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 thank the reviewers for their time and both thoughtful and constructive comments. Their specific points are addressed below but a general point that we would like to comment on is that in the original version it appears we did not make our model clear enough. The dogma in the field is that Rab7 is recruited to endosomes from a cytosolic pool via exchange with Rab5 (mediated by Mon1/Ccz1). Our work instead indicates that the majority of Rab7 is delivered to Dictyostelium phagosomes by fusion with other endocytic compartments. It was not our intention to imply there was no canonical recruitment of Rab7 from a cytosolic pool, and indeed we provide data to show this happens at a low level and discuss this in the manuscript. Nonetheless, we clearly over-stated the exclusivity of Rab7 recruitment to phagosomes via fusion at several points and our original model cartoon, and have tried to better explain or more nuanced model with multiple routes for Rab7 acquisition in this revision, including a completely redrawn model figure (Fig. 7).

2. Description of the planned revisions

Reviewer 1:

1. The observation that macropinosomes undergo retrograde fusion with newly formed phagosomes to facilitate phagosome maturation is an interesting notion that challenges the traditional model. However, not all phagocytes exhibit a high level of macropinocytosis, and axenic Dictyostelium cells used in the study may be an exception. Thus, it remains unclear whether fusion with macropinosomes is universally required for phagosome maturation. WT Dictyostelium cells or axenic cells cultured under SorMC/Ka condition (Paschke et al., PLoS One, 2018) exhibit significantly reduced macropinocytosis. The authors could examine whether the accumulation of Rab7 and V-ATPase on large-sized phagosomes is delayed in these cells. These experiments may help broaden the applicability of the authors’ finding.

As our previous work (Buckley et al. PloS pathogens 2019) demonstrated that bacterially-grown PIKfyve mutants are also defective in bacterial killing and growth it is highly likely that cells also are defective in V-ATPase and Rab7 acquisition. However, we agree that formally testing this will further support our conclusions and improve the paper and should be quite straightforward.

We will therefore co-express GFP-V-ATPase and RFP-Rab7 in both Ax2 and non-axenic cells grown on bacteria and repeat our analysis of recruitment to phagosomes – with the caveat that non-axenic cells do not phagocytose large particles such as yeast (Bloomfield et al. eLife 2015), so the imaging and quantification will be more challenging in this case.

PIKfyve seems to play a specific role in the maturation of phagosomes but not macropinosomes. The differences may be driven by signaling from phagocytic receptors, as the author suggested. Alternatively, the large size of the yeast-containing phagosomes may require additional steps for efficient lysosomal delivery. The authors should consider examining whether PIKfyve is needed for the delivery of Rab7 and V-ATPase to phagosomes of comparable size to regular macropinosomes, such as those containing K. aerogenes or small beads. In addition, whether the process also involves fusion between phagosomes and macropinosomes should be verified.

Whilst it is possible that large size of yeast-containing phagosomes requires additional mechanisms to process them, our previous data demonstrate that PIKfyve is also required to kill much smaller bacteria such as Klebsiella and Legionella (Buckley et al. PloS pathogens 2019). Furthermore, in this paper we also showed that loss of PIKfyve disrupts phagosomal proteolysis using 3um beads, and showed that V-ATPase recruitment was reduced on purified phagosomes containing 1um beads. We therefore find consistent defects on phagosomes of different size, with different cargos. Nonetheless, the experiments above, observing V-ATPase and Rab7 in cells grown on bacteria should directly address this point.

As suggested, we will also perform a dextran pulse-chase prior to addition of bacteria to test if we can observe macropinocytic delivery to bacteria-containing phagosomes - perhaps using E. coli as their elongated shape may help phagosome visualisation.

In the previous study from the authors' group (Buckley et al., PLoS Pathog, 2019), it was shown that the accumulation of V-ATPase on phagosomes begins immediately after internalization in both PIKfyve mutant and WT, although V-ATPase accumulation reaches only half of the levels seen in WT. This partial accumulation of V-ATPase differs from the almost complete absence of Rab7 recruitment found in this study, which raises the question of whether there exists yet another population of fusogenic vesicles that are positive for V-ATPase but negative for Rab7. This could be checked by simultaneously examining the dynamics of V-ATPase and Rab7 during yeast phagocytosis in the PIKfyve mutant.

We agree with the referee that there are multiple pools of V-ATPase, and we show that there is both a very early PIKfyve-independent recruitment of both V-ATPase and Rab7 as well as a later and more substantial pool delivered in a PIKfyve-dependent manner. It is clear that V-ATPase and Rab7 do not always co-localise however - the clearest example being on the contractile vacuole, which has lots of V-ATPase but no Rab7 (the large bright magenta structure in Fig 2G.).

We suspect that the dramatically reduced, but not completely absent levels of both V-ATPase and Rab7 recruitment in the absence of PIKfyve are similar, but the challenges with imaging these very small low levels means we cannot formally exclude that there is a pool of V-ATPase vesicles that lack Rab7 which fuse to very early phagosomes. Nonetheless, as we will already be looking at V-ATPase and Rab7 in PIKfyve KO's in the experiments above will also attempt to unequivocally differentiate a pool of V-ATPase positive/Rab7 negative vesicles fusing with phagosomes.

Reviewer 2:

(1) The authors show that deletion of PIKfyve results "in an almost complete block in Rab7 delivery to phagosomes" (page 17) indicating that the delivery of Rab7 depends on fusion with Rab7-positive structures. This would suggest that the Rab7-GEF Mon1-Ccz1 is not localized to the membrane of the phagosomes. Could the authors test for the presence of Mon1-Ccz1 in either fluorescence microscopy experiments or on purified phagosomes to exclude the possibility of a "canonical" Rab7 recruitment by its GEF? If the GEF is found on phagosomal membranes it would indicate that a Rab-transition from Rab5 to Rab7 occurs on the phagosome during maturation, but on a low level. The later fusion event might be a homotypic fusion of two Rab7-positive compartments. The observed fusion events could still deliver the bulk of Rab7 and other endolysosomal proteins to the phagosome. If the Rab7-GEF is not found on phagosomes how do the authors envision that the organelle keeps its identity? Is it solely dependent on PI(3,5)P2? What is the fate of the Rab7-negative phagosome in ∆PIKfyve cells if Rab7 is not delivered to the membrane, is there degradation happening over longer periods of time?

This is an excellent suggestion, for which we thank the reviewer. Mon1 and Ccz1 are highly conserved, with clear Dictyostelium orthologues that have never been studied. Our model is that there is a small proportion of Rab7 driven by this canonical pathway so would expect Ccz1/Mon1 to coincide with loss of Rab5 and be unaffected by loss of PIKfyve - although subsequent Rab7 delivery would be lost. This is easy to test by cloning and expressing GFP-fusions of both Ccz1 and Mon1 and would be highly informative. Note we do not exclude canonical Rab7 recruitment in our model (see discussion), our data just indicate this has a minor contribution.

Reviewer 3:

The focus is on their manuscript is loading of Rab7 on phagosomes, but there's no indication about Rab7 activation (GTP-loading). Would the RILP-C33 probe work in Dictyostelium? If not possible, the activation state of Rab7 should still be discussed. Despite Rab7 on other organelles in PIKfyve-inhibited cells, is this active or not?

The GTP-loading status of Rab7 is a good question, although the general dogma is that membrane-localised Rabs are active. We will try the RILP-C33 probe in Dictystelium as suggested, but as these cells lack an endogenous RILP orthologue there is a high chance it will not work. Sadly, reliable tools to asses active Rab status are a general limitation for the field, so if the RILP-C33 probe does not work we will add this caveat to the discussion.

The authors need to better address the confusing kinetics of early Rab7 recruitment, followed by SnxA (Fig. 4G, same for VatM - Fig. 4I ) - which is counterintuitive if PIKfyve activity is required to recruit Rab7. How do the authors explain this? Are phagosomes prevented from acquiring Rab7 in PIKfyve deficient cells because of a defect on phagosomes or the endo-lysosomes loaded with Rab7 (but not active).

