or qPCR technical replicates?<br /> • Figure 6: Consider changing graph colors to increase visibility of error bars and data points.<br /> • Figure 6 legend: no histograms are shown in this figure. Refer to all gene names utilizing proper nomenclature and conventions (gene names should be italicized).<br /> • qPCR analyses: qPCR normalization should be done to at least two internal control genes, preferably three according to the MIQE guidelines (PMID: 19246619).<br /> • Supplement figure 2: graphs are bar graphs, not histograms.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Liao and colleagues generated tagged SMAD1 and SMAD5 mouse models and identified genome occupancy of these two factors in the uterus of these mice using the CUT&RUN assay. The authors used integrative bioinformatic approaches to identify putative SMAD1/5 direct downstream target genes and to catalog the SMAD1/5 and PGR genome co-localization pattern. The role of SMAD1/5 on stromal decidualization was assayed in vitro on primary human endometrial stromal cells. The new mouse models offer opportunities to further dissect SMAD1 and SMAD5 functions without the limitation from SMAD antibodies, which is significant. The CUT&RUN data further support the usefulness of these mouse models for this purpose.

Strengths:<br /> The strength of this study is the novelty of new mouse models and the valuable cistromic data derived from these mice.

Weaknesses:<br /> The weakness of the present version of the manuscript includes the self-limited data analysis approaches such as the proximal promoter based bioinformatic filter and a missed opportunity to investigate the role of SMAD1/5 on determining the genome occupancy of major uterine transcription regulators.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> As SMAD1/5 activities have previously been indistinguishable, these studies provide a new mouse model to finally understand unique downstream activation of SMAD1/5 target genes, a model useful for many scientific fields. Using CUT&RUN analyses with gene overlap comparisons and signaling pathway analyses, specific targets for SMAD1 versus SMAD5 were compared, identified, and interpreted. These data validate previous findings showing strong evidence that SMADs directly govern critical genes required for endometrial receptivity and decidualization, including cell adhesion and vascular development. Further, SMAD targets were overlapped with progesterone receptor binding sites to identify regions of potential synergistic regulation of implantation. The authors report strong correlations between progesterone receptor and SMAD1/5 direct targets to cooperatively promote embryo implantation. Finally, the authors validated SMAD1/5 gene regulation in primary human endometrial stromal cells. These studies provide a data-rich survey of SMAD family transcription, defining its role as a governor of early pregnancy.

Strengths:<br /> This manuscript provides a valuable survey of SMAD1/5 direct transcriptional events at the time of receptivity. As embryo implantation is controlled by extensive epithelial to stromal molecular crosstalk and hormonal regulation in space and time, the authors state a strong, descriptive narrative defining how SMAD1/5 plays a central role at the site of this molecular orchestration. The implementation of cutting-edge techniques and models and simple comparative analyses provide a straightforward, yet elegant manuscript.

Although the progesterone receptor exists as a major regulator of early pregnancy, the authors have demonstrated clear evidence that progesterone receptor with SMAD1/5 work in concert to molecularly regulate targets such as Sox17, Id2, Tgfbr2, Runx1, Foxo1 and more at embryo implantation. Additionally, the authors pinpoint other critical transcription factor motifs that work with SMADs and the progesterone receptor to promote early pregnancy transcriptional paradigms.

Weaknesses:<br /> Although a wonderful new tool to ascertain SMAD1 versus SMAD5 downstream signaling, the importance of these factors in governing early pregnancy is not novel. Furthermore, functional validation studies are needed to confirm interactions at promoter regions. Addtionally, the authors presume that all overlapped genes are shared between progesterone receptor and SMAD1/5, yet some peak representations do not overlap. Although, transcriptional activation can occur at the same time, they may not occur in the same complex. Thus, further confirmation of these transcriptional events is warranted.

Since whole murine uterus was used for these studies, the specific functions of SMAD1/5 in the stroma versus the epithelium (versus the myometrium) remain unknown. Specific roles for SMAD1/5 in the uterine stroma and epithelial compartments still need to be examined. Also, further work is needed to delineate binding and transcriptional activation of SMAD1/5 and the progesterone receptor in stromal versus epithelial uterine compartments.

There are asynchronous gene responses in the SMAD1/5 ablated mouse model compared to the siRNA-treated human endometrial stromal cells. These differences can be confounding, and more clarity is required in understanding the meaning of these differences and as they relate to the entire SMAD transcriptome.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> The authors start out by doing a time-calibrated gene/species tree analysis of the animal gasdermin family, resulting in a dendrogram showing the relationship of the individual gasdermin subfamilies and suggesting a series of gene duplication events (and gene losses) that lead to the gasdermin distribution in extant species. They observe that the GSDMA proteins from birds, reptiles, and amphibians do not form a clade with the mammalian GSDMAs and notice that the non-mammalian GSDMA proteins share a conserved caspase-1 cleavage motif at the predicted activation site. The authors provide several series of experiments showing that the non-mammalian GSDMA proteins can indeed be activated by caspase-1 and that this activation leads to cell death (in human cells). They also investigate the role of the caspase-1 recognition tetrapeptide for cleavage by caspase-1 and for the pathogen-derived protease SpeB.

Strengths:<br /> The evolutionary analysis performed in this manuscript appears to use a broader data basis than what has been used in other published work. An interesting result of this analysis is the suggestion that GSDMA is evolutionarily older than the main mammalian pyroptotic GSDMD, and that birds, reptiles, and amphibians lack GSDMD but use GSDMA for the same purpose. The consequence that bird GSDMA should be activated by an inflammatory caspase (=caspase1) is convincingly supported by the experiments provided in the manuscript.

Weaknesses:<br /> 1) As a non-expert in phylogenetic tree reconstruction, I find the tree resulting from the authors' analysis surprising (in particular the polyphyly of GSDMA) and at odds with several other published trees of this family. The differences might be due to differences in the data being used or due to the tree construction method, but no explanation for this discrepancy is provided.

2) While the cleavability of bird/reptile GSDMA by caspase-1 is well-supported by several experiments, the role of this cleavage for pyroptotic cell killing is addressed more superficially. One cell viability assay upon overexpression of GSDMA-NTD in human HEK293 cells is shown and one micrograph shows pyroptotic morphology upon expression in HeLa cells. It is not clear why these experiments were limited to human cells and why two different cell types were used for the two complementary results.

3) The introduction mentions as a motivation for this work our lack of knowledge of how human GSDMA is activated. This is indeed an interesting and pressing question, but it is not really addressed in the manuscript. This is particularly true when believing the authors' dendrogram results that the bird and mammalian GSDMA families do not form a clade.

As a consequence, the significance of this finding is mostly limited to birds and reptiles.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> The authors investigated the molecular evolution of members of the gasdermin (GSDM) family. By adding the evolutionary time axis of animals, they created a new molecular phylogenetic tree different from previous ones. The analyzed result verified that non-mammalian GSDMAs and mammalian GSDMAs have diverged into completely different and separate clades. Furthermore, by biochemical analyses, the authors demonstrated non-mammalian GSDMA proteins are cleaved by the host-encoded caspase-1. They also showed mammalian GSDMAs have lost the cleavage site recognized by caspase-1. Instead, the authors proposed that the newly appeared GSDMD is now cleaved by caspase-1.

Through this study, we have been able to understand the changes in the molecular evolution of GSDMs, and by presenting the cleavage of GSDMAs through biochemical experiments, we have become able to grasp the comprehensive picture of this family of molecules. However, there are some parts where explanations are insufficient, so supplementary explanations and experiments seem to be necessary.

Strengths:<br /> It has a strong impact in advancing ideas into the study of pyroptotic cell death and even inflammatory responses involving caspase-1.

Weaknesses:<br /> Based on the position of mammalian GSDMA shown in the molecular phylogenetic tree (Figure 1), it may be difficult to completely agree with the authors' explanation of the evolution of GSDMA.

1) Focusing on mammalian GSDMA, this group, and mammalian GSDMD diverged into two clades, and before that, GSDMA/D groups and mammalian GSDMC separated into two, more before that, GSDMB, and further before that, non-mammalian GSDMA, when we checked Figure 1. In the molecular phylogenetic tree, it is impossible that GSDMA appears during evolution again. Mammalian GSDMAs are clearly paralogous molecules to non-mammalian GSDMAs in the figure. If they are bona fide orthologous, the mammalian GSDMA group should show a sub-clade in the non-mammalian GSDMA clade. It is better to describe the plausibility of the divergence in the molecular evolution of mammalian GSDMA in the Discussion section.

2) Regarding (1), it is recommended that the authors reconsider the validity of estimates of divergence dates by focusing on mammalian species divergence. Because the validity of this estimation requires a recheck of the molecular phylogenetic tree, including alignment.

3) If GSDMB and/or GSDMC between non-mammalian GSDMA and mammalian GSDMD as shown in the molecular phylogenetic tree would be cleaved by caspase-1, the story of this study becomes clearer. The authors should try that possibility.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors present a detailed analysis of a set of molecular dynamics computer simulations of several variants of a T-cell receptor (TCR) in isolation and bound to a Major Histocompatibility Complex with peptide (pMHC), with the aim of improving our understanding of the mechanism T cell activation in immunity. By analyzing simulations of peptide mutants and partially truncated TCRs, the authors find that native peptide agonists lead to a so-called catch-bond response, whereby tensile force applied in the direction of separation between TCR/pMHC appears to strengthen the TCR/pMHC interface, whereas mutated peptides exhibit the more common slip-bond response, in which applied force destabilizes the binding interface.

Using various computational metrics and simulation statistics, the authors propose a model in which tensile force preferentially suppresses thermal fluctuations in the variable α domain of the TCR (vs the β domain) in a peptide-dependent manner, which orders and strengthens the binding interface by bringing together the complementarity-determining regions (CDRs) in the TCR variable chains, but only if the peptide is correctly matched to the TCR.

