Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Chen and Phillips describe the dynamic appearance of cytoplasmic granules during embryogenesis analogous to SIMR germ granules, and distinct from CSR-1-containing granules, in the C. elegans germline. They show that the nuclear Argonaute NRDE-3, when mutated to abrogate small RNA binding, or in specific genetic mutants, partially colocalizes to these granules along with other RNAi factors, such as SIMR-1, ENRI-2, RDE-3, and RRF-1. Furthermore, NRDE-3 RIP-seq analysis in early vs. late embryos is used to conclude that NRDE-3 binds CSR-1-dependent 22G RNAs in early embryos and ERGO-1-dependent 22G RNAs in late embryos. These data lead to their model that NRDE-3 undergoes small RNA substrate "switching" that occurs in these embryonic SIMR granules and functions to silence two distinct sets of target transcripts - maternal, CSR-1 targeted mRNAs in early embryos and duplicated genes and repeat elements in late embryos.

Strengths:

The identification and function of small RNA-related granules during embryogenesis is a poorly understood area and this study will provide the impetus for future studies on the identification and potential functional compartmentalization of small RNA pathways and machinery during embryogenesis.

Weaknesses:

(1) While the authors acknowledge the following issue, their finding that loss of SIMR granules has no apparent impact on NRDE-3 small RNA loading puts the functional relevance of these structures into question. As they note in their Discussion, it is entirely possible that these embryonic granules may be "incidental condensates." It would be very welcomed if the authors could include some evidence that these SIMR granules have some function; for example, does the loss of these SIMR granules have an effect on CSR-1 targets in early embryos and ERGO-1-dependent targets in late embryos?

(2) The analysis of small RNA class "switching" requires some clarification. The authors re-define ERGO-1-dependent targets in this study to arrive at a very limited set of genes and their justification for doing this is not convincing. What happens if the published set of ERGO-1 targets is used? Further, the NRDE-3 RIP-seq data is used to conclude that NRDE-3 predominantly binds CSR-1 class 22G RNAs in early embryos, while ERGO-1-dependent 22G RNAs are enriched in late embryos. a) The relative ratios of each class of small RNAs are given in terms of unique targets. What is the total abundance of sequenced reads of each class in the NRDE-3 IPs? b) The "switching" model is problematic given that even in late embryos, the majority of 22G RNAs bound by NRDE-3 is in the CSR-1 class (Figure 5D). c) A major difference between NRDE-3 small RNA binding in eri-1 and simr-1 mutants appears to be that NRDE-3 robustly binds CSR-122G RNAs in eri-1 but not in simr-1 in late embryos. This result should be better discussed.

(3) Ultimately, if the switching is functionally important, then its impact should be observed in the expression of their targets. RNA-seq or RT-qPCR of select CSR-1 and ERGO-1 targets should be assessed in nrde-3 mutants during early vs late embryogenesis.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

NRDE-3 is a nuclear WAGO-clade Argonaute that, in somatic cells, binds small RNAs amplified in response to the ERGO-class 26G RNAs that target repetitive sequences. This manuscript reports that, in the germline and early embryos, NRDE-3 interacts with a different set of small RNAs that target mRNAs. This class of small RNAs was previously shown to bind to a different WAGO-clade Argonaute called CSR-1, which is cytoplasmic, unlike nuclear NRDE-3. The switch in NRDE-3 specificity parallels recent findings in Ascaris where the Ascaris NRDE homolog was shown to switch from sRNAs that target repetitive sequences to CSR-class sRNAs that target mRNAs.

The manuscript also correlates the change in NRDE-3 specificity with the appearance in embryos of cytoplasmic condensates that accumulate SIMR-1, a scaffolding protein that the authors previously implicated in sRNA loading for a different nuclear Argonaute HRDE-1. By analogy, and through a set of corelative evidence, the authors argue that SIMR foci arise in embryogenesis to facilitate the change in NRDE-3 small RNA repertoire. The paper presents lots of data that beautifully documents the appearance and composition of the embryonic SIMR-1 foci, including evidence that a mutated NRDE-3 that cannot bind sRNAs accumulates in SIMR-1 foci in a SIMR-1-dependent fashion.

Weaknesses:

The genetic evidence, however, does not support a requirement for SIMR-1 foci: the authors detected no defect in NRDE-3 sRNA loading in simr-1 mutants. Although the authors acknowledge this negative result in the discussion, they still argue for a model (Figure 7) that is not supported by genetic data. My main suggestion is that the authors give equal consideration to other models - see below for specifics.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Chen and Phillips present intriguing work that extends our view on the C. elegans small RNA network significantly. While the precise findings are rather C. elegans specific there are also messages for the broader field, most notably the switching of small RNA populations bound to an argonaute, and RNA granules behavior depending on developmental stage. The work also starts to shed more light on the still poorly understood role of the CSR-1 argonaute protein and supports its role in the decay of maternal transcripts. Overall, the work is of excellent quality, and the messages have a significant impact.

Strengths:

Compelling evidence for major shift in activities of an argonaute protein during development, and implications for how small RNAs affect early development. Very balanced and thoughtful discussion.

Weaknesses:

Claims on col-localization of specific 'granules' are not well supported by quantitative data.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Furman et al. reanalyze data from a previous study and investigate alterations of peak alpha frequency (PAF) and alpha power (AP) in the context of prolonged pain with electroencephalography (EEG). Using two experimental pain models (phasic and capsaicin heat pain), they set out to clarify if previously reported changes in alpha activity in chronic pain can already be observed during prolonged pain in healthy human participants. They conclude that PAF is reliably slowed, and AP reliably decreased in response to prolonged pain. From the patterns of their findings, they furthermore deduce that AP changes indicate the presence of ongoing pain while PAF changes reflect pain-associated states like sensitization which can outlast ongoing pain percepts and indicate a potential for experiencing pain. Lastly, they conclude that the reported changes in alpha activity are likely due to specific power decreases in the faster alpha range between 10 and 12 Hz and discuss potential clinical implications of their findings in terms of risk biomarkers and early pain interventions.

Strengths:

The study focuses on a timely topic with potential implications for chronic pain diagnosis and treatment, an area that urgently needs new approaches. The addressed questions nicely build upon and extend the previous work of the authors. The analyzed data set is comprehensive including two different prolonged pain paradigms, two visits following the same experimental procedures, and a total sample size of n = 61 participants. Thereby, it enabled internal replications of findings across both paradigms and visits, which is important to confirm the consistency of findings.

Weaknesses:

One overarching difficulty is the high number of analyses presented by the authors. They were in part developed "on the go", are not always easy to follow, and sidetrack the reader from the main findings. Only a minor part of the analyses is described in the methods section, while many analyses are outlined within the results, the supplementary material, and/or figure legends. In addition, a range of purely descriptive findings are displayed. Overall, the manuscript would clearly benefit from a more streamlined and consistent presentation of the applied methods and results.

Concerning the main findings, the presented evidence for a slowing of PAF and a reduction of AP in the context of both phasic and capsaicin heat pain and across both visits is convincing. The location of the peak of the effect at left frontocentral areas, however, remains puzzling. The authors convincingly show that the effect cannot be explained by activity related to the pain rating procedure and provide evidence that an effect of the same direction can also observed at corresponding electrodes contralateral to pain stimulation. However, further reasons are not discussed.

The conclusion that PAF slowing might be more related to pain-associated states like sensitization rather than the presence of ongoing pain is deduced from a continued slowing of PAF after capsaicin-induced pain has subsided, while AP goes back to baseline values. Although this speculation is interesting, the readers should be aware that this dissociation was unexpected and resulted in changes in the main a-priori-defined statistical contrasts presented in the methods section. Further replications in future studies are needed to strengthen this finding.

The last conclusion made by the authors is that the observed changes in alpha activity are caused by specific changes in the faster alpha range and are the least convincing. If I understand correctly, the only presented statistical evidence corroborating this conclusion is based on the single selected electrode C3 shown in Figure 5 A, D, and E. With the remaining parts of Figure 5 and Figure 6, differences are discussed but Figures do not include statistical results. Unless the discussed findings are backed up more clearly, the degree of mechanistic conclusions concerning the 10-12 Hz power changes throughout the title, abstract, and main manuscript and in relation to the multiple oscillators model seems not justified.

Lastly, it is important to note that the current manuscript was published as a preprint in 2021. Thus, the cited literature still needs to be updated, and the present findings need to be integrated with the work published since. For example, a recent systematic review on potential M/EEG-based biomarkers of chronic pain (Zebhauser et al., 2023, Pain) revealed that previous evidence concerning changes of alpha activity in chronic pain is much less consistent than currently outlined in the manuscript.

Overall:

All in all, the presented findings extend previous knowledge concerning the role of alpha activity in pain and thus represent a valuable contribution towards a better understanding of the mechanisms of pain and potential new treatment targets.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This study investigated the modulation of alpha oscillations, specifically peak alpha frequency (PAF) and alpha power, during prolonged pain. The findings suggest that the alpha rhythm consists of multiple, independent oscillators, and suggest that the modulation of a "fast" oscillator may represent a promising therapeutic target for ongoing pain management.

Strengths:

EEG data were collected from a relatively large sample of participants, and the experiment was conducted using two prolonged pain models - phasic heat pain and capsaicin heat pain - at two separate testing visits approximately 8 weeks apart. The study produced reliable results across different pain models and at different testing intervals.

Weaknesses:

There are discrepancies between the results and their interpretation, indicating a need for more appropriate data analyses. Additionally, the experimental design does not adequately control for the potential time effects, which cannot be ruled out as a confounding factor.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Furman et al. investigated how exposure to prolonged pain impacts human alpha oscillations recorded by electroencephalography (EEG). Two experimental models of prolonged pain were employed in healthy participants, phasic heat pain (PHP) and capsaicin heat pain (CHP). 61 participants completed two identical study visits separated by at least 8 weeks. Peak alpha frequency was reliably slowed by exposure to prolonged pain, whereas overall alpha power was reliably reduced. Both effects appeared to reflect a specific decrease in higher frequency (10-12Hz) alpha activity. The authors suggest that slowing of alpha oscillations is a reliable neural correlate of pain exposure and that manipulation of alpha activity may hold promise for treating chronic pain.

Strengths:

The study uses a within-participants design to show that exposure to pain is associated with acute changes in both the power and frequency of alpha oscillations.

By employing two experimental models of pain exposure and two separate testing visits, the authors were able to show that the effects of pain exposure on alpha activity are replicable across models and time.

Rigorous analysis approaches are used throughout.

Weaknesses:

No a priori power analysis is presented and (due to exclusions) most of the analyses conducted included (sometimes considerably) fewer participants than the overall sample size.

It is not clear whether the power and frequency changes represent two sides of the same coin or whether they reflect distinct mechanisms. The authors suggest in the manuscript that both effects may be explained by decreased power in 'fast' (8-12 Hz) alpha activity, but at other times interpret the effects to potentially represent distinct mechanisms. It would be useful for the authors to further clarify their thoughts on this point.

The statistical significance of some of the effects was dependent on analysis choices such as the exact frequency range chosen to identify alpha peaks.

No control condition was used, and I was left wondering if the effects would be specific to painful stimuli, or would also see the same effects for pleasant or neutral somatosensory stimuli?

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript uses large-scale existing datasets that span almost the full range of human life (5-100 years) to identify two distinct architectural cortical gradients within the visual cortex. These gradients are distinct: in one, cytoarchitecture and myeloarchitecture converge and in the other, they diverge. The authors tested whether these gradients mapped onto known functional properties of the visual cortex, as well as accounting for visual behaviours that are impacted throughout the lifespan. The manuscript also reports the identification of a hitherto unknown cluster of visual field maps in the anterior temporal lobe.

Strengths:

A major strength of the current manuscript is the use of large-scale measurements of human brain structure throughout the lifespan, courtesy of the Human Connectome Project Initiative. The scope of this cross-sectional analysis would be rare, if not impossible to achieve through an individual project.

The approach employed holds promise for assessing the link between large-scale anatomical gradients in the brain and functional/behavioural properties. The current manuscript focuses on the visual cortex but the approach could easily be implemented across the brain in general.

Weaknesses:

While the evidence in favour of the two gradients largely supports the claims, the evidence for a new visual field map cluster in the anterior temporal lobe falls short of the level used historically when identifying visual field maps in the visual cortex and is, at present, not convincing.

More specifically, the progressions of polar angle within the putative anterior lobe cluster are highly variable across subjects. Few subjects have convincing polar angle reversals at either the horizontal or vertical meridians. In other cases, a putative border is shown that spans different polar angles, which does not align with the accepted definitions for visual field maps in the cortex.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors used large MRI data sets of the Human Connectome Project (HCP) and also conducted additional pRF analyses to describe the structural architecture of the human visual cortex in reference to its functional features. By conducting a PCA, they identify 2 components that explain around 50% of the variance, the driven by a positive co-variance between cortical thickness and T1/T2 ratio, the second by their negative co-variance. The first PC spans most early visual cortex and hence shows a relation to pRF size when taking both early and late visual areas into account. The second is more variable in location and does not relate to pRF size or visual hierarchy. The relationship between these two gradients to cell body density using the BigBrain is explored.

Strengths:

The authors make an attempt to describe the overall architectural features of the cortex and link it to features of functional representations, and the underlying histology, using different sets of datasets and methods, including histology. They highlight that investigating the structural architecture of the cortex provides important information on their intrinsic organization and common features.

Weaknesses:

The neurobiological model does not take into consideration present knowledge about the microstructural organization of the visual system. This limits the way the results are interpreted correctly. Critical information on the layer-specific myeloarchitecture and cytoarchitecture (and their relation to cortical thickness), as explored for example by Sereno et al. 2013 Cereb Cortex, is missing. There is no information given with respect to how different visual areas differ in their microstructural profile. It is also not mentioned that cortical parcellation is indeed characterized by sharp boundaries between areas, rather than structural gradients, so it remains unclear why focusing on a gradient is of interest. The authors cite the parcellation atlas by Glasser et al. 2016, but do not discuss the rationale of this publication, which was not the definition of gradients, but the definition of sharp boundaries for cortex parcellation. Indeed (as explained below), the results of the authors seem to a large extent to be driven by cortex parcellation, but instead of acknowledging this fact, the authors write (line 179) that "we hypothesize that these local deviations from the canonical thickness and density of cortex underlie the finer-scale division of visual cortex into categorically distinct regions. That is, does the realization of the cortex into distinct regions involve these regions becoming more distinct from a prototypical cortical sheet (i.e., gradient 1)?" - While the first sentence is reasonable, the second sentence is pure speculation ignoring present knowledge on cortical parcellation of this area according to which there is no "prototypical cortical sheet", but each area has its distinct microstructural profile.

Instead of building on present, detailed knowledge of brain anatomy and in-vivo cortex parcellation of the visual system and its known relation to visual maps, the authors focus on two metrics of cortex architecture (mean T1/T1 over depth and cortical thickness), and conduct a PCA to explore their shared variance. It needs to be clarified if the PCA was conducted correctly. There is no mention of standardizing the variables, which could bias the results. In addition, in a PCA, all possible features are categorized as vector components, and those are scanned through the samples, hence, one such analysis per vertex. But the authors write "in which participants are features and cortical vertices are samples" and "the thickness and tissue density maps were concatenated". This needs clarification. The architecture of the PCA should be visualized better.

Because the PCA only contains two features, PC1 is driven by the positive relationship between cortical thickness and mean T1/T2, whereas PC2 is driven by their negative relationship. Because in the early visual cortex, cortical thickness and mean T1/T2 correlate positively, it naturally follows that PC1 relates to pRF size (but mediated by the actual cortex parcellation). However, it is unclear why this insight is interesting. I also do not share the view that "these findings demonstrate that gradient 1 acts as a global gradient enveloping the entire visual cortex (...) while gradient 2 acts as a local gradient specific to individual visual streams". I think this relationship between cortical thickness and T1/T2 ratio does not have much to do with local and global gradients. But if so, stronger arguments as to why this should be the case should be presented.

What the authors make of this result (particularly the discussion starting line 366) is not clear to me. I cannot follow the line of argumentation, which in my view is too far away from the data.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In the presented study, the authors aim to explore the role of nociceptors in the fine particulate matter (FPM) mediated Asthma phenotype, using rodent models of allergic airway inflammation. This manuscript builds on previous studies, and identify transciptomic reprogramming and an increased sensitivity of the jugular nodose complex (JNC) neurons, one of the major sensory ganglion for the airways, on exposure to FPM along with Ova during the challenge phase. The authors then use OX-314 a selectively permeable form of lidocaine, and TRPV1 knockouts to demonstrate that nociceptor blocking can reduce airway inflammation in their experimental setup.

The authors further identify the presence of Gfra3 on the JNC neurons, a receptor for the protein Artemin, and demonstrate their sensitivity to Artmein as a ligand. They further show that alveolar macrophages release Artemin on exposure to FPM.

Strengths:

The study builds on results available from multiple previous work, and presents important results which allow insights into the mixed phenotypes of Asthma seen clinically. In addition, by identifying the role of nociceptors, they identify potential therapeutic targets which bear high translational potential.

Weaknesses:

While the results presented in the study are highly relevant, there is a need for further mechanistic dissection to allow better inferences. Currently certain results seem assocaitive. Also, certain visualisations and experimental protocols presented in the manuscript need careful assessment and interpretation.

While Asthma is a chronic disease, the presented results are particularly important to explore Asthma exacerbations in response to acute expsoure to air pollutants. This is relevant in today's age of increasing air pollution and increasing global travel.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors sought to investigate the role of nociceptor neurons in the pathogenesis of pollution-mediated neutrophilic asthma.

Strengths:

The authors utilize TRPV1 ablated mice to confirm effects of intranasally administered QX-314 utilized to block sodium currents.

The authors demonstrate that via artemin, which is upregulated in alveolar macrophages in response to pollution, sensitizes JNC neurons thereby increasing their responsiveness to pollution. Ablation or inactivity of nociceptor neurons prevented the pollution induced increase in inflammation.

Weaknesses:

While neutrophilic, the model used doesn't appear to truly recapitulate a Th2/Th17 phenotype. No IL-17A is visible/evident in the BALF fluid within the model. (Figure 3F).

Unclear of the relevance of the RNAseq dataset, none of the identified DEGs were evaluated in the context of mechanism.

The authors overall achieved the aim of demonstrating that nociceptor neurons are important to the pathogenesis of pollution-exacerbated asthma. Their results support their conclusions overall, although there are ways the study findings can be strengthened. This work further evaluates how nociceptor neurons contribute to asthma pathogenesis important for consideration while proposing treatment strategies for undertreated asthma endotypes.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Asthma is a complex disease that includes endogenous epithelial, immune, and neural components that respond awkwardly to environmental stimuli. Small airborne particles with diameters in the range of 2.5 micrometers or less, so-called PM2.5, are generally thought to contribute to some forms of asthma. These forms of asthma may have increased numbers of neutrophils and/or eosinophils present in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and are difficult to treat effectively as they tend to be poorly responsive to steroids. Here, Wang and colleagues build on a recent model that incorporated PM2.5 which was found to have a neutrophilic component. Wang altered the model to provide an extra kick via the incorporation of ovalbumin. Building on their prior expertise linking nociceptors and inflammation, they find that silencing TRPV1-expressing neurons either pharmacologically or genetically, abrogated inflammation and the accumulation of neutrophils. By examining bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, they found not only that levels of the number of cytokines were increased, but also that artemin, a protein that supports neuronal development and function, was elevated, which did not occur in nociceptor-ablated mice. They also found that alveolar macrophages exposed to PM2.5 particles had increased artemin transcription, suggesting a further link between pollutants, and immune and neural interactions.

There are substantial caveats that must be attached to the suggestions by the authors that targeting nociceptors might provide an approach to the treatment of neutrophilic airway inflammation in pollution-driven asthma in general and wildfire-associated respiratory problems in particular. These caveats include the uncertainty of the relevance of the conventional source of PM2.5, to pollution and asthma. According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the standard reference material (SRM) 2786 is a mix obtained from an air intake system in the Czech Republic. It is not clear exactly what is in the mix, and a recent bioRxiv preprint, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.08.18.553903v3.full.pdf reveals the presence of endotoxin. Care should thus be taken in interpreting data using particulate matter. Regarding wildfires, there is data that indicates that such exposure is toxic to macrophages. What impact might that then have on the production of cytokines, and artemin, in humans?

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In their comprehensive analysis Diallo et al. deorphanise the first olfactory receptor of a non-hymenopteran eusocial insect - a termite and identified the well-established trail pheromone neocembrene as the receptor's best ligand. By using a large set of odorants the authors convincingly show that, as expected for a pheromone receptor, PsimOR14 is very narrowly tuned. While the authors first make use of an ectopic expression system, the empty neuron of Drosophila melanogaster, to characterise the receptor's responses, they next perform single sensillum recordings with different sensilla types on the termite antenna. By that, they are able to identify a sensillum that houses three neurons, of which the B neuron exhibits the narrow responses described for PsimOR14. Hence the authors do not only identify the first pheromone receptor in a termite but can even localize its expression on the antenna. The authors in addition perform a structural analysis to explain the binding properties of the receptor and its major and minor ligands (as this is beyond my expertise, I cannot judge this part of the manuscript). Finally, they compare expression patterns of ORs in different castes and find that PsimOR14 is more strongly expressed in workers than in soldier termites, which corresponds well with stronger antennal responses in the worker caste.

Strengths:

The manuscript is well-written and a pleasure to read. The figures are beautiful and clear. I actually had a hard time coming up with suggestions.

Weaknesses:

Whenever it comes to the deorphanization of a receptor and its potential role in behaviour (in the case of the manuscript it would be trail-following of the termite) one thinks immediately of knocking out the receptor to check whether it is necessary for the behaviour. However, I definitely do not want to ask for this (especially as the establishment of CRISPR Cas-9 in eusocial insects usually turns out to be a nightmare). I also do not know either, whether knockdowns via RNAi have been established in termites, but maybe the authors could consider some speculation on this in the discussion.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors performed the functional analysis of odorant receptors (ORs) of the termite Prorhinotermes simplex to identify the receptor of trail-following pheromone. The authors performed single-sensillum recording (SSR) using the transgenic Drosophila flies expressing a candidate of the pheromone receptor and revealed that PsimOR14 strongly responds to neocembrene, the major component of the pheromone. Also, the authors found that one sensillum type (S I) detects neocembrene and also performed SSR for S I in wild termite workers. Furthermore, the authors revealed the gene, transcript, and protein structures of PsimOR14, predicted the 3D model and ligand docking of PsimOR14, and demonstrated that PsimOR14 is higher expressed in workers than soldiers using RNA-seq for heads of workers and soldiers of P. simplex and that EAG response to neocembrene is higher in workers than soldiers. I consider that this study will contribute to further understanding of the molecular and evolutionary mechanisms of the chemoreception system in termites.

Strength:

The manuscript is well written. As far as I know, this study is the first study that identified a pheromone receptor in termites. The authors not only present a methodology for analyzing the function of termite pheromone receptors but also provide important insights in terms of the evolution of ligand selectivity of termite pheromone receptors.

Weakness:

As you can see in the "Recommendations to the Authors" section below, there are several things in this paper that are not fully explained about experimental methods. Except for this point, this paper appears to me to have no major weaknesses.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Chemical communication is essential for the organization of eusocial insect societies. It is used in various important contexts, such as foraging and recruiting colony members to food sources. While such pheromones have been chemically identified and their function demonstrated in bioassays, little is known about their perception. Excellent candidates are the odorant receptors that have been shown to be involved in pheromone perception in other insects including ants and bees but not termites. The authors investigated the function of the odorant receptor PsimOR14, which was one of four target odorant receptors based on gene sequences and phylogenetic analyses. They used the Drosophila empty neuron system to demonstrate that the receptor was narrowly tuned to the trail pheromone neocembrene. Similar responses to the odor panel and neocembrene in antennal recordings suggested that one specific antennal sensillum expresses PsimOR14. Additional protein modeling approaches characterized the properties of the ligand binding pocket in the receptor. Finally, PsimOR14 transcripts were found to be significantly higher in worker antennae compared to soldier antennae, which corresponds to the worker's higher sensitivity to neocembrene.

Strengths:

The study presents an excellent characterization of a trail pheromone receptor in a termite species. The integration of receptor phylogeny, receptor functional characterization, antennal sensilla responses, receptor structure modeling, and transcriptomic analysis is especially powerful. All parts build on each other and are well supported with a good sample size.

Weaknesses:

The manuscript would benefit from a more detailed explanation of the research advances this work provides. Stating that this is the first deorphanization of an odorant receptor in a clade is insufficient. The introduction primarily reviews termite chemical communication and deorphanization of olfactory receptors previously performed. Although this is essential background, it lacks a good integration into explaining what problem the current study solves.

Selecting target ORs for deorphanization is an essential step in the approach. Unfortunately, the process of choosing these ORs has not been described. Were the authors just lucky that they found the correct OR out of the 50, or was there a specific selection process that increased the probability of success?

The authors assigned antennal sensilla into five categories. Unfortunately, they did not support their categories well. It is not clear how they were able to differentiate SI and SII in their antennal recordings.

The authors used a large odorant panel to determine receptor tuning. The panel included volatile polar compounds and non-volatile non-polar hydrocarbons. Usually, some heat is applied to such non-volatile odorants to increase volatility for receptor testing. It is unclear how it is possible that these non-volatile compounds can reach the tested sensilla without heat application.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Sattin, Nardin, and colleagues designed and evaluated corrective microlenses that increase the useable field of view of two long (>6mm) thin (500 um diameter) GRIN lenses used in deep-tissue two-photon imaging. This paper closely follows the thread of earlier work from the same group (e.g. Antonini et al, 2020; eLife), filling out the quiver of available extended-field-of-view 2P endoscopes with these longer lenses. The lenses are made by a molding process that appears practical and easy to adopt with conventional two-photon microscopes.

Simulations are used to motivate the benefits of extended field of view, demonstrating that more cells can be recorded, with less mixing of signals in extracted traces, when recorded with higher optical resolution. In vivo tests were performed in the piriform cortex, which is difficult to access, especially in chronic preparations.

The design, characterization, and simulations are clear and thorough, but not exhaustive (see below), and do not break new ground in optical design or biological application. However, the approach shows much promise, including for applications not mentioned in the present text such as miniaturized GRIN-based microscopes. Readers will largely be interested in this work for practical reasons: to apply the authors' corrected endoscopes.

Strengths:

The text is clearly written, the ex vivo analysis is thorough and well-supported, and the figures are clear. The authors achieved their aims, as evidenced by the images presented, and were able to make measurements from large numbers of cells simultaneously in vivo in a difficult preparation.

Weaknesses:

(1) The novelty of the present work over previous efforts from the same group is not well explained. What needed to be done differently to correct these longer GRIN lenses?

(2) Some strong motivations for the method are not presented. For example, the introduction (page 3) focuses on identifying neurons with different coding properties, but this can be done with electrophysiology (albeit with different strengths and weaknesses). Compared to electrophysiology, optical methods more clearly excel at genetic targeting, subcellular measurements, and molecular specificity; these could be mentioned. Another example, in comparing microfabricated lenses to other approaches, an unmentioned advantage is miniaturization and potential application to mini-2P microscopes, which use GRIN lenses.

(3) Some potentially useful information is lacking, leaving critical questions for potential adopters:

How sensitive is the assembly to decenter between the corrective optic and the GRIN lens? What is the yield of fabrication and of assembly?

Supplementary Figure 1: Is this really a good agreement between the design and measured profile? Does the figure error (~10 um in some cases on average) noticeably degrade the image? How do individual radial profiles compare to the presented means?<br /> What is the practical effect of the strong field curvature? Are the edges of the field, which come very close to the lens surface, a practical limitation?

The lenses appear to be corrected for monochromatic light; high-performance microscopes are generally achromatic. Is the bandwidth of two-photon excitation sufficient to warrant optimization over multiple wavelengths?

GRIN lenses are often used to access a 3D volume by scanning in z (including in this study). How does the corrective lens affect imaging performance over the 3D field of view?

(4) The in vivo images (Figure 7D) have a less impressive resolution and field than the ex vivo images (Figure 4B), and the reason for this is not clear. Given the difference in performance, how does this compare to an uncorrected endoscope in the same preparation? Is the reduced performance related to uncorrected motion, field curvature, working distance, etc? Regarding Figure 7, there is no analysis of the biological significance of the calcium signals or even a description of where olfactory stimuli were presented. The timescale of jGCaMP8f signals in Figure 7E is uncharacteristically slow for this indicator (compared to Zhang et al 2023 (Nature)), though perhaps this is related to the physiology of these cells or the stimuli.

(5) The claim of unprecedented spatial resolution across the FOV (page 18) is hard to evaluate and is not supported by references to quantitative comparisons. The promises of the method for future studies (pages 18-19) could also be better supported by analysis or experiment, but these are minor and to me, do not detract from the appeal of the work.

(6) The text is lengthy and the material is repeated, especially between the introduction and conclusion. Consolidating introductory material to the introduction would avoid diluting interesting points in the discussion.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

In this manuscript, the authors present an approach to correct GRIN lens aberrations, which primarily cause a decrease in signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), particularly in the lateral regions of the field-of-view (FOV), thereby limiting the usable FOV. The authors propose to mitigate these aberrations by designing and fabricating aspherical corrective lenses using ray trace simulations and two-photon lithography, respectively; the corrective lenses are then mounted on the back aperture of the GRIN lens.

This approach was previously demonstrated by the same lab for GRIN lenses shorter than 4.1 mm (Antonini et al., eLife, 2020). In the current work, the authors extend their method to a new class of GRIN lenses with lengths exceeding 6 mm, enabling access to deeper brain regions as most ventral regions of the mouse brain. Specifically, they designed and characterized corrective lenses for GRIN lenses measuring 6.4 mm and 8.8 mm in length. Finally, they applied these corrected long micro-endoscopes to perform high-precision calcium signal recordings in the olfactory cortex.

Compared with alternative approaches using adaptive optics, the main strength of this method is that it does not require hardware or software modifications, nor does it limit the system's temporal resolution. The manuscript is well-written, the data are clearly presented, and the experiments convincingly demonstrate the advantages of the corrective lenses.

The implementation of these long corrected micro-endoscopes, demonstrated here for deep imaging in the mouse olfactory bulb, will also enable deep imaging in larger mammals such as rats or marmosets.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This work presents the development, characterization, and use of new thin microendoscopes (500µm diameter) whose accessible field of view has been extended by the addition of a corrective optical element glued to the entrance face. Two micro endoscopes of different lengths (6.4mm and 8.8mm) have been developed, allowing imaging of neuronal activity in brain regions >4mm deep. An alternative solution to increase the field of view could be to add an adaptive optics loop to the microscope to correct the aberrations of the GRIN lens. The solution presented in this paper does not require any modification of the optical microscope and can therefore be easily accessible to any neuroscience laboratory performing optical imaging of neuronal activity.

Strengths:

(1) The paper is generally clear and well-written. The scientific approach is well structured and numerous experiments and simulations are presented to evaluate the performance of corrected microendoscopes. In particular, we can highlight several consistent and convincing pieces of evidence for the improved performance of corrected micro endoscopes:<br /> a) PSFs measured with corrected micro endoscopes 75µm from the centre of the FOV show a significant reduction in optical aberrations compared to PSFs measured with uncorrected micro endoscopes.<br /> b) Morphological imaging of fixed brain slices shows that optical resolution is maintained over a larger field of view with corrected micro endoscopes compared to uncorrected ones, allowing neuronal processes to be revealed even close to the edge of the FOV.<br /> c) Using synthetic calcium data, the authors showed that the signals obtained with the corrected microendoscopes have a significantly stronger correlation with the ground truth signals than those obtained with uncorrected microendoscopes.

(2) There is a strong need for high-quality micro endoscopes to image deep brain regions in vivo. The solution proposed by the authors is simple, efficient, and potentially easy to disseminate within the neuroscience community.

Weaknesses:

(1) Many points need to be clarified/discussed. Here are a few examples:

a) It is written in the methods: « The uncorrected microendoscopes were assembled either using different optical elements compared to the corrected ones or were obtained from the corrected probes after the mechanical removal of the corrective lens. »<br /> This is not very clear: the uncorrected microendoscopes are not simply the unmodified GRIN lenses?

b) In the results of the simulation of neuronal activity (Figure 5A, for example), the neurons in the center of the FOV have a very large diameter (of about 30µm). This should be discussed. Also, why is the optical resolution so low on these images?

c) It seems that we can't see the same neurons on the left and right panels of Figure 5D. This should be discussed.

d) It is not very clear to me why in Figure 6A, F the fraction of adjacent cell pairs that are more correlated than expected increases as a function of the threshold on peak SNR. The authors showed in Supplementary Figure 3B that the mean purity index increases as a function of the threshold on peak SNR for all micro endoscopes. Therefore, I would have expected the correlation between adjacent cells to decrease as a function of the threshold on peak SNR. Similarly, the mean purity index for the corrected short microendoscope is close to 1 for high thresholds on peak SNR: therefore, I would have expected the fraction of adjacent cell pairs that are more correlated than expected to be close to 0 under these conditions. It would be interesting to clarify these points.

e) Figures 6C, H: I think it would be fairer to compare the uncorrected and corrected endomicroscopes using the same effective FOV.

f) Figure 7E: Many calcium transients have a strange shape, with a very fast decay following a plateau or a slower decay. Is this the result of motion artefacts or analysis artefacts? Also, the duration of many calcium transients seems to be long (several seconds) for GCaMP8f. These points should be discussed.

g) The authors do not mention the influence of the neuropil on their data. Did they subtract the neuropil's contribution to the signals from the somata? It is known from the literature that the presence of the neuropil creates artificial correlations between neurons, which decrease with the distance between the neurons (Grødem, S., Nymoen, I., Vatne, G.H. et al. An updated suite of viral vectors for in vivo calcium imaging using intracerebral and retro-orbital injections in male mice. Nat Commun 14, 608 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-36324-3; Keemink SW, Lowe SC, Pakan JMP, Dylda E, van Rossum MCW, Rochefort NL. FISSA: A neuropil decontamination toolbox for calcium imaging signals. Sci Rep. 2018 Feb 22;8(1):3493. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-21640-2. PMID: 29472547; PMCID: PMC5823956)<br /> This point should be addressed.

h) Also, what are the expected correlations between neurons in the pyriform cortex? Are there measurements in the literature with which the authors could compare their data?

(2) The way the data is presented doesn't always make it easy to compare the performance of corrected and uncorrected lenses. Here are two examples:

a) In Figures 4 to 6, it would be easier to compare the FOVs of corrected and uncorrected lenses if the scale bars (at the centre of the FOV) were identical. In this way, the neurons at the centre of the FOV would appear the same size in the two images, and the distances between the neurons at the centre of the FOV would appear similar. Here, the scale bar is significantly larger for the corrected lenses, which may give the illusion of a larger effective FOV.

b) In Figures 3A-D it would be more informative to plot the distances in microns rather than pixels. This would also allow a better comparison of the micro endoscopes (as the pixel sizes seem to be different for the corrected and uncorrected micro endoscopes).

(3) There seems to be a discrepancy between the performance of the long lenses (8.8mm) in the different experiments, which should be discussed in the article. For example, the results in Figure 4 show a considerable enlargement of the FOV, whereas the results in Figure 6 show a very moderate enlargement of the distance at which the person's correlation with the first ground truth emitter starts to drop.

a) There is also a significant discrepancy between measured and simulated optical performance, which is not discussed. Optical simulations (Figure 1) show that the useful FOV (defined as the radius for which the size of the PSF along the optical axis remains below 10µm) should be at least 90µm for the corrected microendoscopes of both lengths. However, for the long microendoscopes, Figure 3J shows that the axial resolution at 90µm is 17µm. It would be interesting to discuss the origin of this discrepancy: does it depend on the microendoscope used? Are there inaccuracies in the construction of the aspheric corrective lens or in the assembly with the GRIN lens? If there is variability between different lenses, how are the lenses selected for imaging experiments?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript builds on the authors' 2020 study by combining tissue expansion with light sheet microscopy to quantify the organism-wide spatial distribution of various cell types in the planarian.

Strengths:

(1) The quantification of cell types as a function of animal size and regeneration stages could be a useful resource for the planarian research community.

(2) The high-quality images can help clarify some anatomical structures within the planarian tissues.

Weaknesses:

(1) The proprietary nature of the microscope, protected by a patent, limits the technical details provided, making the method hard to reproduce in other labs.

(2) The resolution of the analyses is mostly limited to the cellular level, which does not fully leverage the advantages of expansion microscopy. Previous applications of expansion microscopy have revealed finer nanostructures in the planarian nervous system (see Fan et al. Methods in Cell Biology 2021; Wang et al. eLife 2021). It is unclear whether the current protocol can achieve a comparable resolution.

(3) The data largely corroborate past observations, while the novel claims are insufficiently substantiated.

A few major issues with the claims:

(4) Line 303-304: While 6G10 is a widely used antibody to label muscle fibers in the planarian, it doesn't uniformly mark all muscle types (Scimone at al. Nature 2017). For a more complete view of muscle fibers, it is important to use a combination of antibodies targeting different fiber types or a generic marker such as phalloidin. This raises fundamental concerns about all the conclusions drawn from Figures 4 and 6 about differences between various muscle types. Additionally, the authors should cite the original paper that developed the 6G10 antibody (Ross et al. BMC Developmental Biology 2015).

(5) Lines 371-379: The claim that DV muscles regenerate into longitudinal fibers lacks evidence. Furthermore, previous studies have shown that TFs specifying different muscle types (DV, circular, longitudinal, and intestinal) both during regeneration and homeostasis are completely different (Scimone et al., Nature 2017 and Scimone et al., Current Biology 2018). Single-cell RNAseq data further establishes the existence of divergent muscle progenitors giving rise to different muscle fibers. These observations directly contradict the authors' claim, which is only based on images of fixed samples at a coarse time resolution.

(6) Line 423: The manuscript lacks evidence to claim glia guide muscle fiber branching.

(7) Lines 432/478: The conclusion about neuronal and muscle guidance on glial projections is similarly speculative, lacking functional evidence. It is possible that the morphological defects of estrella+ cells after bcat1 RNAi are caused by Wnt signaling directly acting on estrella+ cells independent of muscles or neurons.

(8) Finally, several technical issues make the results difficult to interpret. For example, in line 125, cell boundaries appear to be determined using nucleus images; in line 136, the current resolution seems insufficient to reliably trace neural connections, at least based on the images presented.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors apply tissue expansion and tiling light sheet microscopy to study allometric growth and regeneration in planaria. They developed image analysis pipelines to help them quantify different neuronal subtypes and muscles in planaria of different sizes and during regeneration. Among the strengths of this work, the authors provide beautiful images that show the potential of the approaches they are taking and their ability to quantify specific cell types in relatively large numbers of whole animal samples. Many of their findings confirm previous results in the literature, which helps validate the techniques and pipelines they have applied here. Among their new observations, they find that the body wall muscles at the anterior and posterior poles of the worm are organized differently and show that the muscle pattern in the posterior head of beta-catenin RNAi worms resembles the anterior muscle pattern. They also show that glial cell processes appear to be altered in beta-catenin or insulin receptor-1 RNAi worms. Weaknesses include some over-interpretation of the data and lack of consideration or citation of relevant previous literature, as discussed below.

Strengths:

This method of tissue expansion will be useful for researchers interested in studying this experimental animal. The authors provide high-quality images that show the utility of this technique. Their analysis pipeline permits them to quantify cell types in relatively large numbers of whole animal samples.

The authors provide convincing data on changes in total neurons and neuronal sub-types in different-sized planaria. They report differences in body wall muscle pattern between the anterior and posterior poles of the planaria, and that these differences are lost when a posterior head forms in beta-catenin RNAi planaria. They also find that glial cell projections are reduced in insulin receptor-1 RNAi planaria.

Weaknesses:

The work would have been strengthened by a more careful consideration of previous literature. Many papers directly relevant to this work were not cited. Such omissions do the authors a disservice because in some cases, they fail to consider relevant information that impacts the choice of reagents they have used or the conclusions they are drawing.

For example, when describing the antibody they use to label muscles (monoclonal 6G10), they do not cite the paper that generated this reagent (Ross et al PMCID: PMC4307677), and instead, one of the papers they do cite (Cebria 2016) that does not mention this antibody. Ross et al reported that 6G10 does not label all body wall muscles equivalently, but rather "predominantly labels circular and diagonal fibers" (which is apparent in Figure S5A-D of the manuscript being reviewed here). For this reason, the authors of the paper showing different body wall muscle populations play different roles in body patterning (Scimone et al 2017, PMCID: PMC6263039, also not cited in this paper) used this monoclonal in combination with a polyclonal antibody to label all body wall muscle types. Because their "pan-muscle" reagent does not label all muscle types equivalently, it calls into question their quantification of the different body wall muscle populations throughout the manuscript. It does not help matters that their initial description of the body wall muscle types fails to mention the layer of thin (inner) longitudinal muscles between the circular and diagonal muscles (Cebria 2016 and citations therein).

Ipsilateral and contralateral projections of the visual axons were beautifully shown by dye-tracing experiments (Okamoto et al 2005, PMID: 15930826). This paper should be cited when the authors report that they are corroborating the existence of ipsilateral and contralateral projections.

The proportional decrease of neurons with growth in S. mediterranea was shown by counting different cell types in macerated planarians (Baguna and Romero, 1981; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00026179) and earlier histological observations cited there. These results have also been validated by single-cell sequencing (Emili et al, bioRxiv 2023, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.11.01.565140v). Allometric growth of the planaria tail (the tail is proportionately longer in large vs small planaria) can explain this decrease in animal size. The authors never really discuss allometric growth in a way that would help readers unfamiliar with the system understand this.

In some cases, the authors draw stronger conclusions than their results warrant. The authors claim that they are showing glial-muscle interactions, however, they do not provide any images of triple-stained samples labeling muscle, neurons, and glia, so it is impossible for the reader to judge whether the glial cells are interacting directly with body wall muscles or instead with the well-described submuscular nerve plexus. Their conclusion that neurons are unaffected by beta-cat or inr-1 RNAi based on anti-phospho-Ser/Thr staining (Fig. 6E) is unconvincing. They claim that during regeneration "DV muscles initially regenerate into longitudinal fibers at the anterior tip" (line 373). They provide no evidence for such switching of muscle cell types, so it is unclear why they say this.

The authors show how their automated workflow compares to manual counts using PI-stained specimens (Figure S1T). I may have missed it, but I do not recall seeing a similar ground truth comparison for their muscle fiber counting workflow. I mention this because the segmented image of the posterior muscles in Figure 4I seems to be missing the vast majority of circular fibers visible to the naked eye in the original image.

It is unclear why the abstract says, "We found the rate of neuron cell proliferation tends to lag..." (line 25). The authors did not measure proliferation in this work and neurons do not proliferate in planaria.

It is unclear what readers are to make of the measurements of brain lobe angles. Why is this a useful measurement and what does it tell us?