We believe this again relates to the over-simplification of our model. Our data indicate both PIKfyve dependent and independent Rab7 recruitment. In contrast to the abrupt recruitment of SnxA at ~120 seconds (Vines et al. JCB 2023), both Rab7 and VatM accumulate gradually over time starting from almost immediately following engulfment (Buckley et al. 2019, and Figure 2F). Our data indicate that the first stage of this is PIKfyve independent, and is responsible for ~10% of the total Rab7/V-ATPase accumulation by both the imaging in this paper, and Western blot for V-ATPase on purified phagosomes in Buckley et al. PLoS pathogens 2019. The arrival of some Rab7/V-ATPase prior to PI(3,5)P2 therefore supports our model where there are multiple sources of Rab7.

As the reviewer quite rightly points out, interpretation of the defects observed in the absence of PIKfyve becomes complex and we cannot completely differentiate between a defect on the phagosome, or the Rab7 compartments that fuse with them (or indeed both). In fact, we already note that small Rab7 compartments that we observe in wild-type cells are much more sparse in PIKfyve mutants. Therefore whilst the requirement for PI(3,5)P2 in the clustering and fusion of macropinosomes with phagosomes is clear, additional effects on the PI(3,5)P2-independent Rab7 compartments cannot be excluded.

The experiments above using the RILP-C33 active Rab7 biosensor as well as observation of the Mon1/Ccz complex should further clarify this, but we will also add further discussion of these points.

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

Reviewer 1:

Minor comments.

1. It is unclear how the experiment in Figure 3G was conducted. If microscopic analysis was involved, the corresponding images should be included.

We apologise that we overlooked this and have now added a full description in the materials and methods (P8 L16-21). Fluorescence measurements were performed using a plate reader, so there are no images.

Page 11-Line 2, the sentence "there was no obvious clustering around the nascent phagosome (Figure 2D)." It is Figure 2E, not Figure 2D.

Corrected.

There is an inconsistency regarding the description of fluorescent fusion proteins. For example, both GFP (RFP)-2xFyve and 2xFyve-GFP (RFP), as well as GFP-Rab5 and Rab5-GFP, were used. Typically, placing GFP (or RFP) before a gene suggests N-terminal tagging, while placing it after the gene implies C-terminal tagging. The authors should clarify the position of the fluorescent tag and ensure consistency in their descriptions.

We apologise for this oversight, and have been through and corrected all fusion protein references accordingly.

One of the videos was not referred in the manuscript or described in the Video legends. This video seems to correspond to Figure 5A, albeit with a different pseudo-color scheme.

This has been corrected. Video 7 does correspond to Fig 5A, and we have corrected the colour scheme to match and added references to the video in the text and figure legend.

Reviewer 2:

(2) In their abstract, the authors state that they "...delineate multiple subpopulations of Rab7-positive endosomes that fuse sequentially with phagosomes" (page 2, line 14,15). However, the data provides only evidence for V-ATPase or PI(3,5) P2-containing structures and the authors conclude to my understanding that macropinosomes are the main source for vesicular structures fusing with phagosomes. I would ask the authors to please be clear on the identity of the "Rab7-donor"-structures throughout the manuscript. Saying that they delineate multiple subpopulations of endosomes seems to be overstated.

We identify that macropinosomes are one source (subpopulation) of Rab7/PI(3,5)P2 vesicles but our data clearly show that they are the only source of Rab7 - there is clearly an additional early Rab positive / PI(3,5)P2-negative subpopulation of vesicles that cluster and fuse too at earlier stages. For example, in Figure 4F we co-express Rab7a/SnxA and show that whilst all the SnxA vesicles also contain Rab7 (and dextran), there is a clear separate population of small and early-fusing population of Rab7-containing vesicles that do not possess PI(3,5)P2. This is further validated in Figure 5B and C. To our mind this clearly demonstrates and defines different Rab7 endosomal populations, although we do not yet know the origins of the initial Rab7-positive/PI(3,5)P2 negative population - as discussed in our response to their point (3) below.

Minor points:

(1) The sentence "...which both deactivates and dissociates Rab5, and recruits and activates Rab7 on endosomes" is at least problematic as it suggests that Mon1-Ccz1 directly drives GTP-hydrolysis of Rab5 and dissociates it from the membrane. Indeed, Mon1-Ccz1 is shown to interfere with the positive feedback loop of the Rab5-GEF by interacting with Rabex (Poteryaev et al., 2010), so a rather indirect effect of Mon1-Ccz1. A GAP and the GDI are needed for Rab5 deactivation and dissociation from the membrane. How both are involved in the endosomal Rab-conversion is not clarified.

We have changed the text to better represent this complexity (P4 L4-6)

(2) Signals of RFP-labeled proteins are difficult to interpret throughout the experiments. What are the structures that show a strong accumulation of red signal in Fig. 1A,B, Fig 2G and Fig4A (20sec.) If these are fluorescently labeled proteins it would suggest that most of the proteins cluster/accumulate in the cell. Can the authors provide better images?

We appreciate that some of these reporters with multiple localisations can be difficult to interpret. This is major challenge for these sort of studies and main reason we use the large and easily-identified yeast containing phagosomes for quantification. In Fig. 1 the large structure is the large peri-nuclear cluster of Rab5 previously reported (Tu et al. JCB 2022). In Fig. 2G the bright structure is the recruitment of V-ATPase on the CV. Both these large structures easily distinguished from the phagosomal pool we are interested in. Whilst we would love to provide better images, this is simply not possible - both these other structures are unavoidable and we are already using some of the best microscopy methods available. We have however clarified the additional localisations seen in these images in the revised figure legends.

(3) On page 11 the authors state "...macropinosomes in ∆PIKfyve cells still appeared much larger. Quantification of their size and fluorescence intensity demonstrated that although macropinosomes started off the same size,...". This statement is not reflected in the data depicted in Fig. 3A,B. The size of the single labeled macropinosome appears to be larger in wildtype than in ∆PIKfyve cells from the beginning on. However, the quantification in Fig 3F is clear. So, are these bad examples in 3A,B, are they swapped or is this due to the additional expression of GFP-Rab7A? Could you please comment on the effect that the (over-)expression of GFP-tagged Rab-GTPases might have on the observations described in this paper in the discussion part?

As you can see from the error bars in Figure 3F, macropinosomes are extremely variable in size - ranging from ~0.2-5 microns in size in axenic Dicytostelium. The image in Figure 3B is therefore indicative of this heterogeneity, rather than being a "bad example". This is why we designed the experiment to quantify several hundred vesicles in order to make any conclusions - as well as doing it in the absence of any GFP-fusion expression.

Although we have not noticed any issues (enlarged vesicles are also clear in GFP-Rab7 expressing cells in Figure 1B), we do of course accept that GFP-Rab7 expression itself may have some detrimental effects on maturation and this is why we quantified macropinosome size in untransformed cells. We have clarified this in the results section (P12 L28).

(4) In Fig. 6E it is hard to distinguish if the dextran is accumulating inside the phagosome. I would suggest conducting a 3D reconstruction of these images to allow judging if macropinosomes fused with the phagosomes or if they cluster around the neck of the phagosome.

This would be nice, but not possible as these images are from single confocal sections, rather than a complete high-resolution Z-stack. We have however added an enlargement of both Figure 6D and E which we feel now more clearly shows the presence of dextran within the bounding PI(3)P membrane of the phagosome.

(5) In the discussion, the authors state that the small pool of "PIKfyve-independent Rab7" is "insufficient to for subsequent fusion with other Rab7A-positive compartments, further Rab7 enrichment, and lysosomal fusion." What is the rationale for this conclusion? Is it shown how many Rabs are necessary to induce a tethering and fusion event? It would be good to revise this part of the discussion also in respect of the first major point of my comments above.

Our data show that in the absence of PIKfyve, phagosomes still remove Rab5 and gain a small pool of Rab7 but progress no further. This is consistent with some block in the HOPS-mediated homotypic fusion of Rab7 compartments. However, we accept that this is not necessarily due to simply not having enough Rab's so have rephrased the discussion accordingly.

(6) The intention of the paragraph about phagosomal ion channels is for this reviewer somehow out of context. It is not clear to me how the authors relate this to their findings. It would be could to bring this into a broader context.