The study is detailed and written clearly, and conclusions appear convincing and are supported by the simulation data. However, the actual motions at the molecular or amino-acid level of how the catch-bond vs slip bond response originates remain somewhat unclear, and will probably warrant further investigations. Specific hypotheses that could be testable in experiments, such as predictions of which peptide (or TCR) mutations or which peptides could generate a catch-vs-slip response or activation, would have especially strengthened this study.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this work, Chang-Gonzalez and co-workers investigate the role of force in peptide recognition by T-cells using a model T-cell/peptide recognition complex. By applying forces through a harmonic restraint on distances, the authors probe the role of mechanical pulling on peptide binding specificity. They point to a role for force in distinguishing the different roles played by agonist and antagonist peptides for which the bound configuration is not clearly distinguishable. Overall, I would consider this work to be extensive and carefully done, and noteworthy for the number of mutant peptides and conditions probed. From the text, I'm not sure how specific these conclusions are to this particular complex, but I do not think this diminishes the specific studies.

I have a couple of specific comments on the methodology and analysis that the authors could consider:<br /> 1) It is not explained what is the origin of force on the peptide-MHC complex. Although I do know a bit about this, it's not clear to me how the force ends up applied across the complex (e.g. is it directional in any way, on what subdomains/residues do we expect it to be applied), and is it constant or stochastic. I think it would be important to add some discussion of this and how it translates into the way the force is applied here (on terminal residues of the complex).

2) In terms of application of the force, I find the use of a harmonic restraint and then determining a distance at which the force has a certain value to be indirect and a bit unphysical. As just mentioned, since the origin of the force is not a harmonic trap, it would be more straightforward to apply a pulling force which has the form -F*d, which would correspond to a constant force (see for example comment articles 10.1021/acs.jpcb.1c10715, 10.1021/acs.jpcb.1c06330). While application of a constant force will result in a new average distance, for small forces it does so in a way that does not change the variance of the distance whereas a harmonic force pollutes the variance (see e.g. 10.1021/ct300112v in a different context). A constant force could also shift the system into a different state not commensurate with the original distance, so by applying a harmonic trap, one could be keeping ones' self from exploring this, which could be important, as in the case of certain catch bond mechanisms. While I certainly wouldn't expect the authors to redo these extensive simulations, I think they could at least acknowledge this caveat, and they may be interested in considering a comparison of the two ways of applying a force in the future.

3) For the PCA analysis, I believe the authors learn separate PC vectors from different simulations and then take the dot product of those two vectors. Although this might be justified based on the simplified coordinate upon which the PCA is applied, in general, I am not a big fan of running PCA on separate data sets and then comparing the outputs, as the meaning seems opaque to me. To compare the biggest differences between many simulations, it would make more sense to me to perform PCA on all of the data combined, and see if there are certain combinations of quantities that distinguish the different simulations. Alternatively and probably better, one could perform linear discriminant analysis, which is appropriate in this case because one already knows that different simulations are in different states, and hence the LDA will directly give the linear coordinate that best distinguishes classes.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This simulation study presents a valuable finding on the load-dependence (i.e., dependence on a pulling force) of the recognition of a peptide-bound major histocompatibility complex (pMHC) antigen by a T cell receptor (TCR). The evidence supporting the claims of the authors is solid, although inclusion of a larger number of simulations would have strengthened the study. The work will be of interest to computational structural biologists and immunologists.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Chang et al. demonstrate through their findings that COVID-19 mRNA vaccination of hemodialysis patients produces no significant difference in antibody levels achieved across the vaccination series. They correlate the antibody responses through RNA sequencing data of dialysis patients versus healthy controls throughout the vaccination series. They also compare those with prior infection versus those who are infection naive. The antibody findings are interesting because they disagree with previous publications showing that dialysis patients have a significantly lower antibody titer level achieved from vaccination than controls. The authors posit that this may be age-related, but subject numbers in the current study are not adequately powered to make that definitive determination.

However, they find that T-cell responses may be muted in hemodialysis patients as they have lower activation of T-cell genes than healthy controls. The RNA sequencing evidence is solid. However, they lack data on a clinical correlation to T-cell responses.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In HD patients, immune pathways alteration leads to higher susceptibility to infection and lower response to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. Therefore, it is important to understand the immune response to vaccines in ESRD patients against the COVID-19 pandemic. In this MS, the authors recruited 20 HD patients and cohort-matched controls to perform multiple experimental studies (including transcriptomic analysis, RNAseq, and Anti-Spike (trimer) IgG Titer Quantification) to investigate how immune pathways alteration in HD patients after COVID-19 mRNA vaccine injection. They demonstrate differing expression of BTMs and differing time courses of immune responses to the BTN162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in maintenance hemodialysis subjects (HD) compared to controls, which warrants further characterization of the immune dysregulation of ESRD and immune biomarkers. Overall, the study is well designed, and the result has potential clinical value and will interest nephrologists. The major concern of this study is the cohort set up. The sample sizes of recruited candidates are relatively small, and no validation cohort was designed. More importantly, between the two groups, the race distribution is uneven. For example, 10 black and 2 white HD patients were included, but accordingly, 3 black and 8 white people were recruited as controls. In such a small size of the clinical study, this kind of unevenness might cause potential issues in concluding. In addition, the control cohort also included 1 diabetes and 4 hypertension, patients. Will these existing primary diseases in controls cause noise in the data analysis because these metabolic diseases also can directly cause immune system dysfunction? In addition, there were 8 HD patients and 5 HC with a positive test of SARS-CoV-2 from 8 months to four weeks preceding vaccination. How long does the immune response last after being infected with COVID-19? Several studies have found that people infected with COVID-19 continue to produce antibodies to the virus for seven or eight months after recovery. Therefore, people with a COVID-19 history might not be suitable for this trial.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This work introduces a novel framework for evaluating the performance of statistical methods that identify replay events. This is challenging because hippocampal replay is a latent cognitive process, where the ground truth is inaccessible, so methods cannot be evaluated against a known answer. The framework consists of two elements:<br /> 1. A replay sequence p-value, evaluated against shuffled permutations of the data, such as radon line fitting, rank-order correlation, or weighted correlation. This element determines how trajectory-like the spiking representation is. The p-value threshold for all accepted replay events is adjusted based on an empirical shuffled distribution to control for the false discovery rate.<br /> 2. A trajectory discriminability score, also evaluated against shuffled permutations of the data. In this case, there are two different possible spatial environments that can be replayed, so the method compares the log odds of track 1 vs. track 2.

The authors then use this framework (accepted number of replay events and trajectory discriminability) to study the performance of replay identification methods. They conclude that sharp wave ripple power is not a necessary criterion for identifying replay event candidates during awake run behavior if you have high multiunit activity, a higher number of permutations is better for identifying replay events, linear Bayesian decoding methods outperform rank-order correlation, and there is no evidence for pre-play.

The authors tackle a difficult and important problem for those studying hippocampal replay (and indeed all latent cognitive processes in the brain) with spiking data: how do we understand how well our methods are doing when the ground truth is inaccessible? Additionally, systematically studying how the variety of methods for identifying replay perform, is important for understanding the sometimes contradictory conclusions from replay papers. It helps consolidate the field around particular methods, leading to better reproducibility in the future. The authors' framework is also simple to implement and understand and the code has been provided, making it accessible to other neuroscientists. Testing for track discriminability, as well as the sequentiality of the replay event, is a sensible additional data point to eliminate "spurious" replay events.

However, there are some concerns with the framework as well. The novelty of the framework is questionable as it consists of a log odds measure previously used in two prior papers (Carey et al. 2019 and the authors' own Tirole & Huelin Gorriz, et al., 2022) and a multiple comparisons correction, albeit a unique empirical multiple comparisons correction based on shuffled data.

With respect to the log odds measure itself, as presented, it is reliant on having only two options to test between, limiting its general applicability. Even in the data used for the paper, there are sometimes three tracks, which could influence the conclusions of the paper about the validity of replay methods. This also highlights a weakness of the method in that it assumes that the true model (spatial track environment) is present in the set of options being tested. Furthermore, the log odds measure itself is sensitive to the defined ripple or multiunit start and end times, because it marginalizes over both position and time, so any inclusion of place cells that fire for the animal's stationary position could influence the discriminability of the track. Multiple track representations during a candidate replay event would also limit track discriminability. Finally, the authors call this measure "trajectory discriminability", which seems a misnomer as the time and position information are integrated out, so there is no notion of trajectory.

The authors also fail to make the connection with the control of the false discovery rate via false positives on empirical shuffles with existing multiple comparison corrections that control for false discovery rates (such as the Benjamini and Hochberg procedure or Storey's q-value). Additionally, the particular type of shuffle used will influence the empirically determined p-value, making the procedure dependent on the defined null distribution. Shuffling the data is also considerably more computationally intensive than the existing multiple comparison corrections.

Overall, the authors make interesting conclusions with respect to hippocampal replay methods, but the utility of the method is limited in scope because of its reliance on having exactly two comparisons and having to specify the null distribution to control for the false discovery rate. This work will be of interest to electrophysiologists studying hippocampal replay in spiking data.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This study proposes to evaluate and compare different replay methods in the absence of "ground truth" using data from hippocampal recordings of rodents that were exposed to two different tracks on the same day. The study proposes to leverage the potential of Bayesian methods to decode replay and reactivation in the same events. They find that events that pass a higher threshold for replay typically yield a higher measure of reactivation. On the other hand, events from the shuffled data that pass thresholds for replay typically don't show any reactivation. While well-intentioned, I think the result is highly problematic and poorly conceived.