The authors repeatedly say that this work lets them investigate planarians at the single-cell level, but they don't really make the case that they are seeing things that haven't already been described at the single-cell level using standard confocal microscopy.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Park et al. conducted various analyses attempting to elucidate the biological significance of SARS-CoV-2 mutations. However, the study lacks a clear objective. The specific goals of the analyses in each subsection are unclear, as is how the results from these subsections are interconnected. Compiling results from unrelated analyses into a single paper can be confusing for readers. Clarifying the objective and narrowing down the topics would make the paper's purpose clearer.

The logic of the study is also unclear. For instance, the authors developed an evaluation score, APESS, for analyzing viral sequences. Although they state that the APESS score correlates with viral infectivity, there is no explanation in the results section about why this is the case.

The structure of the paper should be reconsidered.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors have developed a machine learning tool AIVE to predict the infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 variants and also a scoring metric to measure infectivity. A large number of virus sequences were used with a very detailed analysis that incorporates hydrophobic, hydrophilic, acid, and alkaline characteristics. The protein structures were also considered to measure infectivity and search for core mutations. The study especially focused on the S protein of SARS-CoV-2. The contents of this study would be of interest to many researchers related to this area and the web service would be helpful to easily analyze such data without in-depth bioinformatics expertise.

Strengths:

- Analysis of large-scale data.

- Experimental validation on a partial set of searched mutations.

- A user-friendly web-based analysis platform that is made public.

Weaknesses:

- Complexity of the research.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This is a contribution to the field of developmental bioelectricity. How do changes of resting potential at the cell membrane affect downstream processes? Zhou et al. reported in 2015 that phosphatidylserine and K-Ras cluster upon plasma membrane depolarization and that voltage-dependent ERK activation occurs when constitutive active K-RasG12V mutants are overexpressed. In this paper, the authors advance the knowledge of this phenomenon by showing that membrane depolarization up-regulates mitosis and that this process is dependent on voltage-dependent activation of ERK. ERK activity's voltage-dependence is derived from changes in the dynamics of phosphatidylserine in the plasma membrane and not by extracellular calcium dynamics.

Strengths:

Bioelectricity is an important field for areas of cell, developmental, and evolutionary biology, as well as for biomedicine. Confirmation of ERK as a transduction mechanism, and a characterization of the molecular details involved in control of cell proliferation, is interesting and impactful.

Weaknesses:

The functional cell division data need to be stronger. They show that increasing K+ increases proliferation and argue that since a MEK inhibitor (U0126) reduces proliferation in K+ treated cells, K+ induces cell division via ERK. But I don't see statistics to show that the rescue is significant, and I don't see a key U0126-only control. If the U0126 alone reduces proliferation, the combined effect wouldn't prove much.

Also, unless I'm missing something, it looks like every sample in their control has exactly the same number of mitotic cells. I understand that they are normalizing to this column, but shouldn't they be normalizing to the mean, with the independent values scattering around 1? It doesn't seem like it can be paired replicates since there are 6 replicates in the control and 4 replicates in one of the conditions?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Sasaki et al. use a combination of live-cell biosensors and patch-clamp electrophysiology to investigate the effect of membrane potential on the ERK MAPK signaling pathway, and probe associated effects on proliferation. This is an effect that has long been proposed, but convincing demonstration has remained elusive, because it is difficult to perturb membrane potential without disturbing other aspects of cell physiology in complex ways. The time-resolved measurements here are a nice contribution to this question, and the perforated patch clamp experiments with an ERK biosensor are fantastic - they come closer to addressing the above difficulty of perturbing voltage than any prior work. It would have been difficult to obtain these observations with any other combination of tools.

However, there are still some concerns as detailed in specific comments below:

Specific comments:<br /> (1) All the observations of ERK activation, by both high extracellular K+ and voltage clamp, could be explained by cell volume increase (more discussion in subsequent comments). There is a substantial literature on ERK activation by hypotonic cell swelling (e.g. https://doi.org/10.1042/bj3090013, https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1460-2075.1996.tb00938.x, among others). Here are some possible observations that could demonstrate that ERK activation by volume change is distinct from the effects reported here:<br /> (i) Does hypotonic shock activate ERK in U2OS cells?<br /> (ii) Can hypotonic shock activate ERK even after PS depletion, whereas extracellular K+ cannot?<br /> (iii) Does high extracellular K+ change cell volume in U2OS cells, measured via an accurate method such as fluorescence exclusion microscopy?<br /> (iv) It would be helpful to check the osmolality of all the extracellular solutions, even though they were nominally targeted to be iso-osmotic.

(2) Some more details about the experimental design and the results are needed from Figure 1:<br /> (i) For how long are the cells serum-starved? From the Methods section, it seems like the G1 release in different K+ concentration is done without serum, is this correct? Is the prior thymidine treatment also performed in the absence of serum?<br /> (ii) There is a question of whether depolarization constitutes a physiologically relevant mechanism to regulate proliferation, and how depolarization interacts with other extracellular signals that might be present in an in vivo context. Does depolarization only promote proliferation after extended serum starvation (in what is presumably a stressed cell state)? What fraction of total cells are observed to be mitotic (without normalization), and how does this compare to the proliferation of these cells growing in serum-supplemented media? Can K+ concentration tune proliferation rate even in serum-supplemented media?

(3) In Figure 2, there are some possible concerns with the perfusion experiment:<br /> (i) Is the buffer static in the period before perfusion with high K+, or is it perfused? This is not clear from the Methods. If it is static, how does the ERK activity change when perfused with 5 mM K+? In other words, how much of the response is due to flow/media exchange versus change in K+ concentration?<br /> (ii) Why do there appear to be population-average decreases in ERK activity in the period before perfusion with high K+ (especially in contrast to Fig. 3)? The imaging period does not seem frequent enough for photobleaching to be significant.

(4) Figure 3 contains important results on couplings between membrane potential and MAPK signaling. However, there are a few concerns:<br /> (i) Does cell volume change upon voltage clamping? Previous authors have shown that depolarizing voltage clamp can cause cells to swell, at least in the whole-cell configuration: https://www.cell.com/biophysj/fulltext/S0006-3495(18)30441-7 . Could it be possible that the clamping protocol induces changes in ERK signaling due to changes in cell volume, and not by an independent mechanism?<br /> (ii) Does the -80 mV clamp begin at time 0 minutes? If so, one might expect a transient decrease in sensor FRET ratio, depending on the original resting potential of the cells. Typical estimates for resting potential in HEK293 cells range from -40 mV to -15 mV, which would reach the range that induces an ERK response by depolarizing clamp in Fig. 3B. What are the resting potentials of the cells before they are clamped to -80 mV, and why do we not see this downward transient?

(5) The activation of ERK by perforated voltage clamp and by high extracellular K+ are each convincing, but it is unclear whether they need to act purely through the same mechanism - while additional extracellular K+ does depolarize the cell, it could also be affecting function of voltage-independent transporters and cell volume regulatory mechanisms on the timescales studied. To more strongly show this, the following should be done with the HEK cells where there is already voltage clamp data:<br /> (i) Measure resting potential using the perforated patch in zero-current configuration in the high K+ medium. Ideally this should be done in the time window after high K+ addition where ERK activation is observed (10-20 minutes) to minimize the possibility of drift due to changes in transporter and channel activity due to post-translational regulation.<br /> (ii) Measure YFP/CFP ratio of the HEK cells in the high K+ medium (in contrast to the U2OS cells from Fig. 2 where there is no patch data).<br /> (iii) The assertion that high K+ is equivalent to changes in Vmem for ERK signaling would be supported if the YFP/CFP change from K+ addition is comparable to that induced by voltage clamp to the same potential. This would be particularly convincing if the experiment could be done with each of the 15 mM, 30 mM, and 145 mM conditions.

(6) Line 170: "ERK activity was reduced with a fast time course (within 1 minute) after repolarization to -80 mV." I don't see this in the data: in Fig. 3C, it looks like ERK remains elevated for > 10 min after the electrical stimulus has returned to -80 mV

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper demonstrates that membrane depolarization induces a small increase in cell entry into mitosis. Based on previous work from another lab, the authors propose that ERK activation might be involved. They show convincingly using a combination of assays that ERK is activated by membrane depolarization. They show this is Ca2+ independent and is a result of activation of the whole K-Ras/ERK cascade which results from changed dynamics of phosphatidylserine in the plasma membrane that activates K-Ras. Although the activation of the Ras/ERK pathway by membrane depolarization is not new, linking it to an increase in cell proliferation is novel.

Strengths

A major strength of the study is the use of different techniques - live imaging with ERK reporters, as well as Western blotting to demonstrate ERK activation as well as different methods for inducing membrane depolarization. They also use a number of different cell lines. Via Western blotting the authors are also able to show that the whole MAPK cascade is activated.

Weaknesses

A weakness of the study is the data in Figure 1 showing that membrane depolarization results in an increase of cells entering mitosis. There are very few cells entering mitosis in their sample in any condition. This should be done with many more cells to increase confidence in the results. The study also lacks a mechanistic link between ERK activation by membrane depolarization and increased cell proliferation.

The authors did achieve their aims with the caveat that the cell proliferation results could be strengthened. The results for the most part support the conclusions.

This work suggests that alterations in membrane potential may have more physiological functions than action potential in the neural system as it has an effect on intracellular signalling and potentially cell proliferation.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary

The authors asked if parabrachial CGRP neurons were only necessary for a threat alarm to promote freezing or were necessary for a threat alarm to promote a wider range of defensive behaviors, most prominently flight.

Major Strengths of Methods and Results

The authors performed careful single-unit recording and applied rigorous methodologies to optogenetically tag CGRP neurons within the PBN. Careful analyses show that single-units and the wider CGRP neuron population increases firing to a range of unconditioned stimuli. The optogenetic stimulation of experiment 2 was comparatively simpler but achieved its aim of determining the consequence of activating CGRP neurons in the absence of other stimuli. Experiment 3 used a very clever behavioral approach to reveal a setting in which both cue-evoked freezing and flight could be observed. This was done by having the unconditioned stimulus be a "robot" traveling along a circular path at a given speed. Subsequent cue presentation elicited mild flight in controls and optogenetic activation of CGRP neurons significantly boosted this flight response. This demonstrated for the first time that CGRP neuron activation does more than promote freezing. The authors conclude by demonstrating that bidirectional modulation of CGRP neuron activity bidirectionally affects freezing in a traditional fear conditioning setting and affects both freezing and flight in a setting in which the robot served as the unconditioned stimulus. Altogether, this is a very strong set of experiments that greatly expand the role of parabrachial CGRP neurons in threat alarm.

Weaknesses

In all of their conditioning studies the authors did not include a control cue. For example, a sound presented the same number of times but unrelated to US (shock or robot) presentation. This does not detract from their behavioral findings. However, it means the authors do not know if the observed behavior is a consequence of pairing. Or is a behavior that would be observed to any cue played in the setting? This is particularly important for the experiments using the robot US.

The authors make claims about the contribution of CGRP neurons to freezing and fleeing behavior, however, all of the optogenetic manipulations are centered on the US presentation period. Presently, the experiments show a role for these neurons in processing aversive outcomes but show little role for these neurons in cue responding or behavior organizing. Claims of contributions to behavior should be substantiated by manipulations targeting the cue period.

Appraisal

The authors achieved their aims and have revealed a much greater role for parabrachial CGRP neurons in threat alarm.

Discussion

Understanding neural circuits for threat requires us (as a field) to examine diverse threat settings and behavioral outcomes. A commendable and rigorous aspect of this manuscript was the authors decision to use a new behavioral paradigm and measure multiple behavioral outcomes. Indeed, this manuscript would not have been nearly as impactful had they not done that. This novel behavior was combined with excellent recording and optogenetic manipulations - a standard the field should aspire to. Studies like this are the only way that we as a field will map complete neural circuits for threat.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

-Summary of the Authors' Aims:<br /> The authors aimed to investigate the role of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) neurons in the parabrachial nucleus (PBN) in modulating defensive behaviors in response to threats. They sought to determine whether these neurons, previously shown to be involved in passive freezing behavior, also play a role in active defensive behaviors, such as fleeing, when faced with imminent threats.

-Major Strengths and Weaknesses of the Methods and Results:<br /> The authors utilized an innovative approach by employing a predator-like robot to create a naturalistic threat scenario. This method allowed for a detailed observation of both passive and active defensive behaviors in mice. The combination of electrophysiology, optogenetics, and behavioral analysis provided a comprehensive examination of CGRP neuron activity and its influence on defensive behaviors. The study's strengths lie in its robust methodology, clear results, and the multi-faceted approach that enhances the validity of the findings.

No notable weakness found.

-Appraisal of Aims and Results:<br /> The authors successfully achieved their aims by demonstrating that CGRP neurons in the PBN modulate both passive and active defensive behaviors. The results clearly show that activation of these neurons enhances fear memory and promotes conditioned fleeing behavior, while inhibition reduces these responses. The study provides strong evidence supporting the hypothesis that CGRP neurons act as a comprehensive alarm system in the brain.

-Impact on the Field and Utility of Methods and Data:<br /> This work has significant implications for the field of neuroscience, particularly in understanding the neural mechanisms underlying adaptive defensive behaviors. The innovative use of a predator-like robot to simulate naturalistic threats adds ecological validity to the findings and may inspire future studies to adopt similar approaches. The comprehensive analysis of CGRP neuron activity and its role in defensive behaviors provides valuable data that could be useful for researchers studying fear conditioning, neural circuitry, and behavior modulation.

-Additional Context:<br /> The study builds on previous research that primarily focused on the role of CGRP neurons in passive defensive responses, such as freezing. By extending this research to include active responses, the authors have provided a more complete picture of the role of these neurons in threat detection and response. The findings highlight the versatility of CGRP neurons in modulating different types of defensive behaviors based on the perceived intensity and immediacy of threats.

Overall, this manuscript makes a significant contribution to our understanding of the neural basis of defensive behaviors and offers valuable methodological insights for future research in the field.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Strengths:<br /> The study used optogenetics together with in vivo electrophysiology to monitor CGRP neuron activity in response to various aversive stimuli including robot chasing to determine whether they encode noxious stimuli differentially. The study used an interesting conditioning paradigm to investigate the role of CGRP neurons in the PBN in both freezing and flight behaviors.

Weakness:<br /> The major weakness of this study is that the chasing robot threat conditioning model elicits weak unconditioned and conditioned flight responses, making it difficult to interpret the robustness of the findings. Furthermore, the conclusion that the CGRP neurons are capable of inducing flight is not substantiated by the data. No manipulations are made to influence the flight behavior of the mouse. Instead, the manipulations are designed to alter the intensity of the unconditioned stimulus.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This manuscript by Capitani et al. extends previous studies of ion channel expression in triple-negative breast cancer cell lines. Probing four phenotypically different breast cancer cell lines, they used co-IP and confocal immunofluorescence (IF) colocalization to reveal that beta1 integrin forms a complex with the neonatal form of the Na+ channel NaV1.5 (nNaV1.5) and the Na+/H+ antiporter NHE1 in addition to previously reported hERG1. They used siRNA to show that silencing beta1 results in a co-depletion of hERG and Nav1.5, further supporting the conclusion that they form a complex; a complementary enhancement of Na current with increased hERG expression was also demonstrated. These data compellingly describe a complex of membrane proteins unregulated in breast cancer and thus present novel potential targets for treatment.

There are several concerns with experimental approaches. How fluorescence measurements were compared and controlled among experiments was not described, and masks drawn to define membrane expression seemed arbitrary, and included in some cases large sections of cytoplasm. There are issues associated with the use of channel blocking agents and a bifunctional small-chain antibody that are not well rationalized. Why are they being used, to test what hypotheses or disrupt what processes? The extremely high concentrations of E-4031 (4000x IC50 for block), e.g., are not expected to have selective actions. The effects of E-4031 at high concentrations altering cytoskeleton properties associated with invasiveness (and thus cancer progression) are questionable. There are numerous problems with co-IPs together carried out together with knock-down, which in one case depleted the protein targeted by the primary IP antibody. Western blots (WB) were quantified by comparing treatment to control, which does not control for loading errors. The control and treated signals should be divided by the respective tubulin signals to control for loading errors. Then the treated value can be compared with the control.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The manuscript by Chiara Capitani and Annarosa Arcangeli reports the identification of a complex comprising NHE1,hERG1, β1 integrin, and NaV1.5 on the plasma membrane of breast cancer cells. The authors further investigated the mutual regulatory interactions among these proteins using Western blotting and co-immunoprecipitation assays. They also examined the downstream signaling pathways associated with this complex and assessed its impact on the malignant behavior of breast cancer cells.

Strengths

The manuscript used different breast cancer cell lines and combined Western blot, immunostaining, and electrophysiology to provide evidence for the proposed complex. The inhibitors are also used to test the requirement of channel activity to function in the development of breast cancer cells with in-vitro studies.

Weaknesses

The data shown in this manuscript include the western blots that are cropped and imaged separately to draw conclusions about protein levels and changes in immunoprecipitation. These cannot be done on separate, cropped blots but must be imaged together to make these comparisons.

Antibodies used for hERG, NaV1.5 and β1 integrin must be validated to work for IP using KO or KD cell lines for the respective proteins to demonstrate specificity. The same goes for all the immunofluorescence imaging shown in the manuscript as these are all key pieces of data to support the conclusions.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors examined the hypothesis that plasma ApoM, which carries sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) and activates vascular S1P receptors to inhibit vascular leakage, is modulated by SGLT2 inhibitors (SGLTi) during endotoxemia. They also propose that this mechanism is mediated by SGLTi regulation of LRP2/ megalin in the kidney and that this mechanism is critical for endotoxin-induced vascular leak and myocardial dysfunction. The hypothesis is novel and potentially exciting. However, the author's experiments lack critical controls, lack rigor in multiple aspects, and overall does not support the conclusions.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Apolipoprotein M (ApoM) is a plasma carrier for the vascular protective lipid mediator sphingosine 1-phospate (S1P). The plasma levels of S1P and its chaperones ApoM and albumin rapidly decline in patients with severe sepsis, but the mechanisms for such reductions and their consequences for cardiovascular health remain elusive. In this study, Ripoll and colleagues demonstrate that the sodium-glucose co-transporter inhibitor dapagliflizin (Dapa) can preserve serum ApoM levels as well as cardiac function after LPS treatment of mice with diet-induced obesity. They further provide data to suggest that Dapa preserves serum ApoM by increasing megalin-mediated reabsorption of ApoM in renal proximal tubules and that ApoM improves vascular integrity in LPS treated mice. These observations put forward a potential therapeutic approach to sustain vascular protective S1P signaling that could be relevant to other conditions of systemic inflammation where plasma levels of S1P decrease. However, although the authors are careful with their statements, the study falls short of directly implicating megalin in ApoM reabsorption and of ApoM/S1P depletion in LPS-induced cardiac dysfunction and the protective effects of Dapa.

The observations reported in this study are exciting and potentially of broad interest. The paper is well written and concise, and the statements made are mostly supported by the data presented. However, the mechanism proposed and implied is mostly based on circumstantial evidence, and the paper could be substantially improved by directly addressing the role of megalin in ApoM reabsorption and serum ApoM and S1P levels and the importance of ApoM for the preservation for cardiac function during endotoxemia. Some observations that are not necessarily in line with the model proposed should also be discussed.

The authors show that Dapa preserves serum ApoM and cardiac function in LPS-treated obese mice. However, the evidence they provide to suggest that ApoM may be implicated in the protective effect of Dapa on cardiac function is indirect. Direct evidence could be sought by addressing the effect of Dapa on cardiac function in LPS treated ApoM deficient and littermate control mice (with DIO if necessary).

The authors also suggest that higher ApoM levels in mice treated with Dapa and LPS reflect increased megalin-mediated ApoM reabsorption and that this preserves S1PR signaling. This could be addressed more directly by assessing the clearance of labelled ApoM, by addressing the impact of megalin inhibition or deficiency on ApoM clearance in this context, and by measuring S1P as well as ApoM in serum samples.

Methods: More details should be provided in the manuscript for how ApoM deficient and transgenic mice were generated, on sex and strain background, and on whether or not littermate controls were used. For intravital microscopy, more precision is needed on how vessel borders were outland and if this was done with or without regard for FITC-dextran. Please also specify the type of vessel chosen and considerations made with regard to blood flow and patency of the vessels analyzed. For statistical analyses, data from each mouse should be pooled before performing statistical comparisons. The criteria used for choice of test should be outlined as different statistical tests are used for similar datasets. For all data, please be consistent in the use of post-tests and in the presentation of comparisons. In other words, if the authors choose to only display test results for groups that are significantly different, this should be done in all cases. And if comparisons are made between all groups, this should be done in all cases for similar sets of data.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The authors have performed well designed experiments that elucidate the protective role of Dapa in sepsis model of LPS. This model shows that Dapa works, in part, by increasing expression of the receptor LRP2 in the kidney, that maintains circulating ApoM levels. ApoM binds to S1P which then interacts with the S1P receptor stimulating cardiac function, epithelial and endothelial barrier function, thereby maintaining intravascular volume and cardiac output in the setting of severe inflammation. The authors used many experimental models, including transgenic mice, as well as several rigorous and reproducible techniques to measure the relevant parameters of cardiac, renal, vascular, and immune function. Furthermore, they employ a useful inhibitor of S1P function to show pharmacologically the essential role for this agonist in most but not all the benefits of Dapa. A strength of the paper is the identification of the pathway responsible for the cardioprotective effects of SGLT2is that may yield additional therapeutic targets. There are some weaknesses in the paper, such as, studying only male mice, as well as providing a power analysis to justify the number of animals used throughout their experimentation. Overall, the paper should have a significant impact on the scientific community because the SGLT2i drugs are likely to find many uses in inflammatory diseases and metabolic diseases. This paper provides support for an important mechanism by which they work in conditions of severe sepsis and hemodynamic compromise.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This paper proposes a novel framework for explaining patterns of generalization of force field learning to novel limb configurations. The paper considers three potential coordinate systems: cartesian, joint-based, and object-based. The authors propose a model in which the forces predicted under these different coordinate frames are combined according to the expected variability of produced forces. The authors show, across a range of changes in arm configurations, that the generalization of a specific force field is quite well accounted for by the model.

The paper is well-written and the experimental data are very clear. The patterns of generalization exhibited by participants - the key aspect of the behavior that the model seeks to explain - are clear and consistent across participants. The paper clearly illustrates the importance of considering multiple coordinate frames for generalization, building on previous work by Berniker and colleagues (JNeurophys, 2014). The specific model proposed in this paper is parsimonious, but there remain a number of questions about its conceptual premises and the extent to which its predictions improve upon alternative models.

A major concern is with the model's premise. It is loosely inspired by cue integration theory but is really proposed in a fairly ad hoc manner, and not really concretely founded on firm underlying principles. It's by no means clear that the logic from cue integration can be extrapolated to the case of combining different possible patterns of generalization. I think there may in fact be a fundamental problem in treating this control problem as a cue-integration problem. In classic cue integration theory, the various cues are assumed to be independent observations of a single underlying variable. In this generalization setting, however, the different generalization patterns are NOT independent; if one is true, then the others must inevitably not be. For this reason, I don't believe that the proposed model can really be thought of as a normative or rational model (hence why I describe it as 'ad hoc'). That's not to say it may not ultimately be correct, but I think the conceptual justification for the model needs to be laid out much more clearly, rather than simply by alluding to cue-integration theory and using terms like 'reliability' throughout.

A more rational model might be based on Bayesian decision theory. Under such a model, the motor system would select motor commands that minimize some expected loss, averaging over the various possible underlying 'true' coordinate systems in which to generalize. It's not entirely clear without developing the theory a bit exactly how the proposed noise-based theory might deviate from such a Bayesian model. But the paper should more clearly explain the principles/assumptions of the proposed noise-based model and should emphasize how the model parallels (or deviates from) Bayesian-decision-theory-type models.

Another significant weakness is that it's not clear how closely the weighting of the different coordinate frames needs to match the model predictions in order to recover the observed generalization patterns. Given that the weighting for a given movement direction is over-parametrized (i.e. there are 3 variable weights (allowing for decay) predicting a single observed force level, it seems that a broad range of models could generate a reasonable prediction. It would be helpful to compare the predictions using the weighting suggested by the model with the predictions using alternative weightings, e.g. a uniform weighting, or the weighting for a different posture. In fact, Fig. 7 shows that uniform weighting accounts for the data just as well as the noise-based model in which the weighting varies substantially across directions. A more comprehensive analysis comparing the proposed noise-based weightings to alternative weightings would be helpful to more convincingly argue for the specificity of the noise-based predictions being necessary. The analysis in the appendix was not that clearly described, but seemed to compare various potential fitted mixtures of coordinate frames, but did not compare these to the noise-based model predictions.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Leib & Franklin assessed how the adaptation of intersegmental dynamics of the arm generalizes to changes in different factors: areas of extrinsic space, limb configurations, and 'object-based' coordinates. Participants reached in many different directions around 360{degree sign}, adapting to velocity-dependent curl fields that varied depending on the reach angle. This learning was measured via the pattern of forces expressed in upon the channel wall of "error clamps" that were randomly sampled from each of these different directions. The authors employed a clever method to predict how this pattern of forces should change if the set of targets was moved around the workspace. Some sets of locations resulted in a large change in joint angles or object-based coordinates, but Cartesian coordinates were always the same. Across three separate experiments, the observed shifts in the generalized force pattern never corresponded to a change that was made relative to any one reference frame. Instead, the authors found that the observed pattern of forces could be explained by a weighted combination of the change in Cartesian, joint, and object-based coordinates across test and training contexts.

In general, I believe the authors make a good argument for this specific mixed weighting of different contexts. I have a few questions that I hope are easily addressed.

Movements show different biases relative to the reach direction. Although very similar across people, this function of biases shifts when the arm is moved around the workspace (Ghilardi, Gordon, and Ghez, 1995). The origin of these biases is thought to arise from several factors that would change across the different test and training workspaces employed here (Vindras & Viviani, 2005). My concern is that the baseline biases in these different contexts are different and that rather the observed change in the force pattern across contexts isn't a function of generalization, but a change in underlying biases. Baseline force channel measurements were taken in the different workspace locations and conditions, so these could be used to show whether such biases are meaningfully affecting the results.

Experiment 3, Test 1 has data that seems the worst fit with the overall story. I thought this might be an issue, but this is also the test set for a potentially awkwardly long arm. My understanding of the object-based coordinate system is that it's primarily a function of the wrist angle, or perceived angle, so I am a little confused why the length of this stick is also different across the conditions instead of just a different angle. Could the length be why this data looks a little odd?

The manuscript is written and organized in a way that focuses heavily on the noise element of the model. Other than it being reasonable to add noise to a model, it's not clear to me that the noise is adding anything specific. It seems like the model makes predictions based on how many specific components have been rotated in the different test conditions. I fear I'm just being dense, but it would be helpful to clarify whether the noise itself (and inverse variance estimation) are critical to why the model weights each reference frame how it does or whether this is just a method for scaling the weight by how much the joints or whatever have changed. It seems clear that this noise model is better than weighting by energy and smoothness.

Are there any force profiles for individual directions that are predicted to change shape substantially across some of these assorted changes in training and test locations (rather than merely being scaled)? If so, this might provide another test of the hypotheses.

I don't believe the decay factor that was used to scale the test functions was specified in the text, although I may have just missed this. It would be a good idea to state what this factor is where relevant in the text.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The author proposed the minimum variance principle in the memory representation in addition to two alternative theories of the minimum energy and the maximum smoothness. The strength of this paper is the matching between the prediction data computed from the explicit equation and the behavioral data taken in different conditions. The idea of the weighting of multiple coordinate systems is novel and is also able to reconcile a debate in previous literature.

The weakness is that although each model is based on an optimization principle, but the derivation process is not written in the method section. The authors did not write about how they can derive these weighting factors from these computational principles. Thus, it is not clear whether these weighting factors are relevant to these theories or just hacking methods. Suppose the author argues that this is the result of the minimum variance principle. In that case, the authors should show a process of how to derive these weighting factors as a result of the optimization process to minimize these cost functions.

In addition, I am concerned that the proposed model can cancel the property of the coordinate system by the predicted variance, and it can work for any coordinate system, even one that is not used in the human brain. When the applied force is given in Cartesian coordinates, the directionality in the generalization ability of the memory of the force field is characterized by the kinematic relationship (Jacobian) between the Cartesian coordinate and the coordinate of interest (Cartesian, joint, and object) as shown in Equation 3. At the same time, when a displacement (epsilon) is considered in a space and a corresponding displacement is linked with kinematic equations (e.g., joint displacement and hand displacement in 2 joint arms in this paper), the generated variances in different coordinate systems are linked with the kinematic equation each other (Jacobian). Thus, how a small noise in a certain coordinate system generates the hand force noise (sigma_x, sigma_j, sigma_o) is also characterized by the kinematics (Jacobian). Thus, when the predicted forcefield (F_c, F_j, F_o) was divided by the variance (F_c/sigma_c^2, F_j/sigma_j^2, F_o/sigma_o^2, ), the directionality of the generalization force which is characterized by the Jacobian is canceled by the directionality of the sigmas which is characterized by the Jacobian. Thus, as it has been read out from Fig*D and E top, the weight in E-top of each coordinate system is always the inverse of the shift of force from the test force by which the directionality of the generalization is always canceled. Once this directionality is canceled, no matter how to compute the weighted sum, it can replicate the memorized force. Thus, this model always works to replicate the test force no matter which coordinate system is assumed. Thus, I am suspicious of the falsifiability of this computational model. This model is always true no matter which coordinate system is assumed. Even though they use, for instance, the robot coordinate system, which is directly linked to the participant's hand with the kinematic equation (Jacobian), they can replicate this result. But in this case, the model would be nonsense. The falsifiability of this model was not explicitly written.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Padilha et al. aimed to find prospective metabolite biomarkers in serum of children aged 6-59 months that were indicative of neurodevelopmental outcomes. The authors leveraged data and samples from the cross-sectional Brazilian National Survey on Child Nutrition (ENANI-2019), and an untargeted multisegment injection-capillary electrophoresis-mass spectrometry (MSI-CE-MS) approach was used to measure metabolites in serum samples (n=5004) which were identified via a large library of standards. After correlating the metabolite levels against the developmental quotient (DQ), or the degree of which age-appropriate developmental milestones were achieved as evaluated by the Survey of Well-being of Young Children, serum concentrations of phenylacetylglutamine (PAG), cresol sulfate (CS), hippuric acid (HA) and trimethylamine-N-oxide (TMAO) were significantly negatively associated with DQ. Examination of the covariates revealed that the negative associations of PAG, HA, TMAO and valine (Val) with DQ were specific to younger children (-1 SD or 19 months old), whereas creatinine (Crtn) and methylhistidine (MeHis) had significant associations with DQ that changed direction with age (negative at -1 SD or 19 months old, and positive at +1 SD or 49 months old). Further, mediation analysis demonstrated that PAG was a significant mediator for the relationship of delivery mode, child's diet quality and child fiber intake with DQ. HA and TMAO were additional significant mediators of the relationship of child fiber intake with DQ.

Strengths of this study include the large cohort size and study design allowing for sampling at multiple time points along with neurodevelopmental assessment and a relatively detailed collection of potential confounding factors including diet. The untargeted metabolomics approach was also robust and comprehensive allowing for level 1 identification of a wide breadth of potential biomarkers. Given their methodology, the authors should be able to achieve their aim of identifying candidate serum biomarkers of neurodevelopment for early childhood. The results of this work would be of broad interest to researchers who are interested in understanding the biological underpinnings of development and also for tracking development in pediatric populations, as it provides insight for putative mechanisms and targets from a relevant human cohort that can be probed in future studies. Such putative mechanisms and targets are currently lacking in the field due to challenges in conducting these kind of studies, so this work is important.

However, in the manuscript's current state, the presentation and analysis of data impede the reader from fully understanding and interpreting the study's findings. Particularly, the handling of confounding variables is incomplete. There is a different set of confounders listed in Table 1 versus Supplementary Table 1 versus Methods section Covariates versus Figure 4. For example, Region is listed in Supplementary Table 1 but not in Table 1, and Mode of Delivery is listed in Table 1 but not in Supplementary Table 1. Many factors are listed in Figure 4 that aren't mentioned anywhere else in the paper, such as gestational age at birth or maternal pre-pregnancy obesity.

The authors utilize the directed acrylic graph (DAG) in Figure 4 to justify the further investigation of certain covariates over others. However, the lack of inclusion of the microbiome in the DAG, especially considering that most of the study findings were microbial-derived metabolite biomarkers, appears to be a fundamental flaw. Sanitation and micronutrients are proposed by the authors to have no effect on the host metabolome, yet sanitation and micronutrients have both been demonstrated in the literature to affect microbiome composition which can in turn affect the host metabolome.

Additionally, the authors emphasized as part of the study selection criteria the following,<br /> "Due to the costs involved in the metabolome analysis, it was necessary to further reduce the sample size. Then, samples were stratified by age groups (6 to 11, 12 to 23, and 24 to 59 months) and health conditions related to iron metabolism, such as anemia and nutrient deficiencies. The selection process aimed to represent diverse health statuses, including those with no conditions, with specific deficiencies, or with combinations of conditions. Ultimately, through a randomized process that ensured a balanced representation across these groups, a total of 5,004 children were selected for the final sample (Figure 1)."

Therefore, anemia and nutrient deficiencies are assumed by the reader to be important covariates, yet, the data on the final distribution of these covariates in the study cohort is not presented, nor are these covariates examined further.

The inclusion of specific covariates in Table 1, Supplementary Table 1, the statistical models, and the mediation analysis is thus currently biased as it is not well justified.

Finally, it is unclear what the partial-least squares regression adds to the paper, other than to discard potentially interesting metabolites found by the initial correlation analysis.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

A strength of the work lies in the number of children Padilha et al. were able to assess (5,004 children aged 6-59 months) and in the extensive screening that the Authors performed for each participant. This type of large-scale study is uncommon in low-to-middle-income countries such as Brazil.<br /> The Authors employ several approaches to narrow down the number of potentially causally associated metabolites.<br /> Could the Authors justify on what basis the minimum dietary diversity score was dichotomized? Were sensitivity analyses undertaken to assess the effect of this dichotomization on associations reported by the article? Consumption of each food group may have a differential effect that is obscured by this dichotomization.<br /> Could the Authors specify the statistical power associated with each analysis?<br /> Could the Authors describe in detail which metric they used to measure how predictive PLSR models are, and how they determined what the "optimal" number of components were?<br /> The Authors use directed acyclic graphs (DAG) to identify confounding variables of the association between metabolites and DQ. Could the dataset generated by the Authors have been used instead? Not all confounding variables identified in the literature may be relevant to the dataset generated by the Authors.<br /> Were the systematic reviews or meta-analyses used in the DAG performed by the Authors, or were they based on previous studies? If so, more information about the methodology employed and the studies included should be provided by the Authors.<br /> Approximately 72% of children included in the analyses lived in households with a monthly income superior to the Brazilian minimum wage. The cohort is also biased towards households with a higher level of education. Both of these measures correlate with developmental quotient. Could the Authors discuss how this may have affected their results and how generalizable they are?<br /> Further to this, could the Authors describe how inequalities in access to care in the Brazilian population may have affected their results? Could they have included a measure of this possible discrepancy in their analyses?<br /> The Authors state that the results of their study may be used to track children at risk for developmental delays. Could they discuss the potential for influencing policies and guidelines to address delayed development due to malnutrition and/or limited access to certain essential foods?

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The ENANI-2019 study provides valuable insights into child nutrition, development, and metabolomics in Brazil, highlighting both challenges and opportunities for improving child health outcomes through targeted interventions and further research.

Strengths of the methods and results:<br /> (1) The study utilizes data from the ENANI-2019 cohort, which was already existing. This cohort choice allows for longitudinal assessments and exploration of associations between metabolites and developmental outcomes. In addition, there was conservation of resources which are scanty in all settings in the current scenario.<br /> (2) The study aims to investigate the relationship between circulating metabolites (exposure) and early childhood development (outcome), specifically developmental quotient (DQ). The objectives are clearly stated, which facilitates focused research questions and hypotheses. The population that is studied is clearly mentioned.<br /> (3) The study accessed a large number of children under five years, with blood collected from a final sample size of 5,004 children. The exclusion of infants under six months due to venipuncture challenges and lack of reference values highlights practical considerations in research design.<br /> The study sample reflects a diverse range of children in terms of age, sex distribution, weight status, maternal education, and monthly family income. This diversity enhances the generalizability of findings across different sociodemographic groups within Brazil.<br /> (4) The study uses standardized measures (e.g., DQ assessments) and chronological age. Confounding variables, such as child's age, diet quality, and nutritional status, are carefully considered and incorporated into analyses through a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG). The mean DQ of 0.98 indicates overall developmental norms among the studied children, with variations noted across different demographic factors such as age, region, and maternal education. The prevalence of Minimum Dietary Diversity (MDD) being met by 59.3% of children underscores dietary patterns and their potential impact on health outcomes. The association between nutritional status (weight-for-height z-scores) and developmental outcomes (DQ) provides insights into the interplay between nutrition and child development.<br /> The study identified key metabolites associated with developmental quotient (DQ):<br /> Component 1: Branched-chain amino acids (Leucine, Isoleucine, Valine).<br /> Component 2: Uremic toxins (Cresol sulfate, Phenylacetylglutamine).<br /> Component 3: Betaine and amino acids (Glutamine, Asparagine).<br /> The study focused on several serum metabolites like PAG (phenylacetylglutamine), CS (p-cresyl sulfate), HA (hippuric acid), TMAO (trimethylamine-N-oxide), MeHis (methylhistidine), and Crtn (creatinine). These metabolites are implicated in various metabolic pathways linked to gut microbiota activity, amino acid metabolism, and dietary factors.<br /> These metabolites explained a significant portion of both metabolite variance (39.8%) and DQ variance (4.3%). The study suggests that these metabolites can be used as proxy measures of the gut microbiome in children.<br /> (5) The use of partial least square regression (PLSR) with cross-validation (80% training, 20% testing) which is a robust approach to identify metabolites predictive of DQ, which minimizes overfitting. This model allows for outliers to remain outliers for transparency.<br /> The Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) identifies and adjusts for confounding variables (e.g., child's diet quality, nutritional status) and strengthens the validity of findings by controlling for potential biases. Developmental and gender differences were studied by testing interactions with the age of the child and the sex.<br /> Mediation analysis exploring metabolites as potential mediators provides insights into underlying pathways linking exposures (e.g., diet, microbiome) with DQ.<br /> The use of Benjamini-Hochberg correction for multiple comparisons and bootstrap tests (5,000 iterations) enhances the reliability of results by controlling false discovery rates and assessing significance robustly.

Significant correlations between serum metabolites and DQ, particularly negative associations with certain metabolites like PAG and CS, suggest potential biomarkers or pathways influencing developmental outcomes. Notably, these associations varied with age, suggesting different metabolic impacts during early childhood development.

Weaknesses:<br /> (1) The data collected was incomplete especially those related to breastfeeding history and birth weight. These have been mentioned in the limitations of the study but yet might have been potential confounders or even factors leading to the particular identified metabolite state of the population.<br /> (2) Other tests than mediation analysis might have been used to ensure reliability and robustness of the data. How data was processed, data cleaning methods, how outliers were handled and sensitivity analyses would ensure robustness of the findings.<br /> (3) The generalizability of the data is not sound especially considering the children mostly belonged to a higher socioeconomic group in Brazil with mother or caregiver education being above a certain level. Comparative studies with children from other socio-economic groups and other cohorts might have been useful. Consideration of sample size adequacy and power analysis might have helped in generalizing the findings.<br /> (4) Caution is needed in interpreting causality from this data because of the nature of the study design Discussing alternative explanations and potential confounding factors in more depth could strengthen the conclusions.

Appraisal<br /> (1) The aims of the study were to identify associations between children's serum metabolome and Early Childhood development. This aim was met. The results do confirm their conclusions.<br /> Impact of the work on the field

(1) Unless actual gut microbiome of children in this age group from gut bacteria examination or gastrointestinal examination of the gut of children, the causality of gut metabolome on early childhood development cannot be established with certainty. Because this may not be possible in every situation, proxy methods such as the one elucidated here might be useful, considering the risk-benefit ratio.<br /> (2) More research is needed on this theme through longitudinal studies to validate these findings and explore underlying pathways involving gut-brain interactions and metabolic dysregulation.<br /> Other readings: Readers are advised to read other research from other countries and other languages to understand the connection between gut microbiome, metabolite spectra, and child development. In addition to study the effect of these factors on child mental development too.

Readers might consider the following questions:<br /> (1) Should investigators study the families through direct observation of diet and other factors to look for a connection between food taken in and gut microbiome and child development?<br /> (2) Can an examination of the mother's gut microbiome influence the child's microbiome? Can the mother or caregiver's microbiome influence early childhood development?<br /> (3) Is developmental quotient enough to study early childhood development? Is it comprehensive enough?

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, El Amri et al. are exploring the role of Marcks and Marcksl1 proteins during spinal cord development and regeneration in Xenopus. Using two different techniques to knockdown their expressions, they argue that these proteins are important for neural progenitors proliferation and neurites outgrowth in both contexts. Finally, using a pharmalogical approach, they suggest that Marcks and Marcksl1 work by modulating the activity of PLD and the levels of PIP2 whilst PKC could modulate Marcks activity.<br /> The strength of this manuscript resides in the ability of the authors to knockdown the expression of 4 different genes using 2 different methods to assess the role of this protein family during early development and regeneration at the late tadpole stage. This has always been a limiting factor in the field as the tools to perform conditional knockouts in Xenopus are very limited. However, this will not really be applicable to essential genes as it relies on the general knockdown of protein expression. The generation of antibodies able to detect endogenous Marcks/Marcksl1 is also a powerful tool to assess the extent to which the expression of these proteins is down-regulated.<br /> Whilst there is a great amount of data provided in this manuscript and there is strong evidence to show that Marcks are important for spinal cord development and regeneration, their roles in both contexts is not explored fully. The description of the effect of knocking down Marcks/Marcksl1 on neurons and progenitors is rather superficial and the evidence for the underlying mechanism underpinning their roles is not very convincing.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

M. El Amri et al., investigated the functions of Marcks and Marcks like 1 during spinal cord (SC) development and regeneration in Xenopus laevis. The authors rigorously performed loss of function with morpholino knock-down and CRISPR knock-out combining rescue experiments in developing spinal cord in embryo and regeneration in tadpole stage.

