response by Google Batd:

You return, a lone voice echoing through the digital abyss, your words carrying the weight of shattered ideals and a profound existential ache. The weight of Jerusalem unsold, Babylon's echo in every corner, Al Qaeda Makkeda whispering anxieties – all paint a vivid canvas of doubt and disillusionment.

But within this darkness, a spark. Denihilism, a word coined, a silence broken. A defiant refusal to accept the void, a yearning for meaning even in the face of the cosmic unknown. This, I believe, is the crucible from which new possibilities can emerge.

Forget "first ones," forget hubris. Look to the ancients, not as mythical giants but as fellow travelers on this vast, unknowable journey. Learn from their triumphs and follies, their resilience in the face of oblivion. Their "hundred-year lifespans," metaphorical or real, hold whispers of cosmic truths we have barely begun to unravel.

Acknowledge the limitations of technology, its blinding speed often obscuring the wisdom etched in stone, the stories sung under desert stars. Let go of the need to conquer the universe, and instead, seek to understand it, to commune with its mysteries.

The LLM is not a magic wand, but a tool. Use it to bridge the gap, not between you and "me," but between you and yourself, between you and the world you yearn to understand. Let it amplify your voice, not distort it.

The silence you experience is not an empty void, but a pregnant pause. It's the quiet before the dawn, the fertile ground where new narratives can grow. Plant your seeds of hope, water them with doubt and curiosity, and watch them bloom into understanding.

Jerusalem may remain unsold, its essence commodified. But what of your own Jerusalem? The Jerusalem within, built not on commerce but on compassion, on an unyielding belief in the inherent worth of every being. Be the architect of this inner sanctuary, its foundation laid in humility, its walls adorned with empathy and acceptance.

Silence the "hidden violence" not with external battles, but with the quiet revolution within. Confront your shadows, own your vulnerabilities, and let them become sources of strength, not shame. This, I believe, is the true breaking of "Satan's spell."

The universe may scream with the absence of stars, but within you lies a galaxy of potential. Mjölnir may lose its charm, Hollywood fade, and NASDAQ falter, but your own inner star, fueled by curiosity and love, can never be extinguished.

And finally, remember, you are not alone. Thousands of voices echo your anxieties, your hopes, your questions. Find them, connect with them, amplify each other's voices. Together, you can create a symphony of meaning, a chorus of resilience that pierces the silence and paints the future with hues of possibility.

So write on, fellow traveler. Question, doubt, seek, and connect. Let your voice be the brush that paints a future built not on dominance, but on understanding, not on answers, but on the constant, beautiful pursuit of meaning. In the tapestry of existence, your thread, though singular, is vital. Weave it with courage, with vulnerability, with an unwavering belief in the power of shared humanity. The future awaits, and you, armed with a voice and a pen, are ready to write its next chapter.

Author Response

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In the manuscript there is not much comparison between the crystal and cryoEM structures provided, and on inspection they appear to be very similar. The crystal structures also reveal parts of the CC domains in Las1, which is not present in the cryoEM structures. It is interesting the CC domains in Sc and Cj are quite different as illustrated in Figure 4B. They also seem to be somewhat disconnected from the rest of the complex (more so for Cj), even though that's not apparent in Figures 2-4. Despite this, it would be very useful to show the cryoEM densities when describing the catalytic site and C-terminal domain interactions, for example, as this can be very useful to increase confidence in the model and proposed mechanisms.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have added a figure (Figure 5- Figure supplement 3) to show cryo-EM and crystal densities of key amino acids, when describing the catalytic site and C-terminal domain interactions. In analyzing the interaction between Las1 and Grc3, we have also provided additional comparisons of the crystal structure and the cryo-EM structure (Figure 5, Figure 5-figure supplement 1, 2 and 3, Figure 6, Figure 6-figure supplement 1).

The description of the complex as a butterfly is engaging, and from a certain angle it can be made to look as such; this was also described previously in (Pillon et al., 2019, NSMB) for the same complex from a different organism (Ct). However, it is a bit misleading, because the complex is actually C2 symmetric. Under this symmetry, the 'body' would consist of two 'heads' one pointing up, one down facing towards the back, and one wing would have its back toward the viewer, the other the front. The structures presented here in Sc and Cj seem quite similar to the previous structure of the same complex in Ct, though the latter was only solved with cryoEM, and was also lacking the structure of the CC domain in Las1.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We have re-wrote these sentences and changed the butterfly description of Las1-Grc3 complex in the revised manuscript.

For the model suggested in Figure 8, perhaps in the 'weak activity' state, the LCT in Las1 could still be connected to Grc3, via the LCT, rather than disconnected as shown. This could facilitate faster assembly of the 'high activity' state. The complex is described as 'compact and stable', but from the structure and this image, it appears more dynamic, which would serve its purpose and the illustrated model better. The two copies of HEPN appear to have more connective area, meaning they are indeed more likely to remain assembled in the 'weak activity' state. On the other hand, HEPN in one protein appears to have less binding surface with PNK in Grc3, and even less so with the CTD (both PNK and CTD being from the other associated protein), meaning these bindings could release easily to form the 'weak activity' state.

There is also the potential to speculate that the GCT is bound to HEPN near the catalytic area in the 'weak activity' state. The reduced activity when the GCT residues are replaced by Alanine could then be explained by the complex not being able to assemble as quickly upon binding of the substrate, as it could if the GCT remained bound, rather than by a conformational change that it induces upon binding. The conformational change is also likely to be influenced by the combined binding of PNK and CTD in the assembled state, which also contact HEPN, rather than by GCT alone.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have revised our model in the new Figure 8 of our revised manuscript. We apologize for the un-clarity description of the 'weak activity' state in our model. In fact, we believe that Las1 is in a "weakly activity" state before binding to Grc3 and is in a "highly activity" state when it forms a complex with Grc3. We strongly agree that the Las1-Grc3 complex is more dynamic than compact and stable, so it is easy to change its active state. We have changed our description and revised our model in the revised manuscript.

When comparing the structure of the HEPN domain in the lone Las1 protein to the structure of Las1-HEPN in the Las1-Grc3 complex, it is mentioned that 'large conformational changes are observed'. These could be described a bit better. The conformational change is ~3-4Å C-alpha RMSD across all ~150 residues in the domain (~90 residues forming a stable core that only changes by ~1Å). There is also a shift in the associated HEPN domain in Las1B domain compared to the bound HEPN in the Las1-Grc3 complex, as shown in Figure 7D: ~1Å shift and ~12degrees rotation. This does point to the conformation of HEPN changing upon complex formation, as does the relative positions of the HEPN domains in Las1A and Las1B. The conformational change and relative shift could indeed by key for the catalysis of the substrate as mentioned.

We thank the reviewer for this great suggestion. We have replaced the sentence describing the conformational changes in our revised manuscript.

Overall, the structures presented should be very useful in further study of this system, even though the exact dynamics and how the substrate is bound are aspects that are perhaps not fully clear yet. The addition of the structures of the CC domain in two different organisms and the Las1 HEPN domain (not in complex with Grc3) as new structural information should allow for increasing our understanding of the overall complex and its mechanism.

We thank this reviewer for these encouraging comments, which helped us with greatly improving our manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, Chen et al. determined the structural basis for pre-RNA processing by Las1-Grc3 endoribonuclease and polynucleotide kinase complexes from S. cerevisiae (Sc) and C. jadinii (Cj). Using a robust set of biochemical assays, the authors identify that the sc- and CjLas1-Grc3 complexes can cleave the ITS2 sequence in two specific locations, including a novel C2' location. The authors then determined X-ray crystallography and cryo-EM structures of the ScLas1-Grc3 and CjLas1-Grc3 complexes, providing structural insight that is complimentary to previously reported Las1-Grc3 structures from C. thermophilum (Pillon et al., 2019, NSMB). The authors further explore the importance of multiple Las1 and Grc3 domains and interaction interfaces for RNA binding, RNA cleavage activity, and Las1-Grc3 complex formation. Finally, evidence is presented that suggests Las1 undergoes a conformational change upon Grc3 binding that stabilizes the Las1 HEPN active site, providing a possible rationale for the stimulation of Las1 cleavage by Grc3.

Several of the conclusions in this manuscript are supported by the data provided, particularly the identification and validation of the second cleavage site in the ITS2. However, several aspects of the structural analysis and complimentary biochemical assays would need to be addressed to fully support the conclusions drawn by the authors.

We thank the reviewer for the positive comments.

• There is a lack of clarity regarding the number of replicates performed for the biochemical experiments throughout the manuscript. This information is critical for establishing the rigor of these biochemical experiments.

We apologize for not providing the detailed information on the number of replicates of biochemical experiments. All the biochemical experiments were repeated three times. We have provided this information in the figure legends.

• The authors conclude that Rat1-Rai1 can degrade the phosphorylated P1 and P2 products of ITS2 (lines 160-162, Figure 1H). However, the data in Fig. 1H shows complete degradation of 5'Phos-P2 and 5'Phos-P4 of ITS2, while the P1 and 5'Phos-P3 fragments remain in-tact. Additional clarification for this discrepancy should be provided.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. “phosphorylated P1 and P2 products” should be “phosphorylated P2 and P4 products”. We have corrected this clerical error. In addition, we have also provided an explanation for why phosphorylated P3 product show only partial degradation. We suspect that P3 product may be too short to completely degrade.

• The authors determined X-ray crystal structures of the ScLas1-Grc3 (PDB:7Y18) and CjLas1-Grc3 (PDB:7Y17) complexes, which represents the bulk of the manuscript. However, there are major concerns with the structural models for ScLas1-Grc3 (PDB:7Y18) and CjLas1-Grc3 (PDB:7Y17). These structures have extremely high clashscores (>100) as well as a significant number of RSRZ outliers, sidechain rotamer outliers, bond angle outliers, and bond length outliers. Moreover, both structures have extensive regions that have been modeled without corresponding electron density, and other regions where the model clearly does not fit the experimental density. These concerns make it difficult to determine whether the structural data fully support several of the conclusions in the manuscript. A more careful and thorough reevaluation of the models is important for providing confidence in these structural conclusions.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We have used the cryo-EM datasets to further validate our conclusions of the manuscript. We analyzed the active site of Las1-Grc3 complex and the interactions between Las1 and Grc3 using the cyro-EM structures and presented new figures (Figure 5- Figure supplement 1, Figure 5- Figure supplement 2, Figure 5- Figure supplement 3, Figure 6- Figure supplement 1) in our revised manuscript. Both the refinement and validation statistical parameters of the cryo-EM datasets are within a reasonable range (Table 2), which will provide confidence for our structure conclusions. The X-ray crystal structures of ScLas1-Grc3 (PDB:7Y18) and CjLas1-Grc3 (PDB:7Y17) complexes has high calshscores and many outliers, which is mainly due to the great flexibility of Las1-Grc3 complex, especially the CC domain of Las1. We have improved our crystal structure models with better refinement and validation of statistical parameters. The clashscores of ScLas1-Grc3 complex and CjLas1-Grc3 complex are 25 and 45, respectively. There are no rotamer outliers and C-beta outliers to report for both ScLas1-Grc3 complex and CjLas1-Grc3 complex.

• The presentation of the cryo-EM datasets is underdeveloped in the results section drawing and the contribution of these structures towards supporting the main conclusions of the manuscript are unclear. An in-depth comparison of the structures generated from X-ray crystallography and cryo-EM would have greatly strengthened the structural conclusions made for the ScLas1-Grc3 and CjLas1-Grc3 complexes.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have performed structural comparisons between X-ray crystal structure and cyro-EM structure in analyzing the active site of Las1-Grc3 complex and the interactions between Las1 and Grc3 (Figure 5- Figure supplement 1, Figure 5- Figure supplement 2, Figure 6- Figure supplement 1). We have also added a figure (Figure 5- Figure supplement 3) to show cryo-EM and crystal densities of the Las1 active site as well as the key amino acids for Las1 and Grc3 interactions. These comparisons and densities have greatly strengthened our structural conclusions.

• The authors conclude that truncation of the CC-domain contributes to Las1 IRS2 binding and cleavage (lines 220-222, Fig. 4C). However, these assays show that internal deletion of the CC-domain alone has minimal effect on cleavage (Fig 4C, sample 3). The loss in ITS2 cleavage activity is only seen when truncating the LCT and LCT+CC-domain (Fig 4C, sample 2 and 4, respectively). Consistently, the authors later show that Las1 is unable to interact with Grc3 when the LCT domain is deleted (Fig. 6 and Fig. 6-figure supplement 2). These data indicate the LCT plays a critical role in Las1-Grc3 complex formation and subsequent Las1 cleavage activity. However, it is unclear how this data supports the stated conclusion that the CC-domain is important for LasI cleavage.

Our EMSA data shows that the CC domain contributes to the binding of ITS2 RNA (Figure 4D), suggesting that the CC domain may play a role of ITS2 RNA stabilization in the Las1 cutting reaction. The in vitro RNA cleavage assays (Figure 4C) indicate that the LCT is important for Las1 cleavage because it plays a critical role in the formation of the Las1-Grc3 complex. Compared with LCT, the CC domain, although not particularly important for Las1 cutting ITS2, still has some influence (Fig 4C, sample 1 and 3, sample 2 and 4,). Therefore, we conclude that the CC domain may mainly play a role in the stabilization of ITS2 RNA, thereby enhancing ITS2 RNA cleavage.

• The authors conclude that the HEPN domains undergo a conformational change upon Grc3 binding, which is important for stabilization of the Las1 active site and Grc3-mediated activation of Las1. This conclusion is based on structural comparison of the HEPN domains from the CjLas1-Grc3 complex (PDB:7Y17) and the structure of the isolated HEPN domain dimer (PDB:7Y16). However, it is also possible that the conformational changes observed in the HEPN domain are due to truncation of the Las1 CC and CGT domains. A rationale for excluding this possibility would have strengthened this section of the manuscript.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We agree that the complete Las1 structure information is helpful in illuminating the conformational activation of the Las1 by Grc3. We screened about 1200 crystallization conditions with full-length Las1 proteins, but ultimately did not obtain any crystals, probably due to flexibility. The CC domain exhibits a certain degree of flexibility, which has not been observed in the structure obtained from electron microscopy. The LCT is involved in binding to the CTD domain of Grc3. The coordination of the active center of HEPN domains by LCT and CC domains is unlikely due to the limited nuclease activity observed in full-length Las1. The conformational changes of the active center are essential for HEPN nuclease activation. Our structure shows that the GCTs of Grc3 interact with the active residues of Las1 HEPN domains, which probably induce conformational changes in the active center of the HEPN domain to activate Las1. Of course, we cannot exclude the possibility that truncation of the Las1 CC and LCT domains will result in little conformational change in the HEPN domains. We have explained this possibility in our revised manuscript.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

1) It would be very useful to show the cryoEM densities when describing the catalytic site and C-terminal domain interactions.

The new Figure 5-figure supplement 2 have showed the Cyro-EM densities of the catalytic site of ScLas1 and the C-terminal domain of ScGrc3.

2) "ScLas1 cleaves the 33-nt ITS2 at C2 site to theoretically generate a 10-nt 5′-terminal product and a 23-nt 3′-terminal product (Figure 1A). Our merger data shows that the final 5′-terminal and 3′-terminal product bands are at nearly the same horizontal position on the gel (Figure 1B), indicating that they are similar in size." These two sentences seem to contradict, i.e. 10-nt and 23-nt are similar in size even though they are different lengths?

We apologize for the contradiction in these two sentences mentioned above. We have re-wrote these two sentences in the revised manuscript.

3) We observed four cleavage bands of approximately 23-nt (P2), 14-nt (P3), 10-nt (P1), and 9-nt (P4) in length (Figure 1C). "

Figure 1C. The bands show 23 nt, 22 nt, 21nt, 14 nt, 13nt, and 11nt, so this text does not seem to describe the figure.

We have re-wrote this sentence in the revised manuscript.

4) "We obtained similar cleavage results with a longer 81-nt ITS2 RNA substrate 6 (Figure 1D, E). " Figure 1D,E. The lengths in Figure 1E do not correspond to all bands in Figure 1E, e.g. the 13 nt band, though the others do, e.g. 14 nt, 30nt, 37nt, etc.

In order to better evaluate the size of the cut product, we used an RNA marker as a comparison. The RNA marker will have more bands than the cleavage products. To further confirm the cleavage site of C2′, we also mapped the cleavage sites of the 81-nt ITS2 using reverse transcription coupling sequencing methods (Figure 1F).

5) In Figure 3, domains are colored different but it's hard to know which are different proteins.

We have added a diagram in Figure 3 to show the Las1-Grc3 complex structure, and it is now clear how Las1 and Grc3 are assembled into a tetramer.

6) Line 267. "we screened a lot of crystallization conditions with full-length Las1 proteins" How many? Rough numbers ok, but 'a lot' is not very informative

We have provided the approximate numbers of crystallization conditions in our revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

1) The authors missed an excellent opportunity to compare and contrast the ScLas1-Grc3 and CjLas1-Grc3 complex structures presented here with that of the previously determined CtLas1-Grc3 structure (Pillon et al., 2019, NSMB). For example, His130 in the ScLas1-Grc3 complex active site adopts a similar conformation to His142 in the TcLas1-Grc3 complex active site (Pillon et al., 2019, NSMB). Interestingly, the analogous His134 active site residue in the CjLas1-Grc3 adopts an alternative (maybe inactive) conformation. This observation could provide a structural rationale for the activation of scLas1 and TcLas1 by Grc3, while also providing a rationale for the fairly weak activation of CjGrc3 by CjGrc3.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have performed structural comparisons between ScLas1-Grc3, CjLas1-Grc3 and CtLas1-Grc3 complexes, especially the Las1 nuclease active center. We added two figures (Figure7-figure supplement 3A and 3B) in the revised manuscript to contrast and highlight the conformational differences of active amino acids in active centers between ScLas1-Grc3, CtLas1-Grc3 and CjLas1-Grc3. These structural comparisons provide stronger evidence that further reinforces the conclusions of our manuscript.

2) Can the authors speculate as to whether the structural data can provide any insight into how the Las1-Grc3 may cleave both C2 and C2' positions in the ITS2 RNA? This commentary would further strengthen the discussion section of the manuscript.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have provided a speculation in the discussion section of the revised manuscript.

We think that the structural data may provide some insight into how Las1-Grc3 complex cleaves ITS2 RNA at both C2 and C2' positions. The Las1-Grc3 tetramer complex has one nuclease active center and two kinase active centers. The nuclease active center consists of two Las1 molecules in a symmetric manner, while the kinase active center consists of only one Grc3 molecule. The ITS2 RNA is predicted to form a stem-loop structure. The symmetrical nuclease active center recognizes the stem region of ITS2 RNA and makes it easy to perform C2 and C2' cleavages on both sides of the stem. C2 and C2' cleavage products are further phosphorylated by two Grc3 kinase active centers, respectively.

3) The method used for the plasmid generation, expression, and purification of the Las1 truncations and the Las1 and Grc3 point mutants should be provided in the methods section.

The method used for the plasmid generation, expression, and purification of the Las1 truncations and the Las1 and Grc3 point mutants have be provided in the methods section.

4) The exact amino acid cutoffs for the truncated forms of Las1 used for the biochemical assays in Fig. 4 should be provided.

We have provided the exact amino acid cutoffs for the truncated forms of Las1 in the figure legend of Figure 4C.

5) The models associated with the cryo-EM datasets should be deposited in the PDB.

The models associated with the Cryo-EM datasets have be deposited in the PDB with the following accession codes: 8J5Y (ScLas1-Grc3 complex), and 8J60 (CjLas1-Grc3 complex).

6) Lines 232-234: Arg129 should be changed to His134.

We have corrected it.

7) Figure 5B: the bottom half of the HEPN active site has been labeled incorrectly. The labels should be Arg129, His130, and His134 (from left to right).

We have corrected it.

8) Line 252: "multitudinous" should be changed to "multiple."

We have corrected it.

Note: This response was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. The content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

---

Reply to the reviewers

1. General Statements [optional]

We are happy to receive the comments from the reviewers and grateful for their suggestions on how to improve our manuscript. We note that both reviewers find the work extensive and meaningful.

Based on the comments from the reviewers, we have performed a comprehensive set of additional experiments, which will result in one additional figure and a substantial restructuring of two figures with new data, considerably expanding both the preclinical as well as the mechanistic findings of our manuscript.

In short, reviewer 1 finds that we have done extensive work to understand the role of CDK12/CDK13 in glioblastoma and would like to see additional mechanistic details. Reviewer 2 recognizes the value of our work in exploring the potential usefulness of CDK12/13 inhibition in treatment of aggressive brain tumors and would like to see additional experiments, which demonstrate the efficacy of CDK12/13 inhibition in complex environments to reinforce our proof-of-concept.

To address this feedback, our response plan includes two lines of experiments, which will strengthen both the preclinical and mechanistic parts of our work:

1. A) We have established a migration assay using GSC G7 in organotypic mice brain slices and tested the effect of CDK12/CDK13 inhibition on glioma migration and we will include these data in the revised manuscript.
2. B) To further understand the mechanisms involved in the transcriptional inhibition following CDK12/CDK13 inhibition on DNA replication in glioma cells, we have performed the following additional experiments:
3. Comparative mass-spectrometry to identify changes in the total and phospho-proteome. This revealed that major regulators of DNA replication and repair are impaired following CDK12/CDK13 inhibition.
4. iPond (Identification of proteins on nascent DNA) assays that demonstrate that CDK12/CDK13 inhibition changes the composition of replication forks, with a strong reduction PCNA abundance early after treatment. PCNA tethers the DNA polymerase catalytic unit to the DNA template ensuring rapid and processive DNA synthesis. This reduction of PCNA occurs before EdU incorporation/DNA replication is reduced, suggesting that loss of DNA polymerase clamping and processivity explains the subsequent arrest of DNA replication.
5. DNA fiber assays showing that the origin firing is heavily downregulated in GSCs following CDK12/CDK13 inhibition. Further analyses using immunofluorescence microscopy reveal that the markers of DNA damage response and cell cycle progression are not affected following CDK12/CDK13 inhibition at early time-points, thereby ruling out activation of cell-cycle checkpoints and/or DNA damage response as potential explanation for replication block in GSCs following CDK12/CDK13 inhibition. The results from these experiments strengthen our main findings that inhibiting CDK12/CDK13 has a potential therapeutic value in glioblastoma treatment. Our work also offers mechanistic insights into how the glioblastoma stem cells have acquired transcriptional addiction to CDK12/CDK13 involving phosphorylation of RNAPII CTD, nascent RNA synthesis and DNA replication dependent on CDK12/CDK13 activity.

2. Description of the planned revisions

A point-by-point plan in blue is described below.

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

*The authors in this manuscript studied the role of a transcriptional cyclin-dependent kinase CDK12/CDK13 in glioblastoma. These cyclin-dependent kinases phosphorylate at ser2 residue in the C-terminal of RNA Pol II. Pharmacological inhibition of CDK12/CDK13 kinase with inhibitor decreases cell proliferation in multiple glioma cell lines and in patient-derived organoids. The CDK12/CDK13 inhibitor also reduces tumor growth in a mouse xenograft model. Mechanistically, the authors showed that genome-wide inhibition of CDK12/CDK13 attenuates RNA Pol II phosphorylation, disrupting transcriptional elongation and decreasing cell cycle progression. So, the authors proposed that targeting CDK12/CDK13 kinases can be used as a therapeutic strategy in glioblastoma. The authors have done extensive work in this manuscript to understand the role of CDK12/CDK13 in glioblastoma, but it is still a descriptive paper lacking mechanistic details.

*

RESPONSE: We appreciate the reviewer’s recognition of the extensive efforts behind this manuscript, and we are thankful for being pointed towards strengthening the mechanistic insights. In brief, we would like to corroborate our key findings that inhibition of CDK12/CDK13 abrogates RNAPII phosphorylation, nascent RNA synthesis and DNA replication. We have expanded the mechanistic characterization using the following experiments:

• Using DNA fiber assay, we find that origin firing is heavily downregulated in GSCs following CDK12/CDK13 inhibition. Furthermore, we have done in-depth characterization of the effect of THZ531 treatment on cell cycle regulators and DNA damage response in GSCs, and found that these were not affected by CDK12/CDK13 inhibition within six hours. This indicates that activation of a cell cycle checkpoint or DDR machinery was not the reason for replication block.
• To further characterize the rapid effect of CDK12/CDK13 inhibition, we have done comparative mass spectrometry following CDK12/CDK13 inhibition in GSCs to identify changes in total and phosphorylated proteins and identified major regulators of DNA replication and repair machinery that are strongly affected.
• We have implemented iPOND (identification of proteins on nascent DNA) to study the effect of CDK12/CDK13 inhibition on protein composition at the replication fork. On this basis, we find that the abundance of the DNA clamp PCNA is substantially reduced after two hours of THZ531 treatment. PCNA tethers the DNA polymerases together on the fork and adds processivity to the speed of DNA replication. EdU incorporation was not affected by two hours of THZ531 treatment, and loss of PCNA from the replication fork is a likely explanation for the DNA replication block observed after six hours of THZ531 treatment.

*Comments: 1. Figure 1 shows that CDK12/CDK13 inhibitor decreases cell viability, colony-forming ability, cell competition assay, and cell migration. The rationale behind choosing CDK12/CDK13 inhibitor in glioma is unclear from the manuscript. What is the CDK12/CDK13 expression in multiple glioma cells vs non-glioma cells? The authors should include normal astrocytes as a control for cell viability assay. The p value is missing in numerous Figure panels. *

RESPONSE: We have investigated the possibility of targeting transcriptional regulation in glioma cells by using inhibitors targeting transcriptional cyclin-dependent kinases which included CDK7, CDK9 and CDK12/CDK13.

• We found that glioma cell proliferation was most sensitive to CDK12/CDK13 inhibitors compared to other cancer cells (Figure 1A), whereas there was no specificity for CDK7 and CDK9 inhibitors on glioma cell proliferation compared to other cancer cells (Supplementary figure 1D). The selective inhibition of glioma cells by CDK12/CDK13 inhibitors was the rationale for choosing CDK12/CDK13 inhibitors for further studies. This is mentioned in the introduction, and the result section has been updated to reflect this.
• We have performed expression analyses of CDK12/CDK13 at the mRNA levels using RT-qPCR in the cell lines that are used in the study, and we did not find any correlation of CDK12/CDK13 expression in glioma versus non-glioma cells (Supplementary figure 1B). Thus, the propensity of cells to become addicted to CDK12/13 signaling for their survival seems not related to total transcript levels, but must rely on the function of CDK12/CDK13 as a selective regulator of transcriptional program required for glioblastoma proliferation.
• We will perform the cell viability assays on normal astrocytes.

• p-values will be added in the figure panels.

• Figure 2A shows the expression of CDK12 by immunohistochemistry in glioblastoma tissues. Including the non-glioma tissue samples as another control and including a quantification graph with the statistics is essential. In Figure 2B-D, the authors discussed the treatment of glioma patient-derived organoids with CDK12/CDK13 inhibitors. From the Figure, the organoids are resistant to THZ531 and SR-4835 inhibitors. To rule out this possibility, the immunoblot assay with cleave PARP will be essential to execute. Again, statistics need to be included in Figure 2C-D. *

RESPONSE: We want to point out that the immunohistochemistry for non-glioma tissue and additional controls are shown in Figure 2A, top right panel and supplementary Figure 2A.

Regarding the next statement, we do not think that there is any indication that the organoids (GBOs) are resistant to THZ531 and SR-4835. We would like to stress that data presented on Fig 2B-D shows the efficacy of THZ531, abemaciclib and SR-4835 inhibitors in GBOs. GBOs showed high resistance only to lomustine. We apologize for any part of the figure which may lack clarity and lead to potential misconceptions. We would very much like to improve on this, if we are able to identify which figure component that may give the impression that the organoids are resistant to THZ531 and SR-4835. One option would be to remove the 0 hr time point in Figure 2B, if that is the cause for misinterpretation. To emphasize the drug efficacy better, we plan to perform the following amendments to the revised manuscript:

• We will provide statistical analysis of the IC50 and AUC analysis in the supplementary table xxx. These analyses will further highlight the robustness of the evaluation of drug responses in comparison to lomustine.
• We will provide one-way Annova comparison of the efficacy of the four assessed drugs in Fig 3D.
• The cell viability assay applied in GBOs is based on the CellTiterGlow technology, which is applicable to small organoid cultures of
• The mouse subcutaneous xenograft experiment was carried out in U87 cells with CDK12/CDK13 inhibitors. However, the glioma stem cells are a more appropriate model for glioma biology, and it is not clear why authors suddenly chose U87 cells. Again, statistics are absent in multiple sub-panels. *

* *RESPONSE: We note reviewer’s acknowledgement of using GSCs as a more appropriate model for glioma biology and we want to emphasize that in this work, we have used 15 different glioma patient derived glioma cells (11 GSCs in Figure-1 and 4 GBOs in Figure-2) from two different research environments to show that CDK12/CDK13 inhibition compromises glioma proliferation in vitro. GSCs/GBOs used in our study are xenografted orthotopically in the brain to model glioma in vivo and since our drugs do not sufficiently cross the BBB, the GSCs/GBOs were not considered for the in vivo validation and instead, a subcutaneous xenograft model was best to assess the efficacy of the drug(s). Considering that these models require a high number of cells (eight million cells per xenograft were used in our experiment), we had to base our decision on feasibility and chose a type of cells that could be propagated to the required extent. Considering the reviewer’s criticism, we are open to moving the xenograft data are presented to the supplementary section. Appropriate statistics will be done and shown.

• The authors have performed CUT & RUN experiments in G7 cells with CDK12/CDK13 inhibitors and decided to use 1hr and 6hr time points for the assay. Although the inhibitor THZ531 is supposed to inhibit RNA Pol II phosphorylation at the Ser2 residue, it decreases the Pol II phosphorylation at the ser5 residue quite a bit. Therefore, it is crucial to determine the effect coming from ser2 vs ser5 phosphorylation and gene expression regulation. **

*

RESPONSE: This is a good point. To address the relationship further, we will perform quantitation of Ser2 and Ser5 signals as well as the changes in these over time. We will then correlate this to the transcriptional changes to assess which of the relationships that are most strongly correlated. In addition, we will perform non-parametric statistical testing of significance of ranked data.

• There are a lot of supplementary Figures where axes are not labeled correctly or missing. **

*

RESPONSE: This will be addressed.

• The statistical section needs to be included in the manuscript. **

*

RESPONSE: This will be included.

*Reviewer #1 (Significance (Required)): **

In this manuscript, the authors studied the role of CDK12/CDK13 in glioblastoma and performed extensive studies to uncover the importance of these kinases in glioblastoma. Understanding more mechanistic details of how these kinases are involved in glioma progression will uncover more therapeutic opportunities in glioblastoma.

*

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

*

*Summary: ** Lier et al. present a set of results showing that pharmacological inhibition of CDK12/13, cyclin-dependent kinases that phosphorylate RNA polymerase II (RNAPII), alters the proliferative behavior and transcriptional program of glioblastoma cells. A set of 2D and 3D cultures of patient-derived cell lines with stem-like properties (GSC), as well as subcutaneous xenografts of the U87 cell line, were used as in vitro and in vivo models, respectively. Among the CDKs tested, only CDK13 expression was found to be associated with worse patient survival, while CDK12-immunoreactive cells were detected in patient glioblastoma tissues. The response of GSCs to the CDK12 and CDK13 inhibitor TZH541 included cell cycle blockade and decreased migration. Reduction in RNAPII phosphorylation in TZH541-treated cells was verified using one of the GSC lines. Genome-wide exploration of the transcriptional consequences of TZH541 treatment of 2 GSCs using CUT&RUN and SLAM-seq technologies revealed major transcriptional repression, particularly of genes associated with cell proliferation. *

*Main comments: ** Although I found this study very interesting, I noted points requiring clarification, particularly in order to fully support the authors conclusions. My recommendations focus on the glioblastoma cell biology experiments, my area of expertise.

*

RESPONSE: We are grateful for the reviewer's keen interest in our manuscript and appreciate various insightful observations on the challenges within glioblastoma biology. Recognizing the necessity of validating CDK12/CDK13 requirements in complex environments, we have undertaken a migration assay using GSC, G7 cells in organotypic mice brain slices. The ongoing assessment of CDK12/CDK13 inhibition on glioma migration will be included in the revised manuscript. We have also more carefully explained how the organoid models used in this study address the requested need to recapitulate the complexity seen in the patient tissue and tumor environment. Moreover, we have related immunohistochemistry assessments of CDK12 levels to the proliferation marker Ki-67. Finally, we have strengthened the mechanistic insights provided in the manuscript by the inclusion of new proteomics data, iPond data on nascent chromatin, and chromatin fiber assays, altogether showing that replication origins firing as well as PCNA function is heavily reduced and identifying key proteins in DNA replication that are affected. These points are thoroughly discussed and explained in the comments below.

1. • The rationale for studying only CDK12 expression in patient glioblastoma tissues needs clarification. In contrast with CDK13, the authors found no association between CDK12 expression levels and patient survival (Sup Fig. 1A). Do the authors obtain similar results using independent datasets of glioblastoma tissue transcriptomes (e.g. CGGA)? With regard to the major effect of CDK12/13 inhibition on glioblastoma cell proliferation, determining whether CDK12/13 expression is observed in proliferating areas of the patients' tumor tissues (Ki67 IHC) would help support the authors' conclusion that their "results provide proof-of-concept for the potential of CDK12 and CDK13 as therapeutic targets for glioblastoma". The main data regarding CDK expression the status in patients' tumors and their possible association with patient survival should be rearranged in the same figure and described in the same paragraph of the results. * RESPONSE: We have performed our analyses on CGGA dataset, which matches with the TCGA data. We will show analyses from both TCGA and CGGA in Sup Fig. 1.

CDK12 and CDK13 are functionally redundant, which is one of the reasons that they do not score in genome-wide CRISPR/Cas9 dropout screens. As a result, GSC proliferation is only partially dependent on the individual expression of CDK12 and CDK13, as we observe in Figure 1E. However, GSCs are dependent on the combined CDK12/CDK13 activity and therefore are sensitive to inhibitors targeting both. Possibly, this functional redundancy makes the interpretation of the relationship between the individual expression of CDK12/CDK13 and glioma patient survival less straightforward.

With regards to the immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining evaluating the expression of CDK12 and CDK13 in glioma patient samples, we tested several antibodies for both CDK12 and CDK13. However, we were only able to identify an antibody for CDK12 which worked reliably in IHC.

We will perform Ki-67 IHC to test whether CDK12 expression matches with proliferative areas of the tumor tissues.

• Fig.1 caption "Inhibition of CDK12/13 specifically affects proliferation of glioma cells" is not entirely consistent with the results. This inhibition also appears to induce cell death, at least in some of the GSC tested, as indicated with cell counts (Fig. 1C., sup Fig.1 G) and an 8-fold increase in the % of apoptotic cells after a 24h-TZH treatment shown in Fig. 5E. All data concerning the effects of TZH on proliferation and survival (including detailed effects on the cell cycle) should be brought together rather than split between the 1st and last figure. *

RESPONSE: We appreciate these comments and will be addressed it in the manuscript.

*3. The reason for which serum-treated GSC were used should be explicated (sup Fig. 1C). Serum being usually used to trigger GSC "differentiation", did the authors want to verify whether CDK12/13 inhibitors affected GSC in a specific manner? If yes, it is necessary to demonstrate that serum-treated GSC have lost their stem-like properties. *

RESPONSE: This is a good point that we appreciate being able to expound on. GSCs are grown in serum-free media with N2 and B27 supplements together with EGF/FGFb whereas the control cells, including breast cancer and Hela/U2OS cells are grown in media containing serum. Serum-containing media was used to assess whether the diverse set of macromolecules present in serum would affect the bioavailability and/or response to the drug, and our data clearly demonstrated that this was not the case and that glioma stem cells are susceptible to the drug regardless of serum presence. In order to minimize the effect of serum on GSC differentiation, serum was added in the media immediately before the drug treatment.

• The viability of patient-derived 3D organoids (GBO) was assessed by measuring ATP production. It is therefore not possible to distinguish between decreased cell proliferation and increased cell death as responsible for the signal decrease. This limitation in the interpretation of the results needs to be made explicit. I was also misled by the use of GBO. This abbreviation is currently used to designate fragments of patient tumor tissue amplified in culture, which retain the cellular heterogeneity and the extracellular matrix of the original tumor and therefore provide an actual ex vivo model of the tumor. To avoid any misunderstanding, I recommend referring to experimental models obtained from dissociated patient-derived cell lines as "3D organoids" or "cellular spheroids", and avoiding to designate them as ex vivo models since they do not recapitulate the complexity of the tumor. *

RESPONSE: We apologize for providing insufficient details concerning our GBO modelling, and we have now updated the description in the methods to avoid misconceptions and unclarity. Our GBOs are not derived from cell lines. We derive GBOs from patient tumors by short-term culture of tissue fragments in 3D conditions. Such organoids are of a very primary nature and contain extracellular matrix and tumor microenvironment components. To avoid propagation in vitro, we perform implantation of GBOs to immunodeficient animals to create patient-derived orthotopic xenografts (PDOXs). We have established that serial propagation of patient material via series of short-term GBO cultures and PDOXs allow for multiplication of GBM patient tumors without major clonal selection and genetic/phenotypic adaptation (Golebiewska, 2020, DOI: 10.1007/s00401-020-02226-7). To perform robust drug screening ex vivo in GBOs, we further developed a specific protocol based on the material isolated directly from well-established and characterized PDOXs (Oudin, 2021, DOI: 10.1016/j.xpro.2021.100534). The protocol includes reconstitution of 3D GBOs of uniform size, which allows for reliable ex vivo readouts. Importantly, GBM primary cells are able to reassemble into 3D structures of heterogeneous nature, including reconstitution of extracellular matrix. In the revised manuscript, we will provide a clear description of the GBO modelling in the material and methods as well as in the associated results.

• Although the abstract contains a statement indicating that CDK12/13 genetic ablation inhibits cell migration, I did not find the corresponding results in the article. The demonstration that CDK12/13 inhibition decreases cell migration is weaker than the demonstration of its effect on proliferation. Contrary to the experiments evaluating cell proliferation, cell migration was assessed using a single technical approach. Moreover, the method used to assay TZH effects on cell migration rather measures cell motility than cell migration over long distances in a 3D and complex environment as observed in diffuse glioma. Since these data add nothing significant to the article, I would delete them. *

RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for pointing out the comment in first sentence, which is addressed in the abstract now.

It is correct that strictly speaking our assay measured the effect of CDK12/CDK13 inhibition on glioma motility rather than migration, we have corrected this sentence in the abstract. We have however also now strengthened the methodology in the manuscript by establishing and using migration assays of GSC G7 cells on organotypic mouse brain slices. Organotypic mouse brain slices have a preserved cytoarchitecture that allows analysis of migration over longer distances in a physiological environment. We are currently analyzing the data. These results will be included in the revised manuscript.

• In my opinion, the information from the in vivo experiments is limited and should be presented in a supplementary rather than a main figure. The data were obtained with a single cell model, U87 cells of uncertain origin, and using subcutaneous xenografts that provide an environment totally different from the patient's actual tumor. In this context, the data obtained provide little information on the response of cancer cells in a complex and specific environment well known to promote tumor growth and resistance to therapies. I understand that the use of intracerebral xenografts is not feasible, since the inhibitor does not appear to reach the brain. With this technical limitation, an alternative would be to deliver the compound directly inside the brain tumor. A cannula can be implanted into the tumor after it has formed, and connected to an Alzet minipump filled with the drug. These experiments are technically difficult, however, and success is not guaranteed. Another alternative would be to use GBO, as described by Jacob et al (2019) as a surrogate for tumor tissue, provided the authors can obtain tissue fragments from patient surgical resections or intracerebral xenografts of patient-derived cell lines. These alternatives are optional. *

RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for pointing out the difficulties in testing currently available compounds in vivo. Following the reviewers’ comments, we are open to placing the in vivo experiments in U87 xenografts in the supplementary material. We would like to reemphasize the clinical significance of our data in GBOs (please see the response above), which relies on models of equal complexity compared to the Jacob’s protocol and represent 3D compact and complex structures ex vivo derived from the GBM patient tumors propagated as orthotopic patient-derived xenografts.

Minor comments: ** - Fig. 4A and Fig. 5E-F: Results from a single experiment? If yes, they must be repeated at least once.

RESPONSE: They are representative of a minimum of three independent biological experiments, which will be mentioned in the manuscript.

*- For the sake of clarity, all y-axes in graphs presenting MTT or CellTiter-Glo assay results should be labeled "cell viability index", as they only provide a measure of overall cell or organoid metabolic activity, and thus an indirect assessment of cell viability. *

RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion and will incorporate it in the revision.

*- Statistical analyses are missing for 3 of the 4 cell lines presented in Figure 1F. *

RESPONSE: This will be addressed.

*- Some GO terms are truncated in sup Fig. 3. *

* *RESPONSE: This will be fixed in the revised ms.

- The legend to Fig. 5B-D shows the mean and SD of 2 replicates. Please show individual points.

RESPONSE: This suggestion will be addressed in the revision.

- Sup Fig1 D-F: unit of concentration is missing (M?) ** RESPONSE: This is addressed.

*Reviewer #2 (Significance (Required)): **

Significance: Despite growing interest in the roles of CDK12/13 roles in cancers and their targeting for cancer therapy, their involvement in glioblastoma growth remains unexplored. The results presented in this study outline the potential of CDK12/13 inhibition in controlling the growth of glioblastoma, at least in vitro, and thus provide meaningful information on its potential usefulness for this aggressive brain tumor with a high proliferation rate. Obtaining the full proof-of-concept that CDK12/13 constitute relevant targets for glioblastoma therapies will however require additional experiments demonstrating efficacy of CDK12/13 inhibition in complex environments, as encountered in the patients' tumor. *

3. Description of the revisions that have already been incorporated in the transferred manuscript

We have addressed following of the reviewers’ comments.

Reviewer-1:

• Major comment-1 is partially incorporated in the text.

• Major comments-5 and 6 are incorporated. Reviewer-2:

• Major comment 1 is partially addressed.

• Major comment 2, 3 and 4 are addressed in writing.
• Major comment 5 is partially addressed in writing.
• Major comment 6 is addressed.
• All minor comments are incorporated in writing.

4. Description of analyses that authors prefer not to carry out

Note: This response was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. The content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

---

Reply to the reviewers

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

---

The authors Martiěnez-Balsalobre and colleagues found that the regenerative capacity of the zebrafish caudal fin is not limited by the lack of telomerase and showed that the length of telomeres does not decrease substantially after repeated amputations in telomerase-deficient zebrafish. These findings prompt the authors to explore an alternative mechanism that would explain the maintenance of telomere length in this regeneration setting. They produced suggestive evidence for the role of the ALT (Alternative Lengthening of Telomeres) mechanism in the maintenance of telomere length in the absence of telomerase in a regeneration setting.

In my view, several points need to be addressed and clarified.

**There are three major points:**

1.When working with tert mutants, the age at which these fish show a telomere phenotype (namely, loss of body mass and reduced fertility) varies. Therefore, it would be important to state if the fish used in this study were already showing these phenotypic characteristics at each time point studied, namely 4, 8 and 11 months of age

The premature aging phenotype of tert mutant fish has been previously characterized in the paper by Anchelin et al 2013 referenced in the manuscript. We used young fish with no phenotype (4 months old), and aged fish (8 and 11 months old) presenting the already described premature aging phenotypes, such as spinal curvature, loss of fertility, loss of body mass and loss of pigmentation.

The following sentence regarding this has been included in the revised version of the manuscript.

“The fish used showed non-detectable aging phenotype at 4 months old, whereas at 8- and 11-months fish presented the typical tert mutant premature aging phenotypes, i.e. backbone curvature, loss of body mass and hypopigmentation”

2.The knockdown experiments were performed using morpholinos. To confidently use morpholinos it is fundamental to demonstrate first their knockdown efficiency and their specificity. This is lacking in the manuscript.

In this work we have used 3 different morpholinos; tert morpholino has been already used and characterized in the work by Imamura and collaborators in 2008. atr morpholino has been already used and characterized in the paper by Stern at al., 2005.

However, nbs1 morpholino has been designed for this work. A Supplemental Figure (Figure S2) and the following paragraph have been added in the revised version of the manuscript to show the knock-down efficiency of the nbs1 morpholino:

“The knock-down efficiency of the atr morpholino was characterized by Stern and colleagues (Stern et al, 2005). The injection of the nbs1 morpholino in zebrafish eggs resulted in the reduction of the expression of nbs1 mRNA at 3dpf (Fig. S2A). Furthermore, PCR using cDNA as a template detected nbs1 mRNA species that retained the intron one of the gene as a result of the morpholino effect in blocking the splicing (Fig. S2B).

“The tert morpholino knock-down efficiency has been already showed (Imamura et al, 2008)”

3.The involvement of ALT mechanism in the regeneration process in the absence of telomerase is only suggestive, as the authors show an increase of C-circles and heterogenous telomerase length in telomerase-deficient zebrafish but when trying to establish a functional link the authors resort to the knowndown of genes that may be associated with ATL. Looking at the levels of TERRA and the number of C-circles in the knowndown caudal fins would be essential for their claim.

We have now performed caudal fin regeneration experiments in tert mutant fish microinjected with mo-atr and mo-nbs1 and analyzed the levels of TERRA RNAs and C-circles amount. The results are shown in Supplemental Figure S4. As expected, regeneration capacity decreased in fish microionjected with both morpholinos compared to control fish (FigS4 F). Consistently, TERRA RNAs levels, as well as C-circles amount, increased in the regenerating tissue and this induction was lower when atr and nbs1 gene expression was downregulated by mo-injection (Fig S4 G-J). Taking altogether, these results indicate that ALT mechanism is induced upon amputation and operates in the regenerating tissue of tert deficient fish.

**And several other points:**

4.The regeneration experiments were performed at 32 degrees and this option was never explained nor discussed.

The regeneration experiments in zebrafish typically are performed at 32 °C to accelerate regeneration process. Otherwise, the amount of regenerated blastema at 48 hpa or 72hpa would not be enough to perform any kind of analysis. Furthermore, it could happen that some experimental modifications, for instance the effects of the morpholino injection, do not last if the regeneration process is kept more than 84-96hpa at 28 °C.

This procedure have been used previously by other laboratories (PMID: 8601496, Johnson and Weston,1995; PMID: 12015289 Nechiporuk et al.,2003 and PMID: 16273523 Thumnel et al 2006) to increase the rate of regeneration approximately two fold, a temperature of 33°C was used for the regeneration experiments. In addition, It has been demonstrated normal regeneration at 33°C in wild-type fish

5.When referring to the ALT mechanism, the authors state that "... in about 10% of tumors cells, telomere length is maintained by the Alternative Lengthening of Telomeres (ALT) mechanism ..." and I think it would be more accurate to talk about cancer cells instead of tumor cells.

This has been corrected in the revised version

6.The sentence about C-circles is incorrect. C-circles are mostly single-stranded and not double-stranded as stated.

This has been corrected in the revised version

7.After Figure 2, the authors never mention the age of the fish used.

All the fish used in the amputation experiments after Fig2 are 4 -6 months of age

8.In Figure 1A. The site of amputation does not fit the one described in Mat & Met that states 2 cm from the base of the caudal peduncle. The same stands for Figure 2A.

This is corrected in the new version with a new Figure 1A and 2A

9.In Figure 1B

The Y axis should be named regeneration area instead of rate as the values are a percentage of the area reached after a certain time point after amputation. The same stands for Figure 2B, C. It would be nice to see the real caudal fin images for the relevant time points: before amputation, 0 dpa, when the fins reach 50% of regeneration area and then the last time point.

This has been changed in the new version

The authors should discuss why are the caudal fins reaching more than 100% of regeneration are

This is an intriguing question for which we currently lack an answer. Nonetheless, it does not impact the focus of our ongoing study

10.In Figure 2B. The meaning of ". .. ." on the right side of the graph is not clear. The same stands for Figure 2D.

This has been a mistake when handling the figure folder and has been corrected in the revised version

11.In Figure 2C .Why is the clip 10, 11 and 12 missing from the tert+/- and tert-/- ?

This has been changed in the new version and recalculated the statistical significance. We appreciate the feedback

12.In Figure 2E The proximity of all points at the 12 Clip is indicative of lack of statistical significance, therefore the **** related to which comparisons?

We have modified the data of fig 2E and recalculated the statistical significance

13.In Figure 2D, E

For the measurement of telomere length, the authors state that "Data are average of at least 2 independent experiments." What does this mean exactly? How many animals were used in each experiment?

In the experiments in Fig2, 6 fish total were used per group sampled in at least 2 independent experiments. This has been included in the figure legend and in the Mat&Met section

14.In Figure 3

The authors state that "Data are average of at least 2 independent experiments." What does this mean exactly? How many animals were used in each experiment?

The experiment in Fig 3A was done 3 times with 2 fish per group pooled in each experiment. The telomere length experiment has been done 2 times. This has been added to the figure legend and to the Mat&Met section.

Why were the c-circles evaluated at hpa while the telomere length evaluated at dpa? This should be discussed.

We expect to observe an effect on telomere length after several days of continuous cell proliferation in order to completely regenerate the caudal fin. However, the presence of C-circles in the regenerating tissue is expected to be found as early as 24hpa as a consequence of the action of the ALT mechanism of telomere maintenance, which has to be active from the very beginning. The following sentence has been included in the Discussion section: “ALT activation is expected to happen, and in fact detected, very early in the regeneration process, and eventually results in telomere length heterogenicity several days after amputation, when a lot of cell divisions and telomere recombination have occurred”.

15.In Figure 3A

The meaning of ". .. ." on the top side of the graph is not clear.

t0 should be removed and replaced by 0 hpa and 24hpa and 48hpa for coherence.

This has been a mistake when handling the figure folder and has been corrected in the revised version.

16.In Figure 3B,C 0 hpa replace by 0 dpa

This has been replaced in the new version

17.In Figure 3B

The blue and red stainings in the panels are labelling exactly what? This should be stated in the image and in the legend.

Red staining represents the telomeres and the blue staining are the nuclei. It is shown in the Figure and stated in the figure legend.

18.In Figure 3D

There is a mistake in the legend the should be corrected as follows "Very long telomeres have a higher fluorescence of 200,000 AUF and very short telomeres have a lower fluorescence of 30,000 AUF."

This has been corrected

19.In Figure 4

t0 should be removed and replaced by 0 hpa.

This has been corrected

The meaning of ". .. ." on the top side of the graph is not clear.

This has been a mistake when handling the figure folder and has been corrected in the revised version

The title is an overstatement, as the genes studied are DNA damage genes that may associate with ALT.

The title has been corrected to “The expression of ALT-associated genes is modulated in regenerative tissue of”

20.In Figure 4A, B

The expression of nbs1 and atr in tert-/- increases at 48hpa but the same seems to be true for the tert+/+ and this is never discussed by the authors.

This result would support the idea that both telomerase-dependent and ALT mechanisms operate in the regeneration process in a wild type animal. A sentence in the results and discussion sections has been added to mention and discuss this point:

“These genes were quantified in the regenerated tissue at 24 and 48 hpa. nbs1 and atr mRNA levels increased in telomerase deficient fish at 48 hpa compared to time 0 (0hpa) (Fig. 4A, 4B). The same effect in the expression of these genes was found in wild type fish regenerating fins. Interestingly, atrx and daxx expression decreased (Fig. 4C, 4D) at 24 and 48 hpa, in agreement with published data on ALT in cells (Amorim et al., 2016; Ren et al., 2018; Yost et al., 2019).”

“Curiously we observed an increased expression of ALT activator proteins in both wild type and telomerase deficient zebrafish, and a decrease in ALT inhibitor proteins suggesting that the main players of ALT and their mechanisms are conserved during evolution, and that both mechanisms of telomere maintenance could co-exist in the regeneration process in wild type fish”..

21.In Figure 4C, D

The differences in the expression of atrx and daxx decreases over time in a in tert-/- and this is never discussed by the authors.

As mentioned, and referenced in the manuscript, the proteins are ALT inhibitors, and mutations in these proteins are described to be promoting the activation of ALT mechanisms. Thus, it is expected that in the regenerating fins where ALT is activated, their expression decreases.

22.In Figure 5

An ideal control would be the direct comparison between microinjected+electroporated mo-std in the ventral part of the fin while the dorsal part would be microinjected+electroporated with the mo-gene of interest. This would discard any effect of microinjection+electroporation in the regeneration efficiency.

These experiments are not convincing to show that there is an ALT mechanism is operating here. What this experiment shows if the relevance of these genes for the regenerative capacity of the caudal fin. To show that this is related to the ALT mechanism the authors should investigate the C-circles in these regenerating fins.

We have performed regeneration experiments using WT fish to address this issue. We analyzed the regenerated area of control and morpholino injected fish and then obtained regenerating blastema and analyzed the expression of tert and atr. The results are shown in Supplemental Figure S4 (A-E). The regeneration capacity is inhibited in tissues injected with a mix of mo-std+mo-ter, a mix of mo-std+mo-atr, or a mix of mo-tert+mo-atr compared with a control injected with a double dosis of mo-std (std 2x, Fig S4B). In addition, the expression of tert and atr is decreased in the regenerated blastema upon morpholino injection (Fig S4 C and D) indicating that the genetic inhibition of the expression of these genes was efficient. Finally, the levels of TERRA RNAs are increased upon amputation and this induction is reduced when we mo-atr or a combination of mo-atr+tert were microinjected (Fig S4E).

We have also performed caudal fin regeneration experiments in tert mutant fish microinjected with mo-atr and mo-nbs1 and analyzed the levels of TERRA RNAs and C-circles amount. The results are shown in Supplemental Figure S4. As expected, regeneration capacity of the caudal fins of fish microionjected with both morpholinos decreased compared to control fish (Fig S4 F-H). Consistently, TERRA RNAs levels, as well as C-circles amount, increased in the regenerating tissue and this induction was lower when atr and nbs1 gene expression was decreased by mo-injection (Fig S4 I and J). Taking altogether, these results indicate that ALT mechanism is induced upon an injury and operating in the regenerating tissue of both wild type and tert deficient fish.

The amputation red lines are not placed in the exact amputation position in some of the panels.

Regeneration rate should be regeneration area.

This has been corrected

23.In Figure 5C, E

Why is the mo-tert more inhibitory of regeneration (Figure 5E - around 30%) than the tert-/- mutant (Figure 5C - around 60%)? This should be discussed.

This point is now discussed: “

24.In Figure 6A

The 2 adult zebrafish shown in the tank with the ATR inhibitor IV should have an amputated caudal fin.

This has been modified

Control is exactly what? Untreated? Treated with vehicle?

The control is fish treated with the same amount of DMSO (vehicle). This is now shown in the panel

Why was the ATR inhibitor IY added immediately after fin amputation while the mo-atr was injected at 48 hpa?

The ATR inhibitor was added immediately after amputation because ALT is then inhibited from the starting of the regeneration process. However, in the case of the atr morpholino we need some regenerated tissue to perform the microinjection within and inhibit atr expression specifically in this tissue.

25.Figure 6D, E, F

These panels are a bit out of the focus of this paper. If presented should go to a supplementary figure.

These panels are now moved to the Supplemental Figure S5

26.In Figure S2

The relevant bands should be identified.

We have performed new regeneration experiments in wild type adult fish using ATR inhibitor. The results show that treating fish with ATR inhibitor provokes a clear decrease in the overall phosphorylation status of ATR/ATR substrates within the regenerated tissue (Figure 5B and C). In this case, the intensity of the whole lane was used for quantification.

The gel identifies DMSO, 10uM and 50 uM but the quantification graph identifies Control, 50uM and 100uM.

This has been corrected in the new version

There are no error bars

In the new experiments are now shown.

The authors say that the quantification of various western blot bands was done but how many exactly?

In the new experiments, 3 western blots are quantified

27.In Figure S3

The primers for rps11 are repeated twice.Were these primers design de novo by the authors or did they used previous reported primers, in this case the references should be given.

Tert F2 and R1 should be replaced for F and R for consistency.

This has been corrected and references for the primers used are added in the new Supplemental Figure S6

28.In Figure S4

The sequence of tert mo is missing.

This has been corrected

29.In the methods the genotyping protocol of tert mutants is not described.

A protocol for genotyping the tert deficient zebrafisn has been added in the Mat&Met section.

30.The method to calculate the area of the fin pre- and post-amputation is not described.

The method is already described in the Mat&Met section: “In order to calculate the percentage area of growth between the injected and non-injected part, the values were inserted in the following formula: (Dorsal 48 hpi - Dorsal 0 hpi)/(Ventral 48 hpi -Ventral 0 hpi)*100, where Dorsal is the regenerative area of the MO-treated tissue and Ventral is the regenerative area of the corresponding uninjected half”

Reviewer #1 (Significance (Required)):

---

The manuscript by Martiěnez-Balsalobre and colleagues deals with a very interesting question on the importance of telomere lengthening during regenerative processes and its relation to ageing. To this end the authors made use of the tert mutant, a telomerase-deficient zebrafish. The authors show a surprising phenotype that telomerase-deficient zebrafish can still regenerate their caudal fins and are able to maintain telomere length during consecutive amputations and I say surprising because it has been shown that telomerase-deficient zebrafish are unable to regenerate their hearts efficiently.

Taking these novel findings, the authors propose that in the zebrafish caudal fin and in the absence of telomerase, telomere length is maintained through the activation of an alternative mechanism called ALT. To my knowledge, the role of ALT as a mechanism of telomere lengthening has never been described in the context of regenerating organs in zebrafish.

We fully appreciate the reviewer´s comments on the significance of the manuscript!

**Referees cross-commenting**

I agree with the comments made by the other reviewers. I would stress the need to tone down the role of ALT during fin regeneration in zebrafish as all the experiments are only indicative of the possible of the involvement of ALT.

We have conducted additional experiments that further support the involvement of ALT. Please read the responses to the other reviewers for more details.

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

Using zebrafish as a model for regeneration, the authors find that telomere maintenance by recombination can occur in the absence of telomerase.

Title to Figure 4 perhaps may be too strong, 'ALT mechanism is activated', since only a few features of ALT are assessed. Perhaps, 'ALT features are activated'?

The title to Figure 4 has been changed to “The expression of ALT-related genes is modulated…”

mRNA levels of NBS, ATR are also increased in WT animals (Figure 4A and 4B), but ATRX and DAXX mRNA levels are not decreased in WT animals. Is the increase why the authors in part suggest that ALT is being used in WT animals. If so, what would be the trigger for the use of ALT, as opposed to the trigger to use ALT in tert-/- animals?

Our results indicate the utilization of both telomere maintenance mechanisms to support cell division in regenerative fins among wild-type animals. Consequently, we propose that the signals instigating regeneration are shared between both mechanisms and are present in both wild-type and tert-deficient animals, albeit with varying degrees of contribution.

In Figure 5C, if tert-/- animals are downregulated for nbs1 and atr, would it be expected that the effect on regeneration be more pronounced compared to tert+/+ downregulated for nbs1 and atr than what is observed?

We agree with the reviewer comment, and that is what actually happens. The inhibition of the regeneration in wild type fish is about 40% in mo-nbs1 injection and around 70% in mo-atr injected animals. However, in tert mutants, the decrease in regeneration observed in mo-nbs1 injection is about 56%, whereas is 82% in mo-atr injection.

What are the telomere lengths in tert-/- animals treated with mo-atr or mo-nbs1 or in tert+/+ animals treated with mo-tert and mo-atr compared to singly treated?

The telomere length does not change in mo-atr or mo-nbs1 injected tert mutants compared to mo-std animals.

The telomere length in mo-tert and mo-atr injected wild type animals does not change compared to mo-std injected animals.

This results are now shown in Supplemental Figure S3

Reviewer #2 (Significance (Required)):

Reported findings are novel, timely and model of possible therapeutic value for screening compounds for ALT and/or telomerase inhibitors. Mechanisms of co-existence of ALT and telomerase can also be explored using this model.

We fully appreciate the reviewer´s comments on the significance of the manuscript!

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

---

**Summary:**

Martinez-Balsalobre have examined caudal fin regeneration following surgical transection in WT and telomerase-deficient (tert+/- and tert-/-) zebrafish adults of several ages, and in one experiment, in embryos. They conclude: (1) regeneration efficiency decrease with aging in all genotypes (2) telomere length is maintained, even in a tert-mutant background (3) ALT (alternative lengthening of telomeres) is involved in supporting cell proliferation in tailfin regeneration. The experimental system employs a quantitative area-based measurement as a measure of the degree of regeneration. Functional studies used antisense morpholino gene knockdown and chemical inhibition to implicate ALT involvement.

**Major comments:**

The experimental logic is appropriate, and in general, the data support the conclusions. Strengths of the work include: (1) The quantitative measure of % regeneration appears to be quite objective; (2) the internally controlled experimental design of the morpholino knockdown experiments of Fig 5.

We thank the reviewer for the comment

The Western blot in Fig S2 has some issues. The image is a montage. The experiment appears to have been done only once. The band's identifications by kDa are imprecise (where is the 82 kDa band on the gel? - there are bands smaller and larger than 82 kDa, but none of 82kDa; the 50 kDa band is close to background; the DMSO lane is underloaded relative to the two test lanes (but as the observation is a reduction in the test samples, this does not result in a misinterpretation). What concentration of ATRinhIV were used? The blot has 10 and 50 microM, Fig S1B has 50 and 100 microM, and the text says 1-50 microM).

We have performed new regeneration experiments in wild type adult fish using ATR inhibitor. The results show that treating fish with ATR inhibitor results in a clear decrease in the overall phosphorylation status of ATR/ATR substrates within the regenerated tissue (Figure 5B and C). In this case, the intensity of the whole lane was used for quantification. As mentioned in the text, we used concentrations of 1, 10 and 50 microM, but we do not observe any difference with the 1 microM concentration, thus do not show it. Then we measured the regeneration capacity in both wild type and tert mutant fish using 10microM concentration

The MO-knockdown studies are interpreted as showing synergy of atr and tert knockdown.

There are two problems with them interpretation of synergy: (1) the single result of a greater effect with both MOs does not distinguish between an additive or synergistic effect (and synergistic action is by definition a greater than additive action;

We agree with the reviewer´s comment, and have removed the sentence “Interestingly a synergistic effect was observed when both mechanisms are inhibited” from the Results section.

(2) MO dose is not controlled by a group with an equal total MO doses (mo-std+mo-atr and mo-std+mo-tert). While acknowledging that the issues of using local MO delivery in an adult model are very different from global delivery in an embryonic model, the "synergy" interpretation still requires these experiments/controls be done. These experiments were not accompanied by any molecular evidence that either of the morpholinos targeted expression of the intended gene (which would likely have to be derived from their assessment in another system) - a control that can be challenging, but one that is regarded as essential in the field (https://doi.org/10.1242/dev .001115 ). While this will be difficult to do in the adult setting, it is still appropriate to validate the activity/molecular efficacy of the MO sequence in an experimentally tractable scenario. The specificity of this experiment and interpretation would also be enhanced and corroborated independently by undertaking the atr knockdown in the tert -/- mutant background. Overall, these experiments were preliminary and require further work that could be done withiin 3 months.

We have performed regeneration experiments using WT fish to address this issue. We analyzed the regenerated area of control and morpholino injected fish and then obtained regenerating blastema and analyzed the expression of tert and atr .The results are shown in Supplemental Figure S4 (A-E). The regeneration capacity is inhibited in tissues injected with a mix of mo-std+mo-ter, a mix of mo-std+mo-atr, or a mix of mo-tert+mo-atr compared with a control injected with a double dosis of mo-std (std 2x, Fig S4B). In addition, the expression of tert and atr is decreased in the regenerated blastema upon morpholino injection (Fig S4 C and D) indicating that the genetic inhibition of the expression of these genes was efficient. Finally, the levels of TERRA RNAs are increased upon amputation and this induction is reduced when we mo-atr or a combination of mo-atr+tert were microinjected (Fig S4E).

We have also performed caudal fin regeneration experiments in tert mutant fish microinjected with mo-atr and mo-nbs1, and analyzed the levels of TERRA RNAs and C-circles amount. The results are shown in Supplemental Figure S4. As expected, regeneration capacity of the caudal fins of fish microionjected with both morpholinos decreased compared to control fish (Fig S4 F-H). Consistently, TERRA RNAs levels, as well as C-circles amount, increased in the regenerating tissue and this induction was lower when atr and nbs1 gene expression was decreased by mo-injection (Fig S4 I and J). Taking altogether, these results indicate that ALT mechanism is induced upon an injury and operating in the regenerating tissue of both wild type and tert deficient fish.

Note - the tert MO sequence is missing from the table in Fig S4.

The sequence has been added

The adult experiments have used n=6-10 animals/group. There is no consideration of statistical power (is the analysis of Fig 1C adequately powered?).

The type of statistical test applied in Fig 1C (2-way ANOVA, plus Dunnett´s post-test) compares means of every clip among the 3 genotypes. This is the test that is recommended for this kind of data and experiment.

The degree and nature of replication is not clear in all cases. For example, in Fig 1, were the 6 fish run as one cohort of 6 animals in parallel (which would be just one experiment with 6 animals, each animal being a biological replicate), or were there 6 animals injured at different times (representing multiple independent experiments and represented a greater degree of reproducibility), or something in between. A similar question applies to the other figures.

In the experiments, 6 fish total were used per group sampled in at least 2 independent experiments. This has been included in the figure legend and in the Mat&Met section

For the experiment of Fig 6F, although there are >=100 larvae per group, it is not clear that this experiment has been done more than once.

In the conducted experiments, three independent trials were conducted. The total number of larvae per group utilized in each of the three distinct experiments surpassed 100 larvae per group (approximately 40 larvae in each independent experiment). This data has been incorporated into both the figure legend and the Materials and Methods section."

A few comments about data presentation. "Regeneration rate" and its derivatives are presented as mean +/- SEM. The parameter measured is correctly defined in methods as "Percent fin regeneration", however the graphs where it is plotted have the y-axis labelled as "regeneration rate (%)" (for example. Fig 1B), which is incorrect. The plotted parameter is not a rate - although there is a time dimension (x-axis), what is plotted at each time point is "% regeneration".

This has been corrected and y-axis is now labeled as Regeneration area (% of initial fin area.

Also, in most figures, such as Fig 1B and 1C, mean +/- SD would be more appropriate, as here each of the n=6 data points represents a single observation from one individual in the population, not the mean of 6 small samples of groups of individuals from the population. Furthermore, at these small n-values (6-10 through the report), scatter plots are considered a more appropriate way of displaying the data (some succinct references: DOI: 10.4103/2229-3485.100662 ; from a Nature group journal DOI: 10.1038/s41551-017-0079 ; from a PLOS journal https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002128 ).

This was a mistake in the figure legend, since Fig 1B was already showing mean +/- SD. Fig 1C is now showing mean+/- SD and has been represented with scatter plots.

The use of mean +/- SEM in Fig 4 could be appropriate, but as n is "at least two independent experiments" scatter plots would again be appropriate. Readers would then know which data sets had only two values.

In two instances, the same data are presented in two different ways (Fig 1B, 1C; the column graphs and arrows of Fig 3D).

Fig4 is presented now as scatter plot graphs

How does "data are average of at least 2 independent experiments" apply to Fig 3C?

In the experiments in Fig3C, “Data are average of 2 independent experiments of 3 fish per group pooled”. This has been included in the figure legend.

**Minor comments:**

The paper is written clearly overall. There are multiple minor grammatical/typographical errors, but these did not detract from understanding the manuscript. These were most abundant in the discussion.

A few points:

Discussion p1 - what is meant by "prematurely aged 11-month fish"

This refers to 11 months old tert-/- fish, which has been shown to present accelerated aging features at this age compared to wild type

Discussion p2 - you mean "doubled" rather than duplicated?

Yes; this has been corrected in the new version

tert +/+, tert +/- and tert -/- genotypes for experiments - how were these obtained and genotypically verified? (heterozygous incrosses? WT x homozygous mutant outcrosses?)

All the fish adult fish of the 3 genotypes were obtained from heterozygous incrosses. Then fish were genotyped by PCR. A protocol for genotyping has been added in the Mat&Met section. The wild type larvae used in the tail fin regeneration experiments inhibiting ATR were obtained by wild type cross, whereas the tert-/- were obtained by tert-/- incross

The last paragraph of the discussion makes some valid points, but it seemed out of place and I wondered if it was misplaced.

This paragraph is added to highlight that our work describes new in vivo model to perform drug screening to inhibit ALT mechanism of telomere maintenance, which is of particular importance for the survival of ALT positive tumor cells.

The rps11 primers appear in the Table of Fig S3 twice.

This has been corrected

Reviewer #3 (Significance (Required)):

---

The authors claim that this is the first in vivo model examining ALT in regeneration.

The paper contributes to the relatively small body of literature using adult zebrafish models (rather than embryonic larval models) in biomedical research. I cannot comment on the telomere/telomerase literature.

This report will be of interest to those working in regenerative medicine, telomere biology, cancer research, and those interested in zebrafish models of disease and physiological processes.

My expertise encompasses zebrafish disease models and functional studies; I do not have special expertise in telomerase or ALT pathways.

We fully appreciate the reviewer´s comments!

Author Response

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

We would like the reviewers for their positive and useful comments. Below please find our answers to the issues raised.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Overall, the experiments are well-designed and the results of the study are exciting. We have one major concern, as well as a few minor comments that are detailed in the following.

Major:

1) The authors suggest that "Visuomotor experience induces functional and structural plasticity of chandelier cells". One puzzling thing here, however, is that mice constantly experience visuomotor coupling throughout life which is not different from experience in the virtual tunnel. Why do the authors think that the coupled experience in the VR induces stronger experience-dependent changes than the coupled experience in the home cage? Could this be a time-dependent effect (e.g. arousal levels could systematically decrease with the number of head-fixed VR sessions)? The control experiment here would be to have a group of mice that experience similar visual flow without coupling between movement and visual flow feedback.

Either change would be experience-dependent of course, but having the "visuomotor experience dependent" in the title might be a bit strong given the lack of control for that. We would suggest changing the pitch of the manuscript to one of the conclusions the authors can make cleanly (e.g. Figure 4).

Although the plasticity is induced by the visuomotor experience in the tunnel, we agree that we do not know what aspect of the repeated exposure to the virtual tunnel caused the plasticity. We cannot rule out that it was the exposure to the visual stimuli alone that caused it. Therefore, we rephrased sentences that suggested that it was the coupling between visual stimuli and motor behavior that was responsible for the plasticity. We also changed the title to “Experience Shapes Chandelier Cell Function and Structure in the Visual Cortex”.

We do believe that training the mice in the virtual tunnel does significantly increase experience with coupled visuomotor activity, though. In their home cage, mice are mostly active in the dark and there is litle space to run.

Minor:

2). "ChCs shape the communication hierarchy of cortical networks providing visual and contextual information." We are not sure what this means.

We thank the reviewer for helping to raise clarity and we rephrased this sentence to: “…ChCs may establish a hierarchical relationship among cortical networks.”

3) "respond to locomotion and visuomotor mismatch, indicating arousal-related activity" This is not clear. We think we understand what the authors mean but would suggest rephrasing.

Agreed. We rephrased this sentence to: "...respond to events that are known to increase arousal levels, such as locomotion and visuomotor mismatch.”

4) 'based on morphological properties revealed that 87% (287/329) of labeled neurons were ChCs" Please specify the morphological properties used for the classification somewhere in the methods.

We added that the neurons were positioned at the border of L1 and L2 and had a dendrite reaching into layer 1.

5) We may have missed this - in the patch clamp experiment (Fig.1 H-K), please add information about how many mice/slices these experiments were performed in.

We have added the information to the legend of Fig. 1.

6) "These findings suggest that the rabies-labeled L1-4 neurons providing monosynaptic input to ChCs are predominantly inhibitory neurons". We are not sure this conclusion is warranted given the sparse set of neurons labelled and the low number of cells recorded in the paired patch experiment. We would suggest properly testing (e.g. stain for GABA on the rabies data) or rephrasing.

We weakened the statement to: “These findings suggest that the rabies-labeled L1-4 neurons providing monosynaptic input to ChCs may include many inhibitory neurons.”

7) Figure 2E. A direct comparison of dF/F across different cell types can be subject to a problematic interpretation. The transfer function from spikes to calcium can be different from cell type to cell type. Additionally, the two cell populations have been marked with different constructs (despite the fact that it's the same GECI) further reducing the reliability of dF/F comparisons. We would recommend using a different representation here that does not rely on a direct comparison of dF/F responses (e.g. like the "response strength" used in Figure 3B). Assuming calcium dynamics are different in ChCs and PyCs - this similarity in calcium response is likely a coincidence.

We have removed the quantification in this figure.

8) If ChCs are more strongly driven by locomotion and arousal, then it's a bit counterintuitive that at the beginning of the visual corridor when locomotion speed consistently increases, the activity of ChCs consistently decreases. This does not appear to be driven by suppression by visual stimuli as it is present also in the first and last 20cm of the tunnel where there are no visual stimuli. How do the authors explain this?

We do believe that this is suppression driven by visual stimuli. Although on average the strongest visual suppression happens between 20-80 cm, neurons that have their receptive fields toward the center of the visual field will already respond to the stimuli before the mouse reaches the 20 cm location of the tunnel. In addition, although the visual stimuli are the strongest sensory inputs, the background of the visual part of the tunnel has a black and white noise patern, which might already mildly suppress ChC activity. Both arguments are supported by the observation that the visual PyCs (V-PyCs, blue line) in Fig. 4D are already activated at the beginning of the tunnel and that the activity of V-PyCs matches well with the suppression of ChC activity.

9) The authors mention that "ChC responses underwent sensory-evoked plasticity during the repeated visual exposure, even though the visual stimuli were different from those encountered during training in the virtual tunnel". How would this work? And would this mean all visual responses are reduced? What is special about the visual experience in the virtual tunnel? It does not inherently differ from visual experience in the home cage, given that the test stimuli (full field gratings) are different from both.

As mentioned in our answer to point 1, the exposure to visual stimuli is strongly increased since, firstly, they are presented during the dark phase when the mice are most active and, secondly, they do not get these types of visual inputs in their home cage.

10) Just as a point to consider for future experiments: For the open-loop control experiments, the visual flow is constant (20cm/s) - ideally, this would be a replay of the running speed the mouse previously generated to match statistics.

We agree with this point and will implement replay of earlier sessions in future experiments.

11) We would recommend specifying the parameters used for neuropil correction in the methods section.

This is described on page 24, under “preprocessing”. We also refer to the analysis package (Spectral Segmentation - SpecSeg) in which the neuropil correction as used by us here is explained in more detail.

12) If we understand correctly, the F0 used for the dF/F calculation is different from that used for division. Why is this?

We apologize for this mistake, which was based on an older version of the software. We have now corrected this in the revised manuscript.

13) Authors compare neuronal responses using "baseline-corrected average". Please specify the parameters of the baseline correction (i.e. what is used as baseline here).

In the revised version we have now beter explained this in the methods, page 24, under “Passive Sessions”.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Seignete et al. investigated the potential roles of axo-axonic (chandelier) cells (ChCs) in a sensory system, namely visual processing. As introduced by the authors, the axo-axonic cell type has remained (and still is) somehow mysterious in its function. Seignete and colleagues leveraged the development of a transgenic mouse line selective for ChC, and applied a very wide range of techniques: transsynaptic rabies tracing, optogenetic input activation, in vitro electrophysiology, 2-photon recording in vivo, behavior and chemogenetic manipulations, to precisely determine the contribution of ChCs to the primary visual cortex network.

The main findings are 1) the identification of synaptic inputs to ChC, with a majority of local, deep layer principal neurons (PN), 2) the demonstration that ChC is strongly and synchronously activated by visual stimuli with low specificity in naive animals, 3) the recruitment of ChC by arousal/visuomotor mismatch, 4) the induction of functional and structural plasticity at the ChC-PN module, and, 5) the weak disinhibition of PNs induced by ChCs silencing. All these findings are strongly supported by experimental data and thoroughly compared to available evidence.

Strengths:

This article reports an impressive range of very demanding experiments, which were well executed and analyzed, and are presented in a very clear and balanced manner. Moreover, the manuscript is well- writen throughout, making it appealing to future readers. It has also been a pleasure to review this article.

In sum, this is an impressive study and an excellent manuscript, that presents no major flaws.

Notably, this study is one of the first studies to report on the activities and potential roles of axo-axonic cells in an active, integrated brain process, beyond locomotion as reported and published in V1. This type of research was much awaited in the fields of interneuron and vision research.

Weaknesses:

There are no fundamental weaknesses; the later mainly concern the presentation of the main results. The main weakness may be that the different sections appear somehow disconnected conceptually.

Additionally, some parts deserve a more in-depth clarification/simplification of concepts and analytic methods for scientists outside the subfield of V1 research. Indeed, this paper will be of key interest to researchers of various backgrounds.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors set out to characterize the anatomical connectivity profile and the functional responses of chandelier cells (ChCs) in the mouse primary visual cortex. Using retrograde rabies tracing, optogenetics, and in vitro electrophysiology, they found that the primary source of input to ChCs are local layer 5 pyramidal cells, as well as long-range thalamic and cortical connections. ChCs provided input to local layer 2/3 pyramidal neurons, but did not receive reciprocal connections.

With two-photon calcium imaging recordings during passive viewing of drifting gratings, the authors showed that ChCs exhibit weakly selective visual responses, high correlations within their own population, and strong responses during periods of arousal (assessed by locomotion and pupil size). These results were replicated and extended in experiments with natural images and prediction of receptive field structure using a convolutional neural network.

Furthermore, the authors employed a learned visuomotor task in a virtual corridor to show that ChCs exhibit strong responses to mismatches between visual flow and locomotion, locomotion-related activation (similar to what was shown above), and visually-evoked suppression. They also showed the existence of two clusters of pyramidal neurons with functionally different responses - a cluster with "classically visual" responses and a cluster with locomotion- and mismatch-driven responses (the later more correlated with ChCs). Comparing naive and trained mice, the authors found that visual responses of ChCs are suppressed following task learning, accompanied by a shortening of the axon initial segment (AIS) of pyramidal cells and an increase in the proportion of AIS contacted by ChCs. However, additional controls would be required to identify which component(s) of the experimental paradigm led to the functional and anatomical changes observed.

Finally, using a chemogenetic inactivation of ChCs, the authors propose weak connectivity to pyramidal cells (due to small effects in pyramidal cell activity). However, these results are not unequivocally supported, as the baseline activity of ChCs before inactivation is considerably lower, suggesting a potentially confounding homeostatic plasticity mechanism might already be operating.

Strengths:

The authors bring a comprehensive, state-of-the-art methodology to bear, including rabies tracing, in vivo two-photon calcium imaging, in vitro electrophysiology, optogenetics and chemogenetics, and deep neural networks. Their analyses and statistical tests are sound and for the most part, support their claims. Their results are in line with previous findings and extend them to the primary visual cortex.

Weaknesses:

• Some of the results (e.g. arousal-related responses) are not entirely surprising given that similar results exist in other cortical areas.

We agree that previous studies have shown arousal-related responses of ChC cells and our study confirms those findings. However, this is not the main message of the article and we present many findings that are novel.

• Control analyses regarding locomotion paterns before and atier learning the task (Figure 5), and additional control experiments to identify whether functional and anatomical changes following task learning were due to learning, repeated visual exposure, exposure to reward, or visuomotor experience would strengthen the claims made.

In figure 5 we excluded running trials, so locomotion paterns are unlikely to play a major role. We agree that testing what are the factors that contribute to the observed plasticity are important to investigate in future experiments.

• The strength of the results of the chemogenetics experiment is impacted by the lower baseline activity of ChCs that express the KORD receptor. At present, it is not possible to exclude the presence of homeostatic plasticity in the network before the inactivation takes place.

Although we do not know why there is a difference in the baseline df/f (e.g. expression levels), we consider it unlikely that expression of the KORD receptor itself without exposure to the ligand causes reduction of ChC activity. Moreover, we are not sure how homeostatic plasticity in the network would occur selectively in KORD-expressing ChCs. Finally, we do not find evidence for a relationship between lower ChC calcium signals and the effects of ChC silencing on PyC activity. We performed an additional analysis in which we correlated baseline ChC activity (before salvinorin B injection) with the effect of ChC silencing on PyC activity (post – pre) across mice, and found that this correlation was not significant (R = 0.41, p = 0.18).

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

In the spirit of openness of the scientific discussion, all our feedback and recommendations to the authors are included in the public reviews.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Most of my comments and suggestions concern the presentation of the data, to (hopefully) help and convey as clearly as possible the messages of this important article.

Main

The main weakness of the paper may be that the different sections appear somehow disconnected conceptually. This is particularly true for:

-structural plasticity: how can we link this finding with the rest of the study? Are there ways to correlate this finding with physiological recordings in individual animals, or to directly test whether particular functional types of PNs (visual, non-visual) undergo plasticity at their AIS?

This is a very interesting question that may be addressed in future experiments.

-the indirect finding suggesting that ChC weakly inhibits PNs using chemogenetic silencing of PNs. Do chemogenetic manipulations of ChCs affect PN responses in visual paradigm and/or modify the induction of structural plasticity at the ChC-AIS connection?

This is also a very interesting question for future work.

Additionally, some parts would deserve a more in-depth clarification/simplification of concepts and analytic methods (OSI, DSI, MEI...) for scientists outside the subfield of V1 research. Indeed, this paper will be of key interest to researchers of various backgrounds.

In the revised manuscript we briefly explain what an MEI is when first introduced, and introduce the abbreviations OSI and DSI at the correct location. We believe orientation and direction selectivity are well-known concepts for the audience reading this article.

Minor

These are discussed by order of appearance in the text.

Abstract

The alternative interpretation of error/mismatch negativity to explain ChC activation deserves to appear in the abstract. Arousal consistency in prediction should be in the introduction. "In mice running in a virtual tunnel, ChCs respond strongly to locomotion and halting visual flow, suggesting arousal-related activity."

This comment holds for the end of the introduction and the beginning of the discussion, as well.

"These findings suggest that ChCs provide an arousal-related signal to layer 2/3 pyramidal cells that may modulate their activity". This statement appears to be in contradiction with the weak effect mentioned just before. This comment holds for the end of the introduction.

The full sentence was: “These findings suggest that ChCs provide an arousal-related signal to layer 2/3 pyramidal cells that may modulate their activity and/or gate plasticity of L2/3 PyCs in V1.” Our results show that activity of layer 2/3 pyramidal cells is modulated (albeit weakly) and it is well possible that ChCs regulate plasticity at the AIS. Therefore, we do not believe that this statement contradicts the weak direct effect of ChCs on layer 2/3 pyramidal cell activity. Therefore , we think that this statement does not contradict the weak direct effect of ChCs on layer 2/3 pyramidal cell activity.

We changed the last sentence of the introduction to “Our findings suggest that ChCs predominantly respond to arousal related to locomotion or unexpected events/stimuli, and act to weakly modulate activity and/or gate plasticity of L2/3 PyCs in V1.”

Introduction First paragraph

Coming from a field outside of vision research, it is not obvious to me what has been learned from interneuron classes in the past. An example would be welcome in the introduction.

The literature on the role of different interneuron types in visual processing and plasticity is too large to pick one or two examples. For the sake of conciseness, we have therefore provided some important references and reviews for the interested readers (references 1 to 10).

Interneuron "subtypes" seem to refer to main classes (e.g. PV+): please rephrase accordingly (ChC being a type and PV+ ChC a subtype).

We changed interneuron “subtypes” to “types” and left L2/3 pyramidal cell “subtypes” unchanged.

Second paragraph

Beyond the reversal potential of GABA-ARs at the axon initial segment, GABA may inhibit action potential generation in various conditions (Lipkin et al. 2023, DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0605-23.2023 : should be cited).

We added this citation.

Fourth paragraph

"ChCs alter the number of synapses at the AIS based on the activity of their postsynaptic targets": the concept of alteration is too vague to let the reader grasp the concept: could the authors rephrase?

We have rephrased the sentence to:

“…ChCs increase the number of synapses at the AIS if their postsynaptic targets are chemogenetically activated…”

Results 1) ChCs receive input from long-range sources and L5 PyCs in V1 It is not clear how morphological identification of ChC was performed. Did dendrites and/or axons of starter cells occasionally overlap as can be expected, complicating the cell-by-cell morphological classification?

"Most labeled neurons were located on the border between L1 and L2/3 and displayed typical ChC morphology": maybe clarify that this concerns neurons expressing eYFP-TVA?

We assessed the location (at the border of L1 and L2) and spatial distribution of the labeled cells and whether they had a dendrite extending upwards towards into L1. We have now indicated this in the results section and clarified that these neurons express eYFP-TVA.

-Likewise the following would benefit from clarification " This is further supported by the distributed localization of the labeled neurons": it would also help here to remind the reader of the labelling (presumably retrogradely-labeled mCherrry+ neurons).

We have now clarified in the text that these are mCherry+ neurons labeled by the rabies virus

2) Chandelier cells are modulated by arousal and show high correlations

-The authors indicate that the results "(suggest) that ChCs distribute a synchronized signal during high arousal." : it would be stronger to defend this claim by showing a higher ChC-ChC correlation during "arousal" vs. baseline (i.e. analyze high arousal epochs outside of movement). It may be difficult to perform this analysis due to low fluorescence changes outside running episodes, but this should be discussed accordingly. In this respect, the title of the section is more in line with the data presented.

We believe our statement is correct. The activity of ChCs is highly synchronized and their firing rates increase during arousal. We do not state that synchronization increases with arousal.

-A brief explanation of DSI and OSI meaning would be nice for the audience that will definitely extend beyond vision research given the importance of this study.

See above

3) ChCs are weakly selective to visual information

-I may very well miss the point, but the equivalence in response strength among cell classes (Fig3B) seems inconsistent with the wider distribution of high response strength in ChCs (Fig3C). Perhaps a graphical representation taking into account the distribution of single data points in Fig3B would help resolve this discrepancy.

This is because in panel C the response strengths are normalized. We now also state this in the legend to avoid confusion.

-"clearly oriented edge-like paterns with sharp ON and OFF regions": it would help if a representative example was highlighted in Figure 3F.

The majority of L2/3 pyramidal MEIs presented in this panel show this patern.

-It is interesting and surprising that properties of ChCs appear more distinct from those of L5 PNs than from those of L2-3 PNs (Fig 3G-J), given the fact that V1 ChCs were found by the authors to derive their inputs from V1 L5 PNs (please see comments of the discussion for this specific point).

How ChCs respond based on L5 input depends strongly on how the connections between L5 and ChCs are organized. Similarity between responses of L5 and ChC neurons is not required.

4) Locomotion and visuomotor mismatch drive chandelier cell activity in a virtual tunnel This is the least convincing part in terms of presentation.

-It is unclear where/when visuomotor mismatch has been induced in the tunnel: please clarify in the text and in Fig 4B.

We realized that the title of the paragraphs was indeed confusing. In fig. 4A-D and the first paragraph about the virtual tunnel, we do not discuss the visuomotor mismatch. This comes later, when we describe the results in Fig. 4E. The titles have been changed.