The work presents a lot of confusion about the nature of null hypothesis testing and the meaning of p-values. The prescription arrived at, to correct p-values by putting animals on two separate tracks and calculating a "sequence-less" measure of reactivation are impractical from an experimental point of view, and unsupportable from a statistical point of view. Much of the observations are presented as solutions for the field, but are in fact highly dependent on distinct features of the dataset at hand. The most interesting observation is that despite the existence of apparent sequences in the PRE-RUN data, no reactivation is detectable in those events, suggesting that in fact they represent spurious events. I would recommend the authors focus on this important observation and abandon the rest of the work, as it has the potential to further befuddle and promote poor statistical practices in the field.

The major issue is that the manuscript conveys much confusion about the nature of hypothesis testing and the meaning of p-values. It's worth stating here the definition of a p-value: the conditional probability of rejecting the null hypothesis given that the null hypothesis is true. Unfortunately, in places, this study appears to confound the meaning of the p-value with the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis given that the null hypothesis is NOT true-i.e. in their recordings from awake replay on different mazes. Most of their analysis is based on the observation that events that have higher reactivation scores, as reflected in the mean log odds differences, have lower p-values resulting from their replay analyses. Shuffled data, in contrast, does not show any reactivation but can still show spurious replays depending on the shuffle procedure used to create the surrogate dataset. The authors suggest using this to test different practices in replay detection. However, another important point that seems lost in this study is that the surrogate dataset that is contrasted with the actual data depends very specifically on the null hypothesis that is being tested. That is to say, each different shuffle procedure is in fact testing a different null hypothesis. Unfortunately, most studies, including this one, are not very explicit about which null hypothesis is being tested with a given resampling method, but the p-value obtained is only meaningful insofar as the null that is being tested and related assumptions are clearly understood. From a statistical point of view, it makes no sense to adjust the p-value obtained by one shuffle procedure according to the p-value obtained by a different shuffle procedure, which is what this study inappropriately proposes. Other prescriptions offered by the study are highly dataset and method dependent and discuss minutiae of event detection, such as whether or not to require power in the ripple frequency band.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This study tackles a major problem with replay detection, which is that different methods can produce vastly different results. It provides compelling evidence that the source of this inconsistency is that biological data often violates assumptions of independent samples. This results in false positive rates that can vary greatly with the precise statistical assumptions of the chosen replay measure, the detection parameters, and the dataset itself. To address this issue, the authors propose to empirically estimate the false positive rate and control for it by adjusting the significance threshold. Remarkably, this reconciles the differences in replay detection methods, as the results of all the replay methods tested converge quite well (see Figure 6B). This suggests that by controlling for the false positive rate, one can get an accurate estimate of replay with any of the standard methods.

When comparing different replay detection methods, the authors use a sequence-independent log-odds difference score as a validation tool and an indirect measure of replay quality. This takes advantage of the two-track design of the experimental data, and its use here relies on the assumption that a true replay event would be associated with good (discriminable) reactivation of the environment that is being replayed. The other way replay "quality" is estimated is by the number of replay events detected once the false positive rate is taken into account. In this scheme, "better" replay is in the top right corner of Figure 6B: many detected events associated with congruent reactivation.

There are two possible ways the results from this study can be integrated into future replay research. The first, simpler, way is to take note of the empirically estimated false positive rates reported here and simply avoid the methods that result in high false positive rates (weighted correlation with a place bin shuffle or all-spike Spearman correlation with a spike-id shuffle). The second, perhaps more desirable, way is to integrate the practice of estimating the false positive rate when scoring replay and to take it into account. This is very powerful as it can be applied to any replay method with any choice of parameters and get an accurate estimate of replay.

How does one estimate the false positive rate in their dataset? The authors propose to use a cell-ID shuffle, which preserves all the firing statistics of replay events (bursts of spikes by the same cell, multi-unit fluctuations, etc.) but randomly swaps the cells' place fields, and to repeat the replay detection on this surrogate randomized dataset. Of course, there is no perfect shuffle, and it is possible that a surrogate dataset based on this particular shuffle may result in one underestimating the true false positive rate if different cell types are present (e.g. place field statistics may differ between CA1 and CA3 cells, or deep vs. superficial CA1 cells, or place cells vs. non-place cells if inclusion criteria are not strict). Moreover, it is crucial that this validation shuffle be independent of any shuffling procedure used to determine replay itself (which may not always be the case, particularly for the pre-decoding place field circular shuffle used by some of the methods here) lest the true false-positive rate be underestimated. Once the false positive rate is estimated, there are different ways one may choose to control for it: adjusting the significance threshold as the current study proposes, or directly comparing the number of events detected in the original vs surrogate data. Either way, with these caveats in mind, controlling for the false positive rate to the best of our ability is a powerful approach that the field should integrate.

Which replay detection method performed the best? If one does not control for varying false positive rates, there are two methods that resulted in strikingly high (>15%) false positive rates: these were weighted correlation with a place bin shuffle and Spearman correlation (using all spikes) with a spike-id shuffle. However, after controlling for the false positive rate (Figure 6B) all methods largely agree, including those with initially high false positive rates. There is no clear "winner" method, because there is a lot of overlap in the confidence intervals, and there also are some additional reasons for not overly interpreting small differences in the observed results between methods. The confidence intervals are likely to underestimate the true variance in the data because the resampling procedure does not involve hierarchical statistics and thus fails to account for statistical dependencies on the session and animal level. Moreover, it is possible that methods that involve shuffles similar to the cross-validation shuffle ("wcorr 2 shuffles", "wcorr 3 shuffles" both use a pre-decoding place field circular shuffle, which is very similar to the pre-decoding place field swap used in the cross-validation procedure to estimate the false positive rate) may underestimate the false positive rate and therefore inflate adjusted p-value and the proportion of significant events. We should therefore not interpret small differences in the measured values between methods, and the only clear winner and the best way to score replay is using any method after taking the empirically estimated false positive rate into account.

The authors recommend excluding low-ripple power events in sleep, because no replay was observed in events with low (0-3 z-units) ripple power specifically in sleep, but that no ripple restriction is necessary for awake events. There are problems with this conclusion. First, ripple power is not the only way to detect sharp-wave ripples (the sharp wave is very informative in detecting awake events). Second, when talking about sequence quality in awake non-ripple data, it is imperative for one to exclude theta sequences. The authors' speed threshold of 5 cm/s is not sufficient to guarantee that no theta cycles contaminate the awake replay events. Third, a direct comparison of the results with and without exclusion is lacking (selecting for the lower ripple power events is not the same as not having a threshold), so it is unclear how crucial it is to exclude the minority of the sleep events outside of ripples. The decision of whether or not to select for ripples should depend on the particular study and experimental conditions that can affect this measure (electrode placement, brain state prevalence, noise levels, etc.).

Finally, the authors address a controversial topic of de-novo preplay. With replay detection corrected for the false positive rate, none of the detection methods produce evidence of preplay sequences nor sequenceless reactivation in the tested dataset. This presents compelling evidence in favour of the view that the sequence of place fields formed on a novel track cannot be predicted by the sequential structure found in pre-task sleep.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This work introduces a novel framework for evaluating the performance of statistical methods that identify replay events. This is challenging because hippocampal replay is a latent cognitive process, where the ground truth is inaccessible, so methods cannot be evaluated against a known answer. The framework consists of two elements:<br /> 1. A replay sequence p-value, evaluated against shuffled permutations of the data, such as radon line fitting, rank-order correlation, or weighted correlation. This element determines how trajectory-like the spiking representation is. The p-value threshold for all accepted replay events is adjusted based on an empirical shuffled distribution to control for the false discovery rate.<br /> 2. A trajectory discriminability score, also evaluated against shuffled permutations of the data. In this case, there are two different possible spatial environments that can be replayed, so the method compares the log odds of track 1 vs. track 2.

The authors then use this framework (accepted number of replay events and trajectory discriminability) to study the performance of replay identification methods. They conclude that sharp wave ripple power is not a necessary criterion for identifying replay event candidates during awake run behavior if you have high multiunit activity, a higher number of permutations is better for identifying replay events, linear Bayesian decoding methods outperform rank-order correlation, and there is no evidence for pre-play.

The authors tackle a difficult and important problem for those studying hippocampal replay (and indeed all latent cognitive processes in the brain) with spiking data: how do we understand how well our methods are doing when the ground truth is inaccessible? Additionally, systematically studying how the variety of methods for identifying replay perform, is important for understanding the sometimes contradictory conclusions from replay papers. It helps consolidate the field around particular methods, leading to better reproducibility in the future. The authors' framework is also simple to implement and understand and the code has been provided, making it accessible to other neuroscientists. Testing for track discriminability, as well as the sequentiality of the replay event, is a sensible additional data point to eliminate "spurious" replay events.

However, there are some concerns with the framework as well. The novelty of the framework is questionable as it consists of a log odds measure previously used in two prior papers (Carey et al. 2019 and the authors' own Tirole & Huelin Gorriz, et al., 2022) and a multiple comparisons correction, albeit a unique empirical multiple comparisons correction based on shuffled data.

With respect to the log odds measure itself, as presented, it is reliant on having only two options to test between, limiting its general applicability. Even in the data used for the paper, there are sometimes three tracks, which could influence the conclusions of the paper about the validity of replay methods. This also highlights a weakness of the method in that it assumes that the true model (spatial track environment) is present in the set of options being tested. Furthermore, the log odds measure itself is sensitive to the defined ripple or multiunit start and end times, because it marginalizes over both position and time, so any inclusion of place cells that fire for the animal's stationary position could influence the discriminability of the track. Multiple track representations during a candidate replay event would also limit track discriminability. Finally, the authors call this measure "trajectory discriminability", which seems a misnomer as the time and position information are integrated out, so there is no notion of trajectory.

The authors also fail to make the connection with the control of the false discovery rate via false positives on empirical shuffles with existing multiple comparison corrections that control for false discovery rates (such as the Benjamini and Hochberg procedure or Storey's q-value). Additionally, the particular type of shuffle used will influence the empirically determined p-value, making the procedure dependent on the defined null distribution. Shuffling the data is also considerably more computationally intensive than the existing multiple comparison corrections.