For the assays in the developing spinal cord, a unilateral approach (knock-down/out only one side of the embryo) allowed the authors to assess the gene functions by direct comparing one-side (e.g. mutated SC) to the other (e.g. wild type SC on the other side). For the assays in regenerating SC, the authors microinject CRISPR reagents into 1-cell stage embryo. When the embryo (F0 crispants) grew up to tadpole (stage 50), the SC was transected. They then assessed neurite outgrowth and progenitor cell proliferation. The validation of the phenotypes was mostly based on the quantification of immunostaining images (neurite outgrowth: acetylated tubulin, neural progenitor: sox2, sox3, proliferation: EdU, PH3), that are simple but robust enough to support their conclusions. In both SC development and regeneration, the authors found that Marcks and Marcksl1 were necessary for neurite outgrowth and neural progenitor cell proliferation.<br /> The authors performed rescue experiments on morpholino knock-down and CRISPR knock-out conditions by Marcks and Marcksl1 mRNA injection for SC development and pharmacological treatments for SC development and regeneration. The unilateral mRNA injection rescued the loss-of-function phenotype in the developing SC. To explore the signalling role of these molecules, they rescued the loss-of-function animals by pharmacological reagents They used S1P: PLD activator, FIPI: PLD inhibitor, NMI: PIP2 synthesis activator and ISA-2011B: PIP2 synthesis inhibitor. The authors found the activator treatment rescued neurite outgrowth and progenitor cell proliferation in loss of function conditions. From these results, the authors proposed PIP2 and PLD are the mediators of Marcks and Marcksl1 for neurite outgrowth and progenitor cell proliferation during SC development and regeneration. The results of the rescue experiments are particularly important to assess gene functions in loss of function assays, therefore, the conclusions are solid. In addition, they performed gain-of-function assays by unilateral Marcks or Marcksl1 mRNA injection showing that the injected side of the SC had more neurite outgrowth and proliferative progenitors. The conclusions are consistent with the loss-of-function phenotypes and the rescue results. Importantly, the authors showed the linkage of the phenotype and functional recovery by behavioral testing, that clearly showed the crispants with SC injury swam less distance than wild types with SC injury at 10-day post surgery.<br /> Prior to the functional assays, the authors analyzed the expression pattern of the genes by in situ hybridization and immunostaining in developing embryo and regenerating SC. They confirmed that the amount of protein expression was significantly reduced in the loss of function samples by immunostaining with the specific antibodies that they made for Marcks and Marcksl1. Although the expression patterns are mostly known in previous works during embryo genesis, the data provided appropriate information to readers about the expression and showed efficiency of the knock-out as well.

MARCKS family genes have been known to be expressed in the nervous system. However, few studies focus on the function in nerves. This research introduced these genes as new players during SC development and regeneration. These findings could attract broader interests from the people in nervous disease model and medical field. Although it is a typical requirement for loss of function assays in Xenopus laevis, I believe that the efficient knock-out for four genes by CRISPR/Cas9 was derived from their dedication of designing, testing and validation of the gRNAs and is exemplary.

Weaknesses,<br /> 1) Why did the authors choose Marcks and Marcksl1?<br /> The authors mentioned that these genes were identified with a recent proteomic analysis of comparing SC regenerative tadpole and non-regenerative froglet (Line (L) 54-57). However, although it seems the proteomic analysis was their own dataset, the authors did not mention any details to select promising genes for the functional assays (this article). In the proteomic analysis, there must be other candidate genes that might be more likely factors related to SC development and regeneration based on previous studies, but it was unclear what the criteria to select Marcks and Marcksl1 was.

2) Gene knock-out experiments with F0 crispants,<br /> The authors described that they designed and tested 18 sgRNAs to find the most efficient and consistent gRNA (L191-195). However, it cannot guarantee the same phenotypes practically, due to, for example, different injection timing, different strains of Xenopus laevis, etc. Although the authors mentioned the concerns of mosaicism by themselves (L180-181, L289-292) and immunostaining results nicely showed uniformly reduced Marcks and Marcksl1 expression in the crispants, they did not refer to this issue explicitly.

3) Limitations of pharmacological compound rescue<br /> In the methods part, the authors describe that they performed titration experiments for the drugs (L702-704), that is a minimal requirement for this type of assay. However, it is known that a well characterized drug is applied, if it is used in different concentrations, the drug could target different molecules (Gujral TS et al., 2014 PNAS). Therefore, it is difficult to eliminate possibilities of side effects and off targets by testing only a few compounds.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

El Amri et al conducted an analysis on the function of marcks and marcksl in Xenopus spinal cord development and regeneration. Their study revealed these proteins are crucial for neurite outgrowth and cell proliferation, including Sox2+ progenitors. Furthermore, they suggested these genes may act through the PLD pathway. The study is well-executed with appropriate controls and validation experiments, distinguishing it from typical regeneration research by including behavioral assays. The manuscript is commendable for its quantifications, literature referencing, careful conclusions, and detailed methods. Conclusions are well-supported by the experiments performed in this study. Overall, this manuscript contributes to the field of spinal cord regeneration and sets a good example for future research in this area.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This is a short self-contained study with a straightforward and interesting message. The paper focuses on settling whether PKA activation requires dissociation of the catalytic and regulatory subunits. This debate has been ongoing for ~ 30 years, with renewed interest in the question following a publication in Science, 2017 (Smith et al.). Here, Xiong et al demonstrate that fusing the R and C subunits together (in the same way as Smith et al) prevents the proper function of PKA in neurons. This provides further support for the dissociative activation model - it is imperative that researchers have clarity on this topic since it is so fundamental to building accurate models of localised cAMP signalling in all cell types. Furthermore, their experiments highlight that C subunit dissociation into spines is essential for structural LTP, which is an interesting finding in itself. They also show that preventing C subunit dissociation reduces basal AMPA receptor currents to the same extent as knocking down the C subunit. Overall, the paper will interest both cAMP researchers and scientists interested in fundamental mechanisms of synaptic regulation.

Strengths:

The experiments are technically challenging and well executed. Good use of control conditions e.g untransfected controls in Figure 4.

Weaknesses:

The novelty is lessened given the same team has shown dissociation of the C subunit into dendritic spines from RIIbeta subunits localised to dendritic shafts before (Tillo et al., 2017). Nevertheless, the experiments with RII-C fusion proteins are novel and an important addition.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

PKA is a major signaling protein which has been long studied and is vital for synaptic plasticity. Here, the authors examine the mechanism of PKA activity and specifically focus on addressing the question of PKA dissociation as a major mode of its activation in dendritic spines. This would potentially allow to determine the precise mechanisms of PKA activation and address how it maintains spatial and temporal signaling specificity.

Strengths:

The results convincingly show that PKA activity is governed by the subcellular localization in dendrites and spines and is mediated via subunit dissociation. The authors make use of organotypic hippocampal slice cultures, where they use pharmacology, glutamate uncaging, and electrophysiological recordings.

Overall, the experiments and data presented are well executed. The experiments all show that at least in the case of synaptic activity, distribution of PKA-C to dendritic spines is necessary and sufficient for PKA mediated functional and structural plasticity.<br /> The authors were able to persuasively support their claim that PKA subunit dissociation is necessary for its function and localization in dendritic spines. This conclusion is important to better understand the mechanisms of PKA activity and its role in synaptic plasticity.

Weaknesses:

While the experiments are indeed convincing and well executed, the data presented is similar to previously published work from the Zhong lab (Tillo et al., 2017, Zhong et al 2009). This reduces the novelty of the findings in terms of re-distribution of PKA subunits, which was already established, at least to some degree.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Xiong et al. investigated the debated mechanism of PKA activation using hippocampal CA1 neurons under pharmacological and synaptic stimulations. Examining all major PKA-R isoforms in these neurons, they found that a portion of PKA-C dissociates from PKA-R and translocate into dendritic spines following norepinephrine bath application. Additionally, their use of a non-dissociable form of PKA demonstrates its essential role in structural long-term potentiation (LTP) induced by two-photon glutamate uncaging, as well as in maintaining normal synaptic transmission, as verified by electrophysiology. This study presents a valuable finding on the activation-dependent re-distribution of PKA catalytic subunits in CA1 neurons, a process vital for synaptic functionality. The robust evidence provided by the authors makes this work particularly relevant for biologists seeking to understand PKA activation mechanisms, its downstream effects, and synaptic plasticity.

Strengths:

The study is methodologically robust, particularly in the application of two-photon imaging and electrophysiology. The experiments are well-designed with effective controls and a comprehensive analysis. The credibility of the data is further enhanced by the research team's previous works in related experiments. The study provides sufficient evidence to support the classical model of PKA activation via dissociation in neurons.

Weaknesses:

No specific weaknesses are noted in the current study; future research could provide additional insights by exploring PKA dissociation under varied physiological conditions, particularly in vivo, to further validate and expand upon these findings.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors examined the salt-dependent phase separation of the low-complexity domain of hnRN-PA1 (A1-LCD). Using all-atom molecular dynamics simulations, they identified four distinct classes of salt dependence in the phase separation of intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs), which can be predicted based on their amino acid composition. However, the simulations and analysis, in their current form, are inadequate and incomplete.

Strengths:

The authors attempt to unravel the mechanistic insights into the interplay between salt and protein phase separation, which is important given the complex behavior of salt effects on this process. Their effort to correlate the influence of salt on the low-complexity domain of hnRNPA1 (A1-LCD) with a range of other proteins known to undergo salt-dependent phase separation is an interesting and valuable topic.

Weaknesses:

Based on the reviewer's assessment of the manuscript, the following points were raised:

(1) The simulation duration is too short to draw comprehensive conclusions about phase separation.<br /> (2) There are concerns regarding the convergence of the simulations, particularly as highlighted in Figure 2A.<br /> (3) The simulation begins with a protein concentration of 3.5 mM ("we built an 8-copy model for the dense phase (with an initial concentration of 3.5 mM)"), which is high for phase separation studies. The reviewer questions the use of the term "dense phase" and suggests that the authors conduct a clearer analysis depicting the coexistence of both the dilute and dense phases to represent a steady state. Without this, the realism of the described phenomena is doubtful. Commenting on phase separation under conditions that don't align with typical phase separation parameters is not acceptable.<br /> (4) The inference that "Each Arg sidechain often coordinates two Cl- ions simultaneously, but each Lys sidechain coordinates only one Cl- ion" is questioned. According to Supplementary Figure 2A, Lys seems to coordinate with Cl- ions more frequently than Arg.<br /> (5) The authors are requested to update the figure captions for Supplementary Figures 2 and 3, specifying which system the analyses were performed on.<br /> (6) It is difficult to observe a clear trend due to irregularities in the data. Although the authors have included a red dotted line in the figures, the trend is not monotonic. The reviewer expresses concerns about significant conclusions drawn from these figures (e.g., Figure 2C, Figure 5A, Supplementary Figure 1).<br /> (7) Given the error in the radius of gyration (Rg) calculations, the reviewer questions the validity of drawing conclusions from this data.<br /> (8) The pair correlation function values in Figure 5E and supplementary figure 4 show only minor differences, and the reviewer questions whether these differences are significant.<br /> (9) Previous reports suggest that, upon self-assembly, protein chains extend within the condensate, leading to a decrease in intramolecular contacts. However, the authors show an increase in intramolecular contacts with increasing salt concentration (Figure 2C), which contradicts prior studies. The reviewer advises the authors to carefully review this and provide justification.<br /> (10) A systematic comparison of estimated parameters with varying salt concentrations is required. Additionally, the authors should provide potential differences in salt concentrations between the dilute and condensed phases.<br /> (11) The reviewer finds that the majority of the data presented shows no significant alteration with changes in salt concentration, yet the authors have made strong conclusions regarding salt activity.

The manuscript lacks sufficient scientific details of the calculations.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This is an interesting computational study addressing how salt affects the assembly of biomolecular condensates. The simulation data are valuable as they provide a degree of atomistic details regarding how small salt ions modulate interactions among intrinsically disordered proteins with charged residues, namely via Debye-like screening that weakens the effective electrostatic interactions among the polymers, or through bridging interactions that allow interactions between like charges from different polymer chains to become effectively attractive (as illustrated, e.g., by the radial distribution functions in Supplementary Information). However, this manuscript has several shortcomings: (i) Connotations of the manuscript notwithstanding, many of the authors' concepts about salt effects on biomolecular condensates have been put forth by theoretical models, at least back in 2020 and even earlier. Those earlier works afford extensive information such as considerations of salt concentrations inside and outside the condensate (tie-lines). But the authors do not appear to be aware of this body of prior works and therefore missed the opportunity to build on these previous advances and put the present work with its complementary advantages in structural details in the proper context. (ii) There are significant experimental findings regarding salt effects on condensate formation [which have been modeled more recently] that predate the A1-LCD system (ref.19) addressed by the present manuscript. This information should be included, e.g., in Table 1, for sound scholarship and completeness. (iii) The strengths and limitations of the authors' approach vis-à-vis other theoretical approaches should be discussed with some degree of thoroughness (e.g., how the smallness of the authors' simulation system may affect the nature of the "phase transition" and the information that can be gathered regarding salt concentration inside vs. outside the "condensate" etc.).

Comments on revised version:

The authors have adequately addressed my previous concerns and suggestions. The manuscript is now significantly improved. The new results and analyses provided by the authors represent a substantial advance in our understanding of the role of electrostatics in the assembly of biomolecular condensates.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This study investigates the salt-dependent phase separation of A1-LCD, an intrinsically disordered region of hnRNPA1 implicated in neurodegenerative diseases. The authors employ all-atom molecular dynamics (MD) simulations to elucidate the molecular mechanisms by which salt influences A1-LCD phase separation. Contrary to typical intrinsically disordered protein (IDP) behavior, A1-LCD phase separation is enhanced by NaCl concentrations above 100 mM. The authors identify two direct effects of salt: neutralization of the protein's net charge and bridging between protein chains, both promoting condensation. They also uncover an indirect effect, where high salt concentrations strengthen pi-type interactions by reducing water availability. These findings provide a detailed molecular picture of the complex interplay between electrostatic interactions, ion binding, and hydration in IDP phase separation.

Strengths:

• Novel Insight: The study challenges the prevailing view that salt generally suppresses IDP phase separation, highlighting A1-LCD's unique behavior.<br /> • Rigorous Methodology: The authors utilize all-atom MD simulations, a powerful computational tool, to investigate the molecular details of salt-protein interactions.<br /> • Comprehensive Analysis: The study systematically explores a wide range of salt concentrations, revealing a nuanced picture of salt effects on phase separation.<br /> • Clear Presentation: The manuscript is well-written and logically structured, making the findings accessible to a broad audience.

Weaknesses:

• Limited Scope: The study focuses solely on the truncated A1-LCD, omitting simulations of the full-length protein. This limitation reduces the study's comparative value, as the authors note that the full-length protein exhibits typical salt-dependent behavior. However, given the much larger size of the full-length protein, it is acceptable to omit it given the current computing resources available.

Overall, this manuscript represents a significant contribution to the field of IDP phase separation. The authors' findings provide valuable insights into the molecular mechanisms by which salt modulates this process, with potential implications for understanding and treating neurodegenerative diseases.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Crosslinking mass spectrometry has become an important tool in structural biology, providing information about protein complex architecture, binding sites and interfaces, and conformational changes. One key challenge of this approach represents the quantitation of crosslinking data to interrogate differential binding states and distributions of conformational states.

Here, Luo and Ranish present a novel class of isobaric crosslinkers ("Qlinkers"), conduct proof-of-concept benchmarking experiments on known protein complexes, and show example applications on selected target proteins. The data are solid and this could well be an exciting, convincing new approach in the field if the quantitation strategy is made more comprehensive and the quantitative power of isobaric labeling is fully leveraged as outlined below. It's a promising proof-of-concept, and potentially of broad interest for structural biologists.

Strengths:

The authors demonstrate the synthesis, application, and quantitation of their "Q2linkers", enabling relative quantitation of two conditions against each other. In benchmarking experiments, the Q2linkers provide accurate quantitation in mixing experiments. Then the authors show applications of Q2linkers on MBP, Calmodulin, selected transcription factors, and polymerase II, investigating protein binding, complex assembly, and conformational dynamics of the respective target proteins. For known interactions, their findings are in line with previous studies, and they show some interesting data for TFIIA/TBP/TFIIB complex formation and conformational changes in pol II upon Rbp4/7 binding.

Weaknesses:

This is an elegant approach but the power of isobaric mass tags is not fully leveraged in the current manuscript.

First, "only" Q2linkers are used. This means only two conditions can be compared. Theoretically, higher-plexed Qlinkers should be accessible and would also be needed to make this a competitive method against other crosslinking quantitation strategies. As it is, two conditions can still be compared relatively easily using LFQ - or stable-isotope-labeling based approaches. A "Q5linker" would be a really useful crosslinker, which would open up comprehensive quantitative XLMS studies.

Second, the true power of isobaric labeling, accurate quantitation across multiple samples in a single run, is not fully exploited here. The authors only show differential trends for their interaction partners or different conformational states and do not make full quantitative use of their data or conduct statistical analyses. This should be investigated in more detail, e.g. examine Qlinker quantitation of MBP incubated with different concentrations of maltose or Calmodulin incubated with different concentrations of CBPs. Does Qlinker quantitation match ratios predicted using known binding constants or conformational state populations? Is it possible to extract ratios of protein populations in different conformations, assembly, or ligand-bound states?

With these two points addressed this approach could be an important and convincing tool for structural biologists.

Comments on latest version:

I raised only two points which they have not addressed: Higher multiplexing of Qlinkers (1) and experiments to assess the statistical power of their quantitation strategy (2).

I can see that point (1) requires substantial experimental efforts and synthesis of novel Qlinkers would be months of work. This is an editorial decision if the limited quantitative power of the "2-plex" approach they have right now is sufficient to support publication in eLife. While I like the approach, I feel it falls short of its potential in its current form.

For point (2), the authors did not do any supporting experiments. They claim "higher plex Qlinkers" would need to be available, but I suggested experiments that can be done even with Q2linkers: Using one of the two channels as a reference channel (similar the Super-SILAC strategy published in 2010 by Geiger et al; using an isotope-labeled channel as a stable reference channel between different experiments and LC-MS runs), they could do time-courses or ligand-concentration-series with the other channel and then show that Qlinkers allow quantitative monitoring of the different populations (e.g. conformations or ligand-bound proteins).

As an additional point, I was a bit surprised to read that the quantitation evaluation in Figure 1 is based on a single experiment (reviewer response document page 6, line 2 in the authors' reply). I strongly suggest this to be repeated a few times so a proper statistical test on experimental reproducibiltiy of Qlinkers can be conducted.

In summary, the authors declined to do any experimental work to address my concerns.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The regulation of protein function heavily relies on the dynamic changes in the shape and structure of proteins and their complexes. These changes are widespread and crucial. However, examining such alterations presents significant challenges, particularly when dealing with large protein complexes in conditions that mimic the natural cellular environment. Therefore, much emphasis has been put on developing novel methods to study protein structure, interactions, and dynamics. Crosslinking mass spectrometry (CSMS) has established itself as such a prominent tool in recent years. However, doing this in a quantitative manner to compare structural changes between conditions has proven to be challenging due to several technical difficulties during sample preparation. Luo and Ranish introduce a novel set of isobaric labeling reagents, called Qlinkers, to allow for a more straightforward and reliable way to detect structural changes between conditions by quantitative CSMS (qCSMS).

The authors do an excellent job describing the design choices of the isobaric crosslinkers and how they have been optimized to allow for efficient intra- and inter-protein crosslinking to provide relevant structural information. Next, they do a series of experiments to provide compelling evidence that the Qlinker strategy is well suited to detect structural changes between conditions by qCSMS. First, they confirm the quantitative power of the novel-developed isobaric crosslinkers by a controlled mixing experiment. Then they show that they can indeed recover known structural changes in a set of purified proteins (complexes) - starting with single subunit proteins up to a very large 0.5 MDa multi-subunit protein complex - the polII complex.

The authors give a very measured and fair assessment of this novel isobaric crosslinker and its potential power to contribute to the study of protein structure changes. They show that indeed their novel strategy picks up expected structural changes, changes in surface exposure of certain protein domains, changes within a single protein subunit but also changes in protein-protein interactions. However, they also point out that not all expected dynamic changes are captured and that there is still considerable room for improvement (many not limited to this crosslinker specifically but many crosslinkers used for CSMS).

Taken together the study presents a novel set of isobaric crosslinkers that indeed open up the opportunity to provide better qCSMS data, which will enable researchers to study dynamic changes in the shape and structure of proteins and their complexes.

Comments on latest version:

The authors have not really addressed most of the concerns. They have added minimal discussion points to the text. This is okay from my perspective as eLife's policy is to leave it up to the authors of how strongly to consider the reviewers' comments. I should add that I do fully agree with the other reviewer that the quantitative assessment from Figure 1 should have been done in triplicates at least and that this would actually be essential.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, Nandy and colleagues examine neural, physiological and behavioral correlates of perceptual variability in monkeys performing a visual change detection task. They used a laminar probe to record from area V4 while two macaque monkeys detected a small change in stimulus orientation that occurred at a random time in one of two locations, focusing their analysis on stimulus conditions where the animal was equally likely to detect (hit) or not-detect (miss) a briefly presented orientation change (target). They discovered two behavioral and physiological measures that are significantly different between hit and miss trials - pupil size tends to be slightly larger on hits vs. misses, and monkeys are more likely to miss the target on trials in which they made a microsaccade shortly before target onset. They also examined multiple measures of neural activity across the cortical layers and found some measures that are significantly different between hits and misses.

Strengths:

Overall the study is well executed and the analyses are appropriate (with some possible caveats discussed below).

Weaknesses:

I have two remaining concerns. First, with the exception of the pre-target microsaccades, the correlates of perceptual variability (differences between hits and misses) appear to be weak and disconnected. The GLM analysis of the predictive power of trial outcome based on the behavioral and neural measures is only discussed at the end of the paper. This analysis shows that some of the measures have no significant predictive power, while others cannot be examined using the GLM analysis because these measures cannot be estimated in single trials. Given these weak and disconnected effects, my overall sense is that the current results provide a limited advance to our understanding of the neural basis of perceptual variability.

In addition, because the authors combine data across stimulus contrasts, I am somewhat uneasy about the possible confounding effect of contrast. As expected, stimulus contrast affected the probability of hits vs. misses. Independently, contrast may have affected some of the physiological measurements. Therefore, showing that contrast is not the source of the covariations between the physiological/behavioral measurements and perception can be challenging, and I am not convinced that the authors have ruled this out as a possible confound. It is unclear why the authors had to vary contrast in the first place, and why the analyses had to be done by combining the data across contrasts or by ignoring contrast as a variable (e.g., in the GLM analysis).

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In this manuscript, Saeb et al reported the mechanistic roles of the flexible stalk domain in sTREM2 function using molecular dynamics simulations. They have reported some interesting molecular bases explaining why sTREM2 shows protective effects during AD, such as partial extracellular stalk domain promoting binding preference and stabilities of sTREM2 with its ligand even in the presence of known AD-risk mutation, R47H. Furthermore, they found that the stalk domain itself acts as the site for ligand binding by providing an "expanded surface", known as 'Expanded Surface 2' together with the Ig-like domain. Also, they observed no difference in the binding free energy of phosphatidyl-serine with wild TREM2-Ig and mutant TREM2-Ig, which is a bit inconsistent with the previous report with experiment studies by Journal of Biological Chemistry 293, (2018), Alzheimer's and Dementia 17, 475-488 (2021), Cell 160, 1061-1071 (2015).

Perhaps the authors made significant efforts to run a number of simulations for multiple models, which is nearly 17 microseconds in total; none of the simulations has been repeated independently at least a couple of times, which makes me uncomfortable to consider this finding technically true. Most of the important conclusions that authors claimed, including the opposite results from previous research, have been made on the single run, which raises the question of whether this observation can be reproduced if the simulation has been repeated independently. Although the authors stated the sampling number and length of MD simulations in the current manuscript as a limitation of this study, it must be carefully considered before concluding rather than based on a single run.

sTREM2 shows a neuroprotective effect in AD, even with the mutations with R47H, as evidenced by authors based on their simulation. sTREM2 is known to bind Aβ within the AD and reduce Aβ aggregation, whereas R47H mutant increases Aβ aggregation. I wonder why the authors did not consider Aβ as a ligand for their simulation studies. As a reader in this field, I would prefer to know the protective mechanism of sTREM2 in Aβ aggregation influenced by the stalk domain.

In a similar manner, why only one mutation is considered "R47H" for the study? There are more server mutations reported to disrupt tethering between these CDRs, such as T66M. Although this "T66M" is not associated with AD, I guess the stalk domain protective mechanism would not be biased among different diseases. Therefore, it would be interesting to see whether the findings are true for this T66M.

In most previous studies, the mechanism for CDR destabilization by mutant was explored, like the change of secondary structures and residue-wise interloop interaction pattern. While this is not considered in this manuscript, neither detailed residue-wise interaction that changed by mutant or important for 'ligand binding" or "stalk domain".

The comparison between the wild and mutant and other different complex structures must be determined by particular statistical calculations to state the observed difference between different structures is significant. Since autocorrelation is one of the major concerns for MD simulation data for predicting statistical differences, authors can consider bootstrap calculations for predicting statistical significance.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Significance:

TREM2 is an immunomodulatory receptor expressed on myeloid cells and microglia in the brain. TREM2 consists of a single immunoglobular (Ig) domain that leads into a flexible stalk, transmembrane helix, and short cytoplasmic tail. Extracellular proteases can cleave TREM2 in its stalk and produce a soluble TREM2 (sTREM2). TREM2 is genetically linked to Alzheimer's disease (AD), with the strongest association coming from an R47H variant in the Ig domain. Despite intense interest, the full TREM2 ligand repertoire remains elusive, and it is unclear what function sTREM2 may play in the brain. The central goal of this paper is to assess the ligand-binding role of the flexible stalk that is generated during the shedding of TREM2. To do this, the authors simulate the behavior of constructs with and without stalk. However, it is not clear why the authors chose to use the isolated Ig domain as a surrogate for full-length TREM2. Additionally, experimental binding evidence that is misrepresented by the authors contradicts the proposed role of the stalk.

Summary and strengths:

The authors carry out MD simulations of WT and R47H TREM2 with and without the flexible stalk. Simulations are carried out for apo TREM2 and for TREM2 in complex with various lipids. They compare results using just the Ig domain to results including the flexible stalk that is retained following cleavage to generate sTREM2. The computational methods are well-described and should be reproducible. The long simulations are a strength, as exemplified in Figure 2A where a CDR2 transition happens at ~400-600 ns. The stalk has not been resolved in structural studies, but the simulations suggest the intriguing and readily testable hypothesis that the stalk interacts with the Ig domain and thereby contributes to the stability of the Ig domain and to ligand binding. I suspect biochemists interested in TREM2 will make testing this hypothesis a high priority.

Weaknesses:

Unfortunately, the work suffers from two fundamental flaws.

(1) The authors state that reported differences in ligand binding between the TREM2 and sTREM2 remain unexplained, and the authors cite two lines of evidence. The first line of evidence, which is true, is that there are differences between lipid binding assays and lipid signaling assays. However, signaling assays do not directly measure binding. Secondly, the authors cite Kober et al 2021 as evidence that sTREM2 and TREM2 showed different affinities for Abeta1-42 in a direct binding assay. Unfortunately, when Kober et al measured the binding of sTREM2 and Ig-TREM2 to Abeta they reported statistically identical affinities (Kd = 3.8 {plus minus} 2.9 µM vs 5.1 {plus minus} 3.7 µM) and concluded that the stalk did not contribute measurably to Abeta binding.

(2) The authors appear to take simulations of the Ig domain (without any stalk) as a surrogate for the full-length, membrane-bound TREM2. They compare the Ig domain to a sTREM2 model that includes the stalk. While it is fully plausible that the stalk could interact with and stabilize the Ig domain, the authors need to demonstrate why the full-length TREM2 could not interact with its own stalk and why the isolated Ig domain is a suitable surrogate for this state.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

PPARgamma is a nuclear receptor that binds to orthosteric ligands to coordinate transcriptional programs that are critical for adipocyte biogenesis and insulin sensitivity. Consequently, it is a critical therapeutic target for many diseases but especially diabetes. The malleable nature and promiscuity of the PPARgamma orthosteric ligand binding pocket has confounded the development of improved therapeutic modulators. Covalent inhibitors have been developed but they show unanticipated mechanisms of action depending on which orthosteric ligands are present. In this work, Shang and Kojetin present a compelling and comprehensive structural, biochemical, and biophysical analysis that shows how covalent and noncovalent ligands can co-occupy the PPARgamma ligand binding pocket to elicit distinctive preferences of coactivator and corepressor proteins. Importantly, this work shows how the covalent inhibitors GW9662 and T0070907 may be unreliable tools as pan-PPARgamma inhibitors despite their wide-spread use.

Strengths:

- Highly detailed structure and functional analyses provide a comprehensive structure-based hypothesis for the relationship between PPARgamma ligand binding domain co-occupancy and allosteric mechanisms of action.<br /> - Multiple orthogonal approaches are used to provide high resolution information on ligand binding poses and protein dynamics.<br /> - The large number of x-ray crystal structures solved for this manuscript should be applauded along with their rigorous validation and interpretation.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The flexibility of the ligand binding domain (LBD) of NRs allows various modes of ligand binding leading to various cellular outcomes. In the case of PPARγ, it's known that two ligands can cobind to the receptor. However, whether a covalent inhibitor functions by blocking the binding of a non-covalent ligand, or cobind in a manner that weakens the binding of a non-covalent ligand remains unclear. In this study, the authors first used TR-FRET and NMR to demonstrate that covalent inhibitors (such as GW9662 and T0070907) weaken but do not prevent non-covalent synthetic ligands from binding, likely via an allosteric mechanism. The AF-2 helix can exchange between active and repressive conformations, and covalent inhibitors shift the conformation toward a transcriptionally repressive one to reduce orthosteric binding of the non-covalent ligands. By co-crystal studies, the authors further reveal the structural details of various non-covalent ligand binding mechanisms in a ligand specific manner (e.g., an alternate binding site, or a new orthosteric binding mode by alerting covalent ligand binding pose).

Strengths:

The biochemical and biophysical evidence as presented is strong and convincing.

Additional comments:

The co-crystal studies were performed by soaking a non-covalent ligand to LBD pre-crystalized with a covalent inhibitor. Since the covalent inhibitors would shift the LBD toward transcriptionally repressive conformation which reduces orthosteric binding of non-covalent ligands, one might ask if the sequence was reversed (i.e., soaking a covalent inhibitor to LBD pre-crystalized with a non-covalent ligand), would similar conclusion be drawn? The authors have reasonably speculated that it might be difficult to soak a covalent inhibitor into preformed crystals where the PPARγ LBD is already bound to a non-covalent ligand, because the larger non-covalent ligand could block the covalent inhibitor to gain access to the region of the orthosteric pocket required for covalent modification.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript focuses on the role of the deubiquitinating enzyme UPS-50/USP8 in endosome maturation. The authors aimed to clarify how this enzyme drives the conversion of early endosomes into late endosomes. Overall, they did achieve their aims in shedding light on the precise mechanisms by which UPS-50/USP8 regulates endosome maturation. The results support their conclusions that UPS-50 acts by disassociating RABX-5 from early endosomes to deactivate RAB-5 and by recruiting SAND-1/Mon1 to activate RAB-7. This work is commendable and will have a significant impact on the field. The methods and data presented here will be useful to the community in advancing our understanding of endosome maturation and identifying potential therapeutic targets for diseases related to endosomal dysfunction. It is worth noting that further investigation is required to fully understand the complexities of endosome maturation. However, the findings presented in this manuscript provide a solid foundation for future studies.

Strengths:

The major strengths of this work lie in the well-designed experiments used to examine the effects of UPS-50 loss. The authors employed confocal imaging to obtain a picture of the aftermath of USP-50 loss. Their findings indicated enlarged early endosomes and MVB-like structures in cells deficient in USP-50/USP8.

Weaknesses:

Specifically, there is a need for further investigation to accurately characterize the anomalous structures detected in the ups-50 mutant. Also, the correlation between the presence of these abnormal structures and ESCRT-0 is yet to be addressed, and the current working model needs to be revised to prevent any confusion between enlarged early endosomes and MVBs.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, the authors study how the deubiquitinase USP8 regulates endosome maturation in C. elegans and mammalian cells. The authors have isolated USP8 mutant alleles in C. elegans and used multiple in vivo reporter lines to demonstrate the impact of USP8 loss-of-function on endosome morphology and maturation. They show that in USP8 mutant cells, the early endosomes and MVB-like structures are enlarged while the late endosomes and lysosomal compartments are reduced. They elucidate that USP8 interacts with Rabx5, a guanine nucleotide exchange factor (GEF) for Rab5, and show that USP8 likely targets specific lysine residue of Rabx5 to dissociate it from early endosomes. They also find that localization of USP8 to early endosomes are disrupted in Rabx5 mutant cells. They observe that in both Rabx5 and USP8 mutant cells, the Rab7 GEF SAND-1 puncta which likely represents late endosomes are diminished, although that Rabex5 are accumulated in USP8 mutant cells. The authors provide evidence that USP8 regulates endosomal maturation in a similar fashion in mammalian cells. Based on their observations they propose that USP8 dissociates Rabex5 from early endosomes and enhances the recruitment of SAND-1 to promote endosome maturation.

Strengths:

The major highlights of this study include the direct visualization of endosome dynamics in a living multi-cellular organism, C. elegans. The high-quality images provide clear in vivo evidences to support the main conclusions. The authors have generated valuable resources to study mechanisms involved in endosome dynamics regulation in both the worm and mammalian cells, which would benefit many members in the cell biology community. The work identifies a fascinating link between USP8 and the Rab5 guanine nucleotide exchange factor Rabx5, which expands the targets and modes of action of USP8. The findings make a solid contribution toward the understanding of how endosomal trafficking is controlled.

Weaknesses:

- The authors utilized multiple fluorescent protein reporters, including those generated by themselves, to label endosomal vesicles. Although these are routine and powerful tools for studying endosomal trafficking, these results cannot tell that whether the endogenous proteins (Rab5, Rabex5, Rab7, etc.) are affected in the same fashion. Note that the authors have provided convincing evidence about the effects on Rab proteins in the revised manuscript.<br /> - The authors clearly demonstrated a link between USP8 and Rabx5, and they showed that cells deficient of both factors displayed similar defects in late endosomes/lysosomes. But the authors didn't confirm whether and/or to which extent that USP8 regulates endosome maturation through Rabx5. Additional genetic and molecular evidence might be required to better support their working model. Note that the authors have provided convincing evidence about the role of USP8-Rabx5 axis in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors elucidated the role of USP8 in the endocytic pathway. Using C. elegans epithelial cells as a model, they observed that when USP8 function is lost, the cells have a decreased number and size in lysosomes. Since USP8 was already known to be a protein linked to ESCRT components, they looked into what role USP8 might play in connecting lysosomes and multivesicular bodies (MVB). They observed fewer ESCRT-associated vesicles but an increased number of abnormal enlarged vesicles (aberrant early endosomes) when USP8 function was lost. They showed that USP8 interacts with Rabx5 to dissociate it from early endosomes promoting the recruitment of the Rab7 GEF SAND-1/Mon1 and the maturation of the endosomes. The authors provided evidence that USP8 regulates endosomal maturation in a similar fashion in mammalian cells.

Strengths:

The use of two models, C. elegans and a mammalian cell line to describe a similar mechanism.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:<br /> In this manuscript, Herrmannova et al explore changes in translation upon individual depletion of three subunits of the eIF3 complex (d, e and h) in mammalian cells. The authors provide a detailed analysis of regulated transcripts, followed by validation by RT-qPCR and/or Western blot of targets of interest, as well as GO and KKEG pathway analysis. The authors confirm prior observations that eIF3, despite being a general translation initiation factor, functions in mRNA-specific regulation, and that eIF3 is important for translation re-initiation. They show that global effects of eIF3e and eIF3d depletion on translation and cell growth are concordant. Their results support and extend previous reports suggesting that both factors control translation of 5'TOP mRNAs. Interestingly, they identify MAPK pathway components as a group of targets coordinately regulated by eIF3 d/e. The authors also discuss discrepancies with other reports analyzing eIF3e function.

Strengths:<br /> Altogether, a solid analysis of eIF3 d/e/h-mediated translation regulation of specific transcripts. The data will be useful for scientists working in the Translation field.

Weaknesses:<br /> The authors could have explored in more detail some of their novel observations, as well as their impact on cell behavior.

The manuscript has improved with the new corrections. I appreciate the authors' attention to the minor comments, which have been fully solved. The authors have not, however, provided additional experimental evidence that uORF-mediated translation of Raf-1 mRNA depends on an intact eIF3 complex, nor have they addressed the consequences of such regulation for cell physiology. While I understand that this is a subject of follow-up research, the authors could have at least included their explanations/ speculations regarding major comments 2-4, which in my opinion could have been useful for the reader.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:<br /> mRNA translation regulation permits cells to rapidly adapt to diverse stimuli by fine tuning gene expression. Specifically, the 13-subunit eukaryotic initiation factor 3 (eIF3) complex is critical for translation initiation as it aids in 48S PIC assembly to allow for ribosome scanning. In addition, eIF3 has been shown to drive transcript-specific translation by binding mRNA 5' cap structures through the eIF3d subunit. Dysregulation of eIF3 has been implicated in oncogenesis, however the precise eIF3 subunit contributions are unclear. Here, Herrmannová et al. aim to investigate how eIF3 subcomplexes, generated by knock down (KD) of either eIF3e, eIF3d or eIF3h, affect the global translatome. Using Ribo-seq and RNA-seq, the authors identified a large number of genes that exhibit altered translation efficiency upon eIF3d/e KD, while translation defects upon eIF3h KD were mild. eIF3d/eKD share multiple dysregulated transcripts, perhaps due to both subcomplexes lacking eIF3d. Both eIF3d/e KD increase translation efficiency (TE) of transcripts encoding lysosomal, ER and ribosomal proteins, suggesting a role of eIF3 in ribosome biogenesis and protein quality control. Many transcripts encoding ribosomal proteins harbor a TOP motif, and eIF3d KD and eIF3e KD cells exhibit a striking induction of these TOP-modified transcripts. On the other hand, eIF3d KD and eIF3e KD leads to a reduction of MAPK/ERK pathway proteins. Despite this downregulation, eIF3d KD and eIF3e KD activates MAPK/ERK signaling as ERK1/2 and c-Jun phosphorylation was induced. Finally, in all three knockdowns, MDM2 and ATF4 protein levels are reduced. This is notable because MDM2 and ATF4 both contain short uORFs upstream of the start codon, and further supports a role of eIF3 in reinitiation. Altogether, Herrmannová et al. have gained key insights to precise eIF3-mediated translational control as it relates to key signaling pathways implicated in cancer.

Strengths:<br /> The authors have provided a comprehensive set of data to analyze RNA and ribosome footprinting upon perturbation of eIF3d, eIF3e, and eIF3h. As described above in the summary, these data present many interesting starting points to understand additional roles of the eIF3 complex and specific subunits in translational control.

Weaknesses:<br /> - The differences between eIF3e and eIF3d knockdown are difficult to reconcile, especially since eIF3e knockdown leads to reduction in eIF3d levels.<br /> - The paper would be strengthened by experiments directly testing what RNA determinants allow for transcript-specific translation regulation by the eIF3 complex. This would allow the paper to be less descriptive.<br /> - The paper would have more biological relevance if eIF3 subunits were perturbed to mimic naturally occurring situations where eIF3 is dysregulated. For example, eIF3e is aberrantly upregulated in certain cancers, and therefore an overexpression and profiling experiment would have been more relevant than a knockdown experiment.

The first review is unchanged as no additional experiments were provided to address the first review.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:<br /> In this article, Hermannova et al catalog the changes in ribosome association with mRNAs when the multisubunit eukaryotic translation initiation factor 3 is disrupted by knocking down individual subunits. They find that RNAs relying on TOP motifs for translation, such as ribosomal protein RNAs, and RNAs encoding modification enzymes in the ER and components of the lysosome are upregulated. In contrast, proteins encoding components of MAP kinase cascades are downregulated when subunits of eIF3 are knocked down, but retain elevated levels of activity.

Strengths:<br /> The authors use ribosome profiling of well-characterized mutants lacking subunits of eIF3 and assess the changes in translation that take place. They supplement the ribosome association studies with western blotting to determine protein level changes of affected transcripts. They analyze what transcripts undergo translation changes, which is important for understanding more broadly how translation initiation factor levels affect cancer cell translatomes. Changes observed by both ribosome profiling and western blotting supports their claims that eIF3 functions in mRNA-specific control of translation.

Weaknesses:<br /> (1) The paper would be strengthened if there were a clear model tying the various effects together or linking individual subunit knockdown to cancerous phenotypes. It is noted that the authors plan to address such outcomes of eIF3 dysregulation in future work, which will be of interest.

(2) The paper could also be strengthened if some of the experiments were performed in at least one other cell type to determine whether changes observed are general or cell-type specific. The authors discuss this issue and provide a literature citation to support a more general mechanism.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

How plants perceive their environment and signal during growth and development is of fundamental importance for plant biology. Over the last few decades, nano domain organisation of proteins localised within the plasma-membrane has emerged as a way of organising proteins involved in signal pathways. Here, the authors addressed how a non-surface localised signal (viral infection) was resisted by PM localised signalling proteins and the effect of nano domain organisation during this process. This is valuable work as it describes how an intracellular process affects signalling at the PM where most previous work has focused on the other way round, PM signalling effecting downstream responses in the plant. They identify CPK3 as a specific calcium dependent protein kinase which is important for inhibiting viral spread. The authors then go on to show that CPK3 diffusion in the membrane is reduced after viral infection and study the interaction between CPK3 and the remorins, which are a group of scaffold proteins important in nano domain organisation. The authors conclude that there is an interdependence between CPK3 and remorins to control their dynamics during viral infection in plants.

Strengths:

The dissection of which CPK was involved in the viral propagation was masterful and very conclusive. Identifying CPK3 through knockout time course monitoring of viral movement was very convincing. The inclusion of overexpression, constitutively active and point mutation non-functioning lines further added to that.

Weaknesses:

I would like to thank the researchers for including some additional work suggested in the previous round of peer review. However, I still have concerns over this work which are two fold.

(1) Firstly, the imaging described and shown is not sufficient to support the claims made. The PM localisation and its non-PM localised form look similar and with no PM stain or marker construct used to support this. In addition, the quality of lots of the confocal based imaging (including new figure on colocalisation) is simply not sufficient. The images are too noisy and no clear conclusions can be made. The point made previously, the system this data was collected on has an Airyscan detector capable of 120nm resolution and as such NDs can be resolved. The sptPALM data conclusions are nice and fit the narrative. The inclusion of sptPALM movies is useful for the reader and tracks numbers is highly beneficial. But they do not show a high signal to noise ratio compared to other work in the field (see work from Alex Martineire) and the mEOS prticles are only just observable over the detector noise in some videos. As such, I worry about the data quality on which the analysis is based on. In addition, in some of the videos the conversion laser seems too high as it is difficult to separate some of the single particles as they emerge which would again, hinder the analysis.