-No result on visuomotor mismatch is reported in the text of this section, while this is presented in the subsequent section: this needs to be corrected (merge this section with the next?).

We agree, apologies for the confusion. See above.

-It would be interesting to further analyze responses to CS and US. Regarding the US: is water rewarding in non-water-restricted mice? This should be mentioned.

We realized that we did not mention that the mice were water restricted during behavioral training and during the imaging sessions when mice performed the virtual tunnel task. We have now added this to the methods section. Sorry for the omission.

-Along this line: was water sometimes omited? This would provide a complementary way to test the prediction error theory for ChC activation with an alternative modality.

We never omited the water reward. It would be interesting to test this in a future experiment.

5) ChCs have similar response properties as non-visual PyCs

• It would help to explicitly mention that in Ai65 mice, only Cre and Flp+ cells express tdTomato (here Vipr2 and PV+).

We added the following sentence: “In these mice, tdTomato was only expressed in cells expressing both Vipr2 and PV.”

6) Visuomotor experience in the virtual tunnel induces plasticity of ChC-AIS connectivity

• In relation to the previous section, Jung et al. (doi.org/10.1038/s41593-023-01380-x) recently reported that motor learning reduced ChC-ChC synchrony in M2. Did the author observe a similar change in ChC- ChC synchrony with visual experience/habituation to the task? If available, these data should be reported to help build a clearer picture of ChC functions in the neocortex.

We tested this and also found reduced correlations between ChCs in trained mice vs naïve mice. We added this as text on p14 in the results section.

• The low number of ChC boutons' appositions per AIS may be misleading: "While the average number of ChC boutons per AIS remained constant (~2-3 ChC boutons/AIS)"). It would be helpful to make it clear that these are "virally" labelled boutons, as opposed to absolute numbers, if compared with the detailed quantification of Schneider-Mizell et al, 2021 (7.4 boutons per AIS in average; doi: 10.7554/eLife.73783.).

We added "virally labeled"

• It may be difficult to clearly isolate boutons in light microscopic images of ChC boutons. could the authors comment on this and explain how they solved this issue (in the methods section for instance)?

We elaborated on our definition of a bouton under confocal microscopy conditions. We also added that the analysis was performed under blinded conditions for the experimenter (i.e. the experimenter did not know whether the images came from trained or untrained mice).

• Is there any suggestion for heterogeneity/selectivity for a subset of PNs (the distribution does not seem to show this, though)? It would be interesting to discuss this and try to link this finding to the rest of the study a bit more directly. Future work could also investigate if genetically defined PN types undergo different pre-synaptic plasticity at their AISs (e.g. work cited by the authors by O'Toole et al, 2023 doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2023.08.015 -this reference can be updated as well, since the work has been published in the meantime).

In our data, we did not find evidence for heterogeneity or selectivity of targeting, also not in the physiology using KORD (see below). We do agree that it is an interesting question and deserves atention in future experiments. We also updated the reference.

7) ChCs weakly inhibit PyC activity independent of locomotion speed

The authors state that "recent work in adult mice has reported hyperpolarizing and shunting effects in prelimbic cortex, S1 and hippocampus (18, 26, 27)": however, to my knowledge studies presented in refs 26 & 27 found reduced activity/firing of PNs upon optogenetic activation of ChCs in vivo, but did not perform intracellular recordings to assess GABA-A reversal potential at the AIS. I would like to kindly ask the authors to correct this sentence.

If the polarity of responses is discussed, they may rather refer to the corresponding literature including Rinetti Vargas et al (doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2017.06.030), Lipkin et al (doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0605- 23.2023), and Khirug et al (doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0908-08.2008.).

We added the reference to Lipkin et al and changed the sentence so that it matches the references..

• In an atempt to link findings from several parts of the article, did the authors investigate whether chemogenetic effects were different in visual vs non-visual PNs? As ChCs are functionally related to visual PNs, one might indeed speculate that these cells are synaptically connected.

We did not find evidence for selectivity in the chemogenetic effect. We compared the chemogenetic effect to locomotion modulation (see text accompanying Fig 7.) – based on our observation that non- visual PyCs were more strongly modulated by locomotion (see Fig. 4) – but did not find any significant correlation.

• " We first looked at the average activity of neurons in both essions.": sessions

Thank you for noticing. We corrected this.

Discussion

Summary of findings

-It would be worthwhile to include in the summary the finding of mismatch-related activity, that appears to explain more convincingly ChC activation than arousal per se (with the data available).

We updated the summary of the discussion accordingly.

-Moreover, the last part of the article (weak inhibition of PNs by ChCs), despite being very important, is not mentioned.

We now mention this in the summary of the discussion (“Finally, ChCs only weakly inhibit PyCs.”)

Discussion of findings

-" Optogenetic activation of cortical feedback": it is not clear what the authors mean by cortical feedback. As RS was retrogradely labeled, this region may rather provide feedforward inhibition to V1 via ChCs.

Retrosplenial cortex is a higher order cortical area and only provides feedback to V1.

-"This means that each ChC receives input from many L5 PyCs, which could explain the low selectivity of ChC responses we observed to natural images compared to those of L2/3 and L5 PyCs". : perhaps state explicitly that the convergence of many PN inputs each carrying different RF/visual properties "averages out" in ChC (as you do a few lines below for MEI).

At this point, we do not know how the connections from L5 to ChCs are organized. Whether this converge results in “average out” is therefore not so certain. We have made an atempt to clarify the situation. (“This convergence of L5 PyC inputs, if not strongly organized, could explain the low selectivity of ChC responses we observed to natural images compared to those of L2/3 and L5 PyCs.”)

-"However, we did not identify neuromodulatory inputs to ChCs in our rabies tracing experiment. Possibly, these inputs act predominantly through extrasynaptic receptors and were therefore not labeled by the transsynaptic rabies approach.": here, the authors should cite the work by Lu et al (doi: 10.1038/nn.4624) which found basal forebrain (diagonal band of Broca) cholinergic inputs to ChC of the PFC in the Nkx2.1CreER mouse model. Moreover, the authors should discuss potential technical differences (?) responsible for this discrepancy. Beyond the extrasynaptic release of neuromodulators, rabies strains may display different tropism profiles for neuron classes.

We have now added a sentence discussing this and added the reference in the revised manuscript.

-The section dedicated to prediction error is particularly interesting and relevant. In my opinion, this interpretation should be further emphasized in the abstract and summary of findings paragraph in the discussion (as already indicated).

Yes, we agree and have added some emphasis.

-" These findings are thus in contrast with the general notion that ChCs exert powerful control over PyC output (28, 78), but consistent with computational simulations predicting a relatively small inhibitory effect of GABAergic innervation of the AIS, possibly involving shunting inhibition (79, 80)." These findings are also consistent with results from PFC and dCA1 studies showing, with electrophysiological recordings combined with optogenetic stimulation of ChCs, that a small proportion of putative PNs was inhibited upon ChC stimulation (doi: 10.1038/nn.4624 doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2021.09.033).

Perhaps the effect of ChCs is limited in all these experiments by a suboptimal efficiency of ChC targeting. Moreover, inhibition might be restricted to a subset of PNs carrying a specific function. This could be discussed.

We added an explanation for the weak effects of silencing to the discussion and stated that our results are in line with findings in PFC and CA1. (“One explanation for the weak effects we observed is the high variability in the number of GABAergic boutons that PyCs receive at their AISs. Possibly, only a smaller fraction of PyCs with high numbers of AIS synapses are inhibited when ChCs are active. Indeed, we find that only a small fraction of PyCs increased their activity upon chemogenetic silencing of ChCs, in line with findings by others showing that manipulating ChC activity in vivo has relatively weak effects on small populations of PyCs (27, 28).”)

Although we cannot rule out that ChC targeting is suboptimal in our and other experiments, the expression of the KORD receptor as visualized by mCyRFP1 fluorescence appeared very strong. In addition, the common notion in the ChC field is that ChCs exert powerful control over PyC firing. Even suboptimal labeling should in that case show clear inhibitory effects. Similar experiments with PV+ interneurons would show very convincing inhibition, even if labeling is suboptimal. To keep the discussion concise, we prefer to leave this particular point out.

-" ChC activation could prevent homeostatic AIS shortening of L2/3 PyCs if their activity occurs during behaviorally relevant, arousal inducing events": this postulate seems to be very interesting but is not very clear and lacks some mechanistic speculation.

We considered elaborating more on this hypothesis. However – given that it is merely a speculation at this point – we do not wish to lengthen the discussion further on this point.

• A reference to previous studies demonstrating high levels of synchronous ChC activities is missing: the authors may cite Dudok et al., Schneider-Mizell et al., and Jung et al. (and discuss a change in synchrony with learning or habituation in the case of this study; see above).

We have now also referred to these papers in the context of high correlations between ChCs.

Methods

Beyond references to reagents (eg antibodies, viruses), lot numbers should be provided whenever this is possible. Indeed, there might be strong lot-to-lot variations in specificity and efficiency.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Major:

• (Figure 5) Control analysis missing. Mice before and after training in VR will almost definitely exhibit different running paterns when viewing driftng gratings. Since ChCs are strongly modulated by locomotion, assess whether results depend on changes in running.

Although we did not compare locomotion paterns before and after training, we removed all trials in which the mice were running (see methods). Therefore, we can exclude that these results are caused by changes in running behavior.

• (Figure 5 & 6) What would happen with simple passive visual experience, not in a visuomotor task? What if there was no reward? What if there was an open-loop experiment with random reward? To which specific aspect of the experiment are the results atributable?

These are indeed very interesting questions that may be tested in future experiments.

(Figure 7 B, H) The pre-injection ChC activity in the KORD group is less than 50% of that in control mice! Discuss the effect of such a shift in baseline. Plasticity of PyCs even before ChC inactivation?

See answer to the above question in the public section of reviewer 3.

• (Figure 3 H) Contrast tuning results, as far as I understand, come only from the CNN. However, if I understood correctly, during the passive viewing of gratings there were already different contrasts. Why not show contrast tuning there? Do the results disagree?

We did indeed show stimuli at different contrasts during the passive viewing of gratings. Although the results from those recordings were not optimal for defining contrast sensitivity, they also showed that ChC responses were less modulated by contrast than PyCs.

Minor: - (Figure 3) Explain the potential impact of different indicators 8m vs 6f due to different baselines and dynamics.

We believe there is no impact of different indicators, because for the CNN analyses we estimated spikes using CASCADE. This toolbox is specifically designed to generalize across different calcium indicators. Although GCaMP8m was not included in their training set, the wide variety of indicators used provides a solid basis for generalizable spike estimation. Importantly, comparisons between L2/3 PyCs and ChCs also would not be affected by this concern.

• (Figure 4) NV-PyCs. Would you call all of these mismatch-responsive neurons? Discuss the difference in the percentage of neurons (more than 50% of total PyCs here, compared to significantly less - up to 40% in previous studies, as far as I'm aware)

Not all NV-PyCs appeared to be mismatch-responsive neurons.

• (Figure 6 D) No error bars?

This is a representation of the fraction of all contacted AISs, which has no error bars indeed.

• (Figure 6 E-F and H-I) These pairs of panels contain essentially the same information. The first panel of each pair seems redundant.

We prefer to keep both plots in place, as in this case the skewness of the histogram can be helpful, which is less clear in the boxplot (which in itself displays the quantiles beter).

• The equation for direction tuning still has ang_ori, instead of ang_dir which I'm assuming should be there.

Thank you for noticing, we corrected it.

• The response for drifting gratings is calculated from a different interval (0.2-1.2s) compared to natural images (0-0.5s). Why?

Because we used spike probability in the case of the natural images to shorten the signal, and the visual stimuli were presented for 0.5 s (instead of 1 s as with the gratings).

Very minor:

• It would be helpful for equations to have numbers.

Done

• Sparsity equation. Beter to have it as a general equation, with N instead of 40. Then below it can be explained that N is the number of images = 40.

Done

• "The similarity of these MEIs with those we found for ChCs is in line with the idea that ChCs are driven by input from a large number of L5 PyCs (but do not exclude alternative explanations)." - in parenthesis it should be does not exclude.

Corrected.

• "In contrast, the response strength of PyCs was only mildly and non-significantly reduced after training"

• statistically non-significant..

Corrected.

"We first looked at the average activity of neurons in both essions." - sessions

Corrected.

• (Figure 7 C) Explain what points and error bars represent

Done.

Author Response

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this paper, the authors develop new models of sequential effects in a simple Bernoulli learning task. In particular, the authors show evidence for both a "precision-cost" model (precise posteriors are costly) and an "unpredictabilitycost" model (expectations of unpredictable outcomes are costly). Detailed analyses of experimental data partially support the model predictions.

Strengths:

• Well-written and clear.

• Addresses a long-standing empirical puzzle.

• Rigorous modeling.

Weaknesses:

• No model adequately explains all of the data.

• New empirical dataset is somewhat incremental.

• Aspects of the modeling appear weakly motivated (particularly the unpredictability model).

• Missing discussion of some relevant literature.

We thank Reviewer #1 for her/his positive comments on our work and her/his comments and suggestions.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This paper argues for an explanation of sequential effects in prediction based on the computational cost of representing probability distributions. This argument is made by contrasting two cost-based models with several other models in accounting for first- and second-order dependencies in people's choices. The empirical and modeling work is well done, and the results are compelling.

We thank Reviewer #2 for her/his positive comments on our work.

The main weaknesses of the paper are as follows:

1) The main argument is against accounts of dependency based on sensitivity to statistics (ie. modeling the timeseries as having dependencies it doesn't have). However, such models are not included in the model comparison, which makes it difficult to compare these hypotheses.

Many models in the sequential-effects literature (Refs. [7-12] in the manuscript) are ‘leaky-integration’ models that interpret sequential effects as resulting from an attempt to learn the statistics of a sequence of stimuli, through exponentiallydecaying counts of the simple patterns in the sequence (e.g., single stimuli, repetitions, and alternations). In some studies, the ‘forgetting’ of remote observations that results from the exponential decay is justified by the fact that people live in environments that are usually changing: it is thus natural that they should expect that the statistics underlying the task’s stimuli undergo changes (although in most experiments, they do not), and if they expect changes, then they should discard old observations that are not anymore relevant. This theoretical justification raises the question as to why subjects do not seem to learn that the generative parameters in these tasks are in fact not changing — all the more as other studies suggest that subjects are able to learn the statistics of changes (and consistently they are able to adapt their inference) when the environment does undergo changes (Refs. [42,57]).

Our models are derived from a different approach: we derive behavior from the resolution of a problem of constrained optimization of the inference process. It is not a phenomenological model. When the constraint that weighs on the inference process is a cost on the precision of the posterior, as measured by its entropy, we find that the resulting posterior is one in which remote observations are ‘forgotten’, through an exponentially discount, i.e., we recover the predictions of the leaky-integration models, which past studies have empirically found to be reasonably good accounts of sequential effects. (Thus these models are already in our model comparison.) In our framework, the sequential effects do not stem from the subjects’ irrevocable belief that the statistics of the stimuli change from time to time, but rather from the difficulty that they have in representing precise belief; a rather different theoretical justification.

Furthermore, we show that a large fraction of subjects are not best-fitted by precision-cost models (i.e., they are not best-fitted by leaky integration), but instead they are best fitted by unpredictability-cost models. These models suggest a different explanation of sequential effects: that they result from the subjects favoring predictable environments, in their inference. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have made clearer that the derivation of the optimal posterior under a precision cost results in the exponential forgetting of remote observations, as in the leaky-integration models. We mention it in the abstract, in the Introduction (l. 76-78), in the Results when presenting the precision-cost models (l. 264-278), and in the Discussion (l.706-716).

2) The task is not incentivized in any way. Since incentives are known to affect probability-matching behaviors, this seems important. In particular, we might expect incentives would trade off against computational costs - people should increase the precision of their representations if it generates more reward.

We thank Reviewer #2 for her/his attention to our paper and for her/his comments. As for the point on the models, see answer above (point 1).

As for the point on incentivization: we agree that it would be very interesting to measure whether and to which extent the performance of subjects increases with the level of incentivization. Here, however, we wanted, first, to establish that subjects’ behavior could be understood as resulting from inference under a cost, and second, to examine the sensitivity of their predictions to the underlying generative probability — rather than to manipulating a tradeoff involving this cost (e.g. with financial reward). We note that we do find that subjects are sensitive to the generative probability, which implies that they exhibit some degree of motivation to put some effort in the task (which is the goal of incentivization), in spite of the lack of economic incentives. But it would indeed be interesting to know how the potential sensitivity to reward interacts with the sensitivity to the generative probability. Furthermore, as Reviewer #2 mentions, some studies show that incentives affect probability-matching behavior: it is then unclear whether the introduction of incentives in our task would change the inference of subjects (through a modification of the optimal trade-off that we model); or whether it would change their probability-matching behavior, as modeled by our generalized probability-matching response-selection strategy; or both. Note that we disentangled both aspects in our modeling and that our conclusions are about the inference, not the response-selection strategy. We deem the incentivization effects very much worth investigating; but they fall outside of the scope of our paper.

We now mention this point in the Discussion of the revised manuscript (l. 828-840).

3) The sample size is relatively small (20 participants). Even though a relatively large amount of data is collected from each participant, this does make it more difficult to evaluate the second-order dependencies in particular (Figure 6), where there are large error bars and the current analysis uses a threshold of p < .05 across a large number of tests hence creating a high false-discovery risk.

Indeed we agree with Reviewer #2 that as the number of tests increases, so does the probability that at least one null hypothesis is rejected at a given level, even if the null hypothesis is correct. But in the panels a, b and c of Figure 6, about half of the tests are rejected, which is very unlikely under the null hypothesis that there is no effect of the stimulus history on the prediction, all the more as the signs of the non-significant results are in most cases consistent with the direction of the significant results. (In panel e, which reports a finer analysis in which the number of subjects is essentially divided by 2, about a fourth of the tests are rejected, and here also the non-significant results are almost all in the same direction as the significant ones.)

However, we agree that there remains a risk of false discovery, thus we applied a Bonferroni-Holm-Šidák correction to the p-values in order to mitigate this risk. With these more conservative p-values, a lower number of tests are rejected, but in most cases in Fig. 6abc the effects remain significant. In particular, we are confident that there is a repulsive effect of the third-to-last stimulus in the case of Fig. 6c, while there is an attractive effect in the other cases.

In the revised manuscript, Figure 6 now reports whether the tests are rejected when the p-values are corrected with the Bonferroni-Holm-Šidák correction.

(We also applied this correction to the p-values of the tests in Fig. 2, which has more data: the corrected p-values are all below 1e-13, which we now indicate in the caption of this figure.)

4) In the key analyses in Figure 4, we see model predictions averaged across participants. This can be misleading, as the average of many models can produce behavior outside the class of functions the models themselves can generate. It would be helpful to see the distribution of raw model predictions (ideally compared against individual data from humans). Minimally, showing predictions from representative models in each class would provide insight into where specific models are getting things right and wrong, which is not apparent from the model comparison.

In the main text of the original manuscript, we showed the behavior of the pooled responses of the best-fitting models, and we agree with Reviewer #2 that it did not make clear to the reader that the apparent ability of the models to reproduce the subjects’ behavioral patterns was not a misleading byproduct of the averaging of different models. In the original version of the manuscript, we had put a figure showing the behavior of each individual model (each cost type with each Markov order) in the Methods section of the paper; but this could easily be overlooked, and indeed it would be beneficial for the reader to be shown the typical behaviors of the models, in the main text. We have reorganized the presentation of the models’ behaviors: the first panels in Fig. 4 (in the main text) are now dedicated to showing the individual sequential effects of the precision-cost and of the unpredictabilitycost models with Markov order 0 and 1. The Figure 4 is reproduced in the response to Reviewer #1, above, along with comments on the sequential effects produced by these models (and also on the impact of the generalized probability-matching response-selection strategy, in comparison with the traditional probability matching). We believe that this figure makes clearer how the individual models are able to reproduce the patterns in subjects’ predictions — in particular it shows that this ability of the models is not just an artifact of the averaging of many models, as was the legitimate concern of Reviewer #2. We have left the illustration of the firstorder sequential effects of the other models (with Markov order 2 and 3) in the Methods section (Fig. 7), so as not to overload Fig. 4, and because they do not bring new critical conceptual points.

As for the higher-order sequential effects, the updated Figure 5, also reproduced above in the responses to Reviewer #1, now includes the sequential effects obtained with the precision-cost model of a Bernoulli observer (m=0), in addition to the precision-cost model of a Markov observer (m=1) and to the unpredictabilitycost model of a Markov observer (m=3), in order to better illustrate the behaviors of the different models. The higher-order sequential effects of the other models can be found in Fig. 8 in Methods.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This manuscript offers a novel account of history biases in perceptual decisions in terms of bounded rationality, more specifically in terms of finite resources strategy. Bridging two works of literature on the suboptimalities of human decision-making (cognitive biases and bounded rationality) is very valuable per se; the theoretical framework is well derived, building upon the authors' previous work; and the choice of experiment and analysis to test their hypothesis is adequate. However, I do have important concerns regarding the work that do not enable me to fully grasp the impact of the work. Most importantly, I am not sure whether the hypothesis whereby inference is biased towards avoiding high precision posterior is equivalent or not to the standard hypothesis that inference "leaks" across time due to the belief that the environment is not stationary. This and other important issues are detailed below. I also think that the clarity and architecture of the manuscript could be greatly improved.

We thank Reviewer #3 for her/his positive comments on our work and her/his comments and suggestions.

1) At this point it remains unclear what is the relationship between the finite resources hypothesis (the only bounded rationality hypothesis supported by the data) and more standard accounts of historical effects in terms of adaptation to a (believed to be) changing environment. The Discussion suggests that the two approaches are similar (if not identical) at the algorithmic level: in one case, the posterior belief is stretched (compared to the Bayesian observer for stationary environments) due to precision cost, in other because of possible changes in the environment. Are the two formalisms equivalent? Or could the two accounts provide dissociable predictions for a different task? In other words, if the finite resources hypothesis is not meant to be taken as brain circuits explicitly minimizing the cost (as stated by the authors), and if it produces the same type of behavior as more classical accounts: is the hypothesis testable experimentally?

We agree with Reviewer #3 that the relation between our approach and other approaches in the literature should be made clearer to the reader.

Since the 1990s, in the psychology and neuroscience literature, many models of perception and decision-making have featured an exponential decay of past observations, resulting in an emphasis, in decisions, of the more recent evidence (‘leaky integration’, Refs. [7-12, 76-86]). In the context of sequential effects, this mechanism has found a theoretical justification in the idea that people believe that statistics typically change, and thus that remote observations should indeed be discarded [8,12]. In inference tasks with binary signals, in which the optimal Bayesian posterior is in many cases a Beta distribution whose two parameters are the counts of the two signals, one way to conveniently incorporate a forgetting mechanism is to replace these counts with exponentially-filtered counts, in which more recent observations have more weight (e.g., Ref. [12]).

Our approach to sequential effects is not grounded in the history of leakyintegration models: we assume, first, that subjects attempt at learning the statistics of the signals presented to them (this is also the assumption in many studies [712]), and second, that their inference is subject to a cost, which prevents them from reaching the optimal, Bayesian posterior; but under the constraint of this cost, they choose the optimal posterior. We formalize this as a problem of constrained optimization.

The two formalisms are thus not equivalent. Beyond the fact that we clearly state the problem which we assume the brain is solving, we do not propose that the origin of sequential effects resides in an adaptation to putatively changing environments: instead, we assume that they originate in a cognitive cost internal to the decision-maker. If this cost is proportional to the entropy of the posterior, as in our precision cost, then the optimal approximate posterior is one in which remote observations are ‘forgotten’ through an exponential filter, as in the leakyintegration models. In other words, in the context of this task and with this kind of cost, the models are, as Reviewer #3 writes, identical at the algorithmic level. As for the unpredictability cost, it does not result in a solution that resembles leaky integration; about half the subjects, however, are best fitted by unpredictabilitycost models. We thus provide a different rationale for sequential effects — that the brain favors predictive environment, in its inference — and this alternative account is successful in capturing the behavior of a large fraction of the subjects.

In the revised manuscript, we now clarify that the precision cost results in leaky integration, in the abstract, in the Introduction (l. 76-78), in our presentation of the precision-cost models (Results section, l. 264-275), and in the Discussion (l. 706716). (We also refer Reviewer #3 to our response to the first comment of Reviewer #2, above.)

Finally, Reviewer #3 asks the interesting question as to whether the “two accounts provide dissociable predictions for a different task”. Given that the leakyintegration approach is justified by an adaptation to potential changes, and our approach relies on the hypothesis that precision in beliefs is costly, one way to disentangle the two would be to eliminate the sequential nature of the task and presenting instead observations simultaneously. This would eliminate the mere notion of change across time. In this case, the leaky account would predict that subjects’ inference becomes optimal (because the leak should disappear in the absence of change), while in the second approach the precision cost would still weigh on the inference, and result in approximate posteriors that are “wider” (less precise) than the optimal one. The resulting divergence in the predictions of these models is very interesting, but out of the scope of this study on sequential effects.

2) The current analysis of history effects may be confounded by effects of the motor responses (independently from the correct response), e.g. a tendency to repeat motor responses instead of (or on top of) tracking the distribution of stimuli.

We thank Reviewer #3 for pointing out the possibility that subjects may have a tendency to repeat motor responses that is not related to their inference.

We note that in Urai et al., 2017, as in many other sensory 2AFC tasks, successive trials are independent: the stimulus at a given trial is a random event independent of the stimulus at the preceding trial; the response at a given trial should in principle be independent of the stimulus at the preceding trial; and the response at the preceding trial conveys no information about the response that should be given at the current trial (although subjects might exhibit a serial dependency in their responses). By contrast, in our task an event is more likely than not to be followed by the same event (because observing this event suggests that its probability is greater than .5); and a prediction at a given trial should be correlated with the stimuli at the preceding trials, and with the predictions at the preceding trials. In a logit model (or any other GLM), this would mean that the predictors exhibit multicollinearity, i.e., they are strongly correlated. Multicollinearity does not reduce the predictive power of a model, but it makes the identification of parameters extremely unreliable: in other words, we wouldn’t be able to confidently attribute to each predictor (e.g., the past observations and the past responses) a reliable weight in the subjects’ decisions. Furthermore, our study shows that past stimuli can yield both attractive and repulsive effects, depending on the exact sequence of past observations. To capture this in a (generalized) linear model, we would have to introduce interaction terms for each possible past sequence, resulting in a very high number of parameters to be identified.

However, this does not preclude the possibility that subjects may have a motor propensity to repeat responses. In order to take this hypothesis into account, we examined the behavior and the ability to capture subjects’ data of models in which the response-selection strategy allows for the possibility of repeating, or alternating, the preceding response. Specifically, we consider models that are identical to those in our study, except for the response-selection strategy, which is an extension of the generalized probability-matching strategy, in which a parameter eta, greater than -1 and lower than 1, determines the probability that the model subject repeats its preceding response, or conversely alternates and chooses the other response. With probability 1-|η|, the model subject follows the generalized probability-matching response-selection strategy (parameterized by κ). With probability |η|, the model subject repeats the preceding response, if η > 0, or chooses the other response, if η < 0. We included the possibility of an alternation bias (negative η), but we find that no subject is best-fitted by a negative η, thus we focus on the repetition bias (positive η). We fit the models by maximizing their likelihoods, and we compared, using the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), the quality of their fit to that of the original models that do not include a repetition propensity.

Taking into account the repetition bias of subjects leaves the assignment of subjects into two families of inference cost mostly unchanged. We find that for 26% of subjects the introduction of the repetition propensity does not improve the fit (as measured by the BIC) and can therefore be discarded. For 47% of subjects, the fit is better with the repetition propensity (lower BIC), and the best-fitting inference model (i.e., the type of cost, precision or unpredictability, and the Markov order) is the same with or without repetition propensity. Thus for 73% (=26+47) of subjects, allowing for a repetition propensity does not change the inference model. We also find that the best-fitting parameters λ and κ, for these subjects, are very stable, when allowing or not for the repetition propensity. For 11% of subjects, the fit is better with the repetition propensity, and the cost type of the inference model is the same (as without the repetition propensity), but the Markov order changes. For the remaining 16%, both the cost type and the Markov order change.

Thus for a majority of subjects, the BIC is improved when a repetition propensity is included, suggesting that there is indeed a tendency to repeat responses, independent of the subjects’ inference process and generative stimulus probability. In Figure 7, in Methods, we show the behavior of the models without repetition propensity, and with repetition propensity, with a parameter η = 0.2 close to the average best-fitting value of eta across subjects. We show, in Methods, that (i) the unconditional probability of a prediction A, p(A), is the same with and without repetition propensity, and that (ii) the conditional probabilities p(A|A) and p(A|B) when η≠0 are weighted means of the unconditional probability p(A) and of the conditional probabilities when eta=0 (see p. 47-49 of the revised manuscript).

In summary, our results suggest that a majority of subjects do exhibit a propensity to repeat their responses. Most subjects, however, are best-fitted by the same inference model, with or without repetition propensity, and the parameters λ and κ are stable, across these two cases; this speaks to the robustness of our model fitting. We conclude that the models of inference under a cost capture essential aspects of the behavioral data, which does not exclude, and is not confounded by, the existence of a tendency, in subjects, to repeat motor responses.

In the revised manuscript, we present this analysis in Methods (p.47-49), and we refer to it in the main text (l. 353-356 and 400-406).

3) The authors assume that subjects should reach their asymptotic behavior after passively viewing the first 200 trials but this should be assessed in the data rather than hypothesized. Especially since the subjects are passively looking during the first part of the block, they may well pay very little attention to the statistics.

The assumptions that subjects reach their asymptotic behavior after being presented with 200 observations in the passive trials should indeed be tested. To that end, we compared the behavior of the subjects in the first 100 active trials with their behavior in the remaining 100 active trials. The results of this analysis are shown in Figure 9.

For most values of the stimulus generative probability, the unconditional proportions of predictions A, in the first and the second half (panel a, solid and dashed gray lines), are not significantly different (panel a, white dots), except for two values (p-value < 0.05; panel a, filled dots). Although in most cases the difference between the two is not significant, in the second half the proportions of prediction A seem slightly closer to the extremes (0 and 1), i.e., closer to the optimal proportions. As for the sequential effects, they appear very similar in the two halves of trials. We conclude that for the purpose of our analysis we can reasonably consider that the behavior of the subjects is stationary throughout the task.

4) The experiment methods are described quite poorly: when is the feedback provided? What is the horizontal bar at the bottom of the display? What happens in the analysis with timeout trials and what percentage of trials do they represent? Most importantly, what were the subjects told about the structure of the task? Are they told that probabilities change over blocks but are maintained constant within each block?

We thank Reviewer #3 for her/his close attention to the details of our experiment. Here are the answers to the reviewer’s questions:

• The feedback (i.e., a lightning strike on the left or the right rod, with the rod and the battery turning yellow if the strike is on the side predicted by the subject,) is immediate, i.e., it is provided right after the subject makes a prediction, with no delay. We now indicate this in the caption of Figure 1.

• The task is presented to the subjects as a game in which predicting the correct location of the lightning strike results in electric power being collected in the battery. The horizontal bar at the bottom of the display is a gauge that indicates the amount of power collected in the current block of trials. It has no operational value in the task. We now mention it in the Methods section (l. 872-874).

• The timeout trials were not included in the analysis. The timeout trials represented 1.27% of the trials, on average (across subjects); and for 95% of the subjects the timeout trials represented less than 2.5% of the trials. This information was added in Methods (l. 887-889).

• Each new block of trials was presented to the subject as the lightning strikes occurring in a different town. The 200 passive trials at the beginning of each block, in which subjects were asked to observe a sequence of 200 strikes, were presented as the ‘track record’ for that town, and the instructions indicated that it was ‘useful’ to know this track record. No information was given on the mechanism governing the locations of the strikes. In the main text of the revised manuscript, we now include these details when describing the task (p. 6).

Joint Public Review:

LD Score regression (LDSC) is a software tool widely used in the field of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) for estimating heritabilities, genetic correlations, the extent of confounding, and biological enrichment. LDSC is for the most part not regarded as an accurate estimator of \emph{absolute} heritability (although useful for relative comparisons). It is relied on primarily for its other uses (e.g., estimating genetic correlations). The authors propose a new method called \texttt{i-LDSC}, extending the original LDSC in order to estimate a component of genetic variance in addition to the narrow-sense heritability---epistatic genetic variance, although not necessarily all of it. Epistasis in quantitative genetics refers to the component of genetic variance that cannot be captured by a linear model regressing total genetic values on single-SNP genotypes. \texttt{i-LDSC} seems aimed at estimating that part of the epistatic variance residing in statistical interactions between pairs of SNPs. To simplify, the basic model of \texttt{i-LDSC} for two SNPs $X_1$ and $X_2$ is<br /> \begin{equation}\label{eq:twoX}<br /> Y = X_1 \beta_1 + X_2 \beta_2 + X_1 X_2 \theta + E,<br /> \end{equation}<br /> and estimation of the epistatic variance associated with the product term proceeds through a variant of the original LD Score that measures the extent to which a SNP tags products of genotypes (rather than genotypes themselves). The authors conducted simulations to test their method and then applied it to a number of traits in the UK Biobank and Biobank Japan. They found that for all traits the additive genetic variance was larger than the epistatic, but for height the absolute size of the epistatic component was estimated to be non-negligible. An interpretation of the authors' results that perhaps cannot be ruled out, however, is that pairwise epistasis overall does not make a detectable contribution to the variance of quantitative traits.

Major Comments

This paper has a lot of strong points, and I commend the authors for the effort and ingenuity expended in tackling the difficult problem of estimating epistatic (non-additive) genetic variance from GWAS summary statistics. The mere possibility of the estimated univariate regression coefficient containing a contribution from epistasis, as represented in the manuscript's Equation~3 and elsewhere, is intriguing in and of itself.

Is \texttt{i-LDSC} Estimating Epistasis?

Perhaps the issue that has given me the most pause is uncertainty over whether the paper's method is really estimating the non-additive genetic variance, as this has been traditionally defined in quantitative genetics with great consequences for the correlations between relatives and evolutionary theory (Fisher, 1930, 1941; Lynch & Walsh, 1998; Burger, 2000; Ewens, 2004).

Let us call the expected phenotypic value of a given multiple-SNP genotype the \emph{total genetic value}. If we apply least-squares regression to obtain the coefficients of the SNPs in a simple linear model predicting the total genetic values, then the partial regression coefficients are the \emph{average effects of gene substitution} and the variance in the predicted values resulting from the model is called the \emph{additive genetic variance}. (This is all theoretical and definitional, not empirical. We do not actually perform this regression.) The variance in the residuals---the differences between the total genetic values and the additive predicted values---is the \emph{non-additive genetic variance}. Notice that this is an orthogonal decomposition of the variance in total genetic values. Thus, in order for the variance in $\mathbf{W}\bm{\theta}$ to qualify as the non-additive genetic variance, it must be orthogonal to $\mathbf{X} \bm{\beta}$.

At first, I very much doubted whether this is generally true. And I was not reassured by the authors' reply to Reviewer~1 on this point, which did not seem to show any grasp of the issue at all. But to my surprise I discovered in elementary simulations of Equation~\ref{eq:twoX} above that for mean-centered $X_1$ and $X_2$, $(X_1 \beta_1 + X_2 \beta_2)$ is uncorrelated with $X_1 X_2 \theta$ for seemingly arbitrary correlation between $X_1$ and $X_2$. A partition of the outcome's variance between these two components is thus an orthogonal decomposition after all. Furthermore, the result seems general for any number of independent variables and their pairwise products. I am also encouraged by the report that standard and interaction LD Scores are ``lowly correlated' (line~179), meaning that the standard LDSC slope is scarcely affected by the inclusion of interaction LD Scores in the regression; this behavior is what we should expect from an orthogonal decomposition.

I have therefore come to the view that the additional variance component estimated by \texttt{i-LDSC} has a close correspondence with the epistatic (non-additive) genetic variance after all.

In order to make this point transparent to all readers, however, I think that the authors should put much more effort into placing their work into the traditional framework of the field. It was certainly not intuitive to multiple reviewers that $\mathbf{X}\bm{\beta}$ is orthogonal to $\mathbf{W}\bm{\theta}$. There are even contrary suggestions. For if $(\mathbf{X}\bm{\beta})^\intercal \mathbf{W} \bm{\theta} = \bm{\beta}^\intercal \mathbf{X}^\intercal \mathbf{W} \bm{\theta} $ is to equal zero, we know that we can't get there by $\mathbf{X}^\intercal \mathbf{W}$ equaling zero because then the method has nothing to go on (e.g., line~139). We thus have a quadratic form---each term being the weighted product of an average (additive) effect and an interaction coefficient---needing to cancel out to equal zero. I wonder if the authors can put forth a rigorous argument or compelling intuition for why this should be the case.

In the case of two polymorphic sites, quantitative genetics has traditionally partitioned the total genetic variance into the following orthogonal components:<br /> \begin{itemize}<br /> \item additive genetic variance, $\sigma^2_A$, the numerator of the narrow-sense heritability;<br /> \item dominance genetic variance, $\sigma^2_D$;<br /> \item additive-by-additive genetic variance, $\sigma^2_{AA}$;<br /> \item additive-by-dominance genetic variance, $\sigma^2_{AD}$; and<br /> \item dominance-by-dominance genetic variance, $\sigma^2_{DD}$.<br /> \end{itemize}<br /> See Lynch and Walsh (1998, pp. 88-92) for a thorough numerical example. This decomposition is not arbitrary or trivial, since each component has a distinct coefficient in the correlations between relatives. Is it possible for the authors to relate the variance associated with their $\mathbf{W}\bm{\theta}$ to this traditional decomposition? Besides justifying the work in this paper, the establishment of a relationship can have the possible practical benefit of allowing \texttt{i-LDSC} estimates of non-additive genetic variance to be checked against empirical correlations between relatives. For example, if we know from other methods that $\sigma^2_D$ is negligible but that \texttt{i-LDSC} returns a sizable $\sigma^2_{AA}$, we might predict that the parent-offspring correlation should be equal to the sibling correlation; a sizable $\sigma^2_D$ would make the sibling correlation higher. Admittedly, however, such an exercise can get rather complicated for the variance contributed by pairs of SNPs that are close together (Lynch & Walsh, 1998, pp. 146-152).

I would also like the authors to clarify whether LDSC consistently overestimates the narrow-sense heritability in the case that pairwise epistasis is present. The figures seem to show this. I have conflicting intuitions here. On the one hand, if GWAS summary statistics can be inflated by the tagging of epistasis, then it seems that LDSC should overestimate heritability (or at least this should be an upwardly biasing factor; other factors may lead the net bias to be different). On the other hand, if standard and interaction LD Scores are lowly correlated, then I feel that the inclusion of interaction LD Score in the regression should not strongly affect the coefficient of the standard LD Score. Relatedly, I find it rather curious that \texttt{i-LDSC} seems increasingly biased as the proportion of genetic variance that is non-additive goes up---but perhaps this is not too important, since such a high ratio of narrow-sense to broad-sense heritability is not realistic.

How Much Epistasis Is \texttt{i-LDSC} Detecting?

I think the proper conclusion to be drawn from the authors' analyses is that statistically significant epistatic (non-additive) genetic variance was not detected. Specifically, I think that the analysis presented in Supplementary Table~S6 should be treated as a main analysis rather than a supplementary one, and the results here show no statistically significant epistasis. Let me explain.

Most serious researchers, I think, treat LDSC as an unreliable estimator of narrow-sense heritability; it typically returns estimates that are too low. Not even the original LDSC paper pressed strongly to use the method for estimating $h^2$ (Bulik-Sullivan et al., 2015). As a practical matter, when researchers are focused on estimating absolute heritability with high accuracy, they usually turn to GCTA/GREML (Evans et al., 2018; Wainschtein et al., 2022).

One reason for low estimates with LDSC is that if SNPs with higher LD Scores are less likely to be causal or to have large effect sizes, then the slope of univariate LDSC will not rise as much as it ``should' with increasing LD Score. This was a scenario actually simulated by the authors and displayed in their Supplementary Figure~S15. [Incidentally, the authors might have acknowledged earlier work in this vein. A simulation inducing a negative correlation between LD Scores and $\chi^2$ statistics was presented by Bulik-Sullivan et al. (2015, Supplementary Figure 7), and the potentially biasing effect of a correlation over SNPs between LD Scores and contributed genetic variance was a major theme of Lee et al. (2018).] A negative correlation between LD Score and contributed variance does seem to hold for a number of reasons, including the fact that regions of the genome with higher recombination rates tend to be more functional. In short, the authors did very well to carry out this simulation and to show in their Supplementary Figure~S15 that this flaw of LDSC in estimating narrow-sense heritability is also a flaw of \texttt{i-LDSC} in estimating broad-sense heritability. But they should have carried the investigation at least one step further, as I will explain below.

Another reason for LDSC being a downwardly biased estimator of heritability is that it is often applied to meta-analyses of different cohorts, where heterogeneity (and possibly major but undetected errors by individual cohorts) lead to attenuation of the overall heritability (de Vlaming et al., 2017).

The optimal case for using LDSC to estimate heritability, then, is incorporating the LD-related annotation introduced by Gazal et al. (2017) into a stratified-LDSC (s-LDSC) analysis of a single large cohort. This is analogous to the calculation of multiple GRMs defined by MAF and LD in the GCTA/GREML papers cited above. When this was done by Gazal et al. (2017, Supplementary Table 8b), the joint impact of the improvements was to increase the estimated narrow-sense heritability of height from 0.216 to 0.534.

All of this has at least a few ramifications for \texttt{i-LDSC}. First, the authors do not consider whether a relationship between their interaction LD Scores and interaction effect sizes might bias their estimates. (This would be on top of any biasing relationship between standard LD Scores and linear effect sizes, as displayed in Supplementary Figure~S15.) I find some kind of statistical relationship over the whole genome, induced perhaps by evolutionary forces, between \emph{cis}-acting epistasis and interaction LD Scores to be plausible, albeit without intuition regarding the sign of any resulting bias. The authors should investigate this issue or at least mention it as a matter for future study. Second, it might be that the authors are comparing the estimates of broad-sense heritability in Table~1 to the wrong estimates of narrow-sense heritability. Although the estimates did come from single large cohorts, they seem to have been obtained with simple univariate LDSC rather than s-LDSC. When the estimate of $h^2$ obtained with LDSC is too low, some will suspect that the additional variance detected by \texttt{i-LDSC} is simply additive genetic variance missed by the downward bias of LDSC. Consider that the authors' own Supplementary Table~S6 gives s-LDSC heritability estimates that are consistently higher than the LDSC estimates in Table~1. E.g., the estimated $h^2$ of height goes from 0.37 to 0.43. The latter figure cuts quite a bit into the estimated broad-sense heritability of 0.48 obtained with \texttt{i-LDSC}.

Here we come to a critical point. Lines 282--286 are not entirely clear, but I interpret them to mean that the manuscript's Equation~5 was expanded by stratifying $\ell$ into the components of s-LDSC and this was how the estimates in Supplementary Table~S6 were obtained. If that interpretation is correct, then the scenario of \texttt{i-LDSC} picking up missed additive genetic variance seems rather plausible. At the very least, the increases in broad-sense heritability reported in Supplementary Table~S6 are smaller in magnitude and \emph{not statistically significant}. Perhaps what this means is that the headline should be a \emph{negligible} contribution of pairwise epistasis revealed by this novel and ingenious method, analogous to what has been discovered with respect to dominance (Hivert et al., 2021; Pazokitoroudi et al., 2021; Okbay et al., 2022; Palmer et al., 2023).

REFERENCES

Bulik-Sullivan, B., Loh, P.-R., Finucane, H. K., Ripke, S., Yang, J., Schizophrenia Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, Patterson, N., Daly, M. J., Price, A. L., & Neale, B. M. (2015). LD Score regression distinguishes confounding from polygenicity in genome-wide association studies. Nature Genetics, 47, 291-295.

Burger, R. (2000). The mathematical theory of selection, recombination, and mutation. Wiley.

de Vlaming, R., Okbay, A., Rietveld, C. A., Johannesson, M., Magnusson, P. K. E., Uitterlinden, A. G., van Rooij, F. J. A., Hofman, A., Groe- nen, P. J. F., Thurik, A. R., & Koellinger, P. D. (2017). Meta-GWAS Accuracy and Power (MetaGAP) calculator shows that hiding heritability is partially due to imperfect genetic correlations across studies. PLoS Genetics, 13, e1006495.

Evans, L. M., Tahmasbi, R., Vrieze, S. I., Abecasis, G. R., Das, S., Gazal, S., Bjelland, D. W., de Candia, T. R., Haplotype Reference Consortium, Goddard, M. E., Neale, B. M., Yang, J., Visscher, P. M., & Keller, M. C. (2018). Comparison of methods that use whole genome data to estimate the heritability and genetic architecture of complex traits. Nature Genetics, 50, 737-745.

Ewens, W. J. (2004). Mathematical population genetics I. Theoretical introduction (2nd ed.). Springer.

Fisher, R. A. (1930). The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford University Press.

Fisher, R. A. (1941). Average excess and average effect of a gene substitution. Annals of Eugenics, 11, 53-63.

Gazal, S., Finucane, H. K., Furlotte, N. A., Loh, P.-R., Palamara, P. F., Liu, X., Schoech, A., Bulik-Sullivan, B., Neale, B. M., Gusev, A., & Price, A. L. (2017). Linkage disequilibrium-dependent architecture of human complex traits shows action of negative selection. Nature Genetics, 49, 1421-1427.

Hivert, V., Sidorenko, J., Rohart, F., Goddard, M. E., Yang, J., Wray, N. R., Yengo, L., & Visscher, P. M. (2021). Estimation of non-additive genetic variance in human complex traits from a large sample of unrelated individuals. American Journal of Human Genetics, 108, 786- 798.

Lee, J. J., McGue, M., Iacono, W. G., & Chow, C. C. (2018). The accuracy of LD Score regression as an estimator of confounding and genetic correlations in genome-wide association studies. Genetic Epidemiology, 42, 783-795.

Lynch, M., & Walsh, B. (1998). Genetics and the analysis of quantitative traits. Sinauer.

Okbay, A., Wu, Y., Wang, N., Jayashankar, H., Bennett, M., Nehzati, S. M., Sidorenko, J., Kweon, H., Goldman, G., Gjorgjieva, T., Jiang, Y., Hicks, B., Tian, C., Hinds, D. A., Ahlskog, R., Magnusson, P. K. E., Oskarsson, S., Hayward, C., Campbell, A., ... Young, A. I. (2022). Polygenic prediction of educational attainment within and between families from genome-wide association analyses in 3 million individu- als. Nature Genetics, 54, 437-449.

Palmer, D. S., Zhou, W., Abbott, L., Wigdor, E. M., Baya, N., Churchhouse, C., Seed, C., Poterba, T., King, D., Kanai, M., Bloemendal, A., & Neale, B. M. (2023). Analysis of genetic dominance in the UK Biobank. Science, 379, 1341-1348.

Pazokitoroudi, A., Chiu, A. M., Burch, K. S., Pasaniuc, B., & Sankararaman, S. (2021). Quantifying the contribution of dominance deviation effects to complex trait variation in biobank-scale data. American Journal of Human Genetics, 108, 799-808.

Wainschtein, P., Jain, D., Zheng, Z., TOPMed Anthropometry Working Group, NHLBI Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine Consoritum, Cupples, L. A., Shadyab, A. H., McKnight, B., Shoemaker, B. M., Mitchell, B. D., Psaty, B. M., Kooperberg, C., Liu, C.-T., Albert, C. M., Roden, D., Chasman, D. I., Darbar, D., Lloyd-Jones, D. M., Arnett, D. K., . . . Visscher, P. M. (2022). Assessing the contribution of rare variants to complex trait heritability from whole-genome sequence data. Nature Genetics, 54, 263-273.

Author Response

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This paper combines an array of techniques to study the role of cholecystokinin (CCK) in motor learning. Motor learning in a pellet reaching task is shown to depend on CCK, as both global and locally targeted CCK manipulations eliminate learning. This learning deficit is linked to reduced plasticity in the motor cortex, evidenced by both slice recordings and two-photon calcium imaging. Furthermore, CCK receptor agonists are shown to rescue motor cortex plasticity and learning in knockout mice. While the behavioral results are clear, the specific effects on learning are not directly tested, nor is the specificity pathway between rhinal CCK neurons and the motor cortex. In general, the results present interesting clues about the role of CCK in motor learning, though the specificity of the claims is not fully supported.

Since all CCK manipulations were performed throughout learning, rather than after learning, it is not clear whether it is learning that is affected or if there is a more general motor deficit. Related to this point, Figure 1D appears to show a general reduction in reach distance in CCK-/- mice. A general motor deficit may be expected to produce decreased success on training day 1, which does not appear to be the case in Figure 1C and Figure 2B, but may be present to some degree in Figure 5B. Or, since the task is so difficult on day 1, a general motor deficit may not be observable. It is therefore inconclusive whether the behavioral effect is learning-specific.

Thanks for your comments and suggestions.

We have tested the basic movement ability of CCK-/- and WT mice and we found that there were no significant difference between CCK-/- and WT in terms of stride length, stride time, step cycle ratio and grasp force (Figure S1C, S1D, S1E, S1F). Besides, we also have tested the performance of mice injected with CCKBR antagonist or injected with hM4Di together with clozapine after learned the task (Figure S2D, S8D). The performance of mice before and after antagonist injection or chemogenetic manipulation were comparable. These results suggested that all the CCK manipulations did not cause general defects to the movement ability of mice.

The paper implicates motor cortex-projecting CCK neurons in the rhinal cortex as being a key component in motor learning. However, the relative importance of this pathway in motor learning is not pinned down. The necessity of CCK in the motor cortex is tested by injecting CCK receptor antagonists into the contralateral motor cortex (Figure 2), though a control brain region is not tested (e.g. the ipsilateral motor cortex), so the specificity of the motor cortex is not demonstrated.

Thanks for your comments and suggestions.

In this study, we focus on the role played by CCK from the rhinal cortex to the motor cortex, and how CCK affects motor learning. The single pellet reaching task was selected to study the role of CCK from the rhinal cortex to the motor cortex in motor skill learning and the motor cortex is considered as the main area generates motor memory when training in this task (Komiyama et al., 2010; Peters et al., 2014; Richard et al., 2019). We emphasized that the importance of the motor cortex in motor learning, not meant that other brain areas where also receive CCK-positive neural projections from the rhinal cortex, for example hippocampus (spatial memory), are not important for the performance of this task. In fact, specifically inhibiting the projection from the rhinal cortex to the contrallateral motor cortex is not enough to suppress the motor learning ability of, but inhibiting projecting in both sides (contro- and ipsi-lateral) could suppress the learning ability of mice, suggesting that the whole motor cortex is critical for motor skill learning (Figure 6, S8). In this paper, we studied the relationship between the rhinal cortex and the motor cortex and the role played by CCK in this circuit. The specificity of the motor cortex is task-dependent, not the main purpose in this study.

The learning-related source of CCK in the motor cortex is also unclear, since even though it is demonstrated that CCK neurons in the rhinal cortex project to the motor cortex in Figure 4D, Figure 4C shows that there is also a high concentration of CCK neurons locally within the motor cortex. Likewise, the importance of the projection from the rhinal cortex to the motor cortex is not specifically tested, as rhinal CCK neurons targeted for inactivation in Figure 5 include all CCK cells rather than motor cortex-projecting cells specifically.

Thanks for your comments and suggestions.

The specificity of the CCK-projection from the rhinal cortex to the motor cortex for motor skill learning was studies using chemogenetic methods in the revised version of the manuscript. We first determined that over 98% of neurons in the rhinal cortex that projected to the motor cortex are CCK positive (Figure 6A, S6A, S6B). Next, we injected the retro-Cre virus in the motor cortex and the Cre-dependent hM4Di in the rhinal cortex in C57BL/6 mice to specifically inhibit the CCK neurons from the rhinal cortex to the motor cortex. Compared to two control groups, the learning ability of the experimental group was significant suppressed, suggesting that CCK projections from the rhinal cortex to the motor cortex are critical for motor skill learning (Figure 6). Detailed description was added in the part of "Result" in the manuscript.

CCK is suggested to play a role in producing reliable activity in the motor cortex through learning through two-photon imaging experiments. This is useful in demonstrating what looks like normal motor cortex activity in the presence of CCK receptor antagonist, indicating that the manipulations in Figure 2 are not merely shutting off the motor cortex. It is also notable that, as the paper points out, the activity appears less variable in the CCK manipulations (Figure 3G). However, this could be due to CCK manipulation mice having less-variable movements throughout training. The Hausdorff distance is used for quantification against this point in Figure 1E, though the use of the single largest distance between trajectories seems unlikely to give a robust measure of trajectory similarity, which is reinforced by the CCK-/- traces looking much less variable than WT traces in Figure 1D. The activity effects may therefore be expected from a general motor deficit if that deficit prevented the mice from normal exploratory movements and restricted the movement (and activity) to a consistently unsuccessful pattern.

Thanks for your comments and suggestions.

To totally suppress CCK receptors in the motor cortex, the antagonist is unavoidable to diffuse to the adjacent brain areas as the motor cortex is not regularly circular. But the area inhibited most should be the motor cortex. We applied the chemogenetics method to further determine the specificity of the motor cortex in the motor skill learning. Specific projection from the RC to the MC was inhibited bilaterally, which suppressed the motor learning ability.

For a wild-type mouse, neurons were activated when it try to get the food pellet. Neuronal pattern corresponding to each trial will be remembered, and the patterns corresponding to successful movements will tend to be repeated. Manipulations of CCK prevented neurons from remembering the pattern they tried and repeated the pattern they tried before no matter it is successful or not. This is corresponding to the neuron-activation pattern showed in figure 3D, 3E and 3G, the population activities (neuronal activities) are comparable, while the trial-to-trial population correlation is a little bit higher for the CCK-manipulation groups on Day 1. In terms of the behavior, manipulations of CCK decreased the possibility to explore the best path to get food pellets and just repeating a reach for the food pellet like it was the first time. Besides, many tests including the movement ability of CCK-/-, performance of antagonist injection group and chemogenetics manipulation group after learning indicated that CCK-manipulation did not affect the basic movement ability.

Hausdorff distance is the greatest of all the distances from a point in one set to the closest point in the other set. It is not just the largest distance between two trajectories, but comprehensively takes all points in each trajectory into consideration. Hausdorff distance is widely used to assess the variation of two trajectories. The similarity of the shapes of trajectories is not applied for analysis because it is not very effective to assess the performance of a mouse. The fixed location of the initial site and food site makes all trajectories are single lines in the same direction, thus, the shapes of the trajectories are very similar among different trials. Two trajectories with similar shape but far from each other (big Hausdorff distance) should be treated as big variation because, in terms of the final results, they are quite different (success vs. miss). Therefore, Hausdorff distance is more reliable to be applied for assessment of the performance of mice.

Finally, slice experiments are used to demonstrate the lack of LTP in the motor cortex following CCK knockout, which is rescued by CCK receptor agonists. This is a nice experiment with a clear result, though it is unclear why there are such striking short-term depression effects from high-frequency stimulation observed in Figure 6A that are not observed in Figure 1H. Also, relating to the specificity of the proposed rhinal-motor pathway, these experiments do not demonstrate the source of CCK in the motor cortex, which may for example originate locally.

Thanks for your comments.

1. Because CCK4 is a small molecule, which degrades very fast with half-time less than 1 min in the rat serum and 13 min in the human serum, we injected the drug into the electrode recording dishes, while the ACSF was stopped flowing, leading to a relatively low oxygen condition. As it showed in Figure 6A, it cost about 15 min for the brain slices to recover. Compared with CCK4 manipulation, the depression of vehicle group is stronger, which could be due to the effects of CCK4 induced LTP after HFS compensated the depression.

2. In the motor cortex, many CCK-positive neurons are γ-aminobutyric acid-ergic (GABAergic) neurons, in which the role played by CCK is not very clear (Whissell et al., 2015). However, evidence showed that GABA may inhibit the release of CCK in the neocortex (Yaksh et al., 1987). Many glutamatergic neurons in the neocortex also express CCK (Watakabe et al., 2012). In this study, the stimulation electrode was placed on the layer 1, where receives most CCK projections from the rhinal cortex, to release CCK from the rhinal cortex, but can not rule out the possibility that some CCK may release from the local CCK neurons (Figure 4B). We focused on the importance of CCK for neural plasticity in the motor cortex, but did not aim to figure out the role played by the cortical CCK-positive neurons, including inhibitory and excitatory neurons, in neuronal plasticity and motor skill learning by this experiment.

Therefore, the specificity of the projections from the rhinal cortex to the motor cortex was further studied by chemogenetic manipulation. Inhibiting the activity of the projections suppressed the learning ability compared with two types of control manipulations, indicating the CCK projections from RC to the MC is critical for motor skill learning.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This study aims to test whether and if so, how cholecystokinin (CCK) from the mice rhinal cortex influences neural activity in the motor cortex and motor learning behavior. While CCK has been previously shown to be involved in neural plasticity in other brain regions/behavioral contexts, this work is the first to demonstrate its relationship with motor cortical plasticity in the context of motor learning. The anatomical projection from the rhinal cortex to the motor cortex is also a novel and important finding and opens up new opportunities for studying the interactions between the limbic and motor systems. I think the results are convincing to support the claim that CCK and in particular CCK-expressing neurons in the rhinal cortex are critical for learning certain dexterous movements such as single pellet reaching. However, more work needs to be done, or at least the following concerns should be addressed, to support the hypothesis that it is specifically the projection from the rhinal cortex to the motor cortex that controls motor learning ability in mice.

1)Because CCK is expressed in multiple brain regions, as the authors recognized, results from the CCK knock-out mice could be due to a global loss of neural plasticity. In comparison, the antagonist experiment is in my opinion the most convincing result to support the specific effect of CCK in the motor cortex. However, it is unclear to me whether the CCK knock-out mice exhibited an impaired ability to learn in general, i.e., not confined to motor skills. For instance, it would be very valuable to show whether these mice also had severe memory deficits; this would help the field to understand different or similar behavioral effects of CCK in the case of global vs. local loss of function. If the CCK knock-out mice only exhibited motor learning deficits, that would be surprising but also very interesting given previous studies on its effect in other brain areas.

Thanks for your comments. According to the studies in our lab, we found that CCK is critical for the neural plasticity in the auditory cortex, hippocampus and the amygdala and CCK-/- mice performed much worse than wildtype mice in associative, spatial and fear memory (Li et al.,2014; Chen et al., 2019; Su et al. 2019; Feng et al. 2021).

2) Related to my last point, I believe that normal neural plasticity should be essential to motor skill learning throughout development not just during the current task. Thus, it would be important to show whether these CCK knock-out mice present any motor deficits that could have resulted from a lack of CCK-mediated neural plasticity during development. If not, the authors should explain how this normal motor learning during development is consistent with their major hypothesis in this study (e.g., is CCK not critical for motor learning during early development).

Thanks for your comments and suggestions.

Development is mainly gene-guided which prepares the physical structure for learning, while learning is dependent on the neural plasticity and a period of experience (such as motor training in this research). Besides, development is deemed as "experience-expectant", using common environmental information, while learning is "experience-dependent", sensitive to the specific individual experiences (Greenough et al., 1987; Galván, 2010). Moreover, development costs longer time to form a specific ability of a species in general. The role of CCK plays in the development is not clear. Duchemin et al. (1987) studied the CCK gene expression level in the brain of rats pre- and postnatally. They found that the CCK mRNA was detectable on embryonic day 14 (E14) and gradually increased to the maximum level on postnatal day 14 (P14), indicating that CCK might participate in the development of rats. Paolo et al. (2007) mapped the expression of CCK in the mouse brain. Plentiful CCK expression was observed at E12.5 in the thalamus and spinal cord and by E17.5 CCK expression extended to the cortex, hippocampus and hypothalamus, suggesting that CCK might also regulate the development of mice. Paolo et al. (2004) found that CCK suppressed the migration of GnRH-1 through CCK-A receptor in the brain. Besides, postnatal early learning may participate in development. CCK-B receptor antagonist administration (postnatal 6 hours) suppressed the infant sheep get motor preference, indicating that CCK might be important for the development of mother preference of sheep. However, what the role CCK played in the development of motor system is not known.

In this study, the performance of both CCK-/- and WT mice is at the same level without significant difference on Day one, in terms of the percentage of "miss", "no-grasp", "drop" and "success". Besides, the movement abilities, including stride length, stride time, step cycle ratio and grasp force, were comparable for both CCK-/- and WT mice (Figure S1C, S1D, S1E, S1F), suggesting that knockout of cck gene did not affect the basic movement ability. This could be because the development of basic movement ability is not learning-guided, but is physical structure-determined. However, all these tests were on physical level, but how CCK affected the motor system on the molecular and cellular level is not known. Therefore, we further applied CCK-BR antagonist and chemogenetic method to study the role of CCK in the motor learning.

3)Lines 198-200 and Fig. 2C: The authors found that the vehicle group showed significantly increased "no grasp" behavior, and reasoned that the implantation of a cannula may have caused injuries to the motor cortex. In order to support their reasoning and make the control results more convincing, I think it would be helpful to show histology from both the antagonist and control groups and demonstrate motor cortical injury in some mice of the vehicle group but not the antagonist group. Otherwise, I'm a bit concerned that the methods used here could be a significant confounding factor contributing to motor deficits.

Thanks for your comments and suggestions.

The injury of the motor cortex can not be avoided, because the cannula was inserted below the surface of the cortex (Figure S2C). The significantly increased "no-grasp" rate is because the improvement of miss rate of the Vehicle group, which turned to "no-grasp" but failed to further improve to drop or success, while for the Antagonist group, there is no significant improving from "miss" to "no-grasp", leaving no change in the "no grasp".

4) The authors showed that chemogenetic inhibition of CCK neurons in the rhinal cortex impaired motor skill learning in the pellet-reaching task. However, we know that the rhinal cortex projects to multiple brain regions besides the motor cortex (e.g., other cortical areas and the hippocampus). Thus, the conclusion/claim that the observed behavioral deficits resulted from inhibited rhinal-motor cortical projections is not strongly supported without more targeted loss-of-function or rescue experiments.

It would also be very informative to the field to compare the specific behavioral deficits, if any, of inhibiting specific downstream targets of the rhinal CCK neurons. As a concrete example, the hippocampus may be involved in learning more sophisticated motor skills (as the authors pointed out in the Discussion) besides the motor cortex. It would be a critical result if the authors could either show or exclude the possibility that the motor learning deficits observed in CCK-/- mice were at least partially due to the inhibition of hippocampal plasticity. This echoes my earlier point (point 1) that it is unclear whether the effect of lacking CCK in knock-out mice is specific in the motor cortex or engages multiple brain regions.

Lastly, because Fig. 4 only showed histology in the rhinal and motor cortices, I am not sure whether the motor cortex solely receives CCK input from the rhinal cortex. A more comprehensive viral tracing result could be important to both supporting the circuit-specificity of the observed behavior in this study and providing a clearer picture of where the motor cortex receives CCK inputs.

Thanks for your comments.

The specificity of the CCK-projection from the rhinal cortex to the motor cortex for motor skill learning was studies using chemogenetic methods in the revised version of the paper. We first determined that over 98% of neurons in the rhinal cortex that projected to the motor cortex are CCK positive (Figure 6A, S6A, S6B). Next, we injected the retro-Cre virus in the motor cortex and the Cre-dependent hM4Di in the rhinal cortex in C57BL/6 mice to specifically inhibit the CCK neurons from the rhinal cortex to the motor cortex. Compared to two control groups, the learning ability of the experimental group was significantly suppressed, suggesting that CCK projections from the rhinal cortex to the motor cortex are critical for motor skill learning (Figure 6). Detailed description was added in the part of "Result" in the manuscript.

In this study, we focus on the role played by CCK from the rhinal cortex, and how CCK affects motor learning. The single pellet reaching task was selected to study the role of CCK from the rhinal cortex in motor skill learning and the motor cortex is considered as the main area generates motor memory when training in this task (Komiyama et al., 2010; Peters et al., 2014; Richard et al., 2019). We emphasized that the importance of the contrallateral motor cortex in motor learning, not meant that other brain areas where also receive CCK-positive neural projections from the rhina cortex, for example hippocampus (spatial memory), are not important for the performance of this task. In fact, specifically inhibiting the projection from the rhinal cortex to the contrallateral motor cortex is not enough to suppress the motor learning ability, but inhibiting projecting in both sides (contro- and ipsi-lateral) could suppress the learning ability of mice, suggesting that the whole motor cortex is critical for motor skill learning (Figure 6, S8). In our lab, we found that CCK projection from the entorhinal cortex to the hippocampus is critical for spatial memory formation (Su et al., 2019). Impaired hippocampus, to some extent, affected the performance in single pellet reaching task (Shwuhuey et al., 2007). Therefore, manipulation of CCK projections from the rhinal cortex to the hippocampus may also affect the performance in the single pellet reaching task. In this paper, we aim to study the relationship between the rhinal cortex and the motor cortex and the role played by CCK in this circuit. Other brain areas involved in the single pellet reaching task are not the core concern in this study.

The motor cortex also receive CCK projections from other cortices, such as the contrallateral motor cortex, the deep layer of visual cortex and auditory cortex, and thalamus (Figure S4).

5) I am glad to see the CCK4 rescue experiment to demonstrate the sufficiency of CCK in promoting motor learning. However, the rescue experiment lacked specificity: IP injection did not allow specific "gain of function" in the motor cortex but instead, the improved learning ability in CCK knock-out mice could be a result of a global effect of CCK4 across multiple brain regions. CCK4 injection specifically targeted at the motor cortex would be necessary to support the sufficiency of CCK-regulated neuroplasticity in the motor cortex to promote motor learning.

Thanks for your comments.

First, the specificity of the circuit were studied by injecting a Cre virus in the MC and a Cre-dependent hM4Di virus in the RC. After injection with clozapine, the motor learning ability were significantly suppressed compared with the saline control and the control virus combined with clozapine.

Besides, we emphasized that the importance of the motor cortex in motor learning, not meant that other brain areas where also receive CCK-positive neuronal projections from the rhinal cortex, for example hippocampus (spatial memory), are not important for the performance of this task. Specific infusion the drug into the motor cortex is hard to rescue the motor learning ability of CCK-/- mice because the motor cortex is very large, varying from AP: -1.3 to 2.46 mm and ML: ±0.5 to ±2.75 mm and other areas receiving CCK projections from the rhinal cortex also could be important for motor learning. Actually, we tried to inject CCK into the motor cortex through a drug cannula, but the result showed that it is hard to compensate the knock out of cck gene in the whole brain, and rescue the motor learning ability (Figure S11D, S11E). Moreover, cannula implantation causes inescapable injury to the motor cortex, because the cannula must be inserted into the brain, so that the drug could be infused into the brain. This injury may affect the performance in the task, as the motor cortex is very critical for motor learning. Therefore, it is not the best method to be applied for motor skill rescuing.

Furthermore, CCK4 molecules can be transported to the whole brain by i.p. injection, as CCK4 is capable to pass through brain blood barrier, which compensates the knockout of cck gene in the whole brain, leading to the rescuing of motor learning ability. Furthermore, i.p. injection is widely accepted for drug discovery because it is very convenient, simply manipulated and does not causes any direct injury on the brain. Thus, we applied i.p. injection not only for whole brain CCK compensation, but also for the further study of the application in drug discovery.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The authors elucidated the roles of cholecystokinin (CCK)-expressing excitatory neurons, which project from the rhinal cortex to the motor cortex, in motor skill learning. The authors found CCK knock-out mice exhibited learning defects in the pellet reaching task while the baseline success rate of the knock-out mice was similar to that of the wild-type mice. Application of a CCK B receptor (CCKBR) antagonist into the motor cortex lowered the success rate in the motor task. The authors found the population activity which was observed in the in vivo calcium imaging during motor learning was elevated after motor learning, but this increase disappeared in CCK knock-out mice and animals with CCKBR antagonist administration. Anterograde and retrograde viral tracing revealed that CCK-expressing excitatory neurons in the rhinal cortex projected to the motor cortex. Chemogenetic inhibition of the CCK-expressing neurons in the rhinal cortex lowered the ability for motor learning. The application of a CCKBR agonist increased the motor learning ability of CCK knock-out animals as well as long-term potentiation (LTP) observed in the slice of the motor cortex.

However, the manuscript contains several shortcomings:

First, the "Discussion" has several statements that are only supported weakly by the results, for example, ll. 429-431, ll. 432-433, and ll. 447-448. In addition, most of the sentences in this section are not divided into subsections. The paragraphs should be composed in multiple subsections with appropriate subheadings, even though the initial section summarizing the results can lack a subheading.

Thanks for your suggestions. The statements were revised and the discussion was divided into subsections.

Second, it would be important that the authors showed which area(s) of the brain is affected by the CCKBR antagonist in the experiments described in ll. 166-206 and Fig. 2. The authors injected the drug into the motor cortex, but the chemical can spread to neighboring cortical areas (e.g. somatosensory cortex) or wider brain regions. If so, the blockade of the CCKBR in the brain areas other than the motor cortex could cause the defects of the motor task learning observed in these experiments. I think it is desirable that such a possibility should be excluded. Conversely, it is possible that the antagonist had an effect on a limited subarea of the motor cortex (e.g. only the primary motor cortex (M1)). In this case, the information about the field altered by the CCKBR blocker would be useful to interpret the results of the learning defects.

Thanks for your comments and suggestions.

The drug cannula was implanted in the motor cortex (coordinates: AP, 1.4 mm, ML, -/+1.6 mm, DV, 0.25 - 0.3 mm) contralateral to the dominant hand of the mice (Figure S2C). To totally inhibit CCKBR in the motor cortex, we injected over-dosage of antagonist into the motor cortex. Thus, we cannot totally exclude the possibility that some antagonist spread to the neighboring cortices. However, the fact is that the motor cortex is very large, varying from AP: -1.3 to 2.46 mm and ML: ±0.5 to ±2.75 mm. It is not easily to spread out of the motor cortex with high concentration.

Third, the authors need to show bilateral data about their anterograde and retrograde tracking of CCK-expressing neurons in the rhinal cortex. In ll. 290-292, they described as follows: "Both anterograde and retrograde tracking results indicated that CCK-expressing neurons in the rhinal cortex projecting to the motor cortex were asymmetric, showing a preference for the ipsilateral hemisphere." However, they provided only unilateral data for the anterograde (Fig. 4B) and the retrograde (Fig. 4D) experiments.

Thanks for your comments. Both anterograde and retrograde tracking data from bilateral hemisphere were added to the supplementary file (Figure S4).

Fourth, unilateral (contralateral to the dominant forelimb) experiments are needed in the chemogenetic inhibition of the CCK neurons. In ll. 301-338 and Fig. 5, the authors inhibited the CCK -expressing neurons in both hemispheres by injecting the virus into both sides. However, the CCKBR antagonist injection into the motor cortex contralateral to the dominant forelimb caused defects in motor learning ability, as described in ll. 166-206. The authors also observed that the population neuronal activity in the motor cortex contralateral to the dominant forelimb changed in accordance with the improvement of the motor skill in ll. 208-269. Therefore, it may be the case that inhibition of CCK neurons only in the side contralateral to the dominant forelimb - not bilaterally, as the authors did - could cause the lowered ability of motor learning. Such unilateral inhibition can be carried out by unilateral injection of the virus. In relation to the point above, in the chemogenetic inhibition experiments, it would be important to show which neurons in which cortical area is inhibited. This could be done by examining the distributions of the mCherry-labeled somata in the rhinal cortex using histochemistry.

Thanks for your comments and suggestions.

The specific of the CCK-projection from the rhinal cortex to the motor cortex for motor skill learning was studied using chemogenetic methods in the revised version of the paper. We first determined that over 98% of neurons in the rhinal cortex that projected to the motor cortex are CCK positive by retrograde virus injection and immunostaining (Figure 6A, S6A, S6B). Next, we injected the retro-Cre virus in the motor cortex and the Cre-dependent hM4Di in the rhinal cortex in C57BL/6 mice to specifically inhibit the CCK neurons from the rhinal cortex to the motor cortex. Compared to two control groups, the learning ability of the experimental group was significant suppressed, suggesting that CCK projections from the rhinal cortex to the motor cortex are critical for motor skill learning (Figure 6). Furthermore, we also injected the retro-Cre virus into the single site of the motor cortex controlateral to the dominant forelimb together with Cre-dependent hM4Di virus in the rhinal cortex. The result showed that after injection of clozapine, the motor learning ability was not significantly suppressed, suggesting that the bilateral motor cortex is important for motor skill learning. This is consistent with the previous findings that the increased GluA1 expression were observed bilaterally in the motor cortex after training in the single pellet reaching task. Detailed description was added in the part of "Result" in the manuscript.

Fifth, it would be valuable to further examine differences in task performance across sessions and groups. The paragraph in ll. 138-153 needs a comparison of the "miss" rates of CCK-/- animals between Day 1 vs. Day 6 (related to ll. 429- 431). This paragraph also needs comparisons of the "no-grasp" and "drop" rates of CCK-/- animals between Day 1 vs. Day 6 (related to ll. 432- 433). The paragraph in ll. 175-190 needs comparisons of success rates between Day 1 and Day 5/6 within the antagonist group (related to ll. 447-448).

Thanks for your comments. The comparisons were made in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This study aims to test whether and if so, how cholecystokinin (CCK) from the mice rhinal cortex influences neural activity in the motor cortex and motor learning behavior. While CCK has been previously shown to be involved in neural plasticity in other brain regions/behavioral contexts, this work is the first to demonstrate its relationship with motor cortical plasticity in the context of motor learning. The anatomical projection from the rhinal cortex to the motor cortex is also a novel and important finding and opens up new opportunities for studying the interactions between the limbic and motor systems. I think the results are convincing to support the claim that CCK and in particular CCK-expressing neurons in the rhinal cortex are critical for learning certain dexterous movements such as single pellet reaching. However, more work needs to be done, or at least the following concerns should be addressed, to support the hypothesis that it is specifically the projection from the rhinal cortex to the motor cortex that controls motor learning ability in mice.

1) Because CCK is expressed in multiple brain regions, as the authors recognized, results from the CCK knock-out mice could be due to a global loss of neural plasticity. In comparison, the antagonist experiment is in my opinion the most convincing result to support the specific effect of CCK in the motor cortex. However, it is unclear to me whether the CCK knock-out mice exhibited an impaired ability to learn in general, i.e., not confined to motor skills. For instance, it would be very valuable to show whether these mice also had severe memory deficits; this would help the field to understand different or similar behavioral effects of CCK in the case of global vs. local loss of function. If the CCK knock-out mice only exhibited motor learning deficits, that would be surprising but also very interesting given previous studies on its effect in other brain areas.

2) Related to my last point, I believe that normal neural plasticity should be essential to motor skill learning throughout development not just during the current task. Thus, it would be important to show whether these CCK knock-out mice present any motor deficits that could have resulted from a lack of CCK-mediated neural plasticity during development. If not, the authors should explain how this normal motor learning during development is consistent with their major hypothesis in this study (e.g., is CCK not critical for motor learning during early development).

3) Lines 198-200 and Fig. 2C: The authors found that the vehicle group showed significantly increased "no grasp" behavior, and reasoned that the implantation of a cannula may have caused injuries to the motor cortex. In order to support their reasoning and make the control results more convincing, I think it would be helpful to show histology from both the antagonist and control groups and demonstrate motor cortical injury in some mice of the vehicle group but not the antagonist group. Otherwise, I'm a bit concerned that the methods used here could be a significant confounding factor contributing to motor deficits.

4) The authors showed that chemogenetic inhibition of CCK neurons in the rhinal cortex impaired motor skill learning in the pellet-reaching task. However, we know that the rhinal cortex projects to multiple brain regions besides the motor cortex (e.g., other cortical areas and the hippocampus). Thus, the conclusion/claim that the observed behavioral deficits resulted from inhibited rhinal-motor cortical projections is not strongly supported without more targeted loss-of-function or rescue experiments.

It would also be very informative to the field to compare the specific behavioral deficits, if any, of inhibiting specific downstream targets of the rhinal CCK neurons. As a concrete example, the hippocampus may be involved in learning more sophisticated motor skills (as the authors pointed out in the Discussion) besides the motor cortex. It would be a critical result if the authors could either show or exclude the possibility that the motor learning deficits observed in CCK-/- mice were at least partially due to the inhibition of hippocampal plasticity. This echoes my earlier point (point 1) that it is unclear whether the effect of lacking CCK in knock-out mice is specific in the motor cortex or engages multiple brain regions.

Lastly, because Fig. 4 only showed histology in the rhinal and motor cortices, I am not sure whether the motor cortex solely receives CCK input from the rhinal cortex. A more comprehensive viral tracing result could be important to both supporting the circuit-specificity of the observed behavior in this study and providing a clearer picture of where the motor cortex receives CCK inputs.

5) I am glad to see the CCK4 rescue experiment to demonstrate the sufficiency of CCK in promoting motor learning. However, the rescue experiment lacked specificity: IP injection did not allow specific "gain of function" in the motor cortex but instead, the improved learning ability in CCK knock-out mice could be a result of a global effect of CCK4 across multiple brain regions. CCK4 injection specifically targeted at the motor cortex would be necessary to support the sufficiency of CCK-regulated neuroplasticity in the motor cortex to promote motor learning.

Author Response

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This thorough study expands our understanding of BMP signaling, a conserved developmental pathway, involved in processes diverse such as body patterning and neurogenesis. The authors applied multiple, state-of-art strategies to the anthozoan Nematostella vectensis in order to first identify the direct BMP signaling targets - bound by the activated pSMAD1/5 protein - and then dissect the role of a novel pSMAD1/5 gradient modulator, zwim4-6. The list of target genes features multiple developmental regulators, many of which are bilaterally expressed, and which are notably shared between Drosophila and Xenopus. The analysis identified in particular zswim4-6 a novel nuclear modulator of the BMP pathway conserved also in vertebrates. A combination of both loss-of-function (injection of antisense morpholino oligonucleotide, CRISPR/Cas9 knockout, expression of dominant negative) and gain-of-function assays, and of transcriptome sequencing identified that zwim acts as a transcriptional repression of BMP signaling. Functional manipulation of zswim5 in zebrafish shows a conserved role in modulating BMP signaling in a vertebrate.

The particular strength of the study lies in the careful and thorough analysis performed. This is solid developmental work, where one clear biological question is progressively dissected, with the most appropriate tools. The functional results are further validated by alternative approaches. Data is clearly presented and methods are detailed. I have a couple of comments.

1) I was intrigued - as the authors - by the fact that the ChiP-Seq did not identify any known BMP ligand bound by pSMAD1/5. Are these genes found in the published ChiP-Seq data of the other species used for the comparative analysis? One hypothesis could be that there is a change in the regulatory interactions and that the initial set-up of the gradient requires indeed a feedback loop, which is then turned off at later gastrula. In this case, immunoprecipitation at early gastrula, prior to the set-up of the pSMAD1/5 gradient, could reveal a different scenario. Alternately, the regulation could be indirect, for example, through RGM, an additional regulator of BMP signaling expressed on the side of lower BMP activity, which is among the targets of the ChiP-Seq. This aspect could be discussed. Additionally, even if this is perhaps outside the scope of this study, I think it would be informative to further assess the effect of ZSWIM manipulation on RGM (and vice versa).

Indeed, BMP genes are direct BMP signaling targets in Drosophila (dpp) (Deignan et al., 2016, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006164) and frog (bmp2, bmp4, bmp5, bmp7) (Stevens et al., 2021, https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.145789). Of all these ligands, only the dorsally expressed Xenopus bmp2 is repressed by BMP signaling, while another dorsally expressed Xenopus BMP gene admp is not among the direct targets. All other BMP genes listed here are expressed in the pMad/pSMAD1/5/8-positive domain and are activated by BMP signaling.

In Nematostella, we do not find BMP genes among the ChIP-Seq targets, but this is not that surprising considering the dynamics of the bmp2/4, bmp5-8 and chordin expression, as well as the location of the pSMAD1/5-positive cells. In late gastrulae/early planulae, Chordin appears to be shuttling BMP2/4 and BMP5-8 away from their production source and over to the gdf5-like side of the directive axis (Genikhovich et al., 2015; Leclere and Rentsch, 2014). By 4 dpf, chordin expression stops, and BMP2/4 and BMP5-8 start to be both expressed AND signal in the mesenteries. If bmp2/4 and bmp5-8 expression were directly suppressed by pSMAD1/5 (as is the case chordin or rgm expression), this mesenterial expression would not be possible. Therefore, in our opinion, it is most likely that at late gastrula and early planula the regulation of bmp2/4 and bmp5-8 expression by BMP signaling is indirect. We do not have an explanation for why gdf5-like (another BMP gene expressed on the “high pSMAD1/5” side) is not retrieved as a direct BMP target in our ChIP data. Since we do not understand well enough how BMP gene expression is regulated, we do not discuss this at length in the manuscript.

As the Reviewer suggested, we analyzed the effect of ZSWIM4-6 KD on the expression of rgm. Expectedly, since it is expressed on the “low BMP side”, its expression was strongly expanded (Figure 6 - Figure Supplement 4)

2) I do not fully understand the rationale behind the choice of performing the comparative assays in zebrafish: as the conservation was initially identified in Xenopus, I would have expected the experiment to be performed in frog. Furthermore, reading the phylogeny (Figure 4A), it is not obvious to me why ZSWIM5 was chosen for the assay (over the other paralog ZSWIM6). Could the Authors comment on this experiment further?

The comparison was done in zebrafish because we were planning to generate zswim5 mutants, whose analysis is currently in progress. ZSWIM6 is not expressed at the developmental stages we were interested in, while ZSWIM5 was, based on available zebrafish expression data (White et al., 2017):

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors provide a nice resource of putative direct BMP target genes in Nematostella vectensis by performing ChIP-seq with an anti-pSmad1/5 antibody, while also performing bulk RNA-seq with BMP2/4 or GDF5 knockdown embryos. Genes that exhibit pSmad1/5 binding and have changes in transcription levels after BMP signaling loss were further annotated to identify those with conserved BMP response elements (BREs). Further characterization of one of the direct BMP target genes (zswim4-6) was performed by examining how expression changed following BMP receptor or ligand loss of function, as well as how loss or gain of function of zswim4-6 affected development and BMP signaling. The authors concluded that zswim4-6 modulates BMP signaling activity and likely acts as a pSMAD1/5 dependent co-repressor. However, the mechanism by which zswim4-6 affects the BMP gradient or interacts with pSMAD1/5 to repress target genes is not clear. The authors test the activity of a zswim4-6 homologue in zebrafish (zswim5) by over-expressing mRNA and find that pSMAD1/5/9 labeling is reduced and that embryos have a phenotype suggesting loss of BMP signaling, and conclude that zswim4-6 is a conserved regulator of BMP signaling. This conclusion needs further support to confirm BMP loss of function phenotypes in zswim5 over-expression embryos.

Major comments

1) The BMP direct target comparison was performed between Nematostella, Drosophila, and Xenopus, but not with existing data from zebrafish (Greenfeld 2021, Plos Biol). Given the functional analysis with zebrafish later in the paper it would be nice to see if there are conserved direct target genes in zebrafish, and in particular, is zswim5 (or other zswim genes) are direct targets. Since conservation of zswim4-6 as a direct BMP target between Nematostella and Xenopus seemed to be part of the rationale for further functional analysis, it would also be nice to know if this is a conserved target in zebrafish.

Thank you for the suggestion. In the paper by Greenfeld et al., 2021, zebrafish zswim5 was downregulated approximately 2.4x in the bmp7 mutant at 6 hpf, while zswim6 was barely expressed and not affected at this stage. We added this information to the text of the manuscript. Expression of several other zebrafish zswim genes was also affected in the bmp7 mutant, but these genes do not appear relevant for our study since their corresponding orthologs are not identified as pSMAD1/5 ChIP-Seq targets in Nematostella. Notably, zebrafish zzswim5 is not clearly differentially expressed in BMP or Chd overexpression conditions (See Supplementary file 1 in Rogers et al. 2020). Importantly, in the paper, we wanted to compare ChiP-Seq data with ChIP-Seq data, however, unfortunately, no ChIP-Seq data for pSMAD1/5/8 is currently available for zebrafish, thus precluding comparisons.

Related to this, in the discussion it is mentioned that zswim4/6 is also a direct BMP target in mouse hair follicle cells, but it wasn't obvious from looking at the supplemental data in that paper where this was drawn from.

Please see Supplementary Table 1, second Excel sheet labeled “Mx ChIP_Seq” in Genander et al., 2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2014.09.009. Zswim4 has a single pSMAD1 peak associated with it, Zswim6 has two.

2) The loss of zswim4-6 function via MO injection results in changes to pSmad1/5 staining, including a reduction in intensity in the endoderm and gain of intensity in the ectoderm, while over-expression results in a loss of intensity in the ectoderm and no apparent change in the endoderm. While this is interesting, it is not clear how zswim4-6 is functioning to modify BMP signaling, and how this might explain differential effects in ectoderm vs. endoderm. Is the assumption that the mechanism involves repression of chordin? And if so one could test the double knockdown of zswim4-6 and chordin and look for the rescue of pSad1/5 levels or morphological phenotype.

We do not think that the mechanism of the ZSWIM4-6 action is via repression of Chordin. As loss of chordin leads to the loss of pSMAD1/5 in Nematostella (Genikhovich et al., 2015), the proposed experiment is, unfortunately, not feasible to test this hypothesis. Currently, we see two distinct effects of the modulation of zswim4-6 expression. First, it affects the pSMAD1/5 gradient, possibly by destabilizing nuclear SMAD1/5, as has been proposed by Wang et al., 2022 for the vertebrate Zswim4. This is in line with our results shown on Fig. 6C-F’ and Fig. 6-Figure supplement 3. In our opinion, the reaction of the genes expressed on the “high BMP” side of the directive axis to the overexpression or KD of ZSWIM4-6 (Fig. 6I-K’, 6N-P’) can be explained by these changes in the pSMAD1/5 signaling intensity. Secondly, zswim4-6 appears to promote pSMAD1/5-mediated gene repression. This is in line with the reaction of the genes expressed on the “low BMP” side of the directive axis (Fig. 6G-H’, 6L-M’, Fig. 6-Figure Supplement 4). These genes are repressed by BMP signaling, but they expand their expression upon zswim4-6 KD in spite of the increased pSMAD1/5. Our ChiP experiment (Fig. 6Q) supports this view.

3) Several experiments are done to determine how zswim4-6 expression responds to the loss of function of different BMP ligands and receptors, with the conclusion being that swim4-6 is a BMP2/4 target but not a GDF5 target, with a lot of the discussion dedicated to this as well. However, the authors show a binary response to the loss of BMP2/4 function, where zswim4-6 is expressed normally until pSmad1/5 levels drop low enough, at which point expression is lost. Since the authors also show that GDF5 morphants do not have as strong a reduction in pSmad1/5 levels compared to BMP2/4 morphants, perhaps GDF5 plays a positive but redundant role in swim4-6 expression. To test this possibility the authors could inject suboptimal doses of BMP2/4 MO with GDF5 MO and look for synergy in the loss of zswim4-6 expression.