Overall, the authors make interesting conclusions with respect to hippocampal replay methods, but the utility of the method is limited in scope because of its reliance on having exactly two comparisons and having to specify the null distribution to control for the false discovery rate. This work will be of interest to electrophysiologists studying hippocampal replay in spiking data.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This study proposes to evaluate and compare different replay methods in the absence of "ground truth" using data from hippocampal recordings of rodents that were exposed to two different tracks on the same day. The study proposes to leverage the potential of Bayesian methods to decode replay and reactivation in the same events. They find that events that pass a higher threshold for replay typically yield a higher measure of reactivation. On the other hand, events from the shuffled data that pass thresholds for replay typically don't show any reactivation. While well-intentioned, I think the result is highly problematic and poorly conceived.

The work presents a lot of confusion about the nature of null hypothesis testing and the meaning of p-values. The prescription arrived at, to correct p-values by putting animals on two separate tracks and calculating a "sequence-less" measure of reactivation are impractical from an experimental point of view, and unsupportable from a statistical point of view. Much of the observations are presented as solutions for the field, but are in fact highly dependent on distinct features of the dataset at hand. The most interesting observation is that despite the existence of apparent sequences in the PRE-RUN data, no reactivation is detectable in those events, suggesting that in fact they represent spurious events. I would recommend the authors focus on this important observation and abandon the rest of the work, as it has the potential to further befuddle and promote poor statistical practices in the field.

The major issue is that the manuscript conveys much confusion about the nature of hypothesis testing and the meaning of p-values. It's worth stating here the definition of a p-value: the conditional probability of rejecting the null hypothesis given that the null hypothesis is true. Unfortunately, in places, this study appears to confound the meaning of the p-value with the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis given that the null hypothesis is NOT true-i.e. in their recordings from awake replay on different mazes. Most of their analysis is based on the observation that events that have higher reactivation scores, as reflected in the mean log odds differences, have lower p-values resulting from their replay analyses. Shuffled data, in contrast, does not show any reactivation but can still show spurious replays depending on the shuffle procedure used to create the surrogate dataset. The authors suggest using this to test different practices in replay detection. However, another important point that seems lost in this study is that the surrogate dataset that is contrasted with the actual data depends very specifically on the null hypothesis that is being tested. That is to say, each different shuffle procedure is in fact testing a different null hypothesis. Unfortunately, most studies, including this one, are not very explicit about which null hypothesis is being tested with a given resampling method, but the p-value obtained is only meaningful insofar as the null that is being tested and related assumptions are clearly understood. From a statistical point of view, it makes no sense to adjust the p-value obtained by one shuffle procedure according to the p-value obtained by a different shuffle procedure, which is what this study inappropriately proposes. Other prescriptions offered by the study are highly dataset and method dependent and discuss minutiae of event detection, such as whether or not to require power in the ripple frequency band.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This study tackles a major problem with replay detection, which is that different methods can produce vastly different results. It provides compelling evidence that the source of this inconsistency is that biological data often violates assumptions of independent samples. This results in false positive rates that can vary greatly with the precise statistical assumptions of the chosen replay measure, the detection parameters, and the dataset itself. To address this issue, the authors propose to empirically estimate the false positive rate and control for it by adjusting the significance threshold. Remarkably, this reconciles the differences in replay detection methods, as the results of all the replay methods tested converge quite well (see Figure 6B). This suggests that by controlling for the false positive rate, one can get an accurate estimate of replay with any of the standard methods.

When comparing different replay detection methods, the authors use a sequence-independent log-odds difference score as a validation tool and an indirect measure of replay quality. This takes advantage of the two-track design of the experimental data, and its use here relies on the assumption that a true replay event would be associated with good (discriminable) reactivation of the environment that is being replayed. The other way replay "quality" is estimated is by the number of replay events detected once the false positive rate is taken into account. In this scheme, "better" replay is in the top right corner of Figure 6B: many detected events associated with congruent reactivation.

There are two possible ways the results from this study can be integrated into future replay research. The first, simpler, way is to take note of the empirically estimated false positive rates reported here and simply avoid the methods that result in high false positive rates (weighted correlation with a place bin shuffle or all-spike Spearman correlation with a spike-id shuffle). The second, perhaps more desirable, way is to integrate the practice of estimating the false positive rate when scoring replay and to take it into account. This is very powerful as it can be applied to any replay method with any choice of parameters and get an accurate estimate of replay.

How does one estimate the false positive rate in their dataset? The authors propose to use a cell-ID shuffle, which preserves all the firing statistics of replay events (bursts of spikes by the same cell, multi-unit fluctuations, etc.) but randomly swaps the cells' place fields, and to repeat the replay detection on this surrogate randomized dataset. Of course, there is no perfect shuffle, and it is possible that a surrogate dataset based on this particular shuffle may result in one underestimating the true false positive rate if different cell types are present (e.g. place field statistics may differ between CA1 and CA3 cells, or deep vs. superficial CA1 cells, or place cells vs. non-place cells if inclusion criteria are not strict). Moreover, it is crucial that this validation shuffle be independent of any shuffling procedure used to determine replay itself (which may not always be the case, particularly for the pre-decoding place field circular shuffle used by some of the methods here) lest the true false-positive rate be underestimated. Once the false positive rate is estimated, there are different ways one may choose to control for it: adjusting the significance threshold as the current study proposes, or directly comparing the number of events detected in the original vs surrogate data. Either way, with these caveats in mind, controlling for the false positive rate to the best of our ability is a powerful approach that the field should integrate.

Which replay detection method performed the best? If one does not control for varying false positive rates, there are two methods that resulted in strikingly high (>15%) false positive rates: these were weighted correlation with a place bin shuffle and Spearman correlation (using all spikes) with a spike-id shuffle. However, after controlling for the false positive rate (Figure 6B) all methods largely agree, including those with initially high false positive rates. There is no clear "winner" method, because there is a lot of overlap in the confidence intervals, and there also are some additional reasons for not overly interpreting small differences in the observed results between methods. The confidence intervals are likely to underestimate the true variance in the data because the resampling procedure does not involve hierarchical statistics and thus fails to account for statistical dependencies on the session and animal level. Moreover, it is possible that methods that involve shuffles similar to the cross-validation shuffle ("wcorr 2 shuffles", "wcorr 3 shuffles" both use a pre-decoding place field circular shuffle, which is very similar to the pre-decoding place field swap used in the cross-validation procedure to estimate the false positive rate) may underestimate the false positive rate and therefore inflate adjusted p-value and the proportion of significant events. We should therefore not interpret small differences in the measured values between methods, and the only clear winner and the best way to score replay is using any method after taking the empirically estimated false positive rate into account.

The authors recommend excluding low-ripple power events in sleep, because no replay was observed in events with low (0-3 z-units) ripple power specifically in sleep, but that no ripple restriction is necessary for awake events. There are problems with this conclusion. First, ripple power is not the only way to detect sharp-wave ripples (the sharp wave is very informative in detecting awake events). Second, when talking about sequence quality in awake non-ripple data, it is imperative for one to exclude theta sequences. The authors' speed threshold of 5 cm/s is not sufficient to guarantee that no theta cycles contaminate the awake replay events. Third, a direct comparison of the results with and without exclusion is lacking (selecting for the lower ripple power events is not the same as not having a threshold), so it is unclear how crucial it is to exclude the minority of the sleep events outside of ripples. The decision of whether or not to select for ripples should depend on the particular study and experimental conditions that can affect this measure (electrode placement, brain state prevalence, noise levels, etc.).

Finally, the authors address a controversial topic of de-novo preplay. With replay detection corrected for the false positive rate, none of the detection methods produce evidence of preplay sequences nor sequenceless reactivation in the tested dataset. This presents compelling evidence in favour of the view that the sequence of place fields formed on a novel track cannot be predicted by the sequential structure found in pre-task sleep.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The work demonstrates that high-intensity ultrasound produces a release of extracellular vesicles from murine myotubes that is dependent on ultrasound intensity. It shows that this increase in extracellular vesicles is abolished in a nominally zero Ca2+ solution. It then shows that these vesicles reduce the mRNA levels of IL-1b and IL-6 in murine bone marrow-derived macrophages and uses a dilution technique to demonstrate that the number, but not the type of vesicles is responsible for this change in mRNA expression. It also compares the miRNA levels in constitutively-released vesicles with those released by high-intensity ultrasound.

Strengths:

The experiments are logically sequenced. It is very helpful to see assessment of the viability of the preparations.<br /> The results are presented fairly clearly and the statistical approach is described. The findings are reasonably clear and the writing is succinct.

Weaknesses:

The work is quite limited in scope and of limited novelty, largely recapitulating work from the first-named author's own recent publications.<br /> Thus, perhaps the most significant weakness of this study is that it makes claims of mechanisms, or of clinical or therapeutic relevance, that are not supported or even addressed by the study.

The aspects of the current work which are novel are hard to identify because the statement of aims is too broad and therefore encapsulates previous work. In addition, the introduction and discussion are vague and fail, for example, to mention the cell types used in the previous studies that are quoted. This means that it is not obvious from the Introduction whether the present study is at all novel.

The size of the study is quite small, with most experiments employing n = 4. This inevitably means that, for example, there is no significant effect of the lower power levels of ultrasound despite shifts in the mean values that might be of interest. Thus, the study appears underpowered. This problem is compounded by a failure to use appropriate analysis methods in the studies looking at dose-responses, where a regression analysis might be more appropriate than multiple individual t-tests / ANOVA.