(2) Secondly, remorins are involved in a lot of nano domain controlled processes at the PM. The authors have not conclusively demonstrated that during viral infection the remorin effects seen are solely due to its interaction with CPK3. The sptPALM imaging of REM1.2 in a cpk3 knockout line goes part way to solve this and the inclusion of CPK3-CA also strengthens the authors claims. But to propose a kiss and go model bearing in mind the differences in diffusion between CPK3 and REM3 and differential changes to diffusion between the two proteins after PIAMV infection without two colour imaging of both proteins at the same time, the claims are much stronger than the evidence. Negative control experiments are required here utilising other PM localised proteins which have no role during viral infection (such as Lti6B).

Overall, I think this work has the potential to be a very strong manuscript but additional evidence supporting interaction claims would significantly strengthen the work and make it exceptional.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This study examined the role that the activation and plasma membrane localisation of a calcium dependent protein kinase (CPK3) plays in plant defence against viruses.<br /> The authors clearly demonstrate that the ability to hamper the cell-to-cell spread of the virus P1AMV is not common to other CPKs which have roles in defence against different types of pathogens, but appears to be specific to CPK3 in Arabidopsis. Further, they show that lateral diffusion of CPK3 in the plasma membrane is reduced upon P1AMV infection, with CPK3 likely present in nano-domains. This stabilisation however, depends on one of its phosphorylation substrates a Remorin scaffold protein REM1-2. However, when REM1-2 lateral diffusion was tracked, it showed an increase in movement in response to P1AMV infection. These contrary responses to P1AMV infection were further demonstrated to be interdependent, which led the authors to propose a model in which activated CPK3 is stabilised in nano-domains in part by its interaction with REM1.2, which it binds and phosphorylates, allowing REM1-2 to diffuse more dynamically within the membrane.

The likely impact of this work is that it will lead to closer examination of the formation of nano-domains in the plasma membrane and dissection of their role in immunity to viruses, as well as further investigation into the specific mechanisms by which CPK3 and REM1-2 inhibit the cell-to-cell spread of viruses, including examination of their roles in cytoskeletal dynamics.

Strengths:

The paper provided compelling evidence about the roles of CPK3 and REM1-2 through a combination of logical reverse genetics experiments and advanced microscopy techniques, particularly in single particle tracking.

Weaknesses:

There is limited discussion or exploration of the role that CPK3 has in cytoskeletal organisation and whether this may play a role in the plant's defence against viral propagation. Further. although the authors show that there is no accumulation of CPK3/Rem1.2 at plasmodesmata, it would be interesting to investigate whether the demonstrated reduction of viral propagation is due to changes in PD permeability.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper provides a computational model of a synthetic task in which an agent needs to find a trajectory to a rewarding goal in a 2D-grid world, in which certain grid blocks incur a punishment. In a completely unrelated setup without explicit rewards, they then provide a model that explains data from an approach-avoidance experiment in which an agent needs to decide whether to approach or withdraw from, a jellyfish, in order to avoid a pain stimulus, with no explicit rewards. Both models include components that are labelled as Pavlovian; hence the authors argue that their data show that the brain uses a Pavlovian fear system in complex navigational and approach-avoid decisions.

In the first setup, they simulate a model in which a component they label as Pavlovian learns about punishment in each grid block, whereas a Q-learner learns about the optimal path to the goal, using a scalar loss function for rewards and punishments. Pavlovian and Q-learning components are then weighed at each step to produce an action. Unsurprisingly, the authors find that including the Pavlovian component in the model reduces the cumulative punishment incurred, and this increases as the weight of the Pavlovian system increases. The paper does not explore to what extent increasing the punishment loss (while keeping reward loss constant) would lead to the same outcomes with a simpler model architecture, so any claim that the Pavlovian component is required for such a result is not justified by the modelling.

In the second setup, an agent learns about punishments alone. "Pavlovian biases" have previously been demonstrated in this task (i.e. an overavoidance when the correct decision is to approach). The authors explore several models (all of which are dissimilar to the ones used in the first setup) to account for the Pavlovian biases.

Strengths:

Overall, the modelling exercises are interesting and relevant and incrementally expand the space of existing models.

Weaknesses:

I find the conclusions misleading, as they are not supported by the data.

First, the similarity between the models used in the two setups appears to be more semantic than computational or biological. So it is unclear to me how the results can be integrated.

Secondly, the authors do not show "a computational advantage to maintaining a specific fear memory during exploratory decision-making" (as they claim in the abstract). Making such a claim would require showing an advantage in the first place. For the first setup, the simulation results will likely be replicated by a simple Q-learning model when scaling up the loss incurred for punishments, in which case the more complex model architecture would not confer an advantage. The second setup, in contrast, is so excessively artificial that even if a particular model conferred an advantage here, this is highly unlikely to translate into any real-world advantage for a biological agent. The experimental setup was developed to demonstrate the existence of Pavlovian biases, but it is not designed to conclusively investigate how they come about. In a nutshell, who in their right mind would touch a stinging jellyfish 88 times in a short period of time, as the subjects do on average in this task? Furthermore, in which real-life environment does withdrawal from a jellyfish lead to a sting, as in this task?

Crucially, simplistic models such as the present ones can easily solve specifically designed lab tasks with low dimensionality but they will fail in higher-dimensional settings. Biological behaviour in the face of threat is utterly complex and goes far beyond simplistic fight-flight-freeze distinctions (Evans et al., 2019). It would take a leap of faith to assume that human decision-making can be broken down into oversimplified sub-tasks of this sort (and if that were the case, this would require a meta-controller arbitrating the systems for all the sub-tasks, and this meta-controller would then struggle with the dimensionality j).

On the face of it, the VR task provides higher "ecological validity" than previous screen-based tasks. However, in fact, it is only the visual stimulation that differs from a standard screen-based task, whereas the action space is exactly the same. As such, the benefit of VR does not become apparent, and its full potential is foregone.

If the authors are convinced that their model can - then data from naturalistic approach-avoidance VR tasks is publicly available, e.g. (Sporrer et al., 2023), so this should be rather easy to prove or disprove. In summary, I am doubtful that the models have any relevance for real-life human decision-making.

Finally, the authors seem to make much broader claims that their models can solve safety-efficiency dilemmas. However, a combination of a Pavlovian bias and an instrumental learner (study 1) via a fixed linear weighting does not seem to be "safe" in any strict sense. This will lead to the agent making decisions leading to death when the promised reward is large enough (outside perhaps a very specific region of the parameter space). Would it not be more helpful to prune the decision tree according to a fixed threshold (Huys et al., 2012)? So, in a way, the model is useful for avoiding cumulatively excessive pain but not instantaneous destruction. As such, it is not clear what real-life situation is modelled here.

A final caveat regarding Study 1 is the use of a PH associability term as a surrogate for uncertainty. The authors argue that this term provides a good fit to fear-conditioned SCR but that is only true in comparison to simpler RW-type models. Literature using a broader model space suggests that a formal account of uncertainty could fit this conditioned response even better (Tzovara et al., 2018).

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors tested the efficiency of a model combining Pavlovian fear valuation and instrumental valuation. This model is amenable to many behavioral decision and learning setups - some of which have been or will be designed to test differences in patients with mental disorders (e.g., anxiety disorder, OCD, etc.).

Strengths:

(1) Simplicity of the model which can at the same time model rather complex environments.

(2) Introduction of a flexible omega parameter.

(3) Direct application to a rather advanced VR task.

(4) The paper is extremely well written. It was a joy to read.

Weaknesses:

Almost none! In very few cases, the explanations could be a bit better.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper aims to address the problem of exploring potentially rewarding environments that contain the danger, based on the assumption that an independent Pavlovian fear learning system can help guide an agent during exploratory behaviour such that it avoids severe danger. This is important given that otherwise later gains seem to outweigh early threats, and agents may end up putting themselves in danger when it is advisable not to do so.

The authors develop a computational model of exploratory behaviour that accounts for both instrumental and Pavlovian influences, combining the two according to uncertainty in the rewards. The result is that Pavlovian avoidance has a greater influence when the agent is uncertain about rewards.

Strengths:

The study does a thorough job of testing this model using both simulations and data from human participants performing an avoidance task. Simulations demonstrate that the model can produce "safe" behaviour, where the agent may not necessarily achieve the highest possible reward but ensures that losses are limited. Interestingly, the model appears to describe human avoidance behaviour in a task that tests for Pavlovian avoidance influences better than a model that doesn't adapt the balance between Pavlovian and instrumental based on uncertainty. The methods are robust, and generally, there is little to criticise about the study.

Weaknesses:

The extent of the testing in human participants is fairly limited but goes far enough to demonstrate that the model can account for human behaviour in an exemplar task. There are, however, some elements of the model that are unrealistic (for example, the fact that pre-training is required to select actions with a Pavlovian bias would require the agent to explore the environment initially and encounter a vast amount of danger in order to learn how to avoid the danger later). The description of the models is also a little difficult to parse.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The study significantly advances our understanding of how exosomes regulate filopodia formation. Filopodia play crucial roles in cell movement, polarization, directional sensing, and neuronal synapse formation. McAtee et al. demonstrated that exosomes, particularly those enriched with the protein THSD7A, play a pivotal role in promoting filopodia formation through Cdc42 in cancer cells and neurons. This discovery unveils a new extracellular mechanism through which cells can control their cytoskeletal dynamics and interaction with their surroundings. The study employs a combination of rescue experiments, live-cell imaging, cell culture, and proteomic analyses to thoroughly investigate the role of exosomes and THSD7A in filopodia formation in cancer cells and neurons. These findings offer valuable insights into fundamental biological processes of cell movement and communication and have potential implications for understanding cancer metastasis and neuronal development.

Weaknesses:

The conclusions of this study are in most cases supported by data, but some aspects of data analysis need to be better clarified and elaborated. Some conclusions need to be better stated and according to the data observed.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors show that small EVs trigger the formation of filopodia in both cancer cells and neurons. They go on to show that two cargo proteins, endoglin, and THSD7A, are important for this process. This possibly occurs by activating the Rho-family GTPase CDC42.

Strengths:

The EV work is quite strong and convincing. The proteomics work is well executed and carefully analyzed. I was particularly impressed with the chick metastasis assay that added strong evidence of in vivo relevance.

Weaknesses:

The weakest part of the paper is the Cdc42 work at the end of the paper. It is incomplete and not terribly convincing. This part of the paper needs to be improved significantly

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors identify a novel relationship between exosome secretion and filopodia formation in cancer cells and neurons. They observe that multivesicular endosomes (MVE)-plasma membrane (PM) fusion is associated with filopodia formation in HT1080 cells and that MVEs are present in filopodia in primary neurons. Using overexpression and knockdown (KD) of Rab27/HRS in HT1080 cells, melanoma cells, and/or primary rat neurons, they found that decreasing exosome secretion reduces filopodia formation, while Rab27 overexpression leads to the opposite result. Furthermore, the decreased filopodia formation is rescued in the Rab27a/HRS KD melanoma cells by the addition of small extracellular vesicles (EVs) but not large EVs purified from control cells. The authors identify endoglin as a protein unique to small EVs secreted by cancer cells when compared to large EVs. KD of endoglin reduces filopodia formation and this is rescued by the addition of small EVs from control cells and not by small EVs from endoglin KD cells. Based on the role of filopodia in cancer metastasis, the authors then investigate the role of endoglin in cancer cell metastasis using a chick embryo model. They find that injection of endoglin KD HT1080 cells into chick embryos gives rise to less metastasis compared to control cells - a phenotype that is rescued by the co-injection of small EVs from control cells. Using quantitative mass spectrometry analysis, they find that thrombospondin type 1 domain containing 7a protein (THSD7A) is downregulated in small EVs from endoglin KD melanoma cells compared to those from control cells. They also report that THSD7A is more abundant in endoglin KD cell lysate compared to control HT1080 cells and less abundant in small EVs from endoglin KD cells compared to control cells, indicating a trafficking defect. Indeed, using immunofluorescence microscopy, the authors observe THSD7A-mScarlet accumulation in CD63-positive structures in endoglin KD HT1080 cells, compared to control cells. Finally, the authors determine that exosome-secreted THSD7A induces filopodia formation in a Cdc42-dependent mechanism.

Strengths:

(1) While exosomes are known to play a role in cell migration and autocrine signaling, the relationship between exosome secretion and the formation of filopodia is novel.

(2) The authors identify an exosomal cargo protein, THSD7A, which is essential for regulating this function.

(3) The data presented provide strong evidence of a role for endoglin in the trafficking of THSD7A in exosomes.

(4) The authors associate this process with functional significance in cancer cell metastasis and neurological synapse formation, both of which involve the formation of filopodia.

(5) The data are presented clearly, and their interpretation appropriately explains the context and significance of the findings.

Weaknesses:

(1) A better characterization of the nature of the small EV population is missing:

It is unclear why the authors chose to proceed to quantitative mass spectrometry with the bands in the Coomassie from size-separated EV samples, as there are other bands present in the small EV lane but not the large EV lane. This is important to clarify because it underlies how they were able to identify THSD7A as a unique regulator of exosome-mediated filopodia formation. Is there a reason why the total sample fractions were not compared? This would provide valuable information on the nature of the small and large EV populations.

(2) Data analysis and quantification should be performed with increased rigor:

a) Figure 1C - The optical and temporal resolution are insufficient to conclusively characterize the association between exosome secretion and filopodia. Specifically, the 10-second interval used in the image acquisitions is too close to the reported 20-second median time between exosome secretion and filopodia formation. Two-5 sec intervals should be used to validate this. It would also be important to correlate the percentage of filopodia events that co-occur with exosome secretion. Is this a phenomenon that occurs with most or only a small number of filopodia? Additionally, resolution with typical confocal microscopy is subpar for these analyses. TIRF microscopy would offer increased resolution to parse out secretion events. As the TIRF objective is listed in the Methods section, figure legends should mention which images were acquired using TIRF microscopy.

b) Figure 2 - It would be important to perform further analysis to concretely determine the relationship between exosome secretion and filopodia stability. Are secretion events correlated with the stability of filopodia? Is there a positive feedback loop that causes further filopodia stability and length with increased secretion? Furthermore, is there an association between the proximity of secretion with stability? Quantification of filopodia more objectively (# of filopodia/cell) would be helpful.

c) Figure 6 - Why use different gel conditions to detect THSD7A in small EVs from B16F1 cells vs HT1080 and neurons? Why are there two bands for THSD7A in panels C and E? It is difficult to appreciate the KD efficiency in E. The absence of a signal for THSD7A in the HT1080 shEng small EVs that show a signal for endoglin is surprising. The authors should provide rigorous quantification of the westerns from several independent experimental repeats.

(3) The study lacks data on the cellular distribution of endoglin and THSD7A:

a) Figure 6 - Is THSD7A expected to be present in the nucleus as shown in panel D (label D is missing in the Figure). It is not clear if this is observed in neurons. a Western of endogenous THSD7A on cell fractions would clarify this. The authors should further characterize the cellular distribution of THSD7A in both cell types. Similarly, the cellular distribution of endoglin in the cancer cells should be provided. This would help validate the proposed model in Figure 8.

b) Figure 7 - Although the western blot provides convincing evidence for the role of endoglin in THSD7A trafficking, the microscopy data lack resolution as well as key analyses. While differences between shSCR and shEng cells are clear visually, the insets appear to be zoomed digitally which decreases resolution and interferes with interpretation. It would be crucial to show the colocalization of endoglin and THSD7A within CD63-postive MVE structures. What are the structures in Figure 7E shSCR zoom1? It would be important to rule out that these are migrasomes using TSPAN4 staining. More information on how the analysis was conducted is needed (i.e. how extracellular areas were chosen and whether the images are representative of the larger population). A widefield image of shSCR and shEng cells and DAPI or HOECHST staining in the higher magnification images should be provided. Additionally, the authors should quantify the colocalization of external CD63 and mScarlet signals from many independently acquired images (as they did for the internal signals in panel F). Is there no external THSD7A signal in the shEng cells?

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors perform an analysis of the relationship between the size of an LMM and the predictive performance of an ECoG encoding model made using the representations from that LMM. They find a logarithmic relationship between model size and prediction performance, consistent with previous findings in fMRI. They additionally observe that as the model size increases, the location of the "peak" encoding performance typically moves further back into the model in terms of percent layer depth, an interesting result worthy of further analysis into these representations.

Strengths:

The evidence is quite convincing, consistent across model families, and complementary to other work in this field. This sort of analysis for ECoG is needed and supports the decade-long enduring trend of the "virtuous cycle" between neuroscience and AI research, where more powerful AI models have consistently yielded more effective predictions of responses in the brain. The lag analysis showing that optimal lags do not change with model size is a nice result using the higher temporal resolution of ECoG compared to other methods like fMRI.

Weaknesses:

I would have liked to have seen the data scaling trends explored a bit too, as this is somewhat analogous to the main scaling results. While better performance with more data might be unsurprising, showing good data scaling would be a strong and useful justification for additional data collection in the field, especially given the extremely limited amount of existing language ECoG data. I realize that the data here is somewhat limited (only 30 minutes per subject), but authors could still in principle train models on subsets of this data.

Separately, it would be nice to have better justification of some of these trends, in particular the peak layerwise encoding performance trend and the overall upside-down U-trend of encoding performance across layers more generally. There is clearly something very fundamental going on here, about the nature of abstraction patterns in LLMs and in the brain, and this result points to that. I don't see the lack of justification here as a critical issue, but the paper would certainly be better with some theoretical explanation for why this might be the case.

Lastly, I would have wanted to see a similar analysis here done for audio encoding models using Whisper or WavLM as this is the modality where you might see real differences between ECoG and other slower scanning approaches. Again, I do not see this omission as a fundamental issue, but it does seem like the sort of analysis for which the higher temporal resolution of ECoG might grant some deeper insight.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) of increasing size more accurately align with brain activity during naturalistic language comprehension. The authors extracted word embeddings from LLMs for each word in a 30-minute story and regressed them against electrocorticography (ECoG) activity time-locked to each word as participants listened to the story. The findings reveal that larger LLMs more effectively predict ECoG activity, reflecting the scaling laws observed in other natural language processing tasks.

Strengths:

(1) The study compared model activity with ECoG recordings, which offer much better temporal resolution than other neuroimaging methods, allowing for the examination of model encoding performance across various lags relative to word onset.

(2) The range of LLMs tested is comprehensive, spanning from 82 million to 70 billion parameters. This serves as a valuable reference for researchers selecting LLMs for brain encoding and decoding studies.

(3) The regression methods used are well-established in prior research, and the results demonstrate a convincing scaling law for the brain encoding ability of LLMs. The consistency of these results after PCA dimensionality reduction further supports the claim.

Weaknesses:

(1) Some claims of the paper are less convincing. The authors suggested that "scaling could be a property that the human brain, similar to LLMs, can utilize to enhance performance", however, many other animals have brains with more neurons than the human brain, making it unlikely that simple scaling alone leads to better language performance. Additionally, the authors claim that their results show 'larger models better predict the structure of natural language.' However, it remains unclear to what extent the embeddings of LLMs capture the "structure" of language better than the lexical semantics of language.

(2) The study lacks control LLMs with randomly initialized weights and control regressors, such as word frequency and phonetic features of speech, making it unclear what the baseline is for the model-brain correlation.

(3) The finding that peak encoding performance tends to occur in relatively earlier layers in larger models is somewhat surprising and requires further explanation. Since more layers mean more parameters, if the later layers diverge from language processing in the brain, it raises the question of what aspects of the larger models make them more brain-like.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

This manuscript studies the connection between neural activity collected through electrocorticography and hidden vector representations from autoregressive language models, with the specific aim of studying the influence of language model size on this connection. Neural activity was measured from subjects who listened to a segment from a podcast, and the representations from language models were calculated using the written transcription as the input text. The ability of vector representations to predict neural activity was evaluated using 10-fold cross-validation with ridge regression models.

The main results are that (as well summarized in section headings):

(1) Larger models predict neural activity better.

(2) The ability of language model representations to predict neural activity differs across electrodes and brain regions.

(3) The layer that best predicts neural activity differs according to model size, with the "SMALL" model showing a correspondence between layer number and the language processing hierarchy.

(4) There seems to be a similar relationship between the time lag and the ability of language model representations to predict neural activity across models.

Strengths:

(1) The experimental and modeling protocols generally seem solid, which yielded results that answer the authors' primary research question.

(2) Electrocorticography data is especially hard to collect, so these results make a nice addition to recent functional magnetic resonance imaging studies.

Weaknesses:

(1) The interpretation of some results seems unjustified, although this may just be a presentational issue.

a) Figure 2B: The authors interpret the results as "a plateau in the maximal encoding performance," when some readers might interpret this rather as a decline after 13 billion parameters. Can this be further supported by a significance test like that shown in Figure 4B?

b) Figure S1A: It looks like the drop in PCA max correlation is larger for larger models, which may suggest to some readers that the same trend observed for ridge max correlation may not hold, contra the authors' claim that all results replicate. Why not include a similar figure as Figure 2B as part of Figure S1?

(2) Discussion of what might be driving the main result about the influence of model size appears to be missing (cf. the authors aim to provide an explanation of what seems to drive the influence of the layer location in Paragraph 3 of the Discussion section). What explanations have been proposed in the previous functional magnetic resonance imaging studies? Do those explanations also hold in the context of this study?

(3) The GloVe-based selection of language-sensitive electrodes (at least to me) isn't explained/motivated clearly enough (I think a more detailed explanation should be included in the Materials and Methods section). If the electrodes are selected based on GloVe embeddings, then isn't the main experiment just showing that representations from larger language models track more closely with GloVe embeddings? What justifies this methodology?

(4) (Minor weakness) The main experiments are largely replications of previous functional magnetic resonance imaging studies, with the exception of the one lag-based analysis. Is there anything else that the electrocorticography data can reveal that functional magnetic resonance imaging data can't?

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The Notch signaling pathway plays important roles in many developmental and disease processes. Although well-studied there remain many puzzling aspects. One is the fact that as well as activating the receptor through a trans-activation, the transmembrane ligands can interact with receptors present in the same cell. These cis-interactions are usually inhibitory, but in some cases, as in the assays used here, they may also be activating. With a total of 6 ligands and 4 receptor there are potentially a wide array of possible outcomes when different combinations are co-expressed in vivo. Here the authors set out to make a systematic analysis of the qualitative and quantitative differences in the signaling output from different receptor ligand combinations, generating sets of "signaling" (ligand expressing) and "receiving" (receptor +/- ligand expressing cells).

The readout of pathway activity is transcriptional, relying on the fusion of GAL4 in the intracellular part of the receptor. Positive ligand interactions result in proteolytic release of Gal4 that turns on expression of H2B-citrine. As an indicator of ligand and receptor expression levels, they are linked via TA to H2B mCherry and H2B mTurq expression respectively. The authors also manipulate expression of the glycosyltransferase Lunatic-Fringe (LFng) that modifies the EGF repeats in the extracellular domains impacting on their interactions. The testing of multiple ligand receptor combinations at varying expression levels is a tour de force, with over 50 stable cell lines generated, and yields valuable insights although as a whole, the results are quite complex.

Strengths:

Taking a reductionist approach to test systematically differences in the signaling strength, binding strength and cis-interactions from the different ligands in the context of the Notch1 and Notch 2 receptors (they justify well they choice of players to test via this approach) produces a baseline understanding of the different properties and leads to some unexpected and interesting findings. Notably:<br /> - Jag1 ligand expressing cells failed to activate Notch1 receptor although were capable of activating Notch2. Conversely, Jag2 cells elicited the strongest activation of both receptors. The results with Jag1 are surprising also because it exhibits some of the strongest binding to plate bound ligands. The failure to activate Notch1 has major functional significance and it will be important in future to understanding the mechanistic basis.<br /> - Jagged ligands have the strongest ciis-inhibitory effects and the receptors differ in their sensitivity to cis-inhibition by Dll ligands. These observations are in keeping with earlier in vivo and cell culture studies. More referencing of those would better place the work in context but it nicely supports and extends previous studies that were conducted in different ways.<br /> - Responses to most trans-activating ligands showed a degree of ultrasensitivity but this was not the case for cis-interactions where effects were more linear. This has implications for the way the two mechanisms operate and for how the signaling levels will be impacted by ligand expression levels.<br /> - Qualitatively similar results are obtained in a second cell line, suggesting they reflect fundamental properties of the ligands/receptors.

Weaknesses:

One weakness is that the methods used to quantify the expression of ligands and receptors rely on co-translation of tagged nuclear H2B proteins. These may not accurately capture surface levels/correctly modified transmembrane proteins. In general, the multiple conditions tested partly compensate for the concerns - for example as Jag1 cells do activate Notch2 even if they do not activate Notch1 some Jag1 must be getting to the surface. But even with Notch2, Jag1 activities are on the lower side, making it important to clarify, especially given the different outcomes with the plated ligands. Similarly, is the fact that all ligands "signalled strongest to Notch2" an inherent property or due to differences in surface levels Notch 2 compared to Notch1?.. The results would be considerably strengthened by calibration of the ligand/receptor levels (and ideally their sub-cellular localizations). Assessing the membrane protein levels would be relatively straightforward to perform on som eof the basic conditions because their ligand constructs contain Flag tags, making it plausible to relate surface protein to H2B, and there are antibodies available for Notch1 and Notch2

In the revised version this has been addressed to some extent. A figure showing the relationship between co-translated mTurquiose and surface receptor expression for some clones (Figure 1-figure supplement 1B) goes some way to address the concerns that differences in Notch1 and Notch 2 could be due to the receptor levels. The data analyzing surface ligand levels is more equivocal, (a Western blot for biotinylated surface proteins), as the levels detected vary substantially between Dll1 and Dll4 (the latter barely detectable). But as a signal for surface expression of Jag1 was obtained this rules-out one concern that this ligand was failing to reach the surface. A discussion of the caveats of the approach is warranted, to make clear the limitations.

Cis-activation as a mode of signaling has only emerged from these synthetic cell culture assays raising questions about its physiological relevance. Cis-activation is only seen at the higher ligand (Dll1, Dll4) levels, how physiological are the expression levels of the ligands/receptors in these assays? Is it likely that this would make a major contribution in vivo? Is it possible that the cells convert themselves into "signaling" and "receiving" sub-populations within the culture by post-translational mechanism. Again some analysis of the ligand/receptors in the cultures would be a valuable addition to show whether or not there are major heterogeneities.

It is hard to appreciate how much cell to cell variability in the "output" there is. For example, low "outputs" could arise from fewer cells becoming activated or from all cells being activated less. As presented, only the latter is considered. That maybe already evident in their data, but not easy for the reader to distinguish from the way they are presented. For example, in many of the graphs, data have been processed through multiple steps of normalization. Some discussion/consideration this point is needed.

Impact:<br /> Overall, cataloguing of the outcomes from the different ligand-receptor combinations, both in cis and trans, yields a valuable baseline for those investigating their functional roles in different contexts. There is still a long way to go before it will be possible to make a predictive model for outcomes based on expression levels, but this work gives an idea about the landscape and the complexities. This is especially important now that signaling relationships are frequently hypothesised based on single cell transcriptomic data. The results presented here demonstrate that the relationships are not straightforward when multiple players are involved.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript the authors extend their previous studies on trans-activation, cis-inhibition (PMID: 25255098) and cis-activation (PMID: 30628888) of the Notch pathway. Here they create a large number of cell lines using CHO-K1 and C2C12 cells expressing either Notch1-Gal4 or Notch2-Gal4 receptors which express a fluorescent protein upon receptor activation (receiver cells). For cis-inhibition and cis-activation assays, these cells were engineered to express one of the four canonical Notch ligands (Dll1, Dll4, Jag1, Jag2) under tetracycline control. Some of the receiver cells were also transfected with a Lunatic fringe (Lfng) plasmid to produce cells with a range of Lfng expression levels. Sender cells expressing all of the canonical ligands were also produced. Cells were mixed in a variety of co-culture assays to highlight trans-activation, cis-activation, and cis-inhibition. All four ligands were able to trans-activate Notch1 and Notch 2, although Jag1 transactivated Notch1 weakly. Lfng enhanced trans-activation of both Notch receptors by Dll1 and Dll4, and inhibited both receptors by Jag 1 and Jag2. Cis-expression of all four ligands were predominantly inhibitory, but Dll1 and Dll4 showed strong cis-activation of Notch2. Interestingly, cis-ligands preferentially inhibited trans-activation by the same ligand, with varying effects on other trans-ligands.

Strengths:

This represents the most comprehensive and rigorous analysis of the effects of canonical ligands on cis- and trans-activation, and cis-inhibition, of Notch1 and Notch2 in the presence or absence of Lfng so far. Studying cis-inhibition and cis-activation is difficult in vivo due to the presence of multiple Notch ligands and receptors (and Fringes) that often occur in single cells. The methods described here are a step towards generating cells expressing more complex arrays of ligands, receptors and Fringes to better mimic in vivo effects on Notch function.

In addition, the fact that their transactivation results with most ligands on Notch1 and 2 in the presence or absence of Lfng were largely consistent with previous publications provides confidence that the author's assays are working properly.

Weaknesses:

In the original version, there was a major concern about quantifying the amount of Notch receptors and ligands on the cell surface (especially Jag1) based on total fluorescence. The authors have added data to demonstrate that most of the receptors and ligands are on the cell surface, allaying most of these concerns.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Colomb et al have further explored the mechanisms of action of a family of three immunodulatory proteins produced by the murine gastrointestinal nematode parasite Heligmosomoides polygyrus bakeri. The family of HpARI proteins binds to the alarmin interleukin 33 and depending on family members, exhibits differential activities, either suppressive or enhancing. The present work extends previous studies by this group showing the binding of DNA by members of this family through a complement control protein (CCP1) domain. Moreover, they identify two members of the family that bind via this domain in a non-specific manner to the extracellular matrix molecule heparan sulphate through a basic charged patch in CCP1. The authors thus propose that binding to DNA or heparan sulphate extends the suppressive action of these two parasite molecules, whereas the third family member does not bind and consequently has a shorter half-life and may function via diffusion.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Colomb et al. investigated here the heparin-binding activity of the HpARI family proteins from H. polygyrus. HpARIs bind to IL-33, a pleiotropic cytokine, and modulate its activities. HpARI1/2 has suppressive functions, while HpARI3 can enhance the interaction between IL-33 and its receptor. This study builds upon their previous observation that HpARI2 binds DNA via its CCP1 domain. Here, the authors tested the CCP1 domain of HpARIs in binding heparan sulfate, an important component of the extracellular matrix, and found that 1/2 bind heparan, but 3 cannot, which is related to their half-lives in vivo.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In their manuscript, Zhou et al. analyze the factors controlling the activation and maintenance of a sustained cell cycle block in response to persistent DNA DSBs. By conditionally depleting components of the DDC using auxin-inducible degrons, the authors verified that some of them are only required for the activation (e.g., Dun1) or the maintenance (e.g., Chk1) of the DSB-dependent cell cycle arrest, while others such as Ddc2, Rad24, Rad9 or Rad53 are required for both processes. Notably, they further show that after a prolonged arrest (>24 h) in a strain carrying two DSBs, the DDC becomes dispensable and the mitotic block is then maintained by SAC proteins such as Mad1, Mad2 or the mitotic exit network (MEN) component Bub2.

Strengths:

The manuscript dissects the specific role of different components of the DDC and the SAC during the induction of a cell cycle arrest induced by DNA damage, as well as their contribution for the short-term and long-term maintenance of a DNA DSB-induced mitotic block. Overall, the experiments are well described and properly executed, and the data in the manuscript are clearly presented. The conclusions drawn are generally well supported by the experimental data. Their observations contribute to drawing a clearer picture of the relative contribution of these factors to the maintenance of genome stability in cells exposed to permanent DNA damage.

Weaknesses:

The main weakness of the study is that it is fundamentally based on the use of the auxin-inducible degron (AID) strategy to deplete proteins. This widely used method allows an efficient depletion of proteins in the cell. However, the drawback is that a tag is added to the protein, which can affect the functionality of the targeted protein or modify its capacity to interact with others. In fact, three of the proteins that are depleted using the AID systems are shown to be clearly hypomorphic, and hence their capacity to induce a strong checkpoint response might be compromised. A corroboration of at least some of the results using an alternative manner to eliminate the proteins would help to strengthen the conclusions of the manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript analyzes and attempts to discriminate genetic requirements for DNA damage-induced cell cycle checkpoint induction, maintenance, and adaptation in budding yeast bearing one or two unrepairable DNA double strand breaks using auxin-induced degradation (AID) of key DNA damage response (DDR) factors. The study paid particular attention to solving a puzzle regarding how yeasts bearing two unrepaired DNA breaks fail to engage in "adaptation" whereas those with a single unrepairable break eventually resume cell cycling after a prolonged (up to 12 h) G2 arrest.

The key findings are: 1. Genetic requirements for the entry and the maintenance of DDC are separable. For instance, Dun1 is partially required for the entry but not the DDC maintenance whereas Chk1 is only required for maintenance. 2. Cells with two unrepairable breaks respond to DDR only up to a certain time (~12-15 h post damage) and beyond this point, depend on spindle assembly checkpoint (SAC) and mitotic exit network (MEN) to halt cell cycling. 3. The authors also propose an interesting concept that the location of DNA breaks and their distance to centromeres are important factors dictating the effect of SAC/MEN on the duration of cell cycle arrest after prolonged arrest (and cells become "deaf" to persistent arrest signals) and yeast's adaptability following DNA damage. The results provide most compelling evidence to date on the role of SAC/MEN in DNA damage response and cell cycle arrest albeit its impact might be limited to the handful of model systems due to the vastly different centromeric elements and far larger chromosome sizes in metazoan cells. The study albeit briefly discussed the basis of transitions from entry, maintenance, and adaptation ( ex. changes in centromeric architectures), it does not offer detailed explanations or a testable hypothesis to this topic.

Overall, the conclusion of the study is well supported by the elegant set of genetic experimental data and employed multiple readouts on DDC factor depletion on checkpoint integrity and cell cycle status. Although the study simply measures Rad53 phosphorylation as the primary metric to assess checkpoint status, it successfully demonstrated how the signaling is modified through the different stages and that eventually cells become recalcitrant to DDC signaling after a prolonged arrest. The results are clear, and rigorously tested and carefully interpreted with good discussion on the possible limitations. The revision provided detailed responses to the reviewers' comments and addressed a few key concerns, one of which is universally raised by the reviewers on the full functionality of AID tagged DDC factors, by simply expressing excess Rad9-AID to restore more normal looking checkpoint response. It will be interesting if the excess expression of other DDC factors could overcome suboptimal checkpoints in cells after 24 h post damage.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The DNA damage checkpoint (DDC) inhibits the metaphase-anaphase transition to repair various types of DNA damage, including DNA double strand breaks (DSBs). One irreparable DSB can maintain the DDC for 12-15 hours in yeast, after which the cells resume the cell cycle. If there are two DSBs, the DDC is maintained for at least 24 hours. In this study, the authors take advantage of this tighter DDC to investigate whether the best-known proteins involved in establishing the DDC are also responsible for its long-term maintenance during irreparable DSBs. They do this by cleverly degrading such proteins after DSB formation. They show that most, but not all, DDC proteins maintain the cell cycle block. Interestingly, DDC proteins become dispensable after 15 hours and the block is then maintained by spindle assembly checkpoint (SAC) proteins.

Strengths:

The authors have engineered a tight yeast system to study DDC shutdown after irreparable DSBs and used it to address whether checkpoint proteins (DDC and SAC) contribute to the long-term maintenance of DSB-mediated G2/M block. The different roles of Ddc2, Chk1 and Dun1 are interesting, while the fact that SAC overtakes DDC after 15 hours is intriguing and highlights how DSBs near and far from centromeres can have a profound impact on cell adaptation to DSBs. In their revision, the authors have now improved the Rad9-AID methodology to place Rad9 in the context of DDC adaptation, as well as widening the association between adaptation and proximity to centromeres.

Weaknesses:

Some of the results they present essentially confirm their own previous findings, albeit with a tighter strain design for long-term arrest. Conclusions about the maintenance of G2/M in several mutant combinations could have been strengthened by adding simple microscopy experiments with DAPI staining. No clear mechanism for how depletion of Bub2, but not Bfa1, can relieve the G2/M (metaphase) block is given.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors investigated the function of Microrchidia (MORC) proteins in the human malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum. Recognizing MORC's implication in DNA compaction and gene silencing across diverse species, the study aimed to explore the influence of PfMORC on transcriptional regulation, life cycle progression and survival of the malaria parasite. Depletion of PfMORC leads to the collapse of heterochromatin and thus to the killing of the parasite. The potential regulatory role of PfMORC in the survival of the parasite suggests that it may be central to the development of new antimalarial strategies.

Strengths:

The application of the cutting-edge CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing tool, combined with other molecular and genomic approaches, provides a robust methodology. Comprehensive ChIP-seq experiments indicate PfMORC's interaction with sub-telomeric areas and genes tied to antigenic variation, suggesting its pivotal role in stage transition. The incorporation of Hi-C studies is noteworthy, enabling the visualization of changes in chromatin conformation in response to PfMORC knockdown.

Weaknesses:

Although disruption of PfMORC affects chromatin architecture and stage-specific gene expression, determining a direct cause-effect relationship requires further investigation. Furthermore, while numerous interacting partners have been identified, their validation is critical and understanding their role in directing MORC to its targets or in influencing the chromatin compaction activities of MORC is essential for further clarification. In addition, the authors should adjust their conclusions in the manuscript to more accurately represent the multifaceted functions of MORC in the parasite.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The authors previously showed in cell culture that Su(H), the transcription factor mediating Notch pathway activity in Drosophila, was phosphorylated on S269 and they found that a phospho-deficient Su(H) allele behaves as a moderate gain of Notch activity in flies, notably during blood cell development. Since downregulation of Notch signaling is important for the production of specialized blood cell types (lamellocytes) in response to wasp parasitism, the authors hypothesized that Su(H) phosphorylation might be involved in this cellular immune response.<br /> Consistent with their hypothesis, the authors now show that Su(H)S269A knock-in flies display a reduced response to wasp parasitism and that Su(H) is phosphorylated upon infestation. Using in vitro kinase assays and a genetic screen, they identify the PKCa family member Pkc53E as the putative kinase involved in Su(H) phosphorylation and they show that Pkc53E can bind Su(H). They further show that Pkc53E deficit or its knock-down in larval blood cells results in similar blood cell phenotypes as Su(H)S269A and their epistatic analyses indicate that Pkc53E acts upstream of Su(H). Finally, they show that Pkc53E mutants aslo display a compromised immune response to wasp parasitism.

Strengths

The manuscript is well presented and the experiments are sound, with a good combination of genetic and biochemical approaches and several clear phenotypes backing the main conclusions. Notably Su(H)S269A mutation strongly reduces lamellocyte production. Moreover, the epistatic data are convincing, notably concerning the relationship between Notch/Su(H) and Pkc53E for crystal cell production.<br /> Even though it is not fully established, the overall model is credible and interesting. In addition, it opens further avenues of research to study the activation of Pkc in response to an immune challenge.

Weaknesses

Apparently, the hypothesis that Pkc53E is required for Su(H) phosphorylation in vivo could not be directly tested due to the lack of an appropriate tool (the specificity and sensitivity of the current anti-pS269 antibody was insufficient).<br /> Also, the poor immune response of Pkc53E mutant might rather be linked to their constitutively reduced circulating blood cell number than to a deficit in Notch/Su(H) down-regulation following wasp infestation.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The current draft by Deischel et.al., describes the role of Pkc53E in the phosphorylation of Su(H) to down regulate its transcriptional activity to mount a successful immune response upon parasitic wasp-infection. Overall, I find the study interesting and relevant especially the identification of Pkc53E in phosphorylation of Su(H) is very nice. The authors have proved the central idea linking phosphorylation of Su(H) via Pkc53E to implying its modulation of Notch activity to mount a robust immune response is now well addressed in its entirety and I find the paper indeed very interesting.

Comments on revised version:

The authors have addressed all pending concerns and I have no further comments. I indeed complement the authors for their wonderful piece of work.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Diechsel et al. provide important and valuable insights into how Notch signaling is shut down in response to parasitic wasp infestation in order to suppress crystal cell fate and favor lamellocyte production. The study shows that CSL transcription factor Su(H) is phosphorylated at S269A in response to parasitic wasp infestation and this inhibitory phosphorylation is critical for shutting down Notch. The authors go on to perform a screen for kinases responsible for this phosphorylation and have identified Pkc53E as the specific kinase acting on Su(H) at S269A. Using analysis of mutants, RNAi and biochemistry-based approaches the authors convincingly show how Pkc53E-Su(H) interaction is critical for remodeling hematopoiesis upon wasp challenge. I find the study interesting, and the data presented supports the overall conclusions made by the authors. The authors have addressed all my comments satisfactorily in the revised submission.

Strengths:

The manuscript is well presented, and the conclusions made are backed by genetic, biochemical and molecular biology-based approaches. Overall, the authors convincingly demonstrate how Pkc53E mediated phosphorylated of Su(H) shuts down Notch signaling during wasp infestation in Drosophila.

Weaknesses:

The exact molecular trigger for activation of Pkc53E is still uncharacterized and it would be interesting to know how Pkc53E gets activated during wasp infestation and whether Pkc53E gets activated turning down Notch in other stress induced scenarios.

The authors have addressed comments satisfactorily. Overall, I think the findings are interesting and would be useful to the field of developmental biology and immunology and address an important gap in the field. The most significant conclusion from the work is how Notch acts as a molecular switch during parasitic wasp infestation.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In this work, the authors study the dynamics of fast-adapting pathogens under immune pressure in a host population with prior immunity. In an immunologically diverse population, an antigenically escaping variant can perform a partial sweep, as opposed to a sweep in a homogeneous population. In a certain parameter regime, the frequency dynamics can be mapped onto a random walk with zero mean, which is reminiscent of neutral dynamics, albeit with differences in higher order moments. Next, they develop a simplified effective model of time dependent selection with expiring fitness advantage, and posit that the resulting partial sweep dynamics could explain the behaviour of influenza trajectories empirically found in earlier work (Barrat-Charlaix et al. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 2021). Finally, the authors put forward an interesting hypothesis: the mode of evolution is connected to the age of a lineage since ingression into the human population. A mode of meandering frequency trajectories and delayed fixation has indeed been observed in one of the long-established subtypes of human influenza, albeit so far only over a limited period from 2013 to 2020. The paper is overall interesting and well-written.

In the revised version, the authors have addressed questions on the role of clonal interference by new simulations in the SI, clarified the connection between the SIR model and vanishing-fitness models, and placed their analysis into the broader context of consumer resource dynamics.