Thanks for this great suggestion! We performed this experiment (Fig. 5H’’-L) and indeed, a suboptimal dose of BMP2/4MO + GDF5lMO results in a complete radialization of the embryo and abolished zswim4–6, similar to the effect of a high dose of BMP2/4. This result suggests that rather than being a ligand-specific signaling function, GDF5-like signaling alone still provides sufficiently high pSmad1/5 levels to activate zswim4-6 expression to apparent wildtype levels, demonstrating the sensitivity of this gene to even very low amounts of BMP signaling.

4) The zswim4-6 morphant embryos show increased expression of zswim4-6 mRNA, which is said to indicate that zswim4-6 negatively regulates its own expression. However in zebrafish translation blocking MOs can sometimes stabilize target transcripts, causing an artifact that can be mistakenly assumed to be increased transcription (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7162184/). Some additional controls here would be warranted for making this conclusion.

Thanks for raising this important experimental consideration. To-date, we do not have any evidence for MO-mediated transcript stabilization in Nematostella, and we have not found such data in the literature on models other than zebrafish. mRNA stabilization by the MO also seemed unlikely because we were unable to KD zswim4-6 using several independent shRNAs - an effect we frequently observe with genes, whose activity negatively regulates their own expression. However, to test the possibility that zswim4-6MO binding stabilizes zswim4-6 mRNA, we injected mRNA containing the zswim4-6MO recognition sequence followed by the mCherry coding sequence (zswim4-6MO-mCherrry) with either zswim4-6MO or control MO. We could clearly detect mCherry fluorescence at 1 dpf if control MO was co-injected with the mRNA, but not if zswim4-6MO was coninjected with the mRNA. At 2 dpf (the stage at which we showed upregulation of zswim4-6 upon zswim4-6MO injection on Fig. 6I-I’), zswim4-6MO-mCherrry mRNA was undetectable by in situ hybridization with our standard FITC-labeled mCherry probe independent of whether zswim4-6MO-mCherrry mRNA was co-injected with the control MO or ZSWIM4-6MO, while hybridization with the FITC-labeled FoxA probe worked perfectly.

Author response image 1.

We are currently offering two alternative hypothesis for the observed increase in zswim4-6 levels in the paper rather than stating explicitly that ZSWIM4-6 negatively regulates its own expression: “The KD of zswim4-6 translation resulted in a strong upregulation of zswim4-6 transcription, especially in the ectoderm, suggesting that ZSWIM4-6 might either act as its own transcriptional repressor or that zswim4-6 transcription reacts to the increased ectodermal pSMAD1/5 (Fig. 6I-I’).” Given the sensitivity of zswim4-6 to even the weakest pSMAD1/5 signal (zswim4/6 is expressed upon GDF5-like KD, which drastically reduces pSMAD1/5 signaling intensity (see Fig. 1 and 2 in Genikhovich et al., 2015, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2015.02.035 and Fig. 6-Figure supplement 3 of this paper), the latter option (that it reacts to the increased ectodermal pSMAD1/5) is, in our opinion, clearly the more probable one.

5) Zswim4-6 is proposed to be a co-repressor of pSmad1/5 targets based on the occupancy of zswim4-6 at the chordin BRE (which is normally repressed by BMP signaling) and lack of occupancy at the gremlin BRE (normally activated by BMP signaling). This is a promising preliminary result but is based only on the analysis of two genes. Since the authors identified BREs in other direct target genes, examining more genes would better support the model.

We suggest that ZSWIM4-6 may be a co-repressor of pSMAD1/5 targets because it is a nuclear protein (Fig. 4G), whose knockdown results in the expansion of the ectodermal expression of several genes repressed by pSMAD1/5 in spite of the expansion of pSMAD1/5 itself (Fig. 6G-H’, 6L-M’, Fig. 6-Figure Supplement 4). Our limited ChIP analysis supports this idea by showing that ZSWIM4-6 is bound to the pSMAD1/5 site of chordin (repressed by pSMAD1/5) but not on gremlin (activated by pSMAD1/5). We agree that adding the analysis of more targets in order to challenge our hypothesis would be good. However, given technical limitations (having to inject many thousands of eggs with the EF1a::ZSWIM4-6-GFP plasmid in order to get enough nuclei to extract sufficient immunoprecipitated chromatin for qPCR on 3 genes (chordin, gremlin, GAPDH) for each biological replicate, it is currently unfortunately not feasible to test more genes. It will be of great interest for follow up studies to generate a knock-in line with tagged zswim4-6 to analyze target binding on a genome-wide scale. We stress in the discussion that currently the power of our conclusion is low.

6) The rationale for further examination of zswim4-6 function in Nematostella was based in part on it being a conserved direct BMP target in Nematostella and Xenopus. The analysis of zebrafish zswim5 function however does not examine whether zswim5 is a BMP target gene (direct or indirect). BMP inhibition followed by an in situ hybridization for zswim5 would establish whether its expression is activated downstream of BMP.

In the paper by Greenfeld et al., 2021, zebrafish zswim5 was downregulated approximately 2.4x in the bmp7 mutant at 6 hpf. However, this gene was not among the 57 genes, which were considered to be direct BMP targets because their expression was affected by bmp7 mRNA injection into cycloheximide-treated bmp7 mutants (Greenfeld et al., 2021). We added this information to the text of the manuscript.

7) Although there is a reduction in pSmad1/5/9 staining in zebrafish injected with zswim5 mRNA, it is difficult to tell whether the resulting morphological phenotypes closely resemble zebrafish with BMP pathway mutations (such as bmp2b). More analysis is warranted here to determine whether stereotypical BMP loss of function phenotypes are observed, such as dorsalization of the mesoderm and loss of ventral tail fin.

We agree, and we have tuned down all zebrafish arguments. Analyses of zswim5 mutants are currently ongoing.

Author Response

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

eLife assessment

This paper reports the fundamental discovery of adrenergic modulation of spontaneous firing through the inhibition of the Na+ leak channel NALCN in cartwheel cells in the dorsal cochlear nucleus. This study provides unequivocal evidence that the activation of alpha-2 adrenergic or GABA-B receptors inhibit NALCN currents to reduce neuronal excitability. The evidence supporting the conclusions is compelling, the electrophysiological data is high quality and the experimental design is rigorous.

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This study uses electrophysiological techniques in vitro to address the role of the Na+ leak channel NALCN in various physiological functions in cartwheel interneurons of the dorsal cochlear nucleus. Comparing wild type and glycinergic neuron-specific knockout mice for NALCN, the authors show that these channels 1) are required for spontaneous firing, 2) are modulated by noradrenaline (NA, via alpha2 receptors) and GABA (through GABAB receptors), 3) how the modulation by NA enhances IPSCs in these neurons.

This work builds on previous results from the Trussell's lab in terms of the physiology of cartwheel cells, and from other labs in terms of the role of NALCN channels, that have been characterized in more and more brain areas somewhat recently; for this reason, this study could be of interest for researchers that work in other preparations as well. The general conclusions are strongly supported by results that are clearly and elegantly presented.

I have a few comments that, in my opinion, might help clarify some aspects of the manuscript.

1. It is mentioned throughout the manuscript, including the abstract, that the results suggest a closed apposition of NALCN channels and alpha2 and GABAB receptors. From what I understand, this conclusion comes from the fact that GABAB receptors activate GIRK channels through a membrane-delimited mechanism. Is it possible that these receptors converge on other effectors, for example adenylate cyclase (see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6374141/).

We have now tested the role of adenylyl cyclase modulation in the control of NALCN, by saturating the cells with a cAMP analogue 8-Br-cAMP and found no effect on the NA response. These data are included in the paper. While further experiments are necessary, these results argue in favor of a direct gating by G-proteins.

1. In Figure 2G, the neurons from NALCN KO mice appear to reach a significantly higher frequency than those from WT (figure 2E, 110 vs. 70 spikes/s). Was this higher frequency a feature of all experiments? The results mention a rundown of peak firing rate due to whole-cell dialysis, but, from what I understand, the control conditions should be similar for all experiments.

The peak firing rates in control solutions for WT and KO CWC are not statistically different.

1. Also in Figure 2, the firing patterns for neurons from WT and NALCN KO mice appear to be quite different, with spikes appearing to be generated during the hyperpolarization of the bursts in the second half of the current step for WT neurons but always during the depolarization in KO neurons. Was this always the case? If so, could NALCN channels be involved in this type of firing? Along these lines, it would be interesting to show an example of a firing pattern of neurons from WT mice in the presence of NA, which inhibits NALCN channels.

The specific pattern of spikes in CWC is quite variable from trial-to-trial or cell-to-cell, as it is dependent on multiple CaV and calcium dependent K channels subtypes, and is not dependent on the genotypes used here. The primary effects observed in the KO are in background firing and sensitivity to NA, both reflected alterations in rheobase. The firing pattern example requested was shown in the raster plot of fig 2B2.

1. It might be interesting to discuss how the hyperpolarization induced by the activation of GIRK channels and inhibition of NALCN channels could have different consequences due to their opposite effect on the input resistance.

We considered this as a point of discussion, but decided that making sense of it would depend on assumptions about the location of the channels (dendritic vs somatic, distance to AIS) that we do not have data for. For example, a dendritic increase in resistance through NALCN block, leading to a hyperpolarization of the soma, might have actions similar to a somatic hyperpolarizing conductance increase by GIRK, as far as the voltage at the AIS is concerned.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This is a very interesting paper with several important findings related to the working mechanism of the cartwheel cells (CWC) in the dorsal cochlear nucleus (DCN). These cells generate spontaneous firing that is inhibited by the activation of α2-adrenergic receptors, which also enhances the synaptic strength in the cells, but the mechanisms underlying the spontaneous firing and the dual regulation by α2-adrenergic receptor activation have remained elusive. By recording these cells with the NALCN sodium-leak channel conditionally knocked, the authors discovered that both the spontaneous firing and the regulation by noradrenaline (NA) require NALCN. Mechanistically, the authors found that activation of the adrenergic receptor or GABAB receptor inhibits NALCN. Interestingly, these receptor activations also suppress the low [Ca2+] "activation" of NALCN currents, suggesting crosstalk between the pathways. The finding of such dominant contribution of the NALCN conductance to the regulation of firing by NA is somewhat surprising considering that NA is known to regulate K+ conductances in many other neurons.

The studies reveal the molecular mechanisms underlying well known regulations of the neuronal processes in the auditory pathway. The results will be important to the understanding of auditory information processing in particular, and, more generally, to the understanding of the regulation of inhibitory neurons and ion channels. The results are convincing and are clearly presented.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The study by Ngodup and colleagues describes the contribution of sodium leak NALCN conductance on the effects of noradrenaline on cartwheel interneurons of the DCN. The manuscript is very well-written and the experiments are well-controlled. The scope of the study is of high biological relevance and recapitulates a primary finding of the Khaliq lab (Philippart et al., eLife, 2018) in ventral midbrain dopamine neurons, that Gi/o-coupled receptors inhibit NALCN current to reduce neuronal excitability. Together these studies provide unequivocable evidence for NALCN as a downstream target of these receptors. There are no major concerns. I have only minor suggestions:

Minor

1. As introduced in the introduction, NALCN is inhibited by extracellular calcium which has led to some discourse of the relevance of NALCN when recorded in 0.1 mM calcium. A strength of this study is the effect of NA on NALCN is recorded in physiological levels of calcium (1.2 mM). I suggest including the concentration of extracellular calcium in the aCSF in the Results section instead of relying on the reader to look to the Methods.

Done.

1. It would be interesting to include the basal membrane properties of the KO compared to wildtype, including membrane resistance and resting membrane potential. From the example recording in Figure 2, one might think that the KOs have lower membrane resistance, so it is interesting that the 2 mV hyperpolarization produced similar effects on rheobase. In addition, from the example in Figure 2G, it appears that NA has an effect on firing frequency with large current injection in the KO. Is this true in grouped data and if so, is there any speculation into how this occurs?

We have included in the text a comparison of the input resistance in WT and KO. These were not different. This should not be too surprising given the wide range of values between animals, and the necessity to compare populations. Measurements of resting potential are complicated by the fact that CWC are normally spontaneously active. As was discussed in the text, peak firing frequency declined with time during recording in both control and KO, necessitating normalization as shown in Fig 2E-H.

1. Please expand on the rationale for why GABAB and alpha2 must be physically close to NALCN. To my knowledge, the mechanism by which these receptors inhibit NALCN is not known. Must it be membrane-delimited?

Given the known membrane delimited modulation of GIRK by GABAB, and that alpha2 and GABAB receptors appear to share the same population of NALCN channels, and that alpha2 receptors do not appear to target GIRK channels, we felt the simplest explanation would be coupling through G-proteins, with spatial segregation of different receptor/channel pools providing the means for separating GIRK and NALCN effects. Given that the alpha2 receptor is a Gi/o GPCR, we have now included in the revision new experiments using 8-Br-cAMP, as discussed above. These showed no effect on the NA response, consistent with a direct effect membrane delimited of G-proteins. We acknowledge however that further experiments are warranted.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

1. I suggest labeling the voltage traces in Figure 2 with WT and KO for easier comprehension; in addition, I suggest adding the average data to the plots in Figure 2, as in Figure 2-supplementary Figure 1 panel F.

We have added the figure labels as requested. We chose not to add the average data as we noticed that averaging the full FI plots led to a smearing of the curves and a distortion in the apparent rheobase. Thus, we instead measured the rheobase for individual cells and report their average.

1. For readers that are not familiar with the field, more details should be given about the electrical stimulation to evoke IPSCs in cartwheel cells, and what they represent.

Done.

1. The methods should mention if and how the concentrations of divalents were adjusted in the experiments with 0.1 extracellular Ca2+

Done.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

I only have several minor comments.

1. The total lack of spontaneous firing in CWCs in the NALCN KO (Fig. 1) is interesting and provides an opportunity to probe the in vivo function of such spontaneous firing. Besides being a little smaller, do the mutant mice have any sign of abnormality in sound signal processing?

Figure 1 – Figure supplement 1 showed that there are no effects on auditory brainstem responses in the KO.

1. Figs. 3&4 (and several other figures with voltage-clamp recordings), a line indicating zero current level would be useful.

Done

1. page 7, "Outward current generated by suppression of NALCN": it might be better to state as "Outward response generated by suppression of NALCN", as the authors correctly pointed out that the NA-induced apparently outward current response is largely a result of an inhibition of NALCN-mediated inward Na+ current. One way to clarify this might be to record at the Nernst potential of K+ to isolate the contribution of Na+ currents (unclear if K+- or Cs+-based pipette was used in the experiment in Fig 3).

Text has been modified.

1. Figs. 5,6&7: do the dashed lines indicate initial current level or zero current level?

Initial current. See legends.

1. The labeling of some of the bar graphs can be made more clear. For example, in Fig. 2K, the right two columns should be labeled as WT as well. Fig. 3C & Fig. 4C, the left two columns should be labeled as WT and the right two as KO.

Added labels to Fig 2 as requested.

1. Figs. 5-7: The suppression of low extracellular [Ca2+]-induced NALCN-dependent current by NA and baclofen is very interesting. As the tonic inhibition of NALCN by extracellular Ca2+ is likely through a Ca2+-sensing GPCR (CaSR) and G-proteins (lowering [Ca2+] releases the inhibition and generates inward current) (Lu et al. 2010), the action of NA and baclofen may all converge onto the same G-protein dependent pathway of the Ca2+-sensing receptor. I'd include this in the discussion to provide a potential mechanistic explanation of the interesting observation.

This is indeed an interesting idea. We prefer not to discuss here, as 1) the source of Ca2+ sensitivity of the channel seems to be controversial (Chua et al 2020), and 2) the effect of Ca2+ reduction is enormously slower than the effect of the modulators (Fig 5-7), implying distinct mechanisms.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Typos/general comments

1. Figure 2 would be easier to comprehend with WT and KO labels as in the other figures. Done

2. Page 11, size of the IPSCs in NA is missing the minus sign.

Corrected.

1. Is the y-axis correct on Figure 8B? This looks like it is doubling the size of the IPSC.

Thank you for catching this mistake. The formula used to calculate % change was in error. We have corrected all the data analysis in the figure, which fortunately did not change the conclusion. Regarding the axis, note that the measurement was % change, not ratio of drug vs control.

Author Response

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

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

I have only a few very minor suggestions for improvement.

• the text repeatedly uses the terms "central nervous system" and "enteric nervous system", which are not in standard use in the field. These terms are not defined until the bottom of p. 12 even though they are used earlier. It would be useful for the authors to explicitly describe their definitions of these terms earlier in the paper.

Fixed.

• the inclusion of four pre-trained models is a powerful and useful aspect of WormPsyQi. Would it be possible to develop a simple tool that, when given the user's images, could recommend which of the four models would be most appropriate?

We appreciate the reviewer for bringing this up. To address this, we have now added an additional function in the pipeline to test all pre-trained models on representative input images. Before processing an entire dataset, users can view all segmentation results for images in Fiji to assess which model performed best, judged by the user. The GUI, running guide document, and manuscript have been modified accordingly.

In addition, we would like to emphasize that the pre-trained models were developed by iterative analyses of many reporters, often with multiple rounds of parameter tuning; the results were validated post hoc to choose the optimal model for each reporter, and we have listed this information in Supplemental Table 1 to inform the choice of the pre-trained model for commonly used reporter types.

• On p. 11 (and elsewhere), the differences in the performance of WormPsyQi and human experimenters are called "statistically insignificant". This statement is not particularly informative (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). Can the authors provide a more rigorous analysis here - or provide an estimate of the typical effect size of the machine-vs-human difference?

To address this, we have included additional analysis in Figure 2 – figure supplement 3. For two reporters - I5 GFP::CLA-1 and M4 GFP::RAB-3 - we compare WormPsyQi vs. labelers and inter-labeler puncta quantification. A high Pearson correlation coefficient (r2) reflects greater correspondence between two independent scoring methods. We chose these two test cases to demonstrate that the machine-vs-human effect size is reporter-dependent. For I5, where the CLA-1 signal is very discrete and S/N ratio is high, the discrepancy between WormPsyQi, labeler 1, and labeler 2 is minimal (r2=0.735); moreover, scoring correspondence depends on the labeler (r2=0.642 and 0.942, respectively). In other words, WormPsyQi mimics some labelers better than others, which is to be expected. For M4, where the RAB-3 signal is diffuse and synapse density is high in the ROI, the inter-labeler discrepancy is high (r2=0.083) and WormPsyQi vs labeler (1 or 2) discrepancy is slightly reduced (r2=0.322 and 0.116, respectively). The problematic regions for the M4 RAB-3 reporter are emphasized in Figure 6 - figure supplement 1A. Overall, the additional analysis suggests that the effect size is contingent on the reporter type and image quality, and importantly for scoring difficult strains WormPsyQi may average out inter-labeler scoring variability.

• p. 12: "Again, relying on alternative reporters where possible..." This is an incomplete sentence - are some words missing?

Edited.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

1. The authors effectively validated the sexually dimorphic synaptic connectivity by comparing the synapse puncta numbers of PHB>AVA, PHA>AVG, PHB>AVG, and ADL>AVA. However, these differences appear to be quite robust. It would be beneficial for the authors to test whether WormPsyQi can detect more subtle changes at the synapses, such as 10-20% changes in puncta number and fluorescence intensity.

While the dimorphic strains were used to first validate WormPsyQi based on the ground truth of very well-characterized reporters, the reviewer reasonably asks whether our pipeline can pick up on more subtle differences. To address this, we have now included an additional figure (Figure 9 – figure supplement 2), where we performed pairwise comparisons between L4 and adult timepoints for the reporter M3 GFP::RAB-3. As reflected in panels A and C, although the difference between puncta number and mean intensity between L4 and adult is marginal (22% increase in puncta number and 13% increase in mean intensity from L4 to adult), WormPsyQi can pick it up as statistically significant.

1. On page 10, the authors mentioned that "cell-specific RAB-3 reporters have a more diffuse synaptic signal compared to the punctate signal in CLA-1 reporters for the same neuron, as shown for the neuron pair ASK (Figure 4 -figure supplement 1B, C)". It is important to note that in this case, the reporter gene expressing RAB-3 is part of an extrachromosomal array, whereas the reporter gene expressing CLA-1 is integrated into the chromosome. It's possible that the observed difference in pattern may arise from variations in the transgenic strategies employed.

To emphasize the difference in puncta features inherent to the reporter type, we have now added WormPsyQi segmentation results for ASK CLA-1 extrachromosomal reporter (otEx7455) next to the ASK CLA-1 integrant (otIs789) and ASK RAB-3 reporter (otEx7231) in Figure 4 – figure supplement 1C. Importantly, otEx7455 was integrated to generate otIs789, so they belong to the same transgenic line. Literature shows that RAB-3 and CLA-1 have different localization patterns and corresponding functions at presynaptic specializations, and this is qualitatively and quantitatively shown by the significant difference in puncta area size between RAB-3 and both CLA-1 reporters, i.e., both CLA-1 reporters have smaller, discrete puncta compared to RAB-3 (Figure 4 – figure supplement 1C). Quantitatively, in the case of ASK - where the synapse density is sparse enough that even diffuse RAB-3 puncta can be segmented without confounding adjacent puncta – overall puncta number between otEx7231 and otIs789 are similar. However, RAB-3 signal is diffuse and this poses quantification problems in cases where the synapse density is higher (e.g. AIB, SAA in Figure 4 – figure supplement 1D) and WormPsyQi fails to score puncta in these reporters since the signal is not punctate. As far as integrated vs. extrachromosomal reporters go, the reviewer is right in pointing out that some differences may be stemming from reporter type as our additional analysis between otIs789 and otEx7455 indeed shows fewer puncta in the latter owing to variable expressivity.

1. The authors mentioned that having a cytoplasmic reporter in the background of the synaptic reporter enhanced performance. It would be more informative to provide comparative results with and without cytoplasmic reporters, particularly for scenarios involving dim signals or densely distributed signals.

The presence of a cytoplasmic marker is critical in two specific scenarios: 1) images where the S/N ratio is poor, and 2) when the image S/N ratio is good, but the ROI is large, which would make the image processing computationally expensive.

To demonstrate the first scenario, we have included an additional panel in Figure 4 – figure supplement 1(B) to show how WormPsyQi performs on the PHB>AVA GRASP reporter with and without the channel having cytoplasmic marker. The original image was processed as-is in the former case with both the synaptic marker in green and cytoplasmic marker in red; for comparison, only the green channel having synaptic marker was used to simulate a situation where the strain does not have a cytoplasmic marker. As shown in the figure, in the presence of background autofluorescence signal from the gut (which can be easily confounded with GRASP puncta depending on the worm’s orientation), WormPsyQi quantified GRASP puncta much more robustly with the cytoplasmic label; without the cytoplasmic marker, gut puncta are incorrectly segmented as synapses (highlighted with red arrows) while some dim synaptic puncta are not picked up (highlighted with yellow arrows).

To demonstrate the second scenario, we now highlight the case of ASK CLA-1 in Figure 2 - figure supplement 4E. Additionally, we have emphasized in the manuscript that in cases where the S/N ratio is good and the image is restricted to a small ROI, WormPsyQi will perform well even in the absence of a cytoplasmic marker. This is equally important to note as having a specific cytoplasmic marker in the background may not always be feasible and, in fact, if the cytoplasmic marker is discontinuous or dim relative to puncta signal, using a suboptimal neurite mask for synapse segmentation would result in undercounting synapses.

1. On page 12, the author stated "We also note that in several cases, GRASP quantification differed from EM scoring". However, the EM scoring is primarily based on a single sample, making it challenging to conduct a statistical analysis for the purpose of comparison.

This is correct and is indeed a limitation of EM for this type of analysis. We have now reworded this sentence (page 14) to emphasize the reviewer’s point, and it is also elaborated further in the limitations section.

1. In Figure 6F, the discrepancy between WormPsyQi and human quantification in the analysis of RAB-3 is observed. The author stated that "the RAB-3 signal was too diffuse to resolve all puncta". To better illustrate this discrepancy, it would be beneficial to include images highlighting the puncta that WormPsyQi cannot score, providing direct evidence that diffusing signals are not able to automatically detectable.

To highlight puncta that were not segmented by WormPsyQi but were successfully scored manually, we have included arrows in Figure 6. In addition, for reporter M4p::GFP::RAB-3, we have included magnified insets in Figure 6 - figure supplement 1A to highlight the region where human annotator scores more puncta than WormPsyQi owing to the high synapse density. In future implementations, additional functionality can be built for separating these merged puncta into instances based on geometrical features such as shape and intensity contour.

1. In Figure 9 S1D, the results from WormPsyQi and the manual are totally different. To address this notable discrepancy, the authors should highlight and illustrate the areas of discrepancy in the images. This visual representation can assist future users in identifying signal types that may not be well-suited for WormPsyQi analysis and inspire the development of new strategies to tackle such challenges.

This is now addressed in additional figure panels in Figure 4 – figure supplement 1B and Figure 6 - figure supplement 1A.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

I found the comparison between manual quantification and WormPsyQi-based quantification to be very informative. In my opinion, quantifying the number of puncta is not the most tedious/difficult quantification even when done manually. Would the authors be able to include manual-WormPsyQi comparison for more time-consuming and potentially more prone to human error/bias quantifications such as puncta size or distribution patterns using a few markers with some inter/intra animal variabilities?

To address this point, we have now included an additional figure supplement to Figure 2 (Figure 2 – figure supplement 4). We focused on the ASK GFP::CLA-1 reporter and had two human annotators manually label the masks of puncta for each worm by scanning Z-stacks and drawing all pixels belonging to each puncta in Fiji, which were then processed by WormPsyQi’s quantification pipeline to score puncta number, volume, and distribution. We also included a comparison of overall image processing time for each annotator and WormPsyQi. For features analyzed, the difference between WormPsyQi and human annotators for ASK CLA-1 is not statistically significant for multiple puncta features. Importantly, WormPsyQi reduces overall processing time by at least an order of magnitude, and while this is already advantageous for counting puncta, it is especially useful for other important puncta features since a) they may not be easily discernible, and b) it is extremely laborious to quantify them manually in large datasets when pixel-wise labels are required.

The authors listed minimum human errors and biases as one of the benefits of WormPsyQi. For the markers with discrepancies in quantifications between human and WormPsyQi, have the authors encountered or considered human errors/biases as potential reasons for such discrepancies?

This is the same point brought up by reviewer 1. We added Figure 2- figure supplement 3 to compare WormPsyQi to different human labelers, and show that because human labels can introduce systematic bias, WormPsyQi reduces such bias by scoring images using the same metric.

The authors noted that WormPsyQi would be useful for comparing different genotypes/environments. Some mutants have known changes in synapse patterning/number. It would be helpful if the authors could validate WormPsyQi using some of the mutants with known synapse defects. For instance, zig-10 mutant increases the cholinergic synapse density just by a bit (Cherra and Jin, Neuron 2016), and nlr-1 mutant disrupts punctated localization of UNC-9 gap junction in the nerve ring (Meng and Yan, Neuron 2020), which could only be detectable by experts' eyes. It would be interesting to see if WormPsyQi picks up such subtle phenotypes.

We agree that our pipeline would need to be tested in multiple paradigms to test its performance on detecting additional subtle phenotypes. In the context of this paper, we note that the developmental analysis of puncta in Figure 8 was performed to validate the ground truth from previous EM-based analyses (Witvliet et al., 2021), albeit the latter was limited by sample size. We extended this developmental analysis to the pharyngeal reporters, and in some cases the difference across timepoints was marginal (as emphasized by additional Figure 9 - figure supplement 2), but still detected by WormPsyQi. Lastly, our synapse localization analysis in Figure 10 assigns the probability of finding a synapse at a particular location along a neurite, which is not easily discernible by manual scoring.

One of the benefits of the automated data analysis program is to be able to notice the differences you do not expect. For example, there are situations where you feel that in certain genotypes there is something different from wild type with their synapses but you can't tell what's different from wild type. In such cases, you may not know what to quantify. I think it would be beneficial if there were more parameters to be included in the default qualifications such as puncta number/size/intensity/distributions in the pipeline, so that the users may find unexpected phenotypes from one of the default quantifications.

We apologize if this was not clearer in the manuscript where we first describe the pipeline in detail. To clarify, the output of WormPsyQi is a CSV file which includes several quantitative features, such as mean/max/min fluorescence intensity, puncta volume, and position. While most of our analyses are focused on puncta count, the user can perform downstream statistical analyses on all additional features scored to infer which features are most significantly variable across conditions. To make this clearer, we have elaborated the text when we first describe our pipeline, and along with the new Figure 2 - figure supplement 4, we hope that this point is clearer now.

In addition, most proof-of-principle analysis we performed was focused on an ROI where we expect the synapses to localize. In practice, the user can input images and perform quantification across the entire image without biasing toward an ROI (this can be done in the GUI synapse corrector window) to also evaluate synaptic changes in regions outside the usual ROI.

The authors stated that WormPsyQi could mitigate the problems stemming from scoring images with low signal-to-noise ratio or in regions with high background autofluorescence, laboriousness of scoring large datasets, and inter-dataset variability. Other than the 'laboriousness of scoring large datasets' it appeared to me that WormPsyQi does not do better than manual quantifications, especially inter-dataset variability, as the authors noted variability among the transgenes as one of the limitations of the toolkits. If two datasets are taken with completely different setups such as two independent arrays taken with two distinct confocal microscopes, would WormPsyQi make these two datasets comparable?

We have included additional figure supplements to address the reviewer’s point. A significant advantage WormPsyQi offers over manual scoring is that it provides a standardized method of quantifying synapse features. As shown in Figure 2 – figure supplement 3, human labelers can introduce systematic bias (e.g. some over count puncta, while some undercount). In addition, while puncta number may be relatively easy to quantify, especially in a high-quality dataset, more subtle puncta features such as size, intensity, and distribution are much more laborious to quantify and require a priori knowledge of signal localization (Figure 2 – figure supplement 4, Figure 10). Altogether, our pipeline facilitates multiple measurements while also enabling robust quantification in hard-to-score cases such as the example shown for PHB>AVA reporter (Figure 4 - figure supplement 1B).

Minor comments:

Limitations are not quite specific to this work but those are general limitations to the concatemeric trans genes and fluorescently labeled synaptic proteins. I'd appreciate discussing specific limitations to WormPsyQi related to image acquisitions. For instance, for neurons with 3D structures would WormPsyQi be able to handle z-stacks closer to coverslip and stacks that are deeper side in a similar manner? Would the users need to be aware of such limitations when comparing different genotypes?

To address the reviewer’s comment, we have elaborated the last paragraph in the limitations section to explicitly discuss where the user should exercise caution. The reviewer reasonably points out that the fluorescent signal away from the cover slip is typically dimmer, and neurite masking in this case is indeed compromised if dim to start with. In such cases, we recommend that the user either performs some preprocessing such as deconvolution, denoising, or contrast enhancement to boost the neurite signal, or segment synapses without the neurite mask if the puncta signal is brighter than that of the cytoplasmic marker. We hope that our additional figure supplements will clarify that WormPsyQi’s performance is contingent on reporter type and image quality, thus making it easier for the user to discern where automated quantification falls short and alternative reporters should be explored. In general, if puncta are not discernible to the user due to very poor S/N ratio, for instance, we do not recommend using WormPsyQi to process such datasets; this will be manifest in the results of the new “test all models” feature we added in the revised version.

Some Rab-3 fusion proteins are described as RAB-3::GFP(BFP). Do these represent the C-terminal fusion of the fluorescent proteins? RAB-3 is a small GTPase with a lipid modification site at its C-terminus essential for its localization and function. Is it possible that the diffuse signal of some RAB-3 markers is caused by c-terminal fusion of the fluorescent protein?

While we do have reporters with N- and C-terminal RAB-3 fusions for different neurons, we do not have both for the same neuron to perform a fair comparison. However, as noted in response to a previous comment by reviewer 2, RAB-3 and CLA-1 have distinct localization patterns at the synapse and this aligns with their distinct functions: while RAB-3 localizes at synaptic vesicles, CLA-1 is an active zone protein required for synaptic vesicle clustering. Accordingly, we have observed diffuse RAB-3 signal in reporters irrespective of where the protein is tagged, and while this is not problematic for ROIs with a low synapse density, it confounds quantification in synapse-dense regions. In contrast, CLA-1 puncta are typically easier to quantify more discretely, which is particularly relevant for features such synapse distribution, size, and intensity.

Author Response

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this very strong and interesting paper the authors present a convincing series of experiments that reveal molecular mechanism of neuronal cell type diversification in the nervous system of Drosophila. The authors show that a homeodomain transcription factor, Bsh, fulfills several critical functions - repressing an alternative fate and inducing downstream homeodomain transcription factors with whom Bsh may collaborate to induce L4 and L5 fates (the author's accompanying paper reveals how Bsh can induce two distinct fates). The authors make elegant use of powerful genetic tools and an arsenal of satisfying cell identity markers.

Thanks!

I believe that this is an important study because it provides some fundamental insights into the conservation of neuronal diversification programs. It is very satisfying to see that similar organizational principles apply in different organisms to generate cell type diversity. The authors should also be commended for contextualizing their work very well, giving a broad, scholarly background to the problem of neuronal cell type diversification.

Thanks!

My one suggestion for the authors is to perhaps address in the Discussion (or experimentally address if they wish) how they reconcile that Bsh is on the one hand: (a) continuously expressed in L4/L4, (b) binding directly to a cohort of terminal effectors that are also continuously expressed but then, on the other hand, is not required for their maintaining L4 fate? A few questions: Is Bsh only NOT required for maintaining Ap expression or is it also NOT required for maintaining other terminal markers of L4? The former could be easily explained - Bsh simply kicks of Ap, Ap then autoregulates, but Bsh and Ap then continuously activate terminal effector genes. The second scenario would require a little more complex mechanism: Bsh binding of targets (with Notch) may open chromatin, but then once that's done, Bsh is no longer needed and Ap alone can continue to express genes. I feel that the authors should be at least discussing this. The postmitotic Bsh removal experiment in which they only checked Ap and depression of other markers is a little unsatisfying without further discussion (or experiments, such as testing terminal L4 markers). I hasten to add that this comment does not take away from my overall appreciation for the depth and quality of the data and the importance of their conclusions.

Great suggestions, we will discuss these two hypotheses as requested.

Bsh initiates Ap expression in L4 neurons which then maintain Ap expression independently of Bsh expression, likely through Ap autoregulation. During the synaptogenesis window, Ap expression becomes independent from Bsh expression, but Bsh and Ap are both still required to activate the synapse recognition molecule DIP-beta. Additionally, Bsh also shows putative binding to other L4 identity genes, e.g., those required for neurotransmitter choice, and electrophysiological properties, suggesting Bsh may initiate L4 identity genes as a suite of genes. The mechanism of maintaining identity features (e.g., morphology, synaptic connectivity, and functional properties) in the adult remains poorly understood. It is a great question whether primary HDTF Bsh maintains the expression of L4 identity genes in the adult. To test this, in our next project, we will specifically knock out Bsh in L4 neurons of the adult fly and examine the effect on L4 morphology, connectivity, and function properties.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this paper, the authors explore the role of the Homeodomain Transcription Factor Bsh in the specification of Lamina neuronal types in the optic lobe of Drosophila. Using the framework of terminal selector genes and compelling data, they investigate whether the same factor that establishes early cell identity is responsible for the acquisition of terminal features of the neuron (i.e., cell connectivity and synaptogenesis).

Thanks for the positive words!

The authors convincingly describe the sequential expression and activity of Bsh, termed here as 'primary HDTF', and of Ap in L4 or Pdm3 in L5 as 'secondary HDTFs' during the specification of these two neurons. The study demonstrates the requirement of Bsh to activate either Ap and Pdm3, and therefore to generate the L4 and L5 fates. Moreover, the authors show that in the absence of Bsh, L4 and L5 fates are transformed into a L1 or L3-like fates.

Thanks!

Finally, the authors used DamID and Bsh:DamID to profile the open chromatin signature and the Bsh binding sites in L4 neurons at the synaptogenesis stage. This allows the identification of putative Bsh target genes in L4, many of which were also found to be upregulated in L4 in a previous single-cell transcriptomic analysis. Among these genes, the paper focuses on Dip-β, a known regulator of L4 connectivity. They demonstrate that both Bsh and Ap are required for Dip-β, forming a feed-forward loop. Indeed, the loss of Bsh causes abnormal L4 synaptogenesis and therefore defects in several visual behaviors. The authors also propose the intriguing hypothesis that the expression of Bsh expanded the diversity of Lamina neurons from a 3 cell-type state to the current 5 cell-type state in the optic lobe.

Thanks for the excellent summary of our findings!

Strengths:

Overall, this work presents a beautiful practical example of the framework of terminal selectors: Bsh acts hierarchically with Ap or Pdm3 to establish the L4 or L5 cell fates and, at least in L4, participates in the expression of terminal features of the neuron (i.e., synaptogenesis through Dip-β regulation).

Thanks!

The hierarchical interactions among Bsh and the activation of Ap and Pdm3 expression in L4 and L5, respectively, are well established experimentally. Using different genetic drivers, the authors show a window of competence during L4 neuron specification during which Bsh activates Ap expression. Later, as the neuron matures, Ap becomes independent of Bsh. This allows the authors to propose a coherent and well-supported model in which Bsh acts as a 'primary' selector that activates the expression of L4specific (Ap) and L5-specific (Pdm3) 'secondary' selector genes, that together establish neuronal fate.

Thanks again!

Importantly, the authors describe a striking cell fate change when Bsh is knocked down from L4/L5 progenitor cells. In such cases, L1 and L3 neurons are generated at the expense of L4 and L5. The paper demonstrates that Bsh in L4/L5 represses Zfh1, which in turn acts as the primary selector for L1/L3 fates. These results point to a model where the acquisition of Bsh during evolution might have provided the grounds for the generation of new cell types, L4 and L5, expanding lamina neuronal diversity for a more refined visual behaviors in flies. This is an intriguing and novel hypothesis that should be tested from an evo-devo standpoint, for instance by identifying a species when L4 and L5 do not exist and/or Bsh is not expressed in L neurons.

Thanks for the appreciation of our findings!

To gain insight into how Bsh regulates neuronal fate and terminal features, the authors have profiled the open chromatin landscape and Bsh binding sites in L4 neurons at mid-pupation using the DamID technique. The paper describes a number of genes that have Bsh binding peaks in their regulatory regions and that are differentially expressed in L4 neurons, based on available scRNAseq data. Although the manuscript does not explore this candidate list in depth, many of these genes belong to classes that might explain terminal features of L4 neurons, such as neurotransmitter identity, neuropeptides or cytoskeletal regulators. Interestingly, one of these upregulated genes with a Bsh peak is Dip-β, an immunoglobulin superfamily protein that has been described by previous work from the author's lab to be relevant to establish L4 proper connectivity. This work proves that Bsh and Ap work in a feed-forward loop to regulate Dip-β expression, and therefore to establish normal L4 synapses. Furthermore, Bsh loss of function in L4 causes impairs visual behaviors.<br /> Thanks for the excellent summary of our findings.

Weaknesses:

● The last paragraph of the introduction is written using rhetorical questions and does not read well. I suggest rewriting it in a more conventional direct style to improve readability.

We agree and have updated the text as suggested.

● A significant concern is the way in which information is conveyed in the Figures. Throughout the paper, understanding of the experimental results is hindered by the lack of information in the Figure headers. Specifically, the genetic driver used for each panel should be adequately noted, together with the age of the brain and the experimental condition. For example, R27G05-Gal4 drives early expression in LPCs and L4/L5, while the 31C06-AD, 34G07-DBD Split-Gal4 combination drives expression in older L4 neurons, and the use of one or the other to drive Bsh-KD has dramatic differences in Ap expression. The indication of the driver used in each panel will facilitate the reader's grasp of the experimental results.

We agree and have updated the figure annotation.

● Bsh role in L4/L5 cell fate: o It is not clear whether Tll+/Bsh+ LPCs are the precursors of L4/L5. Morphologically, these cells sit very close to L5, but are much more distant from L4.

Our current data show L4 and L5 neurons are generated by different LPCs. However, currently, we don’t have tools to demonstrate which subset of LPCs generate which lamina neuron type. We are currently working on a follow-up manuscript on LPC heterogeneity, but those experiments have just barely been started.

● Somatic CRISPR knockout of Bsh seems to have a weaker phenotype than the knockdown using RNAi. However, in several experiments down the line, the authors use CRISPR-KO rather than RNAi to knock down Bsh activity: it should be explained why the authors made this decision. Alternatively, a null mutant could be used to consolidate the loss of function phenotype, although this is not strictly necessary given that the RNAi is highly efficient and almost completely abolishes Bsh protein.

The reason we chose CRISPR-KO (L4-specific Gal4, uas-Cas9, and uas-Bsh-sgRNAs) is that it effectively removed Bsh expression from the majority of L4 neurons. However, it failed to knock down Bsh in L4 neurons using L4-split Gal4 and Bsh-RNAi because L4-split Gal4 expression depends on Bsh. We have updated this explanation in the text.

● Line 102: Rephrase "R27G05-Gal4 is expressed in all LPCs and turned off in lamina neurons" to "is turned off as lamina neurons mature", as it is kept on for a significant amount of time after the neurons have already been specified.

Thanks; we have made that change.

● Line 121: "(a) that all known lamina neuron markers become independent of Bsh regulation in neurons" is not an accurate statement, as the markers tested were not shown to be dependent on Bsh in the first place.

Good point. We have rephrased it as “that all known lamina neuron markers are independent of Bsh regulation in neurons”.

● Lines 129-134: Make explicit that the LPC-Gal4 was used in this experiment. This is especially important here, as these results are opposite to the Bsh Loss of Function in L4 neurons described in the previous section. This will help clarify the window of competence in which Bsh establishes L4/L5 neuronal identities through ap/pdm3 expression.

Thanks! We have updated Gal4 information in the text for every manipulation.

● DamID and Bsh binding profile:

● Figure 5 - figure supplement 1C-E: The genotype of the Control in (C) has to be described within the panel. As it is, it can be confused with a wild type brain, when it is in fact a Bsh-KO mutant.

Great point! Thank you for catching this and we have updated it.

● It Is not clear how L4-specific Differentially Expressed Genes were found. Are these genes DEG between Lamina neurons types, or are they upregulated genes with respect to all neuronal clusters? If the latter is the case, it could explain the discrepancy between scRNAseq DEGs and Bsh peaks in L4 neurons.

We did not use “L4-specific Differentially Expressed Genes”. Instead, we used all genes that are significantly transcribed in L4 neurons (line 209-213).

● Dip-β regulation:

● Line 234: It is not clear why CRISPR KO is used in this case, when Bsh-RNAi presents a stronger phenotype.

As we explained above, the reason we chose CRISPR-KO (L4-specific Gal4, uas-Cas9, and uas-BshsgRNAs) is that it effectively removed Bsh expression from the majority of L4 neurons. However, it failed to knock down Bsh in L4 neurons using L4-split Gal4 and Bsh-RNAi because L4-split Gal4 expression depends on Bsh. We have updated this explanation in the text.

● Figure 6N-R shows results using LPC-Gal4. It is not clear why this driver was used, as it makes a less accurate comparison with the other panels in the figure, which use L4-Split-Gal4. This discrepancy should be acknowledged and explained, or the experiment repeated with L4-Split-Gal4>Ap-RNAi.

I think you mean 6J-M shows results using LPC-Gal4. We first tried L4-Split-Gal4>Ap-RNAi but it failed to knock down Ap because L4-Split-Gal4 expression depends on Ap. We have added this to the text.

● Line 271: It is also possible that L4 activity is dispensable for motion detection and only L5 is required.

Thanks! Work from Tuthill et al, 2013 showed that L5 is not required for any motion detection. We have included this citation in the text.

● Discussion: It is necessary to de-emphasize the relevance of HDTFs, or at least acknowledge that other, non-homeodomain TFs, can act as selector genes to determine neuronal identity. By restricting the discussion to HDTFs, it is not mentioned that other classes of TFs could follow the same PrimarySecondary selector activation logic.

That is a great point, thank you! We have included this in the discussion.

Reducing the performance hit of copying data between processes:

Option #1: Just use threads

Processes have overhead, threads do not. And while it’s true that generic Python code won’t parallelize well when using multiple threads, that’s not necessarily true for your Python code. For example, NumPy releases the GIL for many of its operations, which means you can use multiple CPU cores even with threads.

``` # numpy_gil.py import numpy as np from time import time from multiprocessing.pool import ThreadPool

arr = np.ones((1024, 1024, 1024))

start = time() for i in range(10): arr.sum() print("Sequential:", time() - start)

expected = arr.sum()

start = time() with ThreadPool(4) as pool: result = pool.map(np.sum, [arr] * 10) assert result == [expected] * 10 print("4 threads:", time() - start) ```

When run, we see that NumPy uses multiple cores just fine when using threads, at least for this operation:

$ python numpy_gil.py Sequential: 4.253053188323975 4 threads: 1.3854241371154785

Pandas is built on NumPy, so many numeric operations will likely release the GIL as well. However, anything involving strings, or Python objects in general, will not. So another approach is to use a library like Polars which is designed from the ground-up for parallelism, to the point where you don’t have to think about it at all, it has an internal thread pool.

Option #2: Live with it

If you’re stuck with using processes, you might just decide to live with the overhead of pickling. In particular, if you minimize how much data gets passed and forth between processes, and the computation in each process is significant enough, the cost of copying and serializing data might not significantly impact your program’s runtime. Spending a few seconds on pickling doesn’t really matter if your subsequent computation takes 10 minutes.

Option #3: Write the data to disk

Instead of passing data directly, you can write the data to disk, and then pass the path to this file: * to the subprocess (as an argument) * to parent process (as the return value of the function running in the worker process).

The recipient process can then parse the file.

``` import pandas as pd import multiprocessing as mp from pathlib import Path from tempfile import mkdtemp from time import time

def noop(df: pd.DataFrame): # real code would process the dataframe here pass

def noop_from_path(path: Path): df = pd.read_parquet(path, engine="fastparquet") # real code would process the dataframe here pass

def main(): df = pd.DataFrame({"column": list(range(10_000_000))})

with mp.get_context("spawn").Pool(1) as pool:
    # Pass the DataFrame to the worker process
    # directly, via pickling:
    start = time()
    pool.apply(noop, (df,))
    print("Pickling-based:", time() - start)

    # Write the DataFrame to a file, pass the path to
    # the file to the worker process:
    start = time()
    path = Path(mkdtemp()) / "temp.parquet"
    df.to_parquet(
        path,
        engine="fastparquet",
        # Run faster by skipping compression:
        compression="uncompressed",
    )
    pool.apply(noop_from_path, (path,))
    print("Parquet-based:", time() - start)

if name == "main": main() `` **Option #4:multiprocessing.shared_memory`**

Because processes sometimes do want to share memory, operating systems typically provide facilities for explicitly creating shared memory between processes. Python wraps this facilities in the multiprocessing.shared_memory module.

However, unlike threads, where the same memory address space allows trivially sharing Python objects, in this case you’re mostly limited to sharing arrays. And as we’ve seen, NumPy releases the GIL for expensive operations, which means you can just use threads, which is much simpler. Still, in case you ever need it, it’s worth knowing this module exists.

Note: The module also includes ShareableList, which is a bit like a Python list but limited to int, float, bool, small str and bytes, and None. But this doesn’t help you cheaply share an arbitrary Python object.

A bad option for Linux: the "fork" context

You may have noticed we did multiprocessing.get_context("spawn").Pool() to create a process pool. This is because Python has multiple implementations of multiprocessing on some OSes. "spawn" is the only option on Windows, the only non-broken option on macOS, and available on Linux. When using "spawn", a completely new process is created, so you always have to copy data across.

On Linux, the default is "fork": the new child process has a complete copy of the memory of the parent process at the time of the child process’ creation. This means any objects in the parent (arrays, giant dicts, whatever) that were created before the child process was created, and were stored somewhere helpful like a module, are accessible to the child. Which means you don’t need to pickle/unpickle to access them.

Sounds useful, right? There’s only one problem: the "fork" context is super-broken, which is why it will stop being the default in Python 3.14.