The assessment of the role of Ca2+ is important but incomplete. Measurement of whole-cell Ca2+ levels is not really a substitute for measuring cytosolic Ca2+ as cell volume changes and sarcoplasmic reticulum Ca2+ changes would greatly influence the possible meaning of the findings. Furthermore, a statement that Ca2+ increase causes the vesicle release could only be supported by experiments that increase intracellular Ca2+, such as the use of a Ca2+ ionophore.

mRNA expression levels of IL-1b and IL-6 are reported. There should also be a report of a non-inflammatory mRNA to act as a control.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors embarked on a journey to understand the mechanisms and intensity-dependency of ultrasound (US)-induced extracellular vesicle (EV) release from myotubes and the potential anti-inflammatory effects of these EVs on macrophages. This study builds on their prior work from 2021 that initially reported US-induced EV secretion.

Strengths:

1. The finding that US-treated myotube EVs can suppress macrophage inflammatory responses is particularly intriguing, hinting at potential therapeutic avenues in inflammation modulation.

Weaknesses:

1. The exploration of output parameters for US induction appears limited, with only three different output powers (intensities) tested, thus narrowing the scope of their findings.<br /> 2. Their claim of elucidating mechanisms seems to be only partially met, with a predominant focus on the correlation between calcium responses and EV release.<br /> 3. While the intracellular calcium response is a dynamic activity, the method used to measure it could risk a loss of kinetic information.<br /> 4. The inclusion of miRNA sequencing is commendable; however, the interpretation of this data fails to draw clear conclusions, diminishing the impact of this segment.

While the authors have shown the anti-inflammatory effects of US-induced EVs on macrophages, there are gaps in the comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms underlying US-induced EV release. Certain aspects, like the calcium response and the utility of miRNA sequencing, were not fully explored to their potential. Therefore, while the study establishes some findings, it leaves other aspects only partially substantiated.

Reviewer #2 (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 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. I especially appreciated the detailed examination of different mechanisms driving gene expression variation. There are some important limitations of the experimental design related to independent evolution of the progenitor species and effects of the colchicine treatment used to induce polyploidy, but these are well-addressed in the Discussion.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This study aims to determine the relative importance of the immediate effects of allopolyploidization from subsequent evolution in phenotypic traits associated with the selfing syndrome and in gene expression traits in the selfing allopolyploid Capsella bursa-pastoris and its diploid progenitors Capsella grandiflora, which is outcrossing, and Capsella orientalis, which is selfing. To do this, 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. 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 future identifying such breakpoints will be an interesting direction for this and other allopolyploid systems.

This research suggests many follow-up questions. In particular, it may be possible to identify evidence about the mechanism of the original hybridization event. How frequently do unreduced gametes occur in these species, and is it likely that C. bursa-pastoris evolved via a triploid bridge? Exploring the viability, fertility, and phenotypes of triploids produced in both directions could be a valuable future direction.

Future research, or the current 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.

Overall, this is 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.

Update: the authors have thoughtfully and thoroughly updated the manuscript to address all the questions I raised. I appreciate the chance to review this valuable contribution to the scientific literature.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this study, Li et al., report that FBXO24 contributes to sperm development by modulating alternative mRNA splicing and MIWI degradation during spermiogenesis. The authors demonstrated that FBXO24 deficiency impairs sperm head formation, midpiece compartmentalization, and axonemal/peri-axonemal organization in mature sperm, which causes sperm motility defects and male infertility. In addition, FBXO24 interacts with various mRNA splicing factors, which causes altered splicing events in Fbxo24-null round spermatids. Interestingly, FBXO24 also modulates MIWI levels via its polyubiquitination in round spermatids. Thus, the authors address that FBXO24 modulates global mRNA levels by regulating piRNA-mediated MIWI function and splicing events in testicular haploid germ cells.

This study is performed with various experimental approaches to explore and elucidate underlying molecular mechanisms for the FBXO24-mediated sperm defects during germ cell development. Overall, the experiments were designed properly and performed well to support the authors' observation in each part. In addition, the finding in this study is useful for understanding the physiological and developmental significance of the FBXO24 in the male germ line, which can provide insight into impaired sperm development and male infertility. However, there are several concerns to be explained more in this study. In addition, some results should be revised and updated.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This work is carried out by the research group led by Shuiqiao Yuan, who has a long interest in and significant contribution to the field of male germ cell development. The authors study a protein for which limited information existed prior to this work, a component of the E3 ubiquitin ligase complex, FBXO24. The authors generated the first FBXO24 KO mouse model reported in the literature using CRISPR, which they complement with HA-tagged FBXO24 transgenic model in the KO background. The authors begin their study with a very careful examination of the expression pattern of the FBXO24 gene at the level of mRNA and the HA-tagged transgene, and they provide conclusive evidence that the protein is expressed exclusively in the mouse testis and specifically in post-meiotic spermatids of stages VI to IX, which include early stages of spermatid elongation and nuclear condensation. The authors report a fully sterile phenotype for male mice, while female mice are normal. Interestingly, the testis size and the populations of spermatogenic cells in the KO mutant mice show a small (but significant) reduction compared to the WT testis. Importantly, the mature sperm from KO animals show a series of defects that were very thoroughly documented in this work by scanning and transmission electron microscopy; this data constitutes a very strong point in this paper. FBXO24 KO sperm have severe defects in the mitochondrial sheath with missing mitochondria near the annulus, and missing outer dense fibers. Collectively these defects cause abnormal bending of the flagellum and severely reduced sperm motility. Moreover, defects in nuclear condensation are observed with faint nuclear staining of elongating and elongated spermatids, and reduction of protein levels of protamine 2 combined with increased levels of histones and transition protein 1. All of the above are in line with the observed male sterility phenotype.

The authors also performed RNAseq in the KO animal, and found profound changes in the abundance of thousands of mRNAs; and changes in mRNA splicing patterns as well. The data reveal deeply affected gene expression patterns in the FBXO24 KO testis, which further supports the essential role that this factor serves in spermiogenesis. Unfortunately, a molecular explanation of what causes these changes is missing; it is still possible that they are an indirect consequence of the KO and not directly caused by the KO.

A well-reasoned narrative on if and how the absence of FBXO24 as an E3 ubiquitin ligase is responsible for the observed mRNA and protein differential expression is missing. If FBXO24-mediated ubiquitination is required for normal protein degradation during spermiogenesis, protein level increase should be the direct consequence of genuine FBXO24 targets in the KO testis. Importantly, besides the Miwi ubiquitination experiment which is performed in a heterologous and therefore may not be ideal for extracting conclusions, the possible involvement of ubiquitination was not shown for any other proteins that the authors found that interact with FBXO24. For example splicing factors SRSF2, SRSF3, SRSF9, or any of the other proteins whose levels were found to be changed (reduced, thus the change in the KO is less likely due to the absence of ubiquitination) such as ODF2, AKAP3, TSSK4, PHF7, TSSK6, and RNF8. Interestingly, the authors do observe increased amounts of histones and transition proteins, but reduced amounts of protamines, which directly shows that histone to protamine transition is indeed affected in the FBXO24 KO testis, and is in agreement with the observed less condensed nuclei of spermatozoa. Could histones and transition proteins be targets of the proposed ubiquitin ligase activity of FBXO24, and in its absence, histone replacement is abrogated? Providing experimental evidence to address this possibility would greatly expand our understanding of why FBXO24 is essential during spermiogenesis.

Regarding the results on Miwi protein and piRNAs, the following remarks can be made:

The finding that the Miwi protein is upregulated is an important point in this work, and it is in agreement with the observed increased size of the chromatoid body, where most of the Miwi protein is accumulated in round spermatids. This finding needs to be further supported and verified with experiments done in WT and KO mice. Miwi should be immunoprecipitated and Miwi ubiquitination should be detected (with WB or mass spec) in WT testis. It should be expected that Miwi ubiquitination is reduced in KO testis. The experiments that the authors performed in HEK293T cells are informative but experiments with tissue/cells normally expressing Miwi and FBXO24 are missing. With regard to piRNA expression, it is an exaggeration to call the observed increase in piRNA expression remarkable, especially since one replicate small RNA library per condition was sequenced. Although the library is constructed from total small RNA (which includes Mili-bound piRNAs as well), it does seem that the upregulated piRNAs are Miwi-bound piRNAs because the size of the upregulated piRNAs is mostly 29-32 bases. However, the direct comparison of the number of upregulated piRNAs with upregulated miRNAs is not in support of the claim that the increase in piRNA expression is higher compared to miRNAs: there are approximately a few hundred miRNAs expressed in mice, but hundreds of thousands of different piRNA sequences, so upregulation of ~10 times more piRNA species than miRNAs is a smaller proportional increase. Moreover, the observed increase in the overall piRNA levels could be just an epiphenomenon of the increased abundance of the Miwi protein; it has been documented that Piwi proteins stabilize their piRNA cargo, so most likely the increase in iRNA levels in 29-32 nt sizes is probably not a result of altered biogenesis, but increased half-life of the piRNAs as a result of Miwi upregulation. Therefore, the claim that FBXO24 is essential for piRNA biogenesis/production (lines 308, 314) is not appropriately supported.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Spermatogenesis is a process of cell differentiation necessary to produce fertile spermatozoa. It consists of three parts, the last of which is called spermiogenesis, in which the size, shape, and organelle composition of the spermatids undergo significant changes that result in the formation of fully elongated spermatozoa. Defects in spermatogenesis or spermiogenesis can lead to male infertility. In this study, Li et al. identified FBXO24 as a highly expressed protein in human and mouse testis that is required for modulating alternative gene splicing in round spermatids through interaction with various splicing factors. They also found that deletion of FBXO24 in mice results in disorganized mitochondrial packing along the midpiece of the tail and chromatoid body architecture, which may account for the observed male sterility. The authors discovered that FBXO24 interacts with the subunits of MIWI and SCF and is required for normal piRNA biogenesis.