__ __We mention ion channels in the background as they represent the main class of PI(3,5)P2 effectors known so far. We feel this is important background context, even if our studies do not directly relate to this.

Reviewer 3:

Their disclosure and use of statistics is incomplete and/or inconsistent, and potentially wrong in some cases. For example, the authors disclose the number biological repeats in a few experiments (Fig. 3C, F) but not in the majority. Instead, they state the number of phagosomes without indicating biological repeats (eg. Fig. 2 and others). So, it is not possible to know if their data are reproducible. Despite not indicating independent experiments in some cases, they speak of SEM, which applies to mean of means from biological repeats. In other cases, none of this is disclosed (eg Fig. 3G). Often there is no indication of what statistical test was done OR if a statistical test was done (eg. Fig. 3G, Fig. 4, etc). I would recommend the authors review the excellent resource paper published in JCB on SuperPlots to better follow statistical expectations. This is essential to improve reproducibility and confidence in their observations.

We apologise if this was unclear for the referee, but we have tried to be clear in each case. The confusion likely lies in the definition of a biological repeat, which depends on the type of experiment. For quantification of phagocytic events over time, we feel it reasonable to take each individual event (each from an individual organism) as a biological repeat. This is because events are relatively rare and taken from multiple different movies, and it is not technically possible to film both mutants and controls simultaneously. In all these sort of experiments (e.g. Figure 2) we have shown standard deviation, which indicates the reproducibility between phagocytic events. We have clarified that these events are from movies obtained on at least 3 independent days in the methods.

In other cases, such as Figure 3C and F and Figures 5-6, we are able to take measurements across multiple cells simultaneously at each timepoint. It is therefore appropriate to average over multiple independent experimental repeats rather than individual cells. We have therefore used SEM in our analysis, and both the number of individual cells and independent repeats are stated on the graphs and legend. This was incomplete in a few cases but has now been clarified in all cases.

Regarding statistical tests, which ones were used now been clarified in each figure legend. Note that in Fig 3G, we do not apply any test as both lines essentially overlap and it is clear there would not be any convincing differences. In Figure 4, the graphs all compare co-expression of different reporters rather than different mutants or conditions and are from single events. We therefore feel statistical tests are unnecessary and inappropriate. Comparison of the same reporters between strains averaged across multiple events, with statistical analysis is shown in Fig 2 instead. All these points have now been added to the statistics section of the methods (P9 L1-6)

Minor Comments

It is interesting that 2FYVE-GFP stays on phagosomes for 50 min or more - this is distinct from macrophages. Please comment. Have the authors tried other PI(3)P probes to see if the same (PX-GFP).

We have not used other probes but we have no reason to believe 2xFYVE does not behave as predicted as it is the same probe used for most macrophage studies (FYVE domain from human Hrs), and gets removed from macropinosomes exactly as expected. We did not originally comment in this manuscript but PI3P dynamics are even more interesting as our previous data indicate that latex-bead containing phagosomes lose PI3P after 10 minutes (Buckley et al 2019, Figure 4F-G) This indicates phagosome maturation can be regulated by the cargo (under further investigation). Importantly however, both bead and yeast-containing phagosomes have comparable defects in the absence of PIKfyve. This is more fully discussed in our previous paper (Vines et al. JCB 2023) where we characterise PI(3)P and PI(3,5)P2 dynamics in more detail.

Fig. 7 model: the macropinosome in the diagram seems like a dead end as depicted - is there any arrow or change that could be added to show that it doesn't just sit there in the middle? Also, the light green on yellow hurts the eyes!

We apologise, there was actually supposed to be an arrow there but it was lost somewhere in the drafting process. The whole figure has now been updated to more clearly describe our full and more complex model.

Fig. 3F, could be converted to volume assuming macropinosomes are spheres.

This is true, however as these images are taken from single planes we cannot know where in the sphere the slices are and therefore what the maximum diameter would be. We therefore prefer to keep it as area so as not to confuse and over-interpret the data.

Pg. 10, line 10 - Vps34 is Class III PI3K, not Class II.

Corrected.

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

Please include a point-by-point response explaining why some of the requested data or additional analyses might not be necessary or cannot be provided within the scope of a revision. This can be due to time or resource limitations or in case of disagreement about the necessity of such additional data given the scope of the study. Please leave empty if not applicable.

• *

Reviewer 2:

(3) ("OPTIONAL") Optionally, the authors could also try to clarify these structures' identity by including further colocalization studies with additional early and late endosomal marker proteins. Are they for example positive for early or late endosomal markers like EEA1, ESCRT or Retromer? How about organelle-specific SNAREs? This would give further insights into the character of the "Rab7-donor" structures and would allow to clarify if multiple subpopulations are contributing to phagosome maturation in a sequential order as stated in the abstract. As I am not an expert on Dictyostellium I can`t estimate the effort that would go into such an experimental setup. However, since the time scale of the events in the cell is nicely worked out in this study, these colocalization studies would not need to be conducted as live-cell microscopy experiments.

This is a sensible suggestion that would in theory help define these populations. However many of these markers are poorly defined with respect to phagosomes and/or Dictyostelium. Dictyostelium does not posses an EEA orthologue, but our data also indicate that these vesicles do not possess PI3P so cannot be canonical early endosomes. We have previously characterised WASH/retromer and whilst it is recruited to phagosomes at around the time of Rab5/7 transition Retromer appears to be recruited from the cytosol and drive recycling rather than being delivered on endosomes that fuse (see King et al. PNAS 2016). We have also previously looked at ESCRT (Lopez-Jimenez et al. PLoS Pathogens 2018) which also does not appear to have any recruitment to early phagosomes that would be consistent with a Rab7-sub-population. The SNAREs are yet to be studied in any detail, as they are often too divergent to assign a direct mammalian orthologue.

Therefore, whilst this is a sensible suggestion, and something we would like to follow up in the future, this is not straight-forward and we feel outside the scope of the current study. We have however included additional discussion of this in the revised manuscript (P20 L21-26).

Reviewer 3:

Major Comments:

1. Based on the current data, I am not entirely convinced that Rab7 is delivered mostly by fusion with other compartments. At least the data as provided cannot exclude other models. For example, Rab7-containing organelles that cluster with phagosomes may form contact sites that provide a local environment to load cytosolic Rab7. There's also a possibility that some of their Rab7 clusters are membrane sub-domains and not vesicles. Or perhaps, there is a first wave of cytosolic Rab7 recruitment, which then initiates fusion with Rab7 compartments, i.e., there is a two-phase Rab7 recruitment. While this last possibility is consistent with recruitment of Rab7 by fusion (the second phase), the authors present a model that is too simplistic and conclusive based on the data. The authors may be right, but they need to strengthen their evidence towards their claim. Maybe EM could help determine some of these issues. Perhaps better would be the use of FRAP, photo-activation, or optigenetics of Rab7. For example, if Rab7 is acquired on phagosomes after photobleaching clusters of Rab7, this would suggest a cytosolic Rab7 contribution, and if not, this would support their model. I recognize that these experiments are not necessarily trivial, but either the authors augment their data (as suggested or with other approaches) or significantly pare down their conclusions.

We agree with the Referee that we cannot completely exclude other models, and as we talk about in the discussion, we do not wish to do so. We apologise if the role of fusion was over-stated but the model we propose is as the referee suggests: there is likely an early first wave of canonical Rab7 recruitment from the cytosol that is independent of PIKfyve before the majority of Rab7 is subsequently delivered by fusion in a PIKfyve-dependent manner. Our data indicate that the second wave is both quantitively and functionally more significant (see functional data in Buckley et al. 2019).

We do however agree with the referee that we cannot formally exclude things such as contact-site mediated recruitment from the cytosol or sub-domains but not fusion however there is no data to support these either. In contrast, the hypothetical clustered Rab7 contacts/subdomains often (but not always) contain the transmembrane V-ATPase complex (Figure 2G) which must be delivered by fusion.

However we do not wish to over-simplify our conclusions and as we state in the discussion, we do think there is probably a small amount of Rab7 recruited from the cytosol by the canonical pathway. We accept that our cartoon in Figure 7 is over-focussed on fusion so we have substantially revised this, as well as the discussion to give a more balanced and complex view.