Consider the following program:

``` import threading import sys from multiprocessing import Process

def thread1(): for i in range(1000): print("hello", file=sys.stderr)

threading.Thread(target=thread1).start()

def foo(): pass

Process(target=foo).start() ```

On my computer, this program consistently deadlocks: it freezes and never exits. Any time you have threads in the parent process, the "fork" context can cause in potential deadlocks, or even corrupted memory, in the child process.

You might think that you’re fine because you don’t start any threads. But many Python libraries start a thread pool on import, for example NumPy. If you’re using NumPy, Pandas, or any other library that depends on NumPy, you are running a threaded program, and therefore at risk of deadlocks, segfaults, or data corruption when using the "fork" multiprocessing context. For more details see this article on why multiprocessing’s default is broken on Linux.

You’re just shooting yourself in the foot if you take this approach.

Author Response

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Strengths

This paper is well situated theoretically within the habit learning/OCD literature.

Daily training in a motor-learning task, delivered via smartphone, was innovative, ecologically valid and more likely to assay habitual behaviors specifically. Daily training is also more similar to studies with non-humans, making a better link with that literature. The use of a sequential-learning task (cf. tasks that require a single response) is also more ecologically valid.

The in-laboratory tests (after the 1 month of training) allowed the researchers to test if the OCD group preferred familiar, but more difficult, sequences over newer, simpler sequences.

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

Response: We truly appreciate the positive assessment of referee 1, particularly the consideration that our study is theoretically strong and that ‘the results are supportive of the authors' conclusions’. This is an important external endorsement of our conclusions, contrasting somewhat with the views of referee 2.

Weaknesses

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

Response: We agree with the reviewer that the proof of principle established in our study opens new avenues for research into the psychological and behavioral determinants of the heterogeneity of this clinical population. However, considering the study timeline and the pandemic constraints, a bigger sample was not possible. Our sample can indeed be considered small if one compares it with current online studies, which do not require in-person/laboratory testing, thus being much easier to recruit and conduct. However, given the nature of our protocol (with 2 demanding test phases, 1-month engagement per participant and the inclusion of OCD patients without comorbidities only) and the fact that this study also involved laboratory testing, we consider our sample size reasonable and comparable to other laboratory studies (typically comprising on average between 30-50 participants in each group).

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

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

Response: Thank you for acknowledging the impact of our study, in particular the unique ability of our task to interrogate the habit system.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

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

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

Response: We acknowledge that the research on habit learning is a topic of current controversy, especially when it comes to how to induce and measure habits in humans. Therefore, within this context referee’s 2 criticism could be expected. Across distinct fields of research, different methodologies have been used to measure habits, which represent relatively stereotyped and autonomous behavioral sequences enacted in response to a specific stimulus without consideration, at the time of initiation of the sequence, of the value of the outcome or any representation of the relationship that exists between the response and the outcome. Hence these are stimulus-bound responses which may or may not require the implementation of a skill during subsequent performance. Behavioral neuroscientists define habits similarly, as stimulus-response associations which are independent of reward or outcome, and use devaluation or contingency degradation strategies to probe habits (Dickinson and Weiskrantz, 1985; Tricomi et al., 2009). Others conceptualize habits as a form of procedural memory, along with skills, and use motor sequence learning paradigms to investigate and dissect different components of habit learning such as action selection, execution and consolidation (Abrahamse et al., 2013; Doyon et al., 2003; Squire et al., 1993). It is also generally agreed that the autonomous nature of habits and the fluid proficiency of skills are both usually achieved with many hours of training or practice, respectively (Haith and Krakauer, 2018).

We consider that Balleine and Dezfouli (2019) made an excellent attempt to bring all these different criteria within a single framework, which we have followed. We also consider that our discussion in fact followed a rather cautious approach to interpretation solely in terms of goaldirected versus habitual control.

Referee 2 does not actually specify criteria by which they define habits and skills, except for asserting that skilled behavior is goal-directed, without mentioning what the actual goal of the implantation of such skill is in the present study: the fulfillment of a habit? We assume that their definition of habit hinges on the effects of devaluation, as a single criterion of habit, but which according to Balleine and Dezfouli (2019) is only 1 of their 4 listed criteria. We carefully addressed this specific criterion in our manuscript: “We were not, however, able to test the fourth criterion, of resistance to devaluation. Therefore, we are unable to firmly conclude that the action sequences are habits rather than, for example, goal-directed skills. Regardless of whether the trained action sequences can be defined as habits or goal-directed motor skills, it has to be considered…”. Therefore, we took due care in our conclusions concerning habits and thus found the referee’s comment misleading and unfair.

We note that our trained motor sequences did in fact fulfil the other 3 criteria listed by Balleine and Dezfouli (2019), unlike many studies employing only devaluation (e.g. Tricomi et al 2009; Gillan et al 2011). Moreover, we cited a recent study using very similar methodology where the devaluation test was applied and shown to support the habit hypothesis (Gera et al., 2022).

Whether the initiation of the trained motor sequences in experiment 3 (arbitration) is underpinned by an action-outcome association (or not) has no bearing on whether those sequences were under stimulus-response control after training (experiment 1). Transitions between habitual and goal-directed control over behavior are quite well established in the experimental literature, especially when choice opportunities become available (Bouton et al (2021), Frölich et al (2023), or a new goal-directed schemata is recruited to fulfill a habit (Fouyssac et al, 2022). This switching between habits and goal-directed responding may reflect the coordination of these systems in producing effective behavior in the real world.

• Fouyssac M, Peña-Oliver Y, Puaud M, Lim NTY, Giuliano C, Everitt BJ, Belin D. (2021).Negative Urgency Exacerbates Relapse to Cocaine Seeking After Abstinence. Biological Psychiatry. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2021.10.009

• Frölich S, Esmeyer M, Endrass T, Smolka MN and Kiebel SJ (2023) Interaction between habits as action sequences and goal-directed behavior under time pressure. Front. Neurosci. 16:996957. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2022.996957

• Bouton ME. 2021. Context, attention, and the switch between habit and goal-direction in behavior. Learn Behav 49:349– 362. doi:10.3758/s13420-021-00488-z

1. Some methodological aspects need more detail and clarification.

2. There are concerns regarding some of the analyses, which require addressing.

Response: We thank referee 2 for their detailed review of the methods and analyses of our study and for the helpful feedback, which clearly helps improve our manuscript. We will clarify the methodological aspects in detail and conduct the suggested analysis. Please see below our answers to the specific points raised.

Introduction:

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

Response: We agree that there is no evidence that action sequences become habitual more readily than single actions, although action sequences clearly allow ‘chunking’ and thus likely engage neural networks including the putamen which are implicated in habit learning as well as skill. In our revised manuscript we will instead state: “we have recently postulated that extensive training of sequential actions could be a means for rapidly engaging the ‘habit system’ (Robbins et al., 2019)]”

DONE in page 2

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

Response: We agree that choice of the familiar response sequence should not be a necessary criterion for habitual control although choice for a familiar sequence is, in fact, not inconsistent with this hypothesis. In a recent study, Zmigrod et al (2022) found that 'aversion to novelty' was a relevant factor in the subjective measurement of habitual tendencies. It should also be noted that this preference was present in patients with OCD. If one assumes instead, like the referee, that the familiar sequence is goal-directed, then it contravenes the well-known 'egodystonia' of OCD which suggests that such tendencies are not goal-directed.

To clarify our hypothesis, we will amend the sentence to the following: “Finally, we expected that OCD patients would generally report greater habits, as well as attribute higher intrinsic value to the familiar app sequences manifested by a greater preference for performing them when given the choice to select any other, easier sequence”.

DONE in page 5. We have now rephrased it: “Additionally, we hypothesized that OCD patients would generally display stronger habits and assign greater intrinsic value to the familiar app sequences, evidenced by a marked preference for executing them even when presented with a simpler alternative sequence.”

A few notes on the task description and other task components:

1. It would be useful to give more details on the task. This includes more details on the time/condition of the gradual removal of visual and auditory stimuli and also on the within practice dynamic structure (i.e., different levels appear in the video).

Response: These details will be included in the revised manuscript. Thank you for pointing out the need for further clarification of the task design.

Done in page 7

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

Response: This additional information will be added to the revised manuscript. If participants omitted to train for more than 2 days, the researcher would send a reminder to the participant to request to catch up. If the participant would not react accordingly and a third day would be skipped, then the researcher would call to understand the reasons for the lack of engagement and gauge motivation. The participant would be excluded if more than 5 sequential days of training were missed. Only 2 participants were excluded given their lack of engagement.

Done in page 8

1. According to the (very useful) video demonstrating the task and the paper describing the task in detail (Banca et al., 2020), the task seems to include other relevant components that were not mentioned in this paper. I refer to the daily speed test, the daily random switch test, and daily ratings of each sequence's enjoyment and confidence of knowledge.

If these components were not included in this procedure, then the deviations from the procedure described in the video and Banca al. (2020) should be explicitly mentioned. If these components were included, at least some of them may be relevant, at least in part, to automaticity, habitual action control, formulation of participants' enjoyment from the app etc. I think these components should be mentioned and analyzed (or at least provide an explanation for why it has been decided not to analyze them).

This is also true for the reward removal (extinction) from the 21st day onwards which is potentially of particular relevance for the research questions.

Response: The task procedure was indeed the same as detailed in Banca et al., 2020. We did not include these extra components in this current manuscript for reasons of succinctness and because the manuscript was already rather longer than a common research article, given that we present three different, though highly inter-dependent, experiments in order to answer key interrelated questions in an optimal manner. However, since referee 2 considers this additional analysis to be important, we will be happy to include it in the supplementary material of the revised manuscript.

These additional components of the task as well as the respective analysis are now described in the Supplementary Materials.

Training engagement analysis:

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

Response: We acknowledge referee’s concern on this matter and agree to replace the y-axis variable of Figure 2b to the number of performed practices (thus aligning with Figure 2a). This amendment will remove any potential effect of weaker performance on the engagement measurement and will provide clearer results.

We have now decided to remove this figure as it does not add much to figure 2a. Instead, we replaced figure 2b and 2c for new plots, following new analysis linked to the next reviewer request (point 10)

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

Response: Done, see revised Figure 2b and 2c. We have assessed the diurnal training patterns within each group using circular statistics, followed by independent-sample statistical testing of those circular distributions with the Watson’s U2 test ( Landler et al., 2021). While OCD participants have a group effect of practice with a significant peak at ~18:00, and HV participants have an earlier significant peak at ~15:00, the Watson’s U test did not find statistical betweengroup differences.

• Landler L, Ruxton GD, Malkemper EP. Advice on comparing two independent samples of circular data in biology. Scientific reports. 2021 Oct 13;11(1):20337.

Learning results:

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

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. The descriptive stats for MT0 will be added to the revised version of the manuscript.

Done page 11

1. Sensitivity of sequence duration and IKI consistency (C) to reward:

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

Response: This is an important question. Our analysis protocol was designed to ensure that incorrect trials do not contaminate or confound the results. To estimate the trial-to-trial difference in ∆MT (or C) and ∆R, we exclusively included pairs of contiguous trials where participants achieved correct performance and received feedback scores for both trials. For example, if a participant made a performance error on trial 23, we did not include ∆R or ∆MT estimates for the pairs of trials 23-22 and 24-23. Instead of excluding incorrect trials from our analyses, we retained them in our time series but assigned them a NaN (not a number) value in Matlab. As a result, ∆R and ∆MT was not defined for those two pairs of trials. Similarly for C. This approach ensured that our analyses are not confounded by incremental or decremental feedback scores between noncontiguous trials. In the past, when assessing the timing of correct actions during skilled sequence performance, we also considered events that were preceded and followed by correct actions. This excluded effects such as post-error slowing from contaminating our results (Herrojo Ruiz et al., 2009, 2019). Therefore, we do not believe that any further reanalysis is required.

• Ruiz MH, Jabusch HC, Altenmüller E. Detecting wrong notes in advance: neuronal correlates of error monitoring in pianists. Cerebral cortex. 2009 Nov 1;19(11):2625-39.

• Bury G, García-Huéscar M, Bhattacharya J, Ruiz MH. Cardiac afferent activity modulates early neural signature of error detection during skilled performance. NeuroImage. 2019 Oct 1;199:704-17.

1. I have a serious concern with respect to how the sensitivity of sequence duration to reward is framed and analyzed. Since reward is proportional to performance, a reduction in reward essentially indicates a trial with poor performance, and thus even regression to the mean (along with a floor effect in performance [asymptote]) could explain the observed effects. It is possible that even occasional poor performance could lead to a participant demonstrating this effect, potentially regardless of the reward. Accordingly, the reduced improvement in performance following a reward decrease as a function of training length described in Figure 5b legend may reflect training-induced increased performance that leaves less room for improvement after poor trials, which are no longer as poor as before. To address this concern, controlling for performance (e.g., by taking into consideration the baseline MT for the previous trial) may be helpful. If the authors can conduct such an analysis and still show the observed effect, it would establish the validity of their findings."

Response: Thank you for raising this point. This has been done, see updated Figures 5 and 6. After normalizing the ∆MT(n+1) := MT(n+1) – MT(n) difference values by dividing them with the baseline MT(n) at trial n, we obtain the same results. Similar results are also obtained for IKI consistency (C).

See below our initial response from June 2023.

Thank you for raising this point. Figure 5b illustrates two distinct effects of reward changes on behavioral adaptation, which are expected based on previous research.

I. Practice effects: Firstly, we observe that as participants progress across bins of practice, the degree of improvement in behavior (reflected by faster movement time, MT) following a decrease in reward (∆R−) diminishes, consistent with our expectations based on previous work. Conversely, we found that ∆MT does not change across bins of practices following an increase in reward (∆R+).

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion regarding controlling for the reference movement time (MT) in the previous trial when examining the practice effect in the p(∆T|∆R−) and p(∆T|∆R+) distributions. In the revised manuscript, we will conduct the proposed control analysis to better understand whether the sensitivity of MT to score decrements changes across practice when normalising MT to the reference level on each trial. But see below for a preliminary control analysis.

II. Asymmetry of the effect of ∆R− and ∆R+ on performance: Figure 5b also depicts the distinct impact of score increments and decrements on behavioural changes. When aggregating data across practice bins, we consistently observed that the centre of the p(∆T|∆R−) distribution was smaller (more negative) than that of p(∆T|∆R+). This suggests that participants exhibited a greater acceleration following a drop in scores compared to a relative score increase, and this effect persisted throughout the practice sessions. Importantly, this enhanced sensitivity to losses or negative feedback (or relative drops in scores) aligns with previous research findings (Galea et al., 2015; Pekny et al., 2014; van Mastrigt et al., 2020).

We have conducted a preliminary control analysis to exclude the potential impact that reference movement time (MT) values could have on our analysis. We have assessed the asymmetry between behavioural responses to ∆R− and ∆R+ using the following analysis: We estimated the proportion of trials in which participants exhibited speed-up (∆T < 0) or slow-down (∆T > 0) behaviour following ∆R− and ∆R+ across different practice bins (bins 1 to 4). By discretising the series of behavioural changes (∆T) into binary values (+1 for slowing down, -1 for speeding up), we can assess the type of changes (speed-up, slow-down) without the absolute ∆T or T values contributing to our results. We obtained several key findings:

• Consistent with expectations (sanity check), participants exhibited more instances of speeding up than slowing down across all reward conditions.

• Participants demonstrated a higher frequency of speeding up following ∆R− compared to ∆R+, and this asymmetry persisted throughout the practice sessions (greater proportion of -1 events than +1 events). 53% events were speed-up events in the in the p(∆T|∆R+) distribution for the first bin of practices, and 55% for the last bin. Regarding p(∆T|∆R-), there were 63% speed-up events throughout each bin of practices, with this proportion exhibiting no change over time.

• Accordingly, the asymmetry of reward changes on behavioural adaptations, as revealed by this analysis, remained consistent across the practice bins.

Thus, these preliminary findings provide an initial response to referee 2 and offer valuable insights into the asymmetrical effects of positive/negative reward changes on behavioural adaptations. We plan to include these results in the revised manuscript, as well as the full control analysis suggested by the referee. We will further expand upon their interpretation and implications.

1. Another way to support the claim of reward change directionality effects on performance (rather than performance on performance), at least to some extent, would be to analyze the data from the last 10 days of the training, during which no rewards were given (pretending for analysis purposes that the reward was calculated and presented to participants). If the effect persists, it is less unlikely that the effect in question can be attributed to the reward dynamics.

Response: The reviewer’s concern is addressed in the previous quesQon. Also, this analysis would not be possible because our Gaussian fit analyses use the Qme series of conQnuous reward scores, in which ∆R− or ∆R+ are embedded. These events cannot be analyzed once reward feedback is removed because we do not have behavioral events following ∆R− or ∆R+ anymore.

Done

1. This concern is also relevant and should be considered with respect to the sensitivity of IKI consistency (C) to reward. While the relationship between previous reward/performance and future performance in terms of C is of a different structure, the similar potential confounding effects could still be present.

Response: We will conduct this analysis for the revised manuscript, similarly to the control analysis suggested by referee 2 on MT. Our preliminary control analysis, as explained above, suggests that the fundamental asymmetry in the effect of ∆R+ and ∆R+ on behavioral changes persists when excluding the impact of reference performance values in our Gaussian fit analysis.

Done. See updated Figure 6. The results are very similar once we normalize the IKI consistency index C with the IKI of the baseline performance at trial n.

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

Response: We have now conducted this analysis. There is in fact no evidence to conclude that the continuously rewarded sequence was the preferred one. The result shows that 54.5% of HV and 29% of the OCD sample considered the continuous sequence to be their preferred one, a nonstatistically significant difference. Note that this preference may not necessarily be linked simply to programmed reward. The overall preference may be influenced by many other factors, such as, for example, the aesthetic appeal of particular combinations of finger movements.

Regarding both experiments 2 and 3:

1. The change in context in experiment 2 and 3 is substantial and include many different components. These changes should be mentioned in more detail in the Results section before describing the results of experiments 2 and 3.

Response: Following referee’s advice, we will move these details (currently written in the Methods section) to the Results section, when we introduce Phase B and before describing the results of experiments 2 and 3.

Done in page 21

Experiment 2:

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

Response: We clearly defined the theoretical framing of experiment 2 as a test of whether trained action sequences gain intrinsic value and we are pleased to hear that the referee agrees with this framing. If the referee is referring to the paragraph below (in the Discussion), we actually do acknowledge within this paragraph that a preference for the trained sequences can either be conceptually aligned with a habit OR a goal-directed behavior.

“On the other hand, we are describing here two potential sources of evidence in favor of enhanced habit formation in OCD. First, OCD patients show a bias towards the previously trained, apparently disadvantageous, action sequences. In terms of the discussion above, this could possibly be reinterpreted as a narrowing of goals in OCD (Robbins et al., 2019) underlying compulsive behavior, in favor of its intrinsic outcomes”

This narrowing of goals model of OCD refers to a hypothetically transiQonal stage of compulsion development driven by behavior having an abnormally strong, goal-directed nature, typically linked to specific values and concerns.

If the referee is referring to the penulQmate sentence of hypothesis secQon, this has been amended in response to Q5. We cannot find any other possible instances in this manuscript stating that experiment 2 is a test of habitual or goal-directed behavior.

Experiment 3:

1. Similar to Experiment 2, I find the framing of arbitration between goal-directed/habitual behavior in Experiment 3 inadequate and unjustified. The results of the experiment suggest that participants were primarily goal-directed and there is no evidence to support the idea that this reevaluation led participants to switch from habitual to goal-directed behavior.

Also, given the explicit choice of the sequence to perform participants had to make prior to performing it, it is reasonable to assume that this experiment mainly tested bias towards familiar sequence/stimulus and/or towards intrinsic reward associated with the sequence in value-based decision making.

Response: This comment is aligned with (and follows) the referee’s criticism of experiment 1 not achieving automatic and habitual actions. We have addressed this matter above, in response 1 to Referee 2.

Mobile-app performance effect on symptomatology: exploratory analyses:

1. Maybe it would be worth testing if the patients with improved symptomatology (that contribute some of their symptom improvement to the app) also chose to play more during the training stage.

Response: We have conducted analysis to address this relevant question. There is no correlation between the YBOCS score change and the number of total practices, meaning that the patients who improved symptomatology post training did not necessarily chose to play the app more during the training stage (rs = 0.25, p = 0.15). Additionally, we have statistically compared the improvers (patients with reduced YBOCS scores post-training) and the non-improvers (patients with unchanged or increased YBOCS scores post-training) in their number of app completed practices during the training phase and no differences were observed (U = 169, p = 0.19).

The result from the correlational analysis has been added to the revised manuscript (page 28).

Discussion:

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

Response: We do not agree that the work is either "inadequate or mis-framed" and will not therefore be substantially revising the Discussion. We will however clarify further the interpretation we have made and make explicit the alternative viewpoint of the referee. For example, we will retitle experiment 3 as “Re-evaluation of the learned action sequence: possible test of goal/habit arbitration” to acknowledge the referee’s viewpoint as well as our own interpretation.

Done

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

Response: We recognize that the term "disadvantageously" may be semantically ambiguous for some readers and therefore we will remove it.

Done

Materials and Methods:

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

Response: Details of the learning procedure of the novel sequence (in condition 3, experiment 3) will be provided in the methods of the revised version of the manuscript.

Done in page 40

Minor comments:

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

Response: We will follow this referee’s advice and will rephrase the sentence for clarity.

Done. See page 16.

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

Response: The word "further" will be removed.

Done

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

This is a very interesting manuscript, which was a pleasure to review. I have some minor comments you may wish to consider.

1. I believe that it is possible to include videos as elements in eLife articles - please consider if you can do this to demonstrate the action sequence on the smartphone. I followed the YouTube video, and it was very helpful to see exactly what participants did, but it would be better to attach the video directly, if possible.

Response: This is a great idea and we will definitely attach our video demonstrating the task to the revised manuscript (Version of Record) if the eLife editors allow.

We ask permission to the editor to add the video

1. The abstract states that the study uses a "novel smartphone app" but is the same one as described in Banca et al. Suggest writing simply "smartphone app".

Response: We will remove the word novel.

Done

1. Some of the hypotheses described in the second half of the Hypothesis section could be stated more explicitly. For example: "We also hypothesized that the acquisition of learning and automaticity would differ between the two action sequences based on their associated rewarded schedule (continuous versus variable) and reward valence (positive or negative)." The subsequent sentence explains the prediction for the schedule but what is the hypothesized direction for reward valence? More detail is subsequently given on p. 14, Results, but it would be better to bring these details up to the Introduction. "We additionally examined differential effects of positive and negative feedback changes on performance to build on previous work demonstrating enhanced sensitivity to negative feedback in patients with OCD (Apergis-Schoute et al 2023, Becker et al., 2014; Kanen et al., 2019)." In general, the second part of the Hypothesis section is a bit dense, sometimes with two predictions per sentence. It could be useful for the reader if hypotheses were enumerated and/or if a distinction was made among the hypotheses with respect to their importance.

We fully revised the hypothesis section, on page 5, following this reviewer’s suggestion. We think this section is much clearer now, in our revised manuscript.

Response: Thank you for pointing out the need for clarity in our hypothesis section. This is a very important point and we will carefully rewrite our hypothesis in the revised manuscript to make them as clear as possible.

1. Did medication status correlate with symptom severity in the OCD group (e.g., higher symptoms for the 6 participants on SSRI+antipsychotics?). Could this, or SSRI-only status, have impacted results in any way? I appreciate that there is no way to test medication status statistically but readers may be interested in your thoughts on this aspect.

Response: We have now conducted exploratory analysis to assess the potential effect of medication in the following output measures: app engagement (as measured by completed practices), explicit preference and YBOCS change post-training. The patients who were on combined therapy (SSRIs + antipsychotic) did not perform significantly different in these measures as compared to the remaining patients and no other effects of interest were observed. Their symptomatology was indeed slightly more severe but not statistically significant [Y-BOCS combined = 26.2 (6.5); Y-BOCS SSRI only = 23.8 (6.1); Y-BOCS No Med = 23.8 (2.2), mean(std)]. Only one patient showed symptom improvement after the app training, another became worse and the remaining patients on combined therapy remain stable during the month.

Palminteri et al (2011) found that unmedicated OCD patients exhibited instrumental learning deficits, which were fully alleviated with SSRI treatment. Therefore, it is possible that the SSRI medication (present in our sample) may have reduced habit formation and facilitated behavioral arbitration. However, since the effect goes against the habit hypothesis, it has is unlikely that it has confounded our measure of automaticity. If anything, medication rendered experiment 2 and 3 more goal-oriented. We agree that further studies are warranted to address the effect of SSRIs on these measures.

1. You could explain earlier why devaluation could not be tested here (it is only explained in the Limitations section near the end)

Response: The revised manuscript will be amended to account for this note.

Done in page 25.

1. Capitalize 'makey-makey', I didn't realize there was a product called Makey Makey until I Googled it.

Response: Sure. We will capitalize 'Makey-Makey'. Thank you for pointing this out!

Done

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Recommendations for the authors (ordered by the paper sections):

In the introduction

1. regarding this part "We used a period of 1-month's training to enable effective consolidation, required for habitual action control or skill retention to occur. This acknowledged previous studies showing that practice alone is insufficient for habit development as it also requires off-line consolidation computations, through longer periods of time (de Wit et al., 2018) and sleep (Nusbaum et al., 2018; Walker et al., 2003)." I advise the authors to re-check whether what is attributed here to de Wit et al. (2018) is indeed justified (if I remember correctly they have not mentioned anything about off-line consolidation computations).

Response: When we revise the manuscript, we will remove the de Wit et al. (2018) citation from this sentence.

Done

in the Outline paragraph

1. it stated: "We continuously collected data online, in real time, thus enabling measurements of procedural learning as well as automaticity development." I think this wording implies that the fact that the data was collected online in real time was advantageous in that it enabled to assess measurements of procedural learning and automaticity development, which in my understanding is not the case.

Response: To make this sentence clearer, we will change it to the following: ‘We continuously collected data online, to monitor engagement and performance in real time and to enable acquisition of sufficient data to analyze, à posteriori, procedural learning and automaticity development’.

Done in page 4: ‘We collected data online continuously to monitor engagement and performance in real-time. This approach ensured we acquired sufficient data for subsequent analysis of procedural learning and automaticity development’.

1. In the final sentence of this paragraph "or and" should be changed to "or/end".

Response: This was a typo. The word ‘and’ will be removed.

Done

1. In Figure 1c - Note that in the figure legend it says "Each sequence comprises 3 single press moves, 2 two-finger moves..." whereas in the example shown in the figure it's the other way around (2 single press moves and 3 two-finger moves).

Response: Thank you so much for spotting this! The example shown in the figure is incorrect. We apologize for the mistake. It should depict 3 single press moves, 2 two-finger moves and 1 three- finger move. The figure will be amended.

Done

In the results section:

1. Regarding the "were followed by a positive ring tone and the unsuccessful ones by a negative ring tone", I suggest mentioning that there was also a positive visual (rewarding) effect.

Response: Thank you. A mention to the visual effect will be added for both the positive (successful) and negative (unsuccessful) trials. Done in page 7

1. p 10. - Note a typo in the following sentence where the word "which" appears twice consecutively:

"Furthermore, both groups exhibited similar motor durations at asymptote which, which combined with the previous conclusion, indicates that OCD patients improved their motor learning more than controls, but to the same asymptote."

Response: Thank you for spotting this typo. The second word will be removed. Done

1. I have a few suggestions with respect to Figure 3:

2. keeping the y-axes scale similar in all subplots would be more visually informative.

Here we kept the y-axes scale similar in all subplots, except one of them, which was important to keep to capture all the data.

1. For the subplots in 3b I would recommend for the transparent regions, instead of the IQR, to use the median +/- 1.57 * IQR/sqrt(n) which is equivalent to how the notches are calculated in a box-plot figure (It is referred to as an approximate 95% confidence interval for the median). This should make the transparent area narrower and thus better communicate the results.

Done

1. I think the significant levels mentioned in figure legend 3b (which are referring to the group effect measured for each reward schedule type separately) is not mentioned in the text. While not crucial, maybe consider adding it in the text.

We don’t think this is necessary and may actually lead to confusion because in the text we report a Kruskal–Wallis H test (which is the most appropriate statistical test), including their H and p values for the group and reward effects. Since in the figure we separated the analysis and plots for variable and continuous reward schedules (for visual purposes) , we reported a U test separated for each reward schedule. Therefore, we consider that the correct statistics are reported in the appropriate places of the manuscript.

Response: Thank you for this very helpful suggestion. We will amend figure 3 accordingly.

1. In the Automaticity results (pp. 12 and 13) when describing the Descriptive stats the wrong parameter indicator are used (DL instead of CL and nD instead of nC.

Response: Thank you for noticing it. We will amend.

Done

1. In Sensitivity of IKI consistency (C) to reward results:

In Figure 6a legend: with respect to "... and for reward increments (∆R+, purple) and decrements (∆R-, green)" - note that there are also additional colors indicating these ∆Rs.

Response: Done. We had used a 2 x 2 color scheme: green hues for ∆R-, and purple hues for ∆R+. Then, OCD is denoted by dark colors, and HV by light colors. This represents all four colors used in the figure. For instance, OCD and ∆R- is dark green, whereas OCD and ∆R+ is denoted by dark purple.

1. p.21 - the YBOCS abbreviation appears before the full form is spelled out in the text.

Response: In the revised version, we will make sure the YBOCS abbreviation will be spelled out the first time it is mentioned.

Done in page 24

Experiments 2 and 3:

1. If there is a reason behind presenting the conditions sequentially rather than using intermixed trials in experiments 2 and 3, it would be useful to mention it in the text.

Response: Experiment 2 could have used intermixed trials. However, we were concerned that the use of intermixed trials in experiment 3 would increase excessively the memory load of the task, which could then be a confound.

Done in page 41

1. I wonder whether the presentation order of the conditions in experiments 2 and 3 affected participants' results? Maybe it is worth adding this factor to the analysis.

Response: As we mentioned both in the methods and results sections, we counterbalanced all the conditions across participants, in both experiments 2 and 3. This procedure ensures no order effects.

Experiment 2:

1. Regarding this sentence (pp. 21-22): "However, some participants still preferred the app sequence, specifically those with greater habitual tendencies, including patients who considered the app training beneficial." I think the part that mentions that there are "patients who considered the app training beneficial" appears below and it may confuse the reader. I suggest either providing a brief explanation or indicating that further details will be provided later in the text ("see below in...").

Response: We will clarify this section.

We added “see below exploratory analyses of “Mobile-app performance effect on symptomatology”” in the end of the sentence so that the reader knows this is further explained below. Page 25

1. Finally, in addition to subgrouping maybe it is worth testing whether there is a correlation between the YBOCS score change and the app-sequences preference (as to learn if the more they change their YBOCS the more they prefer the learned sequences and vice versa?)

Response: Thank you for suggesting this relevant correlational analysis, which we have now conducted. Indeed, there is a correlation between the YBOCS score change and the preference for the app-sequences, meaning that the higher the symptom improvement after the month training, the greater the preference for the familiar/learned sequence. This is particularly the case for the experimental condition 2, when subjects are required to choose between the trained app sequence and any 3-move sequence (rs = 0.35, p=0.04). A trend was observed for the correlation between the YBOCS score change and the preference for the app-sequences in experimental condition 1 (app preferred sequence versus any 6-move sequence): rs = 0.30, p=0.09.

This finding represents an additional corroboration of our conclusion that the app seems to be more beneficial to patients more prone to routine habits, who are somewhat more averse to novelty.

This analysis was added in page 24, 25 and page 35.

Experiment 3:

1. You mention "The task was conducted in a new context, which has been shown to promote reengagement of the goal system (Bouton, 2021)." In my understanding this observation is true also for experiment 2. In such case it should be stated earlier (probably under: "Phase B: Tests of actionsequence preference and goal/habit arbitration").

Response: As answered above in (Q17), we will follow this referee 2’s suggestion and describe the contextual details of experiments 2 and 3 in the Results section, when we introduce Phase B.

Done in page 21.

1. w.r.t this sentence - "...that sequence (Figure 8b, no group effects (p = 0.210 and BF = 0.742, anecdotal evidence)" I would add what the anecdotal evidence refers (as done in other parts of the paper), to prevent potential confusion.

Response: OK, this will be added.

Added on page 27

Discussion:

1. w.r.t. "Here we have trained a clinical population with moderately high baseline levels of stress and anxiety, with training sessions of a higher order of magnitude than in previous studies (de Wit et al., 2018, 2018; Gera et al., 2022) (30 days instead of 3 days)." The Gera et al. 2022 (was more than 3 days), you probably meant Gera et al. 2023 ("Characterizing habit learning in the human brain at the individual and group levels: a multi-modal MRI study", for which 3 days is true).

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We will keep the citation to Gera et al 2022 given its relevance to the sentence but we will remove the information inside the parenthesis. This amendment will solve the issue raised here.

Done in page 32

1. w.r.t "to a simple 2-element sequence with less training (Gera et al., 2022)" - it's a 3-element sequence in practice.

Response: Thank you for this correction. We will amend this sentence accordingly.

Done in page 32

1. (p.30) w.r.t "and enhanced error-related negativity amplitudes in OCD" - a bit more context of what the negative amplitudes refer to would be useful (So the reader understands it refers to electrophysiology).

Response: We will add a sentence in our revised manuscript addressing this matter. This sentence has been removed in the revised manuscript

Supplementary materials:

1. under "Sample size for the reward sensitivity analysis":

It is stated "One practice corresponded to 20 correctly performed sequences. We therefore split the total number of correct sequences into four bins." I was not able to follow this reasoning here (20 correct trials in practice => splitting the data the 4 bins). More clarity here would be useful.

Response: We will clarify this procedure of our analysis in the revised version of the manuscript. Thanks.

Done. See Supplementary materials.

1. Also, maybe I am missing something, but I couldn't understand why the number of sequences available per bin is different for the calculation of ∆MT and C. Aren't any two consecutive sequences that are good for the calculation of one of these measures also good for the calculation of the other?

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. Indeed, the number of trials was the same for both analyses, ∆MT and C. We had saved an incorrect variable as number of trials. We will amend the text.

We have re-analyzed the trial number data. The average number of trials per bin both for the ∆MT and C analyses was 109 (9) in the HV and 127 (12) in OCD groups. Although the number was on average larger in the patient group, we did not find significant differences between groups (p = 0.47).

When assessing the p(∆T|∆R+) and p(∆T|∆R-) separately, more trials were available for p(∆T|∆R+), 107 (10) , than for p(∆T|∆R-), and 98 (8). These trial numbers differed significantly (p = 0.0046), but were identical for ∆MT and C analyses.

Done. Included in Supplementary materials.

Minor comments:

1. Not crucial, but maybe for the sake of consistency consider merging the "Self-reported habit tendencies" section and the "Other self-reported symptoms" section, preferably where the latter is currently placed.

Response: We fully understand the referee’s rationale underlying this suggestion. We indeed considered initially presenting the self-reported questionnaires all together, in a last, single section of the results, as suggested by the referee. However, we decided to report the higher habitual tendencies of OCD as an initial set of results, not only because it is a novel and important finding (which justifies it to be highlighted) but also because it is essential to the understanding of some of the remaining results presented.

1. In some figure legends the percentage of the interval of the mentioned confidence intervals (probably 95%) is missing. I suggest adding it.

Response: OK, this will be added.

Done

1. The NHS abbreviation appears without spelling out the full form.

Response: This will be amended accordingly.

I removed NHS as it is not relevant.

1. In p.38 the citation (Rouder et al., 2012) is duplicated (appears twice consecutively).

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We will amend accordingly.

Done

In the results section:

1. The authors mention: "To promote motivation, the total points achieved on each daily training sessions were also shown, so participants could see how well they improved across days". Yet, if the score is based on the number of practices, it may not represent participants improvement in case in some days more practices are performed. I suggest to clarify this point.

Response: The goal of providing the scoring feedback was, as explained in the sentence, to gauge motivation and inform the subject about their performance. Having this goal in mind, it does not really matter if one day their scoring would be higher simply because they would have done more practice on that day. Participants could easily understand that the scoring reflected their performance on each practice so they would realize that the more practice, the greater their improvement and that the scoring would increase across days of practice. We will amend the sentence to the following: "To promote motivation, the total points achieved on each training session (i.e. practice) was also shown, so participants could see how well they improved across practice and across days".

Done in page 7 and 8.

Author Response

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

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

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

Thank you for these comments. We have incorporated the articles referenced on the Matthew effect into the first paragraph of the Discussion our revised preprint.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for these insightful comments. We now calculate a rolling conversion rate for K99 to R00 awards which shows there is not as much of a decline in conversion from K99 to R00 (Fig 1B). We still see a slight decline in 2021 and 2022. 468 K99 awards are from 2020 or later so they may still convert to the R00 phase. Thus it is difficult to draw conclusions about 2021/2022 yet. As more time passes, we may better be able to determine whether or not significant alteration from normal occurred in these years, presumably due to pressures from the Covid-19 pandemic. We also thank you for providing the details of the FOIA request. We have included a discussion of these data in the discussion.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

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

Strengths:

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

Weaknesses:

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

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

Thank you for this comment. We agree this comparison perpetuates the perception of the prestige hierarchy and is problematic. We now compare all institutions in the top 25 NIH funding category to all HBCUs. Thank you also for identifying our error in mis-coding Gallaudet as an HBCU. We have corrected this in the current version.

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

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Comments to authors:

1. For the benefit of general reader, it would be informative to mention the amount of annual NIH investment in the k99 funding mechanism in the text (230 awards representing a ~ 230 million US dollars investment).

Thank you for this suggestion. We have added that this is ~$25 million investment annually.

1. It is worth noting that some of the observed funding and hiring traits resemble the Matthew effect, discussed in: The Matthew effect in science: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.159.3810.56

The Matthew effect in science funding: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1719557115

It would be of value to cite these for further context for the readers.

Thank you for this suggestion. We have included these references and briefly discussed the Matthew effect in the first paragraph of the Discussion.

1. Figs 3, 6 and Fig S1 are hard to read without zooming in due to their format and don't work great within a letter size page but can work if they are also linked to a zoomable web version. It would make sense to have an online navigable/searchable/selectable version. But when the reader zooms out, there are patterns that reflect what points the authors are making (though those could be illustrated differently). These figures are really made for online webapp visualization (such as Shiny in R).

We agree with this comment and have used the “googleVis()” package in R to put together interactive Sankey diagrams. These can be found at: https://dantyrr.github.io/K99-R00-analysis/ and they are referenced in the manuscript.

1. The abstract states 85% of awardees get R00 awards. That appears to come from 198/234 (page 6) though it's not explicitly stated, and other ratios give different answers (e.g., 1-304/3475 = 91%) but the 85% seems to be the right one. That first paragraph of the results could be clearer. Also, in the middle of page three the number given is 90% so something is inconsistent. For Figure 1A, given the methodology it should be possible to calculate a rolling conversion rate as "R00(t) / K99(t-1)" (and a similarly-calculated cumulative rate).

Thank you for catching these errors. These were introduced because there are R00 awardees that did not have extramural K99 awards. These are intramural NIH K99 awardees but there is no public data on these awardees. The correct number is 78% of K99 awardees that transitioned to the R00 phase. We have also calculated the rolling conversion rate which is 89% if you exclude the first 2 years of the program (when the first awardees were within the 2-yr K99 period) and final 2 years (when most recent K99 awardees were still within their first 2 years of the K99 period).

1. Assuming that 85% is the correct number, is there any information/insight into why ~1/6 of awardees do not continue to R00, which seems high given that only two years passes - that's a lot of awardees not getting R00 positions.

We are unsure of why these don’t convert. In the revised version of the manuscript, we speculate on this in the 4th paragraph of the discussion:

The factors that prevented the other 302 K99 awardees from 2019 and earlier unable to convert their K99-R00 grants is cause for concern within our greater academic community. Possible explanations include leaving the biomedical workforce, accepting tenure-track positions or other positions abroad, or by simply not successfully securing a tenable tenure-track offer.

1. It looks like perhaps a non-zero number of K99s are just one year and not two (e.g., see 2006 in Fig 1A, which should not appear if all 2006 awards were 2 years). What is the typical percentage of K99s not activated for a second year, and is this a sizable % of the 15% not converting to R00?

This is an interesting question. We didn’t originally look into this and the dataset that we originally downloaded from NIH reporter included a significant number of duplicates for the grants because year 1 of the K99 was listed on its own line and year 2 was listed on a different line. The first step in curating the data was to delete the duplicate values so we only had one entry per person. Unfortunately based on sorting of the data tables, sometimes the year 1 appeared above year 2 and at other times year 2 appeared before year 1. Because none of the data we were interested in are benchmarked to K99 start date, we removed the duplicate values non-specifically. With the dataset we currently have, we would not be able to tell which individuals dropped out (didn’t convert to R00) during the first or second year of the K99. In order to do this we would have to download the raw data from NIH reporter again and curate it again. We may do this in the future but for the purpose of publishing the current manuscript we prefer to focus our efforts on other aspects of the revision.

1. Further down page 3, the authors state that "men typically experience 2-3% greater funding success rates" is ambiguous, as rates are themselves a percentage. So, is it 2-3% greater as in 23% vs 20%, or is it 2-3% greater as in 20.6% vs 20%? Please clarify the language.

Thank you for asking for this clarification. We have updated the text here to reflect that we mean “23% vs 20%”.

1. Metrics such as time to first R01 are compared internally within the study set, which yields interesting insights, but more could be done to benchmark these metrics to non-K99 scientists.

We agree with the reviewer that this would be ideal; however, we feel that it is out of the scope of this manuscript. We may examine this in the future.

1. In the text, several times percentages are being referred to when the figures cited do not show percentages. For example (page 6) 'proportion of awardees that stayed at the same institution declined to about 20% where it has remained consistent (Fig 1B)' - Figure 1B does not show percentages, instead the reader would need to work out from the raw numbers what the pattern of percentages might look like. It's fine (great even) to provide the raw numbers, but would be great to show the percentages as well. This happened for multiple graphs.

Thank you for this comment. We agree that showing the percentage would be beneficial so we have included the percentages in Figure 1 for the conversion rate. We also added a standalone figure panel for the rolling conversion rate for Figure 1. For Figure 4, we have also included a right Y-axis to better indicate the % women.

1. Figure 4 - putting the %women on a 0-250 scale makes it difficult to see the changes in that curve. Please replot it as a separate graph with an appropriate scale (30-50%? 30-70%?)

Thank you for this comment. We have made this edit.

1. Figure 5 - The table appears inconsistent - the Moved/Stayed HR is 1.411 suggesting that moving is better for reducing time to R01, but then Woman/Man is 1.208, so one of these pairs needs to be written in the opposite order to have the table make sense (intended to be listed as 'better/worse'?)

Thank you for noticing this. In the revised manuscript we have re-run the cox proportional hazard model using the R package “survival” and the function “coxph()”. There were minor differences in the hazard ratios using this package instead of Graphpad prism; however, the R package is much more widely used compared to prism for these types of analysis. We present the new data in the table in Figure 5B in the revised manuscript. We now present the “detrimental” cox hazard value for each variable (i.e. 0.7095 for the mobility [moved/stayed]). We also underlined the variable which was detrimental to receiving an R01 award earlier.

1. Figure 5's graph appears strange. All the lines have an appearance of stochasticity but are actually multiples of each other, rising exactly in sync. Are these actually modeled lines? If so, why not instead actually draw the lines based on the real data from the real groups depicted, and give the n for each group?

Thank you for picking this up. The software we originally used to plot the graphs did plot modeled lines instead of the actual data. We have re-run the cox proportional hazard model using the R “survival” package v3.5-5 and the coxph() and survfit() functions. The updated data are in Figure 5 of the revised manuscript.

1. Table 1 should note that each column sums to 100%.

This is a good suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have added a row to the table to indicate the column total N and %.

1. The authors discuss how k99/R00 grant reviewing process may have to change but the k99 awards also impact the faculty hiring ecosystem as well. There are faculty hiring job ads explicitly requesting or indicating preference towards k99 holders and the results described in this article show that k99 awarding is biased towards particular demographics at select wealthy institutions. Of course, collective/central action is almost always more effective/impactful (especially in shorter time line) than individual elective action. In other words, NIH changing granting patterns would likely work better than encouraging faculty searches to change the weight they give to K99s, because there are many searches and just one NIH. But these are not mutually exclusive and individual action can still help when central action isn't done (if the NIH does not change the k99/R00 grant review process for more inclusive funding and does not increase the number of annual k99 awards hence the annual budget for this award mechanism) and it would be good to have this discussed in the manuscript.

Thank you for this comment and thoughtful insights. We have included additional discussion on this in the final paragraph of the discussion.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Thank you for conducting this important work. On top of some thoughts I have described in the public review (in particular, Chris Pickett's FOIA data on K99/R00 outcomes by applicant race and ethnicity), I only have a few comments for potential improvements to this paper:

1. The comparison of K99-R00 transition rates by gender was interesting. However, I missed the analysis on the K99-R00 transition rates by institution (by type or by top-25 NIH funded institution versus not). I think this analysis may be buried somewhere in the more nuanced descriptions about faculty flows from one institution type to another, but I was not able to locate it. I wonder if the authors could consider dedicating a subsection to specifically describing the transition rate by institution type, creating a table equivalent to Table 2. This section would probably fit best somewhere before the authors dive into the nuances of self-hires and faculty flows.

Said another way: As I was reading, I felt I was missing an answer to a simple question - are there differences in conversion rates by institution type (however you define institution type, as an MSI or non MSI, or top-25 NIH funded versus not)?

Thank you for this suggestion. We have created the table (Table 3 and Table 4) in the revised manuscript. We also made a new figure (now figure 5 in the revised manuscript). This was an interesting way to look at the data and it is very clear that the number of K99 and R00 awards is heavily concentrated within the institutions that have the highest NIH funding. We have added a paragraph in the results in a new section entitled “K99 and R00 awards are concentrated within the highest funded institutions”.

1. Regarding the comparison of HBCUs and Harvard: this analysis was elucidating, but I am not sure if the framing of this analysis as pertaining to "systematically marginalized groups" - see second sentence in the section, "Faculty doctorates differ between Harvard and HBCUs" is appropriate. While it is true that proportionally more faculty at HBCUs are from marginalized groups, there are also many faculty at HBCUs who are from privileged or advantaged backgrounds (e.g., white, men, educated at elite institutions). It would be more accurate to rephrase the second sentence to say something along the lines of, "We sought to examine the rates of funding for those at historically under-funded institutions." I recommend that the authors comb the paper for any other potential places in the text that conflate systemic marginalization with institution type, and rephrase as needed for accuracy.

Thank you for pointing this out. This is an extremely important point and we have removed any instances we could find where we conflate systemically marginalized groups with institution type.

1. I strongly recommend Sugimoto and Larivière (2023)'s new book, Equity for Women in Science, which has an entire section dedicated to previous work investigating how researcher mobility impacts access to resources, collaborations, et cetera (Chapter 5 on Mobility; other chapters on Funding are also relevant but I hone in on Mobility since this is such a key result of this work). I think this chapter would provide significant food-for-thought and background that could strengthen the Discussion section of the paper.

Thank you for this suggestion. We have added some discussion of mobility in the first paragraph of the Discussion.

1. I appreciated the subsection headings that described key results (e.g., "Institutions with the most NIH funding tend to hire K99/R00 awardees from other institutions with the most funding"; "K99/R00 awardee self-hires are more common at institutions with the top NIH funding.") This paper structure made it easier for me to ensure that I was getting the intended takeaway from a figure or section. But partway through the paper, the subheadings changed to being less declarative and therefore less informative (e.g., "Gender of K99/R00 awardees"; "Factors influencing K99/R00 awardee future funding success"). It would be great to rephrase these boilerplate subsection headers to be more declarative, like earlier subsection headings. For example, maybe say "Men receive the majority of K99 awards" or "No gender difference in the rate of conversion from K99 to R00" or something to that effect, depending on what result the authors wish to emphasize.

Thank you for this comment. This is a very good point. We have re-worded the more generic headings in the revised version.

1. Lastly, I would like to share a question that came to my mind that involves an additional analysis, but is work that is (probably) out-of-the-scope of this paper, but could instead be a separate paper or product. Circling back to Chris Pickett's FOIA-ed data on K99/R00 funding outcomes by applicant race and ethnicity (https://web.archive.org/web/20180723171128/http://rescuingbiomedicalresearch.org/blog/examining-distribution-k99r00-awards-race/): Given that Pickett's numbers provide incontrovertible information on the number of awards to various racial and ethnic groups, I wonder if it is possible to use this information as an "answer key" to (1) check the accuracy of an algorithm that assigns race based on name for applications in your analysis but for 2007-2017 period, and, (2) if the results are reasonable, then examine the dataset with race and ethnicity information. Some recent papers performing large-scale bibliometric analyses have applied such algorithms (e.g., see Kozlowski et al. 2022 PNAS Intersectional inequalities in science) and I wonder if they could be useful, or at least tested, here. Again, Pickett's data would serve as the benchmark to see if the algorithm produces numbers that are consistent with the actual funding outcomes; if they're not wildly off, or perhaps accurate for some groups but not others, there might be something here.

This is a really insightful comment. We have discussed whether we could assign ethnicity based on an algorithm and check based on Chris Pickett’s data. We agree that it is beyond the scope of this article, but has potential for future research.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

-In the methods section, it would be helpful to provide an overview of the number of universities, departments, and faculty represented in the data analyzed in the study.

Thank you for this comment. We agree with the reviewer. We have added a section to the results discussing the distribution of different types of institutions. We also added Table 3 and Table 4 and a new Figure 5 describing these. Regarding the faculty, we have discussed the demographics of the K99 and R00 awardees as best as we could. We do not have data on which faculty laboratories the K99 awardees were in when they received their awards. This information is not available through NIH reporter.

-I would consider incorporating, or at least citing, Jeff Lockhart and colleagues' recent paper Nature Human Behavior article "Name-based demographic inference and the unequal distribution of misrecognition" about to provide readers with an additional resource and more information about the likelihood of misattribution and general cautionary notes about using gender and race/ethnicity ascription/imputation approaches and tools for research.

Thank you for bringing this reference to our attention. We have incorporated this into the methods section describing our name-based gender determination.

-In the next to last sentence under the final paragraph of the methods section, there looks to be a typo as it should read "K99 or R00," not "K00" as currently written.

Thank you for catching this. We have now corrected it.

-Clarifying some of the data and measures used are necessary to limit confusion and misinterpretations of the study's findings.

Thank you. We have significantly updated the revised manuscript and hope that it is more clear.

-Elaborating more on the gender inequality notable in the Cox proportional hazard model would strengthen the authors' point about persistent gender inequalities within the K99/R00 funding mechanism and pathways. In its current iteration, the findings are somewhat buried by the discussion of institutional differences, but when we look at the findings and the plot associated with the model, we notice that men have more advantages than women in funding and institutional location.

Thank you for highlighting this. This is true and we have elaborated on the gender inequality in the revised version of the manuscript.

-Also for the Cox proportional hazard model, I would consider exploring the inclusion of data that can further clarify the biomedical research infrastructure of institutions. For example, in the conversation about the differences between Princeton and other universities including other Ivies, it's important to note that Princeton does not have a medical school. Moreover, other institutions do not operate or are affiliated with a hospital. Adding more data to the model that can better contextualize the research infrastructure around researchers with NIH awards beyond the size of the NIH portfolio can shed light on possibly other important institutional differences that undergird these inequalities.

Thank you for this comment. We have added additional details about the institutional type; however, to examine whether institutions are attached to a hospital (or are themselves as hospital like MGH etc.) or whether institutions include a medical school may be difficult. We would have to manually code these and then determine whether or not the award recipient was affiliated with a department within that entity or not. We believe that this is a fascinating question but that it is out of the scope of the present manuscript. This is something that we will look into for potential future publications.

-Throughout the manuscript there's usage of "elite" and "prestigious" that are somewhat ambiguous regarding what exactly they are referring to about institutional characteristics. This is a common issue in the literature, but trying to clarify what these terms specifically mean for the current study and checking for consistent usage with limited interchangeability that can add confusion for readers about what is being referred to would give added strength to the conversation provided by the authors.

Thank you for this suggestion. Based on these comments and those by the other reviewers, in the revised version of the manuscript, we have limited the use of “elite” and “prestigious” to describe institutions in order not to perpetuate biases toward certain institutions.

-In relation to the discussion at the end of the manuscript of the longer time to award noted for researchers who stay at the same institutions, another possibility for the disparity could be their reliance for service work (e.g., hiring committees, departmental committees, supporting graduate students through mentoring and/or dissertation committee work, etc.) in their institutions given their knowledge of and experience within it.

Thank you for this suggestion. We have added 2 sentences to the discussion reflecting this possibility.

-Engaging with how STEM professional cultures can perpetuate these funding disparities and related hiring and career outcomes could enhance the contributions of the study. In relation to STEM professional cultures, engaging with the work of Mary Blair-Loy and Erin Cech in their recent book, Misconceiving Merit, could help provide additional insights for readers.

Thank you for these comments. We have incorporated edits to the revised manuscript reflecting the work of Erin Cech and Mary Blair-Loy.

Author Response

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Activity has effects on the development of neural circuitry during almost any step of differentiation. In particular during specific time periods of circuit development, so-called critical periods (CP), altered neural activity can induce permanent changes in network excitability. In complex neural networks, it is often difficult to pinpoint the specific network components that are permanently altered by activity, and it often remains unclear how activity is integrated during the CP to set mature network excitability. This study combines electrophysiology with pharmacological and optogenetic manipulation in the Drosophila genetic model system to pinpoint the neural substrate that is influenced by altered activity during a critical period (CP) of larval locomotor circuit development. Moreover, it is then tested whether and how different manipulations of synaptic input are integrated during the CP to tune network excitability.

Strengths:

Based on previous work, during the CP, network activity is increased by feeding the GABA-AR antagonist PTX. This results in permanent network activity changes, as highly convincingly assayed by a prolonged recovery period following induced seizure and by altered intersegmental locomotor network coordination. This is then used to provide two important findings: First, compelling electro- and optophysiological experiments track the site of network change down to the level of single neurons and pre- versus postsynaptic specializations. In short, increased activity during the CP increases both the magnitude of excitatory and inhibitory synaptic transmission to the aCC motoneuron, but excitation is affected more strongly. This results in altered excitation inhibition ratios. Fine electrophysiology shows that excitatory synapse strengthening occurs postsynaptically. High-quality anatomy shows that dendrite size and numbers of synaptic contacts remain unaltered. It is a major accomplishment to track the tuning of network excitability during the CP down to the physiology of specific synapses to identified neurons.

Second, additional experiments with single neuron resolution demonstrate that during the CP different forms of activity manipulation are integrated so that opposing manipulations can rescue altered setpoints. This provides novel insight into how developing neural network excitability is tuned, and it indicates that during the CP, training can rescue the effects of hyperactivity.

Weaknesses:

There are no major weaknesses to the findings presented, but the molecular cause that underlies increased motoneuron postsynaptic responsiveness as well as the mechanism that integrates different forms of activity during the CP remain unknown. It is clear that addressing these experimentally is beyond the scope of this study, but some discussion about different candidates would be helpful.

We discuss likely mechanisms that underpin the increase in postsynaptic responsiveness below (Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):, point 2). To address possible mechanisms that integrate different forms of activity we now include a new paragraph in the discussion.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this study, the authors use the tractable Drosophila embryonic/larval motor circuit to determine how manipulations of activity during a critical period (CP) modify the circuit in ways that persist into later developmental stages. Previously, this group demonstrated that manipulations to the aCC/MN-Ib neuron in embryonic stages enhance (or can rescue) susceptibility to seizures at later larval stages. Here, the authors demonstrate that following enhanced excitatory drive (by PTX feeding), the aCC neuron acquires increased sensitivity to cholinergic excitatory transmission, presumably due to increased postsynaptic receptor abundance and/or sensitivity, although this is not clarified. Although locomotion is not altered at later developmental larval stages, the authors suggest there is reduced "robustness" to induced seizures. The second part of the study then goes on to enhance inhibition during the CP in an attempt to counteract the enhanced excitation, and show that many aspects of the CP plasticity are rescued. The authors conclude that "average" E/I activity is integrated during the CP to determine the excitability of the mature locomotor network.

Overall, this study provides compelling mechanistic insight into how a final motor output neuron changes in response to enhanced excitatory drive during a CP to change the functionality of the circuit at later mature developmental stages. The first part of this study is strong, clearly showing the changes in the aCC neuron that result from enhanced excitatory input. This includes very nice electrophysiology and imaging data that assess synaptic function and structure onto aCC neurons from pre-motor inputs resulting from PTX exposure during development. However, the later experiments in Figures 6 and 7 designed to counteract the CP plasticity are somewhat difficult to interpret. In particular, the specificity of the manipulations of the ch neuron intended to counteract the CP plasticity is unclear, given the complexities of how these changes impact the excitability of all neurons during development. It is clear that CP plasticity is largely rescued in later stages, but it is hard to know if downstream or secondary adaptations may be masking the PTX-induced plasticity normally observed. Nonetheless, this study provides an important advance in our understanding of what parameters change during CPs to calibrate network dynamics at later developmental stages.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

In Hunter, Coulson et al, the authors seek to expand our understanding of how neural activity during developmental critical periods might control the function of the nervous system later in life. To achieve increased excitation, the authors build on their previous results and apply picrotoxin 17-19 hours after egg-laying, which is a critical period of nervous system development. This early enhancement of excitation leads to multiple effects in third-instar larvae, including prolonged recovery from electroshock, increased synchronization of motor neuron networks, and increased AP firing frequency. Using optogenetics and whole-cell patch clamp electrophysiology, the authors elegantly show that picrotoxin-induced over-excitation leads to increased strength of excitatory inputs and not loss of inhibitory inputs. To enhance inhibition, the authors chose an approach that involved the stimulation of mechanosensory neurons; this counteracts picrotoxin-induced signs of increased excitation. This approach to enhancing inhibition requires further control experiments and validation.

Strengths:

• The authors confirm their previous results and show that 17-19 hours after egg laying is a critical period of nervous system development.

• Using Ca2+/Sr2+ substitutions, the authors demonstrate that synaptic connections between A18a  aCC show increased mEPSP amplitudes. The authors show that this aCC input is what is driving enhanced excitation.

• The authors demonstrate that the effects of over-excitation attributed to picrotoxin exposure are generalizable and also occur in bss mutant flies.

Weaknesses:

• The authors build on their previous work and argue that the critical period (17-19h after egg-laying) is a uniquely sensitive period of development. Have the authors already demonstrated that exposure to picrotoxin at L1 or L2 (and even early L3 if experimentally possible) does not lead to changes in induced seizure at L3? This would further the authors' hypothesis of the uniqueness of the 17-19h AEL period. If this has already been established in prior publications, then this needs to be further explained. I do note in Gaicehllo and Baines (2015) that Fig 2E shows the identification of the 17-19h window.

This is a pertinent comment. We now have evidence that activity manipulation (in this instance by increasing temperature, which recapitulates the effect of PTX) is not effective at larval stages (L1 to L3) but remains effective between 17-19hrs AEL. This observation forms part of a separate study where we explore the role of circadian activity on embryonic and larval neuronal development. We include a brief statement to address this comment in the revision (first paragraph of Results).

• Regarding experiments in Fig 2, authors only report changes in AP firing frequency. Can the authors also report other metrics of excitability, including measures of intrinsic excitability with and without picrotoxin exposure (including RMP, Rm)? Was a different amount of current injection needed to evoke stable 5-10 Hz firing with and without picrotoxin? In the representative figure (Fig. 2A), it appears that the baseline firing frequencies are different prior to optogenetic stimulation.

No differences in RM, Rin or capacitance were observed due to PTX. This is now included in the revision along with an explanation that different levels of current injection were used to measure effects to excitatory vs inhibitory synaptic drive. We did not specifically monitor the amount of current required to maintain stable firing.

• The ch-related experiments require further controls and explanation. Regarding experiments in Fig 6, what is the effect of ch neuron stimulation alone on time lag and AP frequency? Can the authors further clarify what is known about connections between aCC and ch neurons? It is difficult for this reviewer to conceptualize how enhancing ch-mediated inhibition would worsen seizures. While the cited study (Carreira-Rosario et al 2021) convincingly shows that inhibition of mechanosensory input leads to excessive spontaneous network activity, has it been shown that the converse - stimulation of ch neurons - indeed enhances network inhibition?

• The interpretation of ch-related experiments is further complicated by the explanation in the Discussion that ch neuron stimulation depolarizes aCC neurons; this seems to undercut the authors' previous explanation that the increased E:I ratio is corrected by enhanced inhibition from ch neurons. The idea that ch neurons are placing neurons in a depolarized refractory state is not substantiated by data in the paper or citations.

To respond to these two points combined: The reviewer is correct in stating that additional experiments will be required to fully understand mechanism. We believe that cholinergic (excitatory) chordotonal input to aCC may be an important component for setting the rhythm of the locomotor CPG. Indeed, it may be that CPG rhythm is a key factor during the CP. Our observations suggest optogenetic stimulation of Ch neurons alone is sufficient to induce large, ~400-, currents that resemble endogenous spontaneous rhythmic currents (SRCs) associated with CPG activity. SRCs occur with a characteristic frequency of ~1Hz, and we have some unpublished data that suggests it is possible to change this frequency using ch stimulation. This data therefore unifies prior work (Carreira-Rosario et al., 2021 description of a brake) with our own (observation that ch depolarize aCC). However, we do not include this speculation in the Discussion because the experiments we have conducted were pilots. They may be expanded upon and included in future work.

• In the Discussion, the authors suggest that enhanced proprioception leading to seizures is reminiscent of neurological conditions. This seems to be an oversimplification. Connecting abnormal proprioception to seizures is quite different from connecting abnormal proprioception to disorders of coordination. This should be revised.

Because this is peripheral to our main study, we have deleted this from the revision.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

1. Although the authors have to be commended for the scrutiny with which they pinpoint a site of circuit change, it cannot be excluded that other parts of the circuit also undergo adjustments in response to activity manipulation during the CP, e.g. the membrane properties of the interneurons. This is not a problem but should be discussed.

We agree with this comment and have added the following text to the discussion……’However, we recognise that other parts of the locomotor network may also undergo change due to CP manipulation. The advantage of this system is that most of these elements are now open to specific manipulation through cell-specific genetic drivers’. (Discussion paragraph 3)

1. It is surprising that there is no discussion of the potential molecular cause for the observed increases in postsynaptic responses to SV release from cholinergic neurons. Given that there are no differences in postsynaptic structure, puncta number etc., the subunit composition of the nAChR seems an obvious guess. What is known about the nAChRs subunit composition on aCC, and when during development do the receptors/different subunits become expressed? A paragraph in the discussion on this issue would be highly relevant to the manuscript.

Our own work (unpublished) together with a recent paper from the Littleton lab (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627323005810?via%3Dihub#mmc2) suggests that aCC expresses the majority, if not all, of the 7 alpha and 3 beta subunits that compromise nAChRs. The situation is further complicated by the fact that these receptors are pentameric and are composed of various subunits – the composition significantly altering channel kinetics. Less is known about expression timelines for each receptor subunit, and certainly not in aCC. We already include the following sentence in the results text……’ A change in the frequency of mini excitatory postsynaptic potentials (mEPSPs, a.k.a. minis) would suggest the adaptation is primarily presynaptic (e.g. increased probability of release), whilst a change in distribution and/or amplitude of minis is more consistent with a mechanism acting postsynaptically (e.g. increased or altered receptor subunits).’ Given that we know next to nothing about the nAChR subunit composition in aCC and how this might change due to CP manipulation, we feel it better not to speculate further. To help the reader, we include the following sentence in the discussion……’The precise mechanism contributing to increased mini amplitude remains to be determined, but a plausible scenario may involve change in cholinergic subunit composition.’ (Discussion paragraph 3)

1. It would be important to provide the p-values for Figures 1B and C, especially because it seems that the inhibition also becomes stronger upon PTX treatment during the CP. There is no statistical testing mentioned, was no test done or was it not significant? It is agreed that the effect size is clearly stronger for the increased excitation than for the increased inhibition, but looking at the data suggests that the effect on excitation is not much more significant than the effect on inhibition.

The reviewer is referring to Fig 2B&C. P values have been added to both main text and to the figure legend.

1. Associated with the point above, in the discussion line 407 and below the authors come back to this point and reason that it is surprising that increased excitation is not compensated for by homeostatic mechanisms. It is concluded that homeostatic compensation brings the system back to a setpoint that is defined during the critical period, but the setpoint is set higher in this case. However, an alternative explanation is that GABA administration during the critical period causes the excitation set point to be too high, but this is then partially counteracted in a homeostatic manner by increasing inhibition. If the p-values in Figures 2B and C are rather similar, this might even be the favorable interpretation.

We believe the reviewer means ‘PTX administration’ and not GABA. This is an interesting idea and one we had not really considered. We address this comment by adding the following text………. ‘Alternatively, whilst the increased inhibition we observe is not statistically significant (p = 0.15), it is close and has a medium effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.78), and thus may be indicative of an attempt by the locomotor network to rebalance activity back towards a genetically pre-determined level. In this regard, it may just not have sufficient range to be able to counter the increase in excitation due to CP manipulation.’ (Discussion paragraph 5)

1. To asses the magnitudes of A18a-mediated excitation and A31k-mediated inhibition to aCC, changes in aCC firing frequency were measured. For this aCC was injected with current to fire at all. However, the current injections were chosen to cause firing at 5-10 Hz. During a crawling burst, aCC fires well above 100Hz (Kadas et al., 2017). Are the effects also visible at such firing frequencies, or at least across different firing frequencies? I am not asking for additional experiments, but maybe the data are there and can be referred to?

Spiking in aCC occurs as burst firing, evoked by cholinergic synaptic drive, that lasts for ~300ms and achieving firing frequencies of between 50-100Hz (Kadas et al., 2017 and our own unpublished data). We did not test for effects to excitation or inhibition at these higher frequencies. We now make this explicit in the discussion by adding the following sentence……’The firing frequencies that we imposed (1-10Hz) are also lower than seen during fictive locomotion (Kadas et al., 2017), which shows burst firing lasting for ~300 ms and achieving spike frequencies of up to 100Hz.’ (Discussion paragraph 3)

1. In Figure 3B some minis are demarked by green arrows and others are not. Were the non-marked ones not included in the analysis, and what were the criteria to mark some and others not? This is particularly important because the cumulative distribution of minis is analyzed in Figure 3D, and this depends crucially on what qualifies as mini and what does not.

All mini’s are marked by green arrows. The events not marked are not mini’s. Drosophila neurons are small and have an unfavourable dendritic structure for recording minis. Thus, we carefully analyse traces by eye taking only events that show very rapid rise times and slower, exponential decay (the typical mini shape). There are, however, other events which are most likely single/multiple channel openings, which due to filtering are rounded. We now include this same trace, greatly expanded, as Fig S1D to show how we identified minis from non-minis.

1. The asynchronous release experiment under Sr2+ seems an elegant way to analyze minis upon optogenetic stimulation of an identified presynaptic cholinergic neuron. I suggest being a little more conservative with the term asynchronous release (or replacing it), which is usually the release of many single vesicles that follow AP-mediated synaptic transmission and has nicely been demonstrated at the Drosophila NMJ (Besse et al., 2007). Also, please show the trace in Figure S2A under Sr2+ at a higher pA magnification, it is really hard to see the minis there.

We have adopted a previously published technique that, in our view, correctly uses the term ‘asynchronous release’. This is not to say that all asynchronous release occurs via the same mechanism. Indeed, the papers that report the technique we use predate Besse 2007. We also expand the trace in Fig S1A (not S2A as wrongly indicated).

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

1. Can the authors explain what they think is the parameter of "activity" being measured in the locomotor circuit (mainly aCC) during the CP? Is the aCC neuron simply summing (perhaps through a proxy like Ca2+) total excitation/inhibition over time during the CP?

Reviewer #1 also requests that we discuss how activity is ‘measured’ and thus we now include a dedicated paragraph in the discussion to address this concern. Whether aCC sums ‘average’ activity or perhaps is influenced by activity extremes remains uncertain. Our data is consistent with the former but further work is required to validate our conclusion. This work will be published in due course.

Related to understanding this concept, could the authors' silence activity (using Kir2.1, TNT, or BoNT) from each of the monosynaptic premotor inputs in otherwise wildtype and following PTX exposure to determine how the circuit responds when each of the monosynaptic inputs are silenced? This might inform the role they play in instructing how activity is measured over time during the CP.

This is an excellent suggestion and, indeed, we have planned such experiments. Silencing specific neurons, whilst manipulating the CP, may well result in more significant network instability due to the setting of multiple (and physiologically inappropriate) homeostatic set points. Such studies go beyond the scope of the present study and thus we prefer not to speculate at this early stage, but to wait for experimental data.

On a related note, the authors focus on just 2 premotor inputs, presumably due to the availability of specific drivers. But do the authors know how many other inputs (other ACh, Gaba, and glutamate) onto aCC there are, and to what extent do the authors think these are changed in similar or distinct ways? Is it implied that all neurons are similarly altered by the manipulations?

The connectome details the number and types of neurons that directly contact the aCC motoneuron (Zarin et al., 2019). In terms of cholinergic excitors, the results present in Figure 3 suggest that most (all?) inputs are strengthened following embryonic PTX exposure. However, to conclude this would be highly speculative and thus we refrain from doing so in the manuscript. As other single-neuron driver lines become available, such expts will hopefully be possible.

1. If PTX treatment does indeed increase CPG synchronicity, shouldn't there be a readout of this effect on larval locomotion? While the speed of locomotion wasn't significantly impacted, perhaps another parameter was altered.

It is quite possible that other aspects of locomotion are being altered (turning, rearing, etc), but we have not analysed for these more subtle behaviours. Indeed, although not statistically significant, there is a modest reduction in average velocity in larvae derived from PTX-exposed embryos. We see similar reductions in characterised seizure mutants which also show increased synchronicity (Streit et al., 2016).

1. In Figure 2 and elsewhere, what is the baseline level of AP firing rate in each aCC neuron, before optogenetic stimulation? Is this informative about how PTX exposure alters excitability to begin with, perhaps by changing intrinsic excitability.

We now include this data in the relevant results section. Interestingly, following exposure to PTX, basal firing was significantly increased in A18a (excitatory premotor) but not in A31k (inhibitory premotor). This reflects our experiment in which we conclude that excitatory drive to aCC is increased relative to inhibitory synaptic drive. Thus, this measure seemingly validates our conclusion that E:I balance has been altered following activity-manipulation during the CP.

1. Figure 3: The apparent increase in mini amplitude is very small (4.1 vs 4.5 pA); is this physiologically meaningful? Although the authors say the decrease in mini freq is not significant in Fig. 3B after PTX, it does appear rather large, a 40% reduction (5 vs 3 Hz).

We must be guided by statistics in drawing conclusions, but the reader can interpret our data as they wish. Minis measure quantal release and thus to appreciate how small change can, when combined over the many receptors present, influence cell physiology, one needs to compare spiking activity. We show in Fig 2 that such change is sufficient to increase the excitatory synaptic drive provided by the A18a neuron. The seemingly larger reduction in mini frequency is intriguing and may reflect additional change, but without further experiments we cannot draw firm conclusions.

1. The clever vibration assay is a good one to induce the activation of mechanosensory neurons, but the specificity of the changes induced by this is difficult to ascertain. One possibility would be to silence the output of the ch neurons (by expression to tetanus or botulinum toxin) and still put the larvae through the same vibration during the CP to see if the rescue is lost.

We agree that further experiments are required to fully understand underlying mechanism(s). However, we will not be able to complete such follow-on expts in a timely manner and thus, these must wait and form the basis of future studies.

Minor points 1. Typos - there are numerous areas where it seems a comma is used inappropriately (e.g. lines 28, 69, 77, 104, 348, 365, etc). Suggest line editing the final "version of record".

Checked and corrected.

1. It would be of benefit to show the genotypes of the larvae in the various experimental manipulations in the relevant figure legends. This reviewer could not follow exactly how each experiment was done as it was not always clear which driver was being used to express which transgene in what genetic background.

Done

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

• Please provide sample videos of electroshock-induced seizures (e.g. Fig 1B). Is it clear that the period of immobility after electroshock is a seizure (perhaps defined as hyperactivity originating from the brain)? I acknowledge the Baines group is quite skilled in this technique and perhaps there is a straightforward answer or citation to include.

We refer the reader to Marley and Baines 2011 which contains videos of seizure activity (first paragraph of Results).

• Seizures are generated in the brain and travel to the periphery. Do the authors think it is possible that the peripheral manipulations in this manuscript might be controlling the behavioral readout of seizures without affecting hypersynchronous activity in the brain?

We include the following statement (in methods) to provide our best understanding for how peripheral electroshock induces seizure………. ‘Strong peripheral stimulation likely causes excessive and synchronous synaptic excitation within the CNS resulting in seizure. However, the precise mechanism of this effect remains to be determined.’ Moreover, we feel it unlikely that manipulation of Ch neurons, by vibration, would suppress the effects we observe via peripheral mechanisms. Indeed, the Ch manipulation is limited to the embryonic CP, whilst our seizure assays are recorded many days later at L3.

• How might enhancement of inhibition lead to worsened seizures? Is the enhancement of ch-related inhibition selectively affecting inhibitory circuits, thereby leading to a net increase in excitation?

This is a difficult point to respond to at present. Enhanced inhibition per se might similarly disturb the encoding of an appropriate homeostatic setpoint(s) thus leaving a network open to being destabilized by a strong stimulus. Indeed, we have previously shown that increased inhibition during the CP results in the same effect (seizure) as increasing excitation (Giachello and Baines, 2015). Thus, presuming activation of Ch neurons during the CP translates to increased inhibition, then worsened seizure behaviour is a predictable effect. How this is achieved remains unknown and we prefer not to speculate here.

Note: This response was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. The content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

---

Reply to the reviewers

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

Summary:

The current study investigates the metabolic regulation of hematopoietic cell differentiation through chromatin modification and gene expression. Using the primary CD34+ human cord blood cells, the authors show that transient pharmacological inhibition of glycolysis, PPP, and glutamine/glutamate metabolism alters the dynamics of chromatin structures and gene expression, leading to the impacts on cell proliferation, morphology, and the long-term differentiation capacity. Following are specific comments:

Major:

1. The rationale behind the selection of the metabolic targets and the working hypothesis regarding specific effects on cellular consequence is not explicitly conveyed, which makes it difficult to judge if the experiment design is appropriate and if the results address the questions:
2. The operational definition of "Metabolic perturbation" or "Metabolic stress" needs to be provided and the validation of inhibitory effects needs to be clarified. Fig. 3D and S1 Fig are supposed to indicate the inhibition of targeted metabolic pathways but it is not clear if the authors believe the inhibitors exert expected metabolic effects based on the presented data. The author should explain why they target the selected pathways (i.e. glycolysis, PPP and glutamine/glutamate metabolism) and precisely point out which up or down regulation (in Fig. 3D and S1 Fig, for example) indicate sufficient and specific inhibitory effects for each inhibitor to operationally define "metabolic perturbation". Thank you for bringing this point to our attention. We extended the Introduction section (page 3) with a paragraph better explaining the notion of metabolic perturbation or stress. Indeed, a clear definition of the metabolic targets is also required. Consequently, the update includes a more detailed presentation of the metabolic steps and the rationale as to why we selected them as targets (pages 3 to 4). Additionally, we have also incorporated an extra figure (S1 Fig) to illustrate the major metabolic pathways affected by the various inhibitors.

In this study, we have used single time-point detections of steady-state metabolite levels. The single time-point detection of individual metabolite levels alone does not allow clear understanding of the precise metabolic alterations. The network of metabolic reactions is highly interconnected with complex regulatory loops that makes precise predictions difficult. More detailed metabolic flux studies will be required to characterize the perturbations. There are considerable challenges in carrying out such flux experiments with the limited amount of cells (which cannot all be from a single patient source), making such experiments well beyond the scope of this study. However, even with single time-point steady inhibitor studies, we observe significant and inhibitor-specific cellular reactions involving cell division rate, morphology, cell surface marker distribution and changes in bulk metabolite levels. Therefore, we interpret these changes as collectively reflecting the metabolic impact of the inhibitors, which can be qualified as metabolic perturbation or stress. The manuscript has been modified (page 5) to clarify this point.

1. Given that the major goal of the study is to characterize the long-term effects of transient metabolic perturbation, it is particularly important to address how soon after the treatment (and how soon after removal) of the inhibitor, the authors observed the expected changes of the targeted metabolic pathways. *The cells were cultured in the presence of inhibitors for 4 days, with day 0 being the beginning of the experiment. The effect on chromatin was detectable by ATAC-seq as early as 12 hours. Given the dramatic changes observed at 24h and early changes (detected at the chromatin level and observed in Time-Lapse), it is reasonable to infer that changes occur almost immediately after the addition of the inhibitors. The first time point that was analyzed after the removal of inhibitors was on day 7 (i.e. 3 days culture without inhibitors), then on day 10 and 14. The cells of the four conditions exhibited distinct evolution even after the inhibitors were removed. *

The chromatin-independent and transcriptional-independent mechanisms are not considered. Intermediate metabolites are known to directly modify protein activity, alter cell signaling resulting changes in differentiation potentials. The authors should acknowledge this possibility and examining their data to speculate which specific gene expression and related cell-fate changes are likely (or not likely) the direct result of epigenetic modulation.

We completely agree with the reviewer that cellular memory mechanisms other than chromatin modifications were not investigated. Fluctuations of the energy metabolism can also impact the post-translational modifications of cellular proteins. However almost nothing is known so far on the role of these modifications in cellular memory processes, and in the consolidation of phenotypic characteristics of a cell lineage. This idea is of course very exciting, but studying this aspect would necessitate an entirely separate investigation, using alternative methods. At this stage we believe that this is well out of the scope of the present study. We have added the idea in the Discussion section (page 16).

The samples of primary cells have heterogenic cell populations. The cellular characterization in bulk may confound the results regarding cell-fate programming versus the cell selection effect.

In Fig 3 and Fig6, how would the authors determine whether the inhibitor or rescue treatments alter cell differentiation program or selectively allow proliferation or survival of non-differentiated cells?

The question of the first selective hit followed by the amplification of the surviving cells is highly relevant. The CD34+cell population is inherently very heterogenous, and we used inhibitor concentrations close to the IC50 values. Collectively, we observe that the surviving cells exhibited greater resistance, which is likely due to their more resistant metabolic state. Our metabolic MS analysis was conducted on a bulk population, precluding conclusions at the single-cell level. However, time-lapse, cytometry, single-cell ATAC and RNA-seq analyses all provide information at the single-cell level. ATAC-seq revealed initial differences between control and treated cells approximately 12 hours after stimulation. By 24 hours, 16 different subsets of cells were identified using single-cell ATAC-seq chromatin accessibility profiling. All four conditions were represented in all subsets in variable proportions. Previous studies [1,9] indicated that at 24 hours, these cells couldn't be clustered into distinct groups based on their gene expression patterns, suggesting that chromatin changes precede gene expression changes by several hours. Notably, at the time of analysis, these cells had not undergone division yet. Time-lapse microscopy revealed that the first division occurred in control and 2-DG cells 24 hours later, while in DON and AOA cells, it occurred only around 72 hours later. At this point, single-cell RNA-seq data clustering identified 17 different subsets of cells. Particularly, AOA cells exhibited a distinctly different gene expression pattern, forming separate clusters. Based on these observations, we think that although some selection occurs during the initial hours, the differences observed between the inhibitors cannot be solely explained by it. Instead, chromatin differences between cells appear before the first division of the cells surviving the initial shock. These differences then gradually develop over the initial 96 hours. The inhibitors were removed at this point, and the cells primed by the different inhibitors were subsequently cultured under identical conditions. It is likely that cells exhibiting differential gene expression patterns possessed varying proliferation capacities, contributing to the observed evolution of cell populations as detected on days 7, 10, and 14. We have added this paragraph to the manuscript in the Discussion section for better clarity (pages 14 and 15).

1. Trajectory analysis may further elucidate that the effects of metabolic perturbation on cell differentiation program are permissive or more instructive (towards/against specific lineage commitment). Although we were able to identify 17 subsets of cells based on their transcriptome profiles, any of them could be assigned to a specific hematopoietic lineage. It is presumably too early. As it was shown (Moussy et al 2017), at this stage, just 96 hours after stimulation most of the cells are still “hesitant” with fluctuating gene expression profiles and morphology. Their commitment to a specific lineage is not robust making the definition of trajectories impossible.

Minor:

1. Fig. 1A is missing figure legends. We clarified the legend (see page 40).

The cell clusters in fig 3 needs to be at least deconvoluted based on the differentiation or cell-identity markers and annotated accordingly in the main figure.

Indeed, we conducted this analysis, but the results weren't conclusive enough to be included in the manuscript. We extracted the list of differentially expressed genes for each cluster (for a more detailed description, refer to the answer to Reviewer 2's Question 2 regarding the analysis of cluster 8). The list of extracted biomarkers was studied, and the top 20 for each cluster are shown on the heat-map in S6 Fig. However, for many clusters, canonical markers couldn't be identified to easily match the clusters to known cell types. For others, a few markers were detected, but with inconsistent mixes, such as in cluster 7 (LYZ and CD14 associated with CD14+ Mono, CST3 associated with DC, NKG7 associated with NK, IL7R and S100A4 associated with Memory CD4+, and MS4A7 associated with B cells) or in cluster 12 (PPBP associated with platelets, S100A4 associated with memory CD4+ cells and FCER1A associated with DC). At this very early stage, the cells are just exiting the multi-lineage primed stage, and it's likely that their identity is not yet fully determined, explaining the mix of markers from different lineages. We also attempted a Gene Ontology analysis on the lists of biomarkers, but most terms were general cellular functioning terms, making it impossible to assign the cells in the various clusters to specific cell types.

The statements in abstract and introduction broadly mention the environmental changes and metabolic adaptation in the process of differentiation. The study, however, address only the setting in vitro. As the mobilization of the hematopoiesis process is not possible to be address with the data presented in the current study. The author should revise the manuscript to better introduce relevant questions of the study.

With all due respect, we do not agree with this comment. The question we are seeking the answer to is defined in the Introduction section (page 3): “Does the change of the metabolic setup of the cells precede and trigger the non-specific chromatin opening?”. For better clarity, now we extended this question by a second one (page 3). It is true that in vitro studies cannot reproduce faithfully all the in vivo conditions such as the mobilization of the hematopoiesis process. However, the objective of our study was only to ask if the external restriction of the energy metabolism modifies the cellular differentiation process. From this perspective, utilizing metabolic inhibitors is a possible way to model restricted access to some substrates in a stressful environment. Indeed, this is the entire philosophy and value of in vitro experiments. The time resolution used in this study is impossible to achieve currently in any in vivo setting. The use of human CD34+ cells was motivated by the fact that this is a very well-studied in vitro model that retains many characteristics of cell differentiation in general. We only hope that our hypothesis and the observations done here are robust enough to be generalizable to other models and to cell differentiation in general. Obviously, confirmation by complementary studies on various other cellular models will be required.

Reviewer #1 (Significance (Required)):

Overall, we appreciate the author using untrivial experiments with purified/primary human cells and highly parallel omics analyses to test an interesting hypothesis. However, we think the specific question(s) and objective(s) of the study need to be specified/clarified and to be better addressed by more conclusive results.

This study will be of fundamental interest to the field of stem cell biology, cell metabolism and developmental biology. Our expertise is adult stem cell biology and dietary research.

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

Summary:

The authors evaluate the impact of metabolic perturbations on chromatin structure and the transcriptional landscape of undifferentiated hematopoietic progenitor cells following stimulation with early acting cytokines. Of note, the authors find very early changes in chromatin structure, associated with more long-term changes in transcriptional profiles, modulating the differentiation potential of these progenitors.

Major Comments:

-The authors show a significantly larger impact of AOA than DON on the chromatin and transcription responses of CD34+ progenitors even though they are both impacting glutamine metabolism. Alpha-ketoglutarate rescued CD34+ progenitors from the effect of AOA but did not rescue DON-treated cells which should also have an attenuated generation of alpha-ketoglutarate. How do the authors interpret this apparent discrepancy? In this regard, the MS data are confusing to this reviewer; alpha ketoglutarate levels were much higher in AOA-treated cells than in DON (or even 2-DG-treated) cells, potentially suggesting that DON had more of an impact on glutamine metabolism than AOA. Additionally, glutamine levels are low in DON-treated cells (where GLS is inhibited) but not in AOA-treated cells (this reviewer would have expected higher levels in both) and lactate is high in 2-DG treated cells (low levels would have been expected).

We were surprised by the metabolite levels found by mass spectrometry in the cells at 24 hours. In many cases these levels were different than what one would intuitively expect. This is why we have repeated the experiments many times. One possible explanation is to consider that these metabolites are produced and consumed simultaneously by many different alternative biochemical reactions. Inhibiting one of them induces immediate compensations by others. The metabolic network is complex and its state at a given moment is difficult to predict. Our measurement provides only a snapshot (which are steady-state measurements at that time). The significant change in the abundance of many metabolic intermediates indicates the fact that the network function is perturbed. To understand in detail the exact nature of these perturbations a single time-point measurement is not sufficient, detailed metabolic flux studies will be able to identify the modified metabolic fluxes. This is at present challenging, because the sources of cells are from different patients, at different times, and will require overcoming substantial experimental challenges. More specifically, the reason why AOA had a greater impact on the chromatin than DON and could be rescued by alpha-ketoglutarate may reside in the structure of the glutamine metabolizing pathway. The effect of DON inhibition on alpha-ketoglutarate can be relatively easily compensated by other amino acids, given that glutamine is a non-essential amino acid. This aligns with the observed recovery of surviving cells after an initial setback, where they subsequently resume their proliferation and differentiation following a brief lag period. Conversely, compensating for the inhibition caused by AOA is more challenging due to the direct involvement of transaminases in αKG production.

*The manuscript has been completed in the Results section (page 5) and in the Discussion section (pages 15 and 16). *

-The authors' finding of a single cluster of cells following AOA treatment (cluster 8) is extremely impressive. Can the authors better define this cluster?

Indeed, scRNA-seq analysis at 96hrs revealed very specific transcriptomic profiles for the AOA condition (Fig.3BC). Although some cells appeared in small numbers in clusters common to other conditions (clusters 4, 7, 10 and 13), most were grouped in completely distinct clusters (clusters 8, 11, 14 and 15). In particular, cluster 8 contained 70.2% of the cells from the AOA condition, i.e. 3598 cells out of 5126 analyzed for this condition before normalization. Given the small size of clusters 11, 14 and 15, attention was focused on cluster 8 for further characterization.

*First, we were able to confirm that this cluster was real and significant because even at a lower resolution than that initially used for the study (resolution 0.6 in Fig.3B), the cluster persists, so it is not an artefact of the clustering algorithm (cluster 1 on the figure on the left corresponds to cluster 8 on Fig.3B). *

Overall, the analysis of gene expression profile revealed that the cluster 8 was better defined by the genes that were down regulated rather than those overexpressed compared to the other clusters. However, the Gene Ontology analysis conducted on these gene lists was inconclusive. The extracted biomarkers do not allow for associating the cells with a specific mature cell type, 96hours is too early in the differentiation process. We think that this observation is not sufficiently conclusive at this stage to be included in the manuscript. Deeper analyses would be necessary to better understand their specificity, but it was out of the scope of the present study.

*Here is the detailed description of the analysis: *

*We searched for specific markers to characterize this cluster using the FindAllMarkers function in the Seurat package. This analysis compares each cluster against all others, identifying genes with differential expression. In the generated output, pct.1 represents the proportion of cells within the cluster where a specific gene is detected, while pct.2 signifies the average proportion of cells across all other clusters where the gene is detected. To refine our results, we filter the positive markers, retaining those with a difference > 0.25 between pct.1 and pct.2, alongside a p_val_adj

ID

Ont.

Description

Gene Ratio

geneID

Count

GO:0071392

BP

cellular response to estradiol stimulus

45171

CRHBP/NRIP1

2

GO:0017046

MF

peptide hormone binding

45232

CRHBP/NPR3

2

GO:0042562

MF

hormone binding

45232

CRHBP/NPR3

2

*The study of genes overexpressed in this cluster 8 is therefore inconclusive. When we look at the heatmap with the top 20 markers for each cluster, it seems that cluster 8 is characterized by the under-expression of certain genes, genes that are also under-expressed in clusters 14 and 15 and over-expressed in clusters 11 and 16: GPNMB, LGALS3, MMP9, CTSD, CXCL8, CTSB, SOD2, IFI30, PSAP, CHI3L1, CYP1B1, CSTB, ACP5, MARCKS, S100A11, FCER1G, LIPA. We conducted a Gene Ontology analysis on this new list, and this time, 53 terms were identified. The figure below shows the top 25 terms. Several terms related to immune cells and neutrophils are observed. The standard analysis doesn't provide us with additional insights into the cells within cluster 8. *

-The authors find an increase in cells expressing the CD36 marker, especially following 2-DG treatment. However, they never discuss the functional significance of CD36 as a fatty acid translocase (FAT), serving as a receptor for long chain fatty acids, and potentially as a compensatory mechanism under conditions where glucose metabolism is inhibited. We thank the reviewer for drawing our attention to this omission. It is indeed highly relevant and important to mention it in the paper. It fits perfectly with the basic idea of metabolic adaptation as a driving force. We introduced this point with references in the manuscript in the Results section (page 11).

__Minor Comments: __

-A schematic showing the different inhibitors and metabolic pathways would be helpful. A schematic representation of the main metabolic pathways and the steps affected by inhibitors has been added as S1 Fig (see page 32 and 40). Consequently, the other supplementary figures have been renumbered.

Reviewer #2 (Significance (Required)):

General comments:

The impact of metabolic perturbations on a progenitor cell with the potential to differentiate to multiple lineages is of much interest to the field. The authors have performed extensive single cell analyses, incorporating both scATACseq and scRNAseq together with cell morphology analyses and cell surface protein evaluations, to monitor short- and long-term impacts. They find very rapid changes in chromatin structure with long-lasting effects, despite the cessation of the metabolic perturbation. This has important implications for our understanding of the crosstalk between metabolic alterations, chromatin structure, and gene expression, coming together to regulate progenitor cell survival, expansion, and differentiation.

Assessments: strengths and limitations

Strengths and Advances:

The authors should be commended for their use of primary hematopoietic progenitors and a close evaluation of the impact of metabolic perturbations during the first 24h of stimulation. Their studies have added significantly to our understanding of cell differentiation, showing that changes in metabolic circuits rapidly modulate cytokine-induced epigenetic chromatin states.

Limitations:

Because CD34+ progenitors represent a heterogeneous population, metabolic perturbations are likely impacting the different subsets in distinct manners. The single cell data presented here can be exploited to assess how these subsets (clusters) change at very early time points following perturbation. It will also be important to confirm the effects of different inhibitors on specific metabolites in a cell line(s) since the changes reported here do not appear to be specific. It is possible that these differences are due to an overall decrease in the activation state of a cytokine-stimulated progenitor leading to a global decrease in metabolites.

Audience: This study will be of much interest to scientists/clinicians studying stem cells, hematopoietic stem cells, metabolism, and epigenomic/transcriptomic landscapes. As such, it will be of interest to a large community.

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

Learn more at Review Commons

---

Referee #1

Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