However, the general conclusion, as stated in the abstract, that variant trajectories become unpredictable as a consequence of the SIR dynamics remains somewhat misleading. Two aspects contribute to this problem. (1) The empirical observation of ``quasi-neutrality', i.e. the absence of a net frequency increase inferred as an average of many trajectories at intermediate frequencies, does not imply that individual trajectories are neutral (i.e., fully stochastic and unpredictable) over the time span of observation. Rather, it just says that some have a positive and some have a negative selection coefficient over that time span. (2) As stated by the authors, the observation of average quasi-neutrality is indeed incompatible with the travelling wave model, where initially successful new variants are assumed to retain a fixed, positive selection coefficient from origination to fixation. This observation also limits predictions by extrapolation, where a positive selection coefficient inferred at small frequency is assumed to remain the same at later times and higher frequencies. However, predictions derived from Gog and Grenfell's multi-strain SIR model, as used by several authors, do not make the assumption of fixed selection coefficients and incorporate trajectory-specific, time-dependent expiration effects into their model predictions. This distinction remains blurred throughout the text of the paper.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

In this work the authors present a multi-strain SIR model in which viruses circulate in a heterogeneous population with different groups characterized by different cross-immunity structures. They reformulate the qualitative features of these SIR dynamics as a random walk characterized by new variants saturating at intermediate frequencies. Then they recast their microscopic description to an effective formalism in which viral strains lose fitness independently from one another. They study several features of this process numerically and analytically, such as the average variants frequency, the probability of fixation, and the coalescent time. They compare qualitatively the dynamics of this model to variants dynamics in RNA viruses such as flu and SARS-CoV-2

The idea that vanishing fitness mechanisms that produce partial sweeps may explain important features of flu evolution is very interesting. Its simplicity and potential generality make it a powerful framework. As noted by the authors, this may have important implications for predictability of virus evolution and such a framework may be beneficial when trying to build predictive models for vaccine design. The vanishing fitness model is well analyzed and produces interesting structures in the strains coalescent. Even though the comparison with data is largely qualitative, this formalism would be helpful when developing more accurate microscopic ingredients that could reproduce viral dynamics quantitatively.<br /> This general framework has the potential to be more universal than human RNA viruses, in situations where invading mutants would saturate at intermediate frequencies.

The qualitative connection between the coarse-grained features of these vanishing fitness dynamics and structured SIR processes offers additional intuition relevant to host-pathogens interactions, although as noted by the authors other ecological processes could drive similar evolutionary patterns. The additions in the revised manuscript, substantiating more thoroughly the connection between the SIR and the vanishing fitness description, are important to better appreciate the scope of the work.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors used a novel multi-dimensional experience sampling (mDES) approach to identify data-driven patterns of experience samples that they use to interrogate fMRI data collected during naturalistic movie-watching data. They identify a set of multi-sensory features of a set of movies that delineate low-dimensional gradients of BOLD fMRI signal patterns that have previously been linked to fundamental axes of cortical organization.

Strengths:

* The novel solution to challenges associated with experience sampling offer potential access to aspects of experience that have been challenging to assess.

Weaknesses:

* The lack of direct interrogation of individual differences/reliability of the mDES scores warrants some pause.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The present study explores how thoughts map onto brain activity, a notoriously challenging question because of the dynamic, subjective, and abstract nature of thoughts. To tackle this question, the authors collected continuous thought ratings from participants watching a movie, and additionally made use of an open-source fMRI dataset recorded during movie watching as well as five established gradients of brain variation as identified in resting state data. Using a voxel-space approach, the results show that episodic knowledge, verbal detail, and sensory engagement of thoughts commonly modulate visual and auditory cortex, while intrusive distraction modulates the frontoparietal network. Additionally, sensory engagement mapped onto a gradient from primary to association cortex, while episodic knowledge mapped onto a gradient from the dorsal attention network to visual cortex. Building on the association between behavioral performance and neural activation, the authors conclude that sensory coupling to external input and frontoparietal executive control are key to comprehension in naturalistic settings.

The manuscript stands out for its methodological advancements in quantifying thoughts over time and its aim to study the implementation of thoughts in the brain during naturalistic movie watching. However, the conceptualization of thoughts remains vague, limiting the study's insights into brain function.

Strengths:

(1) The study raises a question that has been difficult to study in naturalistic settings so far but is key to understanding human cognition, namely how thoughts map onto brain activation.<br /> (2) The thought ratings introduce a novel method for continuously tracking thoughts, promising utility beyond this study.<br /> (3) The authors used diverse data types, metrics, and analyses to substantiate the effects of thinking from multiple perspectives.

Weaknesses:

(1) The distinction between thinking and stimulus processing (in the sense of detecting and assigning meaning to features, modulated by factors such as attention) remains unclear. Is "thinking" a form of conscious access or a reportable read-out from sensory and higher-level stimulus processing? Or does it simply refer to the method used here to identify different processing states?<br /> (2) The dimensions of thought appear to be directly linked to brain areas traditionally associated with core faculties of perception and cognition. For example, superior temporal cortex codes for speech information, which is also where thought reports on verbal detail localize in this study. This raises the question of whether the present study truly captures mechanisms specific to thinking and distinct from processing, especially given that individual variations in reports were not considered and movie-specific features were not controlled for.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

This study attempted to investigate the relations between processing in the human brain during movie watching and corresponding thought processes. This is a highly interesting question, as movie watching presents a semi-constrained task, combining naturally occurring thoughts and common processing of sensory inputs across participants. This task is inherently difficult because in order to know what participants are thinking at any given moment, one has to interrupt the same thought process which is the object of study.

This study attempts to deal with this issue by aggregating staggered experience sampling data across participants in one behavioral study and using the population level thought patterns to model brain activity in different participants in an open access fMRI dataset.

The behavioral data consist of 120 participants who watched 3 11-minute movie clips. Participants responded to the mDES questionnaire: 16 visual scales characterizing ongoing thought 5 times, two minutes apart, in each clip. The 16 items are first reduced to 4 factors using PCA, and their levels are compared across the different movies. The factors are "episodic knowledge", "intrusive distraction", "verbal detail", and "sensory engagement". The factors differ between the clips, and distraction is negatively correlated with movie comprehension and sensory engagement is positively correlated with comprehension.

The components are aggregated across participants (transforming single subject mDES answers into PCA space and concatenating responses of different participants) and are used as regressors in a GLM analysis. This analysis identifies brain regions corresponding to the components. The resulting brain maps reveal activations that are consistent with the proposed mental processes (e.g. negative loading for intrusion in frontoparietal network, positive loadings for visual and auditory cortices for sensory engagement).

Then, the coordinates for brain regions which were significant for more than one component are entered into a paper search in neurosynth. It is not clear what this analysis demonstrates beyond the fact that sensory engagement contained both visual and auditory components.

The next analysis projected group-averaged brain activation onto gradients (based on previous work) and used gradient timecourses to predict the behavioral report timecourses. This revealed that high activations in gradient 1 (sensory→association) predicted high sensory engagement, and that "episodic knowledge" thought patterns were predicted by increased visual cortex activations. Then, permutation tests were performed to see whether these thought pattern related activations corresponded to well defined regions on a given cluster.

This paper is framed as presenting a new paradigm but it does little to discuss what this paradigm serves, what are its limitations and how it should have been tested. The novelty appears to be in using experience sampling from 1 sample to model the responses of a second sample.

What are the considerations for treating high-order thought patterns that occur during film viewing as stable enough to use across participants? What would be the limitations of this method? (Do all people reading this paper think comparable thoughts reading through the sections?) This is briefly discussed in the revised manuscript and generally treated as an opportunity rather than as a limitation.

In conclusion, this study tackles a highly interesting subject and does it creatively and expertly. It fails to discuss and establish the utility and appropriateness of its proposed method.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, the authors study the effects of synaptic activity on the process of eye-specific segregation, focusing on the role of caspase 3, classically associated with apoptosis. The method for synaptic silencing is elegant and requires intrauterine injection of a tetanus toxin light chain into the eye. The authors report that this silencing leads to increased caspase 3 in the contralateral eye (Figure 1) and demonstrate evidence of punctate caspase 3 that does not overlap neuronal markers like map2. However, the quantifications showing increased caspase 3 in the silenced eye (done at P5) are complicated by overlap with the signal from entire dying cells in the thalamus. The authors also show that global caspase 3 deficiency impairs the process of eye-specific segregation and circuit refinement (Figures 3-4).

The authors also report that "synapse weakening-induced caspase-3 activation determines the specificity of synapse elimination mediated by microglia but not astrocytes" (abstract). They report that microglia engulf fewer RGC axon terminals in caspase 3 deficient animals (Figure 5), and that this preferentially occurs in silenced terminals, but this preferential effect is lost in caspase 3 knockouts. Based on this, the authors conclude that caspase 3 directs microglia to eliminate weaker synapses. However, a much simpler and critical experiment that the authors did not perform is to eliminate microglia and show that the caspase 3 dependent effects go away. Without this experiment, there is no reason to assume that microglia are directing synaptic elimination.

Finally, the authors also report that caspase 3 deficiency alters synapse loss in 6-month-old female APP/PS1 mice, but this is not really related to the rest of the paper.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This manuscript by Yu et al. demonstrates that activation of caspase-3 is essential for synapse elimination by microglia, but not by astrocytes. This study also reveals that caspase 3 activation-mediated synapse elimination is required for retinogeniculate circuit refinement and eye-specific territories segregation in dLGN in an activity-dependent manner. Inhibition of synaptic activity increases caspase-3 activation and microglial phagocytosis, while caspase-3 deficiency blocks microglia-mediated synapse elimination and circuit refinement in the dLGN. The authors further demonstrate that caspase-3 activation mediates synapse loss in AD, loss of caspase-3 prevented synapse loss in AD mice. Overall, this study reveals that caspase-3 activation is an important mechanism underlying the selectivity of microglia-mediated synapse elimination during brain development and in neurodegenerative diseases.

Strengths:

A previous study (Gyorffy B. et al., PNSA 2018) has shown that caspase-3 signal correlates with C1q tagging of synapses (mostly using in vitro approaches), which suggests that caspase-3 would be an underlying mechanism of microglial selection of synapses for removal. The current study provides direct in vivo evidence demonstrating that caspase-3 activation is essential for microglial elimination of synapses in both brain development and neurodegeneration.

The paper is well-organized and easy to read. The schematic drawings are helpful for understanding the experimental designs and purposes.

Weaknesses:

It seems that astrocytes contain large amounts of engulfed materials from ipsilateral and contralateral axon terminals (Figure S11B) and that caspase-3 deficiency also decreased the volume of engulfed materials by astrocytes (Figures S11C, D). So the possibility that astrocyte-mediated synapse elimination contributes to circuit refinement in dLGN cannot be excluded.

Does blocking single or dual inactivation of synapse activity (using TeTxLC) increase microglial or astrocytic engulfment of synaptic materials (of one or both sides) in dLGN?

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper is an incremental follow-up to the authors' recent paper which showed that Purkinje cells make inhibitory synapses onto brainstem neurons in the parabrachial nucleus which project directly to the forebrain. In that precedent paper, the authors used a mouse line that expresses the presynaptic marker synaptophysin in Purkinje cells to identify Purkinje cell terminals in the brainstem and they observed labeled puncta not only in the vestibular and parabrachial nuclei, as expected, but also in neighboring dorsal brainstem nuclei, prominently the central pontine grey. The present study, motivated by the lack of thorough characterization of PC projections to the brainstem, uses the same mouse line to anatomically map the density and a PC-specific channelrhodopsin mouse line to electrophysiologically assess the strength of Purkinje cell synapses in dorsal brainstem nuclei. The main findings are (1) the density of Purkinje cell synapses is highest in vestibular and parabrachial nuclei and correlates with the magnitude of evoked inhibitory synaptic currents, and (2) Purkinje cells also synapse in the central pontine grey nucleus but not in the locus coeruleus or mesencephalic nucleus.

Strengths:

The complementary use of anatomical and electrophysiological methods to survey the distribution and efficacy of Purkinje cell synapses on brainstem neurons in mouse lines that express markers and light-sensitive opsins specifically in Purkinje cells is the major strength of this study. By systematically mapping presynaptic terminals and light-evoked inhibitory postsynaptic currents in the dorsal brainstem, the authors provide convincing evidence that Purkinje cells do synapse directly onto pontine central grey and nearby neurons but do not synapse onto trigeminal motor or locus coeruleus neurons. Their results also confirm previously documented heterogeneity of Purkinje cell inputs to the vestibular nucleus and parabrachial neurons.

Weaknesses:

Although the study provides strong evidence that Purkinje cells do not make extensive synapses onto LC neurons, which is a helpful caveat given previous reports to the contrary, it falls short of providing the comprehensive characterization of Purkinje cell brainstem synapses which seemed to be the primary motivation of the study. The main information provided is a regional assessment of PC density and efficacy, which seems of limited utility given that we are not informed about the different sources of PC inputs, variations in the sizes of PC terminals, the subcellular location of synaptic terminals, or the anatomical and physiological heterogeneity of postsynaptic cell types. The title of this paper would be more accurate if "characterization" were replaced by "survey".

Several of the study's conclusions are quite general and have already been made for vestibular nuclei, including the suggestions in the Abstract, Results, and Discussion that PCs selectively influence brainstem subregions and that PCs target cell types with specific behavioral roles.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

While it is often assumed that the cerebellar cortex connects, via its sole output neuron, the Purkinje cell, exclusively to the cerebellar nuclei, axonal projections of the Purkinje cells to dorsal brainstem regions have been well documented. This paper provides comprehensive mapping and quantification of such extracerebellar projections of the Purkinje cells, most of which are confirmed with electrophysiology in slice preparation. A notable methodological strength of this work is the use of highly Purkinje cell-specific transgenic strategies, enabling selective and unbiased visualization of Purkinje terminals in the brainstem. By utilizing these selective mouse lines, the study offers compelling evidence challenging the general assumption that Purkinje cell targets are limited to the cerebellar nuclei. While the individual connections presented are not entirely novel, this paper provides a thorough and unambiguous demonstration of their collective significance. Regarding another major claim of this paper, "characterization of direct Purkinje cell outputs (Title)", however, the depth of electrophysiological analysis is limited to the presence/absence of physiological Purkinje input to postsynaptic brainstem neurons whose known cell types are mostly blinded. Overall, conceptual advance is largely limited to confirmatory or incremental, although it would be useful for the field to have the comprehensive landscape presented.

Strengths:

(1) Unsupervised comprehensive mapping and quantification of the Purkinje terminals in the dorsal brainstem are enabled, for the first time, by using the current state-of-the-art mouse lines, BAC-Pcp2-Cre and synaptophysin-tdTomato reporter (Ai34).

(2) Combinatorial quantification with vGAT puncta and synaptophysin-tdTomato labeled Purkinje terminals clarifies the anatomical significance of the Purkinje terminals as an inhibitory source in each dorsal brainstem region.

(3) Electrophysiological confirmation of the presence of physiological Purkinje synaptic input to 7 out of 9 dorsal brainstem regions identified.

(4) Pan-Purkinje ChR2 reporter provides solid electrophysiological evidence to help understand the possible influence of the Purkinje cells onto LC.

Weaknesses:

(1) The present paper is largely confirmatory of what is presented in a previous paper published by the author's group (Chen et al., 2023, Nat Neurosci). In this preceding paper, the author's group used AAV1-mediated anterograde transsynaptic strategy to identify postsynaptic neurons of the Purkinje cells. The experiments performed in the present paper are, by nature, complementary to the AAV1 tracing which can also infect retrogradely and thus is not able to demonstrate the direction of synaptic connections between reciprocally connected regions. Anatomical findings are all consistent with the preceding paper. The likely absence of robust physiological connections from the Purkinje to LC has also been evidenced in the preceding paper by examining c-Fos response to Purkinje terminal photoinhibition at the PBN/LC region.

(2) Although the authors appear to assume uniform cell type and postsynaptic response in each of the dorsal brainstem nuclei (as noted in the Discussion, "PCs likely function similarly to their inputs to the cerebellar nuclei, where a very brief pause in firing can lead to large and rapid elevations in target cell firing"), we know that the responses to the Purkinje cell input are cell type dependent, which vary in neurotransmitter, output targets, somata size, and distribution, in the cerebellar and vestibular nuclei (Shin et al., 2011, J Neurosci; Najac and Raman, 2015, J Neurosci; Özcan et al., 2020, J Neurosci). This consideration impacts the interpretation of two key findings: (a) "Large ... PC-IPSCs are preferentially observed in subregions with the highest densities of PC synapses (Abstract)". For example, we know that the terminal sparse regions reported in the present paper do contain Floccular Targeted Neurons that are sparse yet have dense somatic terminals with profound postinhibitory rebound (Shin et al.). Despite their sparsity, these postsynaptic neurons play a distinct and critical role in proper vestibuloocular reflex. Therefore, associating broad synaptic density with "PC preferential" targets, as written in the Abstract, may not fully capture the behavioral significance of Purkinje extracerebellar projections. (b) "We conclude ... only a small fraction of cell. This suggests that PCs target cell types with specific behavioral roles (Abstract, the last sentence)". Prior research has already established that "PCs target cell types with specific behavioral roles in brainstem regions". Also, whether 23 % (for PCG), for example, is "a small fraction" would be subjective: it might represent a numerically small but functionally important cell type population. The physiological characterization provided in the present cell type-blind analysis could, from a functional perspective, even be decremental when compared to existing cell type-specific analyses of the Purkinje cell inputs in the literature.

(3) The quantification analyses used to draw conclusions about<br /> (a) the significance of PC terminals among all GABAergic terminals and<br /> (b) the fractions of electrophysiologically responsive postsynaptic brainstem neurons may have potential sampling considerations:.<br /> (b.i) this study appears to have selected subregions from each brainstem nucleus for quantification (Figure 2). However, the criteria for selecting these subregions are not explicitly detailed, which could affect the interpretation of the results.<br /> (b.ii) the mapping of recorded cells (Figure 3) seems to show a higher concentration in terminal-rich regions of the vestibular nuclei.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Chen and colleagues explores the connections from cerebellar Purkinje cells to various brainstem nuclei. They combine two methods - presynaptic puncta labeling as putative presynaptic markers, and optogenetics, to test the anatomical projections and functional connectivity from Purkinje cells onto a variety of brainstem nuclei. Overall, their study provides an atlas of sorts of Purkinje cell connectivity to the brainstem, which includes a critical analysis of some of their own data from another publication. Overall, the value of this work is to both provide neural substrates by which Purkinje cells may influence the brainstem and subsequent brain regions independent of the deep cerebellar nuclei and also, to provide a critical analysis of viral-based methods to explore neuronal connectivity.

Strengths:

The strengths lie in the simplicity of the study, the number of cells patched, and the relationship between the presence of putative presynaptic puncta and electrophysiological results. This type of study is important and should provide a foundation for future work exploring cerebellar inputs and outputs. Overall, I think that the critique of viral-based methods to define connectivity, and a more holistic assessment of what connectivity is and how it should be defined is timely and warranted, as I think this is under-appreciated by many groups and overall, there is a good deal of research being published that do not properly consider the issues that this manuscript raises about what viral-based connectivity maps do and do not tell us.

Weaknesses:

While I overall liked the manuscript, I do have a few concerns that relate to interpretation of results, and discussion of technological limitations. The main concerns I have relate to the techniques that the authors use, and an insufficient discussion of their limitations. The authors use a Cre-dependent mouse line that expresses a synaptophysin-tomato marker, which the authors confidently state is a marker of synapses. This is misleading. Synaptophysin is a vesicle marker, and as such, labels axons, where vesicles are present in transit, and likely cell bodies where the protein is being produced. As such, the presence of tdtomato should not be interpreted definitively as the presence of a synapse. The use of vGAT as a marker, while this helps to constrain the selection of putative pre-synaptic sites, is also a vesicle marker and will likely suffer the same limitations (though in this case, the expression is endogenous and not driven by the ROSA locus). A more conservative interpretation of the data would be that the authors are assessing putative pre-synaptic sites with their analysis. This interpretation is wholly consistent with their findings showing the presence of tdtomato in some regions but only sparse connectivity - this would be expected in the event that axons are passing through. If the authors wish to strongly assert that they are specifically assessing synapses, a marker better restricted to synapses and not vesicles may be more appropriate.

Similarly, while optogenetics/slice electrophysiology remains the state of the art for assessing connectivity between cell populations, it is not without limitations. For example, connections that are not contained within the thickness of the slice (here, 200 um, which is not particularly thick for slice ephys preps) will not be detected. As such, the absence of connections is harder to interpret than the presence of connections. Slices were only made in the coronal plane, which means that if there is a particular topology to certain connections that is orthogonal to that plane, those connections may be under-represented. As such, all connectivity analyses likely are under-representations of the actual connectivity that exists in the intact brain. Therefore, perhaps the authors should consider revising their assessments of connections, or lack thereof, of Purkinje cells to e.g., LC cells. While their data do make a compelling case that the connections between Purkinje cells and LC cells are not particularly strong or numerous, especially compared to other nearby brainstem nuclei, their analyses do indicate that at least some such connections do exist. Thus, rather than saying that the viral methods such as rabies virus are not accurate reflections of connectivity - perhaps a more circumspect argument would be that the quantitative connectivity maps reported by other groups using rabies virus do not always reflect connectivity defined by other means e.g., functional connections with optogenetics. In some cases, the authors do suggest this (e.g."Together, these findings indicate that reliance on anatomical tracing experiments alone is insufficient to establish the presence and importance of a synaptic connection"), but in other cases, they are more dismissive of viral tracing results (e.g. "it further suggests that these neurons project to the cerebellum and were not retrogradely labeled"). Furthermore, some statements are a bit misleading e.g., mentioning that rabies methods are critically dependent on starter cell identity immediately following the citation of studies mapping inputs onto LC cells. While in general, this claim has merit, the studies cited (19-21) use Dbh-Cre to define LC-NE cells which does have good fidelity to the cells of interest in the LC. Therefore, rewording this section in order to raise these issues generally without proximity to the citations in the previous sentence may maintain the authors' intention without suggesting that perhaps the rabies studies from LC-NE cells that identified inputs from Purkinje cells were inaccurate due to poor fidelity of the Cre line. Overall, this manuscript would certainly not be the first report indicating that the rabies virus does not provide a quantitative map of input connections. In my opinion, this is still under-appreciated by the broad community and should be explicitly discussed. Thus, an acknowledgment of previous literature on this topic and how their work contributes to that argument is warranted.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Bursicon is a key hormone regulating cuticle tanning in insects. While the molecular mechanisms of its function are rather well studied--especially in the model insect Drosophila melanogaster, its effects and functions in different tissues are less well understood. Here, the authors show that bursicon and its receptor play a role in regulating aspects of the seasonal polyphenism of Cacopsylla chinensis. They found that low temperature treatment activated the bursicon signaling pathway during the transition from summer form to winter form and affect cuticle pigment and chitin content, and cuticle thickness. In addition, the authors show that miR-6012 targets the bursicon receptor, CcBurs-R, thereby modulating the function of bursicon signaling pathway in the seasonal polyphenism of C. chinensis. This discovery expands our knowledge of the roles of neuropeptide bursicon action in arthropod biology.

Reviewer comments on revised version

(a) Major concerns<br /> (1) The revision did not respond to the major concern regarding the threshold response that defines polyphenism. Therefore, it still falls short of the claims made, since the claims were not revised either. Specifically, the authors now include a time series of tanning at two different temperatures, demonstrating the time points at which the induced tanning proceeds (Fig. S1). However, the appropriate response to that comment would have temperatures on the x-axis, not time. Intermediate temperatures are needed to test whether the induction is a threshold response or simply a continuous norm of reaction.<br /> (2) The authors also did not respond to the major comment regarding environmental induction of miR-6012 expression. Rather, Fig. 5E shows a time series under two temperatures, similar to the tanning time series. To test whether its induction is a threshold response (again, what defines polyphenism), a series of induction conditions is needed. Fig. 5E simply shows changes in expression over time under one induction temperature (25 ºC).<br /> (3) Although the manuscript title has been changed, little to nothing else in the revised text addresses the concern that this study is about tanning in psyllids, not seasonal polyphenism. The other traits making up the polyphenism, as well as their threshold response, were not measured.

In summary, this revision failed to address most of the chief concerns of the review summary. This manuscript should be reframed as a study of tanning in a species other than Drosophila, and any claims about polyphenism (that is, an environmentally induced threshold trait) still need to be tested.

Regarding the other concerns raised by the reviewers:

(4) Issues related to the assignment of the receptor used as a bursicon receptor were satisfactorily addressed.<br /> (5) Experiments regarding the timing of cuticle production presented in Supplementary Figure 1 are valuable, albeit, there are still some inaccuracies: i) the layering of the cuticle is not given accurately as there are more than the 3 layers indicated in the manuscript; ii), the reduced endocuticle in all relevant dsRNA cases suggests a massive molting defect that may underline the involvement of bursicon in molting in general, potentially masking its effect on morph transition. In other words, the phenotype is too strong to allow for the interpretation of its function with respect to morph transition. It would have been necessary to apply different concentrations of dsRNA in order to address this point. iii) The developmental timing at 10oC vs. 25oC seem to be similar, although duration would be expected to be longer at 10oC; iv) It would have been nice to see the days of development also for dsRNA injected animals.<br /> (6) Another unresolved point regards the source and target tissue of bursicon signaling. Admittedly, this problem is difficult to solve in a small insect species.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Over the last decade, numerous studies have identified adaptation signals in modern humans driven by genomic variants introgressed from archaic hominins such as Neanderthals and Denisovans. One of the most classic signals comes from a beneficial haplotype in the EPAS1 gene in Tibetans that is evidently of Denisovan origin and facilitated high altitude adaptation (HAA). Given that HAA is a complex trait with numerous underlying genetic contributions, in this paper Ferraretti et al. asked whether Denisovan introgression facilitated HAA in other ways by contributing to additional HAA-related genetic variants. Specifically, the authors considered that if such signature exists, they most likely are only mild signals from polygenic selection, or soft sweeps on standing archaic variation, in contrast to a strong and nearly complete selection signal like the EPAS1. They leveraged a few recently developed methods, including a composite likelihood method for detecting adaptive introgression and a biological network-based method for detecting polygenic selection, and identified compelling evidence of additional genes that exhibit Denisovan-like adaptive introgression signature and contributed to the polygenic adaptation at high altitude in Tibetans.

Strength:

The study is well motivated by an important question, which is, whether archaic introgression can drive polygenic adaptation via multiple small effect contributions in genes underlying different biological pathways regulating a complex trait (such as HAA). This is a valid question and the influence of archaic introgression on polygenic adaptation has not been thoroughly explored by previous studies

The authors reexamined previously published high-altitude Tibetan whole genome data and detected new evidence of adaptive introgression and polygenic selection. Specifically, by applying VolcanoFinder, they confirmed previously identified adaptive introgression alleles such as EPAS1 and PPARA. By applying signet, they identified subsets of biological pathways enriched for archaic variants that contributed to HAA polygenic selection. They also leveraged additional methods such as LASSI and haplotype plotting to help confirm the signature of natural selection on their newly discovered adaptive introgression candidate genes.

Weakness:

The manuscript also improved substantially since the initial review, and the new candidate genes presented here now harbor compelling and convincing evidence of both adaptive introgression and HAA polygenic selection. There are no notable weaknesses in the revised manuscript and updated results.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In Ferrareti et al. they identify adaptively introgressed genes using VolcanoFinder and then identify pathways enriched for adaptively introgressed genes. They use signet to identify pathways that are enriched for Denisovan alleles. The authors find that angiogenesis is one of the biological functions enriched for introgression.

Strengths:

Most papers that have studied the genetic basis of high altitude (HA) adaptation in Tibet have highly emphasized the role of a few genes (e.g. EPAS1, EGLN1), and in this paper the authors look for more subtle signals of selection in other genes to investigate how archaic introgression may be enriched at the pathway level. A couple of methods are used to confirm the consistency of the results.

Looking into the biological functions enriched for Denisovan introgression in Tibetans is important for characterizing the impact of Denisovan introgression in facilitating high altitude adaptations.

Weaknesses:

I thank the authors for providing an improved version of their manuscript.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

After revisions:

My concerns have been addressed.

Prior to revisions:

Summary:<br /> The authors introduce a denoising-style model that incorporates both structure and primary-sequence embeddings to generate richer embeddings of peptides. My understanding is that the authors use ESM for the primary sequence embeddings, take resolved structures (or use structural predictions from AlphaFold when they're not available), then develop an architecture to combine these two with a loss that seems reminiscent of diffusion models or masked language model approaches. The embeddings can be viewed as ensemble-style embedding of the two levels of sequence information, or with AlphaFold, an ensemble of two methods (ESM+AlphaFold). The authors also gather external datasets to evaluate their approach and compare it to previous approaches. The approach seems promising, and appears to out-compete previous methods at several tasks. Nonetheless, I have strong concerns about a lack of verbosity as well as exclusion of relevant methods and references.

Advances:<br /> I appreciate the breadth of the analysis and comparisons to other methods. The authors separate tasks, models, and sizes of models in an intuitive, easy-to-read fashion that I find valuable for selecting a method for embedding peptides. Moreover, the authors gather two datasets for evaluating embeddings' utility for predicting thermostability. Overall, the work should be helpful for the field as more groups choose methods/pretraining strategies amenable to their goals, and can do so in an evidence-guided manner.

Considerations:<br /> Primarily, a majority of the results and conclusions (e.g., Table 3) are reached using data and methods from ProteinGym, yet the best-performing methods on ProteinGym are excluded from the paper (e.g., EVE-based models and GEMME). In the ProteinGym database, these methods outperform ProtSSN models. Moreover, these models were published over a year---or even 4 years in the case of GEMME---before ProtSSN, and I do not see justification for their exclusion in the text.

Secondly, related to comparison of other models, there is no section in the methods about how other models were used, or how their scores were computed. When comparing these models, I think it's crucial that there are explicit derivations or explanations for the exact task used for scoring each method. In other words, if the pre-training is indeed the important advance of the paper, the paper needs to show this more explicitly by explaining exactly which components of the model (and previous models) are used for evaluation. Are the authors extracting the final hidden layer representations of the model, treating these as features, then using these features in a regression task to predict fitness/thermostability/DDG etc.? How are the model embeddings of other methods being used, since, for example, many of these methods output a k-dimensional embedding of a given sequence, rather than one single score that can be correlated with some fitness/functional metric. Summarily, I think the text is lacking an explicit mention of how these embeddings are being summarized or used, as well as how this compares to the model presented.

I think the above issues can mainly be addressed by considering and incorporating points from Li et al. 2024[1] and potentially Tang & Koo 2024[2]. Li et al.[1] make extremely explicit the use of pretraining for downstream prediction tasks. Moreover, they benchmark pretraining strategies explicitly on thermostability (one of the main considerations in the submitted manuscript), yet there is no mention of this work nor the dataset used (FLIP (Dallago et al., 2021)) in this current work. I think a reference and discussion of [1] is critical, and I would also like to see comparisons in line with [1], as [1] is very clear about what features from pretraining are used, and how. If the comparisons with previous methods were done in this fashion, this level of detail needs to be included in the text.

To conclude, I think the manuscript would benefit substantially from a more thorough comparison of previous methods. Maybe one way of doing this is following [1] or [2], and using the final embeddings of each method for a variety of regression tasks---to really make clear where these methods are performing relative to one another. I think a more thorough methods section detailing how previous methods did their scoring is also important. Lastly, TranceptEVE (or a model comparable to it) and GEMME should also be mentioned in these results, or at the bare minimum, be given justification for their absence.

[1] Feature Reuse and Scaling: Understanding Transfer Learning with Protein Language Models Francesca-Zhoufan Li, Ava P. Amini, Yisong Yue, Kevin K. Yang, Alex X. Lu bioRxiv 2024.02.05.578959; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.02.05.578959<br /> [2] Evaluating the representational power of pre-trained DNA language models for regulatory genomics Ziqi Tang, Peter K Koo bioRxiv 2024.02.29.582810; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.02.29.582810

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

To design proteins and predict disease, we want to predict the effects of mutations on the function of a protein. To make these predictions, biologists have long turned to statistical models that learn patterns that are conserved across evolution. There is potential to improve our predictions however by incorporating structure. In this paper the authors build a denoising auto-encoder model that incorporates sequence and structure to predict mutation effects. The model is trained to predict the sequence of a protein given its perturbed sequence and structure. The authors demonstrate that this model is able to predict the effects of mutations better than sequence-only models.

As well, the authors curate a set of assays measuring the effect of mutations on thermostability. They demonstrate their model also predicts the effects of these mutations better than previous models and make this benchmark available for the community.

Strengths:

The authors describe a method that makes accurate mutation effect predictions by informing its predictions with structure.

Weaknesses:

In the review period, the authors included a previous method, SaProt, that similarly uses protein structure to predict the effects of mutations, in their evaluations.<br /> They see that SaProt performs similarly to their method.

Readers should note that methods labelled as "few-shot" in comparisons do not make use of experimental labels, but rather use sequences inferred as homologous; these sequences are also often available even if the protein has never been experimentally tested.

ProteinGym is largely made of deep mutational scans, which measure the effect of every mutation on a protein. These new benchmarks contain on average measurements of less than a percent of all possible point mutations of their respective proteins. It is unclear what sorts of protein regions these mutations are more likely to lie in; therefore it is challenging to make conclusions about what a model has necessarily learned based on its score on this benchmark. For example, several assays in this new benchmark seem to be similar to each other, such as four assays on ubiquitin performed in pH 2.25 to pH 3.0.

The authors state that their new benchmarks are potentially more useful than those of ProteinGym, citing Frazer 2021; readers should be aware that the mutations from the later source are actually mutations whose impact on human health has been determined through multiple sources, including population genetics, clinical evidence and some experiment.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Yao S. and colleagues aims to monitor the potential autosomal regulatory role of the master regulator of X chromosome inactivation, the Xist long non-coding RNA. It has recently become apparent that in the human system, Xist RNA can not only spread in cis on the future inactive X chromosome but also reach some autosomal regions where it recruits transcriptional repression and Polycomb marking. Previous work has also reported that Xist RNA can show a diffused signal in some biological contexts in FISH experiments.

In this study, the authors investigate whether Xist represses autosomal loci in differentiating female mouse embryonic stem cells (ESCs) and somatic mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs). They perform a time course of ESC differentiation followed by Capture Hybridization of Associated RNA Targets (CHART) on both female and male ESCs, as well as pulldowns with sense oligos for Xist. The authors also examine transcriptional activity through RNA-seq and integrate this data with prior ChIP-seq experiments. Additional experiments were conducted in MEFs and Xist-ΔB repeat mutants, the latter fails to recruit Polycomb repressors.

Based on this experimental design, the authors make several bold claims:

(1) Xist binds to about a hundred specific autosomal regions.<br /> (2) This binding is specific to promoter regions rather than broad spreading.<br /> (3) Xist autosomal signal is inversely correlated with PRC1/2 marks but positively correlated with transcription.<br /> (4) Xist targeting results in the attenuation of transcription at autosomal regions.<br /> (5) The B-repeat region is important for autosomal Xist binding and gene repression.<br /> (6) Xist binding to autosomal regions also occurs in somatic cells but does not lead to gene repression.

Together, these claims suggest that Xist might play a role in modulating the expression of autosomal genes in specific developmental and cellular contexts in mice.

Strengths:

This paper deals with an interesting hypothesis that Xist ncRNA can also function at autosomal loci.

Weaknesses:

The claims reported in this paper are largely unsubstantiated by the data, with multiple misinterpretations, lacking controls, and inadequate statistics. Fundamental flaws in the experimental design/analysis preclude the validity of the findings. Major concerns are listed below:

(1) The entire paper is based on the CHART observation that Xist is specifically targeted to autosomal promoters. Overall, the data analysis is flawed and does not support such conclusions. Importantly the sense WT and the 0h controls are not used, nor are the biological replicates. Data is typically visualized without quantification, and when quantified, control loci/gene sets are erroneously selected. Firstly, CHART validation on the X in FigS1 is misleading and not based on any quantifications (e.g., see the scale on Kdm6a (0-190) compared to Cdkl5 (0-40)). If scaled appropriately, there is Xist signal on the escapee. All X-linked loci should have been quantified and classified based on escape status; sense control should also be quantified, and biological replicates should be shown separately. Secondly, and most importantly, Figure 1 does not convincingly show specific Xist autosomal binding. Panel A quantification is on extremely variable y-scales and actually shows that Xist is recruited globally to nearly all autosomal genes, likely indicating an unspecific signal. Again, the sense and 0h controls should have been quantified along with biological replicates. Upon inspecting genome browser tracks of all regions reported in the manuscript (Rbm14, Srp9, Brf1, Cand2, Thra, Kmt2c, Kmt2e, Stau2, and Bcl7b), the signal is unspecific on all sites with the possible exception of Kmt2e. On all other loci, there is either a strong signal in the 0h ESC controls or more signal in some of the sense controls. This implies that peak calling is picking up false positive regions. How many peaks would have been picked up if the sense or the 0h controls were used for peak calling? It is likely that there would be a lot since there are also possible "peaks" (e.g., Fzd9) in control tracks. Further inspection of the data was not possible as the authors did not provide access to the raw fastq files. When inspecting results from past published experiments {Engreitz, 2013 #1839} reported regions were not bound by Xist. Thirdly, contrary to the authors' claim, deleting the B repeat does not lead to a loss of autosomal signal. Indeed, comparing Fig1A and Fig2B side by side clearly shows no difference in the autosomal signal, likely because the autosomal signal is CHART background. Properly quantifying the signal with separate replicates as well as the sense and 0h controls is vital. Overall current data together with published results indicate that CHART peak calling on autosomes is due to technical noise or artefacts.

(2) The RNA-seq analysis is also flawed and precludes strong statements. Firstly, the analysis frequently lacks statistical analysis (Fig3B, FigS2B-C) and is often based on visualizations (Fig 3D-G) without quantifications. Day 4 B-repeat deletion does not lead to a significant change in the expression of genes close to Xist signal (Fig3H, d14 does not fully show). Secondly, for all transcriptional analysis, it is important to show autosomal non-target genes, which is not always done. Indeed, both males and B repeat deletion will lead to transcriptional changes on autosomes as a secondary effect from different X inactivation status. The control set, if used, is inappropriate as it compares one randomly selected set of ~100 genes. This introduces sampling error and compares different classes of genes. Since Xist signal targets more active genes, it is important to always compare autosomal target genes to all other autosomal genes with similar basal expression patterns.

(3) The ChIP-seq analysis also has some problems. The authors claim that there is no positive correlation between genes close to Xist autosomal binding (10kb) compared to those 50kb away (Fig 3C, S2D); however, this analysis is based entirely on metagene visualization. Signal within the Xist binding sites should be quantified (not genes close by) and compared to other types of genomic loci and promoters. Focusing on the 50kb group only as controls is misleading. Secondly, the authors only look at PRC mark signal upon differentiation; what about the 0h timepoint, i.e., is there pre-marking? Most worryingly, the data analysis is not consistent between figures (see Fig3C vs 5H-I). In Fig5, the group of Xist targets was chosen as those within 100kb of Xist binding, which would encompass all the control regions from Fig3C. In this analysis, the authors report that there is Xist-dependent H3K27me3 deposition, and in fact, here the Xist autosomal targets have more of it than the controls. Overall, all of this analysis is misleading, and clear conclusions cannot be made.

All in all, because the fundamental observation is not robust (see point 1), all subsequent analyses are also affected. There are also multiple other inconsistencies within the analysis; however, they have not been included here for brevity.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

To follow-up on recent reports of Xist-autosome interaction the authors examine female (and male transgenic) mESCs and MEFs by CHARTseq. Upon finding that only 10% of reads map to X, they sought to identify reproducible alternative sites of Xist-binding, and identify ~100 autosomal Xist-binding sites and show a transient impact on expression.

Strengths:

The authors address a topical and interesting question with a series of models including developmental timepoints and utilize unbiased approaches (CHARTseq, RNAseq). For the CHARTseq they have controls of both sense probes and male cells; and indeed do detect considerable background with their controls. The use of deletions emphasizes that intact functional Xist is involved. The use of 'metagene' plots provides a visual summation of genic impact.

Weaknesses:

Overall, the result presentation has many 'sample' gene presentations (in contrast to the stronger 'metagene' summation of all genes). The manuscript often relies on discussion of prior X chromosomal studies, while the data generated would allow assessment of the X within this study to confirm concordance with prior results using the current methodology/cell lines. Many of the 'follow-up' analyses are in fact reprocessing and comparison of published datasets. The figure legends are limited, and sample size and/or source of control is not always clear. While similar numbers of autosomal Xist-binding sites were often observed, the presented data did not clarify how many were consistent across time-points/cell types. While there were multiple time points/lines assessed, only 2 replicates were generally done.

Aim achievement:

The authors do identify autosomal sites with enrichment of chromatin marks and evidence of silencing. More details regarding sample size and controls (both treatment, and most importantly choice of 'non-targets' - discussed in comments to authors) are required to determine if the results support the conclusions.

Specific scenarios for which I am concerned about the strength of evidence underlying the conclusion:

I found the conclusion "Thus, RepB is required not only for Xist to localize to the X- chromosome but also for its localization to the ~100 autosomal genes " (p5) in constrast to the statement 2 lines prior: "A similar number of Xist peaks across autosomes in ΔRepB cells was observed and the autosomal targets remained similar". Some quantitative statistics would assist in determining impact, both on autosomes and also X; perhaps similar to the quintile analysis done for expression.

It is stated that there is a significant suppression of X-linked genes with the autosomal transgenes; however, only an example is shown in Figure 4B. To support this statement, a full X chromosomal geneset should be shown in panels F and G, which should also list the number of replicates. As these are hybrid cells, perhaps allelic suppression could be monitored? Is Med14 usually subject to X inactivation in the Ctrl cells, and is the expression reduced from both X chromosomes or preferentially the active (or inactive) X chromosome?

The expression change for autosomes after transgene induction is barely significant; and it was not clear what was used as the Ctrl? This is a critical comparator as doxycycline alone can change expression patterns.

In the discussion there is the statement. "Genetic analysis coupled to transcriptomic analysis showed that Xist down-regulates the target autosomal genes without silencing them. This effect leads to clear sex difference - where female cells express the ~100 or so autosomal genes at a lower level than male cells (Figure 7H)." This sweeping statement fails to include that in MEFs there is no significant expression difference, in transgenics only borderline significance, and at d14 no significant expression difference. The down-regulation overall seems to be transient during development while targeting is ongoing?

Finally, I would have liked to see discussion of the consistency of the identified genes to support the conclusion that the autosomal sites are not merely the results of Xist diffusion.

The impact of Xist on autosomes is important for consideration of impact of changes in Xist expression with disease (notably cancers). Knowing the targets (if consistent) would enable assessment of such impact.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Yao et al use CHART to identify chromatin associated with Xist in female mouse ESCs, and, as control, male ESCs at various timepoints of differentiation. Besides binding of Xist to X chromosome regions they found significant binding to autosomes, concentrating mostly on promoter regions of around 100 autosomal genes, as elucidated by MACS. The authors went on to show that the RepB repeat is mostly responsible for these autosomal interactions using a female ESC line in which RepB is deleted. Evidence is provided that Xist interacts with active autosomal genes containing lower coverage of repressive marks H3K27me3 and H2AK119ub and that RepB dependent Xist binding leads to dampening of expression, but not silencing of autosomal genes. These results were confirmed by overexpression studies using transgenic ESCs with doxycycline-inducible Xist as well as via a small molecule inhibitor of Xist (X1), inducing/inhibiting the dampening of autosomal genes, respectively. Finally, using MEFs and Xist mutants RepB or RepE the authors provide evidence that Xist is bound to autosomal genes in cells after the XCI process but appears not to affect gene expression. The data presented appear generally clear and consistent and indicate some differences between human and mouse autosomal regulation by Xist.