Regarding the proposed experiments, unfortunately, the imaging required to acquire these movies is already at the very limit of what is possible so we do not believe it would be technically feasible to employ methods such as FRAP and optogenetics on these relatively fast-moving phagosomes with the temporal resolution required. Furthermore, to differentiate recruitment from a cytosolic pool, every GFP-Rab7 cluster would need to be photobleached, which could not be reliably achieved.

However, this point will be largely addressed by the suggestion of Reviewer 2 to look at the Mon1/Ccz complex. The presence or absence of this will give strong evidence for canonical Rab5/7 transition and Rab7 recruitment from the cytosol which would significantly clarify our model and define the two different mechanisms of Rab7 recruitment to phagosomes.

Early macropinosomes fuse with early phagosomes more readily than 10-min old macropinosomes. Do 10-min old macropinosomes not fuse with older phagosomes? Is this not an issue of mismatched age?

This is an interesting point that we have clarified in the text. We agree with reviewer that it appears the ages of the macropinosomes and phagosomes must match but our data indicate this only occurs when both parties possess PI(3,5)P2 as macropinosome fusions appears to happen in a single burst at about 240 seconds (Figure 6F) rather than as a continuous process. We also do not start to see any fusion of these older macropinosomes when the phagosomes get past the initial first 10 minutes of maturation (Figure 6G).

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 our reviewers for their constructive criticism and for their appreciation and enthusiasm for our study. Some reviewers expressed opposing views, particularly when it came to the function and identity of the Cdt1-related protein in Toxoplasma gondii. To avoid redundancy in our response, we would like to make a brief statement. Toxoplasma gondii and other apicomplexan parasites utilize unique and highly unusual modes of cell division; numerous studies suggest that multiple phases can run concurrently in apicomplexan cell cycles. The best-known examples include the asynchronous S/M cycles in schizogony and concurrent mitosis and budding in Toxoplasma endodyogeny. These overlapping phases are not a feature exclusive to apicomplexans, since in budding yeast, cytokinesis initiates in G1 phase by marking the location of budding on the surface of the mother. Based on years of previous research and from our experience, we adjusted our approach by focusing on the processes that are associated with each cell cycle phase rather than on their temporal order. While the model of a conventional cell cycle guides our studies, we “follow the breadcrumbs” that we discover and the published studies to create a more accurate model of apicomplexan cell cycle instead of relying on the traditional cell cycle map employed by distantly related eukaryotes. Below are point-to-point responses to reviewers’ comments.

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

Summary: Hawkins et al. employ a reverse genetic approach to analyze the molecular function of the Toxoplasma gondii kinase Crk4 and the Toxoplasma gondii cyclin 4. The authors combine inducible depletion with imaging, (phospho-)proteomics, molecular modeling, and protein-protein interaction studies.

Major comments: - The major conclusion of the manuscript is that TgCrk4/TgCyc4 regulate entry into mitosis and that the primary role of TgCrk4 is to suppress DNA re-replication and chromosome re-duplication (lines 105-106). The authors also provide evidence that TgCrk4 interacts with TgCdt1, a DNA licensing factor ("TgCdt1" is missing in line 107). (had been corrected) By sequence homology, the authors found homologues of TgCrk4 only in apicomplexan parasites with binary division and concluded that the dominant division mode, presumably schizogony, is repressed in these organisms in favor of binary division. Indeed, internal budding and daughter cell formation is defective in the inducible depletion mutants of TgCrk4 and most experiments focus on this developmental stage. However, the analysis of preceding events, such as DNA replication is rather brief. If G2 is indeed regulated by TgCrk4/TgCyc4, one would assume that the parasites are post-S phase and the nucleus contains two copies of the genome, as indicated in Fig. 2C. The data shown in Fig. 3H and 7A, however, show that the TgCrk4 and TgCTD1 depletion induces a developmental arrest pre-S phase. This contradicts the main conclusions of the manuscript.

*We agree that the G2 location is odd for a conventional cell cycle model. Given the high possibility that cell cycle phases can overlap in apicomplexans, we determined the relative position of G2 phase in Toxoplasma endodyogeny by instead focusing solely on the processes that are attributed to a specific cell cycle phase (such as DNA replication for S phase, DNA re-replication for G2 phase, DNA segregation for mitosis). Our approach shows that Toxoplasma G2/M checkpoint operates upstream of SAC, which led to enrichment of parasites with replicated DNA (Fig. 3H and Fig. 7A), which places G2 at the end of S-phase. Our focus in the present study is on the G2 functions, the control of centrosome and chromosome reduplication, but we appreciate the suggestion to examine DNA replication in Toxoplasma, which could be investigated in future studies. *

Indeed, many data of this manuscript could support an alternative conclusion, i.e., that TgCrk4 regulates entry into S-phase (similar to Plasmodium falciparum Crk4: PMID: 28211852). This alternative conclusion is supported by the data showing that TgCyc4 is in the nucleus during S-phase (Fig. 1H) and that TgCrk4 interacts with TgCdt1, which has a well-known role in origin of replication licensing and loading of the MCM complex. MCM subunits were less phosphorylated in absence of TgCrk4, which could also suggest a role for TgCrk4 in S phase. Together, it seems more parsimonious to interpret the data as a DNA replication phenotype rather than a phenotype in G2.

*We understand some confusion from prior data, but PfCrk4 is not orthologous to TgCrk4 (Alvarez & Suvorova, 2017); The true TgCrk4 ortholog had not been found in Plasmodium genomes. Our understanding is that nuclear accumulation of TgCyc4 in S-phase activates TgCrk4, which leads to repression of the DNA reduplication. One of the possible mechanisms involves interfering with loading of the MCM complex on chromatin mediated by hyper-phosphorylated TgiRD1 (former TgCdt1), which has been reported in other eukaryotes. We also believe that increased MCM phosphorylation indicates entry into or active S-phase, while the reduced phosphorylation that was detected in Crk4-depleted cells supports a block at the end of S-phase (G2). *

• *

The currently provided data on the DNA content are, however, clearly insufficient to draw firm conclusions. The gating strategy (dotted lines in Figs. 3H, 7A) is unclear. Why are populations, e.g., not separated at the lowest part of the depression in the histogram, but shifted towards lower DNA content? This seems to overestimate the percentage of cells that have a higher DNA content and the statement in lines 269-271, i.e., that TgCrk4 deficient parasites break the "once and only once" rule, is not supported by data.

*We corrected the gating of the FACScan plots to separate G1, S, G2+M, and parasites with over-duplicated DNA. Please note that, in general, the cell cycle gating of FACScan data is relative and somewhat subjective when it comes to the gaussian curve. Independent of the chosen gates, our data show that removal of either TgCrk4 or TgiRD1 led to substantial decrease of the G1 population (reduction of 1N peak) accompanied by increase of parasites in the process of replication, completed replication (increase of 1.8 N peak), as well as undergoing DNA re-replication, which supports our claim in lines 269-271. In the case of TgiRD1, the number of parasites with re-duplicated DNA nearly doubled upon 8h of factor deficiency. *

• *

It is also unclear how may biological replicates are represented by these data (Figs. 3H, 7A), a critical wild type control at t = 4 h is missing, as well as a statistical analysis. Alternatively, the authors could use microscopy to quantify the DNA content of individual nuclei, which would yield a direct read out on whether a nucleus is in pre-S phase, S-phase or post-S phase. Defining the onset of S-phase indirectly by the number of centrosomes per cell seems imprecise, given the small size of the structure and the resolution of the microscope. Without solving these issues, the major conclusions and several minor statements throughout the manuscript are in question.