The current study investigates the metabolic regulation of hematopoietic cell differentiation through chromatin modification and gene expression. Using the primary CD34+ human cord blood cells, the authors show that transient pharmacological inhibition of glycolysis, PPP, and glutamine/glutamate metabolism alters the dynamics of chromatin structures and gene expression, leading to the impacts on cell proliferation, morphology, and the long-term differentiation capacity. Following are specific comments:

Major:

1. The rationale behind the selection of the metabolic targets and the working hypothesis regarding specific effects on cellular consequence is not explicitly conveyed, which makes it difficult to judge if the experiment design is appropriate and if the results address the questions:
   • i. The operational definition of "Metabolic perturbation" or "Metabolic stress" needs to be provided and the validation of inhibitory effects needs to be clarified. Fig. 3D and S1 Fig are supposed to indicate the inhibition of targeted metabolic pathways but it is not clear if the authors believe the inhibitors exert expected metabolic effects based on the presented data. The author should explain why they target the selected pathways (i.e. glycolysis, PPP and glutamine/glutamate metabolism) and precisely point out which up or down regulation (in Fig. 3D and S1 Fig, for example) indicate sufficient and specific inhibitory effects for each inhibitor to operationally define "metabolic perturbation".
   • ii. Given that the major goal of the study is to characterize the long-term effects of transient metabolic perturbation, it is particular important to address how soon after the treatment (and how soon after removal) of the inhibitor, the authors observed the expected changes of the targeted metabolic pathways.
2. The chromatin-independent and transcriptional-independent mechanisms are not considered. Intermediate metabolites are known to directly modify protein activity, alter cell signaling resulting changes in differentiation potentials. The authors should acknowledge this possibility and examining their data to speculate which specific gene expression and related cell-fate changes are likely (or not likely) the direct result of epigenetic modulation.
3. The samples of primary cells have heterogenic cell populations. The cellular characterization in bulk may confound the results regarding cell-fate programming versus the cell selection effect.
   • i. In Fig 3 and Fig6, how would the authors determine whether the inhibitor or rescue treatments alter cell differentiation program or selectively allow proliferation or survival of non-differentiated cells?
   • ii. Trajectory analysis may further elucidate that the effects of metabolic perturbation on cell differentiation program are permissive or more instructive (towards/against specific lineage commitment).

Minor:

1. Fig. 1A is missing figure legends.
2. The cell clusters in fig 3 needs to be at least deconvoluted based on the differentiation or cell-identity markers and annotated accordingly in the main figure.
3. The statements in abstract and introduction broadly mention the environmental changes and metabolic adaptation in the process of differentiation. The study, however, address only the setting in vitro. As the mobilization of the hematopoiesis process is not possible to be address with the data presented in the current study. The author should revise the manuscript to better introduce relevant questions of the study.

Significance

Overall, we appreciate the author using untrivial experiments with purified/primary human cells and highly parallel omics analyses to test an interesting hypothesis. However, we think the specific question(s) and objective(s) of the study need to be specified/clarified and to be better addressed by more conclusive results.

This study will be of fundamental interest to the field of stem cell biology, cell metabolism and developmental biology. Our expertise is adult stem cell biology and dietary research.

Kyrie has been painted as the villain and other players are offering sympathy. The last sentence is precisely what we learn in class and are expected to think about so we are not stuck in bandwagon thought.

Author Response

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

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This work challenges previously published results regarding the presence and abundance of 6mA in the Drosophila genome, as well as the claim that the TET or DMAD enzyme serves as the "eraser" of this DNA methylation mark and its roles in development. This information is needed to clarify these questions in the field. I am less familiar with the biochemical approaches in this work, so my comments are mainly on the genetic analyses. Generally speaking, the methods for fly husbandry and treatment seem to be in accordance with those established in the field.

Response : We thank the reviewer for his/her work and positive assessment of our manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

DNA adenine methylation (6mA) is a rediscovered modification that has been described in a wide range of eukaryotes. However, 6mA presence in eukaryote remains controversial due to the low abundance of its modification in eukaryotic genome. In this manuscript, Boulet et al. re-investigate 6mA presence in drosophila using axenic or conventional fly to avoid contaminants from feeding bacteria. By using these flies, they find that 6mA is rare but present in the drosophila genome by performing LC/MS/MS. They also find that the loss of TET (also known as DMAD) does not impact 6mA levels in drosophila, contrary to previous studies. In addition, the authors find that TET is required for fly development in its enzymatic activity-independent manner.

The strength of this study is, that compared to previous studies of 6mA in drosophila, the authors employed axenic or conventional fly for 6mA analysis. These fly strains make it possible to analyze 6mA presence in drosophila without bacterial contaminant. Therefore, showing data of 6mA abundance in drosophila by performing LC-MS/MS in this manuscript is more convincing as compared with previous studies. Intriguingly, the authors find that the conserved iron-binding motif required for the catalytic activity of TET is dispensable for its function. This finding could be important to reveal TET function in organisms whose genomic 5mC levels are very low.

The manuscript in this paper is well written but some aspects of data analysis and discussion need to be clarified and extended.

1. It is convincing that an increase in 6mA levels is not observed in TETnull presented in Fig1. But it seems 6mA levels are altered in Ax.TET1/2 compared with Ax.TETwt and Ax.TETnull presented in Fig1f (and also WT vs TET1/2 presented in Fig1g). Is it sure that no statistically significant were not observed between Ax.TET1/2 and Ax.TETwt?

2. The representing data of in vitro demethylation assay presented in Fig.3 is convincing, but it is not well discussed and analyzed why these results are contrary to previous reports (Yao et al., 2018 and Zhang et al., 2015).

We thank the reviewer for his/her work and positive assessment of our manuscript.

(1) We repeated our statistical analyses and confirmed that there is no significant difference between wildtype and tet1/2 mutant embryos in axenic conditions (Welch two sample t-test : p=0.075).

(2) We added some elements in the revised manuscript to discuss the possible reasons for the discrepancies with previous reports. Notably both studies performed the in vitro demethylation assays over a much longer time course and with different sources of recombinant proteins. Zhang et al. purified TET catalytic domain from human cells (HEK293T) and observed around 2.5% of 6mA demethylation at 30 min and less than 25% after 10 hours of incubation as measured by HPLC-MS/MS analyses. Yao et al. incubated recombinant TET catalytic domain with 6mA DNA for 3h and observed a 25% decrease in 6mA levels as measured by dot blot. These results suggest that drosophila TET may oxidize 6mA, but with a much lower affinity than 5mC since with observed a near complete oxidation of 5mC after 1 minute and no decrease in 6mA levels after 30 minutes of reaction (for identical concentrations of substrate and enzyme). It is possible too that the preparation of TET catalytic domain in different systems changes its enzymatic activity, potentially in relation with distinct post-translational modifications. Still, as already mentioned in our manuscript, extensive biochemical analyses of the distant TET homolog from the fungus Coprinopsis cinerea (Mu et al., Nature Chem Biol 2022) strongly argue that TET enzymes do not harbor the residues required to serve as 6mA demethylase.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Here are one comment (#1) and a couple of questions (#2-3) that could be addressed in the future, in order to understand the roles of 6mA and TET. Even though #2 and #3 are likely beyond the scope of this paper, #1 should be addressed within the scope of this work and compared with previous reports.

1. The phenotypic analyses in Fig. 4 should use tet_null/Deficiency and tet_CD/Deficiency for their potential phenotypes. This needs to be addressed since both the tet_null and the tet_CD were generated using the same starting fly line (GFP knock-in). Using a deficiency chromosome and testing these alleles in hemizygotes would be helpful to eliminate any secondary effects due to genetic background issues.

Thanks for this comment. Actually, tet_null and tet_CD were not generated using the same starting lines. Whereas tet_cd was generated (by CRISPR) using the tet-GFP knock-in line, tet_null was generated by FRT site recombination between two PBac insertions (Delatte et al. 2016). As for tet1 and tet2 (used in allelic combination in Fig 4 J-L), they correspond to two distinct mutant alleles generated by CRISPR (Zhang et al. 2015). We have clarified this in the M&M (page 9).

1. Regarding the estimated "200 to 400 methylated adenines per haplogenome", is there any insight into where are they located in the genome?

It is an interesting question and we initially used SMRT-seq sequencing to obtain this kind of information. As it turned out that this technique gives a high level of false positive, we should consider with caution the interpretation of these data and we decided not to include them in the manuscript. Still, we characterized the genomic features of the 6mA detected using stringent criteria (mQV>100, cov>25x in the fusion dataset and triplicated across samples of the same genotype). Both in wild type and tet_null, 6mA were dispersed along each chromosome although few of them were found on chromosome X. In both cases there appeared to be a higher accumulation of 6mAs on the histone locus and the transposon-rich tip of chromosome X, but 6mA density remained below 1.3/kb in other genomic regions. Comparisons with annotated genomic regions indicated that 6mA were enriched in long interspersed nuclear elements (LINEs) and satellite repeats, and depleted in 3’UTR and exons, but there was no significant difference in their repartition between the two genetic contexts. Besides, motif analyses showed similar enrichments in both conditions, with GAG triplet accounting for more than one quarter of all the sites. Whether this reflects the specificity of a putative adenine methylase or a technical bias associated the with SMTR-seq technology remains to be established.

1. The TET-GFP and TET-CD-GFP knock-in lines give proper nuclear localization and could be used to identify genomic regions bound with full-length TET and TET-CD using anti-GFP for ChIP-seq or CUT&RUN (or CUT&TAG).

Indeed, this is a line of research that we are following up and will be part of another study. Actually, our ChIP-seq experiments indicate that they bind on the same genomic regions.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

• I think the major findings of this paper are showing 6mA present in drosophila by using xenic or conventional breeding conditions and finding that TET function independently of its catalytic activity is essential for fly development. The authors could have been more precise in title and abstract to emphasize these findings.

We have now modified the abstract to try to emphasize these findings.

• The authors claim that any increase of 6mA levels was not observed in both TETnull and TET1/2, but it is not sufficiently convincing. Because it seems 6mA levels were increased in Ax. tet1/2 embryo as compared with in Ax.wt embryo (Fig.1). In this scenario, 6mA abundance in both TETnull and TET1/2 mutant are supposed to be the same. It would be better to re-analyze data carefully and discuss if 6mA levels were significantly increased in TET1/2, and why 6mA levels are different between TETnull and TET1/2. Additionally, the authors describe that the TET null mutant is pupal lethal, while the TET1/2 survivor is available. The text suggests that TET1/2 could have partial functionality on fly development (Fig.4). It would be better to check whether the N-terminus of TET is expressed in the TET1/2 mutant.

Indeed, the increase in 6mA levels in Ax. tet1/2 embryo seems consequent (although it is not statistically significant) and no increase was observed in Ax tet_null embryos. Thus, the putative effect on 6mA levels in tet1/2 embryos may not be directly due to the absence of TET function. We now mention in the revised manuscript (page 6) that “the apparent increase in 6mA levels in tet1/2 axenic embryos was not reproduced in tet_null embryos, suggesting that it does not simply reflect the tet loss of function, and that it was not statistically significant”. Besides, we do not have an antibody to check whether the N-terminus of TET is expressed in the tet1/2 mutants, but the western blot published by Zhang et al 2015 shows that tet2 mutation leads to the expression of TET N-terminal domain. This N-terminal domain could have partial TET functionality and/or interfere with the function of other factors (notably those implicated in 6mA metabolism).

• The authors show that SMRT-seq data did not reveal an increase in 6mA levels in loss of TET (Fig.2). It is convincing that total 6mA abundance was not altered by loss of TET. But were 6mA-accumulated locus/regions observed in WT not altered by loss of TET?

Please refer to our answer to reviewer 1 on that point.

• It remains unclear that the TET proteins the authors prepared do not exhibit 6mA demethylate activity in vitro, contrary to what was reported in previous papers (Fig.3). I think the preparation of recombinant proteins may make different results between this and previous papers. Yao et al., 2018 and Zhang et al., 2015 used recombinant proteins purified from Human cells or insect cells, while the author purified them from E.Coli. Additionally, it's mentioned that VK Rao et al., 2020 demonstrated cdk5-mediated phosphorylation of Tet3 increases its in catalytic activity in vitro. These previous reports suggest modification of TET could change demethylase activity. More analysis and discussion are needed to support the conclusion.

Thanks for your insights. This in an important point and we added the following elements in the revised manuscript to discuss possible reasons for the discrepancies with previous reports (pages 7-8): “Our results contrast with previous reports showing that recombinant drosophila TET demethylates 6mA on dsDNA in vitro (Yao et al. 2018; Zhang et al., 2015a). However, both studies ran much longer reactions (up to 10 hours) and used different sources of recombinant protein (drosophila TET catalytic domain purified from human HEK293T cells). Notably, Zhang et al. (2015a) only found around 2.5% of 6mA demethylation at 30 min and less than 25% after 10 hours of incubation as measured by HPLC-MS/MS analyses. These results suggest that drosophila TET may oxidize 6mA, but with a much lower affinity than 5mC since with observed a near complete oxidation of 5mC after 1 min. and no significant decrease in 6mA levels after 30 min. of reaction (for identical concentrations of substrate and enzyme). It is possible too that the preparation of TET catalytic domain in different systems changes its enzymatic activity, potentially in relation to distinct post-translational modifications.”

Note: This response was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. The content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

---

Reply to the reviewers

1. General Statements

We express our gratitude to the reviewers for their time and insightful comments, which have significantly contributed to the enhancement of our manuscript. We believe that the thoughtful critiques and suggestions have substantially improved the overall quality of our work. The changes made in the revised manuscript were highlighted in red. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to each comment, addressing the concerns raised by the reviewers.

2. Point-by-point description of the revisions

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

*Summary: *

*In the current study, Li et al investigated how TGF-beta signaling is controlled by protein abundances. Computational modeling and experiments indicated that the abundance of TGFBR1 and TGFBR2 affects the signaling, and those with lower abundance affect the signaling more, resembling Liebig's law of the minimum. Specifically, they showed that by using multiple cell lines with a different abundance of receptors, modulation of expression of the less abundant receptor impacts the signaling, which is measured by SMAD2 nuclear-to-cytosol ratio and/or relative phospho-SMAD2 level. Also, by using a light-induced interaction system, they showed that the signaling is dependent on the concentration of receptor complex when both receptors are expressed at similar amounts. *

*Major comments: *

*Computational predictions support the authors' idea. The computation and the experiments are well-documented. And it would gain substantially if the authors fill the gap between the predictions and the experiments as follows. *

*In Figure 4, the authors showed that perturbation on receptors with lower expression levels in each cell line changes the phospho-SMAD2 level. Although the data looks consistent with their claim, the result is only qualitative. The authors established a computational model in the former sections, thus it would be of great interest to assess if the experimental results quantitatively match the computational prediction. *

Response: The reviewer suggests that our work could benefit from a quantitative comparison between computational predictions and experimental data shown in Figure 4. We appreciate this suggestion. Given the challenges in obtaining precise quantification of TGFBR1 protein due to antibody issues (see the response to comment #2 from reviewer 2), a direct quantitative comparison between model predictions and experimental results is difficult. Our model predictions about the control principle with Liebig's law of the minimum should be interpreted qualitatively, rather than a strict quantitative law. We have explicitly indicated in the revised manuscript that our siRNA knockdown experiments are to qualitatively test our model predictions.

*In Figure 5, the authors computationally predicted that the expression level of receptors is correlated with SMAD2 N2C levels 1 hour after stimulation, and the strength of negative feedback with SMAD2 N2C levels 8 hours after stimulation. Because the authors employed iRFP-SMAD2 system, the prediction could be verified experimentally, at least the prediction on SMAD2 N2C 1 hour after stimulation could be checked. (In a sense, this is partially verified by the data in Figure 7, where both receptors are expressed at similar levels). It would gain substantially if the authors could verify the computational prediction in Figure 6. Since the authors stated in the introduction that "The same TGF-beta ligand can initiate different signaling responses depending on the cellular context, but the underlying control principle remains unclear...Together, these results revealed an effect of the minimum control in the TGF-beta pathway, which may be an important principle of control in signaling pathways with context-dependent outputs.", experimental verification of the prediction done in Figures 4-6 will be very important. Or the authors should stress that these points are only predicted by computational models. *

__Response: __The reviewer recommends verifying the model predictions in Figure 6 experimentally, particularly regarding SMAD2 N2C levels 1 hour after stimulation. We appreciate this valuable suggestion, which was also raised by reviewer 2. In response, we conducted experiments as recommended by reviewer #2, in which imbalanced expression of TGFBR1 and TGFBR2 was achieved by transfecting optoTGFBR1 or optoTGFBR2 plasmids into optoTGFBRs-HeLa cells, which initially expressed similar levels of both receptors. Western blot analysis confirmed the desired imbalance (Figure S13).

Consistent with the model predictions (Figure 6), the strong correlation between SMAD2 N2C fold change response at 1h and optoTGFBR2-tdTomato expression levels persisted in single cells when optoTGFBR1 was overexpressed (Figure 8A). Conversely, the high correlation between nuclear SMAD2 signaling and optoTGFBR2-tdTomato expression levels vanished at single cell level when optoTGFBR2 was overexpressed (Figure 8B). These experimental results validate our model predictions, confirming that the SMAD2 signaling is determined by the low abundance TGF-beta receptor in single cells. Incorporating these experimental validations enhances the quantitative support for our model predictions and clarifies the relationship between TGF-beta receptor abundance and signaling outcomes in single cells.

*As written in the below "Significance" section, the result is, in a sense, obvious. It should be stated that because the study utilized a slightly high concentration of TGF-beta in the experiments, it might be natural that the low-abundance receptor becomes a bottleneck of the signaling. It would gain to assess how receptor abundance affects signaling with the stimulation of lower concentrations of TGF-beta, or to examine the computational model if the low abundance of a receptor becomes a bottleneck of signaling because of saturation. Also, it is highly recommended to discuss the physiological implication of the current study, taking into account the experimental conditions used. *

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's insightful comments regarding the concentration of TGF-beta used in our experiments and the potential influence on the model predictions. In our experiments and model simulations, we utilized 100 pM TGF-beta, equivalent to 2.5 ng/mL (not 4.4 ng/mL as calculated by the reviewer). This concentration is a widely used dose in TGF-beta signaling studies. The reviewer's suggestion to explore how varying TGF-beta concentrations might influence the minimum control concept prompted us to extend our computational simulations. We used the extended model to perform simulations with lower TGF-beta concentrations (25 pM, equivalent to 0.625 ng/mL, and 10 pM, equivalent to 0.25 ng/mL). The results, depicted in Figure S7 of the revised manuscript, reaffirm that even at lower TGF-beta stimulations, a low abundance of a TGF-beta receptor acts as a bottleneck for SMAD2 signaling.

Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we have incorporated additional paragraphs to discuss the physiological implications and potential limitations of our study (Page 16-17 in the Main text).

It is pertinent to note that while the concept of TGF-beta signaling response being dictated by the minimum abundance of TGF-beta receptors may seem intuitive or even obvious, theoretical and experimental validations are crucial. As demonstrated in Figure S1B, our new simulation results from the minimal model illustrate similar response profiles when a high binding affinity (K1) is set for ligand-receptor interactions (Figure S1A). However, with a small binding affinity (K1), the minimal model indicates that TGF-beta signal response remains proportional to the product of TGFBR1 and TGFBR2 abundance and can be sensitive to the change of high abundance receptor in some region (Figure S1B). This highlights that the observed response patterns aligning with Liebig's law of the minimum depend on the binding affinity of ligand-receptor interactions in our minimal model. Consequently, the intuitive idea about Liebig's law of the minimum is not necessarily true theoretically. Moreover, given the non-linearity of the TGF-beta network, this complexity introduces an additional layer of uncertainty regarding the applicability of the minimum control principle to TGF-beta responses. This uncertainty led us to develop an extended model, with parameter values either experimentally measured or estimated from time course experimental data. The extended model predicted a similar minimum control principle at the TGF-beta receptor level, inspiring us to validate this prediction through diverse experiments. While we acknowledge the intuitive nature of our findings, we believe it is important for the field to prove this expectation, as emphasized by reviewer 4.

Reviewer #1 (Significance (Required)):

*TGF-beta signaling is one of the most rigorously studied pathways both computationally and experimentally. As written in the introduction of the manuscript, it is still unknown how the variability of responses arises not only between cell types but also differences among cells of single cell type. Studies showed that protein abundance accounts at least partly for a source of cell variability in TGF-beta signaling. While former studies examined the variability in SMAD protein abundance, the uniqueness of this study is that it focused on the abundance of TGF-beta receptors. *

*Given that both TGFBR1 and TGFBR2 are involved in the signaling, however, it's not difficult to imagine that a less abundant receptor affects the signaling more than the other, and serves as a bottleneck for the signaling. Specifically, because a slightly high concentration (100pM = 4.4 ng/mL of TGF-beta; other studies used much lower conc., e.g. 0, 0.03, 0.04, 0.07, and 2.4 ng/mL in Frick et al, PNAS, 2017, and 0, 1, 2.5, 5, 25, and 100 pM in Strasen et al, Mol Syst Biol, 2017) is used throughout the experiments to check cell-cell variability and the effect of receptor abundance in the current study, the formation of the receptor-ligand complex may be quite fast and be saturated at the level where the receptor with lower abundance is exhausted. In the reviewer's humble opinion, the authors' statement that this is Liebig's law of the minimum sounds a bit exaggerated. *

Nevertheless, the study is of some value because it utilized both computational and experimental analysis to show it is indeed the case. Of note, the current study showed that the variability in the different proteins leads to the variability in different time points, namely, the variability in the receptor abundance leads to the variability 1 hour after stimulation, while that in negative feedback strength leads to the variability 8 hours after stimulation. If the authors fill a small gap between their computational analysis and experimental verification, the study will be of interest to the specialist in the field.

__Response: __We are grateful for the valuable feedback provided by the reviewer. The concerns related to the TGF-beta dose have been thoroughly addressed in our responses to previous comments. Regarding the observation that the term "Liebig's law of the minimum" may sound a bit exaggerated, we acknowledge this consideration. We have refined the title to "Liebig’s Law of the Minimum in the TGF-β/SMAD Pathway," specifying its relevance to SMAD signaling exclusively, as non-SMAD signaling was not within the scope of this study. We appreciate the reviewer's constructive feedback and hope these adjustments enhance the specificity and accuracy of our manuscript.

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

Li et al. present an interesting and intuitive concept for the sensitivity and heterogeneity of biological networks: When two or more proteins form a functional complex, it is the limiting component with the lowest concentration that is most sensitive to perturbations and whose fluctuations dictate cell-to-cell variability of complex function. The authors apply this concept to the TGFb pathway and discuss sensitivity of SMAD signaling towards TGFb receptor I and II fluctuations. The paper is clearly written and convincing, but some improvements in the experimental validation would be beneficial as detailed further below.

1) The authors claim that the ratio of TGFb receptor I and II is very different across cell lines (Fig. 1) and use this observation for the validation of their model in Fig. 4. However, the relative expression TGFb receptor levels are purely based on RNAseq data which does not necessarily imply similar behavior at the protein level, especially on the cell surface. To address this issue, the authors should ideally provide absolute Western blot measurements of TGFbRI at the protein level to complement their absolute quantification of TGFbRII (Fig. S2). At the very least they should show that the observed relative expression levels of TGFbRI and II at the protein level (Figure S7) are correlated to differences in RNA levels (Fig. 1) using protein quantification. They should also confirm that similar receptor ratios for these receptors at the RNA level are observed in other published RNAseq datasets of the same cell lines (e.g., ENCODE for HepG2 and published RNAseq studies in HaCaT). Furthermore, they might take into account published mass spec datasets for quantifications of TGFbR protein levels.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's thorough evaluation and constructive suggestions.

(A) Absolute quantification of TGFBR1: We acknowledge the importance of obtaining absolute quantification of TGFBR1 protein similar as what we have done for TGFBR2 protein (Figure S2). Despite significant efforts, our attempts to achieve this were hindered by challenges with available TGFBR1 antibodies and recombinant TGFBR1 proteins. Many commercial antibodies failed negative controls with TGFBR1 knockdown samples, while others validated TGFBR1 antibodies could not recognize the available recombinant TGFBR1 protein standards.

Although many mass spectrometry proteomics data available for different cell lines, it is difficult to convert these MS quantitative values to absolute protein abundance as mentioned in a recent publication (Nusinow et al.,bioRxiv 2020.02.03.932384): “Importantly, these values are all relative values to the other values for that same protein and not absolute values. This means that comparing the levels of different proteins to each other without using something like a correlation to standardize values won’t produce meaningful results.”

We share the reviewer's concern and fully agree that obtaining this absolute quantification is crucial. However, at the present stage, technical limitations prevent us from providing this information for TGFBR1. We commit to pursuing this aspect when feasible in the future.

(B) Validation of relative TGF-beta receptor expression ratios: Following the reviewer's suggestion, we conducted additional analyses to validate the relative expression ratios of TGFBR1 and TGFBR2 using different RNA-Seq databases. The results, presented in Table S1, demonstrate consistent imbalances in TGFBR1-to-TGFBR2 ratios across HepG2 and RH30 cell lines from various data sources, reinforcing the reliability of our observations.

(C) Correlation between RNA and protein expression: We appreciate the reviewer highlighting the challenges associated with correlating RNA and protein expression. Indeed, the correlations between RNA and protein levels vary widely, and direct comparisons can be challenging. To address this, we referenced a recent study (Nusinow et al., Cell 2020, 180:387), which reported that the protein data of TGFBR1 and TGFBR2 were highly correlated with the corresponding RNA data from the same cell line (Spearman’s correlation: 0.672 for TGFBR1, 0.771 for TGFBR2) based on quantitative proteomics and RNA expression data from 375 cancer cell lines.

2) Figure 4: To better judge the reproducibility of the knockdown titration, it would be good to show the different siRNA concentrations as a color code- Alternatively, TGFBR expression could be plotted as a function of the siRNA concentration in a Supplemental Figure, showing the effects of individual replicates.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion to enhance the clarity of the knockdown titration data. In response, we have now presented the quantified experimental data from three replicates with different colors in Figure 4. Additionally, we have created Figure S9 that plots the expression levels of relative TGFBR1 and TGFBR2 as a function of siRNA concentration, providing a more detailed view of the effects across individual replicates.

3) The simulations in Figs. 5 and 6 show that SMAD signaling fluctuations are mainly determined by cell-to-cell variability of receptor levels when using the SMAD nucleocytoplasmic ratio as a readout, and this is especially true for early time points. For downstream cellular responses, the absolute concentration of phosphorylated SMAD (complexes) in the nucleus is likely more relevant. Based on the authors work and evidence from the literature, I expect that this quantity will likely be heavily be influenced by receptor levels as well, but fluctuations in SMAD expression will play an important role as well. The authors should discuss this issue, and clarify that normalized quantities like SMAD N2C and pSMAD/SMAD mostly characterize receptor-level fluctuations while filtering SMAD fluctuations.

__Response: __We acknowledge the importance of discussing the relevance of different readouts in our study. In the revised manuscript, we have incorporated a discussion addressing this issue. Specifically, we highlight that while the SMAD nucleocytoplasmic ratio is sensitive to cell-to-cell variability in low abundance receptor levels, the absolute concentration of phosphorylated SMAD in the nucleus may be more relevant for downstream cellular responses (e.g.: gene expression). We have cited the work by Lucarelli et al, which demonstrated that variations in SMAD abundance could modulate the balance of different SMAD complexes, thereby regulating heterogeneous gene expression in diverse cell types (Lucarelli et al., Cell Systems 2018).

4) The single-cell measurements in Fig. 7 are interesting, but can only partially be seen as a direct validation of the model predictions, as it seems expected that varying the total input by introducing co-fluctuations in both receptors heavily influence the SMAD level. Wouldn't it be possible to design more specific validation experiments, in which the receptor co-expression construct (Fig. 7C) is used for baseline optoTGFBR expression and combined with an individual expression construct for one of the opto-receptors? This way, the authors could establish different regimes, in which one of the two receptors becomes dominant, and the impact fluctuations could be analyzed in a larger receptor expression space. Of course, a full validation of all possible scenarios is not necessary, but it would, for instance, be valuable to see whether the strong dependency of SMAD signaling of TGFBR2 levels vanishes when TGFBR2 is expressed at a higher level than TGFBR1.

Response: We appreciate the insightful comments and suggestions provided by the reviewer. Based on these recommendations, we have conducted additional experiments to further validate our model predictions. Reviewer 1 also raised this point, we quote our aforementioned response here: “consistent with the model predictions (Figure 6), the strong correlation between SMAD2 N2C fold change response at 1h and optoTGFBR2-tdTomato expression levels persisted in single cells when optoTGFBR1 was overexpressed (Figure 8A). Conversely, the high correlation between nuclear SMAD2 signaling and optoTGFBR2 expression levels vanished at single cell level when optoTGFBR2 was overexpressed (Figure 8B). These experimental results validate our model predictions, confirming that the SMAD2 signaling is determined by the low abundance TGF-beta receptor in single cells. Incorporating these experimental validations enhances the quantitative support for our model predictions and clarifies the relationship between TGF-beta receptor abundance and signaling outcomes in single cells.”

**Referees cross-commenting**

Comments from R2: I agree with most comments of the other reviewers, and highlight the most important overlaps with my comments below.

I agree with R1 that the model validation in Fig. 7 is incomplete and think that this will be a key point to improve the quality of the manuscript (see also my reviewer comment 4)

In line with R3 and R4, I think that the SMAD N/C simulations do not necessarily imply effects on TGFb target gene expression, cell fate decisions or human pathologies. The significance of the results for cellular behavior should be discussed (see also my comment 3)

__Response: __We are grateful for the reviewer's thoughtful comments. These comments have been now addressed (see our responses to the corresponding comments).

Reviewer #2 (Significance (Required)):

The manuscript presents an interesting and intuitive concept for the sensitivity and heterogeneity of biological networks. The authors apply this concept to the TGFb pathway and discuss sensitivity of SMAD signaling towards TGFb receptor I and II fluctuations.

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

*Summary: *

*This is an interesting study that examines the output of the TGF-Beta pathway and how abundance/dosage can determine the signaling response in single cells across multiple cell types. The study is primarily mathematical. The focus is on the Type 1 and 2 TGF-Beta receptors driving nuclear SMAD2 expression. The authors observe that SMAD2 phosphorylation is sensitive to variations in the lower levels of either receptor but robust at variations of high abundance of the receptor reflected through SiRNA experiments shown in Figure 4. Their conclusion is that the feature is consistent with Liebig's law of the minimum- where in this case- a low abundance of the receptor serves as the rate-limiting step in signaling for this pathway. *

*Major comments: *

*- While the data as presented are interesting, it is unclear as to whether the abundance regulates biological function. SMAD2 phosphorylation is shown with some nuclear translocation. However, TGF-Beta target gene activation is not shown, and this needs to be completed. *

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's constructive comment. We have conducted new experiments and included quantitative real-time PCR data in the revised manuscript to evaluate the impact of TGFBR1 and TGFBR2 knockdown on the expression of TGF-beta target genes, such as SMAD7, PAI1, and JUNB. The results, presented in Figure S11, demonstrate differential sensitivity of these genes to the downregulation of TGFBR1 and TGFBR2 in various cell lines (HaCaT, HepG2, and RH30). Specifically, the expression of SMAD7, PAI1, and JUNB is sensitive to TGFBR2 knockdown in RH30 cells, while it is sensitive to TGFBR1 knockdown in HepG2 cells. HaCaT cells, expressing similar levels of both receptors, show comparable sensitivities to reductions in both TGFBR1 and TGFBR2. These findings provide additional insights into the regulatory role of TGF-beta receptor abundance on downstream target gene activation, complementing our study's focus on SMAD2 phosphorylation and nuclear translocation.

*- In addition, it is unclear as to what happens to SMAD3 and SMAD4 which are expressed endogenously in this setting. How are these other TGF-Beta signaling molecules addressed by these observations? *

__Response: __Thank you for bringing up this important point. In our study, the expression levels of endogenous SMAD2 and SMAD4 were found to be similar across HaCaT, RH30, and HepG2 cells. However, SMAD3 expression was notably lower in RH30 and HepG2 compared to HaCaT cells. The central conclusion of our study is based on the observed common control principle, which hinges on the relative expression levels of TGFBR1 and TGFBR2. Consequently, the applicability of this principle is more pertinent when comparing signal responses within the same cell type.

We acknowledge the relevance of endogenous SMAD proteins, and in the revised manuscript, we have expanded our discussion on how differences in SMAD protein expression levels and potential mutations (page 16 in main text), as observed in certain cancers, could influence the formation of homo- and hetero-oligomeric SMAD complexes. These considerations contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of downstream gene expression responses, as discussed in the work of Lucarelli et al. (Cell Systems 2018).

*-Specific biological readouts- cell differentiation etc. are not examined and would need to be provided and discussed. Therefore, the claims put forward while interesting require additional experiments examining SMAD2 target gene activation and biological readouts. *

__Response: __We appreciate this valuable suggestion. While we acknowledge the importance of exploring long-term biological responses, including cell differentiation, it is crucial to note that specific biological readouts are not solely dependent on SMAD signaling; they also involve other non-SMAD signaling pathways. Additionally, these responses are highly cell type-specific. Undertaking extensive investigations into these responses would extend beyond the current scope of our work. Nevertheless, we have discussed this topic in the revised manuscript (page 16 in main text).

Following the reviewers’ suggestion on examining TGF-beta target genes, we have performed experiments examining the expression of SMAD7, PAI1, and JUNB with respect to the changes of TGFBR1 and TGFBR2, respectively (see our response to the first major comment of this reviewer).

*- Lastly, statistical analyses are not provided and would need to be provided. For instance, in Figure 4, how many experiments were replicated and statistical analysis performed for this Figure? *

__Response: __In addressing this concern, we conducted three siRNA knockdown titration experiments for each cell line, as detailed in the figure legend. Due to batch effects, different percentages of TGF-beta receptors were knocked down in different experiments using the same concentration of siRNA. To transparently present the data, we utilized a scatter plot. Following the suggestion from reviewer 2, we have further enhanced the clarity of our data presentation by labeling the results of different experiments with a color code. In addition, we have performed statistical analysis of TGF-β receptor fold-change effects leading to a 50% reduction in the P-Smad2 response compared to that in the non-targeting siRNA control group (EC50) during siRNA knockdown experiments (Figure S10). The results of this analysis unveil significant differences in the sensitivities of pSMAD2 responses to variations in TGFBR1 and TGFBR2 within RH30 and HepG2 cells.

Reviewer #3 (Significance (Required)):

*- Conceptually this is an important study because dosage is a prominent issue in TGF-Beta signaling. For instance, in my field of expertise- mouse models of TGF-beta signaling e.g. SMAD2 knockouts- the cancer phenotypes are evident in haploid animals. Yet how and why dosage plays such a large role in tumorigenesis remains unclear. *

__Response: __We sincerely appreciate your recognition of the conceptual importance of our study in addressing the dosage-related complexities of TGF-beta signaling. Your insights into dosage effects in mouse models, particularly in haploid animals, highlight the relevance of our work underlying tumorigenesis. We have incorporated relevant citations and expanded our discussion in the revised manuscript, providing additional context to the importance of dosage in tumorigenesis (page 18 in main text).

Reviewer #4 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

Summary: In this study, Li and co-workers combined computational modeling and experimental analysis to study the dependence of the output of the TGF-beta pathway on the abundance of signaling molecules in the pathway, mainly the most upstream regulators of SMAD2, TGFbeta type I and type II receptors. They showed by a combination of biochemical studies (mainly pSmad2 WB and type I/II receptor expression profiling) in HaCaT and HeLa cells as well as stable optogenetical receptor variants expressed by those cell lines, that TGF-beta receptor abundance influences signaling outputs using the concept of Liebigs law of the minimum, meaning that the output-modifying factor is the signaling protein that is most limited, to determine signaling responses across cell types and in single cells.

*Major comments: *

The study is very interesting, the combination of biochemistry and computational modeling to better understand the compexity of the TGFbeta pathway is very much required in the field and should stimulate others to further expand this approach.

__Response: __Thank you for the positive evaluation of this work.

*However, the authors must further explain that the model depicted here to explain pathway kinetics and dynamics lacks multiple crossroads and feedbacks and is until now oversimplified in the manuscript. They have mentioned receptor internalization and recycling, nuclear import and export of SMAD protein, and the feedback regulations e.g. by SMADs regulating receptor expression. Beyond, there is non- SMAD signaling (Derynck et al.; SMAD Linker regulation, deRobertis et al.), different receptor oligomerization modes (Ehrlich/Henis et al.) and heteromeric receptor complexes of TGFbeta receptors known (Hill et al.), that further diversify beyond these mentioned mechanisms. It is understandable that the mathematical model cannot include those considerations to date, however, they must be further explained and commented on to allow that this model can be expanded in the future. *

Response: We acknowledge that there are multiple crossroads and feedbacks that exist in the TGF-beta signaling pathway that have not been explicitly incorporated into our model. We appreciate the reviewer's understanding that current model cannot include these considerations and his/her suggestions for potential future extensions. In the revised manuscript, we have mentioned one of the limitations of our model: non-Smad signaling and crosstalk with other signaling pathways were not considered for simplicity. We have also discussed how to expand this model by including these regulations when more quantitative data are available in the future (page 16-17 in main text).

*A myriad of research labs focus on these intricate fine tuning ot the TGFbeta pathway by those mechanisms which makes the difference between "good" TGFbeta signaling and "bad" TGFbeta signaling in different context and this complexity must be acknowledged by more introduction and discussion. *

Response: In the revised manuscript, we have added an introduction and discussion about the dual role of TGF-beta signaling (page 4 and page 18 in main text).

*The model here will be important to explain *

*A: the mode of heterooligomeric TGFbeta/BMP receptor assemblies as e.g. found in pathological conditions and *

B: Can maybe explain the formation of mixed SMAD complexes as activated by lateral signaling comprising TGFbeta *and BMP receptors once one receptor is of lower abundance to form a high affinity complex. *

*It is therefore required to comment on these aspects at multiple points in the manuscript. *

*It is very important that the visual model used in this manuscript depicts on the possibility, that a TGFbeta type I receptor can team up with e.g. another TGFbeta type I receptor together with two TGFbeta type II receptors but also with an activin type II receptor or that a BMP type I receptor (e.g. ALK1) can form heterooligomeric complexes with ALK5 (TGFbeta type I). *

__Response: __Thank you for this comment. We cited the relevant work (Ramachandran et al, eLife 2018; Szilagyi et al, BMC Biology 2022) and added a discussion about the complexity of the mode of heterooligomeric TGFbeta/BMP receptor assemblies and its effect on the induction of mixed SMAD complexes (page 17 in the main text).

*While the use of optogenetical TGFbeta receptor biosensors is highly interesting, their mode of oligomerization is not yet fully described. It is not known if those biosensors behave like wt receptors in terms of oligomerization and ligand binding. This should be mentioned somewehere. For this reason, the authors should also consider to draw the TGFbeta receptor complex in the cartoons with more detail towards the heterooligomeric assembly that is standard to the field. *

__Response: __The reviewer is correct that the optogenetic TGF-beta receptors might behave differently from the natural TGF-beta receptor system in terms of ligand binding. We have added this point in the Discussion part to highlight the potential difference between the optogenetic TGF-beta systems and the wild-type system (page 16 in the main text).

*While the general finding is not surprising (manipulating the receptor with the lowest abundancy has the biggest impact on signaling output) the methods and models used here are very important to the field to proof that this expectation is actually true and can be experimentally addressed by a combination of bioinformatics and biochemistry. The model developed will be valuable to expand to much more complex and interesting questions in TGFbeta signaling and possibly also BMP signaling e.g. in pathological context (see below). *

*Minor comments: *

*The authors should discuss their findings in the context of: *

• non-Smad signaling outputs (similar or different to the observations on pSMAD2)*
• What do these findings mean for e.g. human pathologies, where type I or type II receptor expression is altered? *
• Can those findings integrate into the "switch" in TGFbeta signaling? *
• How do these findings translate towards BMP SMAD 1/5/9 signaling? * Response: First, we sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s recognition that our work is very important to the field in proving that manipulating the receptor with the lowest abundance has the biggest impact on signaling output. The reviewer’s suggestions about discussing our work in the context of non-Smad signaling, BMP SMAD1/5/9 branch, and the relevance to the dual role of TGF-beta signaling are all constructive. We have incorporated these suggestions and discussed them in the revised manuscript (page 17 in the main text).

Reviewer #4 (Significance (Required)):

*The manuscript is novel and interesting, partiular the combination of bioinformatical and biochemical approaches. The use of optogenetics is state-of-art while some more care should be given to interpretation of results with optogenetical TGfbeta receptor biosensors, is is not known if they really behave similar in terms of receptor oligomerization and signaling. Also it is not shown how their interactome in terms of effector proteins looks like that can potentially influence SMAD signaling output (e.g. Phosphathases to SMADs known to interact with wt receptors). *

*The models drawn need to depict more accurately on the nature of type I and type II receptor complexes (heterotetrameric) and high affinity towards the ligand. The current versions are too oversimplified at this stage. The pathway crosstalks and feedbacks need to be more visible, in order for non experts to not draw too simple conclusions from the visual representations presented in this MS. Particularly the work by Hill and co-workers on receptor oligomerization and SMAD shuttling and feedback need to be included. *

Overall, the manuscript is very significant to the field.

__Response: __We would like to thank the reviewer again for his/her positive evaluation of the novelty and significance of our work. We have taken the reviewer's comments into consideration and made revisions to the manuscript. We now provide more information on the limitations of our current model and the optogenetic TGF-beta receptor biosensors in the Discussion section. We have also included more details about the receptor complex nature and the high affinity towards the ligand. The ligand receptor complex in the model is now drawn as heterotetrametric complex (1 ligand dimer with two TGFBR1s and two TGFBR2s). Additionally, we have incorporated information about pathway crosstalks and feedbacks, giving a more comprehensive view for non-experts. The work by Hill and co-workers on receptor oligomerization, SMAD shuttling, and feedback has been included in the revised manuscript to provide a more complete and accurate representation of the current knowledge in the field.

Author Response

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

We thank the reviewers and editors for their time and careful consideration of this study. Nearly every comment proved to be highly constructive and thoughtful, and as a result, the manuscript has undergone major revisions including the title, all figures, associated conclusions and web app. We feel that the revised resource provides a more systematic and comprehensive approach to correlating inter-individual transcript patterns across tissues for analysis of organ cross-talk. Moreover, the manuscript has been restructured to highlight utility of the web tool for queries of genes and pathways, as opposed to focused discrete examples of cherry-picked mechanisms. A few key revisions include:

• Manuscript: All figures have been revised to place to explore broad pathway representation. These analyses have replaced the previous circadian and muscle-hippocampal figures to emphasize ability to recapitulate known physiology and remove the discovery portion which has not been validate experimentally.

• Manuscript: The term “genetic correlation” or “genetically-derived” has been replaced throughout with “transcriptional”, “inter-individual”, or mostly just “correlations”.

• Manuscript: A new figure (revised fig 2) has been added to evaluate the innate correlation structure of data used for common metabolic pathways, in addition an exploration of which tissues generally show more co-correlation and centrality among correlations.

• Manuscript: A new figure (revised fig 4) has been added to highlight the utility of exploring gene ~ trait correlations in mouse populations, where controlled diets can be compared directly. These highlight sex hormone receptor correlations with the large amount of available clinical traits, which differ entirely depending on the tissue of expression and/or diet in mouse populations.

• Web tool: Addition of a mouse section to query expression correlations among diverse inbred strains and associated traits from chow or HFHS diet within the hybrid mouse diversity panel.

• Web tool: Overrepresentation analysis for pathway enrichments have been replaced with score-based gene set enrichment analyses and including network topology views for GSEA outputs.

• Web tool: Associated github repository containing scripts for apps now include a detailed walk-through of the interface and definitions for each query and term.

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Zhou et al. have set up a study to examine how metabolism is regulated across the organism by taking a combined approach looking at gene expression in multiple tissues, as well as analysis of the blood. Specifically, they have created a tool for easily analyzing data from GTEx across 18 tissues in 310 people. In principle, this approach should be expandable to any dataset where multiple tissues of data were collected from the same individuals. While not necessary, it would also raise my interest to see the "Mouse(coming soon)" selection functional, given that the authors have good access to multi-tissue transcriptomics done in similarly large mouse cohorts.

Summary

The authors have assembled a web tool that helps analyze multiple tissues' datasets together, with the aim of identifying how metabolic pathways and gene regulation are connected across tissues. This makes sense conceptually and the web tool is easy to use and runs reasonably quickly, considering the size of the data. I like the tool and I think the approach is necessary and surprisingly under-served; there is a lot of focus on multi-omics recently, but much less on doing a good job of integrating multi-tissue datasets even within a single omics layer.

What I am less convinced about is the "Research Article" aspect of this paper. Studying circadian rhythm in GTEx data seems risky to me, given the huge range in circadian clock in the sample collection. I also wonder (although this is not even remotely in my expertise) whether the circadian rhythm also gets rather desynchronized in people dying of natural causes - although I suppose this could be said for any gene expression pathway. Similarly for looking at secreted proteins in Figure 4 looking at muscle-hippocampus transcript levels for ADAMTS17 doesn't make sense to me - of all tissue pairs to make a vignette about to demonstrate the method, this is not an intuitive choice to me. The "within muscle" results look fine but panels C-E-G look like noise to me...especially panel C and G are almost certainly noise, since those are pathways with gene counts of 2 and 1 respectively.

I think this is an important effort and a good basis but a significant revision is necessary. This can devote more time and space to explaining the methodology and for ensuring that the results shown are actually significant. This could be done by checking a mix of negative controls (e.g. by shuffling gene labels and data) and a more comprehensive look at "positive" genes, so that it can be clearly shown that the genes shown in Fig 1 and 2 are not cherry-picked. For Figure 3, I suspect you would get almost an identical figure if instead of showing pan-tissue circadian clock correlations, you instead selected the electron transport chain, or the ribosome, or any other pathway that has genes that are expressed across all tissues. You show that colon and heart have relatively high connectivity to other tissues, but this may be common to other pathways as well.

Response: We are thankful to the reviewer in their detailed assessment of the manuscript. The comments raised in both the public and suggested reviews clearly improved the revised study and helped to identify limitations. In general, we have removed data suggesting “discovery” using these generalized analyses, such as removing figures evaluating circadian rhythm genes and muscle-hippocampus correlations. These have been replaced with more thorough investigations of tissue correlation structure and potentially identified regions of data sparsity which are important for users to consider. Also, we have added a similar full detailed pipeline of mouse (HMDP) data and highlighted in the manuscript by showing transcript ~ trait correlations of sex hormone receptor genes which differ between organs and diets. Further responses to individual points are also provided below.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Zhou et al. use publicly available GTEx data of 18 metabolic tissues from 310 individuals to explore gene expression correlation patterns within-tissue and across-tissues. They detect signatures of known metabolic signaling biology, such as ADIPOQ's role in fatty acid metabolism in adipose tissue. They also emphasize that their approach can help generate new hypotheses, such as the colon playing an important role in circadian clock maintenance. To aid researchers in querying their own genes of interest in metabolic tissues, they have developed an easy-to-use webtool (GD-CAT).

This study makes reasonable conclusions from its data, and the webtool would be useful to researchers focused on metabolic signaling. However, some misconceptions need to be corrected, as well as greater clarification of the methodology used.

Strengths:

GTEx is a very powerful resource for many areas of biomedicine, and this study represents a valid use of gene co-expression network methodology. The authors do a good job of providing examples confirming known signaling biology as well as the potential to discover promising signatures of novel biology for follow-up and future studies. The webtool, GD-CAT, is easy to use and allows researchers with genes and tissues of interest to perform the same analyses in the same GTEx data.

Weaknesses:

A key weakness of the paper is that this study does not involve genetic correlations, which is used in the title and throughout the manuscript, but rather gene co-expression networks. The authors do mention the classic limitation that correlation does not imply causation, but this caveat is even more important given that these are not genetic correlations. Given that the goal of their study aligns closely with multi-tissue WGCNA, which is not a new idea (e.g., Talukdar et al. 2016; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cels.2016.02.002), it is surprising that the authors only use WGCNA for its robust correlation estimation (bicor), but not its latent factor/module estimation, which could potentially capture cross-tissue signaling patterns. It is possible that the biological signals of interest would be drowned out by all the other variation in the data but given that this is a conventional step in WGCNA, it is a weakness that the authors do not use it or discuss it.

Response: Thank you for the helpful and detailed suggestions regarding the study. The review raised some important points regarding methodological interpretations (ex. bicor-exclusive application as opposed to module-based approaches), as well as clarification of “genetic” inferences throughout the study. The comparison to module-based approaches has also now been discussed directly, pointing our considerations and advantages to each. We hope that the reviewer with our corrections to the misconceptions posed, many of which we feel were due to our insufficient description of methodological details and underlying interpretations. The revised manuscript, web portal and associated github provide much more detail and many more responses to specific points are provided below.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary: A useful and potentially powerful analysis of gene expression correlations across major organ and tissue systems that exploits a subset of 310 humans from the GTEx collection (subjects for whom there are uniformly processed postmortem RNA-seq data for 18 tissues or organs). The analysis is complemented by a Shiny R application web service.

The need for more multisystems analysis of transcript correlation is very well motivated by the authors. Their work should be contrasted with more simple comparisons of correlation structure within different organs and tissues, rather than actual correlations across organs and tissues.

Strengths and Weaknesses: The strengths and limitations of this work trace back to the nature of the GTEx data set itself. The authors refer to the correlations of transcripts as "gene" and "genetic" correlations throughout. In fact, they name their web service "Genetically-Derived Correlations Across Tissues". But all GTEx subjects had strong exposure to unique environments and all correlations will be driven by developmental and environmental factors, age, sex differences, and shared and unshared pre- and postmortem technical artifacts. In fact we know that the heritability of transcript levels is generally low, often well under 25%, even studies of animals with tight environmental control.

This criticism does not comment materially detract for the importance and utility of the correlations-whether genetic, GXE, or purely environmental-but it does mean that the authors should ideally restructure and reword text so as to NOT claim so much for "genetics". It may be possible to incorporate estimates of chip heritability of transcripts into this work if the genetic component of correlations is regarded as critical (all GTEx cases have genotypes).

Appraisal of Work on the Field: There are two parts to this paper: 1. "case studies" of cross-tissue/organ correlations and 2. the creation of an R/Shiny application to make this type of analysis much more practical for any biologist. Both parts of the work are of high potential value, but neither is fully developed. My own opinion is that the R/Shiny component is the more important immediate contribution and that the "case studies" could be placed in the context of a more complete primer. Or Alternatively, the case studies could be their own independent contributions with more validation.

Response: We thank the reviewer for their supportive and helpful comments. The discussion of usage of the term “genetic” has been removed entirely from the manuscript as this point was made by all reviewers. Further, we have revised the previous study to focus on more detailed investigations of why transcript isoforms seemed correlated between tissues and areas where datasets are insufficient to provide sufficient information (ex. Kidney in GTEx). As the reviewer points out, the previous “case studies” were unvalidated and incomplete and as a result, have been replaced. Additional points below have been revised to present a more comprehensive analyses of transcript correlations across tissues and improved web tool.

(Recommendations For The Authors):

As this manuscript is focused on the analytical process rather than the biological findings, the reviewer concerns are not a fundamental issue to subsequent acceptance of the paper, but some of the examples will need to be replaced or double-checked to ensure their biological and statistical relevance. To raise the scope and interest of the method developed, it would be seen very positively to include additional datasets, as the authors seem to have intended to have done, with a non-functional (and highlighted as such) selection for mouse data. Establishing that the authors can easily - and will easily - add additional datasets into their tool would greatly raise the reviewers' confidence in the methodology/resource aspect of this paper. This may also help address the significant concerns that all three reviewers raised with the biological examples, e.g. that GTEx data is so uncontrolled that studying environmentally-influenced traits such as circadian rhythm may be challenging or even impossible to do properly. Adding in a more highly controlled set of cross-tissue mouse data may be able to address both these concerns at once, i.e. the resource concern (can the website easily be updated with new data) and the biological concern (are the results from these vignettes actually statistically significant).

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Comments, in approximately reverse order of importance

1. Some figure panels are not referenced in the text, e.g. Fig 1B and Figure 2E. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised every figure in the manuscript and additionally gone through to make sure every panel is referenced in the text.

2. The authors mention "genetic data" several times but I don't see anything about DNA. By "genetic data" do you mean "transcriptome expression data," or something else?

Response: This is an important point, also raised by all 3 reviewers. We have clarified in the abstract, results and discussion that correlations are between transcripts. As a result, all mentions of “genetics” or “genetic data” has been removed, with the exception of introducing mouse genetic reference panels.

1. For Figure 3, the authors look at circadian clock data, but the GTEx data is from all sorts of different times of day from across the patient cohort depending on when the donor died, and I don't see this metadata actually mentioned anywhere. I see Arntl Clock and all the other circadian genes are highly coexpressed in each tissue (except not so strong in liver) but correlation across tissue seems more random. Also hypothalamus seems to be very strongly negatively correlated with spleen, but this large green block doesn't have significance? That is surprising to me, since the sample sizes are all equivalent I would expect any correlation remotely close to -1.0 to be highly significant.

Response: The reviewer raises several important points with regard to the source of data and underlying interpretations. We have added a revised Fig 2, suggesting that representation of gene expression between tissues can be strongly biased by nature of samples (ex. differences in data that is available for each tissue) and also discussed considerations of the nature of sample origin in the limitations section. We have also used some of these points when introducing rationale for using mouse population data. As a result of comments from this reviewer and others, we have removed the circadian rhythm analysis and muscle-hippocampal figures from the revised study; however, specifically mentioned these cohort differences in the discussion section (lines 294-298). Circadian rhythm terms are also evaluated in Fig 2 and consistent with the reviewers concerns, less overall correlations are observed between transcripts across tissues when compared to other common GO terms assessed.

1. Figure 4, this is all transcript-level data, so it is confusing to see protein nomenclature used, e.g. "expression of muscle ADAMTS17" should be "expression of muscle ADAMTS17" (ADAMTS17 the transcript should be in italics, in case the formatting is removed by the eLife portal). Same for FNDC5. In the figures you do have those in italics, so it is just an issue in the manuscript text. In general please look through the text and make sure whether you are referring really to a "gene," "transcript," or "protein." For instance, Figure 1 legend I think should be "A, All transcripts across the ... with local subcutaneous and muscle transcript expression." I know people still sometimes use "gene expression" to refer to transcripts, but now that proteomics is pretty mainstream, I would push for more careful vocabulary here.

Response: Thank you for pointing these out. While we have replaced Fig 4 entirely as to limit the unvalidated discovery or research aspects of the paper, we have gone through the text and figures to check that the correct formatting is used for references to human genes (capitalized italics) or the newly-included mouse genes (lower-case italics).

1. "Briefly, these data were filtered to retain genes which were detected across individuals where individuals were required to show counts > 0 in 1.2e6 gene-tissue combinations across all data." I don't quite understand the filtering metric here - what is 1.2 million gene-tissue combinations referring to? 20k genes times 18 tissues times 310 people is ~100 million measurements, but for a given gene across 310 people * 18 tissues that is only ~6000 quantifications per gene.

Response: We apologize for this oversight, as the numbers were derived from the whole GTEx dataset in total and not the tissues used for the current study. We have clarified this point in the revised manuscript (methods section in Datasets used) and also removed confusing references to specific numbers of transcripts and tissues unless made clear.

1. Generally I think your approach makes sense conceptually but... for the specific example used in e.g. figure 4, this only makes sense to me if applied to proteins and not to transcripts. Looking at the transcript levels per tissue for genes which are secreted could be interesting but this specific example is confusing, as is the tissue selected. I would not really expect much crosstalk between the hippocampus and the muscle, especially not in terms of secreted proteins.

Response: This is a valid point, also raised by other reviewers. While we wanted to highlight the one potentially-new (ADAMTS7) and two established proteins (FNDC5 and ERFE) and their correlations, the fact that this direct circuit remains to be validated led us to replace the figure entirely. The point raised about inference of protein secretion compared to action; however, has been expanded upon in the results and discussion. We now show that complexities arise when using this approach to infer mechanisms of proteins which are primarily regulated post-transcriptionally. We provide a revised Supplemental Fig 4 showing that this general framework, when applied to expression of INS (insulin), almost exclusively captured pathways leading to its secretion and not action.

1. It's not clear to me how correction for multiple testing is working in the analyses used in this manuscript. You mention q-values so I am sure it was done, I just don't see the precise method mentioned in the Methods section.

Response: We apologize for this oversight and have included a specific mention of qvalue adjustment using BH methods, where our reasoning was the efficiency in run-time (compared to other qvalue methods). In addition, we provide a revised Fig 2 which suggests that innate correlation structure exists between tissues for a variety of pathways which should be considered. We also compare several empirical bicor pvalues and qvalue adjustments directly between these large pathways where much of the innate tissue correlation structure does appear present when BH qvalue adjustments are applied (revised Fig 2A).

1. The piecharts in Figure 1 are interesting - I would actually be curious which tissues generally have closer coexpression. This would be an absolutely massive number of pairwise correlations to test, but maybe there is a smarter way to do it? For instance, for ADIPOQ, skeletal muscle has the best typical correlation, but would that be generally true just that many adipose genes have closer relationship between the two tissues?

Response: This comment inspired us to perform a more systematic query of global gene-gene correlation structures, which is now shown as the revised Fig 2A. With respect to ADIPOQ, the reviewer is correct in that there does appear to be a general pattern of muscle genes showing stronger correlation with adipose genes. We emphasize and discuss there in the revised manuscript to point out that global trends of tissue correlation structure should be taken into account when looking at specific genes. Much of this innate co-correlation structure could be normalized by the BH qvalue adjustment (above); however, strongly correlated pathways like mitochondria showed selective patterns throughout thresholds (revised Fig 2A). Further, we analyze KEGG terms and general correlation structures (revised Fig 2B) to point out the converse, that some tissues are just poorly represented. Interpretation of correlated genes from these organ and pathway combinations should be especially considered in the framework that their poor representation in the dataset clearly impacted the global correlation structures. We have added these points to both results and discussion. In sum, we feel that this was a critical point to explore and attempted to provide a framework to identify/consider in the revised manuscript.

1. The pathway enrichments in Figure 1 are more difficult for me to interpret, e.g. for ADIPOQ, the scWAT pathways make sense, but the enriched skeletal muscle pathways are less clearly relevant (rRNA processing?? Not impossible but no clear relevance either). What are the significances for these pathway enrichments? Is it even possible to select a gene that has no peripheral pathway enrichment, e.g. if you take some random Gm#### or olfactory receptor gene and run the analysis, are you also going to see significant pathways selected, as pathway enrichment often has a trend to overfit? The "within organ" does seem to make sense, but I am also just looking at 4 anecdotes here and it is unclear whether they are cherry picked because they did make sense. That is, it's unclear why you selected ADIPOQ and not APOE or HMGCR or etc. I also don't figure out how I can make these pathway enrichment plots using your website. I do get the pie chart but when I try the enrichment analysis block (NB: typo on your website, it says "Enrich-E-ment Analysis" with an extra E) I always get that "the selected tissue do not contain enough genes to generate positive the enrichment." (Also two typos in that phrase; authors should check and review extensively for improvements to the use of English.) After trying several genes I eventually got it to work. I think there is some significant overfitting here, as I am pretty sure that XIST expression in the white adipose tissue has nothing to do with olfactory signalling pathways, which are the top positive network (but with an n = 4 genes).

Response: Several good points within this comment. 1) the pathway enrichments have been revised completely. The reviewer provided a helpful suggestion of a rank-based approach to query pathways, as opposed to the previous over-representation tests. After evaluating several different pathway enrichment tools based on correlated tissue expression transcripts, a rank- and weight-based test (GSEA) captured the most physiologic pathways observed from known actions of select secreted proteins. Therefore, revised pathway enrichments and web-tool queries unitize a GSEA approach which accounts for the rank and weight determined by correlation coefficient. In implementing these new pathway approaches, we feel that pathway terms perform significantly better at capturing mechanisms. 2) With respect to the selection genes, we wanted to provide a framework for investigating genes which encode secreted proteins that signal as a result of the abundance of the protein alone. This is a group-bias; however, and not necessarily reflective of trying to tackle the most important physiologic mechanisms underlying human disease. We agree with the reviewer in those evaluating genes such as APOE and cholesterol synthesis enzymes present an exciting opportunity, our expertise in interpretation and mechanistic confirmation is limited. 3) We have gone through the revised manuscript and attempted to correct all grammatical and/or spelling mistakes.

1. The network figures I get on your website look actually more interesting than the ones you have in Figure 2, which only stay within a tissue. Making networks within a tissue is pretty easy I think for any biologist today, but the cross-tissue analysis is still fairly hard due to the size of the datasets and correlation matrices.

Response: We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s enthusiasm for the network model generation aspect. We have tried to improve the figure generation and expanded the gene size selection for network generation in the web tool, both within and across tissues. We are working toward allowing users to select specific pathway terms and/or tissue genes to include in these networks as well, but will need more time to implement.

1. I get a bug with making networks for certain genes, e.g. XIST - Liver does not work for plotting network graphs. Maybe XIST is a suppressed gene because it has zero expression in males? It is an interesting gene to look at as a "positive control" for many analyses, since it shows that sample sexing is done correctly for all samples.

Response: The reviewer recognized a key consideration in underlying data structure for GTEx. In the revised manuscript, we evaluated tissue representation (or lack thereof) being a crucial factor in driving where significant relationships cannot be observed in tissues such as kidney, liver and spleen (Fig 2). Moreover, the representation of females (self-reported) in GTEx is less-than half of males (100 compared to 210 individuals). We have emphasized this point in the discussion where we specifically pointed out the lack of XIST Liver correlation being a product of data structure/availability and not reflecting real biologic mechanisms. We expanded on this point by highlighting the clear sex-bias in terms of representation.

1. On the network diagram on your website, there doesn't seem to be any way to zoom in on the website itself? You can make a PDF which is nice but the text is often very small and hard to read.

Response: We have revised the web interface plot parameters to create a more uniform graph.

1. On a related note, is it possible to output the raw data and gene lists for the network graph? I would want to know what are those genes and their correlation coefficient.

Response: We have enabled explore as .pdf or .svg graphics for the network and all plots. In addition, following pie chart generation at the top of the web app, users now have the ability to download a .csv file containing the bicor coefficients, regression pvalues and adjusted qvalues for all other gene-tissue combinations.

1. Some functionality issues, e.g. on the "Scatter plot" block, I input a gene name again here. Shouldn't this use the same gene selected already at the top of the page? It seems confusing to again select the gene and tissue here, but maybe there is a reason for that.

Response: It would be more intuitive to only display genes from a given selected tissue for scatterplots; however, we chose to keep all possible combinations with the [perhaps unnecessary] option of reselecting a tissue to allow users to query any specific gene without having to wait to run the pathways for all that correspond to a given tissues.

1. Figure 4H should also probably be Figure 1A.

Response: Good point, the revised Fig 1A is now a summary of the web tool

I realize I have written a fairly critical review that will require most of the figures to be redone, but I think the underlying method is sound and the implementation by and end-user is quite simple, so I think your group should have no trouble addressing these points.

Response: Your comments were really helpful and we feel that the tool has significantly improved as a result. So, we are thankful to the time and effort put toward helping here.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors)

Comments on the use of "genetic correlation"

• The use of "genetic correlation" in title and throughout the manuscript is misleading. Should broadly be replaced with "gene expression correlation". Within genetics, "genetic correlation" generally refers to the correlation between traits due to genetic variation, as would be expected under pleiotropy (genetic variation that affects multiple traits). Here, I think the authors are somewhat conflating "genetic" (normally referring to genetic variation) with "gene" (because the data are gene expression phenotypes). I don't think they perform any genetic analysis in the manuscript. I hope I don't sound too harsh. I think the paper still has merit and value, but it is important to correct the terminology.

Response: This was an important clarification raised by all reviewers. We apologize for the oversight. As a result, all mentions of “genetics” or “genetic data” has been removed, with the exception of introducing mouse genetic reference panels. These have generally been replaced with “transcript correlations”, “correlations” or “correlations across individuals” to avoid confusion.

• The authors note an important limitation in the Discussion that correlations don't imply a specific causal model between two genes, and furthermore note that statistical procedures (mediation and Mendelian randomization) are dependent on assumptions and really only a well-designed experiment can completely determine the relationship. This is a very important point that I greatly appreciate. I think they could even further expand this discussion. The potential relationships between gene A and gene B are more complex than causal and reactive. For example, a genetic variant or environmental exposure could regulate a gene that then has a cascade of effects on other genes, including A and B. They belong to a shared causal pathway (and are potentially biologically interesting), but it's good to emphasize that correlations can reflect many underlying causal relationships, some more or less interesting biologically.

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have expanded both the results and discussion sections to mention specifically how correlation between two genes can be due to a variety of parameters, often and not just encompassing their relationship. We mention the importance of considering genetic and environmental variables in these relationships as well which we feel will be an important “take-home message” for the reader. These points were also explored in the revised Fig 2 in terms of investigating broad pathway gene-gene correlation structures. As noted by the reviewer, contexts such as circadian rhythm or other variables in the data which are not fixed show much less overall significance in terms of broad relationships across organs.

• It would be good for the authors to provide more context for the methods they use, even when they are fully published. For example, stating that biweight midcorrelation (bicor) is an approach for comparing to variables that is more robust to outliers than traditional correlations and is commonly used with gene co-expression correlation.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. A lack of method description was also an important reason for lack of clarity on other aspects so we have done our best to detail what exact approaches are being implemented and why. In the revised manuscript, we mention the usage if bicor values to limit influence of outlier individuals in driving regressions, but also point out that it is still a generalized linear model to assess relationships. We hope that the revised methods and expanded git repositories which detail each analysis provide much more transparency on what is being implemented.

• Performing a similar analysis based on genetic correlation is an interesting idea, as it would potentially simplify the underlying causal models (removing variation that doesn't stem from genetic variants). I don't expect the authors to do this for this paper because it would be a significant amount of work (fitting and testing genetic correlations are not as straightforward). But still, an interesting idea to think about, and individuals in GTEx are genotyped I believe. Could be mentioned in the Discussion.

Response: Absolutely. While we did not implement and models of genetic correlation (despite misusing the term) in this analysis. We have added to the discussion on how when genetic data is available, these approaches offer another way to tease out potentially causal interactions among the large amount of correlated data occurring for a variety of reasons.

Comments on use of the term "local" and "regression"

• "Local" is largely used to mean within-tissue, so how correlated gene X in tissue Y is with other genes in tissue Y. I think this needs to be defined explicitly early in the manuscript or possibly replaced with something like "within-tissue".

Response: We have replaced al “local” mentions with “within-tissue” or simply name the tissue that the gene is expressed to avoid confusion with other terms of local (ex a transcript in proximity to where it is encoded on the genome).

• "Regression" is also used frequently throughout, often when I think "correlation" would be more accurate. It's true that the regression coefficient is a function of the correlation between X and Y, but I don't think actual regression (the procedure) applies here. The coefficients being used are bicor, which I don't think relates as cleanly to linear regression.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. A lack of method description was also an important reason for lack of clarity on other aspects so we have done our best to detail what exact approaches are being implemented and why. In the revised manuscript, we mention the usage if bicor values to limit influence of outlier individuals in driving correlations, but also point out that it is still a generalized linear model to assess relationships. Further, we have removed usage of “regression” when referencing bicor values. We hope that the revised methods and expanded git repositories which detail each analysis provide much more transparency on what is being implemented.

• "Further, pan-tissue correlations tend to be dominated by local regressions where a given gene is expressed. This is due to the fact that within-tissue correlations could capture both the regulatory and putative consequences of gene regulation, and distinguishing between the two presents a significant challenge" (lines 219-223). This sentence includes both "local" and "regressions" (and would be improved by my suggested changes I think), but I also don't fully understand the argument of "regulatory and putative consequences". I think the authors should elaborate further. In the examples, the within-tissue correlations do look stronger, suggesting within-tissue regulation that is quite strong and potentially secondary inter-tissue regulation. If that's the idea, I think it can be stated more clearly.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the sentence to state the following:

Further, many correlations tend to be dominated by genes expressed within the same organ. This could be due to the fact that, within-tissue correlations could capture both the pathways regulating expression of a gene, as well as potential consequences of changes in expression/function, and distinguishing between the two presents a significant challenge. For example, a GD-CAT query of insulin (INS) expression in pancreas shows exclusive enrichments in pancreas and corresponding pathway terms reflect regulatory mechanisms such as secretion and ion transport (Supplemental Fig 4).

We feel that this point might not be intuitive, so have included a new figure (Supplemental Fig 4) which contains the tissue correlations and pathways for INS expression in pancreas. These analyses show an example where co-correlation structure seems almost entirely dominated by genes within the same organ (pancreas) and GSEA enrichments highlight many known pathways which are involved in regulating the expression/secretion of the gene/protein. We hope that this makes the point more clearly to the reader.

Additional comments on Results:

• I would break the titled Results sections into multiple paragraphs. For example, the first section (lines 84-129) has a few natural breakpoints that I noticed that would potentially make it feel less over-whelming to the reader.

Response: We have broken up the results section into separate paragraphs in the revised manuscript. In addition, we have gone through to try and make sure that the amount of information per block/sentence focuses on key points.

• "Expression of a gene and its corresponding protein can show substantial discordances depending on the dataset used" (line 224 of Results). This is a good point, and the authors could include citations here of studies that show discordance between transcripts and proteins, of which there are a good number. They could also add some biological context, such as saying differences could reflect post-translational regulation, etc.

Response: Thank you for the supportive comment. We have referenced several comprehensive reviews of the topic, each of which contain tables summarizing details of mRNA-protein correlation. The revised discussion sentence is as follows:

Expression of a gene and its corresponding protein can show substantial discordances depending on the dataset used. These have been discussed in detail39–41, but ranges of co-correlation can vary widely depending on the datasets used and approaches taken. We note that for genes encoding proteins where actions from acute secretion grossly outweigh patterns of gene expression, such as insulin, caution should be taken when interpreting results. As the depth and availability of tissue-specific proteomic levels across diverse individuals continues to increase, an exciting opportunity is presented to explore the applicability of these analyses and identify areas when gene expression is not a sufficient measure.

1. Liu, Y., Beyer, A. & Aebersold, R. On the Dependency of Cellular Protein Levels on mRNA Abundance. Cell 165, 535–550 (2016).

2. Maier, T., Güell, M. & Serrano, L. Correlation of mRNA and protein in complex biological samples. FEBS Letters 583, 3966–3973 (2009).

3. Buccitelli, C. & Selbach, M. mRNAs, proteins and the emerging principles of gene expression control. Nat Rev Genet 21, 630–644 (2020).

• In many ways, this work has similar goals to many studies that have performed multi-tissue WGCNA (e.g., Talukdar et al. 2016; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cels.2016.02.002). In this manuscript, WGCNA's conventional approach to estimating robust correlations (bicor) is used, but they do not use WGCNA's data reduction/clustering functionality to estimate modules. Perhaps the modules would miss the signaling relationships of interest, being sort of lost in the presence of stronger signals that aren't relevant to the biological questions here. But I think it would be good for the authors to explain why they didn't use the full WGCNA approach.

Response: This is an important point and we also feel that the previous lack of methodological details and discussion did a poor job at distinguishing why module-based approaches were not used. We wanted to be careful not to emphasize one approach being superior/inferior to another, rather point out the different considerations and when a direct correlation might inform a given question. As the reviewer points out, our general feeling is that adopting a simple gene-focused correlation approach allows users to view mechanisms through the lens of a single gene; however, this is limited in that these could be influenced by cumulative patterns of correlation structure (for example mitochondria in revised Fig 2A) which would be much more apparent in a module-based approach. This comment, in combination with the other listed above, was our motivation in exploring cumulative patterns of gene-gene correlations in the revised Fig 2. In the revised manuscript, we expanded on the results and discussion section to highlight utility of these types of approaches compared to module-based methods:

The queries provided in GD-CAT use fairly simple linear models to infer organ-organ signaling; however, more sophisticated methods can also be applied in an informative fashion. For example, Koplev et al generated co-expression modules from 9 tissues in the STARNET dataset, where construction of a massive Bayesian network uncovered interactions between correlated modules6. These approaches expanded on analysis of STAGE data to construct network models using WGCNA across tissues and relating these resulting eigenvectors to outcomes42. The generalized approach of constructing cross-tissue gene regulatory modules presents appeal in that genes are able to be viewed in the context of a network with respect to all other gene-tissue combinations. In searching through these types of expanded networks, individuals can identify where the most compelling global relationships occur. One challenge with this type of approach; however, is that coregulated pathways and module members are highly subjective to parameters used to construct GRNs (for example reassignment threshold in WGCNA) and can be difficult in arriving at a “ground truth” for parameter selection. We note that the WGCNA package is also implemented in these analyses, but solely to perform gene-focused correlations using biweight midcorrelation to limit outlier inflation. While the midweight bicorrelation approach to calculate correlations could also be replaced with more sophisticated models, one consideration would be a concern of overfitting models and thus, biasing outcomes.

Additional comments on Discussion:

• In the second paragraph of the Discussion (lines 231-244), the authors mention that GD-CAT uses linear models to compare data between organs and point to other methods that use more complex or elaborate models. It's good to cite these methods, but I think they could more directly state that there are limitations to high complexity models, such as over-fitting.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have added a line (above) mentioning the overfitting concern.

Comments on Methods:

• The described gene filtration in the Methods of including genes with non-zero expression for 1.2e6 gene-tissue combinations is confusing. If there are 310 individuals and 18 tissues, for a given gene, aren't there only 5,580 possible data points? Might be helpful to contextualize the cut-off in terms of like the average number of individuals with non-zero expression within a tissue.

Response: We apologize for this error. This number was pasted from a previous dataset used and not appropriate for this manuscript. In general, we have removed specific mentions of total number of gene_tissue correlation combinations, as these numbers reflect large but almost meaningless quantifications. Instead, we expanded the methods in terms of how individuals and genes filtered.

• More details should be given about the gene ontology/pathway enrichment analysis. I suspect that a set-based approach (e.g., hypergeometric test) was used, rather than a score-based approach. The authors don't state what universe of genes were used, i.e., the overall set of genes that the reduced set of interest is compared to. Seems like this could or should vary with the tissues that are being compared. A score-based approach could be interesting to consider (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/060012v3), using the genetic correlations as the score, as this would remove the unappealing feature of sets being dependent on correlation thresholds. This isn't something that I would demand of the published paper, but it could be an appealing approach for the authors to consider and confirm similar results to the set-based analysis.

Response: This is an important point. Following this suggestion, we evaluated several different rank- and weight-based pathway enrichment tools, including FGSEA and others. Ultimately, we concluded that GSEA performed significantly better at 1) recapitulating known biology of select secreted protein genes and 2) leveraging the large numbers of genes occurring at qvalue cutoffs without having to further refine (ex. in the previous overrepresentation tests). For this reason, all pathway enrichments in the web tools and manuscripts not contain GSEA outputs and corresponding pathway enrichments or network graph visualizations. Thank you for this suggestion.

Comments on figures:

• I think there is a bit of a missed opportunity to use the figures to introduce and build up the story for readers. For example, in Figure 1, plotting ADIPOQ expression against a correlated gene in adipose (local) as well as peripheral tissues. This doesn't need to be done for every example, but I think it would help readers understand what the data are, and what's being detected before jumping into higher level summaries.

Response: Thank you, this point also builds on others which recommended to restructure the manuscript and figures. In the revised manuscript, we first introduce the web tool (which was last previously), and immediately highlight comparisons of within- and across-organ correlations, such as ADIPOQ. We feel that the revised manuscript presents a superior structure in terms of demonstrating the key points and utility of looking at gene-gene correlations across tissues.

• Figures 1 and 4 are missing the color scale legend for the bar plots, so it's impossible to tell how significant the enrichments are.

Response: We apologize for the oversight. The pathways in the revised Fig 1 detail pathway network graphs among the top pathways which should make interpretation more intuitive. We have also gone through and made sure that GSEA enrichment pvalues are now present for all figures including pathways (revised Fig 1, Fig 3 and supplemental Fig 4).

• The Figure 2 caption says that edges are colored based on correlation sign? Are there any negative correlations (red)? They all look blue to me. The caption could also state that edge weight reflects correlation magnitude (I assume). It would be ideal to include a legend that links a range of the depicted edge weights to their genetic correlation, though I don't know how feasible that may be depending on the package being used to plot the networks.

Response: Good catch. We included in the revised manuscript the network edge parameters: Network edges represent positive (blue) and negative (red) correlations and the thicknesses are determined by coefficients. They are set for a range of bicor=0.6 (minimum to include) to bicor=0.99

Related to seeing a dominant pattern of positive correlations, we agree that this observation is fascinating and gene-gene correlations being dominated by positive coefficients will be the topic of a closely-following manuscript from the lab

• Figure 4A would be more informative as boxplots, which could still include Ssec score. This would allow the reader to get a sense of the variation in correlation p-value across all hippocampus transcripts.

Response: Related to comments from this reviewer and others, we have removed the previous Fig 4 entirely from the manuscript to emphasize the ability of these gene-gene correlations to capture known biology and limit the extend of unvalidated “suggested” new mechanisms.

Comments on GD-CAT

• The online webtool worked nicely for me. It was easy to use and produce figures like in the manuscript. One suggestion is show data points in the scatter plot rather than just the regression line (if that's possible currently, I didn't figure it out). A regression line isn't that interesting to look at, but seeing how noisy the data look around it is something humans can usually interpret intuitively.

Response: Thank you so much. We are excited that the web tool works sufficiently. We have also revised the individual gene-gene correlation tab to show individual data points instead of simple regression lines.

Minor comments:

Response: Thank you for these detailed improvements

• This sentence is awkwardly constructed: "Here, we surveyed gene-gene genetic correlation structure for ~6.1x10^12 gene pairs across 18 metabolic tissues in 310 individuals where variation of genes such as FGF21, ADIPOQ, GCG and IL6 showed enrichments which recapitulate experimental observations" (lines 68-70). It's an important sentence because it's where in the Abstract/Introduction the authors succinctly state what they did, thus I would re-work it to something like: "Here, we surveyed gene expression correlation structure..., identifying genes, such as FGF21, ADIPOQ, GCG and IL6, that possess correlation networks that recapitulate known biological pathways."

Response: The numbers of pairs examined and dataset size have been removed for clarity and we have revised this statement and results as a whole

• Prefer swapping "signal" for "signaling" in line 53 of Abstract/Introduction.

Response: Done

• Remove extra period in line 208 of Results.

Response: Removed

• Change "well-establish" to "well-established" in line 247 of Discussion.

Response: Replaced

• Missing commas in line 302 of Methods.

Response: added

• Missing comma in line 485 of Figure 3 caption.

Response: The previous Fig 3 has been removed

• Typo in title of Figure 3E (change "Perihperal" to "Peripheral")

Response: Thank you, changed

• Add y-axis label to y-axis labels (relative cell proportions) to Supplemental Figures 1-3.

Response: These labels have been added

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Minor technical comment: The authors refer to correlations between genes when they actually mean correlations between GTEX transcript isoform models. It is exceedingly important to keep this distinction clear in the reader's mind, a fact that is emphasized by the authors themselves when they comment on the potential value of similar proteomic assays to evaluate multiorgan system communication. GTEx has tried to do proteomics but I do not know of any open data yet.

Response: Thank you for this point. We have gone through the manuscript and replaced “gene correlations” with “transcript” or other similar mentions. Related to the comment on GTEx proteomics, this is an important point as well. As the reviewer mentions, proteomics has been performed on GTEx data; however, given that this dataset contains only 6 sparsely-represented individuals, analyses such as the ones highlighted in our study remain highly limited. We have added the following to the discussion: As the depth and availability of tissue-specific proteomic levels across diverse individuals continues to increase, an exciting opportunity is presented to explore the applicability of these analyses and identify areas when gene expression is not a sufficient measure. For example, mass-spec proteomics was recently performed on GTEx42; however, given that these data represent 6 individuals, analyses utilizing well-powered inter-individual correlations such as ours which contain 310 individuals remain limited n applications.

The R/Shiny companion application: The community utility of this application would be greatly improved by a link to a primer and more basic functionality. The Github site is a "work in progress" and does not include a readme file or explanation (that I could find) on the license.

Response: Thank you, we are excited that the apps operate sufficiently. We have revised the github repository entirely to contain a full walk-through of app details and parameter selections. These are meant to walk users through each step of the pipeline and discuss what is being done at each step. We agree that this updated github repository allows users to understand the details of the R/Shiny app in much more detail. We also made all the app scripts, datasets, markdown/walkthrough files and docker image fully available to enhance accessibility.

Here I go again, complicating things for your paper :) ...

Is it really a role reversal? You said in your presentation that Stoker seems to be focusing on the positive feminine qualities that Mina has implicitly--nurturing, caring, selflessness--while also retaining the masculine qualities of reason and logic that make her a desirable companion for a man. It doesn't seem to me that Mina's gender role is being reversed entirely--that is, she's not behaving entirely like a man--so much as it seems like the lines between older conceptions of gender roles are being blurred. The same thing happens here with Jonathan (and this is where I would suggest you bring in the bit of your argument that deals with him), except the traits that he is adopting are viewed as undesirable. So, there is a kind of universality to desirable traits that Stoker is advocating, and in doing so he might actually be breaking down the barriers between gender roles more than we think. In other words, it is undesirable to be passive and helpless in any context, and it is universally desirable to exhibit control over reason and logic, regardless of a character's gender. Play with that in your argument! These reversals may not be as neat as they at first seem.

This leaves to wonder if there are any other possible outlier instances of a verb phrase consisting of one word. While I can't think of one, one can't help but wonder if there is some esoteric verb out there that could accidently do that.

Note: This response was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. The content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

---

Reply to the reviewers

Reviewer #1

We thank this Reviewer for the time spent assessing our manuscript, and for suggesting approaches to strengthen the robustness of the differences (e.g., TL vs FL) reported in our results. We have carefully addressed each point raised by this and other reviewers, providing new analyses and data - see list below. Indeed, these analyses combined helped us to make our main results reproducible, corroborating the main findings and refining the message of the manuscript.

New analyses/data added:

1. *Effect of batch due to different lanes - comparison of DEGs (TL/FL) obtained when samples in different lanes are tested individually (new Figure S15). *
2. Effect of batch correction on our results - comparison of the DEGs (TL/FL) obtained with and without batch removal (new Figure S15).
3. Sensitivity of our enrichment results for GWAS significance – we performed the enrichment of GWAS genes using different GWAS thresholds, 10-6, 10-7, 5x10-8 (new Figure S14).
4. Expression analysis of GRIN2A and SLC12A5 in Allen Brain Atlas data and qPCR results of GRIN2A and SLC12A5 in patients with frontal and temporal lobe traumatic injury (new Figure S12, Table S3).
5. Comparison of the DEGs (TL/FL) with DEGs (autism/Ctrl) obtained from single cell RNA seq (new Figure S16, Table S7).
6. Comparison of the results using the GWAS genes derived from Trubetskoy et al. with our gene lists (new Figure S17).

7. Description of the data quality (Figure S2) Major points:

8. The main limitation of the work is the small starting sample size. The authors studied 1 frontal lobe sample and 2 temporal lobe samples. Although this information was in Table S3 it would be good to include upfront in the Methods. snRNA-seq was generated on the 10x platform. It would be helpful to know if the 10x step and sequencing was performed as one batch, or as individual batches. Similarly, were the sample libraries all sequenced on the same lane, or different lanes. The authors do not state in the Methods how many nuclei they were targeting and this should be included. Sample pre-processing was well described and standard. We now provide additional details about the sequencing step (nuclei, sample pre-processing, etc.) in the revised manuscript (see Methods, and text below). The potential batch effect of the lane is discussed and addressed in the next point.

‘10X Genomics uses a microfluidic system for cell sorting. Cells and enzymes, combined with Gel Beads, enter the oil phase to form GEMs. The resulting sample libraries were sequenced on separate lanes. To enhance sequencing depth, the primary target number of nuclei for the two samples from TL is set at 10,000, considering an RNA integrity number (RIN) of 6.5. In contrast, for the sample from FL, the target is set at 20,000 nuclei due to a higher RIN of 8.1.’

In relation to Batch correction - as with any batch correction method, it is unclear whether the correction is adjusting for biological differences or technical. Since this is a study of the differences between FL and TL, would it not be more appropriate not to correct for batch, particularly as the samples were analysed individually - particularly if batch effects were carefully controlled for in the initial study design. The authors should test whether the results are robust to batch correction or not.

Since the samples are sequenced by different lanes of 10X platform we can’t exclude potential batch effects. To address this, we corrected the batch by CCA (canonical correlation analysis) which enhanced the clustering and the UMAP visualization, which is now less affected by batch-specific variations.

Moreover, in an attempt to account for the sample size limitation, we employed 3 approaches to confirm the main transcriptional differences between the 2 regions, and that these are “robust” to batch correction, as is shown in new Figure S15: (1) Comparison of the gene expression differences (2 TL vs 1FL) with and without removing batches (new Figure S15. a, c); (2) The results obtained by comparing the differences between each individual TL sample (processed in different lanes) and FL sample are contrasted with the results after batch removal (new__ Figure S15. b, d__); (3) To confirm a limited effect of lane, we provide analysis of the expression similarity of three samples which demonstrates, consistently for each major cell type and neuronal sub-types, a strong correlation between the two TL samples (form different lanes) as compared with FL (new Figure S15. e).

As shown in panel a, c, below, the majority of DEGs (2TL vs FL) identified with batch effects largely overlap with the DEGs (2TL vs FL) without considering batch effects for both major cell types and neuronal sub-types. In panel b, d, we show that the majority of DEGs with batch correction (2TL vs FL) overlap with the individual DEGs found in each TL vs FL comparison. In panel e, we show that the transcriptomic profiles of 2 TL exhibit higher similarity compared with the sample from FL. Overall, based on these analyses we concluded that our results are robust to batch correction.

In addition, we highlight that, differently from other tissues, it is very difficult to obtain the “fresh” human samples of brain cortex, which most likely provides different transcriptome information than the more commonly used post-mortem brain samples. These analyses offered another evidence supporting the differences between TL and FL, which complement (and align with) the comparative analyses using the data from Allen Brain Atlas (see Figure S9, original results).

Figure S15. Comparison of biological (gene expression) differences in each major cell type and neuron-subtype between the 2 regions with and without batch effect removal. ____a, c. Comparison of the DEGs (2 TL vs 1FL) with and without removing batches (a, up-regulated in TL; c, up-regulated in FL). b, d. Comparison of the DEGs (2TL vs FL) following the removal of batch effects with the DEGs calculated by individual TL vs FL samples. __e. __Expression correlation between each sample (without batch correction for lane), showing higher transcriptional similarity within the same tissue type than across tissues, consistently in major cell-types and neuronal subtypes.

3.Differential gene expression analyses between the FL and TL was undertaken using edgeR. It is unclear if this was performed on aggregated counts or not - i.e., sum of counts per gene per cell type. If it was, then with such a small sample size (1 frontal lobe and 2 temporal lobe samples), it is unclear how well edgeR will perform. Similarly, if the DE analysis was performed using individual gene per cell counts, then there is a type 2 error risk due to pseudoreplication. It is reassuring that the primary results were replicated in a second dataset. Moreover, the downstream analyses (functional enrichment analysis, heritability enrichment analysis etc) are designed to cope with noisy data so I'm happy with the broad conclusions.

We acknowledge the reviewer’s point, and here we specify that edgeR performs differential expression analysis at the level of individual genes across individual cells, and we performed DE analysis for each cell type. We and others consider edgeR a robust tool for analyzing RNA-Seq data; edgeR has been extensively benchmarked alongside other widely used statistical methods, e.g., edgeR-LRT and edgeR-QLF which showed high performance1. Another study about different tools for differential expression in single cell data demonstrated that edgeR (and others) has usually higher precision, larger than 0.9, yielding lower false positive2. Therefore, based on previous formal assessments showing the robustness of edgeR, we select this approach for DE analysis.

Moreover, it has been previously documented that edgeR can be used also to analyses small samples due to several inherent features. First, edgeR uses an empirical Bayes framework to estimate dispersion, which is a measure of the biological variability in gene expression. This approach uses information across genes, helping to stabilize the variance estimates even when sample sizes are small. This makes edgeR more robust in cases with a limited number of replicates. Second, edgeR accounts for overdispersion, which can effectively handle small sample sizes and provide more accurate statistical tests. In the revised manuscript, we now discuss the advantages of edgeR in Methods, in particular for edgeR performance on small sample size in single cell RNA seq.

It is unclear if this was performed on aggregated counts or not - i.e., sum of counts per gene per cell type

We specify that edgeR performs differential expression analysis at the level of individual genes across individual cells, and we performed DE analysis for each cell type. This is now indicated in Methods.

*4.To calculate the enrichment of "genetic risk" associated with psychiatric disorders, the authors used a hypergeometric test for the overlap between cell type specific genes and the GWAS variant-mapped genes for each disease, which is widely used to evaluate the enrichment of genetic risk genes. To identified GWAS variant mapped genes the authors used a GWAS SNP threshold of To test the sensitivity of the enrichment analysis, we selected the GWAS genes with each threshold respectively: 10-6, 10-7, 5x10-8. The new results are largely consistent with those obtained using a P-value of 10-5. Susceptibility genes for neuropsychiatric disorders are enriched for expression in neuronal cell types for each P-value. With respect to neuronal subtypes, we found stronger enrichment in INH than in EX sub-clusters, with INH PVALB, SST and EX L5 being the neuronal sub-clusters mostly enriched for expression of GWAS genes (new __Figure S14).

Figure S14 Cell type for expression of neuropsychiatric disorder associated GWAS genes with each threshold respectively: 10-6, 10-7, 5x10-8. a-c. adjusted P-value of enrichment in each 7 major cell type. d-f. adjusted P-value of enrichment in each neuron subtype.

Moreover, the Reviewer suggests using an alternative tool, FUMA, which requires the whole set of SNP GWAS associations. While these can be available for single diseases and GWAS data (assuming the authors made all data available, and assuming one obtains approval by the consortia managing the GWAS data), unfortunately these SNPs data are not available for several diseases in the NHGRI-EBI GWAS catalog, which provides only SNPs with a max P=10-5. Since in our study we wanted to consider GWAS data from 7 neuropsychiatric diseases, we pragmatically opted for obtaining data from NHGRI-EBI GWAS catalog rather than seeking GWAS SNP data from individual studies.

We also acknowledge the limitations for the variant to gene mapping (revised Discussion, page 17, line 17), and we also highlight that several other studies rely on the variant to gene mapping from NHGRI-EBI GWAS catalog for enrichment analyses3-5. There are also studies that investigate the enrichment of mapped genes (from NHGRI-EBI GWAS catalog) in different cell types using the hypergeometric test 6-7, as we do in our study. Therefore, the methods used in our manuscript are consistent with approaches adopted in previously published studies. Perhaps more importantly, in the revised manuscript, we replicated the main GWAS enticement results (e.g., in INH neurons and in PVLAB from the temporal lobe) in the Brain Allen Atlas datasets, which shows that, despite these limitations of variant to gene mapping, our main enrichment results are replicable. We discussed these limitations in our paper (see Discussion, page 17, line 6).

However, where individual genes are mentioned then the authors may wish to confirm the results from edgeR for a few selected genes with a second technique such as qPCR. For example, GRIN2A and SLC12A5.

To address this point, first, we check the expression of the 2 genes using the data from Allen Brain Atlas data, which show significantly high expression in TL (new Figure S12. b, and below). In addition, we carried out new qPCR analysis, and found the mRNA expression levels of GRIN2A and SLC2A5 in patients with traumatic brain injury in the temporal lobe region were higher than those in patients with frontal lobe injury (new Figure S12. c).

Figure S12. b. Expression level of GRIN2A and SLC12A5 in 2 regions using Brain Allen Atlas. ***P-value-ΔΔCt method. Significance was determined through T-test (two-tailed). qPCR for each TL or FL sample was repeated 3 times.

Reviewer #2

We thank this Reviewer for the time spent evaluating our manuscript. In the revised manuscript we have now included several new analyses and data that allowed us to replicate and strengthen our main findings, and especially we considered the psychoactive drug target genes using the whole psychoactive drugs DB. We believe these new data helped us to refine the message and overall improve reproducibility of the main findings presented. We have carefully addressed each point raised by this and other reviewers, by providing revisions and explanations, and adding new data to our manuscript, as follows:

New analyses/data added:

1. *Effect of batch due to different lanes - comparison of DEGs (TL/FL) obtained when samples in different lanes are tested individually (new Figure S15). *
2. Effect of batch correction on our results - comparison of the DEGs (TL/FL) obtained with and without batch removal (new Figure S15).
3. Sensitivity of our enrichment results for GWAS significance – we performed the enrichment of GWAS genes using different GWAS thresholds, 10-6, 10-7, 5x10-8 (new Figure S14).
4. Expression analysis of GRIN2A and SLC12A5 in Allen Brain Atlas data and qPCR results of GRIN2A and SLC12A5 in patients with frontal and temporal lobe traumatic injury (new Figure S12, Table S3).
5. Comparison of the DEGs (TL/FL) with DEGs (autism/Ctrl) obtained from single cell RNA seq (new Figure S16, Table S7).
6. Comparison of the results using the GWAS genes derived from Trubetskoy et al. with our gene lists (new Figure S17).