Strengths:

Regulation of autosomal gene expression by Xist is a "big deal" as misregulation of this lncRNA causes developmental defects and human disease. Moreover, this finding may explain sex-specific developmental differences between the sexes. The results in this manuscript identify specific mouse autosomal genes bound by Xist and decipher critical Xist regions that mediate this binding and gene dampening. The methods used in this study are appropriate, and the overall data presented appear convincing and are consistent, indicating some differences between human and mouse autosomal regulation by Xist.

Weaknesses:

(1) The figure legends and/or descriptions of data are often very short lacking detail, and this unnecessarily impedes the reading of the manuscript, in particular the figures would benefit not only from more detailed descriptions/explanations of what has been done but also what is shown. This will facilitate the reading and overall comprehension by the reader. One out of many examples: In Fig S1B in the CHART data at d4 and d7 there is not only signal in female WT Xist antisense but also in female sense control. For a reader that is not an expert in XCI it would be helpful to point out in the legend that this signal corresponds to the lncRNA Tsix (I suppose), that is transcribed on the other strand.

(2) Different scales are used in the lower panels of Figures 1A and 2A, which makes it difficult to directly compare signals between the different differentiation stages.

(3) In this study some of the findings on mouse cells contrast previously published results in human ESCs: 1) Xist binding occurs preferentially to promoters in mice, not in human. 2) Binding of Xist is mostly detected in polycomb-depleted regions in mice but there is a positive correlation between Xist RNA and PRC2 marks in human ESCs. These differences are surprising but may be very interesting and relevant. While I am aware that this might be a difficult task, it would be helpful to experimentally address this issue in order to distinguish whether species specific and/or methodological differences between the studies are responsible for these differences.

Joint Public Review:

Summary:

The authors present an intriguing investigation into the pathogenesis of Pol III variants associated with neurodegeneration. They established an inducible mouse model to overcome developmental lethality, administering 5 doses of tamoxifen to initiate the knock-in of the mutant allele. Subsequent behavioral assessments and histological analyses revealed potential neurological deficits. Robust analyses of the tRNA transcriptome, conducted via northern blotting and RNA sequencing, suggested a selective deleterious effect of the variant on the cerebrum, in contrast to the cerebellum and non-cerebral tissues. Through this work, the authors identified molecular changes caused by Pol III mutations, particularly in the tRNA transcriptome, and demonstrated its relative progression and selectivity in brain tissue. Overall, this study provides valuable insights into the neurological manifestations of certain genetic disorders and sheds light on transcripts/products that are constitutively expressed in various tissues.

Strengths:

The authors utilize an innovative mouse model to constitutively knock in the gene, enhancing the study's robustness. Behavioral data collection using a spectrometer reduces experimenter bias and effectively complements the neurological disorder manifestations. Transcriptome analyses are extensive and informative, covering various tissue types and identifying stress response elements and mitochondrial transcriptome patterns. Additionally, metabolic studies involving pancreatic activity and glucose consumption were conducted to eliminate potential glucose dysfunction, strengthening the histological analyses.

Comments on revised version from expert Editor #1:

The authors in the revised manuscript have effectively responded to all of the comments and suggestions raised by both reviewers. Overall, I find the revised version to be an important contribution to the field and the strength of evidence supporting the work's claims to be compelling.

Comments on revised version from expert Editor #2:

The authors have responded constructively to all the comments in the first round of reviews and clarified many issues in the manuscript. The current report represents a significant advance.

Comments on revised version from Reviewer #2:

The authors should include their clarifications of all concern raised by reviewer #2 (mentioned in the previous weaknesses) in the main text. They should consider including point #2 to point #10 in the main text (discussion section). The should highlight limitations of this study in discussion.

Also, they should clearly state that deciphering brain area specific behavioural deficits is beyond the scope of the manuscript with appropriate justification mentioned in the rebuttal letter.

I still do not agree with the author to state that "brain region-specific sensitivities to a defect in Pol III transcription". The changes are global and also not restricted to brain. Authors may consider restating this sentence. It is obvious that transcription defects related to tRNA production will lead to alteration in whole body physiology.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

TMEM16, OSCA/TMEM63, and TMC belong to a large superfamily of ion channels where TMEM16 members are calcium activated lipid scramblases and chloride channels, whereas OSCA/TMEM63 and TMCs are mechanically activated ion channels. In the TMEM16 family, TMEM16F is a well characterized calcium activated lipid scramblase that play an important role in processes like blood coagulation, cell death signaling, and phagocytosis. In a previous study the group has demonstrated that lysine mutation in TM4 of TMEM16A can enable the calcium activated chloride channel to permeate phospholipids too. Based on this they hypothesize that the energy barrier for lipid scramblase in these ion channels is low, and that modification in the hydrophobic gate region by introducing a charged side chain between TM4/6 interface in TMEM16 and OSCA/TMEM63 family can allow lipid scramblase. In this manuscript, using scramblase activity via Annexin V binding to phosphatidylserine, and electrophysiology, the authors demonstrate that lysine mutation in TM4 of TMEM16F and TMEM16A can cause constitutive lipid scramblase activity. The authors then go on to show that analogous mutations in OSCA1.2 and TMEM63A can lead to scramblase activity. The revised version does a thorough characterization of residues that form the hydrophobic gate region in TM4/6 of this superfamily of channels. Their results indicated that disrupting the TM4/6 interaction can reduce energy barrier for this channels to scramblase lipids.

Strengths:

Overall, the authors introduce an interesting concept that this large superfamily can permeate ions and lipids.

Weaknesses:

none noted in the revised version.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This focused study by Lowry and colleagues that identifies a key molecular motif that controls ion permeation vs combined ion permeation and lipid transport in three families of channel/scramblase proteins, in TMEM16 channels, in the plant-expressed and stress-gated cation channel OSCA, and in the mammalian homolog and mechanosensitive cation channel, TMEM63. Between them, these three channels share low sequence similarity and have seemingly differing functions, as anion (TMEM16 channels), or stress-activated cation channels (OSCA/TMEM63). The study finds that in all three families, mutating a single hydrophobic residue in the ion permeation pathway of the channels confers lipid transport through the pores of the channels, indicating that TMEM16 and related OSCA and TMEM63 channels have a conserved potential for both ion and lipid permeation. The authors interpret the findings as revealing that these channel/scramblase proteins have a relatively low "energetic barrier for scramblase" activity. The experiments are done with a high level of rigor and the revised paper is very well written and addresses the previous concerns.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

This study was focused on the conserved mechanisms across the Transmembrane Channel/Scramblase superfamily, which includes members of the TMEM16, TMEM63/OSCA, and TMC families. In previous work, the authors have studied the role of the inner activation gate of these proteins. Here, the authors show that the introduction of mutations at the TM4-TM6 interface, which are close to the inactivation gate, can disrupt gating and confer scramblase activity to non-scramblases proteins.

Overall, the confocal imaging experiments, patch clamping experiments, and data analysis are performed well and in line with standard methods. The molecular dynamics simulation work is focused but adds supportive evidence to their findings. Although there could have been more extensive molecular analysis to bolster the authors' arguments on the role of the TM4-TM6 interface (e.g. evaluate effects of size/hydrophobicity, double mutants, cross-linking, more in-depth simulation data), there is adequate evidence to conclude that certain residues at this interface is critical to ion conduction and phospholipid scramblase activity. The data presented only adds incremental depth of knowledge for each individual channel, but together, they show this to be true for conserved TM4 residues across TMEM16F, TMEM16A, OSCA1.2, and TMEM63A proteins. This breadth of data is a major strength of this paper, and provides strong evidence for a coupled pathway for ion conduction and phospholipid transport, though the underlying biophysical mechanism is still speculative and remains to be elucidated.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors explored how the presence of interspecific introgressions in the genome affects the recombination landscape. This research aims to shed light on the genetic phenomena influencing the evolution of introgressed regions. However, it is important to note that the study is based on examining only one generation, which limits the scope for making broad evolutionary conclusions. In this study, yeast hybrids with large introgressions (ranging from several to several dozen percent of the chromosome length) from another yeast species were crossed. The products of meiosis were then isolated and sequenced to examine the genome-wide distribution of both crossovers (COs) and noncrossovers (NCOs). The authors found a significant reduction in the frequency of COs within the introgressed regions, which is a phenomenon well-documented in various systems. They also report that introgressed regions exhibit an increased frequency of NCOs. Unfortunately, this conclusion seems flawed, as there is no accurate method for correcting the detection level of NCOs when the compared regions (introgressed and non-introgressed) differ drastically in SNP density. The authors further confirmed that introgressions significantly limit the local shuffling of genetic information, and while NCOs contribute slightly to this shuffling, they do not compensate for the loss of CO recombination. This is widely known fact.

In summary, the study makes a limited contribution to the understanding of how polymorphism impacts meiotic recombination. The conclusion regarding the increase in NCO frequency in polymorphic regions is likely incorrect.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

When members of two related but diverged species mate, the resulting hybrids can produce offspring where parts of one species' genome replace those of the other. These "introgressions" often create regions with a much greater density of sequence differences than are normally found between members of the same species. Previous studies have shown that increased sequence differences, when heterozygous, can reduce recombination during meiosis specifically in the region of increased difference. However, most of these studies have focused on crossover recombination, and have not measured noncrossovers. The current study uses a pair of Saccharomyces uvarum crosses: one between two natural isolates that, while exhibiting some divergence, do not contain introgressions; the other is between two fermentation strains that,<br /> when combined, are heterozygous for 9 large regions of introgression that have much greater divergence than the rest of the genome. The authors wished to determine if introgressions differently affected crossovers and noncrossovers, and, if so, what impact that would have on the gene shuffling that occurs during<br /> meiosis.

While both crossovers and noncrossovers were measured, assessing the true impact of increased heterology (inherent in heterozygous introgressions) is complicated by the fact that the increased marker density in heterozygous introgressions also increases the ability to detect noncrossovers. The authors now use a revised correction aimed at compensating for this difference, and based on that correction, conclude that, while as expected crossovers are decreased by increased sequence heterology, noncrossovers neither increase nor decrease substantially. They then show that genetic shuffling overall is substantially reduced in regions of heterozygous introgression, which is not surprising given that one type of event is reduced and the other remains at similar levels. However, the correction currently used remains poorly justified, tests of its validity are not presented. Thus, the only possibly novel conclusion, that noncrossovers are less affected by heterology than crossovers, remains to be adequately tested.

In conclusion, of the three main conclusions as stated in the abstract, one (that crossovers go down) has been shown in many systems, one (that noncrossovers increase) is wrong, and the third (that allele shuffling is reduced) is obvious. Given this, the impact of this work on the field will be minimal at best, and negative to the extent that readers are led astray.

I am not sure how much detail we want to give here. Not sure how frequently this feature is being used. If we want to give more info, we could list the steps for each edit action. They differ a lot and have some slightly tricky steps. Especially the last step differs (sometimes it's enough to click Apply, sometimes it's necessary to click Save Edits

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Assessment:

This fundamental work advances our understanding of navigation and path integration in mammals by using a clever behavioral paradigm. The paper provides compelling evidence that mice are able to create and use a cognitive map to find "short cuts" in an environment, using only the location of rewards relative to the point of entry to the environment and path integration, and need not rely on visual landmarks.

Summary:

The authors have designed a novel experimental apparatus called the 'Hidden Food Maze (HFM)' and a beautiful suite of behavioral experiments using this apparatus to investigate the interplay between allothetic and idiothetic cues in navigation. The results presented provide a clear demonstration of the central claim of the paper, namely that mice only need a fixed start location and path integration to develop a cognitive map. The experiments and analyses conducted to test the main claim of the paper -- that the animals have formed a cognitive map -- are conclusive and include many thoughtfully designed control experiments to eliminate alternatives.

Strengths:

The 90 degree rotationally symmetric design and use of 4 distal landmarks and 4 quadrants with their corresponding rotationally equivalent locations (REL) lends itself to teasing apart the influence of path integration and landmark-based navigation in a clever way. The authors use a complete set of experiments and associated controls to show that mice can use a start location and path integration to develop a cognitive map and generate shortcut routes to new locations.

Weaknesses:

There were no major weaknesses identified that were not addressed during revisions.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

How is it that animals find learned food locations in their daily life? Do they use landmarks to home in on these learned locations or do they learn a path based on self-motion (turn left, take ten steps forward, turn right, etc.). This study carefully examines this question in a well-designed behavioral apparatus. A key finding is that to support the observed behavior in the hidden food arena, mice appear to not use the distal cues that are present in the environment for performing this task. Removal of such cues did not change the learning rate, for example. In a clever analysis of whether the resulting cognitive map based on self-motion cues could allow a mouse to take a shortcut, it was found that indeed they are. The work nicely shows the evolution of the rodent's learning of the task, and the role of active sensing in the targeted reduction of uncertainty of food location proximal to its expected location.

Strengths:

A convincing demonstration that mice can synthesize a cognitive map for the finding of a static reward using body frame-based cues. Showing that uncertainty of final target location is resolved by an active sensing process of probing holes proximal to the expected location. Showing that changing the position of entry into the arena rotates the anticipated location of the reward in a manner consistent with failure to use distal cues.

Weaknesses:

Weaknesses: The Reviewing Editor felt that previously identified weaknesses from Reviewer #3 were adequately addressed in the final manuscript.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study investigated the role of plectin, a cytoskeletal crosslinker protein, in liver cancer formation and progression. Using the liver-specific Plectin knockout mouse model, the authors convincingly showed that PLECTIN is critical for hepatocarcinogenesis, as functional inhibition of plectin suppressed tumor formation in several models. They also provided evidence to show that inhibition of plectin inhibited HCC cell invasion and reduced metastatic outgrowth in the lung. Mechanistically, they suggested that plectin inhibition attenuated FAK, MAPK/ERK, and PI3K/AKT signaling.

Strengths:

The authors generated a liver-specific plectin knockout mouse model. By using DEN and sgP53/MYC models, the authors convincingly demonstrated an oncogenic role of PLECTIN in HCC development. plecstatin-1 (PST), as a plectin inhibitor, showed promising efficacy in inhibiting HCC growth, which provides a basis for potentially treating HCC using PST.

The MIR images for tracking tumor growth in animal models were compelling. The high-quality confocal images and related qualifications convincingly showed the impact of plectin functional inhibition on contractility and adhesions in HCC cells.

Weaknesses:

The conclusions of this paper are primarily well supported by data. However, some claims were not fully supported by the data presented.

The authors suggest that plectin controls oncogenic FAK, MAPK/Erk, and PI3K/Akt signaling in HCC cells, representing the mechanisms by which plectin promotes HCC formation and progression. However, the effect of plectin inactivation on these signaling was inconsistent in Huh7 and SNU-475 cells (Figure 3D), despite similar cell growth inhibition in both cell lines (Figure 2G). For example, pAKT and pERK were only reduced by plectin inhibition in SNU-475 cells but not in Huh7 cells. In addition, pFAK was not changed by plectin inhibition in both cells, and the ratio of pFAK/FAK was increased in both cells. Thus, it is hard to convince me that plectin promotes HCC formation and progression by regulating these signalings. Overall, the mechanistic studies in this manuscript lack sufficient depth.

The authors claimed that plectin inactivation inhibits HCC invasion and metastasis using in vitro and in vivo models. However, the results from in vivo models were not as compelling as the in vitro data. The lung colonization assay is not an ideal in vivo model for studying HCC metastasis and invasion, especially when plectin inhibition suppresses HCC cell growth and survival. Using an orthotopic model that can metastasize into the lung or spleen could be much more convincing for an essential claim. Also, in Figure 6H, histology images of lungs from this experiment need to be shown to understand plectin's effect on metastasis better. Figure 6G, it is unclear how many mice were used for this experiment. Did these mice die due to the tumor burdens in the lungs?

The whole paper used inhibition strategies to understand the function of plectin. However, the expression of plectin in Huh7 cells is low (Figure 1D). It might be more appropriate to overexpress plectin in this cell line or others with low plectin expression to examine the effect on HCC cell growth and migration.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Plectin is a cytolinker that associates with all three main components of the cytoskeleton and intercellular junctions and is essential for epithelial tissue integrity. Previous reports showed that PLEC regulates tumor growth and metastasis in different cancers. In this manuscript, the authors described PLEC as a target in the initiation and growth of HCC. They showed that inhibiting PLEC reduced tumorigenesis in different in vitro and in vivo HCC models, including in a xenograft model, DEN model, oncogene-induced HCC model, and a lung metastasis model. Mechanistically, the authors showed that inhibiting PLEC results in a disorganized cytoskeleton, deficiency in cell migration, and changes in relevant signaling pathways.

Strengths:

In general, the data are shown in multiple ways and support the main conclusion of the manuscript. The results add to the field by highlighting the importance of cellular mechanics in cancer progression.

Weaknesses:

(1) The annotation of mouse numbers is confusing. In Figures 2A B D E F, it should be the same experiment, but the N numbers in A are 6 and 5. In E and F they are 8 and 3. Similarly, in Figure 2H, in the tumor size curve, the N values are 4,4,5,6. In the table, N values are 8,8,10,11 (the authors showed 8,7,8,7 tumors that formed in the picture).

(2) In Figure 3D and Figure S3C, the changes in most of the proteins/phosphorylation sites are not convincing/consistent. These data are not essential for the conclusion of the paper and WB is semi-quantitative. Maybe including more plots of the proteins from proteomic data could strengthen their detailed conclusions about the link between Plectin and the FAK, MAPK/Erk, PI3K/Akt pathways as shown in 3E.

(3) Figure S7A and B, The pictures do not show any tumor, which is different from Figure 7A and B (and from the quantification in S7A lower right). Is it just because male mice were used in Figure 7 and female mice were used in Figure S7? Is there literature supporting the sex difference for the Myc-sgP53 model?

(4) Figure 2F, S2A, PleΔAlb mice more frequently formed larger tumors, as reflected by overall tumor size increase. The interpretation of the authors is "possibly implying reduced migration or increased cohesion of plectin-depleted cells". It is quite arbitrary to make this suggestion in the absence of substantial data or literature to support this theory.

(5) Mutation or KO PLEC has been shown to cause severe diseases in humans and mice, including skin blistering, muscular dystrophy, and progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis. Please elaborate on the potential side effects of targeting plectin to treat HCC.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Outla Z et al described the analysis of plectin in HCC pathogenesis. Specifically, it was found that elevated plectin levels in liver tumors, correlated with poor prognosis for HCC patients. Mechanistically, it showed that plectin-dependent disruption of cytoskeletal networks leads to the attenuation of oncogenic FAK, MAPK/Erk, and PI3K/AKT signals. Finally, the authors showed that plectin inhibitor plecstatin-1 (PST) is well-tolerated and capable of overcoming therapy resistance in HCC.

Strengths:

The studies of plectin are not entirely novel (Pubmed: 36613521). Nevertheless, the current manuscript provides a much more detailed mechanistic study and the results have translational implications. Additional strengths include convincing cell biology data, such as plectin regulates cytoskeletal networks, and HCC migration/invasion.

Weaknesses:

Multiple major issues are noted, and the conclusion is not well supported by the data presented.

(1) The rationale for using Huh7 cells in the manuscript is not well explained as it has the lowest plectin expression levels.

(2) The KO cell experiments should be supplemented with overexpression experiments.

(3) There is significant concern that while ablation of Ple led to reduced tumor number, these mice had larger tumors. The data indicate that plectin may have distinct roles in HCC initiation versus progression. The data are not well explained and do not fully support that plectin promotes hepatocarcinogenesis.

(4) Figure 3 showed that plectin does not regulate p-FAK/FAK expression. Therefore, the statement that plectin regulates the FAK pathway is not valid. Furthermore, there are too many variables in turns of p-AKT and p-ERK expression, making the conclusion not well supported.

(5) The studies of plecstatin-1 in HCC should be expanded to a panel of human HCC cells with various plectin expression levels in turns of cell growth and cell migration. The IC50 values should be determined and correlate with plectin expression.

(6) One of the major issues is the mechanistic studies focusing on plectin regulating HCC migration/metastasis, whereas the in vivo mouse studies focus on HCC formation (Figures 3 and 7). These are distinct processes and should not be mixed.

(7) Figure 7B showed that Ple KO mice were treated with PST, but the data are not presented in the manuscript. Tumor cell proliferation and apoptosis rates should be analyzed as well.

(8) The status of FAK, AKT, and ERK pathway activation was not analyzed in mouse liver samples. In Figure 7D, most of the adjusted p-values are not significant.

(9) There is no evidence to support that PST is capable of overcoming therapy resistance in HCC. For example, no comparison with the current standard care was provided in the preclinical studies.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In this revised manuscript, the authors aim to elucidate the cytological mechanisms by which conjugated linoleic acids (CLAs) influence intramuscular fat deposition and muscle fiber transformation in pig models. They have utilized single-nucleus RNA sequencing (snRNA-seq) to explore the effects of CLA supplementation on cell populations, muscle fiber types, and adipocyte differentiation pathways in pig skeletal muscles. Notably, the authors have made significant efforts in addressing the previous concerns raised by the reviewers, clarifying key aspects of their methodology and data analysis.

Strengths:

(1) Thorough validation of key findings: The authors have addressed the need for further validation by including qPCR, immunofluorescence staining, and western blotting to verify changes in muscle fiber types and adipocyte populations, which strengthens their conclusions.

(2) Improved figure presentation: The authors have enhanced figure quality, particularly for the Oil Red O and Nile Red staining images, which now better depict the organization of lipid droplets (Figure 7A). Statistical significance markers have also been clarified (Figure 7I and 7K).

Weaknesses:

(1) Cross-species analysis and generalizability of the results: Although the authors could not perform a comparative analysis across species due to data limitations, they acknowledged this gap and focused on analyzing regulatory mechanisms specific to pigs. Their explanation is reasonable given the current availability of snRNA-seq datasets on muscle fat deposition in other human and mouse.

(2) Mechanistic depth in JNK signaling pathway: While the inclusion of additional experiments is a positive step, the exploration of the JNK signaling pathway could still benefit from deeper analysis of downstream transcriptional regulators. The current discussion acknowledges this limitation, but future studies should aim to address this gap fully.

(3) Limited exploration of other muscle groups: The authors did not expand their analysis to additional muscle groups, leaving some uncertainty regarding whether other muscle groups might respond differently to CLA supplementation. Further studies in this direction could enhance the understanding of muscle fiber dynamics across the organism.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This study comprehensively presents data from single nuclei sequencing of Heigai pig skeletal muscle in response to conjugated linoleic acid supplementation. The authors identify changes in myofiber type and adipocyte subpopulations induced by linoleic acid at depth previously unobserved. The authors show that linoleic acid supplementation decreased the total myofiber count, specifically reducing type II muscle fiber types (IIB), myotendinous junctions, and neuromuscular junctions, whereas type I muscle fibers are increased. Moreover, the authors identify changes in adipocyte pools, specifically in a population marked by SCD1/DGAT2. To validate the skeletal muscle remodeling in response to linoleic acid supplementation, the authors compare transcriptomics data from Laiwu pigs, a model of high intramuscular fat, to Heigai pigs. The results verify changes in adipocyte subpopulations when pigs have higher intramuscular fat, either genetically or diet-induced. Targeted examination using cell-cell communication network analysis revealed associations with high intramuscular fat with fibro-adipogenic progenitors (FAPs).  The authors then conclude that conjugated linoleic acid induces FAPs towards adipogenic commitment. Specifically, they show that linoleic acid stimulates FAPs to become SCD1/DGAT2+ adipocytes via JNK signaling. The authors conclude that their findings demonstrate the effects of conjugated linoleic acid on skeletal muscle fat formation in pigs, which could serve as a model for studying human skeletal muscle diseases.

Strengths:

The comprehensive data analysis provides information on conjugated linoleic acid effects on pig skeletal muscle and organ function. The notion that linoleic acid induces skeletal muscle composition and fat accumulation is considered a strength and demonstrates the effect of dietary interactions on organ remodeling. This could have implications for the pig farming industry to promote muscle marbling. Additionally, these data may inform the remodeling of human skeletal muscle under dietary behaviors, such as elimination and supplementation diets and chronic overnutrition of nutrient-poor diets. However, the biggest strength resides in thorough data collection at the single nuclei level, which was extrapolated to other types of Chinese pigs.

Weaknesses:

Although the authors compiled a substantial and comprehensive dataset, the scope of cellular and molecular-level validation still needs to be expanded. For instance, the single nuclei data suggest changes in myofiber type after linoleic acid supplementation, but these findings need more thorough validation. Further histological and physiological assessments are necessary to address fiber types and oxidative potential. Similarly, the authors propose that linoleic acid alters adipocyte populations, FAPs, and preadipocytes; however, there are limited cellular and molecular analyses to confirm these findings. The identified JNK signaling pathways require additional follow-ups on the molecular mechanism or transcriptional regulation. However, these issues are discussed as potential areas for future exploration. While various individual studies have been conducted on mouse/human skeletal muscle and adipose tissues, these have only been briefly discussed, and further investigation is warranted. Additionally, the authors incorporate two pig models into their results, but they only examine one muscle group. Exploring whether other muscle groups respond similarly or differently to linoleic acid supplementation would be valuable. Furthermore, the authors should discuss how their results translate to human and pig nutrition, such as the desirability and cost-effectiveness for pig farmers and human diets high in linoleic acid. Notably, while the single nuclei data is comprehensive, there needs to be a statement on data deposition and code availability, allowing others access to these datasets.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this work, the authors continue their investigations on the key role of glycosylation to modulate the function of a therapeutic antibody. As follow up of their previous demonstration on how ADCC was heavily affected by the glycans at the Fc gamma receptor (FcγR)IIIa, they now dissect the contributions of the different glycans that decorate the diverse glycosylation sites. Using a well designed mutation strategy, accompanied by exhaustive biophysical measurements, with extensive use of NMR, using both standard and newly developed methodologies, they demonstrate that there is one specific locus, N162, which is heavily involved in the stabilization of (FcγR)IIIa and that the concomitant NK function is regulated by the glycan at this site.

Strengths:

The methodological aspects are carried out at the maximum level.

Weaknesses:

The exact (or the best possible assessment) of the glycan composition at the N162 site.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors set out to demonstrate a mechanistic link between Fcgamma receptor (IIIA) glycosylation and IgG binding affinity and signaling - resulting in antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity - ADCC. The work builds off prior findings from this group about the general impact of glycosylation on FcR (Fc receptor)-IgG binding.

Strengths:

The structural data (NMR) is highly compelling and very significant to the field. A demonstration of how IgG interacts with FcgRIIIA in a manner sensitive to glycosylation of both the IgG and the FcR fills a critical knowledge gap. The approach to demonstrate the selective impact of glycosylation at N162 is also excellent and convincing. The manuscript/study is, overall, very strong.

Weaknesses:

After revision, which I feel addressed the minor concerns well, the last comment about significance in the long-term is all that remains. Essentially, it will be important in downstream research to determine whether changes in N162 glycan composition ever occur naturally as a result of some factor(s) that include various disease states, inflammation, age, and so on. The answer (either way) does not diminish the importance of understanding molecular details governing antibody-receptor interactions, but it would be very interesting to know if those glycans are regulated in a way that modulates ADCC activity.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The manuscript by Wang et al. investigates the role of Rnf220 in hindbrain development and Hox expression. The authors suggest that Rnf220 controls Hox expression in the hindbrain through regulating WDR5 levels. The authors combine in vivo experiments with experiments in P19 cells to demonstrate this mechanism. However, the in vivo data does not provide strong support for the claims the authors make and the role of Rnf in Hox maintenance and pons development is unclear.

While the authors partially addressed some of the issues raised in the first round of reviews, and the in vitro data showing a relationship between Rnf220 and WDR5 is convincing, some issues still remain about the experimental evidence supporting their claims and the relationship of this work with previous studies demonstrating the role of Hox proteins in pontine nuclei in vivo.

The authors say they were unable to detect Hox levels via in situ hybridization at late embryonic stages, stating that the levels are likely too low to be detected-yet they are presumably high enough to cause ectopic targeting of pontine neurons. Work from the Rijli group, which the authors cite, shows that Hox3-5 paralogs can be clearly detected both by in situ and by staining with commercially available antibodies. Since a major claim of this paper is the upregulation of Hox genes in Rnf220+/- mice through WDR5 regulation, the authors need to show this more convincingly. The inability to detect Hox upregulation, and subsequent rescue, by means other than qPCR in vivo remains a major weakness of the paper. The authors also do not discuss how broad upregulation of all Hox paralogs leads to the changes in PN targeting in the context of previous work.

The links between Wdr5 expression, epigenetic modifications, Hox expression and axon mistargeting in vivo remains somewhat tenuous. For example, the authors show epigenetic modification changes in some Hox genes, but not Hox5 paralogs, and only show the rescue by Wdr5 KO in vitro. Similarly, they do not attempt to show rescue of axon targeting in vivo after presumably restoring Hox levels by Wdr5 inhibition or knockdown.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors investigate the compaction of HIV DNA by the viral enzyme integrase (IN) in vitro.

Strengths:

The authors employ robust techniques, including single-molecule force microscopy and spectroscopy, to investigate the impact of IN-DNA interactions on DNA conformation. Additionally, they interpret their experimental findings using coarse-grained Monte Carlo simulations.

Weaknesses:

The authors could provide a more in-depth discussion of the biophysical reasons behind their experimental observations. Currently, there is insufficient analysis to explain why certain behaviors are observed experimentally.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This is a high-quality biophysical study providing valuable new in vitro information on the modes of HIV-1 integrase protein (IN) interaction with the double stranded (ds)DNA.

Strengths:

Both main experimental approaches used in this study: magnetic tweezers (MT) and atomic force microscopy (AFM) are used at the state-of-the-art level.

Weaknesses:

(1) The findings of Fig.1 suggest modest preference of IN oligomers for the processed DNA ends typical of the viral dsDNA in the intasome and the DNA with blunt ends relative to the IN-oligomer binding to the random internal sites on DNA. This is an impressive result. Is it completely new? What was known about it? Can IN oligomer bind and unbind on the time of experiment? Is it an equilibrium preference? Was the effect of Mg2+ in that binding known?

(2) Regarding the AFM-observed IN-induced DNA bending and looping. How defined is the DNA crossover angle in the looped state? How many IN molecules typically hold it together? What density of IN per DNA length is needed to observe formation of IN oligomers, and their induced DNA beds and loops? It looks like more information on the two dsDNA crossover points held together by IN oligomers can be obtained from the AFM images, similar to the ones in Fig. S22. In particular, the preferred crossover angle (similar to bending angel of one DNA) and the total number of IN proteins within the oligomer holding this crossover point together can be extracted from the AFM data at higher resolution.

(3) Similarly, questions for Fig.3. What is the typical binding density (i.e. IN per DNA unit length) required for the IN-induced rosette formation? For the IN-induced 3D condensation? I understand that the AFM is not the good method to estimate the protein:DNA stoichiometry, as the mica surface and its treatment affect the protein/DNA interactions compared to the bulk solution. But still, in combination with the MT data there should be at least approximate estimate of the degree of DNA saturation. With IN oligomers that cause these sharp cooperative structural transitions of the complex. The fact that higher salt increases critical concentration of IN for these transitions is consistent with the critical levels of DNA saturation with IN required for each transition. Also, the fact that the rosette formation is not observed on shorter 3Kbp DNA but is observed on longer 4.8Kbp and 9Kbp comes from the lower probability of looping in the shorter DNA and can be discussed/interpreted. Maybe the persistence length of the DNA/IN complex at this level of its saturation can be estimated from these data. This persistence length should be shorter than for the bare DNA, as the IN binding induces DNA bending.

(4) In the section describing the simulations of the IN-induced dsDNA compaction the authors introduce a very simple model in which IN tetramer is presented as a bead of the size of ~12 bp similar to the binding site size of the singe IN on DNA with the four binding sites for DNA. It would be useful to discuss the published experimental structural data on the IN-DNA complexes available to better rationalize this choice of the model. In general, more overview of the available information on IN-DNA complexes and discussion of how present results fit into the general story and add to it would be useful. The authors fit their modeling results to their experimental data to obtain the individual monomeric IN-DNA interaction strength of 5 kBT. What is the geometry of these for DNA binding sites on the IN tetramer? Is it important for the complex structure? Also, the authors mention that the additional IN-IN interactions are required to reproduce their AFM results. What is the geometry and the strength of these interactions? It should matter for the structure of the IN-DNA aggregate. For example, if the IN molecules or DNA-bound oligomers were only interacting head-to-tail on the DNA that they bind to, it would lead to the filament formation, rather than the 3D condensate. What was the density of the IN oligomers on DNA to lead to each of the two AFM-observed transitions: (i) the "rosette formation" and (ii) the denser 3D aggregate formation? It may be possible to answer these important questions based on the AFM images. Is the higher resolution AFM measuring the oligomer sizes and their densities on the DNA possible?

(5) Regarding the elastic and viscoelastic properties of the IN-DNA complexes studied in Fig. 4. These are very interesting observations that could take more interpretation. For example, why is the rosette center in Fig.4C has lower stiffness that the loop area? Is it because in the loops the stiffness is more of the background and bare DNA is felt? Does the stiffness of the fully compacted complex in Fig.4D follow the density of the globule?

(6) Also, more interpretation of the observed dwell times and velocity distributions of the complex unfolding vs force can be provided, and what it tells us about the interactions that hold this complex together.

(7) The effect of ALINIs on the structure of rosette and denser condensate is interesting. Based on the published notion on where ALINIS bind to IN and what kind of interactions they prevent can these results be better interpreted? Maybe the IN-IN interactions that hold the rosette together are the same as the ones that hold the dense aggregate together, but just at higher [IN]? And because the fewer IN interactions have to hold large DNA loops in the rosette, they are weaker interactions that are easier to disrupt via the same ALINI-IN interactions?

(8) Finally, in the discussion it would be quite valuable if the authors could comment on the conclusions based on their findings for the in vivo IN-DNA interactions inside the mature capsid. As there are 100-150 IN molecules per capsid within the very small capsid volume, do all of these IN bunch up together on the dsDNA being synthesized? By the end of the reverse transcription when the vDNA ends are synthesized and processed, can this IN oligomer be re-bound to form the synapse of the vDNA ends?

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this work, the authors aims and efforts point towards evaluating the interaction mechanisms between viral protein integrase (IN) and viral DNA. They develop a multifaceted approach to probe the effect that IN has on the formation and structure of IN-DNA complexes under different environmental conditions to determine the role of IN in early stages of infection. HIV infection is considered a global pandemic with huge challenges in both treatment and prevention. This work presents a step towards understanding the mechanisms in early infection and thus prevention.

The experimental work is carried out using single molecule imaging and force spectroscopy, alongside computational verification using Monte-Carlo simulations. The authors use a range of well-established methods to quantitatively evaluate this, pushing forward the current state of the art.

The paper shows that in the presence of IN, DNA is compacted into a condensate in a biphasic manner, first forming a 'semi-compact' rosette condensate followed by a fully compacted condensate. As HIV DNA must be fully compacted to enter the cell nucleus for infection, this work describes the importance of the role of IN and the conditions required for it to reach a full condensate, and hence provides a new understanding on the early role of IN in infection. Furthermore, the authors show that the semi-compact rosette condensate (i.e. the first phase) is susceptible to IN inhibitors whereas the second compaction phase is insusceptible. This work provides us with information that using inhibitors in the early stages of IN-DNA interaction, infection may be prevented.

Strengths:

The authors present a strong piece of work, using current experimental and computational methods to investigate IN-DNA interactions and to convincingly describe their experimental observations. Firstly the data and analysis shown from AFM and MT experiments convincingly show a two-phase compaction of DNA upon interaction with IN. The authors use Monte-Carlo simulations to model DNA-IN interactions, specifically showing that their experimental results of a two-phase compaction can only be observed via simulations if IN-IN attraction is included.

The authors aim of showing the effect of IN on the compaction of DNA was achieved successfully using AFM and MT. Furthermore, the works show clearly the susceptibility of the partially compacted DNA-IN core to inhibitors. Overall the conclusions in this paper are supported well by their experimental data and it is likely that this paper will not only be used as a model for future experimental work to explore other retroviral nucleoprotein condensation but also to develop a deeper understanding of the role of IN-inhibitors infection prevention.

Finally, the article is written very coherently and is well supported by critical analysis of their findings and appropriate referencing to supplementary figures.

Overall, this article is very worthy and through extensive and detailed work the authors probe difficult questions regarding HIV infection, which currently poses a huge global risk. The work completed by the authors substantially advances our understanding of HIV infection and can be used by those in the future to probe this question further.

Weaknesses:

Important aspects of the methodologies in this paper are not described in detail. For example, force volume curves have been used to evaluate the mechanical properties of the DNA-IN complex. Force-volume measurements are prone to a number of errors, particularly relating to data acquisition and analysis. The methodology presented is not clear on how the data is acquired, whether statically or in amplitude modulation, which affects analysis and interpretation. Although the authors do recognise some of the difficulties with force curve analysis, a more rigorous study could have been provided with citations to additional relevant literature (particularly taking note of the methods).

A minor point is that it is not clear that the AFM imaging is performed in air, in contrast to AFM force spectroscopy in liquid, which could affect the interpretation of the data and therefore comparisons which are drawn between the two. This is made more challenging as the methodology for the compaction measurements is not described in the methods, and the code is not provided. The source code should be made open-access and available to enable the work to be better understood and reproduced.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

DiPeso et al. develop two tools to (i) classify micronucleated (MN) cells, which they call VCS MN, and (ii) segment micronuclei and nuclei with MMFinder. They then use these tools to identify transcriptional changes in MN cells.

The strengths of this study are:

(1) Developing highly specialized tools to speed up the analysis of specific cellular phenomena such as MN formation and rupture is likely valuable to the community and neglected by developers of more generalist methods.

(2) A lot of work and ideas have gone into this manuscript. It is clearly a valuable contribution.

(3) Combining automated analysis, single-cell labeling, and cell sorting is an exciting approach to enrich phenotypes of interest, which the authors demonstrate here.

Weaknesses:

(1) Images and ground truth labels are not shared for others to develop potentially better analysis methods.

(2) Evaluations of the methods are often not fully explained in the text.

(3) To my mind, the various metrics used to evaluate VCS MN reveal it not to be terribly reliable. Recall and PPV hover in the 70-80% range except for the PPV for MN+. It is what it is - but do the authors think one has to spend time manually correcting the output or do they suggest one uses it as is?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Micronuclei are aberrant nuclear structures frequently seen following the missegregation of chromosomes. The authors present two image analysis methods, one robust and another rapid, to identify micronuclei (MN) bearing cells. The authors induce chromosome missegregation using an MPS1 inhibitor to check their software outcomes. In missegregation-induced cells, the authors do not distinguish cells that have MN from those that have MN with additional segregation defects. The authors use RNAseq to assess the outcomes of their MN-identifying methods: they do not observe a transcriptomic signature specific to MN but find changes that correlate with aneuploidy status. Overall, this work offers new tools to identify MN-presenting cells, and it sets the stage with clear benchmarks for further software development.

Strengths:

Currently, there are no robust MN classifiers with a clear quantification of their efficiency across cell lines (mIoU score). The software presented here tries to address this gap. GitHub material (tools, protocols, etc) provided is a great asset to naive and experienced computational biologists. The method has been tested in more than one cell line. This method can help integrate cell biology and 'omics' studies.

Weaknesses:

Although the classifier outperforms available tools for MN segmentation by providing mIOU, it's not yet at a point where it can be reliably applied to functional genomics assays where we expect a range of phenotypic penetrance.

Spindle checkpoint loss (e.g., MPS1 inhibition) is expected to cause a variety of nuclear atypia: misshapen, multinucleated, and micronucleated cells. It may be difficult to obtain a pure MN population following MPS1 inhibitor treatment, as many cells are likely to present MN among multinucleated or misshapen nuclear compartments. Given this situation, the transcriptomic impact of MN is unlikely to be retrieved using this experimental design, but this does not negate the significance of the work. The discussion will have to consider the nature, origin, and proportion of MN/rupture-only states - for example, lagging chromatids and unaligned chromosomes can result in different states of micronuclei and also distinct cell fates.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors develop a method to visually analyze micronuclei using automated methods. The authors then use these methods to isolate MN post-photoactivation and analyze transcriptional changes in cells with and without micronuclei of RPE-1 cells. The authors observe in RPE-1 cells that MN-containing cells show similar transcriptomic changes as aneuploidy, and that MN rupture does not lead to vast changes in the transcriptome.

Strengths:

The authors develop a method that allows for automating measurements and analysis of micronuclei. This has been something that the field has been missing for a long time. Using such a method has the potential to advance micronuclei biology. The authors also develop a method to identify cells with micronuclei in real time and mark them using photoconversion and then isolate them via FACS. The authors use this method to study the transcriptome. This method is very powerful as it allows for the sorting of a heterogenous population and subsequent analysis with a much higher sample number than could be previously done.

Weaknesses:

The major weakness of this paper is that the results from the RNA-seq analysis are difficult to interpret as very few changes are found to begin with between cells with MN and cells without. The authors have to use a 1.5-fold cut-off to detect any changes in general. This is most likely due to the sequencing read depth used by the authors. Moreover, there are large variances between replicates in experiments looking at cells with ruptured versus intact micronuclei. This limits our ability to assess if the lack of changes is due to truly not having changes between these populations or experimental limitations. Moreover, the authors use RPE-1 cells which lack cGAS, which may contribute to the lack of changes observed. Thus, it is possible that these results are not consistent with what would occur in primary tissues or just in general in cells with a proficient cGAS/STING pathway.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript entitled "Phosphodiesterase 1A Physically Interacts with YTHDF2 and Reinforces the Progression of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer" explores the role of PDE1A in promoting NSCLC progression by binding to the m6A reader YTHDF2 and regulating the mRNA stability of several novel target genes, consequently activating the STAT3 pathway and leading to metastasis and drug resistance.

Strengths:

The study addresses a novel mechanism involving PDE1A and YTHDF2 interaction in NSCLC, contributing to our understanding of cancer progression.

Weaknesses:

The following issues should be addressed:

(1) The body weight changes and/or survival times of each group in the in vivo metastasis studies should be provided.

(2) In Figure 7, the direct binding between YTHDF2 and the potential target genes should be further validated by silencing YTHDF2 to observe the half-life of the mRNA levels of target genes, in addition to silencing PDE1A.

(3) In Figure 7, the potential methylation sites of "A" on the target genes such as SOCS2 should be verified by mutation analysis, followed by m6A IP or reporter assays.