*Thank you for your point, we performed a minimum of three independent experiments to evaluate the DNA content of TgCrk4- or TgiRD1- (former TgCdt1) depleted tachyzoites and have now indicated this in the figure legends. The 0h time point is a “wild type” control, since the parasites that expressed factors were incubated without auxin (mock treated) for 4h. The DNA content of Toxoplasma has been thoroughly studied and we are thus confident our 0h data is a good representation of asynchronous healthy populations. Although the parental strain had been examined, due to the data density mentioned in the reviews, we included only relative results (control and two experimental points) for clarity. Our concern with using microscopy to analyze DNA content is that it can be highly subjective, hinging on the quality of staining and imaging, while flow cytometry produces more unbiased datasets. We have considered the concern that the start of centrosome duplication can be difficult to identify, but the centrin-positive centrosomes move apart by the middle of S-phase. The independent structures are then distinct and easy to resolve, providing a popular means of marking G1/S transition in Toxoplasma. *

• Lines 187-189: The mentioned checkpoint is unclear and so is the "specific cell cycle population". Fig. 2B analyses budding, but as the final step in the cell cycle, the knock down parasites may have arrested at various other stages of the cell cycle. In addition, it is unclear on which primary data Fig. 2B is based. It appears these may be at least partially shown in Fig. 3. If so, please reorganize as this is highly misleading.

*“A checkpoint” in the indicated lines refers to G2/M and SAC, which are regulated by TgCrk4 and TgCrk6, respectively. We refer to “specific cell cycle population” since each transgenic parasite that is subject to G2/M or SAC arrest can allow us to isolate very different cell cycle stages. TgCrk6-dependent arrest had been confirmed by the presence of unresolved centrocone (not shown but was previously reported in Hawkins et al., 2022), while we thoroughly examined the novel TgCrk4-dependent block by focusing on many parameters, such as joint centrosomes, single-bud assembly, or unresolved apicoplast. Fig. 2 and Fig. S2 summarize our rigorous quantifications of these phenotypes. For convenience, we used budding efficiency as a readout to compare arrest and release of G2/M and SAC, which was incorporated in Fig. 2B. Table S4 contains the primary data used in all figures in the manuscript, including Fig. 2B. *

• Line 246-254: It is unclear how many biological replicates were performed and how many cells were analyzed to conclude that TgCrk4 deficient parasites cannot form a bipolar spindle (Fig. 2H, S3B). This, together with the possibility that the developmental arrest occurs pre-S phase (Fig. 3H), does not support the statement, that the G2/M transition is regulated by the novel TgCrk4-TgCyc4 complex.

We have indicated our replicates in the M&M. As addressed for Fig. 3H above, these IFA experiments were performed in at least three independent experiments.

* * Minor comments: - Throughout the manuscript, please reorganize and present the figures in order of appearance in the text. Also, Fig. 1G summarizes data that are only presented in Fig. 1H. Please reorder. Similarly, Fig. 2C appears to summarize data that are only presented later.

*Thank you for the suggestion, however we must abide by the standards of the publishers. The order of the figures must be maintained, but there is a substantial degree of freedom in organizing panels within figures. Fig. 1G summarizes data shown in Fig. 1F, H, while Fig. 2C summarizes many panels including preceding Fig. 2B and Fig. S2. Most of our schematics are placed at the top of figures to provide guidance for the relevant experiments. *

• Why was only the "G1" timepoint quantified in Fig. 1H? Do the other images shown in F and H represent the majority of cells analyzed?

*You are correct, we indicated the percentage of factor-positive parasites only when the factor emerges during a specific cell cycle phase. For example, the TgCyc4-positive parasites with 1 centrin dot were quantified to show that TgCyc4 emerges in the middle of G1 phase. The lack of a number indicates that the image represents all the parasites progressing through this phase; we have added this explanation to the figure legends. *

• Several micrographs lack scale bars (Fig. 1B, D; 2E, F, H, I; 6D; 7F, H and S2G, S3A, B; S5A, B, D).

*Thank you, we have added the scale bars to indicated images.

*

• Lines 83-85 and 93-95: Recently several publications investigated the cell cycle of the apicomplexan parasite Plasmodium and data are accumulating, showing that there may be a gap between the last S phase and segmentation (e.g., PMID: 35731838; PMID: 35353560), which may be interpreted as a G2 phase. Thus, these statements could be revised to reflect the current literature.

*The studies mentioned provide very valuable insights into S-phase dynamics; the gap that was detected between S-phase and segmentation includes mitotic events such as prophase, metaphase, and anaphase prior to telophase (karyokinesis to segmentation). However, studies using means like stage-specific markers could help resolve the composition and order of events in the apicomplexan cell cycle. We used processes specific to G2 (repression of DNA and centrosome reduplication) and identified TgCrk4/TgCyc4 as the first G2 markers in apicomplexans. *

• Fig. 4 shows the effect on protein abundance and phosphorylation upon TgCrk4 depletion. Fig. 4B seems somewhat redundant as a more detailed analysis with two timepoints is shown in the rest of the figure.

*Fig. 4B is provided in contrast to the plot in Fig. 4A. It demonstrates that TgCrk4 depletion results in a far more pronounced effect on global phosphorylation rather than on proteolysis. While Fig. 4B highlights the checkpoint arrest, panels C and D are dedicated to the search for TgCrk4 substrates: the phospho-sites that immediately lost intensity of phosphorylation and remained low during the 4h block. *

*

*

• Lines 146-148: This statement is confusing in light of the expression data in Fig.1 F and H. If they stabilize each other, how is TgCrk4 stabilized in G1, when TgCyc4 is absent?

We believe that multiple mechanisms contribute to the stability and function of TgCrk4. We tested one and found that depleting the cyclin partner led to reduced expression of TgCrk4, and were able to conclude that the complex is stable when both subunits are expressed. Please note that we probed the mixed cell cycle populations by WB, and our proteomics data show that TgCrk4 interacts with many partners (Fig. 1E). Thus, it is likely that G1 stability may have been mediated by other partners, or by a higher transcription/translation rate, which could be evaluated in further experiments that focus on the regulation of TgCrk4/TgCyc4 complex.

• *

• Fig. 2D, and G: Please provide representative images of what has been quantified, as E/F and H/I are apparently UxEM images.

The corresponding images are included in Fig. S2.

• Line 236-243: This statement seems to be based on a single IFA shown in Fig. 2K. If so, the manuscript would benefit from clearly stating that this is a singular observation.

*Thank you, we have provided clarification as described in previous points. *

*

*

• Lines 301-304: In the cited publication, the TgOTUD3A knockout could not be complemented, which raises the possibility that other factors are involved. Thus, this statement would benefit from revision.

*The lack of TgOTUD3A KO complementation is an example of the unappreciated complexity of apicomplexan cell cycle regulation by controlled proteolysis. We highlighted the similarity of TgCrk4 and TgOTUD3A deficiencies, which indirectly confirms their partnerships in the G2 network. Fig. 8A shows that, in addition to TgOTUD3A, the G2 network contains numerous factors. *

*

*

• Lines 421-422: PfCdt1 was annotated in PlasmoDB some time ago and this statement needs to be revised.

*Please see our response to comments made by Reviewer 2. Briefly, we agree with Reviewer 2 comment that TgCdt1 does not function as conventional DNA replication licensing factor CDT1. Therefore, we named TGME49_247040 TgiRD1 – inhibitor of DNA and centrosome ReDuplication 1. *

• *

• Lines 448-450 and Fig. 6F: Are these data from a single biological replicate and how many cells were analyzed for the different time points? Given the insufficient data on the DNA content, the paper would benefit form more conservative conclusions on the role of TgCdt1. The numbers of biological replicates were added throughout the text, also please refer to our response to Reviewer 2 and the comment above.

Reviewer #1 (Significance (Required)):

• This manuscript investigates the role of TgCrk3, TgCyc4 and TgCdt1s and provides a large amount of data.
• These data will contribute to our understanding of the unusual division modes of Apicomplexa, a field of research that recently gained momentum.
• These data will be interesting to the community of cell and molecular biologist, which work on the fundamental biology of eukaryotic microorganisms.
• My field of expertise is the cell biology of Apicomplexa.

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

Summary: In this Manuscript, Hawkins et. al. describe advances in the apicomplexan parasite cell cycle, which is reminiscent but distinct from mammalian cell cycle regulation. These differences include a presumed lack of G2 phase and the ability to replicate in either a multinuclear (schizogony) or binary (endodyogeny) manner. Using Toxoplasma gondii (TG) as a model, the authors seek to expand the current understanding of how these highly variable parasitic cell cycles are regulated by describing a previously unreported G2 phase. Building on the authors earlier work, this manuscript defines the function of TgCrk4 and identifies a novel binding partner, TgCyc4. Crk4 and Cyc4 control a G2/M checkpoint by regulating centrosome duplication and separation.