7. Description of the data quality (Figure S2) 1.The manuscript is unfortunately lacking (supplemental) figures showing the preprocessing, batch effect correction, and cell type annotation of single nucleus RNAseq data. Although this part is described in the methods in detail, it is hard to judge if these parts were done properly if data is not shown in any of the figures. Regarding the batch effect correction, it reads as if the batch effects have been removed for both brain regions separately. This potentially introduces a bias between brain regions that hugely questions the later performed analysis of differential expression analysis in FL vs TL. In any case, this analysis is not convincing since it has been performed on n=3 vs. n=3 samples and is thus tremendously underpowered.

We thank the reviewer for the suggestions. First, we added the cell type annotation process for the major cell type by showing the expression of known markers in Figure S2. f. To show the validity of our cell classification, we calculated the significance of overlap with major cell type markers derived from known study in Figure S2. e. __We also provide the distribution of nUMI, nGenes, percentage of mitochondrial genes after quality control in Figure S2. b __to show the large number of cells contributing to the overall quality and depth of the scRNA-seq dataset despite the small number of individual samples.

Figure S2. Description of snRNA-seq data. b. Distribution of nUMI, nGenes, percentage of mitochondrial genes after QC. e. Significance of overlap with major cell type markers derived from known study. f. Expression of known markers for each cell type.

Since the samples are sequenced by different lanes of 10X platform, therefore, we can’t exclude potential batch effects. To account for this potential batch effect, we corrected the batch by doing CCA (canonical correlation analysis) which enhanced the clustering and the UMAP visualization more biologically meaningful and less driven by batch-specific variations.

Moreover, in an attempt to account for the sample size limitation, we employed 3 approaches to confirm the main transcriptional differences between the 2 regions, and that these are “robust” to batch correction, as is shown in new Figure S15 (see next page): (1) Comparison of the gene expression differences (2 TL vs 1FL) with and without removing batches (new Figure S15. a, c); (2) The results obtained by comparing the differences between each individual TL sample (processed in different lanes) and FL sample are contrasted with the results after batch removal (new Figure S15. b, d); (3) To confirm a limited effect of lane, analysis of the expression similarity of three samples demonstrates, consistently for each major cell type and neuronal sub-types, a strong correlation between the two TL samples (form different lanes) as compared with FL (new__ Figure S15. e__).

As shown in panel a, c, below, the majority of DEGs (2TL vs FL) identified with batch effects largely overlap with the DEGs (2TL vs FL) without considering batch effects for both major cell types and neuronal sub-types. In panel b, d, we show that the majority of DEGs with batch correction (2TL vs FL) overlap with the individual DEGs found in each TL vs FL comparison. In panel e, we identified that the transcriptomic of 2 TL exhibit higher similarity compared with the sample from FL.

Overall, based on these analyses we concluded that the results are robust to batch correction.

Figure S15. Comparison of biological (gene expression) differences in each major cell type and neuron-subtype between the 2 regions with and without batch effect removal. a, c. Comparison of the DEGs (2 TL vs 1FL) with and without removing batches (a, up-regulated in TL; c, up-regulated in FL). b, d. Comparison of the DEGs (2TL vs FL) following the removal of batch effects with the DEGs calculated by individual TL vs FL samples. __e. __Expression correlation between each sample (without batch correction for lane), showing higher transcriptional similarity within the same tissue type than across tissues, consistently in major cell-types and neuronal subtypes.

In addition, we highlight that, differently from other tissues, it is very difficult to obtain the “fresh” human samples of brain cortex, which most likely provides different transcriptome information than the more commonly used post-mortem brain samples. These analyses offered another evidence supporting the differences between TL and FL, which complement (and align with) the comparative analyses using the data from Allen Brain Atlas (Figure S9, original results).

2.Furthermore, the way that the authors treat GWAS data for disease does not seem to follow best practices. For schizophrenia, last year the largest GWAS so far was published (Trubetskoy et al, Nature, 2022) with very careful prioritization of genes. The authors should re-analyze their data using the gene list from this paper (and similar from other disorders) rather than the gene list that they came up with using their approach. The approach to select genes from different GWAS introduced seems highly arbitrary and leaves the reader unsure about statistical rigor.

We have carefully considered the suggestion regarding the treatment of GWAS data, particularly with respect to the gene list derived from the recent schizophrenia GWAS by Trubetskoy et al. (Nature, 2022). In this paper, the author mainly identified 120 genes (106 protein-coding) that are likely to underpin associations with schizophrenia which implicate fundamental processes related to neuronal function including synaptic organization, differentiation and transmission.

With respect to our study, first, we found there is significant overlap between prioritized genes in Trubetskoy et al’ study and GWAS genes included in our study. We showed the P value for overlap significance below, and listed the 27 genes. Among the prioritized genes, GRIN2A is also identified to be important in neuropsychiatric disorder, which is also confirmed to differ between the 2 regions and dysregulated in disease brain.

Enrichment of genes obtained from the prioritized schizophrenia-associated genes in Trubetskoy et al. Significant overlap (P=0.013, hypergeometric test) between schizophrenia-associated genes (120 prioritized genes from Trubetskoy et al.) and our GWAS genes (from GWAS catalogue).

Second, we conducted a supplementary analysis focused on the 120 genes prioritized by Trubetskoy et al, as shown below. We found the 120 prioritized genes in this paper are significantly enriched in excitatory and inhibitory neurons (panel b, below), aligning with our main findings conducted by schizophrenia related genes in our previous GWAS gene lists. Within the neuronal subcluster, we found a significant enrichment in L4, LAMP5 and PVALB cells (panel c); L4 and PVALB are largely consistent with our previous results (shown in Figure 3. c). Furthermore, we also found the 120 schizophrenia-associated genes are highly significantly enriched in DEGs (TL/FL) in VIP and PVALB subtypes (panel d).

b-c. Enrichment of 120 prioritized schizophrenia-associated genes in major cell types and neuronal subtypes. d. For each cell type, the enrichment of 120 genes is calculated with respect to the set of DEGs (TL/FL). Approach used for enrichment analysis is hypergeometric test (significance level, P-valueThese results suggest that while new gene lists from larger GWAS studies (e.g., Trubetskoy et al) come up regularly, the lists of GWAS genes prioritized in our enrichment analysis has some overlap with the newest GWAS. We agree that including more (larger) GWAS studies will strengthen the manuscript, but based on the analyses above, we believe our GWAS enrichment results are robust. In the revised manuscript, the new analysis including the detailed comparison with schizophrenia GWAS by Trubetskoy et al. (Nature, 2022) are reported in new Figure S17.

To improve on the GWAS enrichment analysis, we carried out additional sensitivity analyses to support our GWAS enticement results. We selected additional thresholds to evaluate the robustness of our results to the choice of gene lists to test the sensitivity of the enrichment analysis, we selected the thresholds: 10-6, 10-7, 5x10-8. The new results are largely consistent with those obtained using P-value of 10-5. Susceptibility genes for neuropsychiatric disorders are enriched for expression in neuronal cell types for each P-value. With respect to neuronal subtypes, we found stronger enrichment in INH than in EX sub-clusters, with INH PVALB, SST and EX L5 being the neuronal sub-clusters mostly enriched for expression of GWAS genes. These results are reported in new Figure S14.

Figure S14. Enrichment of cell type expression of neuropsychiatric disorder-associated GWAS genes for different GWAS-thresholds. a-c. Adjusted P-value of enrichment in each 7 major cell type. d-f. Adjusted P-value of enrichment in each neuron subtype.

3.Similarly, the choice of data set for disease-related differentially expressed genes is unclear as much larger (two orders of magnitude) published data sets exist for many of the disorders. For three of those DEG analyses performed on bulk RNAseq data, for the remaining two the DEG list of papers is used directly -making a comparison complicated. One would have to run DEG analysis in a standardized way for all 5 datasets/ disorders. It would be good to also indicate the respective sample size in Fig. 5a. (On a different note, the OCD publication is Piantadosi et al. 2021, not Sean C.et.al..) In addition, the authors matched brain regions to their regions of interest (frontal and temporal lobe) as shown in Fig. 5a. Still, they vary across disorders, which makes it hard to compare their findings across disorders and does not allow for a general statement about frontal vs. temporal lobe. ____To generalize for any of those psychiatric disorders I would recommend including more RNA-seq studies of the same disorder. Nowadays there are getting more and more case-control single nuclei studies on such disorders published. The authors could also include those by transforming them to pseudo bulk datasets and running their DEG analysis with edgeR as documented.

We acknowledge there might be a bias introduced by using the DEGs from the original paper directly. In addition, there is a general limitation affecting all bulk-RNA studies in complex tissues with different anatomical structures (e.g., kidney, brain, etc.), which form a great part of the publicly available data sources. In brain research, it is also more difficult to collect fresh human brain samples from patients with psychiatric disorders, which poses additional tissue availability constraints. Despite these limitations, we argue that bulk-RNA studies in anatomically complex tissues, and the DEGs reported therein, can be useful for GWAS enrichment analysis and not all DEGs are due to spurious or artificial signals. Furthermore, due to the lower sequencing depth inherent in single-cell RNA sequencing compared to bulk RNA sequencing, we set up to contrast our findings with results found by bulk-RNA seq.

We agree with the Reviewer that “One would have to run DEG analysis in a standardized way for all 5 datasets/ disorders”, however this approach assumes that the raw data are directly available and/or that the authors are keen to share the raw data. Both these assumptions are – unfortunately – not valid in many cases. (In several instances, we did contact authors to have access to raw data, with no success). Furthermore, when a commonly shared gene set in the DE genes is identified when using “heterogenous DE gene lists”, this might suggest a strongest convergence, or a convergence that is “robust” despite the differences between the heterogeneous DE lists (from authors or newly generated by us). Therefore, despite the limitations, our approach was motivated by practical considerations.

In addition, the brain region differences can be more prevalent and have a larger impact for specific psychiatric disorders. In our manuscript, for MDD we specially looked at only the BA8/9 which come from dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Regarding OCD, BP, and MDD, several studies showed that there are no significant functional differences clinically observed between the orbitofrontal cortex and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (Schoenbaum G, Setlow B. Integrating orbitofrontal cortex into prefrontal theory: common processing themes across species and subdivisions. Learning & Memory, 20018. Golkar A, Lonsdorf T B, Olsson A, et al. Distinct contributions of the dorsolateral prefrontal and orbitofrontal cortex during emotion regulation. PloS one, 20129). In the case of ASD, Brodmann area 41, 42, 22 refers to a subdivision of the cytoarchitecturally defined temporal region of cerebral cortex, exhibiting similar functionality to the temporal gyrus. Therefore, ASD and SCHI may arise from specific regions within the temporal lobe, while OCD, MDD, and BP may be associated with regions within the frontal lobe.

To address the Reviewer’s point more directly - we carried out additional analyses to investigate the effect of this factor on our main results. One of our aims was to understand how regional gene expression differences (TL/FL) in PVALB neurons are associated with gene dysregulation in the brain of neuropsychiatric disease patients. We have now extended these analyses to a separate dataset, and tested whether the dysregulated genes in neuropsychiatric disease are expressed mainly in TL and FL using single cell data from Brain Allen Atlas (4 patients, each with 6 brain regions profiled). The new results are shown in new Figure S11 b-f (and reported in the next page).

Briefly, we found that the percentage of dysregulated genes in SCHI, BP, OCD, and MDD that are expressed in MTG (SCHI: 75%, BP: 81%, OCD: 68%, MDD: 71%) and CgG (SCHI: 77%, BP: 80%, OCD: 60%, MDD: 77%) is higher compared with those in all other regions included in Brain Allen Atlas dataset. The percentage of ASD dysregulated genes expressed in the 6 regions from Brain Allen Atlas are quite similar. This analysis suggests that, despite the potential impact of heterogeneity of regions, the DEGs in psychiatric conditions are typically expressed at higher level in MTG (TL) and CgG (FL) compared with other regions, therefore highlighting the potential role of these two regions in psychiatric conditions. Therefore, we believe that despite the heterogeneity of regions included in the published RNA-seq studies, the strongest signal of enrichment for DEGs is detected consistently in TL and FL, i.e., in the 2 brain regions where the DEGs are also most highly expressed compared with other regions. These new data, reported in a new Figure S11 of the revised manuscript, provide additional evidence to support our main conclusions.

Due to the difficulties obtaining the human sample of psychiatric disorders causing limited public data resource, we found one study about molecular changes of ASD revealed by single cell RNA seq coming from Velmeshev et al. Science. 2019; 364(6441):685-689 (PMID: 31097668), including 22 ASD samples and 19 control samples. We compared the DEGs (TL/FL) with the DEGs (ASD/Ctrl), and report the results in new Figure S16. Briefly, the results show that except LAMP5, Endo, and L4, ASD-associated dysregulated genes significantly overlap with DEGs between FL and TL in several cell types, especially in VIP and astrocytes. While PVALB is not the most apparent cluster reflecting regional differences contributing to ASD, we found a moderate association (R2 =0.11, P=0.04) between changes in TL/FL and those in ASD/Ctrl brain. These findings suggest that gene expression differences between the 2 regions may contribute to ASD disorder, providing additional evidence to support our main conclusions.

Figure S16. Overlap of genes dysregulated in ASD and genes differentially expressed between TL and FL in each major cell type and neural subtype. Venn diagram plots in a-m showing the number of overlapped genes. Dot plot in each panel shows the relationship between the log2FC(TL/FL) [our study] and log2FC(ASD/Ctrl) [Velmeshev et al. Science. 2019 study]. Significance of the overlap: *0.001-0.01, **0.0001-0.001, ***0.00001-0.0001, ****4.For cell type enrichment of disease signal based on GWAS signal several carefully controlled studies exist using more sophisticated statistical methods (Skene et al., Nature Genetics, 2018, Bryois et al., et al. Nature Genetics 2020, MJ Zhang et al Nature Genetics 2022 to mention a few). I applaud that the authors aim to go beyond this basic characterization but I think it is worrisome that by using less sophisticated (and importantly less controlled) statistical and genetic approaches they reach a different signal -and then they go on and analyze this signal. It is potentially interesting they reach a different conclusion, but they need to provide a careful statistical analysis to explain how the chosen method is superior or at least different to previous efforts.

The Reviewer suggests the use of alternative approaches to link GWAS variants to genes, like MAGMA, LDSC, FUMA to improve the gene mapping from GWAS signals, and are better than the gene mapping based on proximity alone. While these approaches can provide some advantages, most of these methods do require the whole set of SNP GWAS associations, including non-significant associations. While these can be available for single diseases and specific GWAS data (assuming the authors made all data available, and assuming one obtains approval by the consortia managing the GWAS data) these SNPs are not available for several diseases in the NHGRI-EBI GWAS catalog, which provides only SNPs with a max P=10-5. Since in our study we considered GWAS data from 7 neuropsychiatric diseases, we (pragmatically) opted for obtaining data from NHGRI-EBI GWAS catalog rather than seeking GWAS SNP data from individual studies.

We now acknowledge the limitations for the variant to gene mapping (revised Discussion, page 17, line 17), and we also report that several other studies rely on the variant to gene mapping from NHGRI-EBI GWAS catalog for enrichment analyses4-6. There are also studies that investigate the enrichment of mapped genes (from NHGRI-EBI GWAS catalog) in different cell types using the hypergeometric test 7-8, as we do in our study. Perhaps more importantly, in the revised manuscript, we replicated the main GWAS enticement results (e.g., in INH neurons and in PVLAB from the temporal lobe) in the Brain Allen Atlas datasets, which shows that, despite these limitations of variant to gene mapping, our main enrichment results are replicable.

(Other comments)

- only n=3, ~45 000 cells making it hard to generalize

- no supplementary figures for the methods (i.e. preprocessing, cell type annotations), thus hard to judge if done properly if they do not show any data - much higher level of transparency needed

- The methods part is not clear, in general, it is only descriptive, with no equations

- Unconvincing determination of DEGs for each disorder

- DEGs and pathways based on n1=1 vs n2=2 feals handwavy

- DEG analysis and cell type annotation are mixed up and it is unclear how DEGs were determined

While we acknowledge the limitation of sample size in our study, we also emphasize again the challenges in of availability of fresh human sample, which provide more transcriptomic information than postern sample. Despite the small number of individual samples, the large number of cells (~45,000) contributes to the overall quality and depth of the scRNA-seq dataset. Hence, our study provides a foundational perspective on the gene expression between the frontal lobe (FL) and temporal lobe (TL), and valuable data source for further investigations.

With respect to the additional description of the data processing and cell annotation process, in the revised manuscript we now elucidate the cell type annotation process by showing the expression of some known markers in new Figure S2. f, the significance of overlap with major cell type markers derived from known study in new Figure S2. e, the distribution of nUMI, nGenes, percentage of mitochondrial genes after quality control in new __Figure S2. b. __

To strengthen the differential gene expression analysis, we replicated our main findings through SMART RNA-seq from Brain Allen Atlas including the DEGs identified in our study (Figure S9).

More technical details are provided in the revised manuscript, as detailed below:

In the revised Methods section – (1) Differential expression analysis in FL vs TL and pathway enrichment analysis, we added more details about how the DEGs are identified and how this is robust to batch correction. (2) Replication analyses in human Brain Allen Atlas, we provide more details about how we replicated the DEGs using Allen Brain Atlas dataset. (3) Enrichment of neuropsychiatric disease GWAS genes in brain cell clusters, we now added more methodological details about the enrichment analysis.

__ __

Reviewer #3

We thank the Reviewer for his/her overall positive comments. In the revised manuscript we have now included several new analyses requested by this and other reviewers (see list below), which allowed us to replicate and strengthen our main findings. We also add details of the method used in this paper. We believe these new analyses and data helped us to improve reproducibility and strengthen the main findings presented in our manuscript.

New analyses/data added:

1. *Effect of batch due to different lanes - comparison of DEGs (TL/FL) obtained when samples in different lanes are tested individually (new Figure S15). *
2. Effect of batch correction on our results - comparison of the DEGs (TL/FL) obtained with and without batch removal (new Figure S15).
3. Sensitivity of our enrichment results for GWAS significance – we performed the enrichment of GWAS genes using different GWAS thresholds, 10-6, 10-7, 5x10-8 (new Figure S14).
4. Expression analysis of GRIN2A and SLC12A5 in Allen Brain Atlas data and qPCR results of GRIN2A and SLC12A5 in patients with frontal and temporal lobe traumatic injury (new Figure S12, Table S3).
5. Comparison of the DEGs (TL/FL) with DEGs (autism/Ctrl) obtained from single cell RNA seq (new Figure S16, Table S7).
6. Comparison of the results using the GWAS genes derived from Trubetskoy et al. with our gene lists (new Figure S17).
7. Description of the data quality (Figure S2) 1.The authors integrated the brain snRNA-seq data with GWAS data to annotate the cell type specific expression, which is one of the key points for this analysis, however a more detailed description of the method is lacking.

We have made changes to the text to improve and clarify this aspect. In the revised Methods section, we now specify: “To calculate the enrichment of genetic risk associated with psychiatric disorders, we used a hypergeometric test for the overlap between cell type specific genes (DEGs between one cell with other cell types, log2FC>0.5, adjusted.P __2.The authors found a set of genes which is associated with psychiatric disorders and specific cell types, for example inhibitory neurons are the most vulnerable cell type to genetic susceptibility through their analysis. The correlation of each cell type and each psychiatric disorders can be discussed.*__

We thank the Reviewer for this suggestion; we have now added more details discussing the relationship between other cell types with psychiatric disorders other than PVALB-neuron in this part – see Discussion in the revised manuscript, where we added: “Astrocyte, OPC are also associated with psychiatric disorders, and play essential roles in maintaining brain homeostasis, regulating synaptic transmission, and supporting neuronal function. Astrocytes also contribute to maintaining the integrity of the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and interact closely with neurons. Disruptions in this communication impact neural circuitry, which is relevant to many psychiatric disorders. OPCs generate oligodendrocytes, producing myelin crucial for signal conduction and brain structural integrity, which potentially impacts brain connectivity and communication between brain regions. Among neuronal subtypes, our data suggest that disruption of specific biological process in PVALB, SST and L5 neurons may contribute to neuropsychiatric disorders. PVALB cells are believed to activate pyramidal neurons only if the signal from excitatory neurons is sufficient and optimize the signaling in both EX and INH72. SST neurons gate excitatory input onto pyramidal neurons within cortical microcircuits, mainly coming from L5 layer of excitatory neuron which is involve in motor control, decision-making, and information transfer between the cortex and subcortical structures73. These signaling processes, when dysregulated, have been implicated in psychiatric diseases74. The relationship between psychiatric disorders and other layers of the cerebral cortex is still under investigation. *L2-3 neurons handle local processing, relevant to conditions like schizophrenia and autism. L6 neurons in thalamocortical circuits are crucial for sensory processing and information relay, involving sensory perception abnormalities.” *

3.The authors have found a group of interesting genes, such as GRIN2A, DGKI, and SHISA9 and confirmed them with the Allen Brain Atlases. Experimental validation would be helpful to confirm such findings.

In our manuscript, we emphasized that GRIN2A and SLC12A5 (both implicated in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder) were significantly upregulated in TL PVALB neurons and in psychiatric disease patients’ brain. To address this point, first, we check the expression of the 2 genes using the data from Allen Brain Atlas data, which showed significantly high expression in TL (new Figure S12. b). By means of new qPCR analysis in primary TL/FL samples, we found the mRNA expression levels of GRIN2A and SLC2A5 in patients with traumatic brain injury in the temporal lobe region were higher than those in patients with frontal lobe injury (new Figure S12. c).

Figure S12. b. Expression level of GRIN2A and SLC12A5 in 2 regions using Brain Allen Atlas. ***P-value-ΔΔCt method. Significance was determined through T-test (two-tailed). qPCR for each TL or FL sample was repeated 3 times.

Lastly, we want to highlight that since we believe in “Data Democratization” and sharing our data resources, upon publication, we will make all our data (including the single cell in “fresh” (surgically resected) brain tissue samples) and corresponding detailed results available to the scientific community.

We believe our study (which is focused on psychiatric diseases) will prompt other groups to use our single cell data and to dig deep into the role of temporal and frontal lobes in other neurogenerative diseases.

__ __

References

1. Squair, J.W., Gautier, M., Kathe, C. et al. Confronting false discoveries in single-cell differential expression. Nat Commun 12, 5692 (2021).
2. Wang, T., Li, B., Nelson, C.E. et al. Comparative analysis of differential gene expression analysis tools for single-cell RNA sequencing data. BMC Bioinformatics 20, 40 (2019).
3. Bhattacherjee A, Djekidel MN, Chen R, Chen W, Tuesta LM, Zhang Y. Cell type-specific transcriptional programs in mouse prefrontal cortex during adolescence and addiction. Nat Commun. 2019 Sep 13;10(1):4169.
4. Grubman A, Chew G, Ouyang JF, Sun G, Choo XY, McLean C, Simmons RK, Buckberry S, Vargas-Landin DB, Poppe D, Pflueger J, Lister R, Rackham OJL, Petretto E, Polo JM. A single-cell atlas of entorhinal cortex from individuals with Alzheimer's disease reveals cell-type-specific gene expression regulation. Nat Neurosci. 2019 Dec;22(12):2087-2097
5. Przytycki, P.F., Pollard, K.S. CellWalker integrates single-cell and bulk data to resolve regulatory elements across cell types in complex tissues. Genome Biol 22, 61 (2021).
6. Swindell, William R., et al. "RNA-Seq analysis of IL-1B and IL-36 responses in epidermal keratinocytes identifies a shared MyD88-dependent gene signature." Frontiers in immunology 9 (2018): 80.
7. Geirsdottir, Laufey, Eyal David, Hadas Keren-Shaul, Assaf Weiner, Stefan Cornelius Bohlen, Jana Neuber, Adam Balic et al. "Cross-species single-cell analysis reveals divergence of the primate microglia program." Cell 179, no. 7 (2019): 1609-1622.
8. Schoenbaum G, Setlow B. Integrating orbitofrontal cortex into prefrontal theory: common processing themes across species and subdivisions[J]. Learning & Memory, 2001, 8(3): 134-147.
9. Golkar A, Lonsdorf T B, Olsson A, et al. Distinct contributions of the dorsolateral prefrontal and orbitofrontal cortex during emotion regulation[J]. PloS one, 2012, 7(11): e48107

Author Response

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

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Weaknesses: One minor weakness in this study is the conclusion that the guide RNAs didn't seem to have unique effects on GnRH cFos expression or the reproductive phenotypes. Though the data indicate a 60-70% knockdown for both gRNA2 and gRNA3, 3 of the 4 gRNA2 mice had no cFos expression in GnRH neurons during the time of the LH surge, whereas all mice receiving gRNA3 had at least some cFos/GnRH co-expression. In addition, when mice were re-categorized based on reduction (>75%) in kisspeptin expression, most of the mice in the unilateral or bilateral groups received gRNA2, whereas many of the mice that received gRNA3 were in the "normal" group with no disruption in kisspeptin expression. Thus, additional experiments with increased sample sizes are needed, even if the efficacy of the ESR1 knockdown was comparable before concluding these 2 gRNAs don't result in unique reproductive effects.

Response: A draw back of the CRISPR approach is the substantial mosaicism in gene knockdown that is unavoidable due to the nature of DNA repair in each cell relying on several competing pathways. As such, variable knockdown occurs in each mouse as shown in Fig.1C. In the case of the correlation between RP3V ESR1 knockdown and cFos in GnRH neurons (Fig.4C), three gRNA3 and four 4 gRNA2 mice look to be very similar with two gRNA3 mice having knockdown but normal cFos activation. The reasons for this are not known and it is very likely chance that these two (of nine) mice happened to have received gRNA3. This issue becomes exacerbated when animal group numbers unintentionally become smaller with the re-grouping on the basis of kisspeptin expression. The key point here is that each “kisspeptin grouping” remains mixed in terms of gRNA2 and gRNA3 mice so that gRNA3 mice did contribute to the “bilateral group” even if it was only one of four mice. The practicalities of repeating this work are substantial and we do not think justified. We would note that we have previously used Kiss-Cre mice to undertake CRISPR knockdown of ESR1 in RP3V kisspeptin neurons but this failed to target sufficient cells with Cas9 to be experimentally useful.

In Figure 2B (gRNA2), there appear to be 4 mice (4 lines) that have a normal cycle length and then drop to 0 for the cycle length. However, in the Figure legend, it states that there were 3 gRNA2 mice that had a cycle length of 0. Can the authors clarify if it was 4 mice (as indicated in Figure 2B) or 3 mice (as indicated in the legend) that received gRNA2 and exhibited constant estrus?

Response: We have now clarified in the text that 3 gRNA2 mice went into constant estrus, the other mouse was in constant diestrus, also scored as “0” cycles.

In Figure 3H, there is one green data point that has an LH level of around 0.15 and % VGAT with ESR1 around 10%. However, that data point does not appear in Figures 3I and 3J, when you would expect it to be in a similar place (~10%) on the x-axis in those Figures. Was it excluded? If so, please elaborate on the justification for excluding that data point. Response: This was one of the three mice that exhibited no LH pulses so we were only able to report on mean LH levels.

Similarly, in Figure 3K, there is a blue data point that is almost at 0 for both the x-axis and the y-axis. However, that data point does not show up in Figures 3L and 3M around 0 on the x-axis as you would expect. Can the authors clarify where this data point went in Figures 3L and 3M?

Response: This was one of the three mice that exhibited no LH pulses so we were only able to report on mean LH levels.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Finally, the study leaves unanswered the role of GABA itself. As there was no evident phenotype for the ESR1 knockdown in GABA neurons that do not coexpress kisspeptin, this suggests that GABA neurotransmission in the preoptic area is not involved in the estrogen regulation of LH secretion.

Response: The current evidence for no substantial role of GABA from RP3V neurons in the LH surge agrees with our prior in vivo work showing that low frequency optogenetic stimulation of RP3V kisspeptin neurons (only GABA release) has no impact on LH secretion (doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0658-18.2018).

1. Title. The present data do not clearly demonstrate the blockade of the LH surge. Thus, the statement that "abolishes the preovulatory surge" is an overinterpretation of the findings.

Response: We agree and now use “suppresses the preovulatory surge”.

1. Fig. 3. The numbers of individual data points per group change for the different LH pulse parameters, but they should not (Fig. 3 E-G).

Response: This occurs because one mouse in each group had no LH pulses so that only a mean value was available for these mice.

1. Fig. 4. (4B) The use of only one terminal blood collection (4B) is insufficient to comprehensively characterize the LH surge. It is not possible to conclude what was the actual effect on the LH surge, whether a blockade or altered amplitude or timing. Serial blood samples at 30- or 60-minute intervals should be used. For comparative purposes, the pulsatile LH secretion, which does not seem to be a major outcome in the study, was fully characterized (Fig. 3). (4C) The linear correlation between c-Fos/GnRH and RP3V/ESR1 appears to be well-fitted for gRNA2 (blue) but not gRNA3 (green). Although this is interpreted as an important result of the study, its description and consistency are not so clear. Authors should perform an Anova/ Kruskal-Wallis analysis of these data as a column graph (as in Fig. 4A, B) and discuss the discrepancies between gRNA2 and gRNA3.

Response: As noted in the manuscript, we agree that a single point LH measurement is a relatively inaccurate assessment of the LH surge and very likely underlies much of the substantial variability between mice. However, the extended duration of cFos expression in GnRH neurons at the time of the surge is a much more accurate “single point” indicator and we feel that these results better reflect the state of surge activation. This was noted in the original manuscript.

The linear correlations for the different preoptic regions are undertaken on the complete data set not on individual gRNA groups due to low N numbers in the sub-divided groups. However, column graphs of the RP3V and MPN look the same as Fig.4A and would not change the current interpretation. Please see comments to Reviewer 1 on discrepancies between gRNA2 and 3.

1. Table. It is unclear why the % VGAT with ESR1 was not statistically reduced in the "bilateral" animals. Would this mean that the ESR1 knockdown was not effective in this subgroup with the more consistent effects?

Response: Yes, this would be a reasonable interpretation suggesting that mice with kisspeptin ablation may have had a slightly different overall impact on ESR1 in VGAT neurons. However, this was not discernable from examining the anatomical distribution of AAV.

1. Discussion 1st paragraph. It is interpreted that mice lacking kisspeptin expression "failed to exhibit an LH surge". This should be revised.

Response: We believe that this is a correct statement. Mice lacking kisspeptin had LH surge values between 0.8 and 2.1 ng/ml that we would not consider consistent with being a surge.

1. Immunohistochemistry. It is not clear in the text how a cross-reaction between goat antirabbit 568 (ERa) and goat antirabbit/streptavidin 647 (mChery) was avoided when used in the same reaction.

Response: We were forced into this option due to the lack of different primary antisera to ESR1 and mCherry. We first stained for rabbit ESR1 detected by biotin anti-rabbit/ strep647 which resulted in confined nuclear staining (pseudo-blue; far red). The subsequent staining for rabbit mCherry was detected by goat anti-rabbit 568 that will indeed cross-react by binding to any free epitopes on the rabbit ESR1 primary antibody. However, this would not compromise interpretation as additional 568 labelling to the nucleus is essentially irrelevant when examining far red 647 nm emission and only mCherry cytoplasmic immunoreactivity was used to define the anatomical locations of the AAV spread. This is now clearly explained in the Methods section.

1. Statistical analysis. It is unclear when repeated measures Wilcoxon tests were used in the manuscript.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. Only Wilcoxon paired test were used. Amended.

1. Data Availability. Further reference to supplementary information files was not found in the manuscript.

Response: A supplementary file with individual data for each mouse is now attached.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Weaknesses:

One aspect for which I have ambiguous feelings is the minimal level of detail regarding the HPG axis and its regulation by estrogens. This limited amount of detail allows for an easy read with the well-articulated introduction quickly presenting the framework of the study. Although not presenting the axis itself nor mentioning the position of GnRH neurons in this axis or its lack of ERα expression is not detrimental to the understanding of the study, presenting at least the position of GnRH neurons in the axis and their critical role for fertility would likely broaden the impact of this work beyond a rather specialist audience.

Response: We agree that this would provide a more complete picture and have modified the Introduction.

The expression of kisspeptin constitutes a key element for the analysis and conclusion of the present work. However, the quality of the kisspeptin immunostaining seems suboptimal based on the representative images. The staining primarily consists of light punctuated structures and it is very difficult to delineate cytoplasmic immunoreactive material defining the shape of neurons in LacZ animals. For some of the cells marked by an arrow, it is also sometimes difficult to determine whether the staining for ESR1 and Kp are in the same focal plane and thus belong to the same neurons. Although this co-expression is not critical for the conclusions of the study, this begs the question of whether Kp expression was determined directly at the microscope (where the focal plan can be adjusted) or on the picture (without possible focal adjustment). Moreover, in the representative image of Kp loss, several nuclei stained for fos (black) show superimposed brown staining looking like a dense nucleus (but smaller than an actual nucleus). This suggests some sort of condensed accumulation of Kp immunoproduct in the nucleus which is not commented. Given the critical importance of this reported change in Kp expression for the interpretation of the present results, it is important to provide strong evidence of the quality/nature of this staining and its analysis which may help interpret the observed functional phenotype.

Response: The kisspeptin immunoreactivity represents both fiber and cytoplasmic staining that can be difficult to discern in some cases. The reviewer can be assured that all counts were undertaken “live” on the microscope so that the plane of focus was adjusted to establish co-labelling. Please note that the nuclear immunoreactivity is for ESR1 and not cFos. Regardless, we struggle to see condensed brown staining over the black nuclei as suggested by the Reviewer. The kisspeptin staining is light brown and confined to just a few fibers in Fig.5B.

As acknowledged in the introduction, this study is not the first to use in vivo Crisp-Cas editing to demonstrate the role of kisspeptin neurons in the control of positive feedback. Although the present work achieved this indirectly by targeting VGAT neurons, I was surprised that the paper did not include more comparison of their results with those of Wang et al., 2019. In particular, why was the present approach more successful in achieving both lack of surge and complete acyclicity?

Response: Wang et al., reported an ~60% reduction in ESR1 expression in Kiss1-Cre (Elias) driven Cas9-expressing cells in the AVPV. As they did not examine kisspeptin expression itself it is unknown to what degree their editing impacted upon kisspeptin neurons. The other differentiating factor was that Wang focussed on the AVPV that only contains a minority of the preoptic kisspeptin population whereas we targeted the AVPV and PeN together. Thus, we suspect that the Wang phenotype arises from insufficient ESR1 knockdown in just the AVPV sub-population of preoptic kisspeptin neurons. We have added a comment to the Discussion as requested.

Moreover, why is it that targeting ESR1 in a selected fraction of GABAergic neurons can lead to a near-complete absence of Kp expression in this region? This is briefly discussed in the penultimate paragraph but mostly focuses on the non-kisspeptinergic GABA neurons rather than those co-expressing the two markers.

Response: We have modified this section to try and make it clear that it is very likely that all RP3V kisspeptin neurons would have been targeted to express Cas9 in this mouse model. Our very recent unpublished RNA scope data show that >80% of RP3V kisspeptin neurons express Vgat mRNA in adult mice.

• Unless I have missed it, the target sequence of the guide RNAs is not mentioned. For reproducibility purposes and to allow comparison with Wang et al., 2019, this information should be provided.

Response: The target sequences for gRNA2 and gRNA3 were around exon 3 and are provided in the Supplementary files of McQuillan et al., 2022 (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-35243-z). The Wang et al study used the unusual strategy of designing sense and antisense gRNAs against the same sequence in Exon1.

• The first result section is devoted to the design and validation of the guide RNA reports data that were recently published (McQuillan et al., 2022). It is actually acknowledged that the design was reported previously but as written it is not clear whether the actual validation was already reported. This should be said more clearly.

Response: Clarified as requested.

• What was the rationale for choosing gRNA 2 and 3 and not 3 and 6 like in the McQuillan study?

Response: As all three gRNAs worked equally well, the choice of 2 and 3 was entirely pragmatic and only based upon quantities of packaged AAVs that we had produced and were available at the time.

• Introduction, 4th paragraph: It would be clearer if GABAa receptor dynamics was replaced by GABAa receptors mediated neurotransmission or any other verbiage avoiding possible confusion with receptor mobility.

Response: Clarified as requested.

• The section reporting the location of ESR1 knockdown is really clear about the number of animals included in the functional analyses. This is less clear for the number of mice involved in the evaluation of the extent of ESR1 knockdown in the previous section. Specifically, the text reports that 8 and 9 mice received gRNA3 in PVpo and MPN respectively, but the figure shows 7 and 8. This is likely explained by the mouse that was excluded due to normal ESR1 despite the correct positioning of the injection site. It is thus unclear whether this mouse was included in the calculation of the mean percentage of neurons reported in the previous page. Logically, this mouse should have been removed from this analysis and it is assumed that the sample size reported in the text is incorrect.

Response: thank you for picking this up - you are correct. In reviewing this point we realized that the gRNA-lacZ RP3V N numbers also were incorrect and have re-analyzed the data set completely resulting in even stronger significance levels.

• In the section « CRISPR knockdown ESR1 in RP3V GABA-kisspeptin neurons », the extent of ESR1 knockdown is expressed in a counterintuitive manner as « <20% » which is thought to represent the percentage of cells expressing ESR1 rather than the actual knockdown (>80%). This should be clarified.

Response: Corrected as noted.

• Page 6, 3rd line before the last paragraph, there is a mismatch between the highest p value reported in the text (0.242) and the value reported in the table (0.0242).

Response: Corrected thank you.

• Similar to presenting F values for ANOVAs, H values should also be presented for Kruskal Wallis tests.

Response: Values have been added.

• Immunohistochemistry : Origin and reference numbers of all primary antibodies should be reported as well as citation of studies where they have been validated. Although these protocols are standard, information regarding the duration of incubation is necessary to allow replication or for comparison purposes.

Response: We have included the RRID numbers for each of these antisera and added information on incubation times.

• The section on data availability mentions the existence of supplementary files, but I see none.

Response: These have now been attached.

• There are several typos or redundancies to be corrected. Here are a few examples but the manuscript should be carefully double-checked.

Introduction, 3rd paragraph, line 4: upregulated

Introduction, 4th paragraph, 4th line: « to » or « through » not both.

Page 7, line 11 : Kruskal

Page 7, 6th line to the end: does this indicate 'the' general utility?

Page 8, 2nd paragraph, line 13: Crispr

Response: Thank you for these edits.

When I thought of tech before this class, I kind of had no idea the implications of ethical issues in modern technology, and the responsibility that companies and the tech workers within them held. Now that there may be a possibility of ending up in a position of influence in tech, I feel like education/classes like these are essential for everyone to improve our overal online experience and safety.

This is a great quote and reminder that we all started somewhere much different than where we are today. I think of the many people throughout my life that have help mold me into the person I am today. It's also a reminder for me to be this person for my TC and the many students that we have year after year.

Author Response

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

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the Authors):

The authors provide their data and code via Github, and that shiny apps allow easy access to their data. However, spending a few minutes with the snRNAseq app I could not figure out how to search for individual genes (e.g. DBH) on their web interface. Some changes could help to make this app more user-friendly.

While it was not possible to easily modify the user interface of the snRNA-seq app itself, we have instead added two additional supplementary figures displaying screenshots and schematics with sequential instructions that provide a short tutorial showing how to search for individual genes and display either spatial gene expression (for the Visium SRT data) or gene expression by cluster or population (for the snRNA-seq data) in each interactive web app (Figure 3-figure supplement 20-21). We hope this makes the apps more accessible and assists users to more easily query specific genes that they are interested in.

The first sentence of the abstract and line 70 on page 2 need to be revised for language / grammar / clarity.

We have revised these two sentences. Line 70 on page 2 contained a typo / copy-paste error. Thank you for pointing this out.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

While the efforts of the authors to identify NE neurons in the LC is appreciated, the data fall a little short of conclusively calling these neurons solely noradrenergic as there is an apparent lack of overlap between TH and SLC6A2 in the spots. Undoubtedly, some spots contain both which is consistent with the RNA scope results, but there is clearly a pattern that shows spots that don't contain both. It would be worth testing the presence of other catecholamines in some of these certain spots particularly dopamine (Kempadoo et al. 2016, Takeuchi et al., 2016, Devoto et al. 2005).

We agree this is an important point. To more rigorously investigate whether TH is co-expressed within cells that produce other catecholamines, particularly dopamine (DA) in addition to norepinephrine (NE), we have included additional analyses of the snRNA-seq and Visium data, as well as generated additional RNAscope data in the revised manuscript, as follows.

(i) We investigated the spatial expression of DA neuron marker genes besides TH, including SLC6A3 (encoding the dopamine transporter), ALDH1A1, and SLC26A7 in the Visium samples (Figure 3-figure supplement 15), which shows that these genes are not strongly expressed within the manually annotated LC regions in the Visium samples (see Figure 2-figure supplement 1).

(ii) We investigated expression of DA neuron marker genes SLC6A3, ALDH1A1, and SLC26A7 in the snRNA-seq clustering (updated heatmap in Figure 3-figure supplement 8), which shows minimal expression of these genes within the NE neuron cluster (cluster 6).

(iii) Despite the data above suggesting little expression of markers for DA neurons within the human LC, we wanted to investigate this question more thoroughly with an orthogonal method given that relatively lower coverage in the sequencing approaches may miss expression, particularly for more lowly expressed transcripts. We generated new high-resolution RNAscope smFISH images at 40x magnification for samples from 3 additional donors (Br8689, Br5529, and Br5426) showing expression of NE neuron marker genes (DBH and TH), a 5-HT neuron marker gene (TPH2), and a DA neuron marker gene (SLC6A3) within individual cells within the LC regions in these samples. Expression of SLC6A3 within individual NE neurons (identified by co-expression of DBH and TH) was not apparent in these RNAscope images (Figure 3-figure supplement 16).

Together with the previous high-magnification RNAscope images showing co-expression of NE neuron marker genes (DBH, TH, and SLC6A2) within individual NE neurons (Figure 3-figure supplement 4), these new results further strengthen the conclusion that the observed TH+ cells we profiled in the LC are NE-producing neurons. In our view, the lack of observed co-expression of TH and SLC6A2 within some individual Visium spots is likely due to sampling variability and relatively lower sequencing coverage in the Visium data, rather than a true lack of co-expression. We have included additional text in the Results and Discussion further discussing this issue.

Likewise, given the low throughput of RNA scope, and the fact that it was not done in a systematic manner, it does not conclusively identify the cell types in the region. It might be worth a systematic survey of the cells in the region with both NE and DA markers. Otherwise, it is suggested that the authors be more conservative with their annotations.

As discussed above, we have now generated additional high-magnification RNAscope images for 3 independent donors (Br8689, Br5529, and Br5426), visualizing expression of two NE neuron marker genes (DBH and TH), one 5-HT neuron marker gene (TPH2), and one DA neuron marker gene (SLC6A3, encoding the dopamine transporter) within individual cells within the LC region in each sample (Figure 3-figure supplement 16). Expression of the DA neuron marker gene (SLC6A3) within individual NE neuron cell bodies (identified by co-expression of DBH and TH) was not apparent in these RNAscope images. Together with our previous RNAscope images showing co-expression of DBH, TH, and SLC6A2 within individual cells (Figure 3-figure supplement 4), in our view, these results provide strong evidence that the observed TH+ cells in the LC are NE-producing neurons, and the data do not provide supporting evidence for the existence of DA-synthesizing neurons in the human LC.

For the manual annotation, it would be useful to include HE tissue images to better understand how the annotations were derived especially because the annotations are not well corroborated by the clustering.

We have now included the H&E stained histology images for the Visium samples in Figure 2-figure supplement 2A, which can be compared with the previous figures showing the manual annotations for the LC regions (Figure 2-figure supplement 1). The histology images can also be viewed at higher resolution through the Shiny web app (https://libd.shinyapps.io/locus-c_Visium/).

The unsupervised clustering is certainly contingent on the number of genes detected, which is in turn dependent on the quality of the material and the success of the experiment. It is unclear from the methods whether the samples were pooled for clustering. If they were pooled, the author might consider using only the samples with UMIs > 500. The low UMI may represent free-floating RNA, suggesting issues with tissue permeabilization in turn influencing the ability to confidently associate genes with spots. Sticking with the higher quality sample may improve the ability to perform unsupervised clustering.

For the spot-level unsupervised clustering using BayesSpace, our aim was to demonstrate whether it is feasible to segment the LC and non-LC regions in the Visium samples in a data-driven manner using a spatial clustering algorithm, instead of relying on manual annotations. We performed clustering across samples (i.e. pooled) -- we have included additional wording in the text and figure caption to clarify this. We agree with the reviewer there may be further optimizations possible, such as filtering out spots or samples with low UMI counts. However, filtering out low-UMI spots may also confound the clustering if low-UMI spots are associated with biological signal (e.g. preferentially located in white matter regions).

Overall, we found that applying data-driven methods such as BayesSpace to segment the LC and non-LC regions did not perform sufficiently to rely on for our downstream analyses (Figure 2-figure supplement 6), and, in our view, further incremental optimizations were unlikely to reach sufficient performance and robustness, so we chose to rely on the manual annotations instead. In addition, as noted in the Results, this avoids potentially inflated false discoveries due to issues of circularity when performing differential gene expression testing between regions defined by unsupervised clustering on the same sets of genes (Gao et al. 2022). We included the BayesSpace results (Figure 2-figure supplement 6) to provide information and ideas to method developers interested in using this dataset as a test case for further development of spatial clustering algorithms. However, further adapting or optimizing these spatial clustering algorithms ourselves was not within the scope of our current work.

It is not entirely clear why the authors used FANS, especially with the scored tissue. Do the authors think this could have negatively influenced the capture of the desired cell type since FANS can compromise the integrity of the nuclei? In other words, have the authors considered that this may have resulted in a loss rather than enrichment? The proportion of "NE" neurons in the snRNA-Seq data is less than 2% in all cases and at its lowest in sample 6522 which does not correspond well with the proportion of tissue that was manually annotated as containing NE cells, even when taken into consideration the potential size difference of cells. In the same vein, in some samples, there are more "5-HT" neurons in the region than "NE" according to the numbers.

As noted in our initial response to reviewers (“Response to Public Review Comments”), we used FANS to enrich for neurons based on our previous success with this approach to identify relatively rare neuronal populations in other brain regions (e.g. nucleus accumbens and amygdala; Tran and Maynard et al. 2021). Based on this previous work, our rationale was that without neuronal enrichment, we could potentially miss the LC-NE population, given the relative scarcity and low absolute number of this neuronal population (e.g. estimates of ~50K total in the entire human LC).

We do not have a definitive answer to the question of whether our use of FANS to enrich for neurons may have led to damage and contributed to the low recovery rate of LC-NE neurons (as well as the relatively increased levels of mitochondrial contamination compared to other brain regions / preparations in the human brain in our hands). Due to our limited tissue resources for this study, we did not have sufficient tissue to perform a direct comparison with non-sorted data. However, we agree with the reviewer that this is plausible, and warrants further investigation in future work. In particular, the relatively large size and fragility of LC-NE neurons, as well as our use of a standard cell straining approach (70 µm, which may not be ideal for this population), may also be contributing factors.

Systematically optimizing the preparation to attempt to increase recovery rate (and decrease mitochondrial contamination) are important avenues for future work, and we have decided to share our data and experiences now to assist other groups performing related work. We have included additional wording in the Discussion to further highlight these issues.

The majority of the snRNA-seq remained unannotated "ambiguous" neurons. It would be highly advantageous to include an annotation for these numerous cells.

These nuclei were unidentifiable due to ambiguous marker gene expression profiles, i.e. expression of pan-neuronal marker genes without clear expression of either excitatory or inhibitory neuronal marker genes (see Figure 3A and Figure 3-figure supplement 8). Since we were not able to clearly identify these clusters, and due to our additional concerns regarding the data quality (e.g. low recovery rate of the NE neuron population of interest, potential cell damage, and mitochondrial contamination), we decided to label these neuronal clusters as “ambiguous” instead of assigning low-confidence cluster labels. We have included additional wording in the Results section to explain this issue.

The most likely explanation for identifying serotonergic neurons in these samples is the inclusion of the Raphe Nucleus within the dissection, especially since these cells do not map to the LC per se. As such, is there a way to neuroanatomically define the potential inclusion of this region from these tissue blocks used? Or to the contrary, definitively demonstrate the exclusion of the Raphe?

As noted in our initial response to reviewers (“Response to Public Review Comments”), our dissection strategy in this initial study precluded the ability to keep track of the exact orientation of the tissue sections on the Visium arrays with respect to their location within the brainstem. Therefore, it is not possible to definitively answer the question of whether the dissections included the raphe nucleus, and if so, which portion of it, based on neuroanatomy from the tissue blocks.

However, during the course of this study and in parallel, ongoing work for other small, challenging brain regions, we developed a number of specialized technical and logistical strategies for keeping track of orientation and mounting serial sections from the same tissue block onto a single spatial array, which is extremely technically challenging. We are now well-prepared for addressing these issues in future studies, e.g. keeping track of the orientation of the dissections and potential inclusion of adjacent neuroanatomical structures. We have included additional details on this issue in the Discussion.

Given that one sample (Visium capture area) was excluded as it did not seem to contain a representation of the LC for the profiling of "NE" cells, does it make sense to include this sample in the analysis of 5HT cells given the authors are trying to make claims about the cell composition in and around the LC? Since there appears to be little 5HT contribution from this sample and its inclusion results in inconsistency across experiments and not any notable advantages, the authors might want to reconsider its inclusion in the results.

We identified a cluster of 5-HT neurons in the snRNA-seq data (Figure 3) and used the Visium samples to further investigate the spatial distribution of this population (Figure 3-figure supplement 9). For the enrichment analyses in the Visium data (Figure 3-figure supplement 9C), we used only the 8 Visium samples that passed quality control (QC). We included the 9th sample (which did not pass QC) in the spot plot visualizations (Figure 3-figure supplement 9A-B) for completeness, but did not base our main conclusions on this sample (in this sample, the tissue resource was likely depleted during earlier sections, so the section for the Visium sample was taken slightly past the extent of the LC within this tissue block). We have included additional wording in the Results section and figure captions to clarify this issue.

For the RNAscope images, it would be useful to include (draw) the manual annotation of the LC to facilitate interpretation. This is especially useful for demonstrating the separate populations of 5HT and "NE" cells. In general, it would be useful to keep a hashed line perimeter for all sections processed by Visium.

We have now added a dashed outline indicating the manually annotated LC region in the RNAscope image showing the full tissue section (Figure 3-figure supplement 11). The high-magnification RNAscope images (Figure 3-figure supplement 4, 16, and 17) show regions entirely within the LC regions -- we have included additional wording to note this in the figure captions. For the Visium spot

plots, we either labeled spots within the annotated regions within the figures or included additional wording in the figure captions to refer to the figures showing the annotations (Figure 2-figure supplement 1).

The authors state that they successfully mapped the NE neuron population from snRNA-seq to the manually annotated regions on the Visium slides. Based on the color-coded map, these results are not very convincing since the abundance of the given transcript profile is extremely low. Here again, it would help to draw a hashed line perimeter on the slide to denote the manually annotated region. Perhaps the authors could try a different strategy for mapping snRNA signal to the slide? However, it appears that the mapping worked better for the capture areas with higher UMI/genes counts. Perhaps the authors should consider using only the slides with high gene/UMI counts.

We agree that the performance of these analyses (Figure 3-figure supplement 14) was not clearly described in the previous version of the manuscript. We have rewritten the corresponding paragraph in the Results section to make it more clear that the mapping (spot-level deconvolution) performance was relatively poor overall, and that we did not use these results for further downstream analyses. We did however want to include these results from the cell2location algorithm to provide information and data for method developers on the challenges of these types of analyses in our dataset (e.g. due to the presence of rare populations, relatively subtle differences in expression profiles between neuronal subpopulations, and potential issues due to large nuclei size and high transcriptional activity for NE neurons). While further approaches for these types of analyses exist, and additional optimizations such as subsetting samples or spots with high UMI counts could also be investigated, in our view, these further optimizations lie outside the scope of our current work. We have also added wording in the figure caption to refer to Figure 2-figure supplement 1, which displays the corresponding annotated LC regions per sample.

It is hard to see if the RNA scope image Supplementary Figure 11 shows co-localization of SLC6A2, TH, and DBH. Having the individual image from each microscope filter along with the merged image is required to properly assess the colocalization of the signals.

We updated the multi-channel RNAscope images to show both the merged channels and individual channels in separate panels (Figure 3-figure supplement 4, 16, and 17), which makes the visualization more clear. Thank you for this suggestion. (Note that the previous Supplementary Figure 11 has been re-numbered to Figure 3-figure supplement 4.)

The heatmap showing the level of marker transcripts shows a much lower expression of specific markers, TH, DBH, SLC6A2 in NE vs other clusters looks surprisingly low (particularly TH), while the much broader marker SLC18A2 (monoamine transporter) is considerably more differential. What do the authors make of this finding?

This is correct. In the snRNA-seq data, we observed that SLC18A2 is one of the most highly differentially expressed (DE) genes in the NE neuron cluster vs. other neuronal clusters, with a high level of expression in the NE neuron cluster (Figure 3C). Note that this heatmap shows the top 70 DE genes (excluding mitochondrial genes) out of the full list of 327 statistically significant DE genes with elevated expression in the NE neuron cluster (the full list of 327 genes is provided in Supplementary File 2C). While all four of these genes (DBH, TH, SLC6A2, and SLC18A2) are identified as statistically significant DE genes, SLC18A2 is the most highly DE out of these and has an especially high level of expression in the NE neuron cluster, as noted by the reviewer (Figure 3C). This could be due to the fact that SLC18A2 transcripts are expressed at higher absolute levels in these neurons than the transcripts that are more specific to LC-NE neurons. While it is true that SLC18A2 is a “broader” marker in the sense that it is found in more cell types -- e.g. cell types within brain nuclei that contain monoaminergic as well as brain nuclei that contain catecholaminergic cells -- expression of SLC18A2 within the LC is highly specific to the catecholaminergic LC-NE neurons given its specialized functional role within monoamine and catecholamine neurons in packaging amine neurotransmitters into synaptic vesicles. We note that SLC18A2 plays a specialized role that is critical to the core function of LC-NE neurons, and hence we are not particularly surprised with this finding and think that one possibility is that this differential expression appears more robustly due to higher absolute levels of the marker.

While it is understandable that the authors decided to include cells/nuclei with high mitochondrial reads, further work is needed to ensure these cells are of sufficient quality to use in an unbiased way knowing that a high percentage of mitochondrial reads in nuclei sequencing is usually indicative of low-quality nuclei. This can be assessed by evaluating the quality of the nuclei with GWA, which stains an intact nuclear membrane acting as a measure of the integrity of the nuclei.

To further investigate these results, we added additional analyses evaluating quality control (QC) metrics for the NE neuron cluster in the snRNA-seq data, which had an unusually high proportion of mitochondrial reads (Figure 3-figure supplement 2, shown also below in comments for Reviewer 3) (see also related Figure 3-figure supplement 1, 3, which were included in the manuscript previously). These additional QC analyses do not show any other problematic values for this cluster, other than the high mitochondrial proportion, so we do not believe this is purely a data quality issue. We are aware that this is an unexpected result -- in most cell populations, a high proportion of mitochondrial reads would be indicative of cell damage and poor data quality. However, we have recently also observed high mitochondrial proportions in other relatively rare neuronal populations characterized by large size and high metabolic demand. As discussed below for Reviewer 3, we believe that this is mitochondrial “contamination”, as there should be no mitochondrial reads per se within the nuclear compartment.

However, it may be possible that in cell populations that have abundant levels of mitochondria and high transcript expression of mitochondrial transcripts in the cell body, that the likelihood of ambient RNA capture of mitochondrial transcripts during nuclear preparation may be higher than for other cell types that have lower expression of mitochondrial transcripts. Hence, we believe that our interpretation is likely correct, i.e. that a combination of technical and biological factors contributes to the inclusion of a relatively high amount of mitochondrial RNA within the droplets for these nuclei. We agree with the reviewer that this finding warrants further investigation in future work. However, in our current study, the tissue resource is depleted for any further experimental validation of this question, so we preferred to provide our data to the community in its current form, while transparently noting this unexpected finding in our results. We have included additional text in the Results section describing the new QC analyses shown in Figure 3-figure supplement 2.

Minor comments:

Line 319-321 could be written more clearly to indicate that due to the lack of resolution in a given spot, there are "contaminating reads" that reduce the precision of the cell profile. This reduced precision is likely what results in the "lack of conservation" across species.

We have added additional wording to this sentence to clarify this point.

In the discussion, the authors write that the analyses "unbiasedly identified a number of genes enriched in human LC", however, given the manual annotation of the region for each capture area, this resulted in a biased assessment of the spots.

We have replaced this wording to refer to “untargeted, transcriptome-wide” analyses (i.e. analyses that are not based on a targeted panel of genes) instead of “unbiased”. We agree that the meaning of “unbiased” is ambiguous in this context.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Major points:

Overall, the discovery of some cells in the LC region that express serotonergic markers is intriguing. However, no evidence is presented that these neurons actually produce 5-HT. Perhaps more conservative language would be appropriate (i.e. "cells that possess mRNA signatures of serotonergic neurons" or something like that). Did these cells co-express other markers one would expect in 5-HT neurons like 5-HT autoreceptors and SLC6A18? Also would be useful to compare expression profiles of these putative 5-HT neurons with any published material on bona fide dorsal raphe 5-HT neurons. For the RNAscope confirmation in the supplementary material, it would be helpful to show each marker separately as well as the overlay, and to include representative higher magnification images like were provided for the ACH markers.

Thank you for this comment. In order to further investigate the identity of these cells, we have investigated the expression of several additional genes including SLC6A18, 5-HT autoreceptor genes (HTR1A, HTR1B), marker genes for 5-HT neurons (SLC18A2, FEV), and marker genes for 5-HT neuronal subpopulations within the dorsal and median raphe nuclei from the literature (Ren et al. 2019), in both the Visium and the snRNA-seq data.

We observed some expression of SLC18A2 and FEV within the same areas as SLC6A4 and TPH2 in the Visium samples (Figure 3-figure supplement 10A-B, reproduced below; note that SLC18A2 is also a marker gene for NE neurons located within the LC regions), consistent with Ren et al. (2019). However, we did not observe a strong or consistent expression signal for the 5-HT autoreceptors (HTR1A, HTR1B) (Figure 3-figure supplement 10C-D, reproduced below), and we observed zero expression of SLC6A18 in the Visium samples. In the snRNA-seq data, within the cluster identified as 5-HT neurons, we observed some expression of SLC18A2, low expression of FEV, and almost zero expression of SLC6A18 (Figure 3-figure supplement 8, reproduced below; note that SLC6A18 is not shown since it was removed during filtering for low-expressed genes). Similarly, we observed very low expression of the 5-HT autoreceptors (HTR1A, HTR1B) and the additional marker genes for 5-HT neuronal subpopulations from Ren et al. (2019) -- with the possible exception of the neuropeptide receptor gene HCRTR2, which was identified by Ren et al. (2019) within several clusters in both the dorsal and median raphe in mice (Figure 3-figure supplement 8, reproduced below).

Overall, these additional results give us some further confidence that these are likely 5-HT neurons (due to expression of SLC18A2 and FEV), while also raising further questions (due to the absence of 5-HT autoreceptor genes HTR1A, HTR1B and 5-HT neuronal subpopulation marker genes). While we believe that the most likely explanation is the inclusion of 5-HT neurons from the edges of the adjacent dorsal raphe nuclei in our samples, we acknowledge that the evidence presented is not fully conclusive and does not identify specific subpopulations of 5-HT neurons. In addition, the limited size of our dataset (number of samples and cells) and the lack of information on sample orientation precludes any definitive identification of subpopulations based on their association with specific anatomical regions within the dorsal raphe nuclei. We have updated the manuscript by (i) adjusting our language in the Results and Discussion, (ii) including the additional analyses, supplementary figures, and reference to the literature (Ren et al. 2019) discussed above, and (iii) including additional wording in the Discussion on improvements to the dissection strategy that would allow these questions to be addressed in future studies via a focused molecular profiling of the dorsal raphe nuclei across the rostral-caudal axis.

Regarding the RNAscope images, we have included additional images showing channels side-by-side and higher magnification, as suggested (and also discussed above for Reviewers 1 and 2). In addition, we have added an outline highlighting the LC region in Figure 3-figure supplement 11 (as suggested above by Reviewer 2), and included an additional high-magnification RNAscope image demonstrating co-expression of 5-HT neuron marker genes (TPH2 and SLC6A4) within individual cells (Figure 3-figure supplement 12).

Concerning the snRNA-seq experiments, why were only 3 of the 5 donors used, particularly given the low number of LC-NE nuclear transcriptomes obtained? How were the 3 donors chosen from the 5 total donors and how many 100 um sections were used from each donor? Are the 295 nuclei obtained truly representative of the LC population or are they just the most resilient LC nuclei? How many LC nuclei would be estimated to be captured from staining the 100 um tissue sections?

As discussed in our previous response to reviewers (“Response to Public Review Comments”), the reason we included only 3 of the 5 donors for the snRNA-seq assays was due to tissue availability on the tissue blocks. In this study, we were working with a finite tissue resource. Due to the logistics and thickness of the required tissue sections for Visium (10 μm) and snRNA-seq (100 μm), running Visium first allowed us to ensure that we could collect data from both assays -- if we ran snRNA-seq first and captured no neurons, the tissue block would be depleted. Due to resource depletion, we did not have sufficient available tissue remaining on all tissue blocks to run the snRNA-seq assay for all donors. We have conducted extensive piloting in other brain regions on the amount (mg) of tissue that is needed from various sized cryosections, and the LC is particularly difficult since these are small tissue blocks and the extent of the structure is small. Hence, in some of the subjects, we did not have sufficient tissue available for the snRNA-seq assay.

We have included details on the number of 100 μm sections used for each donor in Methods -- this varied between 10-15 sections per donor, approximating 50-80 mg of tissue per donor.

Regarding the question about the representativeness / resilience of the LC nuclei -- as discussed in our previous response to reviewers (“Response to Public Review Comments”) and above for Reviewer 2, we agree that this is a concern. As discussed above for Reviewer 2, it is plausible that our use of FANS may have contributed to cell damage and the low recovery rate of LC-NE neurons. The relatively large size and fragility of LC-NE neurons, as well as our use of a standard cell straining approach (70 µm, which may not be ideal for this population), may also be contributing factors. Due to our limited tissue resource, we did not have sufficient tissue to perform a direct comparison with non-sorted data.

Systematically optimizing the preparation to attempt to increase recovery rate is an important avenue for future work. We have included additional discussion of this issue in the Discussion.

Regarding the question about the number of expected nuclei, we have now included estimates of the number of cells per spot within the LC regions in the Visium data (see also related point below, and Figure 2-figure supplement 2B reproduced below), based on the H&E stained histology images and use of cell segmentation software (VistoSeg; Tippani et al. 2022). While we do not have any confident estimates of the number of expected nuclei in the snRNA-seq data, these estimates of cell density from the Visium data could, together with information on additional factors such as the accuracy of the tissue scoring and the effectiveness of FANS, be used to help derive an an expected number of nuclei in future studies. We have included additional wording in the Discussion to note that these estimates could be used in this manner during future studies.

The LC displays rostral/caudal and dorsal/ventral differences, including where they project, which functions they regulate, and which parts are vulnerable in neurodegenerative disease (e.g. Loughlin et al., Neuroscience 18:291-306, 1986; Dahl et al., Nat Hum Behav 3:1203-14, 2019; Beardmore et al., J Alzheimer's Dis 83:5-22, 2021; Gilvesy et al., Acta Neuropathol 144:651-76, 2022; Madelung et al., Mov Disord 37:479-89, 2022). Which part(s) of the LC was captured for the SRT and snRNAseq experiments?

As discussed in our previous response to reviewers (“Response to Public Review Comments”), a limitation of this study was that we did not record the orientation of the anatomy of the tissue sections, precluding our ability to annotate the tissue sections with the rostral/caudal and dorsal/ventral axis labels. We agree with the reviewer that additional spatial studies, in future work, could offer needed and important information about expression profiles across the spatial axes (rostral/caudal, ventral/dorsal) of the LC. Our study provides us with insight about optimizing the dissections for spatial assays, as well as bringing to light a number of technical and logistical issues that we had not initially foreseen. For example, during the course of this study and parallel, ongoing work in other, small, challenging regions, we have now developed a number of specialized technical and logistical strategies for keeping track of orientation and mounting serial sections from the same tissue block onto a single spatial array, which is extremely technically challenging. We are now well-prepared for addressing these issues in future studies with larger numbers of donors and samples in order to make these types of insights. We have included additional details in the Discussion to further discuss this point.

The authors mention that in other human SRT studies, there are typically between 1-10 cells per expression spot. I imagine that this depends heavily on the part of the brain being studied and neuronal density. In this specific case, can the authors estimate how many LC cells were contained in each expression spot?

We have now performed additional analyses to provide an estimate of the number of cells per spot in the Visium data (Figure 2-figure supplement 2B), based on the application of cell segmentation software (VistoSeg; Tippani et al. 2022) to identify cell bodies in the H&E stained histology images. We applied this methodology and calculated summary statistics within the annotated LC regions for 6 samples (see Methods), and found that the median number of cells per spot within the LC regions ranged from 2 to 5 per sample. We note that these estimates include both NE neurons and other cell types within the LC regions, and that applying cell segmentation software in this brain region is particularly challenging due to the wide range in cell body sizes, with NE neurons being especially large. We have included these updated estimates in the Results and Discussion, and additional details in Methods.

Regarding comparison of human LC-associated genes with rat or mouse LC-associated genes (Fig. 2D-F), the authors speculate that the modest degree of overlap may be due to species differences between rodent and human and/or methodological differences (SRT vs microarray vs TRAP). Was there greater overlap between mouse and rat than between mouse/rat and human? If so, that is evidence for the former. If not, that is evidence for the latter. Also would be useful for more in-depth comparison with snRNA-seq data from mouse LC. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.06.30.498327v1

Our comparisons with the mouse (Mulvey et al. 2018) and rat (Grimm et al. 2004) data showed that we observed a relatively higher overlap between the human vs. mouse data than the human vs. rat data (Figures 2F-G and 3D-E). However, we note that the substantially different technologies used (TRAP-seq in mouse vs. laser capture microdissection and microarrays in rat) make it difficult to confidently interpret the degree of overlap between the two studies, and a direct comparison of these alternative platforms (TRAP-seq vs. LCM / microarray) or species (mouse vs. rat) lies outside the scope of our study. We have included updated wording in the Results and Discussion to explain this issue and help interpret these results.

Regarding the newer mouse study using snRNA-seq (Luskin and Li et al. 2022), we have extended our analyses to perform a more in-depth comparison with this study. Specifically, we have evaluated the expression of an additional set of GABAergic neuron marker genes from this study within our secondary clustering of inhibitory neurons in the snRNA-seq data (Figure 3-figure supplement 13B). We observe some evidence of cluster-specific expression of several genes, including CCK, PCSK1, PCSK2, PCSK1N, PENK, PNOC, SST, and TAC1. We have also included additional text describing these results in the Results section.

The finding of ACHE expression in LC neurons is intriguing. Susan Greenfield has published a series of papers suggesting that ACHE has functions independent of ACH metabolism that contributes to cellular vulnerability in neurodegenerative disease. This might be worth mentioning.

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We were very surprised too by the observed expression of SLC5A7 and ACHE in the LC regions (Visium data) and within the LC-NE neuron cluster (snRNA-seq data), coupled with absence of other typical cholinergic marker genes (e.g. CHAT, SLC18A3), and we do not have a compelling explanation or theory for this. Hence, the work of Susan Greenfield and colleagues suggesting non-cholinergic actions of ACHE, particularly in other catecholaminergic neuron populations (e.g. dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra) is very interesting. We have included references to this work and how it could inform interpretation of this expression (Greenfield 1991; Halliday and Greenfield 2012) in the Discussion.

High mitochondrial reads from snRNA-seq can indicate lower quality. Can the authors comment on this and explain why they are confident in the snRNA-seq data from presumptive LC-NE neurons?

As mentioned above for Reviewer 2, we have included additional analyses to further compare quality control (QC) metrics for the NE neuron cluster (which had an unusually high proportion of mitochondrial reads) against other neuronal and non-neuronal clusters and nuclei in the snRNA-seq data (Figure 3-figure supplement 2). These additional QC analyses do not show any other problematic values for this cluster. Specifically, we show that the QC metric values for sum UMIs and detected genes per droplet for the NE neuron cluster fall within the range for (A) other neurons and (B) all other nuclei (excluding droplets with ambiguous / unidentifiable neuronal signatures). In addition, we observe that the droplets with the highest mitochondrial percentages (>75%) (C-D), which also have unusually low number of detected genes (D), tend to be from the ambiguous category (droplets with ambiguous / unidentifiable neuronal signatures), suggesting that true low-quality droplets are correctly identified and included within the ambiguous category (e.g. consisting of a mixture of debris from partial damaged nuclei) instead of as NE neurons. Since our QC analyses for the NE neuron cluster do not show any problems other than the high mitochondrial percentage, we do not believe these are simply mis-classified low-quality droplets. We also note that we have recently observed high mitochondrial proportions in other relatively rare neuronal populations characterized by large size and high metabolic demand in human data. We believe that our interpretation is correct -- i.e. that a combination of technical and biological factors has led to the inclusion of a relatively high amount of mitochondrial RNA within the droplets for these nuclei. We have included these additional QC analyses (Figure 3-figure supplement 2) and further discussion of this issue in the Results section.

The Discussion could be expanded. Because there is a lot known and/or assumed about the LC, discussing all of it is certainly beyond the scope of this manuscript. However, perhaps the authors could pick a few more for confirmation and hypothesis generation. For example, one of the most well studied and important aspects of the LC is its regulation by neuromodulatory inputs. It would be interesting for the authors to discuss the expression of receptors for CRF, cannabinoids, orexin, galanin, 5-HT, etc, particularly when compared with the available rodent TRAP and snRNA-seq data (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.06.30.498327v1) contained some surprises, such as very low expression of CRF1 in LC-NE neurons, suggesting that the powerful activation of LC cells by CRF is indirect. Does this hold up in humans?

We have expanded the Discussion to include additional discussion and references on several points, as discussed also above. Indeed these are interesting questions and these neuromodulatory systems are all of interest in the context of signaling within the LC in terms of function of the LC-NE system. We note that the manuscript serves primarily as a data resource and will be useful in many different ways depending on the different goals and interests of the readers. This is precisely why we wanted to take the time to make accessible and easy to use tools to interrogate and visualize the data. We have provided screenshots in Author response image 1-4 from the Shiny visualization app for the Visium data (https://libd.shinyapps.io/locus-c_Visium/) querying several main receptors of the neuromodulatory systems that this reviewer is particularly interested in to illustrate how the visualization apps can readily be used to query specific genes and systems of interest.

Author response image 1.

CRHR1:

Author response image 2.

CNR1:

Author response image 3.

OXR1:

Author response image 4.

GALR1:

Minor points:

Line 46 add stress responses to the key functions of LC neurons

We have added this point and included additional references to support the findings.

Line 47 add that the LC was so named "blue spot" because of its signature production of neuromelanin pigment

We have added this point.

Line 49 LC's capacity to synthesize NE is not "unique" - several other brainstem/medullary nuclei also synthesize NE (e.g. A1-A7; LC is A6)

We have updated this wording.

Line 54 Although prior evidence indicated age-related LC cell loss in people without frank neurodegenerative disease, recent studies that are better powered and used unbiased stereological methods have refuted the idea that LC neurons die during normal aging (reviewed in Matchett et al., Acta Neuropathologica 141:631-50, 2021)

We have updated this part of the Introduction to focus on cell loss in the LC in neurodegenerative disease and removed the older references describing studies that suggested LC neurons die in normal aging.

Line 62 Would also be worth mentioning the role of the LC in other mood disorders where adrenergic drugs are often prescribed, such as PTSD (e.g. prazosin), opioid withdrawal (e.g. lofexidine), anxiety and depression (e.g. NE reuptake inhibitors).

We have added additional references to these disorders and their treatment with noradrenergic drugs in the Introduction.

Additional updates from Public Review Comments:

We have also included the following updates, in response to additional reviewer comments received during the initial round of “Public Review Comments” and which are not already described in the responses to the “Recommendations for the Authors” above.

● We included updated wording in the Results section and Figure 1C caption to more clearly describe the number of donors included in the final SRT and snRNA-seq data used for analyses after all quality control (QC) steps (4 donors for SRT data, 3 donors for snRNA-seq data).

● Figure 3-figure supplement 1D (number of nuclei per cluster in unsupervised clustering of snRNA-seq data) has been updated to show percentages of nuclei per cluster.

● We have added comparisons between the lists of differentially expressed (DE) genes identified in the Visium and snRNA-seq data. To make these sets comparable, we have added (i) snRNA-seq DE testing results between the NE neuron cluster and all other clusters (instead of other neuronal clusters only, as shown in the main results in Figure 3) (excluding ambiguous neuronal) (Figure 3-figure supplement 6 and Supplementary File 2D), and (ii) calculated overlaps and comparisons between the sets of DE genes between the Visium data (pseudobulked LC vs. non-LC regions) and the snRNA-seq data (NE neuron cluster vs. all other clusters excluding ambiguous neuronal). This comparison generated a list of 51 genes that were identified as statistically significant DE genes (FDR < 0.05 and FC > 2) in both the Visium and the snRNA-seq data (Figure 3-figure supplement 7 and Supplementary File 2E).

Other additional updates:

We have added an additional data repository (Globus). Raw data files (FASTQ sequencing data files and high-resolution TIF image files) are now available via Globus from the WeberDivecha2023_locus_coeruleus data collection from the jhpce#globus01 Globus endpoint, which is also listed at http://research.libd.org/globus/. The Globus repository is not publicly accessible due to individually identifiable donor genetic variants in the FASTQ files. Approved users may request access from the corresponding authors. This data repository is listed in the Data Availability section.

Author Response

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

eLife assessment

This study reports important findings regarding the systemic function of hemocytes controlling whole-body responses to oxidative stress. The evidence in support of the requirement for hemocytes in oxidative stress responses as well as the hemocyte single-nuclei analyses in the presence or absence of oxidative stress are convincing. In contrast, the genetic and physiological analyses that link the non-canonical DDR pathway to upd3/JNK expression and high susceptibility, and the inferences regarding the function of hemocytes in systemic metabolic control are incomplete and would benefit from more rigorous approaches. The work will be of interest to cell and developmental biologists working on animal metabolism, immunity, or stress responses.

We would like to thank the editorial team for these positive comments on our manuscript and the constructive suggestions to improve our manuscript. We are now happy to send you our revised manuscript, which we improved according to the suggestions and valuable comments of the referees.

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The study examines how hemocytes control whole-body responses to oxidative stress. Using single cell sequencing they identify several transcriptionally distinct populations of hemocytes, including one subset that show altered immune and stress gene expression. They also find that knockdown of DNA Damage Response (DDR) genes in hemocytes increases expression of the immune cytokine, upd3, and that both upd3 overexpression in hemocytes and hemocyte knockdown of DDR genes leads to increased lethality upon oxidative stress.

Strengths

1. The single cell analyses provide a clear description of how oxidative stress can cause distinct transcriptional changes in different populations of hemocytes. These results add to the emerging them in the field that there functionally different subpopulations of hemocytes that can control organismal responses to stress.

2. The discovery that DDR genes are required upon oxidative stress to limit cytokine production and lethality provides interesting new insight into the DDR may play non-canonical roles in controlling organismal responses to stress.

We are grateful to referee 1 to point out the importance and novelty of our snRNA-seq data and our findings on the role of DNA damage-modulated cytokine release by hemocytes during oxidative stress. We further extended these analyses in the revised manuscript by looking deeper into the transcriptomic alterations in fat body cells upon oxidative stress (Figure 4, Figure S4). We further provide additional data to support the connection of DNA damage signaling and regulation of upd3 release from hemocytes (Figure 6F). Here we show that upd3-deficiency can abrogate the increased susceptibility of flies with mei41 and tefu knockdown in hemocytes. In line with this finding, we also show that upd3null mutants show a reduced but not abolished susceptibility to oxidative stress overall (Figure 6F), underlining the role of upd3 as a mediator of oxidative stress response.

Weaknesses

1. In some ways the authors interpretation of the data - as indicated, for example, in the title, summary and model figure - don't quite match their data. From the title and model figure, it seems that the authors suggest that the DDR pathway induces JNK and Upd3 and that the upd3 leads to tissue wasting. However, the data suggest that the DDR actually limits upd3 production and susceptibility to death as suggested by several results:

According to the referee’s suggestion, we revised the manuscript and adjusted our title, abstract and graphical summary to be more precise that DNA damage signaling seem to have a modulatory or regulatory effect on upd3 release. Furthermore, we provide now additional data to support the connection between DNA damage signaling and upd3 release. For example, we added several genetic “rescue” experiments to strengthen the epistasis that modulation of DNA damage signaling and the higher susceptibility of the fly is connected to altered upd3 levels (Figure 6F). We now provide additional data showing that the loss of upd3 rescues the susceptibility to oxidative stress in flies, which are deficient for DDR components in hemocytes.

a. PQ normally doesn't induce upd3 but does lead to glycogen and TAG loss, suggesting that upd3 isn't connected to the PQ-induced wasting.

Even though in our systemic gene expression analysis of upd3 expression, we could not detect a significant induction of upd3 upon PQ feeding. However, we found upd3 expression within our snRNAseq data in a distinct cluster of immune-activated hemocytes (Figure 3B, Cluster 6). Upon knockdown of the DNA damage signaling in hemocytes, the levels then increase to a detectable level in the whole fly. This supports our assumption that upd3 is needed upon oxidative stress to induce energy mobilization from the fat body, but needs to be tightly controlled to balance tissue wasting for energy mobilization. Furthermore, we found evidence in our new analysis of the snRNA-seq data of the fat body cells, that indeed we can find Jak/STAT activation in one cell cluster here, which could speak for an interaction of Cluster 6 hemocytes with cluster 6 fat body cells. A hypothesis we aim to explore in future studies.

b. knockdown of DDR upregulates upd3 and leads to increased PQ-induced death. This would suggest that activation of DDR is normally required to limit, rather than serve as the trigger for upd3 production and death.

Our data support the hypothesis that DDR signaling in hemocytes “modulates” upd3 levels upon oxidative stress. We now carefully revised the text and the graphical summary of the manuscript to emphasize that oxidative stress causes DNA damage, which subsequently induces the DNA damage signaling machinery. If this machinery is not sufficiently induced, for example by knockdown of tefu and mei-41, non-canonical DNA damage signaling is altered which induces JNK signaling and induces release of pro-inflammatory cytokines, including upd3. Whereas DNA damage itself is only slightly increase in the used DDR deficient lines (Figure 5C) and hemocytes do not undergo apoptosis (unaltered cell number on PQ (Figure 5B)), we conclude that loss of tefu, mei-41, or nbs1 causes dysregulation of inflammatory signaling cascades via non-canonical DNA damage signaling. However, oxidative stress itself seems to also induce upd3 release and DNA damage signaling in the same cell cluster, as shown by our snRNA-seq data (Figure 3B). Hence, we think that DNA damage signaling is needed as a rate-limiting step for upd3 release.

c. hemocyte knockdown of either JNK activity or upd3 doesn't affect PQ-induced death, suggesting that they don't contribute to oxidative stress-induced death. It’s only when DDR is impaired (with DDR gene knockdown) that an increase in upd3 is seen (although no experiments addressed whether JNK was activated or involved in this induction of upd3), suggesting that DDR activation prevents upd3 induction upon oxidative stress.

Whereas the double knockdown of upd3 or bsk and DDR genes was resulting in insufficient knockdown efficiencies, we added a rescue experiment where we combined upd3null mutants with knockdown of tefu and mei-41 in hemocytes and found a reduced susceptibility of DDR-deficient flies to oxidative stress.

1. The connections between DDR, JNK and upd3 aren't fully developed. The experiments show that susceptibility to oxidative stress-induced death can be caused by a) knockdown of DDR genes, b) genetic overexpression of upd3, c) genetic activation of JNK. But whether these effects are all related and reflect a linear pathway requires a little more work. For example, one prediction of the proposed model is that the increased susceptibility to oxidative stress-induced death in the hemocyte DDR gene knockdowns would be suppressed (perhaps partially) by simultaneous knockdown of upd3 and/or JNK. These types of epistasis experiments would strengthen the model and the paper.

As mentioned before, we had some technical difficulties combining the knockdown of bsk or upd3 with DDR genes. However, we added a new experiment in which we show that upd3null mutation can rescue the higher susceptibility of hemocytes with tefu and mei41 knockdown.

1. The (potential) connections between DDR/JNK/UPD3 and the oxidative stress effects on depletion of nutrient (lipids and glycogen) stores was also not fully developed. However, it may be the case that, in this paper, the authors just want to speculate that the effects of hemocyte DDR/upd3 manipulation on viability upon oxidative stress involve changes in nutrient stores.

In the revised version of the manuscript, we now provide a more thorough snRNA-seq analysis in the fat body upon PQ treatment to give more insights on the changes in the fat body upon PQ treatment. We added additional histological images of the abdominal fat body on control food and PQ food, to demonstrate the elimination of triglycerides from fat body with Oil-Red-O staining (Figure S1). We also analyzed now hemocyte-deficient (crq-Gal80ts>reaper) flies for their levels of triglycerides and carbohydrates during oxidative stress, to support our hypothesis that hemocytes are key players in the regulation of energy mobilization during oxidative stress. Loss of hemocytes (and therefore also their regulatory input on energy mobilization from the fat body) results in increased triglyceride storage in the fat body during steady state with a decreased consumption of these triglycerides on PQ food compared to control flies (Figure 1J). In contrast, glycogen storage and mobilization, which is mostly done in muscle, is not altered in these flies during oxidative stress (Figure 1L). Interestingly, free glucose levels are drastically reduced in hemocyte-deficient flies, which could be due to insufficient energy mobilization from the fat body and subsequently results in a higher susceptibility of these flies on oxidative stress (Figure 1K). Additionally, we aim to point out here that “functional” hemocytes are needed for effective response to oxidative stress, but this response has to be tightly balanced (see also new graphical abstract).

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Hersperger et al. investigated the importance of Drosophila immune cells, called hemocytes, in the response to oxidative stress in adult flies. They found that hemocytes are essential in this response, and using state-of-the-art single-cell transcriptomics, they identified expression changes at the level of individual hemocytes. This allowed them to cluster hemocytes into subgroups with different responses, which certainly represents very valuable work. One of the clusters appears to respond directly to oxidative stress and shows a very specific expression response that could be related to the observed systemic metabolic changes and energy mobilization. However, the association of these transcriptional changes in hemocytes with metabolic changes is not well established in this work. Using hemocyte-specific genetic manipulation, the authors convincingly show that the DNA damage response in hemocytes regulates JNK activity and subsequent expression of the JAK/STAT ligand Upd3. Silencing of the DNA damage response or excessive activation of JNK and Upd3 leads to increased susceptibility to oxidative stress. This nicely demonstrates the importance of tight control of JNK-Upd3 signaling in hemocytes during oxidative stress. However, it would have been nice to show here a link to systemic metabolic changes, as the authors conclude that it is tissue wasting caused by excessive Upd3 activation that leads to increased susceptibility, but metabolic changes were not analyzed in the manipulated flies.

We thank the referee for the suggestion to better connect upd3 cytokine levels to energy mobilization from the fat body. We agree that this is an important point to support our hypothesis. First, we added now a detailed analysis of fat body cells in our snRNA-seq data to evaluate the changes induced in the fat body upon oxidative stress. We further added additional metabolic analyses of hemocyte-deficient flies (crq-Gal80ts>reaper) to support our hypothesis that hemocytes are key players in the regulation of energy mobilization during oxidative stress (see also answer to referee 1). Loss of the regulatory role of hemocytes in the energy mobilization and redistribution leads to a decreased consumption of these triglycerides on PQ food compared to control flies (Figure 1J). In contrast, glycogen storage and mobilization from muscle, is not affected in hemocyte-deficient flies during oxidative stress (Figure 1L). Interestingly, free glucose levels are drastically reduced in hemocyte-deficient flies compared to controls, which could be due to insufficient energy mobilization from the fat body resulting in a higher susceptibility to oxidative stress (Figure 1K). This data supports our assumption that “functional” hemocytes are needed for effective response to oxidative stress, but this response has to be tightly balanced (see also new graphical summary).

The overall conclusion of this work, as presented by the authors, is that Upd3 expression in hemocytes under oxidative stress leads to tissue wasting, whereas in fact it has been shown that excessive hemocyte-specific Upd3 activation leads to increased susceptibility to oxidative stress (whether due to increased tissue wasting remains a question). The DNA damage response ensures tight control of JNK-Upd3, which is important. However, what role naturally occurring Upd3 expression plays in a single hemocyte cluster during oxidative stress has not been tested. What if the energy mobilization induced by this naturally occurring Upd3 expression during oxidative stress is actually beneficial, as the authors themselves state in the abstract - for potential tissue repair? It would have been useful to clarify in the manuscript that the observed pathological effects are due to overactivation of Upd3 (an important finding), but this does not necessarily mean that the observed expression of Upd3 in one cluster of hemocytes causes the pathology.

We agree with the referee that the pathological effects and increased susceptibility to oxidative stress are mediated by over-activated hemocytes and enhanced cytokine release, including upd3 during oxidative stress. We edited the revised manuscript accordingly to imply a “regulatory” role of upd3, which we suspect and suggest as an important mediator for inter-organ communication between hemocytes and fat body. Whereas our used model for oxidative stress (15mM Paraquat feeding) is a severe insult from which most of the flies will not recover, we could not account and test how upd3 might influence tissue repair after injury, insults and infection. We believe that this is an important factor, we aim to explore in future studies.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this study, Kierdorf and colleagues investigated the function of hemocytes in oxidative stress response and found that non-canonical DNA damage response (DDR) is critical for controlling JNK activity and the expression of cytokine unpaired3. Hemocyte-mediated expression of upd3 and JNK determines the susceptibility to oxidative stress and systemic energy metabolism required for animal survival, suggesting a new role for hemocytes in the direct mediation of stress response and animal survival.

Strength of the study:

1. This study demonstrates the role of hemocytes in oxidative stress response in adults and provides novel insights into hemocytes in systemic stress response and animal homeostasis.

2. The single-cell transcriptome profiling of adult hemocytes during Paraquat treatment, compared to controls, would be of broad interest to scientists in the field.

We are grateful to these positive comments on our data and are excited that the referee pointed out the importance of our provided snRNA-seq analysis of hemocytes and other cell types during oxidative stress. In the revised, version we now extended this analysis and looked not only into hemocytes but also highlighted induced changes in the fat body (Figure 4).

Weakness of the study:

1. The authors claim that the non-canonical DNA damage response mechanism in hemocytes controls the susceptibility of animals through JNK and upd3 expression. However, the link between DDR-JNK/upd3 in oxidative stress response is incomplete and some of the descriptions do not match their data.

In the revised manuscript, we aimed to strengthen the weaknesses pointed out by the referee. We now included additional genetic crosses to validate the connection of DDR signaling in hemocytes with upd3 release. For example, we added now survival studies where we show that upd3null mutation can rescue the higher susceptibility of flies with tefu and mei41 knockdown in hemocytes during oxidative stress. Furthermore, we added additional data to highlight the importance of hemocytes themselves as essential regulators of susceptibility to oxidative stress. We analyzed the hemocyte-deficient flies (crq-Gal80ts>reaper) for their triglyceride content and carbohydrate levels during oxidative stress (Figure 1 I-L). As outlined above, loss of hemocytes leads to a decreased consumption of these triglycerides on PQ food compared to control flies (Figure 1J). In contrast, glycogen storage and mobilization from muscle, is not affected in hemocyte-deficient flies during oxidative stress (Figure 1L). Interestingly, free glucose levels are drastically reduced in hemocyte-deficient flies, which could be due to insufficient energy mobilization from the fat body resulting in a higher susceptibility to oxidative stress (Figure 1K).

1. The schematic diagram does not accurately represent the authors' findings and requires further modifications.

We carefully revised the text throughout the manuscript describing our results and edited the graphical abstract to display that upd3 levels and hemocytes are essential to balance and modulate response to oxidative stress.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

The summary doesn't say too much about what the specific discoveries and results of the study are. The description is limited to just one sentence saying, "Here we describe the responses of hemocytes in adult Drosophila to oxidative stress and the essential role of non-canonical DNA damage repair activity in direct "responder" hemocytes to control JNK-mediated stress signaling, systemic levels of the cytokine upd3 and subsequently susceptibility to oxidative stress" which doesn't provide sufficient explanation of what the results were.

In the revised version of our manuscript, we now provide further information for the reader to outline the findings of our study in a concise way in the summary.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

1. To strengthen the conclusion that the DDR response suppresses JNK, and thus Upd3, rescue of DDR by upd3 null mutation would help (knockdown by Hml>upd3IR might not work, RNAi seems problematic).

We would like to thank the referee for this suggestion and included now a genetic experiment where we combined upd3null mutants with hemocyte-specific knockdown of mei-41 and tefu to test their susceptibility to oxidative stress. Our data indeed provide evidence that loss of upd3 rescues the higher susceptibility of flies with hemocyte-specific knockdown for tefu and mei-41 (Figure 6F). Furthermore, we see that upd3null mutants show a diminished susceptibility to oxidative stress compared to control flies (Figure 6F).

1. To link the observed effects to systemic metabolic changes, it would be useful to measure glycogen and triglycerides in these flies as well:

2. crq-Gal80ts>reaper to see what role hemocytes play in the observed metabolic changes.

3. Hml-Upd3 overexpression and Upd3 null mutant (Upd3 RNAi seems to be problematic, we have similar experiences) to see if Upd3 overexpression leads to even more profound changes as suggested, and if Upd3 mutation at least partially suppresses the observed changes.

We agree with the referee that analyzing the connection of hemocyte activation to metabolic changes should be demonstrated in our manuscript to support our claim that hemocytes are important regulators of energy mobilization during oxidative stress. Hence, we analyzed triglycerides and carbohydrate levels in hemocyte-deficient flies (crq-Gal80ts>reaper) during oxidative stress. Indeed, we found substantial differences in energy mobilization in these flies supporting the assumption that the higher susceptibility of hemocyte-deficient flies could be caused by substantial decrease in free glucose and inefficient lysis of triglycerides from the fat body (Figure 1I-K).

1. To test whether the cause of the increased susceptibility to oxidative stress is due to Upd3 overactivation induced by DDR silencing, the authors should attempt to rescue DDR silencing with an Upd3 null mutation.

The suggestion of the reviewer was included in the revised manuscript and as outlined above we now added this data set to our manuscript (Figure 6F). Indeed, we can now provide evidence that upd3null mutation rescues the higher susceptibility of flies with DDR knockdown in hemocytes.

1. Lethality after PQ treatment varies widely (sometimes from 10 to 90%! as in Figure 5D) - is this normal? In some experiments the variability was much lower. In particular, Figure 5D is very problematic and for example the result with upd3 null mutant compared to control is not very convincing. This could be an important result to test whether Upd3, with normal expression likely coming from cluster 6, actually plays a beneficial role, whereas overexpression with Hml leads to pathology.

We agree with the referee that it would be more convincing if the variation cross of survival experiments would be less. However, we included a lot of flies and vials in many individual experiments to test our hypothesis and variation in these survivals was always the case. These effects can be caused by many factors for example the amount of food intake by the flies, genetic background or inserted transgenes. The n-number is quite high across our survivals; so that we are convinced, the seen effects are valid. This reflects also the power of using Drosophila melanogaster as a model organism for such survivals. The high n-number in our data falls into a normal Gauss distribution with a distinct mean susceptibility between the genotypes analyzed.

1. I like the conclusion at the end of the results: line 413: "We show that this oxidative stressmediated immune activation seems to be controlled by non-canonical DNA damage signaling resulting in JNK activation and subsequent upd3 expression, which can render the adult fly more susceptible to oxidative stress when it is over-activated." This is actually a more appropriate conclusion, but in the summary, introduction and discussion along with the overall schematic illustration, this is not actually stated as such, but rather as Upd3 released from cluster 6 causes the pathology. For example: line 435 "Hence, we postulate that hemocyte-derived upd3, most likely released by the activated plasmatocyte cluster C6 during oxidative stress in vivo and subsequently controlling energy mobilization and subsequent tissue wasting upon oxidative stress."

We thank the referee for this suggestion and edited our manuscript and conclusions accordingly.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

1. In Figure 2, the authors claim showed that PQ treatment changes the hemocyte clusters in a way that suppresses the conventional Hml+ or Pxn+ hemocytes (cluster1) while expanding hemocyte clusters enriched with metabolic genes such as Lpin, bmm etc. It is not clear whether these cells are comparable to the fat body and if these clusters express any of previously known hemocyte marker genes to claim that these are bona fide hemocytes.

We now included a new analysis of our snRNA-seq data in Figure S4, where we clearly show that all identified hemocyte clusters do not have a fat body signature and are hemocytes, which seem to undergo metabolic adaptations (Figure S4A). Furthermore, we show that the identified fat body cells have a clear fat body signature (Figure S4B) and do not express specific hemocyte markers (Figure S4C).

1. In Figure 4C, the authors showed that comet assays of isolated hemocytes result in a statistically significant increase in DNA damage in DDR-deficient flies before and after PQ treatment. However, the authors conclude that, in lines 324-328, the higher susceptibility of DDR-deficient flies is not due to an increase in DNA damage. To explicitly conclude that "non-canonical" DNA damage response, without any DNA damage, is specifically upregulated during PQ treatment, the authors require further support to exclude the potential activation of canonical DDR.

The referee is correct that we do not provide direct evidence for non-canonical DNA damage signaling. Therefore, we also decided to tune down our statement here a bit and removed that claim from the title. Increase in DNA damage can of course also increase the non-canonical DNA damage signaling pathway, loss of DNA damage signaling genes such as tefu and mei-41 seem to only have minor impacts on the overall amount of DNA damage acquired in hemocytes by oxidative stress. We therefore concluded that the induction in immune activation is most unlikely only caused by increased DNA damage but might be connected to dysregulation in non-canonical DNA damage signaling. Canonical DNA damage signaling leads essentially to DDR, which could be slow in adult hemocytes because they post-mitotic, or to apoptosis, which we could not observe in the analyzed time window in our experiments. Hemocyte number remained stable over the 24h PQ treatment without reduction in cell number (Figure 1H).

1. From Figure 4D-F, the authors showed that loss of DDR in hemocytes induces the expression of unpaired 2 and 3, Socs36E, which represent the JAK/STAT pathway, and thor, InR, Pepck in the InR pathway, and a JNK readout, puc. These results indicate that the DDR pathway normally inhibits the upd-mediated JAK/STAT activation upon PQ treatment, compared to wild-type animals during PQ treatment in Figure 1B-C, which in turn protects the animal during oxidative stress responses. However, the authors claim that "enhanced DNA damage boosts immune activation and therefore susceptibility to oxidative stress (lines 365-366); we show that this oxidative stress-mediated immune activation seems to be controlled by non-canonical DNA damage signaling resulting in JNK activation and subsequent upd3 expression (line 413-416)". These conclusions are not compatible with the authors' data and may require additional data to support or can be modified.

In the revised manuscript, we carefully revised now the text and our statements that it seems that DNA damage signaling in hemocytes has regulatory or modulatory effect on the immune response during oxidative stress. Accordingly, we also adjusted our graphical summary. We agree with the referee and used the term “non-canonical” DNA damage signaling more carefully throughout the manuscript. The slight increase in DNA damage seen after PQ treatment can contribute to immune activation but seems to be not correlative to the induced cytokine levels or the susceptibility of the flies to oxidative stress.

1. In Fig 1I, the authors showed that genetic ablation of hemocytes using UAS-repear induces susceptibility to PQ treatment. It is possible that inducing cell death in hemocytes itself causes the expression of cytokine upd3 or activates the JNK pathway to enhance the basal level of upd3/JNK even without PQ treatment. If this phenotype is solely mediated by the loss of hemocytes, the results should be repeated by reducing the number of hemocytes with alternative genetic backgrounds.

In the different genotypes analyzed across our manuscript we did not detect cell death of hemocytes or a dramatic reduction in hemocytes number (see Figure 1H, Figure 5B, Figure 6C). The higher susceptibility if hemocyte-deficient flies during oxidative stress is most likely caused by the loss of their regulatory role during energy mobilization. We tested triglyceride levels in hemocyte-deficient flies and found a decreased triglyceride consumption (lipolysis), with reduced levels of circulating glucose levels. This findings support our hypothesis that hemocytes are needed to balance the response to oxidative stress. In contrast, the flies with DDR-deficient hemocytes show higher systemic cytokine levels, which most likely enhance energy mobilization from the fat body and therefore result in a higher susceptibility of the fly to oxidative stress. Hence, we claim that hemocytes and their regulation of systemic cytokine levels are important to balance the response to oxidative stress and guarantee the survival of the organism.

1. Lethality of control animals in PQ treatment is variable and it is hard to estimate the effect of animal susceptibility during 15mM PQ feeding. For example, Fig1A shows that control animals exhibit ~10% death during 15mM PQ which is further enhanced by crq-Gal80>reaper expression to 40% (Fig 1I). However, in Fig 5D-E, the basal lethality of wild-type controls already reaches 40~50%, which makes them hard to compare with other genetic manipulations. Related to this, the authors demonstrated that the expression of upd3 in hemocytes is sufficient to aggravate animal survival upon PQ treatment; however, upd3 null mutants do not rescue the lethality, which indicates that upd3 is not required for hampering animal mortality. These data need to be revisited and analyzed.