The major strengths of the study are the rigorous phenotypic and molecular analysis by using two complementary animal models (knock-out mouse model but also HA-tagged transgenic mouse model) to pinpoint the protein levels and localization in time and space during normal spermatogenesis and when the protein is absent.

The minor weakness of the study is inconsistent use of terminology throughout the manuscript, occasional logic-jump in their flow, and missing detailed description in methodologies used either in the text or Materials and Methods section, which can be easily rectified.

Overall, this study highlights the relevance and importance of FBXO24 in male fertility and provides a better understanding of the MIWI/piRNA pathway, mitochondrial organization, and chromatin condensation in mouse spermatozoa during spermiogenesis.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> This paper examines patterns of diversity and divergence in two closely related sub-species of Zea mays. While the patterns are interesting, the strength of evidence in support of the conclusions drawn from these patterns is weak overall. Most of the main conclusions are not supported by convincing analyses.

Strengths:<br /> The paper presents interesting data from sets of sympatric populations of the two sub-species, maize and teosinte. This sampling offers unique insights into the diversity and divergence between the two, as well as the geographic structure of each.

Weaknesses:<br /> There were issues with many parts of the paper, especially with the strength of conclusions that can be drawn from the analyses. I list the major issues in the order in which they appear in the paper.

1. Gene flow and demography.<br /> The f4 tests of introgression (Figure 1E) are not independent of one another. So how should we interpret these: as gene flow everywhere, or just one event in an ancestral population? More importantly, almost all the significant points involve one population (Crucero Lagunitas), which suggests that the results do not simply represent gene flow between the sub-species. There was also no signal of increased migration between sympatric pairs of populations. Overall, the evidence for gene flow presented here is not convincing. Can some kind of supporting evidence be presented?

The paper also estimates demographic histories (changes in effective population sizes) for each population, and each sub-species together. The text (lines 191-194) says that "all histories estimated a bottleneck that started approximately 10 thousand generations ago" but I do not see this. Figure 2C (not 2E, as cited in the text) shows that teosinte had declines in all populations 10,000 generations ago, but some of these declines were very minimal. Maize has a similar pattern that started more recently, but the overall species history shows no change in effective size at all. There's not a lot of signal in these figures overall.

I am also curious: how does the demographic model inferred by mushi address inbreeding and homozygosity by descent (lines 197-202)? In other words, why does a change in Ne necessarily affect inbreeding, especially when all effective population sizes are above 10,000?

2. Proportion of adaptive mutations.<br /> The paper estimates alpha, the proportion of nonsynonymous substitutions fixed by positive selection, using two different sampling schemes for polymorphism. One uses range-wide polymorphism data and one uses each of the single populations. Because the estimates using these two approaches are similar, the authors conclude that there is little local adaptation. However, this conclusion is not justified.

There is little information as to how the McDonald-Kreitman test is carried out, but it appears that polymorphism within either teosinte or maize (using either sampling scheme) is compared to fixed differences with an outgroup. These species might be Z. luxurians or Z. diploperennis, as both are mentioned as outgroups. Regardless of which is used, this sampling means that almost all the fixed differences in the MK test will be along the ancestral branch leading to the ancestor of maize or teosinte, and on the branch leading to the outgroup. Therefore, it should not be surprising that alpha does not change based on the sampling scheme, as this should barely change the number of fixed differences (no numbers are reported).

The lack of differences in results has little to do with range-wide vs restricted adaptation, and much more to do with how MK tests are constructed. Should we expect an excess of fixed amino acid differences on very short internal branches of each sub-species tree? It makes sense that there is more variation in alpha in teosinte than maize, as these branches are longer, but they all seem quite short (it is hard to know precisely, as no Fst values or similar are reported).

3. Shared and private sweeps.<br /> In order to make biological inferences from the number of shared and private sweeps, there are a number of issues that must be addressed.

One issue is false negatives and false positives. If sweeps occur but are missed, then they will appear to be less shared than they really are. Table S3 reports very high false negative rates across much of the parameter space considered, but is not mentioned in the main text. How can we make strong conclusions about the scale of local adaptation given this? Conversely, while there is information about the false positive rate provided, this information doesn't tell us whether it's higher for population-specific events. It certainly seems likely that it would be. In either case, we should be cautious saying that some sweeps are "locally restricted" if they can be missed more than 85% of the time in a second population or falsely identified more than 25% of the time in a single population.

A second, opposite, issue is shared ancestral events. Maize populations are much more closely related than teosinte (Figure 2B). Because of this, a single, completed sweep in the ancestor of all populations could much more readily show a signal in multiple descendant populations. This is consistent with the data showing more shared events (and possibly more events overall). There also appear to be some very closely (phylogenetically) related teosinte populations. What if there's selection in their shared ancestor? For instance, Los Guajes and Palmar Chico are the two most closely related populations of teosinte and have the fewest unique sweeps (Figure 4B). How do these kinds of ancestrally shared selective events fit into the framework here?

These analyses of shared sweeps are followed by an analysis of sweeps shared by sympatric pairs of teosinte and maize. Because there are not more events shared by these pairs than expected, the paper concludes that geography and local environment are not important. But wouldn't it be better to test for shared sweeps according to the geographic proximity of populations of the same sub-species? A comparison of the two sub-species does not directly address the scale of adaptation of one organism to its environment, and therefore it is hard to know what to conclude from this analysis.

4. Convergent adaptation<br /> My biggest concern involves the apparent main conclusion of the paper about the sources of "convergent adaptations". I believe the authors are misapplying the method of Lee and Coop (2017), and have not seriously considered the confounding factors of this method as applied. I am unconvinced by the conclusions that are made from these analyses.

The method of Lee and Coop (referred to as rdmc) is intended to be applied to a single locus (or very tightly linked loci) that shows adaptation to the same environmental factor in different populations. From their paper: "Geographically separated populations can convergently adapt to the same selection pressure. Convergent evolution at the level of a gene may arise via three distinct modes." However, in the current paper, we are not considering such a restricted case. Instead, genome-wide scans for sweep regions have been made, without regard to similar selection pressures or to whether events are occurring in the same gene. Instead, the method is applied to large genomic regions not associated with known phenotypes or selective pressures.

I think the larger worry here is whether we are truly considering the "same gene" in these analyses. The methods applied here attempt to find shared sweep regions, not shared genes (or mutations). Even then, there are no details that I could find as to what constitutes a shared sweep. The only relevant text (lines 802-803) describes how a single region is called: "We merged outlier regions within 50,000 Kb of one another and treated as a single sweep region." (It probably doesn't mean "50,000 kb", which would be 50 million bases.) However, no information is given about how to identify overlap between populations or sub-species, nor how likely it is that the shared target of selection would be included in anything identified as a shared sweep. Is there a way to gauge whether we are truly identifying the same target of selection in two populations?

The question then is, what does rdmc conclude if we are simply looking at a region that happened to be a sweep in two populations, but was not due to shared selection or similar genes? There is little testing of this application here, especially its accuracy. Testing in Lee and Coop (2017) is all carried out assuming the location of the selected site is known, and even then there is quite a lot of difficulty distinguishing among several of the non-neutral models. This was especially true when standing variation was only polymorphic for a short time, as is estimated here for many cases, and would be confused for migration (see Lee and Coop 2017). Furthermore, the model of Lee and Coop (2017) does not seem to consider a completed ancestral sweep that has signals that persist into current populations (see point 3 above). How would rdmc interpret such a scenario?

Overall, there simply doesn't seem to be enough testing of this method, nor are many caveats raised in relation to the strange distributions of standing variation times (bimodal) or migration rates (opposite between maize and teosinte). It is not clear what inferences can be made with confidence, and certainly the Discussion (and Abstract) makes conclusions about the spread of beneficial alleles via introgression that seem to outstrip the results.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> The authors sampled multiple populations of maize and teosinte across Mexico, aiming to characterise the geographic scale of local adaptation, patterns of selective sweeps, and modes of convergent evolution between populations and subspecies.

Strengths & Weaknesses:<br /> The population genomic methods are standard and appropriate, including Fst, Tajima's D, α, and selective sweep scans. The whole genome sequencing data seems high quality. However, limitations exist regarding limited sampling, potential high false-positive sweep detection rates, and weak evidence for some conclusions, like the role of migration in teosinte adaptation.

Aims & Conclusions:<br /> The results are interesting in supporting local adaptation at intermediate geographic scales, widespread convergence between populations, and standing variation/gene flow facilitating adaptation. However, more rigorous assessments of method performance would strengthen confidence. Connecting genetic patterns to phenotypic differences would also help validate associations with local adaptation.

Impact & Utility:<br /> This work provides some of the first genomic insights into local adaptation and convergence in maize and teosinte. However, the limited sampling and need for better method validation currently temper the utility and impact. Broader sampling and connecting results to phenotypes would make this a more impactful study and valuable resource. The population genomic data itself provides a helpful resource for the community.

Additional Context:<br /> Previous work has found population structure and phenotypic differences consistent with local adaptation in maize and teosinte. However, genomic insights have been lacking. This paper takes initial steps to characterise genomic patterns but is limited by sampling and validation. Additional work building on this foundation could contribute to understanding local adaptation in these agriculturally vital species.

Joint Public Review:

Summary:<br /> The study "Effect of alpha-tubulin acetylation on the doublet microtubule structure" by S. Yang et al employs a multi-disciplinary approach, including cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM), molecular dynamics, and mass spectrometry, to investigate the impact of α-tubulin acetylation at the lysine 40 residue (αK40) on the structure and stability of doublet microtubules in cilia. The work reveals that αK40 acetylation exerts a small-scale, but significant, effect by influencing the lateral rotational angle of the microtubules, thereby affecting their stability. Additionally, the study provided an explanation of the relationship between αK40 acetylation and phosphorylation within cilia, despite that the details still remain elusive. Overall, these findings contribute to our understanding of how post-translational modifications can influence the structure, composition, stability, and functional properties of important cellular components like cilia.