The authors also identify 247040, a protein with previously no known function, as a binding partner and substrate of TgCrk4/TgCyc4 and several replication fork proteins such as MCM and PCNA. Results indicate that the protein negatively regulates replication and centrosome duplication. The authors propose to rename this protein TgCDT1 despite "low sequence similarity" and having a completely opposite function to eukaryotic CDT1. Using Swiss-Prot modeling the authors claim 247040 bears a "partial resemblance" to mammalian CDT1. Indeed, both of these proteins show high intrinsic disorder and have 2 folded domains. While 247040, like hCDT1, does contain cyclin interacting motifs (Cy), a collection degrons (not all shared with other CDT1 orthologs), and an NLS, the list of nuclear cell cycle proteins that also contain Cy and degron motifs would be very long. Further, 247040 is regulated in an opposite manner to all other CDT1 orthologs because it is absent in TG G1 and present in TG S phase; eukaryotic CDT1 is either degraded or relocalized to the cytoplasm in S phase, and evidence for degradation via APC/C is minimal. Crucially, loss of 247040 resulted in inappropriate replication ("re-replication"), whereas all other eukaryotic CDT1 orthologs are essential for replication. Re-replication in eukaryotic cells can be caused by excess or hyper-active CDT1, not by loss of CDT1 activity as shown here for 247040. Clearly 247040 is a negative regulator of DNA replication, and as such, is not a candidate for the TgCDT1 ortholog. If anything, it is functionally analogous to metazoan geminin, the negative regulator of metazoan CDT1; of note, geminin also has centrosome-related phenotypes. We cannot support naming 247040 TgCDT1 because it will cause confusion in the field.

Aside from this major issue, the study is well-executed, rigorous, quantitative, and thorough; it has many strengths from the unbiased interaction screens. The authors' sequence analysis also suggests broader possibilities for cyclin structures than had previously been appreciated. We appreciate the legend in Figure 2 to the organism-specific terminology.

Major comments: The spatiotemporal dynamics of 247040, its role in repressing TG DNA replication, lack of PIP motif and winged helix domain indicate that some other nomenclature, other than TgCdt1 will be a better name for this protein of previous unknown function.

We would like to thank Reviewer 2 for this highly insightful comment. We agree that TGME49_247040 functions as a CDT1 inhibitor rather than as CDT1 itself, so conserving the name would produce confusion in the cell cycle field. Based on TGME49_247040 protein function we decided to name this factor TgiRD1 – inhibitor of DNA and centrosome ReDuplication 1. We revisited our data, looked deeper into the protein structure, and adjusted our conclusions. Our new Figure S5 shows differences in the predicted folding of HsCDT1 and TgiRD1. We could not ignore the fact that TgiRD1 is phylogenetically related to CDT1 in ancestral branches and metazoans (Fig. 6B), but we identified substantial differences that may indicate a selective loss (or inheritance) of protein features. For example, TgiRD1 does not interact with ORCs that are critical for the licensing step, but TgiRD1 retained an MCM binding domain (winged helix-turn-helix) that plays a role in licensing and firing. Rather than CRL4Cdt2 degrons, TgiRD1 contains APC/C degrons that would be activated late in mitosis (similar to regulation of Geminin). Together with the lack of DNA licensing control in G1 and its opposing expression profile, we concluded that TgiRD1 represents a Cdt1-related protein that controls DNA and centrosome reduplication in S and G2 phases.

Minor comments:

1. For clarity, please include the number of replicates in the figure legends where appropriate. We added the requested information.

For microscopy/imaging, how were representative cells/images chosen? The representative images constituted the most common phenotype of the feature we aimed to highlight, and most are accompanied by quantifications.

In addition to the ELM analysis, the authors could also employ fold recognition software (such as Promal) to analyze 247040 structural models to show similarity to known protein structures.

We use a variety of folding prediction software, including AlphaFold2, PyMol, and template-based SWISS-PRO module to examine protein structures in our study, indicated in the text and figure legends. Our new TgiRD1 (former TgCdt1) analysis is based on an AlphaFold2 prediction (Fig. S5). All the software we used is listed in the M&M section.

Line 107: missing words "TgCdt1"

*We corrected the sentence.

*

Line 141: the interpretation that the C terminus is "unstable" is misleading if it is simply that the protein cannot tolerate a fusion to the C-terminus.

*We successfully incorporated a tag at the C-terminus (confirmed by sequencing across the recombinant gene) but could not detect protein expression. If our protein could not tolerate a recombinant tag, the transgenic parasites would not survive because TgCyc4 is essential protein. Therefore, since the parasites survived, we concluded that the lack of TgCyc4-AID-HA expression was due to native truncation at the C-tail (instability). *

Line 221: word choice "reminisced" We have changed the wording.

Line 348 refers to Orc4 expression in Figure 4A, but the data point is not labelled. Fig. 4A references GO group (DNA replication/licensing factors), and the raw data is included in Table S6, which is now indicated in the text.

Lines 407-8 and 510-11: Reference Fig 1E We added the reference.

Line 408: please define what is meant by "dominant interactor" We meant that TgiRD1 is the most prominent interactor of TgCrk4 and TgCyc4. To clarify the confusion, we changed the wording to “primary interactor”.

Reviewer #2 (Significance (Required)):

This manuscript makes great strides in defining apicomplexan cell cycle control and genome replication. These strides include defining a previously unrecognized G2/M checkpoint controlled by TgCrk4 and the novel TgCyc4. Further, the authors identify a binding partner and substrate of the novel Crk4/Cyc4 kinase complex, 247040 that acts as a repressor of replication.

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

Summary The present study Hawkins et al have described the important role of Cyclin-CDK complex in an apicomplexan parasite Toxoplasma(Tg) which exhibit binary mode of cell division like many other eukaryotes. In the apicomplexan field it is generally shown that G2 phase of cel cycle is either absent or has very little role. The authors here demonstrate that the combination of Tg CRK4 and Tg Cyclin4 works during the G2 phase of cell cycle such as chromosome rereplication and centrosome reduplication. In order to show the function of Cyclin-CRK function they used Auxin degradation system to down regulate or deplete the protein and study parasite growth during cell cycle as well as they used tagged parasite to identify the protein complex with these two molecules. In the study they showed that these two molecules Cyc4 and cRK4 formed the complex in protein pulldown method and show identical function in the cell cycle. In addition to thiese two proteins they also found another interacting partner Cdt1 that was further analysed to be involved in controlling Chromosome rereplication and centrosome. So overall the study is nicely performed and three molecules of Cyclin4-CRk4-Cdt1 and their role is illustrated in the binary mode of cell division in Toxoplasma.

Comments 1.Though no new experiments need to be performed but it will be good if some details are given as to which stage of tachyzoite cycle the protein complex were performed and if there is difference in the various phases of cell cycle especially the s phase and the M phase. Are these period changed. Since G2 is suppose to be absent in many apicomplexan do the authors suggest that G2 phase is only coupled to binary mode of cell division. Please discuss how it is then linked to the other part of cell cycle.

*You are correct, we propose that the presence of G2 phase is linked to binary division in apicomplexans and our hypothesis is supported by the overall evolution of the cell cycle (see Discussion section). We also entertained the hypothesis that G2 operates in multinuclear division since all apicomplexans encode TgiRD1 orthologs (please, see the Discussion section). For the first time, we identified the major functions of G2 functions (repression of the DNA and centrosome reduplication) in the apicomplexan cell cycle. However, given the unresolved organization of the Toxoplasma (or any apicomplexan) cell cycle, it is currently impossible to define the boundaries of G2. According to our study, TgCrk4 and TgCyc4 control G2/M transition or the end of G2 phase, and we still lack markers of G2 entry. In our comparative synchronization study (Fig 2), we uncovered the temporal link between G2/M and SAC regulatory points, which is discussed in the results section. *

Ganter et al have studied CRK4 in Plasmodium previously and they do find in their phosphoproteome study the similar association with the DNA replication machinery with CRK4 but no cyclin was identified in their study. In the cyclin study by Roques et al it has been shown that no cell cycle cyclins are found in Apicomplexan so can the author discuss more how these complex can be different in two apicomplexan species. They describe that Crk4 is novel cell cycle kinase though this has been studied earlier. Authors have almost not discussed these previous finding with respect to their in this study.