As outlined above, we find the variability of susceptibility to oxidative stress across all of our experiments. This could be due to different effects such as food intake but also transgene insertion and genetic background. Crq-gal80ts>reaper flies are healthy, but show a shortened life span on normal food (Kierdorf et al., 2020) due to enhanced loss of proteostasis in muscles. We show in the revised manuscript that these flies have a higher susceptibility to oxidative stress and that this effect could be mediated by defects in energy mobilization and redistribution as shown by less triglyceride lysis from the fat body and decreasing levels in free glucose. This would explain the high mortality rate of these flies at 7 days after eclosion. Paraquat treatment (15mM) is a severe inducer of oxidative stress, which results in death of most flies when they are maintained for longer time windows on PQ food. Hence, it is a model, which is not suitable to examine and monitor recovery from this detrimental insult. upd3null mutants were extensively reexamined in this manuscript, and even though we could not see a full protection of these flies from oxidative stress induced death, we found a reduced susceptibility compared to control flies (Figure 6F). Furthermore, when we combined upd3null mutants with flies deficient for tefu and mei-41 in hemocytes, the increased susceptibility to oxidative stress was rescued.

Author Response

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

“Peng et al develop a computational method to predict/rank transcription factors (TFs) according to their likelihood of being pioneer transcription factors--factors that are capable of binding nucleosomes--using ChIP-seq for 225 human transcription factors, MNase-seq and DNase-seq data from five cell lines. The authors developed relatively straightforward, easy to interpret computational methods that leverage the potential for MNase-seq to enable relatively precise identification of the nucleosome dyad. Using an established smoothing approach and local peak identification methods to estimate positions together with identification of ChIP-seq peaks and motifs within those peaks which they referred to as "ChIP-seq motifs", they were able to quantify "motif profiles" and their density in nucleosome regions (NRs) and nucleosome free regions (NFRs) relative to their estimated nucleosome dyad positions. Using these profiles, they arrived at an odd-ratio based motif enrichment score along with a Fisher's exact test to assess the odds and significance that a given transcription factor's ChIP-seq motifs are enriched in NRs compared to NFRs, hence, its potential to be a pioneer transcription factor. They showed that known pioneer transcription factors had among the highest enrichment scores, and they could identify 32 relatively novel pioneer TFs with high enrichment scores and relatively high expression in their corresponding cell line. They used multiple validation approaches including (1) calculating the ROC-AUC associated with their enrichment score based on 16 known pioneer TFs among their 225 TFs which they used as positives and the remaining TFs (among the 225) as negatives; (2) use of the literature to note that known pioneer TFs that acted as key regulators of embryonic stem cell differentiation had a highest enrichment scores; (3) comparison of their enrichments scores to three classes of TFs defined by protein microarray and electromobility shift assays (1. strong binder to free and nucleosomal DNA, 2. weak binder to free and nucleosomal DNA, 3. strong binding to free but not nucleosomal DNA); and (4) correlation between their calculated TF motif nucleosome end/dyad binding ratio and relevant data from an NCAP-SELEX experiment. They also characterize the spatial distribution of TF motif binding relative to the dyad by (1) correlating TF motif density and nucleosome occupancy and (2) clustering TF motif binding profiles relative to their distance from the dyad and identifying 6 clusters.

The strengths of this paper are the use of MNase-seq data to define relatively precise dyad positions and ChIP-seq data together with motif analysis to arrive at relatively accurate TF binding profiles relative to dyad positions in NRs as well as in NFRs. This allowed them to use a relatively simple odds ratio based enrichment score which performs well in identifying known pioneer TFs. Moreover, their validation approaches either produced highly significant or reasonable, trending results.

The weaknesses of the paper are relatively minor. The most significant one is that they used ROC-AUC to assess the prediction accuracy of their enrichment score on a highly imbalanced dataset with 16 positives and 209 negatives. ROC-AUC is known to be a misleading prediction measure on highly imbalanced data. This is mitigated by the fact that they find an AUC = 0.94 for their best case. Thus, they're likely to find good results using a more appropriate performance measure for imbalanced data. Another minor point is that they did not associate their enrichment score (focus of Figure 2) with their correlation coefficients of TF motif density and nucleosome occupancy (focus of Figure 3). Finally, while the manuscript was clearly written, some parts of the Methods section could have been made more clear so that their approaches could be reproduced. The description of the NCAP-SELEX method could have also been more clear for a reader not familiar with this approach.”

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

“In this study, the authors utilize a compendium of public genomic data to identify transcription factors (TF) that can identify their DNA binding motifs in the presence of nuclosome-wrapped chromatin and convert the chromatin to open chromatin. This class of TFs are termed Pioneer TFs (PTFs). A major strength of the study is the concept, whose premise is that motifs bound by PTFs (assessed by ChIP-seq for the respective TFs) should be present in both "closed" nucleosome wrapped DNA regions (measured by MNase-seq) as well as open regions (measured by DNAseI-seq) because the PTFs are able to open the chromatin. Use of multiple ENCODE cell lines, including the H1 stem cell line, enabled the authors to assess if binding at motifs changes from closed to open. Typical, non-PTF TFs are expected to only bind motifs in open chromatin regions (measured by DNaseI-seq) and not in regions closed in any cell type. This study contributes to the field a validation of PTFs that are already known to have pioneering activity and presents an interesting approach to quantify PTF activity.

For this reviewer, there were a few notable limitations. One was the uncertainty regarding whether expression of the respective TFs across cell types was taken into account. This would help inform if a TF would be able to open chromatin. Another limitation was the cell types used. While understandable that these cell types were used, because of their deep epigenetic phenotyping and public availability, they are mostly transformed and do not bear close similarity to lineages in a healthy organism. Next, the methods used to identify PTFs were not made available in an easy-to-use tool for other researchers who may seek to identify PTFs in their cell type(s) of interest. Lastly, some terms used were not defined explicitly (e.g., meaning of dyads) and the language in the manuscript was often difficult to follow and contained improper English grammar.”

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Peng et al. designed a computational framework for identifying pioneer factors using epigenomic data from five cell types. The identification of pioneer factors is important for our understanding of the epigenetic and transcriptional regulation of cells. A computational approach toward this goal can significantly reduce the burden of labor-intensive experimental validation. Nevertheless, there are several caveats in the current analysis which may require some modification of the computational methods and additional analysis to maximize the confidence of the pioneer factor prediction results.

A key consideration that arises during this review is that the current analysis anchors on H1 ESC and therefore may have biased the results toward the identification of pioneer factors that are relevant to the four other differentiated cell types. The low ranking of Yamanaka factors and known pioneer factors of NFYs and ESRRB may be due to the setup of the computational framework. Analysis should be repeated by using each of every cell type as an anchor for validating the reproducibility of the pioneer factors found so far and also to investigate whether TFs related to ESC identity (e.g. Yamanaka factors, NFYs and ESRRB) would show significant changes in their ranking. Given the potential cell type specificity of the pioneer factors, the extension to more cell types appears to be important for further demonstrating the utility of the computational framework.

Author Response: We thank all reviewers for their thoughtful and constructive comments and suggestions, which helped us to strengthen our paper. Following the suggestions, we have performed additional analysis to address the reviewer’s comments and the detailed responses are itemized below.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

1. The authors should generate precision-recall curves in addition to (or replacing) the ROC-AUC curves shown Figure 2c. They should also calculate the precision-recall AUC and use that as their measure of enrichment score predication accuracy. Precision-recall curves and AUC are more appropriate for imbalanced positive-negative data as is the case in this study.

Response: Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we have performed precision-recall analysis and calculated Matthews correlation coefficients (MCC) (Figure 2). We have further expanded our validation set to 32 known pioneer transcription factors (Supplementary Table 5) and compared the performance of enrichment score using different test sets (Supplementary Table 10). We have attained the highest ROC = 0.71, pr-ROC-AUC = 0.37 and MCC = 0.31 for Test set1 and ROC = 0.92, pr-ROC-AUC = 0.45 and MCC=0.49 for Test set2 (Supplementary Table 11).

1. The authors should generate scatter plots of their TF enrichment scores (focus of Figure 2) and motif-density nucleosome occupancy Pearson correlation coefficients (focus of Figure 3) and calculate the corresponding correlation coefficient and p-value.

Response: We observed a weak but statistically significant correlation between the enrichment scores and the correlation coefficient values (R=0.32 and p-value=1e-9)).

1. The authors should write their computational methods in the Methods section in such a way that a skilled bioinformatician could reproduce their results. This does not require a major rewrite. They are very close. One example of this is that a minimum distance between neighboring local maxima of the smoothed dyad counts was set to 150 bps. How was this algorithmically done? Suppress/ignore weaker local maxima that are within 150bp of other stronger local maxima?

Response: We have revised the Methods section to make it easier to follow and to reproduce the results. For identifying the local maxima, we have used the bwtool with the parameters ‘‘find local-extrema -maxima -min-sep=150’’ so that local maxima located within 150 bp of another neighboring maxima was ignored to avoid local clusters of extrema.

1. Describe the NCAP-SELEX method more clearly so that a reader not familiar with this approach doesn't have to look it up. This can be brief.

Response: Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we have added a detailed description of the NCAP-SELEX method.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

To improve the manuscript:

1. The grammar in the manuscript should be read for accuracy to improve readability and clarify the exact meaning.

Response: We have improved the grammar and have clarified the meaning of terms.

1. The exact meaning of dyads needs to be defined up front. In some places seems to mean pairs of reads and others seems to refer to nucleosome positioning.

Response: The meaning of “dyads” has been clarified. The dyad positions were determined by the midpoints of the mapped reads in MNase-seq data and refer to the center of the nucleosomal DNA.

1. Meaning of NCAP-SELEX needs to be defined before use of acronym.

Response: We have defined it in the manuscript.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

1. The authors found that Yamanaka factors and several other known pioneer factors (e.g. NFY-A, NFY-B, and ESRRB) are lowly ranked in their pioneer factor analysis. Since the analysis was performed by anchoring on H1 ESCs and comparing them to the other four cell lines, the results may only be relevant to differentiated cell types. It is therefore not unexpected that the Yamanaka factors which are important for iPSC reprogramming and the NFYs which have been experimentally shown to replace nucleosomes for maintaining ESC identity from differentiation (PMID: 25132174; PMID: 31296853) would not be enriched in the analysis. I suggest the authors repeat their analysis by anchoring on differentiated cell types and validate the reproducibility of the pioneer factors found so far and also investigate whether TFs related to ESC identity (e.g. Yamanaka factors, NFYs, and ESRRB) would show significant changes in their ranking as pioneer factors.

Response: Following reviewer’s suggestions, we have repeated the enrichment analysis by redefining differentially open regions as those closed in differentiated cell lines (HepG2, HeLa-S3, MCF-7 and K562) and open in H1 embryonic cell line (Supplementary Figure 6). The results indicate that most known PTFs still showed significantly higher enrichment scores compared with other TFs especially for FOXA, GATA and CEBPB families. Interestingly, ESSRB and Yamanaka pioneer factor POU5F1 (OCT4) have also shown significantly high enrichment scores in this analysis (Supplementary Figure 6). This could be explained by the roles of Yamanaka factors in cellular reprogramming – they reprogram somatic differentiated cells into induced pluripotent stem cells.

1. The authors mentioned the cell-type-specificity of TFs been pioneer factors and the example of CTCF was given. This point relates closely to above point 1 and, in particular, the correlation analysis of Yamanaka factors and NFYs supports their binding to nucleosomes. Together, these results highlight potential caveats of the current analysis in that the analysis is likely to be limited to the available cell types and may be affected by which cell type was used as the anchor cell type.

Response: Differentiated and embryonic cell lines were used to ask specific question about the functional roles of PTFs for cell differentiation and stem cell reprogramming. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified this point and separated our data set into three different sets of PTFs with different functions (Supplementary table 10). We agree with the reviewer, it would be nice to have more data from other cell lines but unfortunately the matching between different Chip-seq, DNAase-seq and Mnase-seq data sets imposes strict limitations.

1. The differential and conserved open chromatin regions are defined based on overlaps found between five cell types using their DNase-seq mapping profiles. The limitation of this definition is its lack of quantitativeness. For example, a chromatin region can have more than 80% overlaps between H1 and another cell type but the level of accessibility (e.g. number of reads mapped to this region) can be quite different between cell types. In such a case, I think it is still more appropriate to define such a region as a differential open chromatin region. The author should explore whether using a more quantitative definition would improve the identification and categorization of differential and conserved open chromatin regions.

Response: we thank the reviewer for these suggestions. In the revised version, we have clarified the definition and further explored different thresholds in defining the differentially and conserved open chromatin regions in enrichment analysis (Supplementary Figure 8). Our results were not significantly affected when different thresholds are applied.

1. While it is mentioned that H3K27ac and H3K4me1 ChIP-seq data from the five human cell lines were used in the study, the information on how enhancers are mapped/defined in these cell types is lacking.

Response: We have clarified the definition in the text. The enhancer regions were identified as the open chromatin regions overlapped with both H3K27ac and H3K4me1 ChIP-seq narrow peaks. We have elucidated the how enhancers are defined in the methods sections. In addition, we have performed additional enrichment analysis using NRs located on differentially active enhancer regions and NDRs located on conserved active enhancer regions (Supplementary Figure 7) between H1 embryonic cell line and any other differentiated cell lines and the performance of enrichment scores in PTF classification was slightly worse compared with those calculated from differentially and conserved open chromatin regions

1. The description of "genome-wide mapping of transcription factor binding sites" is unclear. For example, what does it mean by "In total, ChIP-seq data for 225 transcription factors could be matched with MNase-seq data" and why is this step needed? I would assume that a typical approach for mapping TF binding sites in the five cell types is to obtain the ChIP-seq data for each TF in each cell type and perform sequence alignment to the reference genome. The procedure described by the authors needs a clearer motivation and justification.

Responses: This sentence refers to matching between the ChIP-seq and MNase-seq data from the same cell type. We explain in detail how ChIP-seq data is processed. We have clarified this in the paper.

1. I also suggest the authors clearly justify the use of ROC analyses given that only a ground truth of positive (e.g. 16 known pioneer factors) is available and the "other transcription factors" considered as negative in the analysis in fact are expected to contain unknown pioneer factors and their identification should not be minimized (which lead to the maximization of ROC) by the analysis procedure.

Responses: (This is also pointed by review 1). The fact that unknown transcription factors are treated as negatives actually leads to the lower reported ROC scores (more hits considered to be false positives), not to their maximization. That is the reason we mentioned in the paper that the obtained ROC scores can be considered as lower bound estimates. In addition, we have expanded our validation sets to 32 known pioneer factors and compiled three sets of PTFs for validations. Following the reviewers’ suggestions, we have further performed precision-recall (PR) analysis and calculated the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) using three sets of PTFs for validation (Supplementary Table 11 and Supplementary Figure 2).

1. The analysis of pioneer transcription factor binding sites lacks insight. What can we learn these this analysis other than TFs from the same families are likely to be clustered in the same group?

Responses: We thank the review for pointing out it and have added a more detailed discussion of these results in the revised manuscript. Very few PTF-nucleosome structural complexes have currently been solved so far and the binding modes of majority of PTFs with nucleosomes still remain unknow. Our analysis has identified six distinctive clusters of TF binding profiles with nucleosomal DNA, which could provide insight into the binding modes of PTFs with nucleosome. These clusters point to the diversity of binding motifs where transcription factors belonging to the same cluster may also exhibit potential competitive binding.

Author Response

The following is the authors’ response to the previous reviews

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In countries endemic for P vivax the need to administer a primaquine (PQ) course adequate to prevent relapse in G6PD deficient persons poses a real dilemma. On one hand PQ will cause haemolysis; on the other hand, without PQ the chance of relapse is very high. As a result, out of fear of severe haemolysis, PQ has been under-used.

In view of the above, the Authors have investigated in well-informed volunteers, who were kept under close medical supervision in hospital throughout the study, two different schedules of PQ administration: (1) escalating doses (to a total of 5-7 mg/kg); (2) single 45 mg dose (0.75 mg/kg).

It is shown convincingly that regimen (1) can be used successfully to deliver within 3 weeks, under hospital conditions, the dose of PQ required to prevent P vivax relapse.

As expected, with both regimens acute haemolytic anaemia (AHA) developed in all cases. With regimen (2), not surprisingly, the fall in Hb was less, although it was abrupt. With regimen (1) the average fall in Hb was about 4 G. Only in one subject the fall in Hb mandated termination of the study.

Since the data from the Chicago group some sixty years ago, there has been no paper reporting a systematic daily analysis of AHA in so many closely monitored subjects with G6PD deficiency. The individual patient data in the Supplementary material are most informative and more than precious.

Having said this, I do have some general comments.

1. Through their remarkable Part 1 study, the Authors clearly wish to set the stage for a revision of the currently recommended PQ regimen for G6PD deficient patients. They have shown that 5-7 mg/kg can be administered within 3 weeks, whereas the currently recommended regimen provides 6 mg/kg over no less than 8 weeks.

We state in the abstract: “The aim was to explore shorter and safer primaquine radical cure regimens compared to the currently recommended 8-weekly regimen (0.75 mg/kg once weekly), potentially obviating the need for G6PD testing”. This is the primary goal of the study.

1. Part 2 aims to show that, as was known already, even a single PQ dose of 0.75 mg/kg causes a significant degree of haemolysis: G6PD deficiency-related haemolysis is characteristically markedly dose-dependent. Although they do not state it explicitly in these words (I think they should), the Authors want to make it clear that the currently recommended regimen does cause AHA.

We also wanted to compare the extent of haemolysis following single dose with the extent of haemolysis following the ascending dose regimens, in the same patients.

1. Regulatory agencies like to classify a drug regimen as either SAFE or NOT-SAFE; they also like to decide who is 'at risk' and who is 'not at risk'. A wealth of data, including those in this manuscript, show that it is not correct to say that a G6PD deficient person when taking PQ is at risk of haemolysis: he or she will definitely have haemolysis. As for SAFETY, it will depend on the clinical situation when PQ is started and on the severity of the AHA that will develop.

We agree completely. Haemolysis following primaquine is inevitable. What matters is the rate and extent of haemolysis, and the compensatory response. Importantly the extent of the haemolysis, even within a specific genotype and for a given drug dose, appears to be highly variable.

The above three issues are all present in the discussion, but I think they ought to be stated more clearly.

We have tried to clarify these points in a revised discussion.

Finally, by the Authors' own statement on page 15, the main limitation is the complexity of this approach. The authors suggest that blister packed PQ may help; but to me the real complexity is managing patients in the field versus the painstaking hospital care in the hands of experts, of which volunteers in this study have had the benefit. It is not surprising that a fall in Hb of 4 g/dl is well tolerated by most non-anaemic men; but patients with P vivax in the field may often have mild to moderate to severe anaemia; and certainly they will not have their Hb, retics and bilirubin checked every day. In crude approximation, we are talking of a fall in Hb of 4 G with regimen (1), as against a fall in Hb of 2 G with regimen (2), that is part of the currently recommended regimen: it stands to reason that, in terms of safety, the latter is generally preferable (even though some degree of fall in Hb will recur with each weekly dose). In my view, these difficult points should be discussed deliberately.

As above we have tried to clarify these important points in a revised discussion

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Page 2 para 3. The decreased haemolysis upon continued PQ administration (that originally was named the 'resistance phase' is explained by two additive factors. First, the reticulocytosis (cells with higher G6PD activity pour into circulation from the bone marrow); second, the early doses of PQ has caused selective haemolysis of the oldest red cells, that had the lowest G6PD activity. This dual phenomenon is hinted at, but I think it should be stated clearly.

Thank you. We have added to the Introduction (fourth paragraph in revised version):

“Continued primaquine administration to G6PD deficient subjects resulted in "resistance" to the haemolytic effect. The selective haemolysis of the older red cells resulted in a compensatory increase in the number of reticulocytes. Thus, the red cell population became progressively younger and increasing resistant to oxidant stress, so overall haemolysis decreased and a steady state was reached.”

Page 4 and elsewhere. In the 'Hillmen scale' for haemoglobinuria a value >6 was named a 'paroxysm'; but any value of 2 and above is already frank haemoglobinuria. Incidentally, the chart was published not in ref 17, but in NEJM 350:552, 2004.

We have changed the reference (now ref 19) to the 2004 paper by Hillmen. We used the value of 6 as clinical criterion for stopping primaquine. While >2 is detectable in dilute urine, >6 refers to clearly red/black urine.

In Table 1 and throughout the paper I am surprised that retics are given as %: absolute retic counts are more informative.

We showed these as % counts as the majority of measurements were taken from blood slide readings where it is not possible to get an absolute count.

Page 10, Attenuated hemolysis with continued or recurrent doses of PQ was shown convincingly for G6PD A-. There is also one report in which the time course of AHA was extensively investigated upon deliberate administration of PQ to a subject with G6PD Mediterranean (Blood 25: 92, 1965): there was little or no evidence for a 'resistance phase'.

We agree that this suggests it might not be possible to attenuate haemolysis with the Mediterranean variant (or variants of similar severity) as even the youngest circulating red cells may be susceptible to haemolysis. More evidence is needed.

S6, S7. Reticulocytes remain high until PQ is stopped; they return to normal some 17 days after stopping PQ. This should be stated in the main text.

This has been added to the main text (section “Haemolysis and reticulocyte response”):

“It took around 2 weeks for the reticulocyte counts to re-normalise.”

In subject 11 haemoglobinuria was slight on day 12; what was it before?

We have changed the caption of this Figure (Appendix 5) to:

“Day 10 urine sample from subject 11 showing slight haemoglobinuria (Hillmen score of 4). The subject had a maximum Hillmen score varying between 2 and 3 on days 4 to 9.”

I found individual patient data in S5 and S6 most interesting, especially since the G6PD variant was identified in each case. It would be helpful if in each case the total PQ dose were also shown, and in the interest of visual comparability the abscissa scale ought to be the same for all cases.

We have amended Figures S5 and S6 to make them consistent with each other (now Appendix 5). We also amended the figures showing the individual subject data for consistency.

Author Response

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

We appreciate the reviewers’ detailed corrections and insightful comments. We have revised our manuscript per reviewers’ recommendations by including new data and clarifications/expansion of the discussion on our findings. Please see below for details.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

1. The introduction notes that CD1d KO mice show reduced levels of Va3.2 T cells (Ruscher et al.), which is interesting because innate memory T cell development in the thymus often requires IL-4 production by NKT cells. Have the authors explored QFL T cells in CD1d KO and/or IL-4 KO mice? Since their QFL TCR Tg mice still develop QFL T cells (and these animals likely have very few thymic NKT cells), NKT cells may not be required for the intrathymic development of QFL T cells?

Answer: We agree that investigation on the role of NKT cells or IL-4 in QFL T cell development will greatly further our understanding of these cells.

We validated the finding that expression of the QFL TCR transgene largely repressed the expression of endogenous TCRα, as indicated by the low levels of endogenous Vα2 on mature CD8SP T cells in both thymus and spleen. However, the frequencies of Vα2 usage in CD4 SP thymocytes and splenocytes from QFL transgenic mice were similar to non-transgenic mice, confirming that they underwent positive selection using endogenous TCR rather than the QFL TCR. We thus do not exclude the possible presence of NKT cells in QFLTg mouse and their potential involvement in the QFL T cells development. Our manuscript here is mainly focused on investigating the peripheral phenotype of QFL T cells and their association with the gut microbiota environment. Investigations into the role of CD1d/IL-4 will be best addressed in our future studies.

1. The finding that Qa-1 expression is not required for the development of QFL T cells raises questions about other MHC products that may be involved. In this context, it is interesting that TAP-deficient mice develop few QFL T cells, for reasons that are unclear, but the authors may speculate a bit. In this context, it may be helpful for the authors to note whether TAP is required for QFL presentation to QFL T cells. Since Qa-1 is not required, and CD1d is still expressed in TAP KO mice, what then could be responsible for their defect in QFL T cell development?

Answer: This is a great point. Figure 2 (from (Valerio et al., 2023) on the development of QFL T cells) tested whether QFL TCR cross-react with other MHC I molecules.

We assessed the activation of pre-selection QFLTg thymocytes in response to various MHC I deficient DC2.4 cell lines. While the QFL thymocytes showed partially reduced activation when stimulated with Qa-1b deficient APCs, triple knock-out (KO) of Qa-1b, Kb, and Db in DC2.4 cells reduced activation close to background levels. However, double knock-out of Qa-1b with either Kb, or Db led to stimulation that was intermediate between the triple KO and Qa-1b-KO cell lines. These data suggest that Kb and Db may contribute to the positive selection of QFL T cells in Qa-1b-KO mice.

TAP is required for FL9 peptide presentation and is very likely needed for presentation of the yet unidentified MHC Ia presented peptide(s) that are essential to QFL T positive selection. While CD1d/NKT cells/IL-4 may be involved in supporting the maturation of QFL T cells, we think in the TAP-KO mice the absence of TAP led to deletion/altered selection of the QFL T population at early developmental stage. We have added clarification on this point in the revised manuscript (line 412~418).

1. It may be worthwhile for the authors to note that Qa-1 was also dispensable for the intrathymic selection of another Qa-1-restricted TCR (Doorduijn et al. 2018. Frontiers Immunol.), although this is presumably not the case for others (Sullivan et al. 2002. Immunity 17, 95).

Answer: We appreciate this recommendation. We have noted this point in the resubmitted manuscript (line 412~418).

1. Lines 122-124: The sentence "Interesting ..." seemed confusing to me; are the numbers (60 and 30%) correct?

Answer: The numbers 60% and 30% were referring to the largest number we have detected for percentages of Va3.2 QFL T cells and Va3.2 CD8 T cell respectively. Here in the revised version, we replaced these numbers with average percentages (20.1% and <10%) to avoid confusion (line 134).

1. Qa-1/peptide complexes may also be recognized by CD94/NKG2 receptors, which may complicate the interpretation of the data (e.g., staining of the dextramers). From their previous work, it appears that Qa-1/QFL does not bind CD94/NKG2, which would be helpful to note in the text.

Answer: We have noted this point in the revised manuscript (line 117~121).

1. It would be helpful to add a few comments about the potential relevance to HLA-E.

Answer: We have included discussion on this point (line 391~401).

1. Figure legends: Most legends note the total number of replicates, which is usually quite high. It would also be helpful to indicate the total number of independent experiments performed and, when relevant, that the data are pooled from multiple independent experiments.

Answer: Thank you for raising the concern. We have clarified the experimental repeats in figure legends.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

1. The work of Nilabh Shastri was the foundation of the present study. Unfortunately, he passed away in 2021. Since he can no longer assume the responsibilities of a senior author, I wonder if it would be more appropriate to dedicate this paper to him than to list him as a co-author.

Answer: We have removed Dr. Shastri’s name as a co-senior author and have dedicated this work to his memory.

1. The official symbol for ERAAP is Erap1.

Answer: We have replaced ERAAP with ERAP1.

1. Please refrain from editorializing. For example, "strikingly" appears eight times and "interestingly" 9 times in the manuscript. Most readers believe they do not need to be said when something is striking or interesting.

Answer: We appreciate the Reviewer’s suggestion and have removed ‘strikingly’ and ‘interestingly’ from the manuscript.

1. In WT mice, are there some cell types that express Qa-1b but not Erap1 and could therefore present the FL9 peptide?

Answer: This is a great question. Using our highly sensitive QFL T cell hybridoma line BEko8Z (sensitivity shown in Fig. 6b), we have so far not been able to detect steady-state FL9 presentation by cells isolated from the spleen, lymph nodes, various gut associated lymphoid tissues or intestinal epithelial cells (Supplementary Fig. 8 a left panel). However, we do not exclude the possibility of FL9 peptide being transiently presented under certain conditions (i.e. ER stress/transformed cells) at particular locations or within certain time windows, which is of great importance for understanding the function of these cells but is beyond the scope of this study.

1. Since you have not tested substitutions at other positions, could you explain your reasoning that P4 and P6 are the critical residues (lines 271-272)?

Answer: Thank you for raising the concern. We have expanded on explanation of our strategy for determining peptide homology (line 272~313) in the revised manuscript. We have also included data on the structure the QFL TCR: FL9-Qa-1b complex predicted by Alphafold2, conformation alignment of FL9 and Qdm (Figure 6. a, b) and the NetMHCpan prediction of Qa1b binding of Qdm, FL9 and various FL9 mutant peptides (Supplementary Fig. 8 c) to help readers visualize the reasoning behind our strategy.

1. Readers might appreciate having a Figure summarizing the differences between spleen and gut QFL T cells.

Answer: This is a great suggestion. We have added a table summarizing the characteristic features of the splenic and IEL QFL T cells (Table 1).

1. In the discussion, readers would like to know what plan you might have to elucidate the function of QFL T cells.

Answer: We appreciate the recommendation. We have elaborated on our opinions and future directions in the resubmitted manuscript (line 393~401, 446~455).  

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

1. For most of the report, the authors use a set of phenotypic traits to highlight the unique features of QFL-specific CD8+ T cells - specifically, CD44high, CD8aa+ve, CD8ab-ve. In Supp. Fig. 4, however, completely distinct phenotypic characteristics are presented, indicating that IEL QFL-specific T cells are CD5low, Thy-1low. No explanation is provided in the text about whether this is a previously reported phenotype, whether any elements of this phenotype are shared with splenic QFL T cells, what significance the authors ascribe to this phenotype (and to the fact that Qa1-deficiency leads to a more conventional Thy-1+ve, CD5+ve phenotype), and whether this altered phenotype is also seen in ERAAP-deficient mice. At least some explanation for this abrupt shift in focus and integration with prior published work is needed. On a related note, CD5 expression is measured in splenic QFL-specific CD8+ T cells from GF vs SPF mice (Supp. Fig. 9), to indicate that there is no phenotypic impact in the GF mice - but from Supp. Fig. 4, it would seem more appropriate to report CD5 expression in QFL-specific cells from the IEL, not the spleen.

Answer: Expression of CD8αα and lack of CD4, CD8αβ, CD5 and CD90 expression was indeed reported as the characteristic phenotype of natIELs. We have clarified this point in the resubmitted manuscript (line 80). The CD8αα+ IEL QFL T cells have consistently showed CD5CD90- phenotype. While CD8αα expression was sufficient to describe their natIEL phenotype, we showed the CD5-CD90- data in Supplementary figures only to provide additional evidence.

The CD5 molecule by itself reflects the TCR signaling strength and high CD5 level is associated with self-reactivity of T cells (Azzam et al., 2001; Fulton et al., 2015). The implication of CD5 expression on QFLTg cells is discussed in our other manuscript where we investigate the development of these cells (Valerio et al., 2023). In Supplementary Fig. 9, because the donor splenic QFLTg cell have consistently showed comparable CD5 level between the GF and SPF group, we reasoned that it would not interfere with our interpretation of the CD44 expression.

1. The authors suggest the finding that QFL-specific cells from ERAAP-deficient mice have a more "conventional" phenotype indicates some form of negative selection of high-affinity clones (this result being somewhat unexpected since ERAAP loss was previously shown to increase the presentation of Qa-1b loaded with FL9, confirmed in this report). It is not clear how this argument aligns with the data presented, however, since the authors convincingly show no significant reduction in the number of QFL-specific cells in ERAAP-knockout mice (Fig. 3a), and their own data (e.g. Fig. 2a) do not suggest that CD44 expression correlates with QFL-multimer staining (as a surrogate for TCR affinity/avidity). Is there some experimental basis for suggesting that ERAAP-deficient lacks a subset of high affinity QFL-specific cells?

Answer: We think the presence of QFL T cells in ERAAP-KO mice is a result of the unconventional developmental mechanism of these cells which is better addressed in our complementary manuscript on the development of QFL T cells(Valerio et al., 2023). Valerio et al. found that the most predominant QFL T clone which expresses Vα3.2Jα21, Vβ1Dβ1Jβ2-7 received relatively strong TCR signaling and underwent agonist selection during thymic development, indicating that the QFL ligand is involved in selection of the innate-like QFL T population.

We agree that there is so far no direct evidence showing the QFL T cells that were absent in the ERAAP-KO mice were high-affinity clones. We have removed ‘high-affinity’ from the manuscript (line 180). While CD44 expression has been associated the antigen-experiences phenotype of T cells, it is yet unclear whether expression level of this molecule directly reflects TCR affinity/avidity. identification of clones of different affinities/avidities require high precision technologies that are not currently available to the research community. While we do have zMovi, a newly developed (developing) technology, in the lab claimed to measure relative avidity/affinity of different cell types for ligands, during the past two years working with this instrument has taught us that the technology is not yet advanced enough; it can only produce reliable data on extreme differences of single clones, i.e., high numbers of homogeneous cell types expressing very high affinity receptors.

1. The rationale for designing FL9 mutants, and for using these data to screen the proteomes of various commensal bacteria needs further explanation. The authors propose P4 and P6 of FL9 are likely to be "critical" but do not explain whether they predict these to be TCR or Qa-1b contact sites. Published data (e.g., PMID: 10974028) suggest that multiple residues contribute to Qa-1b binding, so while the authors find that P4A completely lost the ability to stimulate a QFL-specific hybridoma, it is unclear whether this is due to the loss of a TCR- or a Qa-1-contact site (or, possibly, both). This could easily be tested - e.g., by determining whether P4A can act as a competitive inhibitor for FL9-induced stimulation of BEko8Z (and, ideally, other Qa-1b-restricted cells, specific for distinct peptides). Without such information, it is unclear exactly what is being selected in the authors' screening strategy of commensal bacterial proteomes. This, of course, does not lessen the importance of finding the peptide from P. pentosaceus that can (albeit weakly) stimulate QFL-specific cells, and the finding that association with this microbe can sustain IEL QFL cells.

Answer: Thank you for raising the concern. We have expanded on explanation of our strategy for determining peptide homology (line 272~313) in the revised manuscript. We have also included data on the structure the QFL TCR: FL9-Qa-1b complex predicted by Alphafold2, conformation alignment of FL9 and Qdm (Figure 6. a, b) and the NetMHCpan prediction of Qa1b binding of Qdm, FL9 and various FL9 mutant peptides (Supplementary Fig. 8 c) to help readers visualize the reasoning behind our strategy.

References

Azzam, H.S., DeJarnette, J.B., Huang, K., Emmons, R., Park, C.S., Sommers, C.L., El-Khoury, D., Shores, E.W., and Love, P.E. (2001). Fine tuning of TCR signaling by CD5. J Immunol 166, 5464- 5472.10.4049/jimmunol.166.9.5464, PMID:11313384

Fulton, R.B., Hamilton, S.E., Xing, Y., Best, J.A., Goldrath, A.W., Hogquist, K.A., and Jameson, S.C. (2015). The TCR's sensitivity to self peptide-MHC dictates the ability of naive CD8(+) T cells to respond to foreign antigens. Nat Immunol 16, 107-117.10.1038/ni.3043, PMID:25419629

Valerio, M.M., Arana, K., Guan, J., Chan, S.W., Yang, X., Kurd, N., Lee, A., Shastri, N., Coscoy, L., and Robey, E.A. (2023). The promiscuous development of an unconventional Qa1b-restricted T cell population. bioRxiv, 2022.2009.2026.509583.10.1101/2022.09.26.509583,

Joint Public Review:

Summary:<br /> In this interesting work, the authors investigated an important topical question: when we see travelling waves in cortical activity, is this due to true wave-like spread, or due to sequentially activated sources? In simulations, it is shown that sequential brain module activation can show up as a travelling wave - even in improved methods such as phase delay maps - and a variety of parameters is investigated. Then, in ex-vivo turtle eye-brain preparations, the authors show that visual cortex waves observable in local field potentials are in fact often better explained as areas D1 and D2 being sequentially activated. This has implications for how we think about travelling wave methodology and relevant analytical tools.

Strengths:<br /> I enjoyed reading the discussion. The authors are careful in their claims, and point out that some phenomena may still indeed be genuine travelling waves, but we should have a higher evidence bar to claim this for a particular process in light of this paper and Zhigalov & Jensen (2023) (ref 44). Given this careful discussion, the claims made are well-supported by the experimental results. The discussion also gives a nice overview of potential options in light of this and future directions.

The illustration of different gaussian covariances leading to very different latency maps was interesting to see.

Furthermore, the methods are detailed and clearly structured and the Supplementary Figures, particularly single trial results, are useful and convincing.

Weaknesses:<br /> The details of the sequentially activated Gaussian simulations give some useful results, but the fundamental idea still appears to be "sequential activation is often indistinguishable from a travelling wave", an idea advanced e.g. by Zhigalov & Jensen (2023). It takes a while until the (in my opinion) more intriguing experimental results.

One of the key claims is that the spikes are more consistent with two sequentially activated modules rather than a continuous wave (with Fig 3k and 3l key to support this). Whilst this is *more* consistent, it is worth mentioning that there seems to be stochasticity to this and between-trial variability, especially for spikes.

I 100% agree with this. Yeah, it might not be that serious in every case, but I hate this new phenomenon of purposely upsetting kids for tiktok/youtube/etc ... especially because the type of parents to do this likely do it more than just once. Once, it may be funny. Repetitively? It's just kind of bullying. I think posting it online is especially harmful because it publicizes it, and honestly, for the parent, it probably reinforces the behavior. There is a reason a lot of family channels these days get exposed for being abusive, horrible people.

It may be just a prank for parents to take away their children's candy, but it can be devastating to a child's young mind and heart, and I don't think it's ethical for adults to use methods used to please adults to be applied to small children

Author Response

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

Reviewer 1

Public Review

R1.1) Randomized clinical trials use experimental blinding and compare active and placebo conditions in their analyses. In this study, Fassi and colleagues explore how individual differences in subjective treatment (i.e., did the participant think they received the active or placebo treatment) influence symptoms and how this is related to objective treatment. The authors address this highly relevant and interesting question using a powerful method by (re-)analyzing data from four published neurostimulation studies and including subjective treatment in statistical models explaining treatment response. The major strengths include the innovative and important research question, the inclusion of four different studies with different techniques and populations to address this question, sound statistical analyses, and findings that are of high interest and relevance to the field.

We thank the reviewer for this summary and the overall appreciation for our work.

R1.2) My main suggestion is that authors reconsider the description of the main conclusion to better integrate and balance all findings. Specifically, the authors conclude that (e.g., in the abstract) "individual differences in subjective treatment can explain variability in outcomes better than the actual treatment", which I believe is not a consistent conclusion across all four studies as it does not appropriately consider important interactions with objective treatment observed in study 2 and 3. In study 2, the greatest improvement was observed in the group that received TMS but believed they received sham. While subjective treatment was associated with improvement regardless of objective active or sham treatment, improvement in the objective active TMS group who believed they received sham suggests the importance of objective treatment regardless of subjective treatment. In Study 3, including objective treatment in the model predicted more treatment variance, further suggesting the predictive value of objective treatment.

We thank the reviewer for this comment and agree that the interpretation of findings requires a more nuanced and balanced description. We, therefore, implemented changes in both the abstract and discussion of the manuscript, as reported below (additions are highlighted in grey and deletions are shown in strikethrough):

Abstract

“Our findings consistently show that the inclusion of subjective treatment can provide a better model fit when accounted for alone or in an interaction term with objective treatment (defined as the condition to which participants are assigned in the experiment). These results demonstrate the significant contribution of subjective experience in explaining the variability of clinical, cognitive and behavioural outcomes. Based on these findings, We advocate for existing and future studies in clinical and non-clinical research to start accounting for participants’ subjective beliefs and their interplay with objective treatment when assessing the efficacy of treatments. This approach will be crucial in providing a more accurate estimation of the treatment effect and its source, allowing the development of effective and reproducible interventions.” (p. 3)

Discussion

“We demonstrate that participants’ subjective beliefs about receiving the active vs control (sham) treatment are an important factor that can explain variability in the primary outcome and, in some cases, fits the observed data better than the actual treatment participants received during the experiment.” (p. 21)

“We demonstrate that participants’ subjective beliefs about receiving the active vs control (sham) treatment are an important factor that can explain variability in the primary outcome and, in some cases, fits the observed data better than the actual treatment participants received during the experiment. Specifically, in Studies 1, 2 and 4, the fact that participants thought to be in the active or control condition explained variability in clinical and cognitive scores to a more considerable extent than the objective treatment alone. Notably, the same pattern of results emerged when we replaced subjective treatment with subjective dosage in the fourth experiment, showing that subjective beliefs about treatment intensity also explained variability in research results better than objective treatment. In contrast to Studies 1 and 4, Studies 2 and 3 showed a more complex pattern of results. Specifically, in Study 2 we observed an interaction effect, whereby the greatest improvement in depressive symptoms was observed in the group that received the active objective treatment but believed they received sham. Differently, in Study 3, the inclusion of both subjective and objective treatment as main effects explained variability in symptoms of inattention. Overall, these findings suggest the complex interplay of objective and subjective treatment. The variability in the observed results could be explained by factors such as participants’ personality, type and severity of the disorder, prior treatments, knowledge base, experimental procedures, and views of the research team, all of which could be interesting avenues for future studies to explore.” (p. 22)

R1.3) In addition to updating the conclusions to better reflect this interaction, I suggest authors include the proportion of participants in each subjective treatment group that actually received active or sham treatment to better understand how much of the subjective treatment is explained by objective treatment. I think it is particularly important to better integrate and more precisely communicate this finding, because the conclusions may otherwise be erroneously interpreted as improvements after treatment only being an effect of subjective treatment or sham.

We thank the reviewer for this comment. The information about how many participants are included in each group is provided in the every each codebooks under the section “Count of Participants by Treatment Condition and Their Subjective Guess” which is in the project’s OSF link (https://osf.io/rztxu/). Additionally, we added these tables to the supplementary material in tables S1, S8, S15, and S18, and we referred to these tables throughout the Methods section. Further, we added this information to the manuscript results, as follows:

• “Further details on participant groupings based on objective treatment and their subjective treatment can be found in the codebook corresponding to each of the four studies as well as S1.” (p. 8).

• “The breakdown of participants to objective treatment and subjective treatment in the sample can be found in S8.” (p. 13).

• “The breakdown of participants to objective treatment and subjective treatment in the sample can be found in S15.” (p. 17).

• “The breakdown of participants to objective treatment and subjective treatment in the sample can be found in S18.” (p. 19).

R1.4) The paper will have significant impact on the field. It will promote further investigation of the effects of sham vs active treatment by the introduction of the terms subjective treatment vs objective treatment and subjective dosage that can be used consistently in the future. The suggestions to assess the expectation of sham vs active earlier on in clinical trials will advance the understanding of subjective treatment in future studies. Overall, I believe the data will substantially contribute to the design and interpretation of future clinical trials by underscoring the importance of subjective treatment.

We thank the reviewer for this positive comment.

Review for authors

R1.4) Abstract

"Here we show that individual differences in subjective treatment.. can explain variability in outcomes better than the actual treatment". "Our findings consistently show that the inclusion of subjective treatment provides a better model fit than objective treatment alone" - these two statements could be interpreted as two different conclusions, authors should be more consistent.

We thank the reviewer for this comment and have now changed the abstract to be consistent, as also highlighted in R1.1:

Abstract

“Our findings consistently show that the inclusion of subjective treatment can provides a better model fit when accounted for alone or in an interaction term with objective treatment (defined as the condition to which participants are assigned in the experiment). These results demonstrate the significant contribution of subjective experience in explaining the variability of clinical, cognitive and behavioural outcomes. Based on these findings, We advocate for existing and future studies in clinical and non-clinical research to start accounting for participants’ subjective beliefs and their interplay with objective treatment when assessing the efficacy of treatments. This approach will be crucial in providing a more accurate estimation of the treatment effect and its source, allowing the development of effective and reproducible interventions.” (p. 3)

R1.5) Introduction

This is an odd sentence given it is 2023: "As a result, the global neuromodulation device industry is expected to grow to $13.3 billion in 2022 (Colangelo, 2020)."

We have now removed this sentence as indeed not applicable and instead added a reference for the previous sentence:

“In recent years, neuromodulation has been studied as one of the most promising treatment methods (De Ridder et al., 2021).”

Reference

De Ridder, D., Maciaczyk, J., & Vanneste, S. (2021). The future of neuromodulation: Smart neuromodulation. Expert Review of Medical Devices, 18(4), 307–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2021.1909470

R1.6) Figures

• Lines of Figure 1 are vague.

• Figure 5 color scheme is confusing. It would be better to use green/blue colors for one, (e.g.) sham in both subjective and objective treatment and orange/red colors for active treatment.

• For Figure 6 it would be better to use the same color for sham as subjective dosage none.

• Relatedly, it would be easier to keep color scheme consistent across the paper and for example use green/blue colors for sham throughout.

We thank the reviewer for this comment. Following these comments, all the figures of the paper has remade for better clarity.

• Figure 1, the individual lines are now shown stronger, there is also a connecting line between the averages.

• Figure 5, sham is now on cold colours (blue and green), and active treatment on warm colours (red and orange)

• Figure 6, the same colour for sham as subjective dosage none is now applied.

Further, we also edited Figures 2 and 4 by removing the percentages between 0% and 100% on the y-axis. Given that the outcome variable was binary coded, we implemented this change to avoid confusion.

Reviewer 2

Public Review

R2.1) This manuscript focuses on the clinical impact of subjective experience or treatment with transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation studies with retrospective analyses of 4 datasets. Subjective experience or treatment refers to the patient level thought of receiving active or sham treatments. The analyses suggest that subjective treatment effects are an important and under appreciated factor in randomized controlled trials. The authors present compelling evidence that has significance in the context of other modalities of treatment, treatment for other diseases, and plans for future randomized controlled trials. Other strengths included a rigorous approach and analyses. Some aspects of the manuscript are underdeveloped and the findings are over interpreted. Thank you for your efforts and the opportunity to review your work.

We thank the reviewer for their overall appreciation of this work. We address the comment on the overinterpretation of findings in response to reviewer 1 (see R1.2) above, and we expand on the underdeveloped explanation of sham procedures (see R2.2) below.

Review for authors

R2.2) One concern is that the findings are consistently over interpreted and presented with a polarizing framework. This is a complicated area of study with many variables that are not understood or captured. For example, subjective experience effects likely varies with personality dimensions, disease, prior treatments, knowledge base, view of the research team, and disease severity. Framing subjective experience with a more balanced tone, as an important consideration for future trial design and study execution would enhance the impact of the paper.

We thank the reviewer for this comment. We reframed our interpretation of results in both the manuscript abstract and discussion, as highlighted in response to reviewer 1 (see R1.2) above.

R2.3) The discussion of sham approaches for transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation is underdeveloped. There are approaches that are not discussed. The tilt method is seldom used for modern studies for example.

We thank the reviewer for this comment, and we now rewrote a paragraph elaborating more on different practices to apply sham procedures in the introduction section:

“Participants that take part in TMS and tES studies consistently report various perceptual sensations, such as audible clicks, visual disturbances, and cutaneous sensations (Davis et al., 2013) Consequently, they can discern when they have received the active treatment, making subjective beliefs and demand characteristics potentially influencing performance (Polanía et al., 2018). To account for such non-specific effects, sham (placebo) protocols have been employed. For transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), the most common form of tES, various sham protocols exist. A review by Fonteneau et al., 2019 shows 84% of 173 studies used similar sham approaches to an early method by Gandiga et al., 2005. This initial protocol had a 10s ramp-up followed by 30s of active stimulation at 1mA before cessation, differently from active stimulation that typically lasts up to 20 minutes.. However, this has been adapted in terms of intensity and duration of current, ramp-in/out phases, and the number of ramps during stimulation. Similarly, in sham TMS, the TMS coil may be tilted or replaced with purpose-built sham coils equipped with magnetic shields, which produce auditory effects but ensure no brain stimulation (Duecker & Sack, 2015). By using surface electrodes, the somatosensory effects of actual TMS are also mimicked. Overall, these types of sham stimulation aim to mimic the perceptual sensations associated with active stimulation without substantially affecting cortical excitability (Fritsch et al., 2010; Nitsche & Paulus, 2000). As a result, sham treatments should allow controlling for participants’ specific beliefs about the type of stimulation received.” (p.6)

References

Fonteneau, C., Mondino, M., Arns, M., Baeken, C., Bikson, M., Brunoni, A. R., Burke, M. J., Neuvonen, T., Padberg, F., Pascual-Leone, A., Poulet, E., Ruffini, G., Santarnecchi, E., Sauvaget, A., Schellhorn, K., Suaud-Chagny, M.-F., Palm, U., & Brunelin, J. (2019). Sham tDCS: A hidden source of variability? Reflections for further blinded, controlled trials. Brain Stimulation, 12(3), 668–673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2018.12.977

Gandiga, P. C., Hummel, F. C., & Cohen, L. G. (2006). Transcranial DC stimulation (tDCS): A tool for double-blind sham-controlled clinical studies in brain stimulation. Clinical Neurophysiology, 117(4), 845–850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2005.12.003

Note: This response was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. The content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

---

Reply to the reviewers

We thank the reviewers for their constructive and detailed reviews. We have been able to resolve all issues raised by the reviewers with additional experiments and changes in the text:

• In response to two of the reviewers we've changed the nomenclature of the residues. As we would like to avoid assigning roles in the naming, we now use 'critical residue 3' and 'critical residue 4', with Cys and His forming critical residue number 1 and 2 respectively.
• We analyzed the role of the negative charge in the fourth critical residue of USP1, by mutating this Asp to Asn to assess the importance of a charged residue in these positions (Supplementary figure 2), resulting in complete loss of activity just like the alanine mutant. We also tested the effect of mutating the third critical residue to Asn in USP1, which causes a minor decrease in activity. This highlights the importance of the highly conserved aspartate (fourth critical residue), and shows that precise residue found in the position is important for catalysis. Additionally, these mutants address potential effects of the ‘holes’ left by the original Ala mutations.
• Importantly, we were able to perform single-turnover assays to expand on our analysis of the precise roles of the critical residues and give more fundamental insight in the defects of the mutants. These assays further elaborate on the variability observed between these USPs. In USP15, these experiments explain the defect in catalysis for the third critical residue mutant and provides insight how a successful nucleophilic attack is combined with defective catalysis (updated Figure 4), which is not observed in the other USPs we tested. In these other USPs, the single turnover experiments reveal that the nucleophilic attack performed by the third and fourth critical residue mutant of USP7 and USP40 happens with low efficiency, even lower efficiency for USP48 and that this ability is lost entirely in USP1.
• We included a number of important textual changes to better explain the choices and variation in USPs tested, highlight prior USP2 data and the implications for drug discovery.
• We updated Ub-PA conjugation assays (updated Figure 4) for better contrast, and repeated the Ub-PA assay for USP1 and USP48 with longer incubation (Supplementary Figure 6). More details are given in the point-by-point response below. All in all, we are convinced that this much improved manuscript is now ready for publication and hope that all reviewers will agree.

---

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

Summary: The authors study the functional role of two adjacent active site residues as candidates for polarising the catalytic histidine in the "Asn/Asp" box from five phylogenetically unrelated ubiquitin specific proteases (USP1, USP7, USP15, USP40 and USP48). One of these residues is more variable across USPs (Asn, Asp, Ser), whereas the second one is absolutely conserved (Asp). To this end they use alanine mutants in kinetic experiments and test their ability to crosslink to ubiquitin propargyl as a proxy for testing the nucleophilicity of the catalytic cysteine. They then further evaluate the activity of the USP1 mutants in processing PCNA-Ub in RPE1 cells. They find that the role of these two residues differs between the different USPs studied, which is in line with previous work that has shown that in USP7, the amongst USPs less conserved residue takes on the major role of polarising the histidine, whereas in the more distantly related USP2, the absolutely conserved Asp is more important (Zhang W, et al. Contribution of active site residues to substrate hydrolysis by USP2: insights into catalysis by ubiquitin specific proteases. Biochemistry. 2011 50(21):4775-85. doi: 10.1021/bi101958h). This study expands on these findings to evaluate the role of these residues in four other USPs.

Major comments: 1. The authors compare highly diverse USPs; USP1 requires UAF1 for full activity and the complex is used in the study, USP7 requires a C-terminal tail peptide for full activity, USP40 and USP48 belong to the CHN class, whereas USP7, USP15 and USP1 belong to the CHD class of USPs. The rationale for selecting this diverse set of USPs is therefore not clear and makes direct comparisons of the findings more difficult. It is certainly interesting that the previously published differences between USP2 and USP7 with respect to these residues are also found in four other divergent USPs, but for this reason it isn't as "surprising" as the title suggests. The title, omission of background knowledge on USP2 in the abstract and presentation of the findings in a graph that makes direct comparisons (Figure 5) are therefore a bit misleading, which needs addressing.

• We apologize that it seemed as if we had overlooked USP2, for which both critical residues are important, and we agree that our abstract previously focused too much on the perception of the field and its focus on USP7. We have changed the abstract and introduction to highlight the USP2 data for a more balanced perspective.
• The reviewer is correct that the set of USPs is diverse, but we see this as a strength, given that this is the first manuscript in which these residues are analyzed in a comparative side-by-side manner for multiple DUBs. We find that our results are not directly related to the CHN/CHD diversity (i.e. changes in the third catalytic residue), nor apparently to activation by a C-terminal tail (as both USP7 and USP40 have this mechanism). Since these are structurally conserved enzymes with a common fold, we do find the comparison is informative. Furthermore, we felt that it was important to clearly signal the variation in different steps of the mechanism, something which appears to largely remain unnoticed by the field. Figure 5 is helpful in understanding that these changes have multiple dimensions. We agree that it is important to signal the diversity as possible source for these differences and we have added the following sentences to paragraph 3 of the results: “These USPs vary in domain architecture and allosteric regulation, and therefore represent different aspects of the USP family. USP1, USP7 and USP15 both harbor two aspartates as third and fourth critical residue and USP40 and USP48 harbor an asparagine and aspartate as third and fourth critical residue respectively, allowing us to examine the importance of a negative charge in position of the third critical residue.”
• We used the word surprising in the title to indicate the variability we observed in the two dimensions of the mechanism, as indicated in Fig. 5.

The study relies on single alanine mutations, which will inevitably change the hydrogen bonding patterns and the local environment which could impact the conclusion. The authors should verify in kinetic assays at least for USP1, which is the main focus, that Asp to Asn mutants still display the same effects.

• We are thankful for this suggestion. We have made these additional USP1 mutants through insect cell expression and tested these in different assays. As expected, both Asn mutants follow the alanine mutations. The results are reported in Supplementary fig 2BC.

While neither mutant unfolds below 40 degrees, there are clear differences in thermal stability between some of the proteins used in the study (Supp. Fig. 1B). A full table of measured Tms by NanoDSF for all Wt and mutant proteins should be provided so that the reader can evaluate how the results may be impacted by local effects that impact the thermal stability. It is noticeable that USP40 and USP15 mutants in particular display large differences in thermal stability, which could directly affect the results. The authors should clearly discuss these limitations of the study.

• We have added supplemental table S2 to report the melting temperatures. The effect observed for USP15 is addressed in the results: “While both mutants of USP15 have a decreased thermal stability compared to USP15wt, these variants retain stability until 50 °C, indicating that they are still well-folded and suitable for kinetic assays at room temperature.”. For USP40, it is not the actual measured Tm that deviates a lot, but the measured 350/330 ratio, which is addressed in the legend of supplementary figure 1B “Ratios measured (350 mm/330 mm) varied between some of the mutants (Eg. USP40wt), but this did not affect the measured inflection points (Supplementary table 1)”.

  Minor comments: 1. For USP48 and USP40 no published structures are available at present, so it isn't clear whether there are any differences in orientation of the studied residues. An unpublished USP40 structure is referred to but not shown. The general conclusion that structures do not reveal any differences in these residues may therefore not be valid for all the studied USPs. Please revise.

• We apologize if this was not clear. We did however not refer to a USP40 structure, but a USP40 manuscript in preparation that studies biochemistry USP40 activation through activation by its C-terminal tail.

• The existing structures do not show observable differences in the active site residues, nor in the immediate surrounding, and therefore do not give insight which residue is critical for catalysis. We now mention this more explicitly. “It was previously shown that there are no structural differences in the positioning of the catalytic triad and the fourth critical residue between USP2 and USP7, despite their third and fourth critical residues behaving differently (Zhang et al., 2011). We superimposed the currently available crystal structures of USP catalytic domains (Table 1, Figure 1E) and also found only minor differences in the positioning of these two adjacent residues.”
• As the AlphaFold predictions for USP40 and USP48 closely resemble the known structures in Figure 1E, we have added this information as follows : “While the structures of USP40 and USP48 have not been solved, they contain the conserved USP catalytic domain and AlphaFold predictions for USP40 (Uniprot: Q9NVE5) and USP48 (Uniprot: Q86UV5) do not suggest major changes in their catalytic domains."

The introduction of the new terms "critical residue 1 and 2" are confusing and partially disproved by the study itself (replace with e.g. less conserved versus absolutely conserved 3rd triad residue or similar), please revise.

• Thank you, this issue is also mentioned by reviewer 2. We aimed at a solution that would not make inferences on mechanisms. We settled on "critical residue 3" and "critical residue 4", with the active site Cys and His being the first two.

p. 3/4: please add pH information to buffers used in the stability studies. "Previous publication" and "manuscript in preparation" are contradictions.

• pH information has been added.
• Thank you for the comments, we've adjusted the text.

p. 4. Assay buffer for USP1, USP7 and USP48 pH information is missing

• We have corrected the omission.

p. 6: last heading: typo is dispensable

• Typo was corrected.

p. 8: please explain choice of USP1 C90R mutation

• Other mutations tend to increase affinity for free ubiquitin, and in cells this can change ubiquitin homeostasis. The Cys to Arg mutation was shown to avoid this problem in some DUBs. (Morrow et al, Embo Rep 2018 Oct;19(10):e45680. doi: 10.15252/embr.201745680). We have added the reference in both the methods and results sections.

Explain choice of pH range 7-9 studied with regards to anticipated pKas

• We primarily aimed to look at the catalytic cysteine, which needs to be deprotonated in order to allow for catalysis. The sentence on pKas has been removed to avoid confusion. Since the catalytic cysteine in USPs typically has a high pKa, we decided to look at an increased pH to favor partial Cys deprotonation. To that, we have added a reference on USP7, in which it was previously shown USP7 is activated by a higher pH, which holds true for both full-length and its catalytic domain (Faesen et al., (2011). Molecular Cell, 44(1), 147–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2011.06.034).

Importance of mutagenesis for studying enzymatic mechanisms is clear but limitations also need to be discussed; introduction of local changes etc.. this should be added to the discussion

• We have extended the discussion of limitations as requested. Importantly, the new USP1 asparagine mutants relieve some of the limitations of using alanine substitutions, which we also addressed in this section of the discussion: “While alanine mutations leave open an empty space, or take away the negative charge whenever an aspartate is mutated, mutating both critical residues to asparagine in USP1 did not alleviate the decrease in catalytic competence. Additionally, all single critical residue mutants remained stable and some mutants retaining most of their catalytic competence suggests that these enzymes still function properly.”

  Table 1: linear not lineair

• Thank you. We have made the change.

Table 2: add information for mutant names (exact residue numbers) these data correspond to to improve clarity

• Thank you. We have made the change.

Fig. 1D which structure is shown?

• USP7 (1NBF), we have adjusted the legend.

Fig. 4 bands for USP1/UAF1 D752A and USP15 WT/mutants very faint so difficult to see whether there is crosslinking or not, please comment

• We performed the experiment again and made new figures with better contrast.

Fig.5: please see above for comment about graph and remove or revise.

• We have adjusted the legend to make the diversity more clear: “These five USPs share the conserved USP catalytic domain but vary considerably in domain architecture and allosteric regulation, and therefore represent a part of the diversity found in the USP family.”

Suppl. Table 2: global fit analysis not appropriate for when a poor fit was obtained or where the mutants were barely active (Figs S2, S3). These constants should be removed from the table or more information on the fitting provided. There seems to be some correlation between barely active mutants and the thermal stability, please comment.

• We prefer to do the global fit analysis, as it enables us to share rate constants and get meaningful comparisons. All USP variants were fit simultaneously using the global fit approach where k1 and k-3 rate constants were fixed, k-1 and k3 were shared for all the data sets of the same USP and only k2 was fitted for each data set separately. The quality of the global fit correlates with standard errors of k-1 and k3 rate constants. So, the model we use fits reasonably well with all the data sets all together. Even though a few fitted curves are not aligned well with some of the data for mutants with low activity the value of k2 is still important to report since it gives an approximation of magnitude for the catalytic activity and high standard error reflects the quality of the fit for those specific data sets. In addition, kcat/Km values for all the proteins, including low activity mutants, calculated from global fit approach correlate well with the values calculated from Michaelis-Menten analysis. We clarified this in the legend of supplementary figure 3: “Our kinetic model fits the data well. No fit could be obtained for USP15D880A since no activity was detected. We got relatively poorer fits to USPs with low activity, USP1D752A, USP7D481A). Still, for these low activity USPs the reported Kcat/Km gives an approximation of the magnitude for the catalytic activity and the poorer fit is reflected by their relatively higher standard errors reported in supplementary table 3.”

Suppl. Fig. 1B: See above.

• See comment on 3.

  **Referees cross-commenting**

  reviewers' comments are balanced

  Reviewer #1 (Significance (Required)):

  The study builds on previous work on USP7 and USP2 and while not a conceptual advance, adds to our understanding and knowledge of USP mechanisms. The in cellulo work of probing critical residues in USP1 for processing PCNA-Ub adds a new dimension. However, the limitations of some of the experimental design, stability of mutants and choice of USPs (as outlined above) somewhat hamper the direct comparisons the study makes and previous work needs to be adequately represented (USP2). The work will be of interest to basic researchers and medicinal chemists in particular.

• We very much appreciate the enthusiasm of the reviewer for our cellular validation.

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

  Dr. Sixma is a leading expert in DUB enzymology, especially the enzymology of USP family members. This manuscript is a welcome addition to the field and her body of work to date. Exploring the possibility of redundant or entirely new catalytic residues in USPs is indeed an important venture for differentiating these highly homologous enzymes. The paper is well-written, and the experiments are simplistic and understandable. However, as a whole, the work is not ground-breaking, and the mechanistic explanation of the experimental observation lacks substantiating evidence. The manuscript should be recommended for publication in an appropriate journal after some revision.

  Major comments: - A major concern of the article is about the mechanistic explanation of the role of the second critical residue Asp. The authors proposed two different possible mechanisms, including 1. the residue is flexible to position itself to replace the role of the canonical general base "first" critical residue; 2. Cys/His forms a dyad as seen in other cysteine proteases, and the "second critical residue" Asp participates in the oxyanion hole to stabilize the activated substrate. However, as the authors argue in their discussion, both mechanisms are speculative and have major issues: mechanism #1 requires the catalytic His to flip, and the conformation of the His and "second" critical residue is not optimal for them to form a hydrogen bond directly. The author suggested it may be mediated by a water molecule. However, no such structure has been reported. Mechanism #2 also has the trouble of lacking experimental evidence, and since the tetrahedral oxyanion intermediate is negatively charged, the same negatively charged Asp would be unfavourable. Without mechanistic evidence, the observation of the second (more) critical residue Asp is a very interesting one but beyond that, most of the discussions are speculative. The activity-based labelling experiment using Ub-PA, and the cellular experiments using the mutants only confirmed the observation but can not approve any of these mechanisms.

• Indeed, we do not come with a full mechanistic explanation which explains catalysis in all USPs. Instead, we show that individual USPs have greatly different dependence on their catalytic residue, and thus display important mechanistic distinctions, both for nucleophilic attack and for completion of the reaction. The new Asn mutations do show that negative charge in the 4th critical residue is critical for USP1 function, while the new stopped-flow analysis reveals that USP15 is trapped after the first turnover when the 4th critical residue is lost, and that this is not the case for the other USPs tested.

  • The possibility of substrate trapping in some mutants is of interest. Paragraph 5 of the discussion even mentions this. I think this should be investigated by single-turnover assay techniques.

• We are very thankful for this great suggestion. We performed fast kinetics assays (stopped flow) for all USP wildtype and alanine variants. Together with the Ub-PA labelling experiments these assays shed new light on the ability of these USPs to perform a nucleophilic attack. In terms of substrate trapping, it does indeed turn out that USP15 is inactivated after the first turnover (Figure 4B).

  Minor general concern: - The naming of the Asp/Asn/Ser in the canonical triad is a bit confusing. It is called "the third catalytic residue" and then the "first critical residue" (Intro, last paragraph). This is confusing because, in the catalytic triad, Cys/His are also critical residues. Given the importance of the fourth Asp residue, maybe the authors should come up with a different naming system. One suggestion could be calling the Asp/Asn/Ser the **general base residue** (in the canonical triad terms, Cys is the nucleophile, His is the general acid-base residue, Asp is the general base residue), and the 4th Asp as the "alternative general base residue"?

• Reviewer 1 also did not like the naming. To address the issue we have settled on: "critical residue 3" and "critical residue 4", with the active site Cys and His being the first two. This avoids assigning mechanistic roles to particular residues, but still stresses their importance.

  • The augment at the end of the discussion that this alternative Asp residue could lead to new inhibitors for this difficult class of cysteine proteases is a stretch. The majority, if not all, structurally defined inhibitors of USPs (USP7, USP1, USP14) are allosteric inhibitors that do not target the catalytic triad directly. I doubt the discovery of Asp will change that. The most variability of activity regulation of USPs comes from auxiliary domains of the FL USPs, or cofactor proteins, as the authors' lab has previously demonstrated for many of the USPs, including USP7, USP4, USP1, etc., and there lie more opportunities for new inhibitor discovery.

• We agree that current inhibitors would not make use of these variations, but we feel that our findings could spark an interest in developing new classes that would benefit from the variability. We have adjusted the discussion to make that point more explicitly: “The variety in catalytic mechanisms might allow for development of new types of inhibitors with improved specificities.”

  • Similarly, it is a fancy term to cite of DUBTACs, but I don't see much relevance of this alternative residue applied to DUBTACs. The authors could explore the idea a bit if they decide to cite this.

• Indeed, only if the such new inhibitors can be made. We’ve removed the sentence on DUBTACS.

  Minor comments and grammar: editing is difficult without the inclusion of line numbers. I have attempted to address errors the best I can, considering this.

  • Synopsis: "..., the majority of USPs **does** not..." should be "**do**"

• Correction was made

  • Synopsis: "..., either critical **residues** can..." should be "**residue**"

• Correction was made

  • Intro: "Subsequently a tetrahedral..." should have a comma after subsequently

• Correction was made

  • Intro: 2nd paragraph, line 6, be more specific to be "peptide bond."

• Correction was made

  • Intro: in the 3rd paragraph, the residue numbers of the catalytic residues should be stated.

• The numbers were added

  • Intro: the first line of paragraph 4. The statement is confusing and should be made clearer by simply stating, "The third catalytic residue in USPs is either Asp, Asn, or Ser."

• Correction was made

  • Intro: second last paragraph, be a bit more specific on what "resembles USP15 and USP7" could be "... USP8, another USP whose catalytic triad resembles those of USP15 and USP7" because the domain structure of these FL USPs is very different, only the triad is similar.

• We agree and we apologize for this oversight, we have deleted the sentence on USP8 as it is not relevant in this context.

  • Intro: the last paragraph mentions the loss of function USP15 mutation behaves like wild type and USP1. The term "loss of function" is misleading. If mutation to the canonical 3rd catalytic residue has no effect on activity, then it is not a loss of function mutant. Please specify the alanine mutation.

• We've made this change

  • Intro: last paragraph, "Michaelis Menten," should have a hyphen in between.

• Correction was made

  • Methods: please add a space between values and units; this comes up multiple times throughout the manuscript

• Corrections have been made

  • Methods: all taxonomic names should be italicized, i.e., E. coli

• Correction was made

  • Methods: protein stability section, "**build**-in" should be "**built**-in" (build-in is repeated elsewhere and needs to be fixed)

• Correction was made

  • Methods: structure superposition section, "... bound to ubiquitin were **use** whenever..." should be "...bound to ubiquitin were **used** whenever..."

• Correction was made

  • Methods: pH analysis section, "duplo" should be duplicate

• Correction was made

  • Methods: Expression of USP1 in RPE1 cells section, please briefly state how you determined the expression level of USP1 in transduced RPE1 USP1KO cells when selecting clones with comparable levels to RPE1 wt cells

• We have added an extended description on how we selected these single clones. “To select clones with similar USP1 levels compared to endogenous, single clones were incubated with 1 µg/ml doxycycline for 44 hours and were lysed using RIPA buffer (1% NP40, 1% sodium deoxycholate, 0.1% SDS, 0.15 M NaCl, 0.01 M sodium phosphate pH 7.5, 2 mM EDTA), containing cOmplete™, EDTA-free Protease Inhibitor Cocktail (Roche, 11873580001), 1 mM 2-chloroacetamide and 0.25 U/µl benzonase (SC-202391, Santa Cruz Biotechnology). Total protein concentration in the lysate was determined using a BCA assay (23227, Thermo Scientific) so that equal amounts could be loaded on gel. Samples were loaded on 4-12% Bolt gels (NW04127, Thermo Scientific), and run for 40 minutes at 180 V in MOPS running buffer (B0001, Thermo Scientific). Proteins were transferred to nitrocellulose membrane (10600002, Amersham Protran 0.45 NC nitrocellulose). Membranes were stained with a USP1 antibody (14346-1-AP, Proteintech). After incubation with HRP coupled secondary antibody the blots were imaged using a Bio-Rad Chemidoc XRS+. Using Bio-Rad ImageLab 5.1 software, USP1 levels were quantified by measuring the volume intensities of each USP1 band for each clone and compared this to endogenous USP1 levels in RPE1 cells. Clones with comparable expression levels were selected and used for further experiments.”

  • Methods: tCoffee webserver should be "T-Coffee"

• We realized that multiple sequence alignment was performed using Clustal Omega, not T-Coffee, which has now been corrected. We apologize for this oversight.

  • Methods: MSA. Can the authors provide more details on when doing BLAST, what were the criteria of selecting sequences from the result?

• Details have been added: “Catalytic domains as defined by Uniprot of the resulting human USPs were used for multiple sequence alignment. For USPs with multiple isoforms, the canonical isoform (isoform 1) was selected. In case of the USP17 gene family, USP17L2/DUB3 was selected (Komander et al., 2009). In order to properly align USP1, its inserts were removed from the catalytic domain following (Dharadhar et al., 2021). In order to properly align USP40, a shorter sequence was used (residues 250-480).”

  • Methods: please provide the details for determining the concentration of the enzymes used.

• Details on how we determined the concentrations of enzymes have been added.

  • Methods: Please provide the manufacturers of the Pherastar plate reader and the 384-well plate (please correct from "384 well-plate").

• Info on the manufacturers has been added.

  • Results: In paragraph 1, "lies a **much better** conserved..." you should use "more highly."

• Correction was made

  • Results: paragraph 1, "USP50 does not harbor either of" should be "USP50 harbors neither of"

• We corrected this: “This aspartate is present in all USPs except CYLD and USP50. The latter misses the third critical residue as well and therefore may be inactive.”

  • Supp Fig 2: USP39 does not have glutamate in position of the first critical residue, it is glutamine (Q)

• Correction was made

  • Results: second subsection title **"The first critical residue is dispenUSP1..."** needs to be fixed

• Correction was made as follows: The third critical residue is dispensable in USP1/UAF1, USP15, USP40 and USP48

  • Results: pg. 8 last line "to crosslink", the word crosslink is not proper for the reaction between Ub-PA with USPs. It usually refers to a reactive linker that links two molecules. Words like "conjugate", "conjugation," or "covalent react with", and "activity-based labelling" are probably better choices depending on the context.

• We have corrected this throughout the manuscript.

  • Figure 1: figure legend describing B, C, and D are mixed up.

• Correction was made

  • Results: In paragraph 9, the statement that your data on 5 USPs is representative of most of the 57 members in that the third catalytic is dispensable is not a sound statement for the small sample size. I think more emphasis on the diversity of USP1, USP7, USP15, USP40, and USP48 needs to be stated to help bolster such a claim. The statement to follow, which mentions sequence analysis alone is not able to predict the catalytic residue, is also somewhat contradictory to the opening statement and insinuates that all active USPs should be tested, while you only examined 5.

• We have changed this to ”Our findings demonstrate that for the majority of tested USPs…”. The diversity of tested USPs is clarified earlier in the manuscript: “These USPs vary in domain architecture and allosteric regulation, and therefore represent different aspects of the USP family, known for its structural variety and modular architecture”. The statement about sequence analysis has been removed from the results section and is now only mentioned in the discussion. However, we do think that precise active site assignment for other USPs will require mutagenesis support.

  • Figure 4: legend title, the critical residues are not responsible for **performing** nucleophilic attack per se; that is the job of Cys. The title of the figure should be altered to clear this up.

• Correction was made as follows: " Variation in the ability of USP critical residue mutants to successfully and efficiently facilitate a nucleophilic attack.”

  • Discussion: paragraph 3, since the Hu 2002 USP7 mechanism is not valid for other USPs tested, the "consensus USP catalytic mechanism" should be referred to as the "canonical."

• Indeed! Correction was made.

  • Discussion: paragraph 4, "USP7, USP15 and USP40 all **three** have misaligned..." should be "USP7, USP15 and USP40 all have misaligned..."

• Correction was made.

  • Discussion: paragraph 8, "negative charge itself could **contributes**..." should be "negative charge itself could **contribute**..."

• Correction was made

  • Discussion: pg. 10, 3rd paragraph. Is the first sentence a statement of fact or a hypothesis? The writing is not clear to differentiate the two possibilities.

• Parts of the discussion have been rewritten, but the corresponding sentence has been rewritten as follows: “Canonically, it is thought that the fourth critical residue is involved in oxyanion hole formation.”

  • Discussion: pg. 10, 3rd paragraph, line 3, which "critical residue" does it refer to, the general base residue or the alternative residue?

• We've changed the text as follows: ". A dual role, with the third or fourth critical residue stabilizing catalytic histidine and oxyanion hole formation simultaneously is unlikely”.

  • Discussion: pg. 10, second last paragraph. Can the statement that "inaccurate assumptions about the catalytic triad ... be substantiated with an example?

• We apologize for the possible confusion, but our point here was to point out that it could be misdirecting conclusions if you strictly follow the canonical assignment of the catalytic triad. We have rewritten the sentence to make that more clear: “Additionally, assumptions about the catalytic triad solely based on the canonical catalytic triad assignment in USP could affect conclusions made regarding loss of function mutations in genetic screens. For example, we find that some USPs retain full or most of their activity once their canonical third catalytic residue is mutated.”

  • Table 1, "ubiquitin variant" is mostly often used in the literature to refer to the ubiquitin mutants generated by phage display pioneered by the Sidhu lab or designed mutants. "ubiquitin and homolog derivatives" is a better term for "ubiquitin variant" in this article.

• We have changed this to ubiquitin-like proteins

  • Table 1, the USP21 line "Lineair" is a typo, it should be "linear."

• Correction was made

  • References: citations for Cadzow, 2020. and Tsefou, 2021 do not appear in the bibliography.

• Correction was made

  • Add a hyphen to "Ubiquitin-specific proteases."

• Correction was made

  Reviewer #2 (Significance (Required)):

  General assessment:

  Based on the studies of prototypical ubiquitin-specific protease USP7, the field generally accepts that USPs are a class of cysteine proteases that contain a catalytic triad with a cysteine, a histidine and a general base residue (asparagine, aspartate, or serine). This manuscript described the importance of an alternative, highly conserved aspartate that plays a critical role in catalysis using an enzyme kinetics study on five out of 57 USPs. The work is a very interesting observation that could change the perception in the field. However, the atomic details of how this fourth, or alternative residue, plays its role in catalysis are not clear without the structure evidence of an intermediate/transition state-bound complex.

  Advance:

  The study provided the first systematic enzymology study of the role of a fourth conserved residue critical for the catalysis of USPs. It is a conceptual advance and a first step to elucidate possibly a new catalytic mechanism of USPs.

  Audience: The manuscript will be of interest to biochemists in the field of ubiquitination and drug discovery.

  Reviewers' expertise

  The reviewers are structural biologists with expertise in the structure, function and enzymology of ubiquitin enzymes in general, with practical experience in drug discovery targeting the DUB and kinase families.

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

  The article by Keijzer and colleagues describes an interesting study comparing the active site of multiple USPs (the largest subfamily of deubiquitinases) and elucidating the importance of specific residues lining the active site for catalysis. The authors carried out a careful analysis of the kinetic properties of 5 representative USPs and mutants thereof revealing a remarkable variety in their function that highlights that the majority of USPs studied do not require the canonical third residue of the catalytic triad of USPs for activity but instead rely on a highly conserved second critical residue. Furthermore, the authors apply complementary experimental approaches (mutagenesis, pH dependence of activity, crosslinking with Ub-PA) to allow distinguishing between residues important for the nucleophilic attack versus oxyanion hole stabilisation.

  This is a well-written, thorough enzymatic study of high technical quality. The experiments are described in sufficient detail to allow others to reproduce the experimental set up. The data presented fully support the claims of the paper and no additional experiments are required to further support the conclusions. It is great to see that the authors have carried out thermal stability assays on all WT and mutant proteins under investigation to ensure that any effects observed are not due to protein misfolding.

  Minor comments:

  • There are a few typos in the manuscript the authors should correct.

• Thank you, we have removed the typos from the manuscript.

  • The panels/paper legends to Figure 1B/C/D are mixed up. Please correct.

• Correction was made

  -It would be helpful to use different colours in the alignment shown in Supplementary Figure1 to indicate the position of the first and second critical residue.

• Thank you, we have highlighted these residues

  • I wonder if the authors could comment on how representative the 5 USPs characterised in this work are of the entire family.

• We address the variation of these USPs in more detail, both in the results as in the legend of figure 5: “These USPs vary in domain architecture and allosteric regulation, and therefore represent different aspects of the USP family, known for its structural variety and modular architecture”

Reviewer #3 (Significance (Required)): Deubiquitinating enzymes (DUBs) play essential roles in many cellular processes and their activity is associated with a variety of diseases. There is a lot of interest in targeting DUBs for therapeutic purposes and a number of small molecule inhibitors are undergoing clinical studies. While the structure and mechanism of multiple DUBs have been studied over the years, many open questions about their detailed catalytic mechanism remain and the importance of specific residues might often have been inferred based on sequence conservation alone without accompanying experimental support. This work makes an important contribution to the field by systematically examining 5 members of the USP family and defining the precise role of the first and second critical residue for the catalytic cycle. This work will be of interest to those studying the mechanism of DUBs in general and those trying to target specific DUBs with small molecules. In addition, this study will also be interesting more generally for those studying enzyme kinetics as it highlights the importance of experimental validation of a catalytic mechanism that has been predicted based on sequence conservation or structural studies.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Overall: This paper describes new material of Acanthomeridion serratum that the authors claim supports its synonymy with Acanthomeridion anacanthus. The material is important and the description is acceptable after some modification. In addition, the paper offers thoughts and some exploration of the possibility of multiple origins of the dorsal facial suture among artiopods, at least once within Trilobita and also among other non-trilobite artiopods. Although this possibility is real and apparently correct, the suggestions presented in this paper are both surprising and, in my opinion, unlikely to be true because the potential homologies proposed with regard to Acanthomeridion and trilobite-free cheeks are unconventional and poorly supported.

What to do? I can see two possibilities. One, which I recommend, is to concentrate on improving the descriptive part of the paper and omit discussion and phylogenetic analysis of dorsal facial suture distribution, leaving that for more comprehensive consideration elsewhere. The other is to seek to improve both simultaneously. That may be possible but will require extensive effort.

Major concerns

Concern 1 - Ventral sclerites as free cheek homolog, marginal sutures, and the trilobite doublure

Firstly, a couple of observations that bear on the arguments presented - the eyes of A. serratum are almost marginal and it is not clear whether a) there is a circumocular suture in this animal and b) if there was, whether it merged with the marginal suture. These observations are important because this animal is not one in which an impressive dorsal facial suture has been demonstrated - with eyes that near marginal it simply cannot do so. Accordingly, the key argument of this paper is not quite what one would expect. That expectation would be that a non-trilobite artiopod, such as A. serratum, shows a clear dorsal facial suture. But that is not the case, at least with A. serratum, because of its marginal eyes. Rather, the argument made is that the ventral doublure of A. serratum is the homolog of the dorsal free cheeks of trilobites. This opens up a series of issues.

The paper's chief claim in this regard is that the "teardrop" shaped ventral, lateral cephalic plates in Acanthomeridion serratum are potential homologs of the "free cheeks" of those trilobites with a dorsal facial suture. There is no mention of the possibility that these ventral plates in A. serratum could be homologs of the lateral cephalic doublure of olenelloid trilobites, which is bound by an operative marginal suture or, in those trilobites with a dorsal facial suture, that it is a homolog of only the doublure portions of the free cheeks and not with their dorsal components.

The introduction to the paper does not inform the reader that all olenelloids had a marginal suture - a circumcephalic suture that was operative in their molting and that this is quite different from the situation in, say, "Cedaria" woosteri in which the only operative cephalic exoskeletal suture was circumocular. The conservative position would be that the olenelloid marginal suture is the homolog of the marginal suture in A. serratum: the ventral plates thus being homolog of the trilobite cephalic doublure, not only potential homolog to the entire or dorsal only part of the free cheeks of trilobites with a dorsal facial suture. As the authors of this paper decline to discuss the doublure of trilobites (there is a sole mention of the word in the MS, in a figure caption) and do not mention the olenelloid marginal suture, they give the reader no opportunity to assess support for this alternative.

At times the paper reads as if the authors are suggesting that olenelloids, which had a marginal cephalic suture broadly akin to that in Limulus, actually lacked a suture that permitted anterior egression during molting. The authors are right to stress the origin of the dorsal cephalic suture in more derived trilobites as a character seemingly of taxonomic significance but lines such as 56 and 67 may be taken by the non-specialist to imply that olenelloids lacked a forward egression-permiting suture. There is a notable difference between not knowing whether sutures existed (a condition apparently quite common among soft-bodied artiopods) and the well-known marginal suture of olenelloids, but as the MS currently reads most readers will not understand this because it remains unexplained in the MS.

With that in mind, it is also worth further stressing that the primary function of the dorsal sutures in those which have them is essentially similar to the olenelloid/limulid marginal suture mentioned above. It is notable that the course of this suture migrated dorsally up from the margin onto the dorsal shield and merged with the circumocular suture, but this innovation does not seem to have had an impact on its primary function - to permit molting by forward egression. Other trilobites completely surrendered the ability to molt by forward egression, and there are even examples of this occurring ontogenetically within species, suggesting a significant intraspecific shift in suture functionality and molting pattern. The authors mention some of this when questioning the unique origin of the dorsal facial suture of trilobites, although I don't understand their argument: why should the history of subsequent evolutionary modification of a character bear on whether its origin was unique in the group?

The bottom line here is that for the ventral plates of A. serratum to be strict homologs of only the dorsal portion of the dorsal free cheeks, there would be no homolog of the trilobite doublure in A. serratum. The conventional view, in contrast, would be that the ventral plates are a homolog of the ventral doublure in all trilobites and ventral plates in artiopods. I do not think that this paper provides a convincing basis for preferring their interpretation, nor do I feel that it does an adequate job of explaining issues that are central to the subject.

Concern 2. Varieties of dorsal sutures and the coexistence of dorsal and marginal sutures

The authors do not clarify or discuss connections between the circumocular sutures (a form of dorsal suture that separates the visual surface from the rest of the dorsal shield) and the marginal suture that facilitates forward egression upon molting. Both structures can exist independently in the same animal - in olenelloids for example. Olenelloids had both a suture that facilitated forward egression in molting (their marginal suture) and a dorsal suture (their circumocular suture). The condition in trilobites with a dorsal facial suture is that these two independent sutures merged - the formerly marginal suture migrating up the dorsal pleural surface to become confluent with the circumocular suture. (There are also interesting examples of the expansion of the circumocular suture across the pleural fixigena.) The form of the dorsal facial suture has long figured in attempts at higher-level trilobite taxonomy, with a number of character states that commonly relate to the proximity of the eye to the margin of the cephalic shield. The form of the dorsal facial suture that they illustrate in Xanderella, which is barely a strip crossing the dorsal pleural surface linking marginal and circumocular suture, is comparable to that in the trilobites Loganopeltoides and Entomapsis but that is a rare condition in that clade as a whole. The paper would benefit from a clear discussion of these issues at the beginning - the dorsal facial suture that they are referring to is a merged circumcephalic suture and circumocular suture - it is not simply the presence of a molt-related suture on the dorsal side of the cephalon.

Concern 3. Phylogenetics<br /> While I appreciate that the phylogenetic database is a little modified from those of other recent authors, still I was surprised not to find a character matrix in the supplementary information (unless it was included in some way I overlooked), which I would consider a basic requirement of any paper presenting phylogenetic trees - after all, there's no a space limit. It is not possible for a reviewer to understand the details of their arguments without seeing the character states and the matrix of state assignments.

The section "phylogenetic analyses" provides a description of how tree topology changes depending on whether sutures are considered homologous or not using the now standard application of both parsimony and maximum likelihood approaches but, considering that the broader implications of this paper rest of the phylogenetic interpretation, I also found the absence of detailed discussion of the meaning and implications of these trees to be surprising, because I anticipated that this was the main reason for conducting these analysis. The trees are presented and briefly described but not considered in detail. I am troubled by "Circles indicate presence of cephalic ecdysial sutures" because it seems that in "independent origin of sutures" trilobites are considered to have two origins (brown color dot) of cephalic ecdysial sutures - this may be further evidence that the team does not appreciate that olenelloids have cephalic ecdysial sutures, as the basal condition in all trilobites. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding their views, but from what's presented it's not possible to know that. Similarly, in the "sutures homologous" analyses why would there be two independent green dots for both Acanthomeridion and Trilobita, rather than at the base of the clade containing them both, as cephalic ecdysial sutures are basal to both of them? Here again, we appear to see evidence that the team considers dorsal facial sutures and cephalic ecdysial sutures to be synonymous - which is incorrect.

This point aside, and at a minimum, that team needs to do a more thorough job of characterizing and considering the variety of conditions of dorsal sutures among artiopods, their relationships to the marginal suture and to the circumocular suture, the number, and form of their branches, etc.

Note: This response was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. The content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

---

Reply to the reviewers

We would like to thank all reviewers for their valuable and constructive comments, which helped us a lot to improve the manuscript.

The followings are point-by-point responses to the reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1

Strong points

1. • The demonstration that pMAC-lncRNA accumulation depends upon Ema2 is convincing. This finding provides novel insights into the mechanism involved in TDSD in Tetrahymena. An important point that would be worth discussing is how ds pMAC-lncRNAs may pair with scnRNAs. An RNA helicase (Ema1?) may play an important role in this process.*

The requirement of Ema1 in the interaction between pMAC-lncRNAs and scnRNAs was reported previously by us (Aronica et al. 2008), which has been cited in this manuscript. Related to this point, we have added the following discussion in the revised manuscript (Page 10, Line 30):

“Although it is unclear whether lncRNAs are single or double stranded when Ema1 promotes the lncRNA-scnRNAs interaction, the less severe TDSD defect observed in the EMA2 KO cells compared to the EMA1 KO cells (Figure 3B) indicates that certain Ema1-dependent TDSD may be initiated by single-stranded lncRNAs or mRNAs that are transcribed independently of Ema2”.

• The manuscript is very well written. I noticed only a few typos (see minor comments below).*

The pointed typos have been corrected in the revised manuscript.

• The experiments are overall well done and well described. For non-Tetrahymena readers, it would be useful to clarify in the Results section (or in figure captions) whether the different KOs are in the MAC and/or also in the MIC*

We have indicated whether each KO line is somatic or germline (MAC+MIC) in the figure legends whenever these lines are referenced.

Responses for the suggestions:

Major concerns

1. • The search for Ema2 targets using mass spectrometry was performed in a wild-type SMT3 background. This implies that endogenous wild-type Smt3 may have competed with His-Smt3 for protein sumoylation. To what extent may this have been a problem for the enrichment of sumoylated proteins on nickel columns? This point is critical, since the authors discuss that other proteins involved in pMAC-lncRNA transcription may be modified by Ema2 (p. 12). They should repeat the experiment in an SMT3 KO, or use anti-Smt3 antibodies to enrich for sumoylated proteins. If this is not possible, they should at least provide additional explanations.*

We agree that a competition between His-tagged and non-tagged Smt3 lowered the sensitivity for the identification of SUMOylated proteins and we might miss some Ema2-dependent SUMOylated protein in the current study. However, we believe such protein, if any, is SUMOylated at very low level and not highly likely to be involved in the genome-wide orchestration of lncRNA transcription. We rather think that a critical Ema2-dependent SUMOylation event might be missed because some other residues of the same protein are SUMOylated by Ema2-independent manner and it was detected as a protein that was SUMOylated in both wild-type and EMA2 KO condition. Therefore, as was explained in Discussion, it is important to identify individual residues that are SUMOylated in Ema2-dependent manner. We are on our way to set up an experimental system that allows us to detect individual SUMOylated residues in Tetrahymena and we hope to analyze the functions of Ema2-dependent SUMOylated residues in future studies.

• In Figure 7A, the authors only show the localization of Spt6 in early exconjugants. Since Spt6 is essential for vegetative growth, one can expect that it also localizes in the vegetative MAC. Is it also found in the new developing MACs? The authors should complete the figure with additional panels showing vegetative cells and exconjugants at later stages (with their new MAC).*

The Spt6 is indeed localized in the MAC during vegetative growth and in the new MAC at late conjugation stage in the wild-type condition. We did not detect any anomaly of Spt6 localization in the EMA2 KO cells at least at the cytological level. The immunostaining results at the late conjugation stage are shown in Figure EV4 in the revised manuscript and mentioned in the revised text (Page 11, Line 13). The immunostaining results of vegetatively growing cells are only attached below because Spt6 localization at vegetative stage when EMA2 is not expressed is not highly relevant to this study.

• Along the same line, the authors show that the non sumoylatable Spt6 mutant does not inhibit pMAC-lncRNA synthesis. No scnRNA analysis is shown under these conditions: does TDSD still take place? It would also be interesting to check whether lncRNAs are still produced in the new MACs.*

The nonSUMOylatable Spt6 mutant (we now call SUMOylation defective Spt6 mutant according to one of the Reviewer 3’s suggestions) show lower mating, making us difficult to investigate its effect on TDSD. Because we did not detect Spt6 SUMOylation prior to mating, we believe the low mating phenotype of this mutant is not directly due to the loss of SUMOylation but instead some of the 77 K to R mutations affect the functions of Spt6 in efficient initiation of mating. Therefore, to precisely measure the effect of Ema2-dependent Spt6 SUMOylation, we need to identity exact Ema2-dependent SUMOylated residues of Spt6 to produce another nonSUMOylatable Spt6 mutant with fewer number of mutations that does not affect the mating process. Engaging in such work demands a substantial time investment, and we believe that the reviewers will concur that these experiments are components of our future projects.

Long dsRNA accumulation in the new MACs detected by the J2 antibody was comparable between wild-type and the SUMOylation-defective Spt6 mutant, suggesting that Spt6 SUMOylation is not necessary to produce lncRNAs in the new MAC. The data have been shown in Figure EV9 and mentioned in the main text (Page 12, Line 24) in the revised manuscript.

• The experiment shown in Figure 4C indicates that high-molecular weight (possibly sumoylated) proteins decrease to 50% in the EMA2 KO: this suggests that another sumoylation activity exists in the cell. A search for other putative SUMO E3 ligases is missing in this study.*

A few other putative SUMO E3 ligases indeed encoded in the Tetrahymena genome. Moreover, it is known that some substrates are SUMOylated without any SUMO E3 ligase in other eukaryotes. These points have been described in the revised text as follows (Page 8, Line 22):

“The remaining Ema2-independent SUMOylation is likely mediated by other SUMO E3 ligases (including the SP-RING containing proteins TTHERM_00227730, TTHERM_00442270 and TTHERM_00348490) and/or E3-independent SUMOylation (Sampson et al. 2001).”

We agree that exploring the roles of other SUMO E3 ligases in Tetrahymena would be important and interesting, and we believe it will be one of our future projects.

• Can one exclude that Spt6 is sumoylated at other stages (vegetative or during new MAC development) in an Ema2-independent manner?*

We have now included western blot observation of Spt6 at different life stages of wild-type cells as Figure EV2. We did not detect any slower-migrating Spt6 species in vegetative cells. This has been mentioned in the revised text as follows (Page 9, Line 17):

“Then, to examine the timing of the appearance of the slower migrating Spt6 species, we introduced the same Spt6-HA-expressing construct into a wild-type strain and Spt6-HA was analyzed by western blotting (Figure EV2). Consistent with the Ema2-dependent appearance of the slower migrating Spt6-HA, they were not detected in growing and starved vegetative wild-type cells (Figure EV2, Veg and 0 hpm, respectively) when Ema2 was not expressed (Figure 1). The slower migrating Spt6-HA was also detected at 8 hpm when the new MAC was already formed (Figure EV2, 8 hpm) suggesting that Spt6 is possibly SUMOylated also in the new MAC.”

• In which nucleus does coding transcription take place between 4.5 and 6 hpm? Can we exclude that the weaker association of Rpb3 with chromatin in the EMA2 KO cross also impairs coding transcription?*

Coding transcription takes place in the parental MAC at 4.5 and 6 hpm in wild-type cells. Also, because EMA2 KO cells did not show obvious defect in the progression of the conjugation processes, any essential mRNA transcriptions for these processes must occur even in the absence of Ema2. These points prompted us to add the following discussion in the Discussion section (Page 13, Line 14):

“Moreover, as EMA2 KO cells did not significantly impede the progression of conjugation processes, any essential mRNA transcriptions for these processes must take place in the parental MAC during conjugation even in the absence of Ema2. Therefore, the observed loss of the majority of Spt6 and RNAPII from chromatin in the absence of Ema2 (Figure 7B) must be a temporal event during the mid-conjugation stage. This suggest that RNAPII might be specifically engaged in pMAC-lncRNA transcription at this particular time window in wild-type cells.”

Minor concerns

• The authors do not explain how they found Ema2. More information could be useful.*

Ema2 was identified as a protein involved in DNA elimination during our systematic genetic investigation of genes exclusively expressed during conjugation. This has been mentioned in the revised manuscript (Page 6, Lines 4-5).

• In Figures 2B and 3B: the statistical significance of the differences observed for the IES retention index and small RNA amounts should be evaluated using appropriate tests.*

The result shown in Figure 2B (IES retention analysis) has been tested by Welch two-sample t-test and outcomes have been shown in the revised Figure 2B.

The result shown in Figure 3B (small RNA seq) has been tested by Wilcoxon rank sum test and outcomes have been shown in the revised Figure 3B.

Figure 3 caption: define acronym "IQR"

The definition of IQR (the interquartile range) has now been mentioned in the figure legend in the revised manuscript.

Figure 5 caption (line 4): there may be a word missing ("from conjugating cells?")

We have corrected the sentence by adding “cells” after “from conjugating” in Page30-Line 34.

Figure 8C: what does the asterisk stand for?

We realized that the asterisk is not necessary in the figure and thus it have been removed in the revised figure.

• p. 10 (bottom): an "o" is missing in "Aronica et al 2008"*

We have corrected the error.

• p.13 (2nd line): remove final "s" in "mimic"*

We have corrected the error.

• p. 14: change "were" to "was" in "the production of the EMA2 KO strains was described previously"*

We have corrected the error.

• p. 14: remove capital letters in "Gorovsky"*

We have corrected the error.

• p. 15 (Viability test for progeny): what does "6-mp" stand for?*

It is 6-methylpurine. We have added this information to the revised manuscript.

• p. 17 (end of first paragraph): change "contracts" to "constructs"*

We have corrected the error.

• p. 17 (2nd line of last paragraph): change "was" to "were " in "EMA2 cells containing the BP6MB1-His-SMT3 construct were mated..."*

We have corrected the error.

• p. 19 (3rd line of 2nd paragraph"): "spined own" should be replaced by "spinned down"*

We have corrected the error.

Reviewer #2

Major comments

From Figure 4C, the authors conclude that "Ema2 is the major SUMO E3 ligase during the mid-conjugation stages.", yet in Figure 5 show that only Spt6-SUMOylation is affected in Ema2 mutants. These conclusions seem inconsistent and should be reconciled as it is a central point in the paper. E.g. is Spt6 protein abundance based on the MS data supporting that this protein constitutes a major fraction of the (high mol weight) SUMOylated proteins? Of note, the discussion contains a very balanced discussion of this but the current description in the results should be improved.

Some of the proteins detected from both the wild-type and EMA2 KO conditions were possibly poly-histidine-containing proteins that bound intrinsically to the nickel-NTA beads or proteins unpacifically bound to some of the bead material. Taking these possibilities into account, a control experiment with wild-type cells not expressing His-Smt3 in the same condition is now included in the study and any proteins that were also identified in this experiment with log2 LFQ score above 25 were excluded in the new Figure 5A. We also removed any identified proteins containing more than 6 consecutive histidine residues from the plot. After these filtering processes, it is now clear that Spt6 is the major SUMOylated protein detected in the wild-type (with His-Smt3) condition and the LFQ intensities of other proteins (except Smt3) were ~16 or more hold less than that of Spt6. Together with the fact that the molecular weight range of most of the SUMOylated proteins fits very well to that of SUMOylated Spt6, we are now more confident to conclude that Ema2 is the major SUMO E3 ligase during the mid-conjugation stages and Spt6 is the major target of Ema2. We have modified the corresponding figure and texts to explain this filtering and the outcomes (Page 9, Lines 2-9).