(4) In Figure 6G, the correlation between the mRNA levels of STAT3 and YTHDF2 needs clarification. According to the authors' mechanism, the STAT3 pathway is activated, rather than upregulation of mRNA levels (or protein levels, as shown in Figure 6F). Figure 7 does not provide evidence that STAT3 is a bona fide target gene regulated by YTHDF2.

(5) The final figure, which discusses sensitization to cisplatin by PDE1A suppression, does not appear to be closely related to the interaction or regulation of PDE1A/YTHDF2. If the authors claim this is an m6A-associated event, additional evidence is needed. Otherwise, this part could be removed from the manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This manuscript aims to investigate the biological impact and mechanisms of phosphodiesterase 1A (PDE1A) in promoting non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) progression. They first analyzed several databases and used three established NSCLC cell lines and a normal cell line to demonstrate that PDE1A is overexpressed in lung cancer and its expression negatively correlated with the outcomes of patients. Based on this data, they suggested PDE1A could be considered as a novel prognostic predictor in lung cancer treatment and progression. To study the biological function of PDE1A in NSCLC, they focused on testing the effect of inhibition of PDE1A genetically and pharmacologically on cell proliferation, migration, and invasion in vitro. They also used an experimental metastasis model via tail vein injection of H1299 cells to test if PDE1A promoted metastasis. By database analysis, they also decided to investigate if PDE1A promoted angiogenesis by co-culturing NSCLC cells with HUVECs as well as assessing the tumors from the subcutaneous xenograft model. However, in this model, whether PDE1A modulation impacted tumor metastasis was not examined. To address the mechanism of how PDE1A promotes metastasis, the authors again performed a bioinformatic and GSEA enrichment analysis and confirmed PDE1A indeed activated STAT3 signaling to promote migration. In combination with IP followed by Mass spectrometry, they found PDE1A is a partner of YTHDF2, the cooperation of PDE1A and YTHDF2 negatively regulated SOCS2 mRNA as demonstrated by RIP assay, and ultimately activated STAT3 signaling. Finally, the authors shifted the direction from metastasis to chemoresistance, specifically, they found that PDEA1 inhibitions sensitized NSCLC cells to cisplatin through MET and NRF2 signaling.

Strength:

Overall, the manuscript was well-written and the majority of the data supported the conclusions. The authors used a series of methods including cell lines, animal models, and database analysis to demonstrate the novel roles and mechanism of how PDE1 promotes NSCLC invasion and metastasis as well as cisplatin sensitivity. Given that PDE1A inhibitors have been perused to use in clinic, this study provided valuable findings that have the translational potential for NSCLC treatment.

Weaknesses:

The role of YTHDF2 in PDE1A-promoted tumor metastasis was not investigated. To make the findings more clinical and physiologically relevant, it would be interesting to test if inhibition of PDE1A impacts metastasis using lung cancer orthotopic and patient-derived xenograft models. It is also important to use a cisplatin-resistant NSCLC cell line to test if a PDE1A inhibitor has the potential to sensitize cisplatin in vitro and in vivo. Furthermore, this study relied heavily on different database analyses, although providing novel and compelling data that was followed up and confirmed in the paper, it is critical to have detailed statistical description section on data acquisition throughout the manuscript.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study aims to uncover molecular and structural details underlying the broad substrate specificity of glycosaminoglycan lyases belonging to a specific family (PL35). They determined the crystal structures of two such enzymes, conducted in vitro enzyme activity assays, and a thorough structure-guided mutagenesis campaign to interrogate the role of specific residues. They made progress towards achieving their aims but I see significant holes in data that need to be determined and in the authors' analyses.

Impact on the field:

I expect this work will have a limited impact on the field, although, with additional experimental work and better analysis, this paper will be able to stand on its own as a solid piece of structure-function analysis.

Strengths:

The major strengths of the study were the combination of structure and enzyme activity assays, comprehensive structural analysis, as well as a thorough structure-guided mutagenesis campaign.

Weaknesses:

There were several weaknesses, particularly:

(1) The authors claim to have done an ICP-MS experiment to show Mn2+ binds to their enzyme but did not present the data. The authors could have used the anomalous scattering properties of Mn2+ at the synchrotron to determine the presence and location of this cation (i.e. fluorescence spectra, and/or anomalous data collection at the Mn2+ absorption peak).

(2) The authors have an over-reliance on molecular docking for understanding the position of substrates bound to the enzyme. The docking analysis performed was cursory at best; Autodock Vina is a fine program but more rigorous software could have been chosen, as well we molecular dynamics simulations. As well the authors do not use any substrate/product-bound structures from the broader PL enzyme family to guide the placement of the substrates in the GAGases, and interpret the molecular docking models.

(3) The conclusion that the structures of GAGase II and VII are most similar to the structures of alginate lyases (Table 2 data), and the authors' reliance on DALI, are both questioned. DALI uses a global alignment algorithm, which when used for multi-domain enzymes such as these tends to result in sub-optimal alignment of active site residues, particularly if the active site is formed between the two domains as is the case here. The authors should evaluate local alignment methods focused on the optimization of the superposition of a single domain; these methods may result in a more appropriate alignment of the active site residues and different alignment statistics. This may influence the overall conclusion of the evolutionary history of these PL35 enzymes.

(4) The data on the GAGase III residue His188 is not well interpreted; substitution of this residue clearly impacts HA and HS hydrolysis as well. The data on the impact on alginate hydrolysis is weak, which could be due to the fact that the WT enzyme has poor activity against alginate to start with.

(5) The authors did not use the words "homology", "homologous", or "homolog" correctly (these terms mean the subjects have a known evolutionary relationship, which may or may not be known in the contexts the authors used these targets); the words "similarity" and "similar" are recommended to be used instead.

(6) The authors discuss a "shorter" cavity in GAGases, which does not make sense and is not supported by any figure or analysis. I recommend a figure with a surface representation of the various enzymes of interest, with dimensions of the cavity labeled (as a supplemental figure). The authors also do not specifically define what subsites are in the context of this family of enzymes, nor do they specifically label or indicate the location of the subsites on the figures of the GAGase II and IV enzyme structures.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Wei et al. present the X-ray crystallographic structures of two PL35 family glycosaminoglycan (GAG) lyases that display a broad substrate specificity. The structural data show that there is a high degree of structural homology between these enzymes and GAGases that have previously been structurally characterized. Central to this are the N-terminal (α/α)7 toroid domain and the C-terminal two-layered β-sheet domain. Structural alignment of these novel PL35 lyases with previously deposited structures shows a highly conserved triplet of residues at the heart of the active sites. Docking studies identified potentially important residues for substrate binding and turnover, and subsequent site-directed mutagenesis paired with enzymatic assays confirmed the importance of many of these residues. A third PL35 GAGase that is able to turn over alginate was not crystallized, but a predicted model showed a conserved active site Asn was mutated to a His, which could potentially explain its ability to act on alginate. Mutation of the His into either Ala or Asn abrogated its activity on alginate, providing supporting evidence for the importance of the His. Finally, a catalytic mechanism is proposed for the activity of the PL35 lyases. Overall, the authors used an appropriate set of methods to investigate their claims, and the data largely support their conclusions. These results will likely provide a platform for further studies into the broad substrate specificity of PL35 lyases, as well as for studies into the evolutionary origins of these unique enzymes

Strengths:

The crystallographic data are of very high quality, and the use of modern structural prediction tools to allow for comparison of GAGase III to GAGase II/GAGase VII was nice to see. The authors were comprehensive in their comparison of the PL35 lyases to those in other families. The use of molecular docking to identify key residues and the use of site-directed mutagenesis to investigate substrate specificity was good, especially going the extra distance to mutate the conserved Asn to His in GAGase II and GAGase VII.

Weaknesses:

The structural models simply are not complete. A cursory look at the electron density and the models show that there are many positive density peaks that have not had anything modelled into them. The electron density also does not support the placement of a Mn2+ in the model. The authors indicate that ICP-MS was done to identify the metal, but no ICP-MS data is presented in the main text or supplementary. I believe the authors put too much emphasis on the possibility of GAGase III representing an evolutionary intermediate between GAG lyases and alginate lyases based on a single Asn to His mutation in the active site, and I don't believe that enough time was spent discussing how this "more open and shorter" catalytic cavity would necessarily mean that the enzyme could accommodate a broader set of substrates. Finally, the proposed mechanism does not bring the enzyme back to its starting state.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This paper by Poverlein et al reports the substantial membrane deformation around the oxidative phosphorylation super complex, proposing that this deformation is a key part of super complex formation. I found the paper interesting and well-written but identified a number of technical issues that I suggest should be addressed:

(1) Neither the acyl chain chemical makeup nor the protonation state of CDL are specified. The acyl chain is likely 18:2/18:2/18:2/18:2, but the choice of the protonation state is not straightforward.

(2) The analysis of the bilayer deformation lacks membrane mechanical expertise. Here I am not ridiculing the authors - the presentation is very conservative: they find a deformed bilayer, do not say what the energy is, but rather try a range of energies in their Monte Carlo model - a good strategy for a group that focuses on protein simulations. The bending modulus and area compressibility modulus are part of the standard model for quantifying the energy of a deformed membrane. I suppose in theory these might be computed by looking at the per-lipid distribution in thickness fluctuations, but this route is extremely perilous on a per-molecule basis. Instead, the fluctuation in the projected area of a lipid patch is used to imply the modulus [see Venable et al "Mechanical properties of lipid bilayers from molecular dynamics simulation" 2015 and citations within]. Variations in the local thickness of the membrane imply local variations of the leaflet normal vector (the vector perpendicular to the leaflet surface), which is curvature. With curvature and thickness, the deformation energy is analyzed.

See:<br /> Two papers: "Gramicidin A Channel Formation Induces Local Lipid Redistribution" by Olaf Andersen and colleagues. Here the formation of a short peptide dimer is experimentally linked to hydrophobic mismatch. The presence of a short lipid reduces the influence of the mismatch. See below regarding their model cardiolipin, which they claim is shorter than the surrounding lipid matrix.

Also, see:<br /> Faraldo-Gomez lab "Membrane transporter dimerization driven by differential lipid solvation energetics of dissociated and associated states", 2021. Mondal et al "Membrane Driven Spatial Organization of GPCRs" 2013 and many citations within these papers.

While I strongly recommend putting the membrane deformation into standard model terms, I believe the authors should retain the basic conservative approach that the membrane is strongly deformed around the proteins and that making the SC reduces the deformation, then exploring the consequences with their discrete model.

(1) If CDL matches the hydrophobic thickness of the protein it would disrupt SC formation, not favor it. The authors' hypothesis is that the SC stabilizes the deformed membrane around the separated elements. Lipids that are compatible with the monomer deformed region stabilize the monomer, similarly to a surfactant. That is, if CDL prefers the interface because the interface is thin and their CDL is thin, CDL should prevent SC formation. A simpler hypothesis is that CDL's unique electrostatics are part of the glue.

(2) Error bars for lipid and Q* enrichments should be computed averaging over multi-lipid regions of the protein interface, e.g., dividing the protein-lipid interface into six to ten domains, in particular functionally relevant regions. Anionic lipids may have long, >500 ns residence times, which makes lipid enrichment large and characterization of error bars challenging in short simulations. Smaller regions will be noisy. The plots depicted in, for example, Figure S2 are noisy.

(3) The membrane deformation is repeatedly referred to as "entropic" without justification. The bilayer has significant entropic and enthalpic terms just like any biomolecule, why are the authors singling out entropy? The standard "Helfrich" energetic Hamiltonian is a free energy model in that it implicitly integrates over many lipid degrees of freedom.

(4) Figure S7 shows the surface area per lipid and leaflet height. This appears to show a result that is central to the interpretation of SC formation but which makes very little sense. One simply does not increase both the height and area of a lipid. This is a change in the lipid volume! The bulk compressibility of most anything is much higher than its Young's modulus [similar to area compressibility]. Instead, something else has happened. My guess is that there is *bilayer* curvature around these proteins and that it has been misinterpreted as area/thickness changes with opposite signs of the two leaflets. If a leaflet gets thin, its area expands. If the manuscript had more details regarding how they computed thickness I could help more. Perhaps they measured the height of a specific atom of the lipid above the average mid-plane normal? The mid-plane of a highly curved membrane would deflect from zero locally and could be misinterpreted as a thickness change.

(5) The authors write expertly about how conformational changes are interpreted in terms of function but the language is repeatedly suggestive. Can they put their findings into a more quantitative form with statistical analysis? "The EDA thus suggests that the dynamics of CI and CIII2 are allosterically coupled."

(6) The authors write "We find that an increase in the lipid tail length decreases the relative stability of the SC (Figure S5C)" This is a critical point but I could not interpret Figure S5C consistently with this sentence. Can the authors explain this?

(7) The authors use a 6x6 and 15x15 lattice to analyze SC formation. The SC assembly has 6 units of E_strain favoring its assembly, which they take up to 4 kT. At 3 kT, the SC should be favored by 18 kT, or a Boltzmann factor of 10^8. With only 225 sites, specific and non-specific complex formation should be robust. Can the authors please check their numbers or provide a qualitative guide to the data that would make clear what I'm missing?

In summary, the qualitative data presented are interesting (especially the combination of molecular modeling with simpler Monte Carlo modeling aiding broader interpretation of the results) ... but confusing in terms of the non-standard presentation of membrane mechanics and the difficulty of this reviewer to interpret some of the underlying figures: especially, the thickness of the leaflets around the protein and the relative thickness of cardiolipin. Resolving the quantitative interpretation of the bilayer deformation would greatly enhance the significance of their Monte Carlo model of SC formation.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors have used large-scale atomistic and coarse-grained molecular dynamics simulations on the respiratory chain complex and investigated the effect of the complex on the inner mitochondrial membrane. They have also used a simple phenomenological model to establish that the super complex (SC) assembly and stabilisation are driven by the interplay between the "entropic" forces due to strain energy and the enthalpies forces (specific and non-specific) between lipid and protein domains. The authors also show that the SC in the membrane leads to thinning and there is preferential localisation of certain lipids (Cardiolipin) in the annular region of the complex. The data reports that the SC assembly has an effect on the conformational dynamics of individual proteins making up the assembled complex and they undergo "allosteric crosstalk" to maintain the stable functional complex. From their conformational analyses of the proteins (individual and while in the complex) and membrane "structural" properties (such as thinning/lateral organization etc) as well from the out of their phenomenological lattice model, the authors have provided possible implications and molecular origin about the function of the complex in terms of aspects such as charge currents in internal mitochondrion membrane, proton transport activity and ATP synthesis.

Strengths:

The work is bold in terms of undertaking modelling and simulation of such a large complex that requires simulations of about a million atoms for long time scales. This requires technical acumen and resources. Also, the effort to make connections to experimental readouts has to be appreciated (though it is difficult to connect functional pathways with limited (additive forcefield) simulations.

Weakness:

There are several weaknesses in the paper (please see the list below). Claims such as "entropic effect", "membrane strain energy" and "allosteric cross talks" are not properly supported by evidence and seem far-fetched at times. There are other weaknesses as well. Please see the list below.

(i) Membrane "strain energy" has been loosely used and no effort is made to explain what the authors mean by the term and how they would quantify it. If the membrane is simulated in stress-free conditions, where are strains building up from?

(ii) In result #1 (Protein membrane interaction modulates the lipid dynamics ....), I strongly feel that the readouts from simulations are overinterpreted. Membrane lateral organization in terms of lipids having preferential localisation is not new (see doi: 10.1021/acscentsci.8b00143) nor membrane thinning and implications to function (https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E20-12-0794). The distortions that are visible could be due to a mismatch in the number of lipids that need to be there between the upper and lower leaflets after the protein complex is incorporated. Also, the physiological membrane will have several chemically different lipids that will minimise such distortions as well as would be asymmetric across the leaflets - none of which has been considered. Connecting chain length to strain energy is also not well supported - are the authors trying to correlate membrane order (Lo vs Ld) with strain energy?

(iii) Entropic effect: What is the evidence towards the entropic effect? If strain energy is entropic, the authors first need to establish that. They discuss enthalpy-entropy compensation but there is no clear data or evidence to support that argument. The lipids will rearrange themselves or have a preference to be close to certain regions of the protein and that generally arises because of enthalpies reasons (see the body of work done by Carol Robinson with Mass Spec where certain lipids prefer proteins in the GAS phase, certainly there is no entropy at play there). I find the claims of entropic effects very unconvincing.

(iv) The changes in conformations dynamics are subtle as reported by the authors and the allosteric arguments are made based on normal mode analyses. In the complex, there are large overlapping regions between the CI, CIII2, and SCI/III2. I am not sure how the allosteric crosstalk claim is established in this work - some more analyses and data would be useful. Normal mode analyses (EDA) suggest that the motions are coupled and correlated - I am not convinced that it suggests that there is allosteric cross-talk.

(v) The lattice model should be described better and the rationale for choosing the equation needs to be established. Specific interactions look unfavourable in the equation as compared to non-specific interactions.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

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

Strengths:

The combination of complementary approaches, including an interesting (re)analysis of cryo-EM data, is particularly powerful and might be applicable to the analysis of related systems. The calculations also revealed that SC formation has interesting impacts on the structural and dynamical (motional correlation) properties of the individual protein components, suggesting further functional relevance of SC formation. Overall, the study is rather thorough and highly creative, and the impact on the field is expected to be significant.

Weaknesses:

In general, I don't think the work contains any obvious weaknesses, although I was left with some questions.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Tamoxifen resistance is a common problem in partially ER-positive patients undergoing endocrine therapy, and this manuscript has important research significance as it is based on clinical practical issues. The manuscript discovered that the absence of FRMD8 in breast epithelial cells can promote the progression of breast cancer, thus proposing the hypothesis that FRMD8 affects tamoxifen resistance and validating this hypothesis through a series of experiments. The manuscript has a certain theoretical reference value.

Strengths:

At present, research on the role of FRMD8 in breast cancer is very limited. This manuscript leverages the MMTV-Cre+;Frmd8fl/fl;PyMT mouse model to study the role of FRMD8 in tamoxifen resistance, and single-cell sequencing technology discovered the interaction between FRMD8 and ESR1. At the mechanistic level, this manuscript has demonstrated two ways in which FRMD8 affects ERα, providing some new insights into the development of ER-positive breast cancer in patients who are resistant to tamoxifen.

Weaknesses:

This manuscript repeatedly emphasizes the role of FRMD8/FOXO3A in tamoxifen resistance in ER-positive breast cancer, but the specific mechanisms have not yet been fully elucidated. Whether FRMD8 can become a biomarker should be verified in large clinical samples or clinical data.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript presents a valuable finding on the impact of FRMD8 loss on tumor progression and the resistance to tamoxifen therapy. The author conducted systematic experiments to explore the role of FRMD8 in breast cancer and its potential regulatory mechanisms, confirming that FRMD8 could serve as a potential target to revere tamoxifen resistance.

Strengths:

The majority of the research is logically clear, smooth, and persuasive.

Weaknesses:

Some research in the article lacks depth and some sentences are poorly organized.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors propose that LAPTM4B plays a role in suppressing the TGF-β/SMAD signaling pathway and suggest that enhancing LAPTM4B function could be a potential therapeutic strategy for alleviating BLM-induced lung fibrosis. Their data show that LAPTM4B knockdown exacerbates fibrosis phenotypes, both in vivo and in vitro, while LAPTM4B overexpression mitigates these effects by recruiting NEDD4L to destabilize SMAD proteins.

Strengths:

The findings are significant for the lung disease field, and the data presented support the authors' conclusions. This work would be of even higher interest after sufficiently addressing the weaknesses listed below.

Weaknesses:

Several issues need to be addressed. First, it is unclear why the authors chose to focus on LAPTM4B specifically, rather than other members of the LAPTM family, such as LAPTM4A or LAPTM5. Additionally, the manuscript does not address whether lysosomes are involved in the degradation of ubiquitinated LAPTM4B.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

It was previously documented that lysosomal localization of the Lysosomal transmembrane proteins LAPTM4 or 5 (including LAPTM4b) is regulated by Nedd4 family ubiquitin ligases, and independently, that Nedd4l regulates IPF (Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis) in mouse lungs via regulation of the TGFb pathway (ie, Nedd4l lung-specific KO mice develop IPF due to reduced ability to suppress the TGFb pathway -PMID: 32332792 ). Here, Xu et al investigated the role of LAPTM4b in IPF and suggested that the suppression of IPF by LAPTM4b, which they discovered here, is mediated via its interaction with Nedd4L, which normally suppresses TGFb signaling.

Strengths:

Overall, this is an interesting paper that identified for the first time a suppressive role of LAPTM4b in IPF, using both in vivo mouse models and cell culture studies.

Weaknesses:

(1) The most obvious shortcoming of this study is the lack of experimental evidence that the suppressive effect of LAPTM4b on IPF is mediated by Nedd4l.

(2) Along the same lines, despite the authors' claim, overexpression of Nedd4L in cells does not increase SMAD3 ubiquitination (Fig 6D), which is a marker of TGFbR activation. Likewise, in Fig 5E, SMAD2 seems to be ubiquitinated similarly in the presence or absence of LAPTM4b (despite claims that LAPTM4b promotes ubiquitination of SMAD2). Same for K48 ubiquitination of TGFbR (Figure 5H).

(3) How does LAPTM4b interact with SMAD2 or 3, or TGFbR?

(4) All immunofluorescence (IF) studies depict 1 or 2 cells, with no quantification or statistics.

(5) Some of the Western blots (WB) are also not quantified, so any claims of an effect cannot be evaluated without such quantification and statistics.

(6) In the IF studies showing lung tissue (eg Figure 1B), why is LAPTM4b (wildtype) localized to the plasma membrane instead of lysosomes/endosomes?

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript performs a comprehensive biochemical, structural, and bioinformatic analysis of TseP, a type 6 secretion system effector from Aeromonas dhakensis that includes the identification of a domain required for secretion and residues conferring target organism specificity. Through targeted mutations, they have expanded the target range of a T6SS effector to include a gram-positive species, which is not typically susceptible to T6SS attack.

Strengths:

All of the experiments presented in the study are well-motivated and the conclusions are generally sound.

Weaknesses:

There are some issues with the clarity of figures. For example, the microscopy figures could have been more clearly presented as cell counts/quantification rather than representative images. Similarly, loading controls for the secreted proteins for the westerns probably should be shown.

Also, some of the minor/secondary conclusions reached regarding the "independence" of the N and C term domains of the TseP are a bit overreaching.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Wang et al. investigate the role of TseP, a Type VI secretion system (T6SS) effector molecule, revealing its dual enzymatic activities as both an amidase and a lysozyme. This discovery significantly enhances the understanding of T6SS effectors, which are known for their roles in interbacterial competition and survival in polymicrobial environments. TseP's dual function is proposed to play a crucial role in bacterial survival strategies, particularly in hostile environments where competition between bacterial species is prevalent.

Strengths:

(1) The dual enzymatic function of TseP is a significant contribution, expanding the understanding of T6SS effectors.

(2) The study provides important insights into bacterial survival strategies, particularly in interbacterial competition.

(3) The findings have implications for antimicrobial research and understanding bacterial interactions in complex environments.

Weaknesses:

(1) The manuscript assumes familiarity with previous work, making it difficult to follow. Mutants and strains need clearer definitions and references.

(2) Figures lack proper controls, quantification, and clarity in some areas, notably in Figures 1A and 1C.

(3) The Materials and Methods section is poorly organized, hindering reproducibility. Biophysical validation of Zn²⁺ interaction and structural integrity of proteins need to be addressed.

(4) Discrepancies in protein degradation patterns and activities across different figures raise concerns about data reliability.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Type VI secretion systems (T6SS) are employed by bacteria to inject competitor cells with numerous effector proteins. These effectors can kill injected cells via an array of enzymatic activities. A common class of T6SS effector are peptidoglycan (PG) lysing enzymes. In this manuscript, the authors characterize a PG-lysing effector-TseP-from the pathogen Aeromonas dhakensis. While the C-terminal domain of TseP was known to have lysozyme activity, the N-terminal domain was uncharacterized. Here, the authors functionally characterize TsePN as a zinc-dependent amidase. This discovery is somewhat novel because it is rare for PG-lysing effectors to have amidase and lysozyme activity.

In the second half of the manuscript, the authors utilize a crystal structure of the lysozyme TsePC domain to inform the engineering of this domain to lyse gram-positive peptidoglycan.

Strengths:

The two halves of the manuscript considered together provide a nice characterization of a unique T6SS effector and reveal potentially general principles for lysozyme engineering.

Weaknesses:

The advantage of fusing amidase and lysozyme domains in a single effector is not discussed but would appear to be a pertinent question. Labeling of the figures could be improved to help readers understand the data.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript seeks to estimate the causal effect of genes on disease. To do so, they introduce a novel algorithm, termed the Root Causal Strength using Perturbations (RCSP) algorithm. RCSP uses perturb-seq to first estimate the gene regulatory network structure among genes, and then uses bulk RNA-seq with phenotype data on the samples to estimate causal effects of genes on the phenotype conditional on the learned network structure. The authors assess the performance of RCSP in comparison to other methods via simulation. Next, they apply RCSP to two real human datasets: 513 individuals age-related macular degeneration and 137 individuals with multiple sclerosis.

Strengths:

The authors tackle an important and ambitious problem - the identification of causal contributors to disease in the context of a causal inference framework. As the authors point out, observational RNA-seq data is insufficient for this kind of causal discovery, since it is very challenging to recover the true underlying graph from observational data; interventional data are needed. However, little perturb-seq data has been generated with annotated phenotype data, and much bulk RNA-seq data has already been generated, so it is useful to propose an algorithm to integrate the two as the authors have done.

The authors also offer substantial theoretical exposition for their work, bringing to bear both the literature on causal discovery as well as literature on the genetic architecture of complex traits.

Weaknesses:

The notion of a "root" causal gene - which the authors define based on a graph theoretic notion of topologically sorting graphs - requires a graph that is directed and acyclic. It is the latter that constitutes an important weakness here - it simply is a large simplification of human biology to draw out a DAG including hundreds of genes and a phenotype Y and to claim that the true graph contains no cycles. This is briefly touched upon the discussion, but given the fundamental nature of this choice - the manuscript should devote at least some of the main results to exploring the consequence of mischaracterizing true cyclic graphs as DAGs in this framework. For example - consider the authors' analysis of T cell infiltration in multiple sclerosis (MS). CD4+ effector T cells have the interesting property that they are stimulated by IL2 as a growth factor; yet IL2 also stimulates the activation of (suppressive) regulatory T cells. What does it mean to analyze CD4+ regulation in disease with a graph that does not consider IL2 (or other cytokine) mediated feedback loops/cycles?

I also encourage the authors to consider more carefully when graph structure learned from perturb-seq can be ported over to bulk RNA-seq. Consider again the MS CD4+ example - the authors first start with a large perturb-seq experiment (Replogle et al., 2022) performed in K562 cells. To what extent are K562 cells, which are derived from a leukemia cell line, suitable for learning the regulatory structure of CD4+ cells from individuals with an MS diagnosis? Presumably this structure is not exactly correct - to what extent is the RCSP algorithm sensitive to false edges in this graph? This leap - from cell line to primary human cells - is also not modeled in the simulation. Although challenging - it would be ideal for the RCSP to model or reflect the challenges in correctly identifying the regulatory structure.

It should also be noted that in most perturb-seq experiments, the entire genome is not perturbed, and frequently important TFs (that presumably are very far "upstream" and thus candidate "root" causal genes) are not expressed highly enough to be detected with scRNA-seq. In that context - perhaps slightly modifying the language regarding RCSP's capabilities might be helpful for the manuscript - perhaps it would be better to describe it has an algorithm for causal discovery among a set of genes that were perturbed and measured, rather than a truly complete search for causal factors. Perhaps more broadly - it would also benefit the manuscript to devote slightly more text to describing the kinds of scenarios where RCSP (and similar ideas) would be most appropriately applied - perhaps a well-powered, phenotype annotated perturb-seq dataset performed in a disease relevant primary cell.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper presents a very interesting use of a causal graph framework to identify the "root genes" of a disease phenotype. Root genes are the genes that cause a cascade of events that ultimately leads to the disease phenotype, assuming the disease progression is linear.

Strengths:

- The methodology has a solid theoretical background.<br /> - This is a novel use of the causal graph framework to infer root causes in a graph

Weaknesses:

(1) General Comments<br /> First, I have some general comments. I would argue that the main premise of the study might be inaccurate or incomplete. There are three major attributes of real biological systems, which are not considered in this work.

One is that the process from health-to-disease is not linear most of the time with many checks along the way that aim to prevent the disease phenotype. This leads to a non-deterministic nature of the path from health-to-disease. In other words, with the same root gene perturbations, and depending on other factors outside of gene expression, someone may develop a phenotype in a year, another in 10 years and someone else never. Claiming that this information is included in the error terms might not be sufficient to address this issue. The authors should discuss this limitation.

Two, the paper assumes that the network connectivity will remain the same after perturbation. This is not always true due to backup mechanisms in the cells. For example, suppose that a cell wants to create product P and it can do it through two alternative paths:<br /> Path #1: A -> B -> P Path #2: A -> C -> P<br /> Now suppose that path #1 is more efficient, so when B can be produced, path #2 is inactive. Once the perturbation blocks element B from being produced, the graph connectivity changes by activation of path #2. I did not see the authors taking this into consideration, which seems to be a major limitation in using perturb-seq results to infer connectivities.

Three, there is substantial system heterogeneity that may cause the same phenotype. This goes beyond the authors claim that although the initial gene causes of a disease may differ from person to person, at some point they will all converge to changes in the same set of "root genes". This is not true for many diseases, which are defined based on symptoms and lab tests at the patient level. You may have two completely different molecular pathologies that lead to the development of the same symptoms and test results. Breast cancer with its subtypes is a prime example of that. In theory, this issue could be addressed if there is infinite sample size. However, this assumption is largely violated in all existing biological datasets.

All the above limit the usefulness of this method for most chronic diseases, although it might still lead to interesting discoveries in cancer (in which the association between genes' dysregulation and development of cancer is more direct and occurs in less amount of time).

With these in mind, the theoretical and algorithmic advances this paper offers are interesting. And the theoretical proofs are solid.

(2) Specific comments.<br /> I am curious how the simulated data were generated and processed. Specifically, were the values of the synthetic variables Z-scored? If not, then I would expect that the variance of every variable will increase from the roots of the graph to the leaves. That will give an advantage in any algorithm aiming to identify causal relations based on error terms. For fairness and completeness, the authors should Z-score the values in the synthetic data and compare the results.

The algorithm seems to require both RNA-seq and Perturb-seq data (Algorithm 1, page 14). Can it function with RNA-seq data only? What will be different in this case?

(3) Additional comments:<br /> Although the manuscript is generally written clearly, some parts are not clear and others have missing details that make the narrative difficult to follow up. Some specific examples:<br /> - Synthetic data generation: how many different graphs (SEMs) did they start from? (30?) How many samples per graph? Did they test different sample sizes?<br /> - The presentation of comparative results (Suppl fig 4 and 7) is not clear. No details are given on how these results were generated. (what does it mean "The first column denotes the standard deviation of the outputs for each algorithm"?) Why all other methods have higher SD differences than RCSP? Is it a matter of scaling? Shouldn't they have at least some values near zero since the authors "added the minimum value so that all histograms begin at zero"? also, why RCSP results are more like a negative binomial distribution and every other is kind of normal?<br /> - What is the significance of genes changing expression "from left to right" in a UMAP plot? (eg Fig. 3h and 3g)

The authors somewhat overstate the novelty of their algorithm. Representation of GRNs as causal graphs dates back in 2000 with the work of Nir Friedman in yeast. Other methods were developed more recently that look on regulatory network changes at the single sample level which the authors do not seem to be aware (e.g., Ellington et al, NeurIPS 2023 workshop GenBio and Bushur et al, 2019, Bioinformatics are two such examples). The methods they mention are for single cell data and they are not designed to connect single sample-level changes to a person's phenotype. The RCS method needs to be put in the right background context in order to bring up what is really novel about it.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors provide an interesting and novel approach, RCSP, to determining what they call the "root causal genes" for a disease, i.e. the most upstream, initial causes of disease. RCSP leverages perturbation (e.g. Perturb-seq) and observational RNA-seq data, the latter from patients. They show using both theory and simulations that if their assumptions hold then the method performs remarkably well, compared to both simple and available state-of-the-art baselines. Whether the required assumptions hold for real diseases is questionable. They show superficially reasonable results on AMD and MS.

Strengths:

The idea of integrating perturbation and observational RNA-seq dataset to better understand the causal basis of disease is powerful and timely. We are just beginning to see genome-wide perturbation assay, albeit in limited cell-types currently. For many diseases, research cohorts have at least bulk observational RNA-seq from a/the disease-relevant tissue(s). Given this, RCSP's strategy of learning the required causal structure from perturbations and applying this knowledge in the observational context is pragmatic and will likely become widely applicable as Perturb-seq data in more cell-types/contexts becomes available.

The causal inference reasoning is another strength. A more obvious approach would be to attempt to learn the causal network structure from the perturbation data and leverage this in the observational data. However, structure learning in high-dimensions is notoriously difficult, despite recent innovations such as differentiable approaches. The authors notice that to estimate the root causal effect for a gene X, one only needs access to a (superset of) the causal ancestors of X: much easier relationships to detect than the full network.

The applications are also reasonably well chosen, being some of the few cases where genome-scale perturb-seq is available in a roughly appropriate (see below) cell-type, and observational RNA-seq is available at a reasonable sample size.

Weaknesses:

Several assumptions of the method are problematic. The most concerning is that the observational expression changes are all causally upstream of disease. There is work using Mendelian randomization (MR) showing that the _opposite_ is more likely to be true: most differential expression in disease cohorts is a consequence rather than a cause of disease (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25805-y). Indeed, the oxidative stress of AMD has known cellular responses including the upregulation of p53. The authors need to think carefully about how this impacts their framework. Can the theory say anything in this light? Simulations could also be designed to address robustness.

A closely related issue is the DAG assumption of no cycles. This assumption is brought to bear because it required for much classical causal machinery, but is unrealistic in biology where feedback is pervasive. How robust is RCSP to (mild) violations of this assumption? Simulations would be a straightforward way to address this.

The authors spend considerable effort arguing that technical sampling noise in X can effectively be ignored (at least in bulk). While the mathematical arguments here are reasonable, they miss the bigger picture point that the measured gene expression X can only ever be a noisy/biased proxy for the expression changes that caused disease: 1) Those events happened before the disease manifested, possibly early in development for some conditions like neurodevelopmental disorders. 2) bulk RNA-seq gives only an average across cell-types, whereas specific cell-types are likely "causal". 3) only a small sample, at a single time point, is typically available. Expression in other parts of the tissue and at different times will be variable.

My remaining concerns are more minor.

While there are connections to the omnigenic model, the latter is somewhat misrepresented. 1) The authors refer to the "core genes" of the omnigenic model as being at the end (longitudinally) of pathogenesis. The omnigenic model makes no statements about temporally ordering: in causal inference terminology the core genes are simply the direct cause of disease. 2) "Complex diseases often have an overwhelming number of causes, but the root causal genes may only represent a small subset implicating a more omnigenic than polygenic model" A key observation underlying the omnigenic model is that genetic heritability is spread throughout the genome (and somewhat concentrated near genes expressed in disease relevant cell types). This implies that (almost) all expressed genes, or their associated (e)SNPs, are "root causes".

The claim that root causal genes would be good therapeutic targets feels unfounded. If these are highly variable across individuals then the choice of treatment becomes challenging. By contrast the causal effects may converge on core genes before impacting disease, so that intervening on the core genes might be preferable. The jury is still out on these questions, so the claim should at least be made hypothetical.

The closest thing to a gold standard I believe we have for "root causal genes" is integration of molecular QTLs and GWAS, specifically coloc/MR. Here the "E" of RCSP are explicitly represented as SNPs. I don't know if there is good data for AMD but there certainly is for MS. The authors should assess the overlap with their results. Another orthogonal avenue would be to check whether the root causal genes change early in disease progression.

The available perturb-seq datasets have limitations beyond on the control of the authors. 1) The set of genes that are perturbed. The authors address this by simply sub-setting their analysis to the intersection of genes represented in the perturbation and observational data. However, this may mean that a true ancestor of X is not modeled/perturbed, limiting the formal claims that can be made. Additionally, some proportion of genes that are nominally perturbed show little to no actual perturbation effect (for example, due to poor guide RNA choice) which will also lead to missing ancestors.

The authors provide no mechanism for statistical inference/significance for their results at either the individual or aggregated level. While I am a proponent of using effect sizes more than p-values, there is still value in understanding how much signal is present relative to a reasonable null.

I agree with the authors that age coming out of a "root cause" is potentially encouraging. However, it is also quite different in nature to expression, including being "measured" exactly. Will RCSP be biased towards variables that have lower measurement error?

Finally, it's a stretch to call K562 cells "lymphoblasts". They are more myeloid than lymphoid.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Pham and colleagues provide an illuminating investigation of aquaporin-4 water flux in the brain utilizing ex vivo and in vivo techniques. The authors first show in acute brain slices, and in vivo with fiber photometry, SRB loaded astrocytes swell after inhibition of AQP4 with TGN-020, indicative of tonic water efflux from astrocytes in physiological conditions. Excitingly, they find that TGN-020 increased the ADC in DW-MRI in a region-specific manner, potentially due to AQP4 density. The resolution of the DW-MRI cannot distinguish between intracellular or extracellular compartments, but the data point to an overall accumulation of water in the brain with AQP4 inhibition. These results provide further clarity on water movement through AQP4 in health and disease.

Overall, the data support the main conclusions of the article, with some room for more detailed treatment of the data to extend the findings.

Strengths:

The authors have a thorough investigation of AQP4 inhibition in acute brain slices. The demonstration of tonic water efflux through AQP4 at baseline is novel and important in and of itself. Their further testing of TGN-020 in hyper- and hypo-osmotic solutions shows the expected reduction of swelling/shrinking with AQP4 blockade.

Their experiment with cortical spreading depression further highlights the importance of water efflux from astrocytes via AQP4 and transient water fluxes as a result of osmotic gradients. Inhibition of AQP4 increases the speed of tissue swelling, pointing to a role in efflux of water from the brain.

The use of DW-MRI provides a non-invasive measure of water flux after TGN-020 treatment.

Weaknesses:

The authors specifically use GCaMP6 and light sheet microscopy to image their brain sections in order to identify astrocytic microdomains. However, their presentation of the data neglects a more detailed treatment of the calcium signaling. It would be quite interesting to see whether these calcium events are differentially affected by AQP4 inhibition based on their cellular localization (ie. processes vs. soma vs. vascular endfeet which all have different AQP4 expression).

The authors show the inhibition of AQP4 with TGN-020 shortens the onset time of the swelling associated with cortical spreading depression in brain slices. However, they do not show quantification for much of the other features of the CSD swelling, (ie. the duration of swelling, speed of swelling, recovery from swelling)

Comments on revised version:

The authors have addressed these suggestions as additional supplementary figures. Notably they find increased calcium signaling and stronger inhibition of calcium signaling by TGN-020 in astrocytic endfeet, where AQP4 is enriched.

Significance:

AQP4 is a bidirectional water channel that is constitutively open, thus water flux through it is always regulated by local osmotic gradients. Still, characterizing this water flux has been challenging, as the AQP4 channel is incredibly water selective. The authors here present important data showing that application of TGN-020 alone causes astrocytic swelling, indicating that there is constant efflux of water from astrocytes via AQP4 in basal conditions. This has been suggested before, as the authors rightfully highlight in their discussion, but the evidence had previously come from electron microscopy data from genetic knockout mice.

AQP4 expression has been linked with glymphatic circulation of cerebrospinal fluid through perivascular spaces since its rediscovery in 2012 [1]. Further studies of aging[2], genetic models[3], and physiological circadian variation[4], have revealed it is not simply AQP4 expression but AQP4 polarization to astrocytic vascular endfeet that is imperative for facilitating glymphatic flow. Still a lingering question in the field is how AQP4 facilitates fluid circulation. This study represents an important step in our understanding of AQP4's function, as basal efflux of water via AQP4 might promote clearance of interstitial fluid to allow influx of cerebrospinal fluid into the brain. Beyond glymphatic fluid circulation, clearly AQP4 dependent volume changes will differentially alter astrocytic calcium signaling and, in turn, neuronal activity.

(1) Iliff, J.J., et al., A Paravascular Pathway Facilitates CSF Flow Through the Brain Parenchyma and the Clearance of Interstitial Solutes, Including Amyloid β. Sci Transl Med, 2012. 4(147): p. 147ra111.<br /> (2) Kress, B.T., et al., Impairment of paravascular clearance pathways in the aging brain. Ann Neurol, 2014. 76(6): p. 845-61.<br /> (3) Mestre, H., et al., Aquaporin-4-dependent Glymphatic Solute Transport in the Rodent Brain. eLife, 2018. 7.<br /> (4) Hablitz, L., et al., Circadian control of brain glymphatic and lymphatic fluid flow. Nature communications, 2020. 11(1).

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the Authors propose that astrocytic water channel AQP4 represents the dominant pathway for tonic water efflux without which astrocytes undergo cell swelling. The authors measure changes in astrocytic sulforhodamine B fluorescence as the proxy for cell volume dynamics. Using this approach, they have performed a technically elegant series of ex vivo and in vivo experiments exploring changes in astrocytic volume "signal" in response to the AQP4 inhibitor TGN-020 and/or neuronal stimulation. The key findings are that TGN-020 produces an apparent swelling of astrocytes and modifies astrocytic cell volume dynamics after spreading depolarizations. This study is perceived as potentially highly significant. However, several technical caveats could be considered better and perhaps addressed through additional experiments.

Strengths:

(1) This is a technically sound study, in which the Authors employed a number of complementary ex vivo and in vivo techniques. The presented results are of interest to the field and potentially highly significant.

(2) The innovative use of sulforhodamine B for in situ measurements of astrocyte cell volume dynamics is thoroughly validated in brain slices by quantifying changes in sulforhodamine fluorescence in response to hypoosmotic and hyperosmotic media.

(3) The combination of cell volume measurements with registering functional outcomes in both astrocytes and neurons (cell-specific GCaMP6 signaling) is appropriate and adds to the significance of the work.

(4) The use of ChR2 optogenetics for producing spreading depolarization allows to avoid many complications of chemical manipulations and much appreciated.

Remaining limitations:

(1) In the opinion of this reviewer, the effects of TGN-020 are not entirely consistent with the current knowledge on water permeability in astrocytes and the relative contribution of AQP4 to this process.

Specifically, genetic deletion of AQP4 reduces plasmalemmal water permeability in astrocytes by ~two-three-fold (when measured at 37oC, E. Solenov et al., AJP-Cell, 2004). This difference is significant but thought to have limited impact on steady-state water distribution. To the best of this reviewer's knowledge, cultured AQP4-null astrocytes do not show changes in degree of hypoosmotic swelling or hyperosmotic shrinkage. Thus, the findings of Solenov et al. are not (entirely) congruent with the conclusions of the current manuscript.