*We would like to clarify this confusion. We have not discussed Ganter et al. studies because PfCRK4 is not orthologous to TgCrk4, but rather it is related to TgCrk6. Unfortunately, the Plasmodium and Toxoplasma Crk nomenclature was published almost concurrently. Our previous (Alvarez & Suvorova, 2017) and current study show that Plasmodium and other apicomplexans that divide by multinuclear division do not encode TgCrk4 orthologs (and/or TgCyc4). Additionally, the mentioned studies by Roques and Ganter were released prior to newer genome annotations that include additional cyclin-domain proteins, including 10 Toxoplasma cyclins (5 new) that we categorized in our recent publication (Hawkins et al., 2022). Although the newly annotated cyclins are not related to conventional cell cycle cyclins, we had proven empirically that TgCyc1 together with TgCrk6 controls SAC, and now, the specific interaction of TgCyc4 with TgCrk4 controls G2 processes. Lastly, we call TgCrk4 “a novel” kinase only in the meaning that it is a novel cyclin-dependent kinase that is not related to known CDKs in other eukaryotes. The identification of TgCrk4 in our previous study (Alvarez & Suvorova, 2017) is described in the Introduction section and at the opening of the Results. *

The manuscript is too dense, in terms of both figures and text. At times loses the focus and hence can be organised with most important finding in the figure and text. Especially Fig2, Fig4 and Fig7. Fig5 does not give too much in terms of the real finding an in fact take away from the focus. Some parts of these figures can be simplified or moved to supplementary. Some of the figures in Fig2 and 7 are missing the scale bars.

We respectfully disagree with some conclusions made by the Reviewer. Our study contains ample material that is intended to guide the reader through the complexity of the Toxoplasma cell cycle and the intricate structures contained in the parasite. We have also introduced a few novel approaches that require additional schematics and dedicated discussions.

• Fig 2*. The G2/M block, as well as the G2 phase, had never been detected in apicomplexans. We created a new approach to determine the timing of the G2/M checkpoint, which involves comparison to a known cell cycle block. Panels A, B, and C provide visuals and summarize our findings. The main events are highlighted with arrows (Panel C), while graphs (panel B) show differences in responses. The rest of the figure is devoted to quantification of the primary events caused by TgCrk4 deficiency, since the G2 block had never been examined. While the U-ExM images of the entire vacuole (2-4 parasites) may seem overwhelming, they represent that the deficiency is consistent. *
• Fig 7* is devoted to the major Crk4/Cyc4 interactor TgiRD1 (former TgCdt1). This is one of the first mechanistic studies of central cell cycle regulators in Toxoplasma. This Cdt1-related protein was examined at the molecular level to support the main claims of its control of G2 Nevertheless, we moved two panels from Fig. 7 into the supplement. *
• 4* is organized as follows. Top row: panels A, B visualize the G2/M checkpoint block at the protein level. Middle row: panels C, D, and E represent the workflow to find TgCrk4 substrates. Bottom row: panels F, G highlight TgCrk4 substrates of interest that are discussed in the paper. *
• 5* is an in-depth analysis of the central cell cycle regulators across Apicomplexa phylum, a key figure of the study. Its comparative nature supports our main message: binary division is regulated by TgCrk4/TgCyc4, which are only expressed in a subgroup of apicomplexans that divide in a binary mode. *

May be bit more discussion of ORC in relation to their Cyclin-CRK complex as they did find upregulation of the ORC in their genome profiling. So may be instead of CDT1 these are more important in the licencing of DNA replication.

*Our choice to focus on Cdt1-related protein was driven by the fact this protein is a major component of the TgCrk4/TgCyc4 complex, while the ORCs act downstream (as TgCrk4 substrates). Shifting focus to ORCs opens an entire new project, which will be explored in the future. *

5 The model in Fig8B does not take Cyc4 into consideration and I feel is bit oversimplified as there are many factors that may be responsible for centrosome non separation. The S and G2 are no separated in the Cell cycle as given in this Fig.

Referring to comment 3, we focused on empirically supported, central findings and created the first model of centrosome cycle regulation in T. gondii. We intentionally drew focus to TgCrk4, which was extensively studied, while TgCyc4 received less attention due to difficulties in modulating its expression. We have used transcriptional downregulation to evaluate TgCyc4 (tet-OFF model), which is unfavorable for cell cycle studies because it exceeds the duration of the cell cycle. The unclear cell cycle borders are addressed in the introduction to this response. Briefly, the organization of apicomplexan cell cycle is currently unclear, thus most of the schematics are approximate.

It is not clear from the data with CDt1 if this linking the inner and outer centrocone or its down regulation breaks the bipartite centrosome. May be some reflection it will be useful.

*Our model suggests that both TgCrk4 and TgiRD1 (former TgCdt1) affect only the inner core of the centrosome, which we propose is comprised of two types of linkers. The arrows in Fig. 8 point specifically to the linkers whose stability depends on the expression of TgCrk4 or TgiRD1. *

Minor comments

I what is SAINT analysis as it is not described in methods.

*We added the description of our SAINT analysis to M&M.

*

How was budding quantified

*We supplemented the figure legend with the required information. *

Western blot can have predicted size

*Due to density of the figures, we did not supply the predicted MW of the proteins when they display the proper PAGE motility. *

what does red star mean in Blot 1C

*We added the description to the figure legend.

*

What does the number in Fig1H means please explain in the legends and same for Fig6F. In fig 1, removing the inhibition for 5 hours led to very less budding, but in fig 3, removing inhibition showed increased budding (50% in 2 hours). Please explain

*Please see our response to the reviewer 1 minor comment regarding Fig. 1H and 6F. *

*We presume that there is some confusion regarding figure numbers. Perhaps the Reviewer refers to Fig. 2B. Indeed, the 4h block at G2/M led to reduced budding (Fig. 2B), while release from the block for 2 hours (Fig. 3C, post-recovery) allows parasites to continue cell cycle progression and reach the next stage –budding. The numbers over the Fig. 3A, B, and C panels are from the plots in Fig. 2B to help give a comprehensive representation of the analyzed timepoint. *

Fig2 has no scale bars -please add- this figure is too dense. May be fig2A, B,C can be in supplementary, legend in the figure can be in the figure legend.

Please see our response to comment 3. We have included scale bars.

Also this figure2 H and I in not quoted in line 231. Also this figure2 has no panel J but goes directly from I to K

*The alphabetical order was corrected, and the reference added. *

Fig3 the FigG can be more relevant in the Figure 8 while describing about the Crk4 and Cyc4 and CDt1 in binary mode of cell division. Also please define what stars mean either in legend or methods section in terms of significance.

*Thank you for the suggestion. The Fig. 3G schematics summarize the overall findings of the Figure and acts as an intermediate conclusion in this study. We added the meaning of the stars in the M&M section. *

Line 107 the sentence is incomplete

We have corrected the sentence.

Line 217 may be the figure could be referred as then it is not cleat about the description.

Due to the density of the figures and well-established dynamics of the centrocone and basal rings, we included the reference to a publication rather than as a figure panel.

**Referees cross-commenting**

The study is quite rigrous and with analyses of CRK4-CYC4 and CDT. However it will be better if authors please revisit their conclusions on G2 phase of cell cycle in Toxoplasma based on their findings. The study will have important bearing on the community studying apicomplexan parasites and DNA replication as well as who work on eukaryotic cell cycle.

Reviewer #3 (Significance (Required)):

Significance In the manuscript by Hawkins etal have illustrated that in the apicomplexan parasite that have binary mode of cell division present a Cyclin-Crk complex with detailed analysis of Tg Crk4-Cyc4 that are novel in these group pf parasite infect humans and animal alike like malaria parasite and ones affecting cattle and chicken. So these finding are novel as very little is known about this interaction. The significant finding is to show how the G2 phase of cell cycle may be regulated in these parasites and how DNA licencing factor Cdt1 is highly divergent but part of this CRK-Cyclin complex.