Strengths:<br /> 1. Multi-Disciplinary Approach: The study employs a robust combination of cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM), molecular dynamics, and mass spectrometry, providing a comprehensive analysis of the subject matter.<br /> 2. Significant Findings: The paper successfully demonstrates the impact of αK40 acetylation on the lateral rotational angles between protofilaments (inter-PF angles) of doublet microtubules in cilia, thereby affecting their stability. This adds valuable insights into the role of post-translational modifications in cellular components.<br /> 3. Exploration of Acetylation-Phosphorylation Relationship: The study also delves into the relationship between αK40 acetylation and phosphorylation within cilia, contributing to a broader understanding of post-translational modifications.<br /> 4. High-quality data: The authors are cryo-EM experts in the field and the data quality presented in the manuscript is excellent.<br /> 5. Depth of analysis: The authors analyzed the effects of αK40 acetylation in excellent depth which significantly improved our understanding of this system.

Weaknesses:<br /> I have no major concerns about this paper, but would recommend that a few minor issues be addressed.

1. Lack of Statistical Details: The review points out that the paper could benefit from providing more statistical details, such as the number of particles and maps used for analysis, randomization methods, and dataset splitting for statistical analyses.<br /> 2. Questionable Conclusion Regarding MIPs: The reviewer suggests caution in the paper's conclusion that "Acetylation of αK40 does not affect tubulin and MIPs." The reviewer recommends that this conclusion be more specific or supported by additional evidence to exclude all other possibilities.<br /> 3. Need for Additional Visual Data: The reviewer recommends that an enlarged local density map along with fitted PDB models be provided in a supplementary figure, such as Figure 4.

Overall, the paper is strong in its scientific approach and findings but could benefit from additional statistical rigor and clarification of certain conclusions.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary: The paper by McGinnis et al. uses a combination of genetic and biochemical approaches to understand how the conserved 5'-3' RNA exonuclease Xrn1 affects autophagy in response to methionine starvation in S. cerevisiae. The authors present evidence Xrn1 affects autophagy primarily via its effect on regulating TORC1 signaling. They present some evidence that Xrn1's effect on TORC1 singnaling is via its physical interaction with the SEACIT complex.

Strengths: The experiments in general for this paper are clear and have proper controls.

Weaknesses:<br /> The authors seem to try and fit the data to a simplistic model rather than embrace the complexity of the data. I will give some examples below.

1) Figure 1 clearly shows that xrn1d results in loss of tight repression of autophagy. Specifically, the 0 timepoint has increased autophagy in both the idh-GFP and ALP assays. However, it is incorrect to say that it is related in any way to methionine deprivation. The same basic pattern of regulation occurs in WT and xrn1d strains. The only difference is the "leakiness" of repression at t=0.

2) Figure 2 shows that catalytically inactive Xrn1 has the same autophagy phenotype as a deletion, indicating that Xrn1 enzymatic activity is important for function. However, it is also clear that xrn1-deletion cells expressing wt Xm1-flag do not repress autophagy as well as XRN+ cells, even though the amount of expressed protein seems similar. Does this imply the flag-tag may be a less active version of the protein? This should be discussed.

3) Figure 3 shows Xrn1-loss effects TORC signaling and that npr2-deletion inhibits autophagy. The surprising result is that a xrn1d/npr2d behaves like WT with regards to autophagy. This needs to be discussed. To me, this seems to strongly suggest that methionine repression of autophagy is occurring downstream of both xrn1 and npr2. Measuring p-S6 in the double mutant may be informative.

4) Figure 4 appears to show that even in the absence of GTR1, autophagy is repressed in rich media, active in YPL-SL, but still responds to methionine repression. This does not seem consistent with the model presented in Figure 5. Shouldn't loss of GTR1 result in repressed Torc1? The GTP and GDP-lock mutants are either all on, or all off. Why is deletion different? This needs to be explained and discussed. Also, the Figure legend does not match figures (problem after Fig4b).

5) Figure 5B shows GTR1 IP with Xrn1-FLAG. However, there are no negative controls in this experiment, so the result could be background. RNAaseA and RNA addition experiments are convincing.

6) Line 254-255. The lead sentence is simply not supported by the data. There is no evidence that Xrn1 actually affects the regulation of Gtr1/2 binding states.

7) Line 259-260. This is again overstated. Just because a mutant can be rescued by Gtr1-GTP-locked, does not say anything about RNA decay. In fact, the double mutant has extra high levels of some ATG RNA's, so I have no idea how the Gtr1 rescues.

8) Line 268-281. Your model here ignores the fact that methionine regulation takes place in the absence of both xrn1 and npr2. Therefore the model, as proposed, can't be correct.

9) Line 290-300. The slow growth rate of Xrn1 mutants may be affecting the metabolite levels. I felt that this entire paragraph was overly speculative.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> McGinnis and colleagues conducted a study to elucidate the precise mechanism through which SEACIT detects amino acids and regulates TORC1 signaling in yeast. In their research, the authors made a noteworthy discovery by identifying the conserved 5'-3' RNA exonuclease Xrn1 as a novel regulator of TORC1 activity, particularly in response to stress-induced autophagy. The study revealed that the impact of Xrn1 on TORC1 is contingent on its catalytic activity rather than the degradation of any specific category of mRNAs. Instead, Xrn1 plays a pivotal role in modulating the nucleotide-binding state of the Gtr1/2 complex. This modulation is crucial for the complex's interaction with and subsequent activation of TORC1.

Strengths:<br /> This study holds considerable potential as it illuminates an intriguing function of Xrn1 in nutrient sensing and growth control, expanding beyond its conventional role in RNA degradation. Furthermore, the research suggests a novel pathway through which RNA metabolism can influence methionine signaling to activate TORC1.

Weaknesses/General comments:<br /> 1) Previous work has shown that SAMTOR, upstream of mTORC1 in mammalian cells, senses methionine abundance through SAM levels (PMID: 29123071). However, this study suggests that Xrn1 senses and signals methionine to regulate mTORC1 signaling independently of SAM abundance. This finding appears to contradict the mentioned previous work. The authors should address this discrepancy. Moreover, the title of this manuscript does not seem to fit with actual findings. In the title, the authors mention that Xrn1 regulates TORC1 in response to SAM availability, but SAM levels do not seem to matter for Xrn1-dependent regulation of autophagy and TORC1.<br /> 2) This group has previously shown that the addition of methionine stimulates the synthesis of S-adenosylmethionine (SAM), which inhibits autophagy and promotes growth through the action of the methyltransferase Ppm1p, which modifies the catalytic subunit of PP2A in tune with SAM levels (PMID: 23870128). Since Xrn1 controls autophagy in a methionine-dependent manner, the authors should assess the effects of Xrn1 on SAM-dependent methylation of PP2A?<br /> 3) The authors should measure the effects of Xrn1 and TORC1 regulation on the methionine-SAM cycle activity through an isotope tracing approach, possibly by using U-13C-methionine.<br /> 4) The authors use mainly the GFP cleavage assay from Idh1-GFP to assess mitochondria degradation (or mitophagy) and generalize that autophagy is induced. Other assays should be employed more notably to assess globally non-mitochondrial specific degradation. For example, the authors could employ the Pho8∆60 assay.<br /> 5) In several blots (Panel 3D, 4D, 4B, 4F), the authors assess autophagy through GFP cleavage from Idh1-GFP but do not assess TORC1 activity in the same conditions. Showing autophagy induction and TORC1 activity on the same panels would be preferable.

Specific comments:<br /> 1) Panel 5E: As a control, the authors should use DNA instead of NMPs.<br /> 2) Panel S3B: Contrary to what is indicated in the text, this panel does not display ATG mRNA levels.<br /> 3) Panel S5K is not cited in the text. The rationale behind measuring the steady-state levels of GTP and GDP is not explained.<br /> Several panels are not subjected to statistical analysis. It is important for the authors to ensure that appropriate statistical methods are applied.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary<br /> This study investigated the role of the exonuclease Xrn1 in regulating autophagy in response to methionine deprivation in the budding yeast (S. cerevisiae). As a model system, wild-type and xrn1-deletion cells are switched from a nutrient-rich, lactate-based media (YPL) to a synthetic, minimal, lactate media with or without re-addition of methionine. Autophagy is measured by a previously reported Idh-GFP cleavage assay, and in some cases by quantification of alkaline phosphatase activity. The authors conclude that Xrn1 suppresses autophagy in response to methionine depletion based on the results of the Idh-GFP assay. However, the alkaline phosphatase assay could potentially suggest the opposite conclusion, with xnr1 deletion blocking the induction of autophagy relative to baseline in those cells, an interpretation which is complicated by higher basal autophagy induction upon xnr1 deletion. To address the mechanism of Xrn1 regulation of autophagy, a model is presented in which Xrn1 activates Target of Rapamycin Complex 1 (TORC1), which suppresses autophagy. This regulation is proposed to occur through physical association of Xrn1 with known upstream regulators of TORC1 activity, the SEACIT/GATOR1 and Gtr/Rag complexes. However, TORC1 activity is not measured under many key experimental conditions, making it difficult to determine the accuracy of this model. If the model ultimately proves correct, this would be an important finding that establishes a new player in the critical TORC1 pathway that controls cell growth and metabolism in response to changes in nutrient availability.

Strengths<br /> Clear and highly reproducible results using the Idh-GFP cleavage assay to measure apoptosis.

Detailed characterization of the metabolic and transcriptomic effects of Xrn1 deletion through metabolomics and RNA-seq.

Use of a catalytically inactive Xrn1 mutant to demonstrate that its effects on autophagy require its catalytic activity.

Weaknesses<br /> Predominant use of a single autophagy assay (Idh-GFP cleavage), with potentially conflicting results in another assay (alkaline phosphatase activity).