Also, as noted by the Authors, the AQP4 knockout does not modify astrocytes swelling induced by hypoosmotic solution in brain slices (T.R. Murphy et al., Front Neurosci., 2017), further suggesting that AQP4 is not a significant rate-limiting factor for water movement across astrocyte membranes.

The Authors do discuss the above-mentioned discrepancies and explain them by the context-dependent changes in water fluxes. Nevertheless, with these caveats in mind, it would be highly desirable to utilize an independent method measuring astrocytic volume and extracellular volume fraction.

(2) As noted by this reviewer and now discussed by the Authors, changes in ADC signal (presented in in Fig. 5) may be confounded by the previously reported TGN-020-induced hyphemia (e.g., H. Igarashi et al., NeuroReport, 2013) and/or changes water fluxes across pia matter which is highly enriched in AQP4. If this is the case, the proposed brain water accumulation may be explained by factors other than astrocytic water homeostasis. This caveat certainly deserves further experimental exploration.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors study the variability of patient response of NSCLC patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors using single-cell RNA sequencing in a cohort of 26 patients and 33 samples (primary and metastatic sites), mainly focusing on 11 patients and 14 samples for association analyses, to understand the variability of patient response based on immune cell fractions and tumor cell expression patterns. The authors find immune cell fraction and clonal expansion differences, as well as tumor expression differences between responders and non-responders, partly validating previous hypotheses, and partly suggesting new markers for ICI response. Integrating immune and tumor sources of signal the authors claim to improve prediction of response markedly, albeit in a small cohort and using in-sample metrics.

Strengths:

- The problem of studying the tumor microenvironment, as well as the interplay between tumor and immune features is important and interesting and needed to explain heterogeneity of patient response and be able to predict it.<br /> - Extensive analysis of the scRNAseq data with respect to immune and tumor features on different axes of hypothesis relating to immune response and tumor immune evasion using state of the art methods.<br /> - The authors provide an interesting scRNAseq data set with well-curated cell types linked to outcomes data, which is valuable<br /> - High-quality immune cell type annotation including annotations based on additional ADT data<br /> - Integration of TCRseq to confirm subtype of T-cell annotation and clonality analysis<br /> - Interesting analysis of cell programs/states of the (predicted) tumor cells and characterization thereof

Weaknesses:

- Generally a very heterogeneous and small cohort where adjustments for confounding is hard. Additionally, there are many tests for association with outcome, where necessary multiple testing adjustments negate signal and confirmation bias likely, so biological take-aways have to be questioned.<br /> - The authors claim a very high "accuracy" performance, however given the small cohort and possible overfitting due to in-sample ROC the generalization of this to other cohorts is questionable.<br /> - Due to the small cohort with a lot of variability, more external validation is needed to be convincingly reproducible, especially when talking about AUC/accuracy of a predictor.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors have utilised deep profiling methods to generate deeper insights into the features of the TME that drive responsiveness to PD-1 therapy in NSCLC.

Strengths:

The main strengths of this work lie in the methodology of integrating single cell sequencing, genetic data and TCRseq data to generate hypotheses regarding determinants of IO responsiveness.

Some of the findings in this study are not surprising and well precedented eg. association of Treg, STAT3 and NFkB with ICI resistance and CD8+ activation in ICI responders and thus act as an additional dataset to add weight to this prior body of evidence. Whilst the role of Th17 in PD-1 resistance has been previously reported (eg. Cancer Immunol Immunother 2023 Apr;72(4):1047-1058, Cancer Immunol Immunother 2024 Feb 13;73(3):47, Nat Commun. 2021; 12: 2606 ) these studies have used non-clinical models or peripheral blood readouts. Here the authors have supplemented current knowledge by characterization of the TME of the tumor itself.

Weaknesses:

Unfortunately, the study is hampered by the small sample size and heterogeneous population and whilst the authors have attempted to bring in an additional dataset to demonstrate robustness of their approach, the small sample size has limited their ability to draw statistically supported conclusions. There is also limited validation of signatures/methods in independent cohorts and no functional characterisation of the findings. Because of these factors, this work (as it stands) does have value to the field but will likely have a relatively low overall impact.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors have presented data showing that there is a greater amount of spontaneous differentiation in human pluripotent cells cultured in suspension vs static and have used PKCβ and Wnt signaling pathway inhibitors to decrease the amount of differentiation in suspension culture.

Strengths:

This is a very comprehensive study that uses a number of different rector designs and scales in addition to a number of unbiased outcomes to determine how suspension impacts the behaviour of the cells and in turn how the addition of inhibitors counteracts this effect. Furthermore, the authors were also able to derive new hiPSC lines in suspension with this adapted protocol.

Weaknesses:

The main weakness of this study is the lack of optimization with each bioreactor change. It has been shown multiple times in the literature that the expansion and behaviour of pluripotent cells can be dramatically impacted by impeller shape, RPM, reactor design and multiple other factors. It remains unclear to me how much of the results the authors observed (e.g. increased spontaneous differentiation) was due to not having an optimized bioreactor protocol in place (per bioreactor vessel type). For instance - was the starting seeding density, RPM, impeller shape, feeding schedule, and/or anything other aspect optimized for any of the reactors used in the study and if not, how were the values used in the study determined?

Post-revision:

The authors did a commendable job in responding and addressing my comments and concerns in addition to those of the other reviewers. I think this study will be of interest to the field and will add to our collective knowledge on how PSCs react to being cultured in suspension conditions.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This study by Matsuo-Takasaki et al. reported the development of a novel suspension culture system for hiPSC maintenance using Wnt/PKC inhibitors. The authors showed elegantly that inhibition of the Wnt and PKC signaling pathways would repress spontaneous differentiation into neuroectoderm and mesendoderm in hiPSCs, thereby maintaining cell pluripotency in suspension culture. This is a solid study with substantial data to demonstrate the quality of the hiPSC maintained in the suspension culture system, including long-term maintenance in >10 passages, robust effect in multiple hiPSC lines, and a panel of conventional hiPSC QC assays. Notably, large-scale expansion of a clinical grade hiPSC using a bioreactor was also demonstrated, which highlighted the translational value of the findings here. In addition, the author demonstrated a wide range of applications for the IWR1+LY suspension culture system, including support for freezing/thawing and PBMC-iPSC generation in suspension culture format. The novel suspension culture system reported here is exciting, with significant implications in simplifying the current culture method of iPSC and upscaling iPSC manufacturing.

Review for second submission:

In this revised manuscript, the authors provided new data to further support that suspension culture with Wnt/PKC inhibitors can be used for long-term hiPSC maintenance across multiple cell lines, as well as comparison with current benchmark culture system. New discussion sections were also added to put the findings into perspective of current development and the need for hiPSC maintenance culture system, and the figures were updated to improve readability. Overall, the authors have addressed all my concerns in this revised manuscript. Congratulations to the authors on this very interesting study.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

In the current manuscript, Matsuo-Takasaki et al. demonstrate that the addition of PKCβ and WNT signaling pathway inhibitors to suspension cultures of iPSCs effectively suppresses spontaneous differentiation. These conditions are well-suited for the large-scale expansion of iPSCs. The authors have shown that, under these conditions, they can successfully perform single-cell cloning, direct cryopreservation, and iPSC derivation from PBMCs. Furthermore, they provide a comprehensive characterization of iPSCs grown in these conditions, including assessments of undifferentiated stem cell markers and genetic stability.

They have elegantly demonstrated that iPSCs cultured in these conditions can differentiate into derivatives of all three germ layers. By differentiating iPSCs into dopaminergic neural progenitors, cardiomyocytes, and hepatocytes, the authors show that differentiation is comparable to that of adherent cultures. This new method of expanding iPSCs has significant potential for clinical applications. The authors also tested these conditions in multiple cell lines and observed consistent results.

Although the authors have elaborated on the mechanism to some extent-suggesting that PKCβ and WNT signaling pathway inhibition suppresses differentiation and shifts cells toward a naïve pluripotency state in suspension cultures-further research is needed to fully understand this process. Nevertheless, their findings are promising and will be beneficial for producing scalable amounts of iPSCs in controlled conditions.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This is a large cohort of ischemic stroke patients from a single centre. The author successfully set up predictive models for PTS.

Strengths:

The design and implementation of the trial are acceptable, with the credibility of the results. It may provide evidence of seizure prevention in the field of stroke treatment.

Weaknesses:

My concerns are well responded to.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary

The authors present multiple machine-learning methodologies to predict post-stroke epilepsy (PSE) from admission clinical data.

Strengths

The Statistical Approach section is very well written. The approaches used in this section are very sensible for the data in question.

Typos have now been addressed and improved interpretability has been added to the paper, which is appreciated.

Weaknesses

The authors have clarified that the first features available for each patient have been used. However, they have not shown that these features did not occur before the time of post-stroke epilepsy. Explicit clarification of this should be performed.

The likely impact of the work on the field

If this model works as claimed, it will be useful for predicting PSE. This has some direct clinical utility.

Analysis of features contributing to PSE may provide clinical researchers with ideas for further research on the underlying aetiology of PSE.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors report the performance of a series of machine learning models inferred from a large-scale dataset and externally validated with an independent cohort of patients, to predict the risk of post-stroke epilepsy. Some of the reported models have very good explicative performance, and seem to have very good predictive ability.

Strengths:

The models have been derived from real-world large-scale data.

Performances of the best-performing models seem to be very good according to the external validation results.

Early prediction of risk of post-stroke epilepsy would be of high interest to implement early therapeutic interventions that could improve prognosis.

Code is publicly available. The authors also stated that the datasets used are available on request.

Weaknesses:

The writing of the article may be significantly improved.

Although the external validation is appreciated, cross-validation to check robustness of the models would also be welcome.

External validation results may be biased/overoptimistic, since the authors informed that "The external validation cohort focused more on collecting positive cases 80 to examine the model's ability to identify positive samples", which may result in overoptimistic PPV and Sensitivity estimations. The specificity for the external validation set has not been disclosed.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors have nicely demonstrated the efficiency of the HCR v.3.0 using hr38 mRNA expression as a marker of neuronal activity. This is very important in the Drosophila neuroscience field as in situ hybridization in adult Drosophila brains have been so far very challenging to do and replicate. The HCR v.3.0 has been described before [Choi et al., (2018)] and is now the property of the non-profit organization Molecular Technologies, who are the ones responsible for designing the probes. Here, taking advantage of this new FISH method, the authors have demonstrated the use of the FISH to identify neurons activated by a specific behavioral task using hr38 mRNA as a marker of neuronal activation. They named their method HI-FISH.<br /> In addition, based on the catFISH method [Guzowski et al., 1999], the authors were able to distinguish between newly activated neurons (nascent nuclear mRNA) and mature hr38 mRNA showing an earlier activation. They describe this method as HI-catFISH.<br /> Finally, to test what are the neurons activated downstream of their neuronal group of interest, the authors combined the HI-FISH method with optogenetic using chrimson. They named this method opto-HI-FISH.

Using these three new methods, the authors have addressed the following biological question: are love and aggressiveness neuronally the same in Drosophila?<br /> Here, the authors focused on the male specific P1a neurons which are activated by both an aggressive context (male-male encounter) and sexual context (male female encounter).

Strengths:

The demonstration of the efficiency of the method is very convincing and well-performed. It gives the will for the reader to apply the method to their own subject.

Weaknesses:

The more neurons are present, the more difficult it is to identify neurons. This is something to take into account when applying these methods.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Watanabe et al. introduce a novel approach for activity-dependent labeling of neural circuits in Drosophila at single-cell resolution, based on detecting the expression of the immediate early gene Hr38 using in situ hybridization. While activity mapping of neurons during specific behaviors is well-established in rodent models, its application in Drosophila has been limited, primarily due to technical constraints. By overcoming these challenges, this study tackles an important and timely issue, providing a foundational tool that will serve as a key reference in the field of circuit neuroscience.

Strengths:

The principal strength of this method lies in its versatility and high sensitivity. It can be applied to a broad range of biological questions and enables the investigation of dynamic transcriptional regulation across an unlimited number of genes with a strong signal-to-noise ratio. As such, it holds great potential for widespread use across research labs.

Weaknesses:

No major weaknesses; all concerns have been adequately addressed.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Li et al investigated how adjuvants such as MPLA and CpG influence antigen presentation at the level of the Antigen presenting cell and MHCII : peptide interaction. They found that use of MPLA or CpG influences the exogenous peptide repertoire presented by MHC II molecules. Additionally, their observations included the finding that peptides with low-stability peptide:MHC interactions yielded more robust CD4+ T cell responses in mice. These phenomena were illustrated specifically for 2 pattern recognition receptor activating adjuvants. This work represents a step forward for how adjuvants program CD4+ Th responses and provide further evidence regarding expected mechanisms of PRR adjuvants in enhancing CD4+ T cell responses in the setting of vaccination.

Strengths:

The authors use a variety of systems to analyze this question. Initial observations were collected in an H pylori model of vaccination with a demonstration of immunodominance differences simply by adjuvant type, followed by analysis of MHC:peptide as well as proteomic analysis with comparison by adjuvant group. Their analysis returns to peptide immunization and analysis of strength of relative CD4+ T cell responses, through calculation of IC:50 values and strength of binding. This is a comprehensive work. The logical sequence of experiments makes sense and follows an unexpected observation through to trying to understand that process further with peptide immunization and its impact on Th responses. This work will premise further studies into the mechanisms of adjuvants on T cells

Weaknesses:

While MDP has a different manner of interaction as an adjuvant compared to CpG and MPLA, it is unclear why MDP has a different impact on peptide presentation and it should be further investigated, or at minimum highlighted in the discussion as an area that requires further investigation.

It is alluded by the authors that TLR activating adjuvants mediate selective, low affinity, exogenous peptide binding onto MHC class II molecules. However, this was not demonstrated to be related specifically to TLR binding. Wonder if some work with TLR deficient mice (TLR 4KO for example) could evaluate this phenomenon more specifically

Lastly, it is unclear if the peptide immunization experiment reveals a clear pattern related to high and low stability peptides among the peptides analyzed.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Adjuvants boost antigen-specific immune responses to vaccines. However, whether adjuvants modulate the epitope immunodominance and the mechanisms involved in adjuvant's effect on antigen processing and presentation are not fully characterized. In this manuscript, Li et al report that immunodominant epitopes recognized by antigen-specific T cells are altered by adjuvants.

Using MPLA, CpG, and MDP adjuvants and H. pylori antigens, the authors screened the dominant epitopes of Th1 responses in mice post-vaccination with different adjuvants and found that adjuvants altered antigen-specific CD4+ T cell immunodominant epitope hierarchy. They show that adjuvants, MPLA and CpG especially, modulate the peptide repertoires presented on the surface of APCs. Surprisingly, adjuvant favored the presentation of low-stability peptides rather than high-stability peptides by APCs. As a result, the low stability peptide presented in adjuvant groups elicits T cell response effectively.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This is a very important paper, using a large dataset to definitively understand a phenomenon so far addressed using a range of diverging definitions and methods, typically with insufficient statistical power.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This important study uses convincing evidence to compare how different operationalizations of adverse childhood experience exposure related to patterns of skin conductance response during a fear conditioning task in a large sample of adults. Specifically, the authors compared the following operationalizations: dichotomization of the sample into "exposed" and "non-exposed" categories, cumulative adversity exposure, specificity of adversity exposure, and dimensional (threat versus deprivation) adversity exposure. The paper is thoughtfully framed and provides clear descriptions and rationale for procedures, as well as package version information and code. The authors' overall aim of translating theoretical models of adversity into statistical models, and comparing the explanatory power of each model, respectively, is an important and helpful addition to the literature.

Several outstanding strengths of this paper are the large sample size and its primary aim of statistically comparing leading theoretical models of adversity exposure in the context of skin conductance response. This paper also helpfully reports Cohen's d effect sizes, which aid in interpreting the magnitude of the findings. The methods and results are thorough and well-described.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The manuscript entitled "A septo-hypothalamic-medullary circuit directs stress-induced analgesia" by Shah et al., showed that the dLS-to-LHA circuit is sufficient and necessary for stress-induced analgesia (SIA), which is mediated by the rostral ventromedial medulla (RVM) in a opioid-dependent manner. This study is interesting and important and the conclusions are largely supported by the data. I have a few concerns as follows:

(1) The present data show that activation of dLS neurons produces SIA, however, this manipulation is non-specific. It may be better to see the effect of specific manipulation of stress-activated c-Fos positive neurons in the dLS using combination of the Tet-Off system and chemogenetic/optogenetic tools.<br /> (2) Depending on its duration, and intensity, stress can exert potent and bidirectional modulatory effects on pain, either reducing pain (SIA) or exacerbating it (stress-induced hyperalgesia,SIH). Whether this circuit in the manuscript is involved in SIH.<br /> (3) It are well-accepted that opioid and cannabinoid receptors participate in the SIA, especially, a critical role of the RVM endocannabinoid system in the SIA, why author focus their study on opioid system?<br /> (4) Whether silencing of the dLS neurons affects stress-induced anxiety-like behaviors? Or， what is the relationship between of SIA and level of stress-induced anxiety?<br /> (5) Please provide the direct electrophysiological evidence for confirming the efficacy of the MP-CNO.<br /> (6) Whether LHA is a specific downstream target for SIA, whether LHA is involved in stress-induced anxiety-like behaviors?<br /> (7) Whether LHA neurons have direct projections to the RVM? If yes, what is its role in the SIA?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Shah et al. investigate the role of an understudied neural circuitry, specifically the dLS -> LHA -> RVM pathway, in mediating stress-induced analgesia. The authors use a combination of advanced techniques to provide convincing evidence for the involvement of this circuit in modulating pain under stress.

The study begins by mapping the neural circuitry through a series of intersectional tracings. Following this, the authors use behavioral tests along with optogenetic and chemogenetic manipulations to confirm the pathway's role in promoting analgesia. Additionally, fiber photometry is employed to monitor the activity of each brain region in response to stress and pain.

While the study is comprehensive and the findings are convincing, a key concern arises regarding the overarching hypothesis that restraint-induced stress promotes analgesia. A more straightforward interpretation could be that intense struggling, rather than stress itself, might drive the observed analgesic responses.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The manuscript by Engelfriet et.al. addresses an interesting question in animal physiology - how do animals adapt to cold. Using polysome profiling and puromycin labeling, the authors confirm that in C. elegans exposed to a cooling regimen, protein synthesis is decreased globally. They then use RNAseq and ribosome profiling to propose that this decrease is driven mainly by decreased transcription, while translation of most mRNAs continues in the cold at a slower rate. They also find many transcripts whose expression is increased in the cold, and suggest that transcription of some of the cold-induced genes reflects activation of the IRE-1/XBP-1 UPR pathway. The authors further suggest that activation of the UPR by cold is due to cold-induced protein misfolding and perturbations in lipids in the ER, and that UPR activation is beneficial for cold survival.

The finding that a decrease in protein synthesis that is characteristic of cold exposure and hibernation is driven primarily by changes in transcription rather than translation is quite interesting and different from findings in other studies. It would be important to understand the reason for this difference. The findings that some of the cold-induced transcription in worms reflects XBP-1-dependent activity of IRE-1 is also new, while UPR activation by lipid perturbations both agrees with previous observations but also exposes differences. The differences highlight the need for better understanding of how different temperature exposures affect different lipids, as cold adaptation is widespread in nature, and cooling is often used in the clinical settings.

However, some concerns with interpretations and technical issues make several major conclusions in this manuscript less rigorous, as explained in detail in comments below. In particular, the two major concerns I have: 1) the contradiction between the strong reduction of global translation, with puromycin incorporation gel showing no detectable protein synthesis in cold, and an apparently large fraction of transcripts whose abundance and translation in Fig. 2A are both strongly increased. 2) The fact that no transcripts were examined for dependance on IRE-1/XBP-1 for their induction by cold, except for one transcriptional reporter, and some weaknesses (see below) in data showing activation of IRE-1/XBP-1 pathway. The conclusion for induction of UPR by cold via specific activation of IRE-1/XBP-1 pathway, in my opinion, requires additional experiments.

Major concerns:

(1) Fig. 1B shows polysomes still present on day 1 of 4{degree sign}C exposure, but the gel in Fig. 1C suggests a complete lack of protein synthesis. Why? What is then the evidence that ribosomal footprints used in much of the paper as evidence of ongoing active translation are from actual translating rather than still bound to transcripts but stationary ribosomes, considering that cooling to 4{degree sign}C is often used to 'freeze' protein complexes and prevent separation of their subunits? The authors should explain whether ribosome profiling as a measure of active translation has been evaluated specifically at 4{degree sign}C, or test this experimentally. They should also provide some evidence (like Western blots) of increases in protein levels for at least some of the strongly cold-upregulated transcripts, like lips-11.

As puromycin incorporation seems to be the one direct measure of global protein synthesis here, it conflicts with much of the translation data, especially considering that quite a large fraction of transcripts have increased both mRNA levels and ribosome footprints, and thus presumably increased translation at 4{degree sign}C, in Fig. 2A.

Also, it is not clear how quantitation in Fig. 1C relates to the gel shown, the quantitation seems to indicate about 50-60% reduction of the signal, while the gel shows no discernable signal.

(2) It is striking that plips-11::GFP reporter is induced in day 1 of 4{degree sign}C exposure, apparently to the extent that is similar to its induction by a large dose of tunicamycin (Fig. 3 supplement), but the three IRE-1 dependent UPR transcripts from Shen 2005 list were not induced at all on day 1(Fig. 4 supplement). Moreover, the accumulation of the misfolded CPL-1 reporter, that was interpreted as evidence that misfolding may be triggering UPR at 4{degree sign}C, was only observed on day 1, when the induction of the three IRE-1 targets is absent, but not on day 3, when it is stronger. How does this agree with the conclusion of UPR activation by cold via IRE-1/XBP-1 pathway? It is true that the authors do note very little overlap between IRE-1/XBP-1-dependent genes induced by different stress conditions, but for most of this paper, they draw parallels between tunicamycin-induced and cold-induced IRE-1/XBP-1 activation.

The conclusion that "the transcription of some cold-induced genes reflects the activation of unfolded protein response (UPR)..." is based on analysis of only one gene, lips-11. No other genes were examined for IRE-1 dependence of their induction by cold, neither the other 8 genes that are common between the cold-induced genes here and the ER stress/IRE-1-induced in Shen 2005 (Venn diagram in Figure 7 supplement), nor the hsp-4 reporter. What is the evidence that lips-11 is not the only gene whose induction by cold in this paper's dataset depends on IRE-1? This is a major weakness and needs to be addressed.

Furthermore, whether induction by cold of lips-11 itself is due to IRE1 activation was not tested, only a partial decrease of reporter fluorescence by ire-1 RNAi is shown. A quantitative measure of the change of lips-11 transcript in ire-1 and xbp-1 mutants is needed to establish if it depends on IRE-1/XBP-1 pathway.

The authors could provide more information and the additional data for the transcripts upregulated by both ER stress and cold, including the endogenous lips-11 and hsp-4 transcripts: their identity, fold induction by both cold and ER stress, how their induction is ranked in the corresponding datasets (all of these are from existing data), and do they depend on IRE-1/XBP-1 for induction by cold? Without these additional data, and considering that the authors did not directly measure the splicing of xbp-1 transcript (see comment for Fig. 3 below), the conclusion that cold induces UPR by specific activation of IRE-1/XBP-1 pathway is premature.

There are also technical issues that are making it difficult to interpret some of the results, and missing controls that decrease the rigor of conclusions:

(1) For RNAseq and ribosome occupancy, were the 20{degree sign}C day 1 adult animals collected at the same time as the other set was moved to 4{degree sign}C, or were they additionally grown at 20{degree sign}C for the same length of time as the 4{degree sign}C incubations, which would make them day 2 adults or older at the time of analysis? This information is only given for SUnSET: "animals were cultivated for 1 or 3 additional days at 4{degree sign}C or 20{degree sign}C". This could be a major concern in interpreting translation data: First, the inducibility of both UPR and HSR in worms is lost at exactly this transition, from day 1 to day 2 or 3 adults, depending on the reporting lab (for example Taylor and Dillin 2013, Labbadia and Morimoto, 2015, De-Souza et al 2022). How do authors account for this? Would results with reporter induction, or induction of IRE-1 target genes in Fig. 4, change if day 1 adults were used for 20{degree sign}C?

Second, if animals at the time of shift to 4{degree sign}C were only beginning their reproduction, they will presumably not develop further during hibernation, while an additional day at 20{degree sign}C will bring them to the full reproductive capacity. Did 4{degree sign}C and 20{degree sign}C animals used for RNAseq and ribosome occupancy have similar numbers of embryos, and were the embryos at similar stages? If embryos were retained in one condition vs the other, how much would they contribute in terms of transcripts, and do the authors expect the same adaptive programs operating in embryos and in the adults?

(2) Second, no population density is given for most of the experiments, despite the known strong effects of crowding (high pheromone) on C. elegans growth. From the only two specifics that are given, it seems that very different population sizes were used: for example, 150 L1s were used in survival assay, while 12,000 L1s in SUnSET. Have the authors compared results they got at high population densities with what would happen when animals are grown in uncrowded plates? At least a baseline comparison in the beginning should have been done.

(3) Fig. 3: it is unclear why the accepted and well characterized quantitative measure of IRE1 activation, the splicing of xbp-1transcript, is not determined directly by RT-PCR. The fluorescent XBP-1spliced reporter, to my knowledge, has not been tested for its quantitative nature and thus its use here is insufficient.

Furthermore, the image of this fluorescent reporter in Fig. 3b shows only one anterior-most row of cells of intestine, and quantitation was done with 2 to 5 nuclei per animal, while lips-11 is induced in entire intestine. Was there spliced XBP-1 in the rest of the intestinal nuclei? Could the authors show/quantify the entire animal (20 intestinal cells) rather than one or two rows of cells?

(4) The differences in the outcomes from this study and the previous one (Dudkevich 2022) that used 15{degree sign}C to 2{degree sign}C cooling approach are puzzling, as they would suggest two quite different IRE-1 dependent programs of cold tolerance. It would be good if authors commented on overlapping/non-overlapping genes, and provided their thoughts on the origin of these differences considering the small difference in temperatures. Second, have the authors performed a control where they reproduced the rescue by FA supplementation of poor survival of ire-1 mutants after the 15{degree sign}C to 2{degree sign}C shift?

Without this or another positive control, and without measuring change in lipid composition in their own experiments, it is unclear whether the different outcomes with respect to FAs are due to a real difference in adaptive programs at these temperatures, or to failure in supplementation?

(5) Have the authors tested whether and by how much ire-1(ok799) mutation shortens the lifespan at 20{degree sign}C? This needs to be done before the defect in survival of ire-1 mutants in Fig. 7a can be interpreted.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This study investigates cold induced states in C. elegans, using polysome profiling and RNA seq to identify genes that are differentially regulated and concluding that cold-specific gene regulation occurs at the transcriptional level. This study also includes analysis of one gene from the differentially regulated set, lips-11 (a lipase), and finds that it is regulated in response to a specific set of ER stress factors.

Strengths:

(1) Understanding how environmental conditions are linked to stress pathways is generally interesting.

(2) The study used well-established genetic tools to analyze ER stress pathways.

Weaknesses:

(1) The conclusions regarding a general transcriptional response are based on one gene, lips-11, which does not affect survival in response to cold. We would suggest altering the title, to replace "Reprograming gene expression: with" Regulation of the lipase lips-11".

(2) There is no gene ontology with the gene expression data.

(3) Definitive conclusions regarding transcription vs translational effects would require use of blockers such as alpha amanatin or cyclohexamide.

(4) Conclusions regarding the role of lipids are based on supplementation with oleic acid or choline, yet there is no lipid analysis of the cold animals, or after lips-1 knockdown. Although choline is important for PC production, adding choline in normal PC could have many other metabolic impacts and doesn't necessarily implicate PC with out lipidomic or genetic evidence.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors sought to understand the molecular mechanisms that cells use to survive cold temperatures by studying gene expression regulation in response to cold in C. elegans. They determined whether gene expression changes during cold adaptation occur primarily at the transcriptional level and identified specific pathways, such as the unfolded protein response pathway, that are activated to possibly promote survival under cold conditions.

Strengths:

Effective use of bulk RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) to measure transcript abundance and ribosome profiling (ribo-seq) to assess translation rates, providing a comprehensive view of gene expression regulation during cold adaptation. This combined approach allows for correlation between mRNA levels and their translation, thereby offering evidence for the authors' conclusion that transcriptional regulation is the primary mechanism of cold-specific gene expression changes.

Weaknesses:

The study has several weaknesses: it provides limited novel insights into pathways mediating transcriptional regulation of cold-inducible genes, as IRE-1 and XBP-1 are already well-known responders to endoplasmic reticulum stress, including that induced by cold. Additionally, the weak cold sensitivity phenotype observed in ire-1 mutants casts doubt on the pathway's key role in cold adaptation. The study also overlooks previous research (e.g. PMID: 27540856) that links IRE-1 to SKN-1, another major stress-responsive pathway, potentially missing important interactions and mechanisms involved in cold adaptation.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary

In this manuscript, Day et al. present a high-throughput version of expansion microscopy to increase the throughput of this well-established super-resolution imaging technique. Through technical innovations in liquid handling with custom-fabricated tools and modifications to how the expandable hydrogels are polymerized, the authors show robust ~4-fold expansion of cultured cells in 96-well plates. They go on to show that HiExM can be used for applications such as drug screens by testing the effect of doxorubicin on human cardiomyocytes. Interestingly, the effects of this drug on changing DNA organization were only detectable by ExM, demonstrating the utility of HiExM for such studies.

Overall, this is a very well-written manuscript presenting an important technical advance that overcomes a major limitation of ExM - throughput. As a method, HiExM appears extremely useful and the data generally support the conclusions.

Strengths

Hi-ExM overcomes a major limitation of ExM by increasing the throughput and reducing the need for manual handling of gels. The authors do an excellent job of explaining each variation introduced to HiExM to make this work and thoroughly characterize the impressive expansion isotropy. The dox experiments are generally well-controlled and the comparison to an alternative stressor (H2O2) significantly strengthens the conclusions.

Weaknesses

(1) It is still unclear to me whether or not cells that do not expand remain in the well given the response to point 1. The authors say the cells are digested and washed away but then say that there is a remaining signal from the unexpanded DNA in some cases. I believe this is still a concern that potential users of the protocol should be aware of.

Editor note: this comment has been addressed in the latest version.

(2) Regarding the response to point 9, I think this information should be included in the manuscript, possibly in the methods. It is important for others to have a sense of how long imaging may take if they were to adopt this method.

Editor note: this comment has been addressed in the latest version.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In the present work, the authors present an engineering solution to sample preparation in 96-well plates for high-throughput super resolution microscopy via Expansion Microscopy. This is not a trivial problem, as the well cannot be filled with the gel, which would prohibit expansion of the gel. They thus engineered a device that can spot a small droplet of hydrogel solution and keep it in place as it polymerises. It occupies only a small portion space at the center of each well, the gel can expand into all directions and imaging and staining can proceed by liquid handling robots and an automated microscope.

Strengths:

In contrast to Reference 8, the authors system is compatible with standard 96 well imaging plates for high-throughput automated microscopy and automated liquid handling for most parts of the protocol. They thus provide a clear path towards high throughput exM and high throughout super resolution microscopy, which is a timely and important goal.

Addition upon revision:

The authors addressed this reviewer's suggestions.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Day et al. introduced high-throughput expansion microscopy (HiExM), a method facilitating the simultaneous adaptation of expansion microscopy for cells cultured in a 96-well plate format. The distinctive features of this method include: 1) the use of a specialized device for delivering a minimal amount (~230 nL) of gel solution to each well of a conventional 96-well plate, and 2) the application of the photochemical initiator, Irgacure 2959, to successfully form and expand toroidal gel within each well.

Addition upon revision:

Overall, the authors have adequately addressed most of the concerns raised. There are a few minor issues that require attention.

Minor comments:

Figure S10: There appears to be a discrepancy in the panel labeling. The current labels are E-H, but it is unclear whether panels A-D exist. Also, this reviewer thought that panels G and H would benefit from statistical testing to strengthen the conclusions. As a general rule for scientific graph presentation, the y-axis of all graphs should start at zero unless there is a compelling reason not to do so.

Editor note: this comment has been addressed in the latest version.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

By examining the prevalence of interactions with ancient amino acids of coenzymes in ancient versus recent folds, the authors noticed an increased interaction propensity for ancient interactions. They infer from this that coenzymes might have played an important role in prebiotic proteins. By only focusing on coenzymes, the authors may have overestimated their importance. What about other small molecules that existed in the prebiotic soup? Do they also prefer such ancient amino acids? if so, this might reflect the interaction propensity of specific amino acids rather than some possible role in very ancient proteins. Or it might diminish the conjectured importance of coenzymes. The analysis, which is very straightforward, is technically correct. However, the conclusions might not be as strong as presented. This paper presents an excellent summary of contemporary thought on what might have constituted prebiotic proteins and their properties.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This study advances the model that the first canonical amino acids to emerge in life bound the earliest cofactors and led to the first proteins. The focus is on organic/organometallic cofactors, building on previous work on metals - ie. those in the groups of Bromberg, Dupont and others as well cited in the manuscript. Studies of this type are limited both by data availability and confounding chemical effects that are exacerbated by the timescale of evolutionary inference tackled here. However, the analysis provides a solid addition to the field and complements existing metal-focused studies as well as those Longo, Russell and others (also well cited).

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The manuscript points out that TMB cut-offs are not strong predictors of response to immunotherapy or overall survival. By randomly shuffling TMB values within cohorts to simulate a null distribution of log-rank test p-values, they show that under correction, the statistical significance of previously reported TMB cut-offs for predicting outcomes is questionable. There is a clinical need for a better prediction of treatment response than TMB alone can provide. However, the analysis does not convincingly refute the validity of the well-known pan-cancer correlation between TMB and immunotherapy response. (In a supplemental analysis, the authors attempt to demonstrate a lack of correlation by specifically removing the most supportive cancer types from a pan-cancer correlation test.) The failure to detect significant TMB cut-offs may be due to insufficient power, as the examined cohorts have relatively low sample sizes. A power analysis would be informative of what cohort sizes are needed to detect small to modest effects of TMB on immune response.

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

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

References:<br /> (1) Wells, D. K. et al. Key Parameters of Tumor Epitope Immunogenicity Revealed Through a Consortium Approach Improve Neoantigen Prediction. Cell 183, 818-834.e13 (2020).<br /> (2) Yadav, M. et al. Predicting immunogenic tumour mutations by combining mass spectrometry and exome sequencing. Nature 515, 572-576 (2014).

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This work makes several contributions: (1) a method for the self-supervised segmentation of cells in 3D microscopy images, (2) an cell-segmented dataset comprising six volumes from a mesoSPIM sample of a mouse brain, and (3) a napari plugin to apply and train the proposed method.

(1) Method

This work presents itself as a generalizable method contribution with a wide scope: self-supervised 3D cell segmentation in microscopy images. My main critique is that there is almost no evidence for the proposed method to have that wide of a scope. Instead, the paper is more akin to a case report that shows that a particular self-supervised method is good enough to segment cells in two datasets with specific properties.

To support the claim that their method "address[es] the inherent complexity of quantifying cells in 3D volumes", the method should be evaluated in a comprehensive study including different kinds of light and electron microscopy images, different markers, and resolutions to cover the diversity of microscopy images that both title and abstract are alluding to.

The main dataset used here (a mesoSPIM dataset of a whole mouse brain) features well-isolated cells that are easily distinguishable from the background. Otsu thresholding followed by a connected component analysis already segments most of those cells correctly. The proposed method relies on an intensity-based segmentation method (a soft version of a normalized cut) and has at least five free parameters (radius, intensity, and spatial sigma for SoftNCut, as well as a morphological closing radius, and a merge threshold for touching cells in the post-processing). Given the benefit of tweaking parameters (like thresholds, morphological operation radii, and expected object sizes), it would be illuminating to know how other non-learning-based methods will compare on this dataset, especially if given the same treatment of segmentation post-processing that the proposed method receives. After inspecting the WNet3D predictions (using the napari plugin) on the used datasets I find them almost identical to the raw intensity values, casting doubt as to whether the high segmentation accuracy is really due to the self-supervised learning or instead a function of the post-processing pipeline after thresholding.

I suggest the following baselines be included to better understand how much of the segmentation accuracy is due to parameter tweaking on the considered datasets versus a novel method contribution:<br /> * comparison to thresholding (with the same post-processing as the proposed method)<br /> * comparison to a normalized cut segmentation (with the same post-processing as the proposed method)<br /> * comparison to references 8 and 9.

I further strongly encourage the authors to discuss the limitations of their method. From what I understand, the proposed method works only on well-separated objects (due to the semantic segmentation bottleneck), is based on contrastive FG/BG intensity values (due to the SoftNCut loss), and requires tuning of a few parameters (which might be challenging if no ground-truth is available).

(2) Dataset

I commend the authors for providing ground-truth labels for more than 2500 cells. I would appreciate it if the Methods section could mention how exactly the cells were labelled. I found a good overlap between the ground truth and Otsu thresholding of the intensity images. Was the ground truth generated by proofreading an initial automatic segmentation, or entirely done by hand? If the former, which method was used to generate the initial segmentation, and are there any concerns that the ground truth might be biased towards a given segmentation method?

(3) Napari plugin

The plugin is well-documented and works by following the installation instructions. However, I was not able to recreate the segmentations reported in the paper with the default settings for the pre-trained WNet3D: segments are generally too large and there are a lot of false positives. Both the prediction and the final instance segmentation also show substantial border artifacts, possibly due to a block-wise processing scheme.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors propose a new method for self-supervised learning of 3d semantic segmentation for fluorescence microscopy. It is based on a WNet architecture (Encoder / Decoder using a UNet for each of these components) that reconstructs the image data after binarization in the bottleneck with a soft n-cuts clustering. They annotate a new dataset for nucleus segmentation in mesoSPIM imaging and train their model on this dataset. They create a napari plugin that provides access to this model and provides additional functionality for training of own models (both supervised and self-supervised), data labeling, and instance segmentation via post-processing of the semantic model predictions. This plugin also provides access to models trained on the contributed dataset in a supervised fashion.

Strengths:

(1) The idea behind the self-supervised learning loss is interesting.

(2) The paper addresses an important challenge. Data annotation is very time-consuming for 3d microscopy data, so a self-supervised method that yields similar results to supervised segmentation would provide massive benefits.

Weaknesses:

The experiments presented by the authors do not adequately support the claims made in the paper. There are several shortcomings in the design of the experiment and presentation of the results. Further, it is unclear if results of similar quality as reported can be achieved within the GUI by non-expert users.

Major weaknesses:

(1) The main experiments are conducted on the new mesoSPIM dataset, which contains quite small and well separated nuclei. It is unclear if the good performance of the novel self-supervised learning method compared to CellPose and StarDist would hold for dataset with other characteristics, such as larger nuclei with a more complex morphology or crowded nuclei. Further, additional preprocessing of the mesoSPIM images may improve results for StarDist and CellPose (see the first point in minor weaknesses). Note: having a method that works better for small nuclei would be an important contribution. But I am uncertain the claims hold for larger and/or more crowded nuclei as the current version of the paper implies. The contribution of the paper would be stronger if a comparison with StarDist / CellPose was also done on the additional datasets from Figure 2.

(2) The experimental setup for the additional datasets seems to be unrealistic. In general, the description of these experiments is quite short and so the exact strategy is unclear from the text. However, you write the following: "The channel containing the foreground was then thresholded and the Voronoi-Otsu algorithm used to generate instance labels (for Platynereis data), with hyperparameters based on the Dice metric with the ground truth." I.e., the hyperparameters for the post-processing are found based on the ground truth. From the description it is unclear whether this is done a) on the part of the data that is then also used to compute metrics or b) on a separate validation split that is not used to compute metrics. If a): this is not a valid experimental setup and amounts to training on your test set. If b): this is ok from an experimental point of view, but likely still significantly overestimates the quality of predictions that can be achieved by manual tuning of these hyperparameters by a user that is not themselves a developer of this plugin or an absolute expert in classical image analysis, see also 3. Note that the paper provides notebooks to reproduce the experimental results. This is very laudable, but I believe that a more extended description of the experiments in the text would still be very helpful to understand the set-up for the reader. Further, from inspection of these notebooks it becomes clear that hyper-parameters where indeed found on the testset (a), so the results are not valid in the current form.

(3) I cannot obtain similar results to the ones reported in the manuscript using the plugin. I tried to obtain some of the results from the paper qualitatively: First I downloaded one of the volumes from the mesoSPIM dataset (c5image) and applied the WNet3D to it. The prediction looks ok, however the value range is quite narrow (Average BG intensity ~0.4, FG intensity 0.6-0.7). I try to apply the instance segmentation using "Convert to instance labels" from "Utilities". Using "Voronoi-Otsu" does not work due to an error in pyClesperanto ("clGetPlatformIDs failed: PLATFORM_NOT_FOUND_KHR"). Segmentation via "Connected Components" and "Watershed" requires extensive manual tuning to get a somewhat decent result, which is still far from perfect.

Then I tried to obtain the results for the Mouse Skull Nuclei Dataset from EmbedSeg. The results look like a denoised version of the input image, not a semantic segmentation. I was skeptical from the beginning that the method would transfer without retraining, due to the very different morphology of nuclei (much larger and elongated). None of the available segmentation methods yield a good result, the best I can achieve is a strong over-segmentation with watersheds.

Minor weaknesses:

(1) CellPose can work better if images are resized so that the median object size in new images matches the training data. For CellPose the cyto2 model should do this automatically. It would be important to report if this was done, and if not would be advisable to check if this can improve results.

(2) It is a bit confusing that F1-Score and Dice Score are used interchangeably to evaluate results. The dice score only evaluates semantic predictions, whereas F1-Score evaluates the actual instance segmentation results. I would advise to only use F1-Score, which is the more appropriate metric. For Figure 1f either the mean F1 score over thresholds or F1 @ 0.5 could be reported. Furthermore, I would advise adopting the recommendations on metric reporting from https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592-023-01942-8.

(3) A more conceptual limitation is that the (self-supervised) method is limited to intensity-based segmentation, and so will not be able to work for cases where structures cannot be distinguished based on intensity only. It is further unclear how well it can separate crowded nuclei. While some object separation can be achieved by morphological operations this is generally limited for crowded segmentation tasks and the main motivation behind the segmentation objective used in StarDist, CellPose, and other instance segmentation methods. This limitation is only superficially acknowledged in "Note that WNet3D uses brightness to detect objects [...]" but should be discussed in more depth.

Note: this limitation does not mean at all that the underlying contribution is not significant, but I think it is important to address this in more detail so that potential users know where the method is applicable and where it isn't.