Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
Summary: In this manuscript the authors report an RNAi screen to identify proteins that, when depleted, alter nuclear shape and/or nuclear size. They demonstrate that the changes cannot be solely attributed to changes in the expression of nuclear lamins. Many of the hits are factors that impinge on histone modifications and chromatin biology. Comparing hits between fibroblasts and an epithelial cell type (MCF10) demonstrated relatively little overlap. The authors then relate their observations to a potential direct interaction between lamin A and histone H3 that, using histone peptide arrays, may be modulated by the methylation status. Last, the authors find that over-expression of some histone H3 variants/oncohistones alters nuclear appearance.
Overall assessment: The screening effort has revealed a number of interesting and novel suggestions of new modulators of nuclear appearance that are exciting and have the potential to be of value to the field. Unfortunately, the remainder of the manuscript is largely descriptive and rather superficial; perhaps most importantly validation experiments to rigorously confirm the screen "hits" are lacking. There are also concerns about the interpretation of biochemical experiments into lamin A-histone H3 binding although there are also some promising hints into the histone modification-dependence of lamin A binding to H3 that, if more fully investigated, would be an important contribution.
Major Points:
1. The discussion of the screen hits and prior knowledge key to their interpretation is lacking. For example, the authors only report on the purported localization of the hits without an unbiased analysis of their function(s). As a sole example, multiple members of the condensin complex are hits in Fig.1 while multiple members of the cohesin complex are hits in Fig. 2 - but there are many more factors worthy of further discussion. Moreover, the authors need to provide more information on the data used to assign the localization of the hits and how rigorous these assignments may be. For example, multiple CHMP proteins (ESCRTs) are listed - indeed CHMP4B is the highest scoring hit in Fig.1 - but this protein does not reside at the nuclear envelope at steady-state; rather, it is specifically recruited at mitotic exit to drive nuclear envelope sealing. Moreover, there are many hits for which there is prior published evidence of a connection to nuclear shape or size that are ignored: examples include BANF1, CHMP7, Nup155 (and likely far more that I am not aware of). This is a missed opportunity to put the findings into context and to provide a more mechanistic interpretation of the type of effects that lead to the observed changes in nuclear appearance. For example, there is already hints as to whether the effects occur as a mitotic exit defect versus an interphase defect, but conceptually this is not addressed.
2. Validation of the screen is lacking. There appears to be no evidence that the authors validated the initial screen hits by addition siRNA experiments in which the levels of the knock-down could be assessed. As an example: do nucleoporin hits decrease in their abundance at the nuclear envelope in these conditions? This validation is absolutely essential.
3. Differences in cell type - the authors' interpretation that a lack of overlap in the hits across cell types reveals that there are fundamentally cell type-specific mechanisms at play is a stretch. This could also reflect a lack of robustness in the screen, which should be addressed by directly testing the knock-down of the hits from one cell line in the other. Even if this approach reinforces the cell type specificity, the differences in the biology beyond the nucleus itself - an obvious example being the mechanical state of the cell - organization of the cytoskeleton, adhesions, etc that influence forces exerted on the nucleus are different rather than the nuclear response is different. These caveats needs to be explicitly acknowledged.
4. There are major issues with the interpretation of the presented biochemistry. For example, the basis for the supposed effect of monomer/dimer state of lamin is confusing and likely misinterpreted. It is well established that GST imposes dimerization on proteins expressed as GST fusions independent of cysteines. Any effect of DDT would have to manifest through some other mechanism (disulfides between the lamin domains - assumedly what the authors are thinking). Further, GST will impose dimerization of lamin A and lamin C in the co-incubation experiments. It is therefore entirely expected that if lamin A binds H3 and lamin C does not that the mixed dimers will bind H3 with lower affinity. Critically, this does not, however, address how full-length lamin C influences binding of lamin A to H3 in vivo. Last, how an effect of lamin C on lamin A would manifest through a disulfide bond in the nucleus, which has a reducing environment, is entirely unclear.
5. It is important for the authors to address the concept of nuclear size changes versus changes in the nuclear to cell volume ratio - biologically these could be quite different conditions, but obviously these cannot be distinguished by measuring nuclear volume alone. Addressing this experimentally would be best (to provide more depth to the size measurements).
6. There are important caveats to the approach of using the nuclear area as proxy measurement for nuclear size, most prominently that it is highly responsive to changes in nuclear height that can occur for a multitude of reasons (increased height = small radius and decreased height = larger radius), particularly given the different cell types. This needs to be acknowledged directly.
7. What is the evidence that the H3 effects manifest through lamins rather than directly?
8. Context is needed for the "methyl-methyl" histone states described as being the highest binders in the peptide array experiments. Are these states commonly found? Where in the genome? Does this match any DamID data? Again - more depth of investigation is required.
9. That oncohistones induce changes in nuclear shape or size does not mean that this is related to the mechanism in cancer. Also - how over-expression of H3 without its obligate partner H4 could disrupt the cell or an assessment of the extent of the oncohistone incorporation into chromatin achieved in these experiments makes it challenging to interpret.
10. Throughout the manuscript it would be helpful to the reader if the author would provide at minimum a brief statement on the previously identified functions of the hits that are explicitly discussed beyond their localization (membrane versus chromatin). References would also be helpful (for example, again - what is the evidence that SLC27A3 resides at the nuclear envelope?).