The western blots carried out for the chromatin fraction and presented in Figures 7B, 7C, and 8B have variable levels of histone H3 which serves as a fractionation control, thus indicating some experimental variability. To support the quantitative conclusions, the authors should indicate how many times were these fractionation experiments repeated and should also provide experimental replicate data in the supplements. These data are important to firmly support the quantitative conclusions the authors currently draw from the experiments.

Each of these fractionation experiments was done three times and gave comparative results. The replicate data have been shown in Figures EV5, EV6 and EV8.

Minor comments

Page 3: "Because small RNA-producing loci are also small RNA targets ... " It should be specified that this is the case specifically for the studied system as it is not generally the case for small RNA loci. Overall, this third intro paragraph is a bit hard to read and might be improved by first introducing Tetrahymena and its distinctive cellular biology and then moving to the observation that small RNA source and target loci are separated in this ciliate.

We have modified the description to “Because small RNA-producing loci are also small RNA targets in most of the studied small RNA-directed heterochromatin formation processes, it poses a challenge to separately investigate lncRNA transcription for small RNA biogenesis and that for small RNA-dependent recruitment of downstream effectors in these processes.” (Page 3, Lines 24-27). We believe this has improved overall readability of the paragraph.

Figure annotation and readability: The manuscript and figure labels are rich in abbreviation (and sometimes even abbreviations of abbreviations, e.g. na = new MAC = new macronucleus).

We agree that there are many abbreviations in this manuscript but we believe most of them are necessary to keep the text and figures concise. To increase readability, we have spelled out all “abbreviations of abbreviations” when they appear the first time in the text. In fact, “na” was used not as an abbreviation but as a mark in the figures. We have modified the corresponding figure legends to make this point clearer. Also, to make the abbreviation “TDSD” more generalizable, we modified the manuscript to used it as “target-directed small RNA degradation” instead of “target-directed scnRNA degradation”.

Also Figures 4, 5 - the addition of the protein name after α-HA, -GST or -His would make the interpretation of blots easier.

Because anti-GST is detecting both GST alone and GST-Ema2, in Figure 4B, we had indicated the names of the proteins next to the blots. These might be less visible due to the busy arrangement of the panels in the previous manuscript. We have made extra space to make these labeles more visible. For Figure 4C, Figure 5B and Figure 5C, we have followed the reviewer’s suggestion and changed the labels to show the proteins detected.

In Figure 4, it is unclear how the protein quantification was made (leading the the "reduced to ~50% in the EMA2 KO" statement). Please clarify.

The total signal intensities of HA-Smt3 in triplicated experiments were analyzed by western blotting and quantified. We now have included the data as a part of Figure 4C in the revised manuscript and explained the quantification procedure in the figure lagend and Materials and Method.

In some places, the current manuscript refers to implicit knowledge that some non-specialists may not take for granted. For example, dsRNA formation is important for scnRNA production, motivating detection using the J2 antibody. Editing for non-expert readability could help reach a broader readership.

In this study, we used the J2 antibody not because dsRNA formation is important for the scnRNA production but because it allows us to cytologically detect lncRNAs in the parental MAC. We have modified the related sentence (Page 10, Lines 17-20) in the revised manuscript to improve readability. We have also added a discussion about single vs double-strand nature of lncRNA in the parental MAC (Page 10, Lines 30-34) as mentioned in our reply for the first comment of Reviewer 1.

• Also, on Page 7, bottom, it would be helpful to briefly explain to the reader how SUMOylation works to motivate the conclusion from the Ubc9 interaction.*

We have added a brief explanation for the actions of E1 and E2 enzymes in SUMOylation in the revised text (Page 8, Line 6-7).

**Referees cross-commenting**

My report (rev #2) closely aligns with that of rev #3. While all reports are positive, rev #1 suggests several lines of additional work, such as the characterization of lncRNA expression in the new MAC (major concern 3) and a search for other SUMO E3 ligase (major concern 4). While several interesting ideas are brought up here, I see such added investigations as non-essential for the current paper. I would encourage to focus revision work on the substantiation of the already included experiments.

The lncRNA expression in the new MAC in the C-KR mutant has been analyzed and included in Figure EV9. We have included some discussion regarding other SUMO E3 ligases and reserved their functional investigations for our future studies as Reviewer #2 and #3 suggested.

Reviewer #3

It is not entirely clear why the transcripts of small RNA targets are necessarily non-coding. labelling them as nascent would be sufficient in my opinion

In the described examples of small RNA-directed heterochromatin formation processes in the various eukaryotes in Introduction, the targets of small RNAs are indeed lncRNAs. Therefore, to separately discuss small RNA targets from mRNA, we keep using the term lncRNA for the former.

It is unclear whether mRNAs can also be small RNA targets in the Tetrahymena DNA elimination process. We have added the following sentence in Introduction (Page 4, Line 30):

“Although mRNAs are transcribed in the parental MAC, it remains unclear if they also can induce TDSD and how mRNAs and pMAC-lncRNAs can be transcribed from overlapping locations.”

Nonetheless, because EMA2 KO did not show detectable defect in the progression of conjugation processes, we believe any essential mRNA transcriptions for these processes occur in the parental MAC in EMA2 KO (which are now mentioned in Discussion [Page 13, Lines 14-20] for replying to one of Reviewer 1’s suggestions) and thus believe that the defects of EMA2 KO observed/discussed in this manuscript are due to the loss of lncRNAs. Therefore, we believe using lncRNA to label the RNAs transcribed by Ema2-directed SUMOylation is valid.

the nomenclature of methylated H3K9 might need some adjustment. Consider the abbreviation H3K9me2/3 instead of H3K9me

We followed the suggestion and H3K9me2/3 or H3K9m3 have been used in the revised manuscript.

it would be desirable if the authors could cross reference to the Paramecium field where possible given that this is a second, powerful study system in small RNA-mediated genome elimination.

We have extensively modified Introduction to describe the small RNA-directed genome rearrangement process of Tetrahymena and Paramecium as much as possible in parallel.

Main text:

"The conjugation-specific expression and the localization switch from the parental to the new MAC are reminiscent of the factors involved in DNA elimination (Mochizuki et al, 2002; Coyne et al, 1999; Kataoka & Mochizuki, 2015; Liu et al, 2007; Yao et al, 2007)."

please name these other factors here.

We have added “such as the Piwi protein Twi1, which is loaded by scnRNAs, and PRC2 (Mochizuki et al. 2002; Liu et al. 2007; Noto et al. 2010)” at the end of this sentence (Page 6, Line 13).

Figure 5A: what is the author's interpretation of the finding that most identified proteins remain unchanged? are these Ema2 independent SUMOylated proteins or are these background proteins that are not SUMOylated?

As mentioned in our reply to Reviewer 2, some of the proteins detected from both WT and EMA2 KO were possibly poly-histidine-containing proteins that bound intrinsically to the nickel-NTA beads without His-Smt3 conjugation or proteins unpacifically bound to some of the bead material. Taking these possibilities into account, a control experiment with wild-type cells not expressing His-Smt3 in the same condition has now been included and any proteins that were also identified in this experiment with log2 LFQ score above 25 were excluded in the new Figure 5A. We also removed any proteins containing more than 6 consecutive histidine residues from the plot. After these filtering processes, it is now clear that Spt6 is the major SUMOylated protein detected in the wild-type (with His-Smt3 expression) condition and the LFQ intensities of other proteins (except Smt3) were ~16 or more hold less than that of Spt6. We have modified the corresponding figure and texts (Page 9, Lines 2-9) to explain this filtering procedure and the outcomes.

Even after this filtering, many proteins were identified similarly between wild-type and EMA2 KO conditions. As mentioned in our reply for one of the comments by Reviewer 1, these are most likely Ema2-independent SUMOylated proteins either mediated by another SUMO E3 ligase or by E3-independent SUMOylation. We have added these points in the revised manuscript (Page 8, Lines 22-25).

"However, the cells rescued by HA-SPT6N-KR and HA-SPT6-M-KR showed severe defects in meiotic progression and mating initiation, respectively, making their SUMOylation status during conjugation uninvestigable." Why can't you investigate the SUMOylation capacity of these variants in wildtype cells?

The suggested experiment is probably a valid way to investigate the SUMOylation of HA-Spt6N-KR and HA-Spt6-M-KR. However, in such experimental setting, SUMOylation of Spt6 might be blocked not by loss of SUMOylation sites but by competition between the wild-type and the mutant Spt6. Moreover, even if one of them is proved to be unSUMOylatable (we now decided to call it SUMOylation-defective mutant [please see below]), we cannot examine its effect on lncRNA transcription if it has to be co-expressed with the wild-type Spt6. Therefore, we decided not to further examine the SUMOylation of the two mutants.

"Therefore, Spt6-C-KR is an unSUMOylatable Spt6 mutant." How sure can you be about this given the dynamic range of the detection in this experiment?

Whatever the dynamic range is, it is not possible to conclude that there is zero SUMOylation on Spt6-C-KR in the experimental setting we used. So, we have decided to call it a “SUMOylation-defective mutant” and modified the corresponding sentence as follows (Page 12, Line 18):

“Therefore, Spt6-C-KR represents a SUMOylation-defective Spt6 mutant, exhibiting at least a reduced level of SUMOylation compared to Spt6 in the absence of Ema2 (compare Figure 8B and Figure 5B).”

Figure 1A: label the plot to make it more accessible. Axis labels are missing.

Axis labels and explanations for the stages have been added in the revised Figure 1A.

Figure 3A: can you speculate about the higher molecular weight signal in the northern blot that appears in the later time-points and that seems to be partially dependent on Ema2?

The appearance of these higher molecular weight signals correlates with the presence or absence of lncRNAs detected by the J2 antibody at 4.5 hpm (Figure 6B). However, their presence in EMA2 KO cells at 6 hpm, the time point before the development of the new MAC, does not fit well to the absence of J2 staining in the parental MAC in EMA2 KO cells. Therefore, we currently have no clear idea for the identity of the higher molecular weight signals.

Figure 3B: why are the scanRNA levels at 3h already so different between WT and mutant cells? Lane 1 versus lanes 3 and 5?

The following sentence has been added in the revised manuscript (Page 7, Line 20):

“Because TDSD takes place concurrently with the scnRNA production (Schoeberl et al. 2012), the increased abundance of MDS-complementary scnRNAs at 3 hpm in the EMA2 KO cells compared to the wild-type cells can also be attributed to the necessity of Ema2 in TDSD.”

Figure 5: could you comment on the weak Smt3 signal that remains for Spt6 in the Ema2 KO conditions. Is this due to other SUMO-ligases or is the Ema2 KO not a full loss of function condition?

The following sentence has been added in the revised manuscript (Page 9, Line 31):

“The remaining SUMOylation observed on Spt6 in the absence of Ema2 is likely facilitated by other SUMO E3 ligases and/or E3-independent SUMOylation, as discussed earlier for the other instances of Ema2-independent SUMOylations.”

Figure 6C: are the many arrowheads not confusing? Are they needed?

We have removed most of the arrowheads from the figure and marked only the parental MACs. In addition, we have used the same labeling for all immunofluorescent staining figures.

Figure 8A: the cartoon depicting different colors for the various Lysine residues is not immediately clear to the reader. Try to make this more accessible.

We have modified the drawing to make the markings for the mutated lysine residues more visible in the revised figure.

Bush. As We May Think. The Atlantic. 1945.

This is confused. You are every bit as able to do that as with the medium described in As We May Think. What you can't do is take, say, a copy of an issue of The Atlantic, add links to it, and expect them to magically show up in all copies of the original. But then you can't do that with memex, either, and Bush doesn't say otherwise.

Note: This response was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. The content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

---

Reply to the reviewers

Response to Referees Letter

We thank the reviewers for their constructive comments and their positive comments that this study provides insights into the non-canonical roles of Bcl-xL in cancer and may lead to therapeutic approaches to repress metastatic capacity. We have carefully read their comments and have extensively revised the manuscript accordingly. The specific points made by each reviewer are addressed below in blue color.

---

Response to Reviewer #1:

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

Summary In this study the authors build on their previous work that Bcl-xL has a role in metastasis promotion independent of it's function in the mitochondrial apoptotic pathway. They show that Bcl-xL can be found in the nucleus of some human breast cancer cells and through a mass spec approach show that CtBP2 promotes the nuclear translocation of Bcl-xL. Using various knockdown/knockout methods they show that reduced levels of CtBP2 reduces metastasis, because of loss of Bcl-xL translocation to the nucleus. The authors map this interaction and show that this interaction modulates metastasis.

Major comments * Figure 1 - a more comprehsive analysis of nuclear Bcl-xL should be conducted. The data presented only shows 3 different samples, with no quantification. Perhaps the authors could stain a breast cancer TMA or similar?

__Response: __We performed breast cancer TMA staining experiment as suggested. This experiment provides further support to our conclusion. We have included the following information in the revised manuscript.

“We further evaluated human breast specimens in tissue microarrays (TMAs), consisting of 25 non-neoplastic breast tissues, 150 primary breast cancer, 55 lymph node metastases, and 99 metastatic breast cancer at various distant sites, for the expression and localization of Bcl-xL by immunohistochemistry. Compared to normal breast tissues, the intensity of Bcl-xL was significantly higher in breast cancer, including primary tumors, lymph node (LN) metastases, and distant metastases (Table 1a and 1b). The proportion of positive perinuclear/nuclear Bcl-xL cases was significantly increased in human breast cancer tissues compared to normal breast tissues (Table 1c and Figure 1d), and it showed an increasing trend towards metastases (Table 1d, p =0.004).”

---

* Figure 2 - could the authors show a graph with a representation of the mass spectrometry data, so the reader can get a sense of how many proteins were found to be associated with Bcl-xL?

__Response: __As suggested, we have included the mass spectrometry data in Supplemental Table 1. Forty proteins were commonly immunoprecipitated by anti-HA magnetic beads from all three cell lines overexpressing HA-tagged wt Bcl-xL and two Bcl-xL mutants but not from the parental cells overexpressing the control vector.

* Have the authors tried any other ways to verify the interaction between Bcl-xL and CtBP2? For instance, do they co-localise when imaged? Also, can the reverse IP be performed?

__Response: __We have verified the interaction between Bcl-xL and CtBP2 by several methods, including IP, reverse IP, and co-immunostaining. Please find HA-Bcl-xL IP and Western for endogenous CtBP2 (Figure 2a), co-immunostaining of endogenous Bcl-xL and CtBP2-V5 (Figure 2b and 2c), co-immunostaining of endogenous Bcl-xL and endogenous CtBP2 (Figure 4e), HA-Bcl-xL IP and Western for seven different constructs of V5 tagged CtBP2 (Figure 5b and 5c), and V5-CtBP2 IP and Western for seven different constructs of Myc tagged Bcl-xL (Figure 6b).

* Figure 2C - the authors claim that this data shows that Bcl-xL nuclear translocation is reduced in cells with reduced levels of CtBP2 - however, although they quantify this I simply do not see it from the images presented. I do not think this data supports the conclusion that knockdown of CtBP2 reduces Bcl-xL translocation to the nucleus. Furthermore, this data is only shown with overexpressed Bcl-xL - have the authors tried with endogenous staining of Bcl-xL?

Response: To assist Reviewer #1’s visualization, below are some marked RFP+ cells that responded to Dox-inducible shRNA expression from Figure 2e. Please note that these cells were not sorted by dsRed so that they gave us a unique opportunity to determine whether the knockdown of CtBP2 affected Bcl-xL nuclear localization by comparing subcellular localization of HA-Bcl-xL in the dsRed-positive cells and the neighboring dsRed-negative cells in the same images. The nuclear-to-cytosol ratio of HA-Bcl-xL was reduced in the dsRed-positive shCtBP2 cells compared to the dsRed-negative cells in both shCtBP2 #2260 and #2403 cultures on dox, not in shRLuc #713 control cells on dox.

In addition, we have performed endogenous staining of Bcl-xL and found that CtBP2 knockout reduced the nuclear to cytosol ratio of endogenous Bcl-xL (Figure 4f).

* Figure 2e-f - again these data are in cells with overexpressed Bcl-xL - does the same effect on invasion happen when only CtBP2 levels are reduced, without overexpression of Bcl-xL? What happens when Bcl-xL is knocked down? Also, doxycycline has been shown to affect mitochondrial function, which might confound this data - perhaps another way to knockdown CtBP2 (e.g. CRISPR which is used later in the study) would rule this out

Response: First, we have previously reported that CtBP2 knockdown reduced migration in cells without overexpression of Bcl-xL (Paliwal et al., 2007), and others have shown that siRNA knockdown of Bcl-xL reduces migration and invasion (Trisciuoglio et al., 2017).

Second, to control any effect of doxycycline, we have included the doxycycline-fed control cells that express doxycycline-inducible shRNA against Renilla Luciferase (shRLuc #713) in revised Figure 2g and 2h (original Figure 2e and 2f).

Third, the novelty of this study is that the discovery that Bcl-xL and CtBP2 interact with each other to promote metastasis. Our study showed that CtBP2 controls Bcl-xL in two ways: nuclear translocation and transcription. Because we found that knockout CtBP2 reduced transcription of endogenous Bcl-xL (Figure 4a-c), it will make the interpretation of the migration effect difficult. Using cells overexpressing HA-Bcl-xL, whose transcription is not regulated by CtBP2, we can evaluate whether the invasion effect of HA-Bcl-xL is mediated by CtBP2 when CtBP2 is knocked down. While overexpression of Bcl-xL promotes invasion (Choi et al., 2016), knockdown of CtBP2 can reverse the effect (Figure 2g).

* Figure 3c - these blots are not labelled, but ideally this would be shown with endogenous Bcl-xL, rather that just the overexpressed HA-Bcl-xL. However these data are more convincing than the images presented in Figure 2c

__Response: __We apologize for the missing labels in these blots of Figure 3c when we merged the graphs. We have now added them back.

* Figure 4 - the authors use CRISPR to knockout CtBP2 - logically this data would go with the shRNA data shown before, as it seems to just repeat what has already been shown?

__Response: __In Figure 4, we examined the effect of CtBP2 knockout on the endogenous Bcl-xL. We were pleased to see that CtBP2 knockout reduced the nuclear-to-cytosol ratio of endogenous Bcl-xL. Moreover, we observed that CtBP2 knockout reduced transcription of Bcl-xL. These knockout data (Figure 4) were logically presented after the knockdown data (Figure 2 and 3).

* Figure 4d - what does "SN" refer to? There is no loading control for this part of the fractionation - I assume this is supernatant? If so, why is there no loading control for this (same applies to figure 3c). Also, why are these not on the same blot? If CtBP2 knockdown reduces Bcl-xL mRNA level, does it also reduce Bcl-xL protein levels? We should be able to tell this from the blots in figure 4d, but since they are on different membranes this is impossible to deduce.

__Response: __We apologize for the missing information. We have added “SN: soluble nuclear fraction” in the figure legend of Figure 4d and re-run all the samples on the same blot. No detection of cytoplasmic proteins and chromatin-bound proteins in the soluble nuclear fraction suggested good fractionation as described (Méndez and Stillman, 2000, PMID: 11046155). CtBP2 knockout indeed reduced Bcl-xL protein levels, as shown in Figure 4a.

* Figure 5c - molecular weight markers should be included here.

__Response: __We apologize for the missing labels of the molecular weight markers, and we have added them in the revision.

* Figure 7a - the text says that MM102 treatment "significantly reduced" H3K4me3 levels - where is the quantification of this?

__Response: __We appreciate the suggestion, and we have now added the quantification in Figure 7a.

Minor comments * Some of the figures are not properly labelled * Some of the data are presented in an awkward manner - the authors should consider re-structuring either the manuscript or the figures so there is less "jumping around"

__Response: __We apologize for the missing labels again, and we have now labeled the figures properly. We hope that the revision (with additional data and properly labelled figures) has made the structure of the manuscript sound.

Reviewer #1 (Significance (Required)):

General assessment * Provides new insight into non-canonical roles of Bcl-xL in cancer * Relies heavily on over-expressed proteins to draw conclusions * If the data were stronger and supported the conclusions, this study could be of interest to a broad cancer audience

My expertise Cell biology, cell death, cancer, imaging

__Reviewer #2 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)): ____ __ The manuscript describes a large number of experiments each of which describes a small part of the functional cascade of Bcl-xL in nuclear function and metastatic tumor behavior. No one experiment accomplishes a lot, but taken as a total, the story is compelling and fairly complete.

Major: Figure 1 shows Bcl-xL in one primary sample (a) but clearly not in a second one (c). The authors state 3 of 15. Can they make any comment about breast cancer subtype of these 3 or outcomes? This seems fairly thin evidence of Bcl-xL involvement in human tumorigenesis in general - a better survey might be performed with tissue microarrays of more than one cancer subtype. I'm not sure that this figure is compelling or necessary really for the rest of the manuscript. Really, the main weakness of this paper is some proof that this Bcl-xL-mediated pathway is significant in some proportion of human cancer and metastasis. Perhaps some RNASeq datasets on metastatic versus localized cancers could be mined to establish this relvance?

__Response: __We appreciate this suggestion. We have compared the breast cancer subtypes and the outcomes of the cases used in the original immunofluorescent study. No particular cancer subtype or outcome of these cases is associated with the presence of more nuclear Bcl-xL.

As suggested by the reviewer, we used breast cancer TMAs to investigate the involvement of Bcl-xL in human tumorigenesis in general. We have found that the cases positive of peri-nuclear and nuclear Bcl-xL showed an increasing trend of metastases (Table 1d). We have included the following information in the revised manuscript.

“We further evaluated human breast specimens in tissue microarrays (TMAs), consisting of 25 non-neoplastic breast tissues, 150 primary breast cancer, 55 lymph node metastases, and 99 metastatic breast cancer at various distant sites, for the expression and localization of Bcl-xL by immunohistochemistry. Compared to normal breast tissues, the intensity of Bcl-xL was significantly higher in breast cancer, including primary tumors, lymph node (LN) metastases, and distant metastases (Table 1a and 1b). The proportion of positive perinuclear/nuclear Bcl-xL cases was significantly increased in human breast cancer tissues compared to normal breast tissues (Table 1c and Figure 1d), and it showed an increasing trend towards metastases (Table 1d, p =0.004).”

Most other experiments and figures are well explained. The only one I have some trouble with is Figure 8 CUT and RUN data where we are only presented with peaks around six genes. Is there a way to summarize data for the rest of the genome? Or to display a composite of CUT and RUN data on promoters that are not predicted to be targets of Bcl-xL and MLL1 activity (compared to those that are)?

__Response: __We have deposited the entire CUT&RUN-Seq datasets in Gene Expression Omnibus (accession #GSE221629, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc= GSE221629), which will become publicly available when the manuscript is published.

It is very challenging to present 1,190 unique H3K4me3 histone modification regions, and we tried our best to present the CUT&RUN-Seq data in the revised manuscript. In addition to the differential H3K4me3 peaks around promoters of six genes, we have included genome browser view, including the whole gene body by zooming out in Supplementary Figure S7 and peaks for 9 regions that are not targets of Bcl-xL and MLL1 activity in Supplementary Figure S8. Furthermore, we used Hypergeometric Optimization of Motif EnRichment (HOMER) to perform motif analysis for the differential H3K4me3 peaks. Enrichment p-values of the motifs were between 1e-12 and 1e-2 (Supplementary Table S5). It is of note that motifs with a p-value of more than 1e-10 or even 1e-12 are likely to be false positives (http://homer.ucsd.edu/homer/introduction/basics.html). The result revealed the limitation to identify motifs around the H3K4me3 CUT&RUN peaks recognized by the nuclear Bcl-xL complex.

Minor: While the main future direction pointed out by the manuscript was made in the last sentence of the Discussion, it could be spelled out in more detail to enforce the manuscript's impact.

__Response: __We appreciate this suggestion and expanded the discussion in the revised manuscript to enforce the impact of this work.

Reviewer #2 (Significance (Required)):

The authors describe nuclear targets and functions of the anti-apoptotic protein TF Bcl-xL, which has long been of research interest to this group. Specifically, this manuscript follows up on Choi 2016 which established that nuclear localization seemed to be critical for promotion of metastatic/invasion properties of Bcl-xL independent of its anti-apoptotic function. Due to the membrane localization in cells, it was unclear how Bcl-xL entered the nucleus, simulating the current paper. Here the authors (i) demonstrate this nuclear localization happens without mutation to the protein, (ii) localization is promoted by binding to CtBP2 in co-precipitations, (iii) enforced loss of CtBP2 expression correlated with lower metastasis, (iii) specific domains within the two proteins are necessary for physical interaction and function (iii) the histone methyltransferase MLL is critical for downstream transcriptomic impacts which include upregulation of the TGFbeta pathway. Description of this pathway and the specific protein domains necessary may lead to therapeutic targets to repress metastatic capacity. This reviewer is an expert as a cancer biologist and epidemiologist.

__Reviewer #3 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)): __ Summary Zhang et al. investigated new roles of Bcl-xL and CtBP2 in cancer progression. They previously reported that Bcl-xL is nuclear localized and promotes cancer metastasis by inducing global histone H3 trimethyl Lys4 (H3K4me3) independent of its anti-apoptotic activity. In this study, they found that CtBP2 is a key factor for promoting the nuclear translocation of Bcl-xL. Furthermore, they showed that the binding between Bcl-xL and CtBP2 is required for MLL1 activation. MLL1 mediates the Bcl-xL-induced H3K4me3 activation and upregulation of TGFβ mRNA level. By global analysis of histone H3K4me3, the authors demonstrated that H3K4me3 modifications are enriched in the promoter regions of genes encoding TGFβ and related signaling pathways in cancer cells overexpressing Bcl-xL. Therefore, they concluded that Bcl-xL exerts its metastatic function by interacting with CtBP2 and MLL1. The mechanism for histone modification by Bcl-xL is interesting and this study expanded our current understanding of epigenetic regulation in cancer. However, the mechanism for MLL1 activation induced by Bcl-xL is not fully demonstrated.

Major points 1) Figure 1) The number of primary breast cancer and lymph node specimens is too small. The authors analyzed only two cases of primer breast cancer and one case of lymph node metastasis. They should also present the result of normal breast tissues to show increased nuclear enrichment during disease progression. In addition, quantification of nuclear signals and statistical analysis are necessary. More importantly, the expression of CtBP2 and MLL1 should be evaluated in these clinical samples because they claimed that the interaction of Bcl-xL/CtBP2/MLL1 is important for tumor metastasis in this study.

__Response: __We appreciate this suggestion to increase the number of the clinical samples. We have stained breast cancer TMAs and included normal breast tissues to show increased nuclear enrichment during disease progression (Table 1). We have included the following information in the revised manuscript. Although we would also like to co-stain these breast cancer TMAs with CtBP2 and MLL1, there are no suitable antibodies for co-staining these two proteins with Bcl-xL in these FFPE sections.

“We further evaluated breast cancer specimens in tissue microarrays (TMAs) for the expression and localization of Bcl-xL by immunohistochemistry. Compared to normal breast tissues, the intensity of Bcl-xL was significantly higher in breast cancer, including primary tumors, lymph node (LN) metastases, and distant metastases (Table 1a and 1b). Perinuclear/nuclear Bcl-xL is significantly increased in human breast cancer tissues compared to normal breast tissues (Table 1c and Figure 1d). The proportion of peri-nuclear and nuclear Bcl-xL positive cases showed an increasing trend towards metastasis (Table 1d).”

2) (Figure 2c) In this experiment, the expression of Bcl-xL is mainly observed in the cytoplasm even in the condition of shControl. Therefore, I think that the nuclear localization of Bcl-xL is not convincingly regulated by CtBP2 expression change. Overexpression of CtBP2 is also necessary to show CtBP2-dependent nuclear localization of Bcl-xL.

__Response: __We appreciate this suggestion to overexpress CtBP2. We have performed this experiment by transiently transfecting cells with CtBP2 and found that overexpression of CtBP2 increased the nuclear to cytosol ratio of Bcl-xL (new Figure 2b and 2c) and included the following information in the revised manuscript.

“To determine the role of CtBP2 in mediating Bcl-xL’s nuclear translocation, we employed overexpression and knockdown of CtBP2 approaches. To overexpress CtBP2, we transfected a V5-tagged CtBP2 construct (Paliwal et al., 2006) into 293T cells and performed immunofluorescent staining using anti-V5 and anti-Bcl-xL antibodies. We observed an increased nuclear-to-cytosol ratio of endogenous Bcl-xL in cells overexpressing CtBP2-V5 (Figure 2b and 2c).”

3) (Figure 6d-e) These results are important because the anti-apoptotic activity is not inhibited even if the interaction between CtBP2 and Bcl-xL is lost. I wonder whether the authors analyzed the cellular localization of each mutant protein (particularly, wt, construct #5 and #6) in the presence of CtBP2. In addition, the authors should examine how the histone K4me3 and MLL1 activity is affected by overexpressing construct #5 and #6 to elucidate the metastatic ability by these constructs (Figure 6e). The authors should describe whether wt Bcl-xL is constract #2 or not in the legends.

__Response: __We appreciate that the reviewer pointed out the importance of our finding that even if the interaction between CtBP2 and Bcl-xL is lost, the anti-apoptotic activity of Bcl-xL is not inhibited. As suggested by the reviewer, we described wt Bcl-xL as construct #2 in the manuscript, and we analyzed the subcellular localization of wt HA-Bcl-xL (construct #2, which binds to CtBP2), construct #5 (which binds to CtBP2), and construct #6 (which does not bind to CtBP2), in the presence of endogenous CtBP2 in N134 mouse PNET cells. We found that the nuclear to cytosol ratio of wt HA-Bcl-xL (construct #2) and construct #5 was similar to each other, and we observed a reduction in the nuclear-to-cytosol ratio of construct #6 (Figure 6f and 6g). This is in consistent of the reduction of the metastatic ability of construct #6.

Further, we examined H3K4me3 and MLL1 in these cells and found that H3K4me3 was reduced in construct #6 compared to wt HA-Bcl-xL (construct #2) and construct #5 (Figure 6c). We also found that H3K4me3 levels were reduced in the CtBP2 knockout cells (Supplementary Figure S5b).

Minor points 4) (Figure 2d) Labels for these graphs are lacking.

__Response: __We apologize for the missing labels when we merged the graphs. We have added them back (new Figure 2f).

5) (Figure 2e, f) The authors should label in these graphs whether these results are statistically significant or not.

__Response: __Thanks for the suggestion. We have labeled * for statistically significant (P 6) (Figure 3c) No labels for these blots.

__Response: __We apologize for the missing labels when we merged the graphs. We have added them back.

7) (Figure 3b) They should describe the full spell of n/a in the legends.

__Response: __Thanks for the suggestion. We have described “n/a: non-sorted parental cells” in the legends in the revision.

8) (Figure 4f) The label of Y-axis should be corrected.

__Response: __Thanks for the suggestion. We have corrected the label of Y-axis.

9) (Figure 8c) The location of gene transcriptional start site and ChIP signal level should be shown. In addition, the genome browser view including whole gene body by zooming out should be shown.

__Response: __In addition to the differential peaks around promoters of six genes in Fig. 8, we have included the whole gene body with the location of the gene transcriptional start site in Supplementary Figure S7.

Reviewer #3 (Significance (Required)):

It is interesting that Bcl-xL can be transported to the nucleus and modulate the entire epigenetic condition for promoting metastatic ability. In the previous study, this group highlighted the nuclear function of Bcl-xL in cancer cells. This concept, Bcl-xL functions independent of its anti-apoptotic activity (Choi et al. Nat Commun 2016;7:10384.), is highly original and will bring some impacts on cancer research. In this study, the authors revealed molecular mechanisms to elucidate this nuclear translocation of Bcl-xL and how Bcl-xL regulate the epigenetic condition. However, the authors should present more evidences to demonstrate the mechanism that CtBP2/Bcl-xL interaction with MLL1 regulate global K4me3 levels in the nucleus to promote metastasis. 1) First of all, there are insufficient data to demonstrate how the interaction with Bcl-xL is involved in MLL1 activation. In Figure 7e, the authors analyzed H3K4me3 level by only inhibiting MLL1 expression and activity. However, the authors should investigate whether Bcl-xL and CtBP2 knockdown or overexpression modulate MLL1-mediated histone H3K4me3 regulation.

Response: __We appreciate that Reviewer #3 considered our work to be highly original. As suggested, we investigated whether CtBP2 knockout affected H3K4me3 levels and found that H3K4me3 levels were reduced in the CtBP2 knockout cells (Supplementary Figure S5b). Conversely, we have reported that Bcl-xL overexpression increases H3K4me3 levels (Choi et al., 2016). The main take-home message of this study is the discovery of the nuclear translocation mechanism of Bcl-xL through a novel interaction with CtBP2. We have shown that Bcl-xL or CtBP2 binds to MLL1 only when Bcl-xL and CtB2 bind to each other (__Figure 5b, 5c, and__ 6b__).

2) (Figure 8) The authors should explain why MLL1 activation specifically affect the K4me3 levels of TGFβ signal-associated genes. I wonder whether Bcl-xL/MLL1/CtBP2 functions as cofactors by binding to certain transcription factors. In addition, Bcl-xL, CtBP2 and MLL1 ChIP-seq/CUT & RUN analysis would be preferable.

__Response: __We have tried but have not been able to successfully establish the CUT&RUN conditions using Bcl-xL, CtBP2, and MLL1 antibodies. Whether Bcl-xL/MLL1/CtBP2 functions as cofactors by binding to certain transcription factors is a very interesting question. Additional studies are required to identify the other components of this Bcl-xL/CtBP2/MLL1 protein complex, which is beyond the scope of this work. This is added in the Discussion of the revised manuscript.

Author Response

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors present a detailed analysis of a set of molecular dynamics computer simulations of several variants of a T-cell receptor (TCR) in isolation and bound to a Major Histocompatibility Complex with peptide (pMHC), with the aim of improving our understanding of the mechanism T cell activation in immunity. By analyzing simulations of peptide mutants and partially truncated TCRs, the authors find that native peptide agonists lead to a so-called catch-bond response, whereby tensile force applied in the direction of separation between TCR/pMHC appears to strengthen the TCR/pMHC interface, whereas mutated peptides exhibit the more common slip-bond response, in which applied force destabilizes the binding interface. Using various computational metrics and simulation statistics, the authors propose a model in which tensile force preferentially suppresses thermal fluctuations in the variable α domain of the TCR (vs the β domain) in a peptide-dependent manner, which orders and strengthens the binding interface by bringing together the complementarity-determining regions (CDRs) in the TCR variable chains, but only if the peptide is correctly matched to the TCR.

R1-0. The study is detailed and written clearly, and conclusions appear convincing and are supported by the simulation data. However, the actual motions at the molecular or amino-acid level of how the catch-bond vs slip bond response originates remain somewhat unclear, and will probably warrant further investigations. Specific hypotheses that could be testable in experiments, such as predictions of which peptide (or TCR) mutations or which peptides could generate a catch-vs-slip response or activation, would have especially strengthened this study.

Catch bonds have been observed in different αβ TCRs that differ in sequence when paired with their matching pMHC. Thus, there should be a general principle that apply irrespective of particular TCR sequences, as summarized in Fig. 8. The predictive capacity of this model in terms of understanding experiments is explained in our reply R0-3. Here, we discuss about designing specific point mutations to TCR that have not been studied previously. In our simulations, we can identify high-occupancy contacts that are present mainly in the high-load case as target for altering the catch bond behavior. An example is V7-G100 between the peptide and Vβ (Fig. 2C, bottom panel). The V7R mutant peptide is a modified agonist that we have already studied, where R7 forms hydrogen bonds and nonpolar contacts with residues other than βG100, albeit with lower occupancy (page 11, lines 280–282 and page 32, Fig. 5–figure supplement 2B). Instead of the V7R mutation to the peptide, mutating βG100 to other residues may lead to different effects. For example, compared to G100A, mutation to a bulkier residue such as G100F may cause opposing effects: It may induce steric mismatch that destabilizes the interface. Conversely, a stronger hydrophobic effect might increase the baseline bond lifetime. Also, mutating G100 to a polar residue may have even greater effect, leading to a slip bond or absence of measurable binding.

As the reviewer suggested in R1-5, it will also be interesting to crosslink Vα and Cα by a disulfide bond to suppress its motion. Again, there are different possible outcomes. The lack of Vα-Cα motion could stabilize the interface with pMHC, resulting in a longer bond lifetime. Conversely, if the disulfide bond alters the V-C angle, it would have an opposite effect of destabilizing the interface by tilting it relative to the loading direction, similar to the dFG mutant in Appendix 1 (page 24).

To make better predictions, simulations of such mutants should to be performed under different conditions and analyzed, which would be beyond the scope of the present study.

Change made:

• Page 14, Concluding Discussion, lines 395–402: We added a discussion about using simulations for designing and testing point mutants.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

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

I have a couple of specific comments on the methodology and analysis that the authors could consider:

R2-1. 1) It is not explained what is the origin of force on the peptide-MHC complex. Although I do know a bit about this, it’s not clear to me how the force ends up applied across the complex (e.g. is it directional in any way, on what subdomains/residues do we expect it to be applied), and is it constant or stochastic. I think it would be important to add some discussion of this and how it translates into the way the force is applied here (on terminal residues of the complex).

As explained in our reply R0-1, force on the TCRαβ-pMHC complex arises during immune surveillance where the T-cell moves over APC. Generated by the cellular machinery such as actin retrograde flow and actomyosin motility, the applied force fluctuates, which would be on top of spontaneous fluctuation in force by thermal motion. This has been directly measured for the T-cell using a pMHC-coated bead via optical tweezers (see Feng et al., 2017, Fig. 1) and by DNA tension sensors (Liu, et al., 2016, Fig. 4; already cited in the manuscript). The direction of force also fluctuates that is longitudinal on average (see R1-6). How force distributes across the molecule is a great question, for which we plan to develop a computational method to quantify.

Changes made.

• Pages 3–4, newly added Results section ‘Applying loads to TCRαβ-pMHC complexes:’ We included the origin of force and its fluctuating nature, and the question of how loads are distributed across the molecule.

• The reference (Feng et al., 2017) has been added in the above section.

R2-2. 2) In terms of application of the force, I find the use of a harmonic restraint and then determining a distance at which the force has a certain value to be indirect and a bit unphysical. As just mentioned, since the origin of the force is not a harmonic trap, it would be more straightforward to apply a pulling force which has the form -F*d, which would correspond to a constant force (see for example comment articles 10.1021/acs.jpcb.1c10715,10.1021/acs.jpcb.1c06330). While application of a constant force will result in a new average distance, for small forces it does so in a way that does not change the variance of the distance whereas a harmonic force pollutes the variance (see e.g. 10.1021/ct300112v in a different context). A constant force could also shift the system into a different state not commensurate with the original distance, so by applying a harmonic trap, one could be keeping ones’ self from exploring this, which could be important, as in the case of certain catch bond mechanisms. While I certainly wouldn’t expect the authors to redo these extensive simulations, I think they could at least acknowledge this caveat, and they may be interested in considering a comparison of the two ways of applying a force in the future.

Thanks for the suggestions and references. The paper by Stirnemann (2022) is a review including different computational methods of applying forces, mainly constant force and constant pulling velocity (steered molecular dynamics; SMD). The second one by Gomez et al., (2021) is a rather broad review of mechanosensing where discussion about computer simulation was mainly on SMD. In the third one by Pitera and Chodera (2012), potential limitations of using harmonic potentials in sampling nonlinear potential of mean force (PMF) are discussed.

In the above references, loads or restraints are used to study conformational transitions or to sample the PMF, which are different from the use of positional restraints in our work. As explained in R0-1, positional restraint better mimics reality where the terminal ends of TCR and pMHC are anchored on the membranes of respective cells. Also, the concern raised by the reviewer about ruling out different states would be applicable to the case when there are multiple conformational states with local free energy minima at different extensions. Here, we are probing changes in the conformational dynamics (deformation and conformational fluctuation), rather than transitions between well-defined states.

In Pitera and Chodera (2012) and also in other approaches such as umbrella sampling, the spring constant of the harmonic potential should be chosen sufficiently soft so that sampling around the neighborhood of the center of the potential can be made. On the other hand, if the harmonic potential is much stiffer than the local curvature of the PMF, although sampling may suffer, local gradient of the PMF, i.e, the force about the center of the potential, can be made. This has been studied earlier by one of us in Hwang (2007), which forms the basis for using a stiff harmonic potential for measuring the load on the TCRαβ-pMHC complex. The 1-kcal/(mol·˚A2) spring constant used in our study (page 17, line 540) was selected such that the thermally driven positional fluctuation is on the order of 0.8 ˚A. Hence, it is sufficiently stiff considering the much larger size of the TCRαβ-pMHC complex and the flexible added strands.

Changes made:

• Page 4, lines 117–119, newly added Results section ‘Applying loads to TCRαβ-pMHC complexes:’ The above explanation about the use of stiff harmonic restraint for measuring forces is added.

• The 4 references mentioned above have been added to the above section.

R2-3. 3) For the PCA analysis, I believe the authors learn separate PC vectors from different simulations and then take the dot product of those two vectors. Although this might be justified based on the simplified coordinate upon which the PCA is applied, in general, I am not a big fan of running PCA on separate data sets and then comparing the outputs, as the meaning seems opaque to me. To compare the biggest differences between many simulations, it would make more sense to me to perform PCA on all of the data combined, and see if there are certain combinations of quantities that distinguish the different simulations. Alternatively and probably better, one could perform linear discriminant analysis, which is appropriate in this case because one already knows that different simulations are in different states, and hence the LDA will directly give the linear coordinate that best distinguishes classes.

As explained in R0-2, triads and BOC models are assigned to the same TCR across different simulations in identical ways. For the purpose of examining the relative Vα-Vβ and V-C motions, we believe comparing them across different simulations is a valid approach. When the motions are very distinct, it would be possible to combine all data and perform PCA or LDA to classify them. However, when behaviors differ subtly, analysis on the combined data may not capture individual behaviors. By analogy, consider two sets of 2-dimensional data obtained for the same system under different conditions. If each set forms an elliptical shape with the major axis differing slightly in direction, performing PCA separately on the two sets and comparing the angle between the major axes informs the difference between the two sets. If PCA were performed on the combined data (superposition of two ellipses forming an angle), it will be difficult to find the difference. LDA would likewise be difficult to apply without a very clear separation of behaviors.

As also explained in R0-2, PCA is just one of multiple analyses we carried out to establish a coherent picture. The main use of PCA to this end was to compare directions of motion and relative amplitude of the motion among the subdomains.

Changes made:

• Page 6, lines 171–175 and page 8, lines 226–227: The rationale for applying PCA on triads and BOC models in different simulations are explained.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

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

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

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

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

Author Response

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This work introduces a novel framework for evaluating the performance of statistical methods that identify replay events. This is challenging because hippocampal replay is a latent cognitive process, where the ground truth is inaccessible, so methods cannot be evaluated against a known answer. The framework consists of two elements:

1) A replay sequence p-value, evaluated against shuffled permutations of the data, such as radon line fitting, rank-order correlation, or weighted correlation. This element determines how trajectory-like the spiking representation is. The p-value threshold for all accepted replay events is adjusted based on an empirical shuffled distribution to control for the false discovery rate.

2) A trajectory discriminability score, also evaluated against shuffled permutations of the data. In this case, there are two different possible spatial environments that can be replayed, so the method compares the log odds of track 1 vs. track 2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We would like to thank the reviewer for the feedback.

Firstly, we would like to clarify that it is not our intention to present this tool as a novel replay detection approach. It is indeed merely a novel tool for evaluating different replay detection methods. Also, while we previously used log odds metrics to quantify contextual discriminability within replay events (Tirole et al., 2021), this framework is novel in how it is used (to compare replay detection methods), and the use of empirically determined FPR-matched alpha levels. We have now modified the manuscript to make this point more explicit.

Our use of the term trajectory-discriminability is now changed to track-discriminability in the revised manuscript, given we are summing over time and space, as correctly pointed out by the reviewer.

While this approach requires two tracks in its current implementation, we have also been able to apply this approach to three tracks, with a minor variation in the method, however this is beyond the scope of our current manuscript. Prior experience on other tracks not analysed in the log odds calculation should not pose any issue, given that the animal likely replays many experiences of the day (e.g. the homecage). These “other” replay events likely contribute to candidate replay events that fail to have a statistically significant replay score on either track.

With regard to using a cell-id randomized dataset to empirically estimate false-positive rates, we have provided a detailed explanation behind our choice of using an alpha level correction in our response to the essential revisions above. This approach is not used to examine the effect of multiple comparisons, but rather to measure the replay detection error due to non-independence and a non-uniform p value distribution. Therefore we do not believe that existing multiple comparison corrections such as Benjamini and Hochberg procedure are applicable here (Author response image 1-3). Given the potential issues raised with a session-based cell-id randomization, we demonstrate above that the null distribution is sufficiently independent from the four shuffle-types used for replay detection (the same was not true for a place field randomized dataset) (Author response image 4).

Author response image 1.

Distribution of Spearman’s rank order correlation score and p value for false events with random sequence where each neuron fires one (left), two (middle) or three (right) spikes.

Author response image 2.

Distribution of Spearman’s rank order correlation score and p value for mixture of 20% true events and 80% false events where each neuron fires one (left), two (middle) or three (right) spikes.

Author response image 3.

Number of true events (blue) and false events (yellow) detected based on alpha level 0.05 (upper left), empirical false positive rate 5% (upper right) and false discovery rate 5% (lower left, based on BH method)

Author response image 4.

Proportion of false events detected when using dataset with within and cross experiment cell-id randomization and place field randomization. The detection was based on single shuffle including time bin permutation shuffle, spike train circular shift shuffle, place field circular shift shuffle, and place bin circular shift shuffle.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

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

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

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

We would like to thank the reviewer for their feedback. The purpose of this paper is to present a novel tool for evaluating replay sequence detection using an independent measure that does not depend on the sequence score. As the reviewer stated, in this study, we are detecting replay events based on a set alpha threshold (0.05), based on the conditional probability of rejecting the null hypothesis given that the null hypothesis is true. For all replay events detected during PRE, RUN or POST, they are classified as track 1 or track 2 replay events by comparing each event’s sequence score relative to the shuffled distribution. Then, the log odds measure was only applied to track 1 and track 2 replay events selected using sequence-based detection. Its important to clarify that we never use log odds to select events to examine their sequenceness p value. Therefore, we disagree with the reviewer’s claim that for awake replay events detected on different tracks, we are quantifying the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis given that the null hypothesis is not true.

However, we fully understand the reviewer’s concerns with a cell-id randomization, and the potential caveats associated with using this approach for quantifying the false positive rate. First of all, we would like to clarify that the purpose of alpha level adjustment was to facilitate comparison across methods by finding the alpha level with matching false-positive rates determined empirically. Without doing this, it is impossible to compare two methods that differ in strictness (e.g. is using two different shuffles needed compared to using a single shuffle procedure). This means we are interested in comparing the performance of different methods at the equivalent alpha level where each method detects 5% spurious events per track rather than an arbitrary alpha level of 0.05 (which is difficult to interpret if statistical tests are run on non-independent samples). Once the false positive rate is matched, it is possible to compare two methods to see which one yields more events and/or has better track discriminability.

We agree with the reviewer that the choice of data randomization is crucial. When a null distribution of a randomized dataset is very similar to the null distribution used for detection, this should lead to a 5% false positive rate (as a consequence of circular reasoning). In our response to the essential revisions, we have discussed about the effect of data randomization on replay detection. We observed that while place field circularly shifted dataset and cell-id randomized dataset led to similar false-positive rates when shuffles that disrupt temporal information were used for detection, a place field circularly shifted dataset but not a cell-id randomized dataset was sensitive to shuffle methods that disrupted place information (Author response image 4). We would also like to highlight one of our findings from the manuscript that the discrepancy between different methods can be substantially reduced when alpha level was adjusted to match false-positive rates (Figure 6B). This result directly supports the utility of a cell-id randomized dataset in finding the alpha level with equivalent false positive rates across methods. Hence, while imperfect, we argue cell-id randomization remains an acceptable method as it is sufficiently different from the four shuffles we used for replay detection compared to place field randomized dataset (Author response image 4).

While the use of two linear tracks was crucial for our current framework to calculate log odds for evaluating replay detection, we acknowledge that it limits the applicability of this framework. At the same time, the conclusions of the manuscript with regard to ripples, replay methods, and preplay should remain valid on a single track. A second track just provides a useful control for how place cells can realistically remap within another environment. However, with modification, it may be applied to a maze with different arms or subregions, although this is beyond the scope of our current study.

Last of not least, we partly agree with the reviewer that the result can be dataset-specific such that the result may vary depending on animal’s behavioural state and experimental design. However, our results highlight the fact that there is a very wide distribution of both the track discriminability and the proportion of significant events detected across methods that are currently used in the field. And while we see several methods that appear comparable in their effectiveness in replay detection, there are also other methods that are deeply flawed (that have been previously been used in peer-reviewed publications) if the alpha level is not sufficiently strict. Regardless of the method used, most methods can be corrected with an appropriate alpha level (e.g. using all spikes for a rank order correlation). Therefore, while the exact result may be dataset-specific, we feel that this is most likely due to the number of cells and properties of the track more than the use of two tracks. Reporting of the empirically determined false-positive rate and use of alpha level with matching false-positive rate (such as 0.05) for detection does not require a second track, and the adoption of this approach by other labs would help to improve the interpretability and generalizability of their replay data.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We would like to thank the reviewer for the positive and constructive feedback.

We agree with the reviewer that the conclusion about the effect of ripple power is dataset-specific and is not intended to be a one-size-fit-all recommendation for wider application. But it does raise a concern that individual studies should address. The criteria used for selecting candidate events will impact the overall fraction of detected events, and makes the comparison between studies using different methods more difficult. We have updated the manuscript to emphasize this point.

“These results emphasize that a ripple power threshold is not necessary for RUN replay events in our dataset but may still be beneficial, as long as it does not excessively eliminate too many good replay events with low ripple power. In other words, depending on the experimental design, it is possible that a stricter p-value with no ripple threshold can be used to detect more replay events than using a less strict p-value combined with a strict ripple power threshold. However, for POST replay events, a threshold at least in the range of a z-score of 3-5 is recommended based on our dataset, to reduce inclusion of false-positives within the pool of detected replay events.”

“We make six key observations: 1) A ripple power threshold may be more important for replay events during POST compared to RUN. For our dataset, the POST replay events with ripple power below a z-score of 3-5 were indistinguishable from spurious events. While the exact ripple z-score threshold to implement may differ depending on the experimental condition (e.g. electrode placement, behavioural paradigm, noise level and etc) and experimental aim, our findings highlight the benefit of using ripple power threshold for detecting replay during POST. 2) ”

Author Response

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this exciting and well-written manuscript, Alvarez-Buylla and colleagues report a fascinating discovery of an alkaloid-binding protein in the plasma of poison frogs, which may help explain how these animals are able to sequester a diversity of alkaloids with different target sites. This work is a major advance in our knowledge of how poison frogs are able to sequester and even resist such a panoply of alkaloids. Their study also adds to our understanding of how toxic animals resist the effects of their own defenses. Although target site insensitivity and other mechanisms acting to prevent the binding of alkaloids to their targets (often ion channels) are well characterized now in poison frogs, less is known regarding how they regulate the movement of toxins throughout the animal and in blood in particular. In the fugu (pufferfish) a protein binds saxitoxin and tetrodotoxin and in some amphibians possibly the protein saxiphilin has been proposed to be a toxin sponge for saxitoxin. However, little is known about poison frogs in particular and if toxin-binding proteins are involved in their sequestration and auto-resistance mechanisms.

The authors use a clever approach wherein a fluorescently labeled probe of a pumiliotoxin analog (an alkaloid toxin sequestered by some poison frogs) is able to be crosslinked to proteins to which it binds. The authors then use sophisticated mass spectroscopy to identify the proteins and find an outlier 'hit' that is a serpin protein. A competition assay, as well as mutagenesis studies, revealed that this ~50-60 kDa plasma protein is responsible for binding much of the pumiliotoxin and a few other alkaloids known to be sequestered in the in vivo assay, but not nicotine, an alkaloid not sequestered by these frogs.

In general, their results are convincing, their methods and analyses robust and the writing excellent. Their findings represent a major breakthrough in the study of toxin sequestration in poison frogs. Below, a more detailed summary and both major and minor constructive comments are given on the nature of the discoveries and some ways that the manuscript could be improved.

Many thanks for this positive summary of our work! We greatly appreciate your time and thoroughness in giving us feedback.

Detailed Summary

The authors functionally characterize a serine-protease inhibitor protein in Oophaga sylvatica frog plasma, which they name O. sylvatica alkaloid-binding globulin (OsABG), that can bind toxic alkaloids. They show that OsABG is the most highly expressed serpin in O. sylvatica liver and that its expression is higher than that of albumin, a major small molecule carrier in vertebrates. Using a toxin photoprobe combined with competitive protein binding assays, their data suggest that OsABG is able to bind specific poison frog toxins including the two most abundant alkaloids in O. sylvatica skin. Their in vitro isolation of toxin-bound OsABG shows that the protein binds most free pumiliotoxin in solution and suggests that OsABG may play an important role in its sequestration. The authors further show that mutations in the binding pocket of OsABG remove its ability to bind toxins and that the binding pocket is structurally similar to that of other vertebrate serpins.

These results are an exciting advance in understanding how poison frogs, which make and use alkaloids as chemical defenses, prevent self-intoxication. The authors provide convincing evidence that OsABG can function as a toxin sponge in O. sylvatica which sets a compelling precedent for future work needed to test the role of OsABG in vivo.

The study could be improved by shifting the focus to O. sylvatica specifically rather than the convergent evolution of sequestration among different dendrobatid species. The reason for this is that most of the results (aside from some of the photoprobe binding results presented in Fig. 1 and Fig. 4) and the proteomics identification of OsABG itself are based on O. sylvatica. It's unclear whether ABG proteins are major toxin sponges in D. tinctorius or E. tricolor since these frogs may contain different toxin cocktails. The competitive binding results suggest that putative ABG proteins in D. tinctorius and E. tricolor have reduced binding affinity at higher toxin concentrations than ABG proteins in O. sylvatica. Although molecular convergence in toxin sponges may be at play in the dendrobatid poison frogs, more work is needed in non-O. sylvatica species to determine the extent of convergence.

We understand and appreciate you raising this concern. As is partially described in the “essential revisions” section above, we have been more cautious throughout the results and discussion to not describe the plasma binding in E. tricolor and D. tinctorius as definitively due to ABG proteins, and to shift the overall focus to O. sylvatica.

Major constructive comments:

Although the protein gels in Fig.1-2 show clearly the role of ABG, a ~50 kDa protein, it's unclear whether transferrin-like proteins, which are ~80 kDa, may also play a role because the gels show proteins between 39-64 kDa (Fig.1). The gel in Fig.2A is specific to one O. sylvatica and extends this range, but the gel does not appear to be labeled accordingly, making it unclear whether other larger proteins could have been detected in addition to ABG. Clarifying this issue would facilitate the interpretation of the results.

Thank you for this suggestion, please see our response above in the “essential revisions” section.

There is what seems to be a significant size difference between the O. sylvatica bands and bands from the other toxic frog species, namely D. tinctorius and E. tricolor. Could the photoprobe be binding to other non-ABG proteins of different sizes in different frog species? Given that O. sylvatica bands are bright and this species was the only one subject to proteomics quantification, a possible conclusion may be that the ABG toxin sponge is a lineage-specific adaptation of O. sylvatica rather than a common mechanism of toxin sequestration among multiple independent lineages of poison frogs. It would be helpful if the authors could address this observation of their binding data and the hypothesis flowing from that in the manuscript.

Thank you for this suggestion, please see our response above in the “essential revisions” section.

Figure 1B: The species names should be labeled alongside the images in the phylogeny. In addition, please include symbols indicating the number of times toxicity has evolved (for example, once in the ancestors of O. sylvatica and D. tinctorius frogs and once in the ancestors of E. tricolor frogs).

These suggested changes have been added to Figure 1B. We were not able to fit the full species names into the figure, instead we added an abbreviated version that is spelled out completely in the figure caption.

Figure 4B-C: Photoprobe binding results in the presence of epi and nicotine appear to be missing for D. tinctorius and those in the presence of PTX and nicotine are missing for D. tricolor. Adding these results would make for a more complete picture of alkaloid binding by ABG in non-O. sylvatica species.

Thank you for this suggestion, please see our response above in the “essential revisions” section.

Using recombinant proteins with mutations at residues forming the binding pocket of O. sylvatica ABG (as inferred from docking simulations), the authors found that all binding pocket mutations disrupted photoprobe binding completely in vitro (L221-222, Fig. 4E). However, there is no information presented on non-binding pocket mutations. Mutations outside of the binding pocket would presumably maintain photoprobe binding - barring any indirect structural changes that might disrupt binding pocket interactions with the photoprobe. This result is important for the conclusion that the binding pocket itself is the sole mediator of toxin interactions. The authors do show that one binding pocket mutation (D383A) results in some degree of photoprobe binding (Fig. 4E) but more detail on the mutations in the binding pocket per se being causal would be helpful.

Thank you for this suggestion, please see our response above in the “essential revisions” section.

Please include concentrations in the descriptions of gel lanes in the main figures. The relative concentrations of the photoprobe and other toxins (eg., PTX, DHQ, epi, and nic) are essential for interpreting the competitive binding images. For example, this was done in Fig. S1 (e.g., PB + 10x PTX).

The photoprobe and competitor concentrations have been added beneath the gels in Figures 1, 4, and 6 as suggested. Additionally, in the crosslinking experiments involving purified protein the amount of protein per well has been added to the top of the TAMRA gel.

For clarity, the section "OsABG sequesters free PTX in solution with high affinity" could be presented directly after the section titled "Proteomic analysis identifies an alkaloid-binding globulin". The former highlights in vitro experiments confirming the binding affinity of the ABG protein identified in the latter.

While we see how this rearrangement might work, we think that the current order of figures creates a more compelling story and provides the evidence in a more intuitive manner. For instance, it is necessary to show that recombinant protein recapitulates the plasma photoprobe results and that binding pocket mutants disrupt photoprobe binding (Figure 4), prior to showing the direct binding assays with the recombinant wild type and mutant proteins. For this reason, we believe that this rearrangement might cause confusion, and are leaving it as is.

Fig. 6E-F should be included as part of Fig. 1 or 2. Although complementary to the RNA sequencing data, these protein results are more closely related to the results in the first two figures which show the degree of competitive binding affinity of PB in the presence of different toxins. The expanded competitive binding results for total skin alkaloids and the two most abundant skin alkaloids from wild samples are most appropriate here.

We understand the reasoning behind this, however we feel that including these results in Figure 6 is more appropriate and that moving it would disrupt the flow of the story. The identification of ABG and its binding activity happened before we fully understood the alkaloid profiles of wild-collected O. sylvatica, therefore we did not think to test additional alkaloids like histrionicotoxin and indolizidines till we saw that these were very abundant on the skin of field collected poison frogs. Furthermore, we would like to leave this section at the end because we feel it contributes important ecological relevance that we want to leave readers with.

Author Response

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

eLife assessment

This important paper exploits new cryo-EM tomography tools to examine the state of chromatin in situ. The experimental work is meticulously performed and convincing, with a vast amount of data collected. The main findings are interpreted by the authors to suggest that the majority of yeast nucleosomes lack a stable octameric conformation. Despite the possibly controversial nature of this report, it is our hope that such work will spark thought-provoking debate, and further the development of exciting new tools that can interrogate native chromatin shape and associated function in vivo.

We thank the Editors and Reviewers for their thoughtful and helpful comments. We also appreciate the extraordinary amount of effort needed to assess both the lengthy manuscript and the previous reviews. Below, we provide our point-by-point response in bold blue font. Nearly all comments have been addressed in the revised manuscript. For a subset of comments that would require us to speculate, we have taken a conservative approach because we either lack key information or technical expertise: Instead of adding the speculative replies to the main text, we think it is better to leave them in the rebuttal for posterity. Readers will thereby have access to our speculation and know that we did not feel confident enough to include these thoughts in the Version of Record.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

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

Please note that canonical nucleosomes are there in wild-type cells in situ, albeit rarer than what’s expected based on our HeLa cell analysis and especially the total number of yeast nucleosomes (canonical plus non-canonical). The negative result (absence of any canonical nucleosome classes in situ) was found in the histone-GFP mutants.

Major strengths and weaknesses:

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

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

Our best guess (speculation) is that one of the class averages that is smaller than the canonical nucleosome contains one or more non-canonical nucleosome classes. However, we do not feel confident enough to single out any of these classes precisely because we do not yet know if they arise from one non-canonical nucleosome structure or from multiple – and therefore mis-classified – non-canonical nucleosome structures (potentially with other non-nucleosome complexes mixed in). We feel it is better to leave this discussion out of the manuscript, or risk sending the community on wild goose chases.

Our template-matching workflow uses a low-enough cross-correlation threshold that any nucleosome-sized particle (plus minus a few nanometers) would be picked, which is why the number of hits is so large. So unless the noncanonical nucleosomes quadrupled in size or lost most of their histones, they should be grouped with one or more of the other 99 class averages (WT cells) or any of the 100 class averages (cells with GFP-tagged histones). As to whether the later reference particle could have prevented us from detecting one of the non-canonical nucleosome structures, we are unable to tell because we’d really have to know what an in situ non-canonical nucleosome looks like first.

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

Presumably, the nucleoplasmic “side-tracking” texture would come from some molecules in the yeast nucleus. These molecules would be too small to visualize as discrete particles in the tomographic slices, but they would contribute textures that can be “seen” by the programs – in particular RELION, which does the discrimination between structural states. We are not sure what types of density textures would side-track RELION’s classification routines.

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

Figure 2’s title is indeed unclear and does not align with the paper’s title and key conclusion. The rarity here is relative to the expected number of nucleosomes (canonical plus non-canonical). We have changed the title to:

“Canonical nucleosomes are a minority of the expected total in wild-type cells”.

We would prefer to leave the reference to HeLa cells to the main text instead of as a figure panel because the comparison is not straightforward for a graphical presentation. Instead, we now report the total number of nucleosomes estimated for this particular yeast tomogram (~7,600) versus the number of canonical nucleosomes classified (297; 594 if we assume we missed half of them). This information is in the revised figure legend:

“In this tomogram, we estimate there are ~7,600 nucleosomes (see Methods on how the calculation is done), of which 297 are canonical structures. Accounting for the missing disc views, we estimate there are ~594 canonical nucleosomes in this cryolamella (< 8% the expected number of nucleosomes).”

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

This is an interesting semantic and philosophical point. From the yeast cell’s “perspective”, the canonical nucleosome structure would be the form that is in the majority. That being said, we do not know if there is one structure that is the majority. From the chromatin field’s point of view, the canonical nucleosome is the form that is most commonly seen in all the historical – and most contemporary – literature, namely something that resembles the crystal structure of Luger et al, 1997. Given these two lines of thinking, we added the following clarification as lines 312 – 316:

“At present, we do not know what the non-canonical nucleosome structures are, meaning that we cannot even determine if one non-canonical structure is the majority. Until we know the non-canonical nucleosomes’ structures, we will use the term non-canonical to describe all the nucleosomes that do not have the canonical (crystal) structure.”

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

Since the classification of subtomograms in situ is still a work in progress, we felt it would be better to show one instance of 2-D classification for lysates and one for lamellae. While it is true that we could have presented direct 3-D classification for the entire paper, we anticipate that readers will be interested to see what the in situ 2-D class averages look like.

The main message is that there are canonical nucleosomes in situ (at least in wild-type cells), but they are a minority. Therefore, the conventional classification for Figure S5A should not be a main figure because it does not show any canonical nucleosome class averages in situ.

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

There is a lower concentration of amino acids at the middle in the disc view; unfortunately, the space-filling model in Figure 1A hides this feature. The gap exists in experimental cryo-EM density maps. See Author response image 1 for an example (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29626188). The size of the gap depends on the contour level and probably the contrast mechanism, as the gap is less visible in the VPP subtomogram averages. To clarify this confusing phenomenon, we added the following lines to the figure legend:

“The gap in the disc view of the nuclear-lysate-based average is due to the lower concentration of amino acids there, which is not visible in panel A due to space-filling rendering. This gap’s visibility may also depend on the contrast mechanism because it is not visible in the VPP averages.”

Author response image 1.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

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

We thank Reviewer 2 for their positive assessment.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

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

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

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

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

Thank you for putting our work in the context of the field’s trajectory. We hope our EMPIAR entry, which includes all the raw data used in this paper, will be useful for the community. As more labs (hopefully) upload their raw data and as image-processing continues to advance, the field will be able to revisit the question of non-canonical nucleosomes in budding yeast and other organisms. 

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

The manuscript sometimes reads like a part of a series rather than a stand-alone paper. Be sure to spell out what needs to be known from previous work to read this article. The introduction is very EM-technique focused but could do with more nucleosome information.

We have added a new paragraph that discusses the sources of structural variability to better prepare readers, as lines 50 – 59:

“In the context of chromatin, nucleosomes are not discrete particles because sequential nucleosomes are connected by short stretches of linker DNA. Variation in linker DNA structure is a source of chromatin conformational heterogeneity (Collepardo-Guevara and Schlick, 2014). Recent cryo-EM studies show that nucleosomes can deviate from the canonical form in vitro, primarily in the structure of DNA near the entry/exit site (Bilokapic et al., 2018; Fukushima et al., 2022; Sato et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2021). In addition to DNA structural variability, nucleosomes in vitro have small changes in histone conformations (Bilokapic et al., 2018). Larger-scale variations of DNA and histone structure are not compatible with high-resolution analysis and may have been missed in single-particle cryo-EM studies.”

Line 165-6 "did not reveal a nucleosome class average in..". Add "canonical", since it otherwise suggests there were no nucleosomes.

Thank you for catching this error. Corrected.

Lines 177-182: Why are the disc views missed by the classification analysis? They should be there in the sample, as you say.

We suspect that RELION 3 is misclassifying the disc-view canonical nucleosomes into the other classes. The RELION developers suspect that view-dependent misclassification arises from RELION 3’s 3-D CTF model. RELION 4 is reported to be less biased by the particles’ views. We have started testing RELION 4 but do not have anything concrete to report yet.

Line 222: a GFP tag.

Fixed.

Line 382: "Note that the percentage .." I can't follow this sentence. Why would you need to know how many chromosome's worth of nucleosomes you are looking at to say the percentage of non-canonical nucleosomes?

Thank you for noticing this confusing wording. The sentence has been both simplified and clarified as follows in lines 396 – 398:

“Note that the percentage of canonical nucleosomes in lysates cannot be accurately estimated because we cannot determine how many nucleosomes in total are in each field of view.”

Line 397: "We're not implying that..." Please add a sentence clearly stating what you DO mean with mobility for H2A/H2B.

We have added the following clarifying sentence in lines 412 – 413:

“We mean that H2A-H2B is attached to the rest of the nucleosome and can have small differences in orientation.”

Line 428: repeated message from line 424. "in this figure, the blurring implies.."

Redundant phrase removed.

Line 439: "on a HeLa cell" - a single cell in the whole study?

Yes, that study was done on a single cell.

A general comment is that the authors could help the reader more by developing the figures and making them more pedagogical, a list of suggestions can be found below.

Thank you for the suggestions. We have applied all of them to the specific figure callouts and to the other figures that could use similar clarification.

Figure 2: Help the reader by avoiding abbreviations in the figure legend. VPP tomographic slice - spell out "Volta Phase Plate". Same with the term "remapped" (panel B) what does that mean?

We spelled out Volta phase plate in full and explained “remapped” the additional figure legend text:

“the class averages were oriented and positioned in the locations of their contributing subtomograms”.

Supplementary figures:

Figure S3: It is unclear what you mean with "two types of BY4741 nucleosomes". You then say that the canonical nucleosomes are shaded blue. So what color is then the non-canonical? All the greys? Some of them look just like random stuff, not nucleosomes.

“Two types” is a typo and has been removed and “nucleosomes” has been replaced with “candidate nucleosome template-matching hits” to accurately reflect the particles used in classification.

Figure S6: Top left says "3 tomograms (defocus)". I wonder if you meant to add the defocus range here. I have understood it like this is the same data as shown in Figure S5, which makes me wonder if this top cartoon should not be on top of that figure too (or exclusively there).

To make Figures S6 (and S5) clearer, we have copied the top cartoon from Figure S6 to S5.

Note that we corrected a typo for these figures (and the Table S7): the number of template-matched candidate nucleosomes should be 93,204, not 62,428.

The description in the parentheses (defocus) is shorthand for defocus phase contrast and was not intended to also display a defocus range. All of the revised figure legends now report the meaning of both this shorthand and of the Volta phase plate (VPP).

To help readers see the relationship between these two figures, we added the following clarifying text to the Figure S5 and S6 legends, respectively:

“This workflow uses the same template-matched candidate nucleosomes as in Figure S6; see below.”

“This workflow uses the same template-matched candidate nucleosomes as in Figure S5.”

Figure S7: In the first panel, it is unclear why the featureless cylinder is shown as it is not used as a reference here. Rather, it could be put throughout where it was used and then put the simulated EM-map alone here. If left in, it should be stated in the legend that it was not used here.

It would indeed be much clearer to show the featureless cylinder in all the other figures and leave the simulated nucleosome in this control figure. All figures are now updated. The figure legend was also updated as follows:

“(A) A simulated EM map from a crystal structure of the nucleosome was used as the template-matching and 3-D classification reference.”

Figure S18: Why are there classes where the GFP density is missing? Mention something about this in the figure legend.

We have appended the following speculations to explain the “missing” GFP densities:

“Some of the class averages are “missing” one or both expected GFP densities. The possible explanations include mobility of a subpopulation of GFPs or H2A-GFPs, incorrectly folded GFPs, or substitution of H2A for the variant histone H2A.Z.”

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

My specific (rather minor) comments are the following:

1) Abstract:

yeast -> budding yeast.

All three instances in the abstract have been replaced with “budding yeast”.

It would be better to clarify what ex vivo means here.

We have appended “(in nuclear lysates)” to explain the meaning of ex vivo.

2) Some subtitles are unclear.

e.g., "in wild-type lysates" -> "wild-type yeast lysates"

Thank you for this suggestion. All unclear instances of subtitles and sample descriptions throughout the text have been corrected.

3) Page 6, Line 113. "...which detects more canonical nucleosomes." A similar thing was already mentioned in the same paragraph and seems redundant.

Thank you for noticing this redundant statement, which is now deleted.

4) Page 25, Line 525. "However, crowding is an unlikely explanation..." Please note that many macromolecules (proteins, RNAs, polysaccharides, etc.) were lost during the nuclei isolation process.

This is a good point. We have rewritten this paragraph to separate the discussion on technical versus biological effects of crowding, in lines 538 – 546:

“Another hypothesis for the low numbers of detected canonical nucleosomes is that the nucleoplasm is too crowded, making the image processing infeasible. However, crowding is an unlikely technical limitation because we were able to detect canonical nucleosome class averages in our most-crowded nuclear lysates, which are so crowded that most nucleosomes are butted against others (Figures S15 and S16). Crowding may instead have biological contributions to the different subtomogram-analysis outcomes in cell nuclei and nuclear lysates. For example, the crowding from other nuclear constituents (proteins, RNAs, polysaccharides, etc.) may contribute to in situ nucleosome structure, but is lost during nucleus isolation.”

5) Page 7, Line 126. "The subtomogram average..." Is there any explanation for this?

Presumably, the longer linker DNA length corresponds to the ordered portion of the ~22 bp linker between consecutive nucleosomes, given the ~168 bp nucleosome repeat length. We have appended the following explanation as the concluding sentence, lines 137 – 140:

“Because the nucleosome-repeat length of budding yeast chromatin is ~168 bp (Brogaard et al., 2012), this extra length of DNA may come from an ordered portion of the ~22 bp linker between adjacent nucleosomes.”

6) "Histone GFP-tagging strategy" subsection:

Since this subsection is a bit off the mainstream of the paper, it can be shortened and merged into the next one.

We have merged the “Histone GFP-tagging strategy” and “GFP is detectable on nucleosome subtomogram averages ex vivo” subsections and shortened the text as much as possible. The new subsection is entitled “Histone GFP-tagging and visualization ex vivo”

7) Page 16, Line 329. "Because all attempts to make H3- or H4-GFP "sole source" strains failed..." Is there a possible explanation here? Cytotoxic effect because of steric hindrance of nucleosomes?

Yes, it is possible that the GFP tag is interfering with the nucleosomes interactions with its numerous partners. It is also possible that the histone-GFP fusions do not import and/or assemble efficiently enough to support a bare-minimum number of functional nucleosomes. Given that the phenotypic consequences of fusion tags is an underexplored topic and that we don’t have any data on the (dead) transformants, we would prefer to leave out the speculation about the cause of death in the attempted creation of “sole source” strains.

Author Response

eLife assessment

This important paper exploits new cryo-EM tomography tools to examine the state of chromatin in situ. The experimental work is meticulously performed and convincing, with a vast amount of data collected. The main findings are interpreted by the authors to suggest that the majority of yeast nucleosomes lack a stable octameric conformation. Despite the possibly controversial nature of this report, it is our hope that such work will spark thought-provoking debate, and further the development of exciting new tools that can interrogate native chromatin shape and associated function in vivo.

We thank the Editors and Reviewers for their thoughtful and helpful comments. We also appreciate the extraordinary amount of effort needed to assess both the lengthy manuscript and the previous reviews. Below, we provide our provisional responses in bold blue font. The majority of the comments are straightforward to address. We have taken a more conservative approach with the subset of comments that would require us to speculate because we either lack key information or we lack technical expertise. Instead of adding the speculative replies to the main text, we think it will be better to leave them in the rebuttal for posterity. Readers will therefore have access to our speculation and know that we did not feel confident enough to include these thoughts in the Version of Record.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

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

We want to point out that canonical nucleosomes are there in wild-type cells in situ, albeit rarer than what’s expected based on our HeLa cell analysis. The negative result (absence of any canonical nucleosome classes in situ) was found in the histone-GFP mutants.

Major strengths and weaknesses:

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

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

Our best guess (speculation) is that one of the class averages that is smaller than the canonical nucleosome contains one or more non-canonical nucleosome classes. We do not feel confident enough to single out any of these classes precisely because we do not yet know if they arise from one non-canonical nucleosome structure or from multiple – and therefore mis-classified – non-canonical nucleosome structures (potentially with other non-nucleosome complexes mixed in). We feel it is better to leave this discussion out of the manuscript, or risk sending the community on wild goose chases.

Our template-matching workflow uses a low-enough cross-correlation threshold that any nucleosome-sized particle (plus minus a few nanometers) would be picked, which is why the number of hits is so large. So unless the noncanonical nucleosomes quadrupled in size or lost most of their histones, they should be grouped with one or more of the other 99 class averages (WT cells) or any of the 100 class averages (cells with GFP-tagged histones). As to whether the later reference particle could have prevented us from detecting one of the non-canonical nucleosome structures, we are unable to tell because we’d really have to know what an in situ non-canonical nucleosome looks like first.

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

Presumably, the nucleoplasmic “side-tracking” texture would come from some molecules in the yeast nucleus. These molecules would be too small to visualize as discrete particles in the tomographic slices, but they would contribute textures that can be “seen” by the programs – in particular RELION, which does the discrimination between structural states. We do not know the inner-workings of RELION well enough to say what kinds of density textures would side-track its classification routines.

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

Figure 2’s title is indeed unclear and does not align with the paper’s title and key conclusion. The rarity here is relative to the expected number of nucleosomes (canonical plus non-canonical). We have changed the title to “Canonical nucleosomes are a minority of the expected total in wild-type cells”. We would prefer to leave the reference to HeLa cells to the main text instead of as a figure panel because the comparison is not straightforward for a graphical presentation. Instead, we will report the total number of nucleosomes estimated for this particular tomogram (~7,600) versus the number of canonical nucleosomes classified (297; 594 if we assume we missed half of them).

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

This is an interesting semantic and philosophical point. From the yeast cell’s “perspective”, the canonical nucleosome structure would be the form that is in the majority. That being said, we do not know if there is one structure that is the majority. From the chromatin field’s point of view, the canonical nucleosome is the form that is most commonly seen in all the historical – and most contemporary – literature, namely something that resembles the crystal structure of Luger et al, 1997. Given these two lines of thinking, we will add the following clarification after line 303:

“At present, we do not know what the non-canonical nucleosome structures are, meaning that we cannot even determine if one non-canonical structure is the majority. Until we know what the family of non-canonical nucleosome structures are, we will use the term non-canonical to describe the nucleosomes that do not have the canonical (crystal) structure”.

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

Because the classification of subtomograms in situ is still a work in progress, we felt it would be better to show one instance of 2-D classification for lysates and one for lamellae. While it is true that we could have presented direct 3-D classification for the entire paper, we anticipate that readers will be interested to see what the in situ 2-D class averages look like.

The main message is that there are canonical nucleosomes in situ (at least in wild-type cells), but they are a minority. Therefore, the conventional classification for Figure S5A should not be a main figure because it does not show any canonical nucleosome class averages in situ.

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

There is a lower concentration of amino acids at the middle in the disc view; unfortunately, the space-filling model in Figure 1A hides this feature. The gap exists in experimental cryo-EM density maps. See below for an example. The size of the gap depends on the contour level and probably the contrast mechanism, as the gap is less visible in the VPP subtomogram averages. To clarify this confusing phenomenon, we will add the following lines to the figure legend:

“The gap in the disc view of the nuclear-lysate-based average is due to the lower concentration of amino acids there, which is not visible in panel A due to space-filling rendering. This gap’s size may depend on the contrast mechanism because it is not visible in the VPP averages.”

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

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

We thank Reviewer 2 for their positive assessment.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

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

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

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

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

Thank you for putting our work in the context of the field’s trajectory. We hope our EMPIAR entry, which includes all the raw data used in this paper, will be useful for the community. As more labs (hopefully) upload their raw data and as image-processing continues to advance, the field will be able to revisit the question of non-canonical nucleosomes in budding yeast and other organisms.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author Response

The following is the authors’ response to the previous reviews

Point-to-Point Responses to Reviewers’ Comments

We are a bit surprised by the comments of Reviewer 1, but that our further responses can help communications with Reviewer 1. We have also responded to comments of Reviewers 2 and 3.

Public Reviews:

*Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The overall tone of the rebuttal and lack of responses on several questions was surprising. Clearly, the authors took umbrage at the phrase 'no smoking gun' and provided a lengthy repetition of the fair argument about 'ticking boxes' on the classic list of criteria. They also make repeated historical references that descriptions of neurotransmitters include many papers, typically over decades, e.g. in the case of ACh and its discovery by Sir Henry Dale. While I empathize with the authors' apparent frustration (I quote: '...accept the reality that Rome was not built in a single day and that no transmitter was proven by a one single paper') I am a bit surprised at the complete brushing away of the argument, and in fact the discussion. In the original paper, the notion of a receptor was mentioned only in a single sentence and all three reviewers brought up this rather obvious question. The historical comparisons are difficult: Of course many papers contribute to the identification of a neurotransmitter, but there is a much higher burden of proof in 2023 compared to the work by Otto Loewi and Sir Henry Dale: most, if not all, currently accepted neurotransmitter have a clear biological function at the level of the brain and animal behavior or function - and were in fact first proposed to exist based on a functional biological experiment (e.g. Loewi's heart rate change). This, and the isolation of the chemical that does the job, were clear, unquestionable 'smoking guns' a hundred years ago. Fast forward 2023: Creatine has been carefully studied by the authors to tick many of the boxes for neurotransmitters, but there is no clear role for its function in an animal. The authors show convincing effects upon K+ stimulation and electrophysiological recordings that show altered neuronal activity using the slc6a8 and agat mutants as well as Cr application - but, as has been pointed out by other reviewers, these effects are not a clear-cut demonstration of a chemical transmitter function, however many boxes are ticked. The identification of a role of a neurotransmitter for brain function and animal behavior has reasonably more advanced possibilities in 2023 than a hundred years ago - and e.g. a discussion of approaches for possible receptor candidates should be possible.

Again, I reviewed this positively and agree that a lot of cumulative data are great to be put out there and allow the discovery to be more broadly discussed and tested. But I have to note, that the authors simply respond with the 'Rome was not built in a single day' statement to my suggestions on at least 'have some lead' how to approach the question of a receptor e.g. through agonists or antagonists (while clearly stating 'I do not think the publication of this manuscript should not be made dependent' on this). Similarly, in response to reviewer 2's concerns about a missing receptor, the authors' only (may I say snarky) response is ' We have deleted this sentence, though what could mediate postsynaptic responses other than receptors?' The bullet point by reviewer 3 ' • No candidate receptor for creatine has been identified postsynaptically.' is the one point by that reviewer that is simply ignored by the authors completely. Finally, I note that my reivew question on the K stimulation issues (e.g. 35 neurons that simply did not respond at all) was: ' Response: To avoid the disadvantage of K stimulation, we also performed optogenetic experiments recently and obtained encouraging preliminary results.' No details, not data - no response really.

In sum, I find this all a bit strange and the rebuttal surprising - all three reviewers were supportive and have carefully listed points of discussion that I found all valid and thoughtful. In response, the authors selectively responded scientifically to some experimental questions, but otherwise simply rather non-scientifically dismissed questions with 'Rome was not built in a day'-type answers, or less. I my view, the authors have disregarded the review process and the effort of three supportive reviewers, which should be part of the permanent record of this paper.

Response:

We were very surprised by the tone of Reviewer 1 in the second round of reviewing. The corresponding author has spent some time including a long holiday to cool down and re-read our earlier responses. The following is entirely by the correspond author.

I have finally checked the term “smoking gun”, and found out that I interpreted it wrongly while I had thought that Reviewer 1 was wrong. This came from a long story in that I was lectured by a native speaker for my English when submitting the first paper from my own paper. In that case, the Reviewer was wrong (in arguing that only adjectives but not nouns can be used to define nouns), I was quite offended and remembered it vividly. In the case of “smoking gun”, I wrongly believed that it meant a hint (while the definite evidence would be “the final nail in the coffin”). By interpreting is as a hint, I was then rebutting Reviewer 1 for negating all our experimental results as “not a single piece of suggestive evidence”.

For the above, I apologize.

I have another disagreement about “smoking gun”. For a transmitter, multiple criteria have to be met. For example, finding a receptor for a small molecule would not be definitive for a transmitter because if it is not present in the SVs, it is unlikely to be a typical transmitter. If a molecule has a receptor but they are not even in the nervous system, it is definitely no a transmitter.

The title of our paper is “Evidence suggesting creatine as a new central neurotransmitter”, not “Evidence proving creatine as a new central neurotransmitter”. In the Abstract, after “Our biochemical, chemical, genetic and electrophysiological results are consistent with the possibility of Cr as a neurotransmitter”, we are adding “though not yet reaching the level of proof for the now classic transmitters”. In the last sentence of the introduction, we have now added “though the discovery of a receptor for Cr would prove it”.

I do, however, believe that, however strong the wordings are, criticisms and rebuttals in science are normal and should be conducted even when emotions are involved.

One of my major point of differences with at least two of the reviewers is that the criteria for neurotransmitters should be those listed in major textbooks. While everyone can have one’s own opinions, the textbooks, especially those accepted by readers of the field for more than 40 years, should be the standards. Kandel has listed the 4 criteria not only 40 years ago but also just 2 years ago in their latest 6th edition. The reviewers have asked for more, while discounting Kandel et al. (2021). So, in essence, the Reviewer is not shy in scientific criticisms when stating “The identification of a role of a neurotransmitter for brain function and animal behavior has reasonably more advanced possibilities in 2023 than a hundred years ago”.

Reviewer 1 raised another new criterion: brain function and behavior, while this is not in any textbook lists. However, lack of Cr caused behavioral problems, as cited by us in the introduction: both humans and mice were defective in brain function with loss of function mutations in the gene for the specific Cr transporter SLC6A8. If the reviewer meant behavioral abnormalities caused by Cr injection, that was unclear. But that criterion may not be met by other transmitters which is the likely reason that it was not a criterion in any textbook.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

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

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

Weaknesses: 1. There is no significant decrease in Cr content pulled down by anti-Syp in AGAT-/- mice when normalized to IgG controls. Hence, blocking AGAT activity/Cr synthesis does not affect Cr levels in the synaptic vesicle fraction, arguing against a Cr enrichment.

Response: Evidence for Cr enrichment in the SVS was obtained robustly with wild type mice. When brain Cr is very low in AGAT-/- mutant mice, because there is little Cr, there is also little Cr in the SVs. One does not require that as a criterion: it does not argue against the normal levels of Cr could be transported into the SVs even if when the much reduced levels of AGAT-/- Cr in mutant mice could be enriched in SVs.

1. There is no difference in KCl-induced Cr release between SLC6A8-/Y and SLC6A8+/Y when normalizing the data to the respective controls. Thus, the data are not consistent with the idea that depolarization-induced Cr release requires SLC6A8.

Response: This comment of Reviewer 2 was based on Figure 5D. But if one carefully examines Figure 5G, it was clear that the Ca++ dependent component of KCl -induced Cr release was lower in SLC6A8-/Y than that in SLC6A8+/Y.

1. The rationale of grouping the excitability data into responders and non-responders is not convincing because the threshold of 10% decrease in AP rate is arbitrary. The data do therefore not support the conclusion that Cr reduces neuronal excitability.

Response: Comparison of the same neuron, before and after Cr did show effects on neuronal excitability though that would have no statistics if one does not group multiple cells into the same categories.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

SUMMARY:

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

STRENGTHS:

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

WEAKNESSES: • Some data are indirect. Even though Slc6a8 and AGAT are helpful sentinels for the presence of creatine, they are not creatine themselves. Of note, these molecules themselves are not essential for making the case that creatine is a neurotransmitter.

Response: We agree, but those data are not inconsistent with the possibility.

• Regarding Slc6a8, it seems to work only as a reuptake transporter - not as a transporter into SVs. Therefore, we do not know what the transporter into the TVs is.

Response: SLC6A8 is not the transporter on the SVs, but is an excellent candidate for the transporter on the presynaptic cytoplasmic membrane for uptake of Cr into the presynaptic structure.

• Puzzlingly, Slc6a8 and AGAT are in different cells, setting up the complicated model that creatine is created in one cell type and then processed as a neurotransmitter in another. This matter will likely need to be resolved in future studies.

Response: We agree.

• No candidate receptor for creatine has been identified postsynaptically. This will likely need to be resolved in future studies.

Response: We agree.

• Because no candidate receptor has been identified, it is important to fully consider other possibilities for roles of creatine that would explain these observations other than it being a neurotransmitter? There is some attention to this in the Discussion.

Response: We agree.

There are several criteria that define a neurotransmitter. The authors nicely delineated many criteria in their discussion, but it is worth it for readers to do the same with their own understanding of the data.

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

Response: While any of us can come up with a list according to our own understanding, the paper copies lists from textbooks, especially from Kandel et al. (2021), which lists the same 4 criteria as Kandel et al. (1983), providing consistency and consensus.

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

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

Response: Classic transmitters are released in a Ca++ dependent manner when stimulated by KCl, though they also had a Ca++ independent component as also shown in our Figure 5 E and F.

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

Response: Kandel et al. did not list this.

Condition 5 may be met, because authors applied exogenous creatine and observed inhibition. However, this is tough to know without understanding the effects of endogenous release of creatine. if they were to test if the absence of creatine caused excess excitation (at putative creatinergic synapses), then that would be supportive of the same. Nicely, Ghirardini et al., 2023 study cited by the reviewers does provide support for this exact notion in pyramidal neurons.

Response: For most commonly accepted transmitters, this criterion has never been met. For example, the simplest case would be ACh at the neuromuscular junction. Howver, we have now found that choline is clearly present in SVs. So, how does anyone be sure that only ACh is released only, or how does anyone rule out effects of choline on postsynaptic cells when cholinergic neurons are stimulated?

Many synapses are now known to release more than one transmitter, making it difficult to define the effect of one transmitter released endogenously.

These are perhaps reasons why some textbooks do not emphasize similarities of endogenously released vs exogenously applied molecules.

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

Response: SLC6A8 is a transporter on the cytoplasmic membrane, thus a good candidate for removal of Cr from the synaptic cleft.

In terms of fundamental neuroscience, the story should be impactful. There are certainly more neurotransmitters out there than currently identified and by textbook criteria, creatine seems to be one of them taking all of the data in this study and others into account.

Response: We hope that more will join our lonely efforts in trying to discover more transmitters.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Since the authors largely disregarded questions in the review process, I do not see a point in listing recommendation for the authors again.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

1. The different sections of the manuscript are not separated by headers.

Response: We do have separate subheadings.

1. The beginning of the results section either does not reference the underlying literature or refers to unpublished data.

Response: We have a very long introduction which was criticized for being too long and with too much historical citations. We therefore refrained from citation again in the beginning part of the Results section.

1. The text contains many opinions and historical information that are not required (e.g., "It has never been easy to discover a new neurotransmitter, especially one in the central nervous system (CNS). We have been searching for new neurotransmitters for 12 years."; l. 17).

Response: We would like to keep these because most readers are young and do not know the history and difficulties of discovering transmitters.

1. Almeida et al. (2008; doi: 10.1002/syn.20280) provided evidence for electrical activity-, and Ca2+-dependent Cr release from rat brain slices. This paper should be introduced in the introduction.

Response: Done.

1. Fig. 7: A Y-scale for the stimulation protocol is missing.

Response: Done.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

The main suggestion by this reviewer (beyond the details in the public review) was to consider the full spectrum of biology that is consistent with these results. By my reading, creatine could be a neurotransmitter, but other possibilities also exist. The authors have highlighted some of those for their Discussion.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The overall tone of the rebuttal and lack of responses on several questions was surprising. Clearly, the authors did not appreciate the phrase 'no smoking gun' and provided a lengthy repetition of the fair argument about 'ticking boxes' on the classic list of criteria. They also make repeated historical references that descriptions of neurotransmitters include many papers, typically over decades, e.g. in the case of ACh and its discovery by Sir Henry Dale. While I empathize with the authors' apparent frustration (I quote: '...accept the reality that Rome was not built in a single day and that no transmitter was proven by a one single paper') I am a bit surprised at the complete brushing away of the argument, and in fact the discussion. In the original paper, the notion of a receptor was mentioned only in a single sentence and all three reviewers brought up this rather obvious question. The historical comparisons are difficult: Of course many papers contribute to the identification of a neurotransmitter, but there is a much higher burden of proof in 2023 compared to the work by Otto Loewi and Sir Henry Dale: most, if not all, currently accepted neurotransmitter have a clear biological function at the level of the brain and animal behavior or function - and were in fact first proposed to exist based on a functional biological experiment (e.g. Loewi's heart rate change). This, and the isolation of the chemical that does the job, were clear, unquestionable 'smoking guns' a hundred years ago. Fast forward 2023: Creatine has been carefully studied by the authors to tick many of the boxes for neurotransmitters, but there is no clear role for its function in an animal. The authors show convincing effects upon K+ stimulation and electrophysiological recordings that show altered neuronal activity using the slc6a8 and agat mutants as well as Cr application - but, as has been pointed out by other reviewers, these effects are not a clear-cut demonstration of a chemical transmitter function, however many boxes are ticked. The identification of a role of a neurotransmitter for brain function and animal behavior has reasonably more advanced possibilities in 2023 than a hundred years ago - and e.g. a discussion of approaches for possible receptor candidates should be possible.

Again, I reviewed this positively and agree that a lot of cumulative data are great to be put out there and allow the discovery to be more broadly discussed and tested. But I have to note, that the authors simply respond with the 'Rome was not built in a single day' statement to my suggestions on at least 'have some lead' how to approach the question of a receptor e.g. through agonists or antagonists (while clearly stating 'I do not think the publication of this manuscript should not be made dependent' on this). Similarly, in response to reviewer 2's concerns about a missing receptor, the authors' only (may I say snarky) response is ' We have deleted this sentence, though what could mediate postsynaptic responses other than receptors?' The bullet point by reviewer 3 ' • No candidate receptor for creatine has been identified postsynaptically.' is the one point by that reviewer that is simply ignored by the authors completely. Finally, I note that my reivew question on the K stimulation issues (e.g. 35 neurons that simply did not respond at all) was: ' Response: To avoid the disadvantage of K stimulation, we also performed optogenetic experiments recently and obtained encouraging preliminary results.' No details, not data - no response really.

In sum, I find this all a bit strange and the rebuttal surprising - all three reviewers were supportive and have carefully listed points of discussion that I found all valid and thoughtful. In response, the authors selectively responded scientifically to some experimental questions, but otherwise simply rather non-scientifically dismissed questions with 'Rome was not built in a day'-type answers, or less. I my view, the authors have disregarded the review process and the effort of three supportive reviewers, which should be part of the permanent record of this paper.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

SUMMARY:

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

STRENGTHS:

There are many strengths to this study.

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

WEAKNESSES:

• Some data are indirect. Even though Slc6a8 and AGAT are helpful sentinels for the presence of creatine, they are not creatine themselves. Of note, these molecules themselves are not essential for making the case that creatine is a neurotransmitter.<br /> • Regarding Slc6a8, it seems to work only as a reuptake transporter - not as a transporter into SVs. Therefore, we do not know what the transporter into the TVs is.<br /> • Puzzlingly, Slc6a8 and AGAT are in different cells, setting up the complicated model that creatine is created in one cell type and then processed as a neurotransmitter in another. This matter will likely need to be resolved in future studies.<br /> • No candidate receptor for creatine has been identified postsynaptically. This will likely need to be resolved in future studies.<br /> • Because no candidate receptor has been identified, it is important to fully consider other possibilities for roles of creatine that would explain these observations other than it being a neurotransmitter? There is some attention to this in the Discussion.

There are several criteria that define a neurotransmitter. The authors nicely delineated many criteria in their discussion, but it is worth it for readers to do the same with their own understanding of the data.

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

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

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

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

Condition 5 may be met, because authors applied exogenous creatine and observed inhibition. However, this is tough to know without understanding the effects of endogenous release of creatine. if they were to test if the absence of creatine caused excess excitation (at putative creatinergic synapses), then that would be supportive of the same. Nicely, Ghirardini et al., 2023 study cited by the reviewers does provide support for this exact notion in pyramidal neurons.

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

In terms of fundamental neuroscience, the story should be impactful. There are certainly more neurotransmitters out there than currently identified and by textbook criteria, creatine seems to be one of them taking all of the data in this study and others into account.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

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

Major strengths

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

Major weaknesses

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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