TORC1 activity is not measured under many key experimental conditions.

Protein-protein interactions are studied by overexpression of tagged proteins. While this may be essential for detection, the level of overexpression relative to endogenous protein is unclear, as well as whether this recapitulates the endogenous interactions and regulation.

Results from some experiments have several possible interpretations.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> Cyclic Nucleotide Binding (CNB) domains are pervasive structural components involved in signaling pathways across eukaryotes and prokaryotes. Despite their similar structures, CNB domains exhibit distinct ligand-sensing capabilities. The manuscript offers a thorough and convincing investigation that clarifies numerous puzzling aspects of nucleotide binding in Trypanosoma.

Strengths:<br /> One of the strengths of this study is its multifaceted methodology, which includes a range of techniques including crystallography, ITC (Isothermal Titration Calorimetry), fluorimetry, CD (Circular Dichroism) spectroscopy, mass spectrometry, and computational analysis. This interdisciplinary approach not only enhances the depth of the investigation but also offers a robust cross-validation of the results.

Weaknesses:<br /> None noticed.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> This manuscript clearly shows that Trypanosoma PKA is controlled by nucleoside analogues rather than cyclic nucleotides, which are the primary allosteric effectors of human PKA and PKG. The authors demonstrate that the inosine, guanosine, and adenosine nucleosides bind with high affinity and activate PKA in the tropical pathogens T. brucei, T. cruzi and Leishmania. The underlying determinants of nucleoside binding and selectivity are dissected by solving the crystal structure of T. cruzi PKAR(200-503) and T. brucei PKAR(199-499) bound to inosine at 1.4 Å and 2.1 Å resolution and through comparative mutational analyses. Of particular interest is the identification of a minimal subset of 2-3 residues that controls nucleoside vs. cyclic nucleotide specificity.

Strengths:<br /> The significance of this study lies not only in the structure-activity relationships revealed for important targets in several parasite pathogens but also in the understanding of CNB's evolutionary role.

Weaknesses:<br /> The main missing piece is the model for activation of the kinetoplastid PKA which remains speculative in the absence of a structure for the trypanosomatid PKA holoenzyme complex. However, this appears to be beyond the scope of this manuscript, which is already quite dense.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> This study aims to further resolve the history of speciation and introgression in Heliconius butterflies. The authors break the data into various partitions and test evolutionary hypotheses using the Bayesian software BPP, which is based on the multispecies coalescent model with introgression. By synthesizing these various analyses, the study pieces together an updated history of Heliconius, including a multitude of introgression events and the sharing of chromosomal inversions.

Strengths:

Full-likelihood methods for estimating introgression can be very computationally expensive, making them challenging to apply to datasets containing many species. This study provides a great example of how to apply these approaches by breaking the data down into a series of smaller inference problems and then piecing the results together. On the empirical side, it further resolves the history of a genus with a famously complex history of speciation and introgression, continuing its role as a great model system for studying the evolutionary consequences of introgression. This is highlighted by a nice Discussion section on the implications of the paper's findings for the evolution of pollen feeding.

Weaknesses:

The analyses in this study make use of a single method, BPP. The analyses are quite thorough so this is okay in my view from a methodological standpoint, but given this singularity, more attention should be paid to the weaknesses of this particular approach. Additionally, little attention is paid to comparable methods such as PhyloNet and their strengths and weaknesses in the Introduction or Discussion. BPP reduces computational burden by fixing certain aspects of the parameter space, such as the species tree topology or set of proposed introgression events. While this approach is statistically powerful, it requires users to make informed choices about which models to test, and these choices can have downstream consequences for subsequent analyses. It also might not be as applicable to systems outside of Heliconius where less previous information is available about the history of speciation and introgression. In general, it is likely that most modelling decisions made in the study are justified, but more attention should be paid to how these decisions are made and what the consequences of them could be, including alternative models.

• Co-estimating histories of speciation and introgression remains computationally challenging. To circumvent this in the study, the authors first estimate the history of speciation assuming no gene flow in BPP. While this approach should be robust to incomplete lineage sorting and gene tree estimation, it is still vulnerable to gene flow. This could result in a circular problem where gene flow causes the wrong species tree to be estimated, causing the true species tree to be estimated as a gene flow event. This is a flaw that this approach shares with summary-statistic approaches like the D-statistic, which also require an a-priori species tree. Enrichment of particular topologies on the Z chromosome helps resolve the true history in this particular case, but not all datasets will have sex chromosomes or chromosome-level assemblies to test against.

• The a-priori specification of network models necessarily means that potentially better-fitting models to the data don't get explored. Models containing introgression events are proposed here based on parsimony to explain patterns in gene tree frequencies. This is a reasonable and common assumption, but parsimony is not always the best explanation for a dataset, as we often see with phylogenetic inference. In general, there are no rigorous approaches to estimating the best-fitting number of introgression events in a dataset. Likewise, the study estimates both pulse and continuous introgression models for certain partitions, though there is no rigorous way to assess which of these describes the data better.

• Some aspects of the analyses involving inversions warrant additional consideration. Fewer loci were able to be identified in inverted regions, and such regions also often have reduced rates of recombination. I wonder if this might make inferences of the history of inverted regions vulnerable to the effects of incomplete lineage sorting, even when fitting the MSC model, due to a small # of truly genealogically independent loci. Additionally, there are several models where introgression events are proposed to explain the loss of segregating inversions in certain species. It is not clear why these scenarios should be proposed over those in which the inversion is lost simply due to drift or selection.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Thawornwattana et al. reconstruct a species tree of the genus Heliconius using the full-likelihood multispecies coalescent, an exciting approach for genera with a history of extensive gene flow and introgression. With this, they obtain a species tree with H. aoede as the earliest diverging lineage, in sync with ecological and morphological characters. They also add resolution to the species relationships of the melpomene-silvaniform clade and quantify introgression events. Finally, they trace the origins of an inversion on chromosome 15 that exists as a polymorphism in H. numata, but is fixed in other species. Overall, obtaining better species tree resolutions and estimates of gene flow in groups with extensive histories of hybridization and introgression is an exciting avenue. Being able to control for ILS and get estimates between sister species are excellent perks. One overall quibble is that the paper seems to be best suited to a Heliconius audience, where past trees are easily recalled, or members of the different clades are well known.

Overall, applying approaches such as these to gain greater insight into species relationships with extensive gene flow could be of interest to many researchers.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The authors use a full-likelihood multispecies coalescent (MSC) approach to identify major introgression events throughout the radiation of Heliconius butterflies, thereby improving estimates of the phylogeny. First, the authors conclude that H. aoede is the likely outgroup relative to other Heliconius species; miocene introgression into the ancestor of H. aoede makes it appear to branch later. Topologies at most loci were not concordant with this scenario, though 'aoede-early' topologies were enriched in regions of the genome where interspecific introgression is expected to be reduced: the Z chromosome and larger autosomes. The revised phylogeny is interesting because it would mean that no extant Heliconius species has reverted to a non-pollen-feeding ancestral state. Second, the authors focus on a particularly challenging clade in which ancient and ongoing gene flow is extensive, concluding that silvaniform species are not monophyletic. Building on these results, a third set of analyses investigates the origin of the P1 inversion, which harbours multiple wing patterning loci, and which is maintained as a balanced polymorphism in H. numata. The authors present data supporting a new scenario in which P1 arises in H. numata or its ancestor and is introduced to the ancestor of H. pardilinus and H. elevatus - introgression in the opposite direction to what has previously been proposed using a smaller set of taxa and different methods.

The analyses were extensive and methodologically sound. Care was taken to control for potential sources of error arising from incorrect genotype calls and the choice of a reference genome. The argument for H. aoede as the earliest-diverging Heliconius lineage was compelling, and analyses of the melpomene-silvaniform clade were thorough.

The authors have demonstrated the strengths of a full-likelihood MSC approach when reconstructing the evolutionary history of "difficult" clade. This approach, however, can quickly become intractable in large species complexes where there is extensive gene flow or significant shifts in population size. In such cases, there may be hundreds of potentially important parameters to estimate, and alternate introgression scenarios may be impossible to disentangle. This is particularly challenging in systems unlike Heliconius, where fewer data are available and there is little a priori knowledge of reproductive isolation, genome evolution, and the unique life history traits of each species.

Joint Public Review:

Summary: Two early Cambrian taxa of linguliform brachiopods are assigned to the family Eoobolidae. The taxa exhibit a columnar shell structure and the phylogenetic implications of this shell structure in relation to other early Cambrian families is discussed.

Strengths: Interesting idea regarding the evolution of shell structure.

Weaknesses: The early record of shell structures of linguliform brachiopods is incomplete and partly contradictory. The authors maintain silence regarding contradictory information throughout the article to an extent that information is cited wrongly. The article is written under the assumption that all eoobolids have a columnar shell structure. Thus, the previously claimed columnar structure of Eoobolus incipiens which has been re-illustrated in the paper is not convincing and could be interpreted in other ways.

The article needs a proper results section. The Discussion is mainly a review of published data. Other potential results are hidden in this "discussion". In addition, a more elaborate Methods section is needed in which it is explained how the data for shell thicknesses and numbers of laminae was obtained.

A critical revision of the family Eoobolidae and Lingulellotretidae including a revision of the type species of Eoobolus and Lingulellotreta is needed.

The potential evolutionary patterns that are discussed towards the end (summarized in Fig 6) are interesting but rather unconvincing as the way the data has been obtained has never been clarified. Shell thicknesses and numbers of laminae that built up the shell of several taxa are compared, but at no point it is stated where these measurements were taken. Shell thicknesses vary within a shell and also the presence of the never mentioned tertiary layer is modifying shell thicknesses. Hence, the presented data appears random and is not comparable. The obtained evolutionary patterns must be considered as dubious.