So though it discusses more on the Toxoplasma but it may be of interest to the scientist working on eukaryotes with divergent mode of cell cycle.

General Assessment - The findings are novel but the manuscript is too dense and at time loses the focus. May be both text and Figures could be made less dense so that important finding are revealed in better way.

Advance - It does give important insight into the cell cycle in apicomplexan parasite and how even though there are no cell cycle cyclin in Apicomplexa. The findings here suggest how different complexes can substitute for the function. It does extend the knowledge in the field of Cell division in divergent parasites both in terms of mechanistic, functional and technical way.

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 Maintenance of the histone H3 variant CENP-A at centromeres is necessary for proper kinetochore assembly and correct chromosome segregation. The Mis18 complex recruits the CENP-A chaperone HJURP to centromeres to facilitate CENP-A replenishment. Here the authors characterise the Mis18 complex using hybrid structural biology, and determine complex interface separation-of-function mutants.

Major Comments The SAXS and EM data on the full-length Mis18 components must be included in the main Figures, either as an additional figure or by merging/rearranging the existing figures. The authors discuss these results in three whole paragraphs, which are a very important part of the paper.

We thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion. We have now included an additional figure (new Fig. 2, attached below), that highlights the fit of the integrative model against the SAXS and EM data.

Could the authors also compare the theoretical SAXS scattering curves generated by their final model(s) with the experimental SAXS curves? This would provide some additional evidence for the overall shape of their complex model beyond the consistency with the Dmax/Rg.

We acknowledge the importance of this suggestion. We have now compared the theoretical SAXS scattering curve of the Mis18a/b core complex (named Mis18a/b DN), which lacks the flexible elements (disordered regions and the helical region flexibility connected to the Yippee domains). The theoretically calculated SAXS scattering curve of the model matches nicely with the experimental data with c2 value of 1.36. This data is now included in new Fig. 2 (Fig. 2f) and is referenced on page 9 line 21.

Minor Comments

While the introduction is clearly written, an additional cartoon schematic, representing the system/question would be helpful to a non-specialist reader to interpret the context of the study.

We have now included a cartoon in the revised Fig. 1 to support the introduction on centromere maintenance and the central role of the Mis18a/b/BP1 complex in this process. Please find the new Fig. 1 below.

No doubt the authors had a reason for choosing their figure allocation, but I wonder if more material couldn't be brought from the supplementary into the main figures?

As addressed in our response to one of the major comments, we have now moved key CLMS, SAXS and EM data from the supplemental figure into the main figure, new Fig. 2.

Page 6 "Mis18-alpha possesses an additional alpha-helical domain" - please make it clear in addition to what (I assume it's in addition to Mis18-beta).

Apologies for the lack of clarity. We have now rephrased this sentence to highlight that this difference is in comparison with Mis18b on page 6 line 15.

Page 7 - Report the RMSD of the Pombe vs. Human Mis18-alpha yipee structures?

The S. pombe Mis18 Yippee structure superposes on to the Human Mis18a Yippee domain with an RMSD of 0.92 angstroms with is now mentioned on page 7 line 9.

Page 7 - "We generated high-confidence structural models...." is there a metric for the confidence as reported by RaptorX? Perhaps includinging the PAE plots in the supplementary for the AlphaFold generated models would be useful?

We thank the reviewer for the valid suggestion. We have now included the PAE plot corresponding to the AlphaFold model in the supplementary Fig. S1d and reference on page 7 line 18. RaptorX ranks models based on estimated error. We have now included this information in the new figure legend for Supplementary Fig. S1.

Figure 1 - Perhaps label figure 1b as being experimentally determined, with the R values (as for Figure 1d), and 1c being a predicted model.

We have included Rfree and Rwork values for the Mis18a Yippee homo dimer structure and labelled Mis18a/b Yippee hetero-dimer as the predicted model in Fig. 1c and 1d.

Page 8 "This observation is consistent with the theoretically calculated pI of the Mis18alpha helix" This is a circular argument, of course this region has a low pI due to the amino acid composition. Please remove this statement.

We have now removed this statement as suggested.

Page 8 "...reveals tight hydrophobic interactions" these are presumably shown in Figure 1d rather than in the referenced 1e.

We apologise for the oversight. We have now referred to the correct figure (Fig. 1f in the revised Fig. 1).

Page 8 - The authors should briefly somewhere discuss why there is a difference between their results and those in Pan et al 2009. As I understand it, the Pan et al paper was based in part on modelling with CLMS data as restraints.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. According to Pan et al., 2009, the model shown by them was generated using CCBuilder, and their CLMS data could not differentiate the two models with the 2nd Mis18a C-terminal helix in either parallel or anti-parallel orientation. We now briefly discuss this on page 8 and line 22 as follows: "Although the Pan et al., 2019 model presented the 2nd Mis18a in a parallel orientation, they did not rule out the possibility of this assembling in an anti-parallel orientation within the Mis18a/b C-terminal helical assembly (Pan et al., 2019)."

Figure 1 - The labelling of the residues for Mis18-alpha in Figure 1d is problematic, they are black on dark purple (might be my printer/screen/eyes) suggest amending.

We have now rearranged the label positions to overcome this issue. For clarity, the labels that could not be moved appropriately are shown in white.

Figure S3a - Do the authors have some data to show the mass of the cross-linked complex that was loaded onto grids is consistent with what is expected?

Unfortunately, the amount of material that we recover after performing GraFix is not sufficient enough to determine the molecular weight of the crosslinked sample by techniques such as SEC-MALS. However, GraFix fractions were analysed by SDS PAGE, and fractions that ran around the expected molecular weight were selected for EM analysis. We have now included the corresponding SDS-PAGE showing the migration of the crosslinked sample analysed by EM (Supplementary Fig. S3a).

Figure S3b - scale bar

Revised Fig. 2d now includes the scale bar shown.

Figure S3c - Could the authors show or explain the differences between these different 3D reconstructions?

The models mainly differ in the relative orientations of the bulkier structural features that are referred to as 'ear' and 'mouth' pieces of a telephone handset. This has been mentioned in the text, but we note that the figure is not referenced right next to this statement. We have now amended this (Page 9 line 19), and to make it clear, we have also highlighted the difference using an arrowhead in Fig. 2e and S3b. The different orientations are also stated in the corresponding figure legends.

Page 9 - The use of "AFM" for AlphaFoldMultimer" is a little confusing since AFM is the established acronym for Atomic Force Microscopy. Perhaps AF2M?

We have now replaced AFM with AF2M on page 9 to avoid confusion.

Figure S4a - Control missing for Mis18-alpha wild-type

Apology for the confusion, this control is present in Fig. 4a. We have now stated this in the figure legend of S4a for clarity.

Figure S4 d and e - The contrast between the bands and the background is very bad (at least in my copy).

We have now adjusted the contrast of the blots in Fig. S4d and S4e response to this comment.

Page 13 "Our structural analysis suggests that two Mis18BP1 fragments.....". How did you arrive at this conclusion? Is this based on the AlphaFold/RaptorX model? What additional evidence do you have that the positioning of the Mis18BP1 is correct? Does the CLMS data support this?

We confirm that this statement is based on AlphaFold model. We have now explicitly highlighted this on page 14, line 5. As noted in the same paragraph (page 14, line 19), this model agrees with the contacts suggested by the cross-linking mass spectrometry data presented here.

Figure 4a - Would the authors like to consider using a different colour for Mis18BP1? The contrast is not great, especially in the electrostatic surface inset.

In response to this suggestion, the Mis18BP1 helix is now shown in grey in the inset of Fig. 5a.

Reviewer #1 (Significance (Required)):

General Assessment The paper is extremely clearly written. Likewise the figures are beautifully presented and the data extremely clean and fully supportive of the authors conclusions. Indeed it is seldom that one sees the depth of the structural approaches (X-ray, CLMS, EM, SAXS) in one paper which is a huge strength of the manuscript. In addition the translation of this data into very clean cell biological experiments, makes the paper truly outstanding.

Advance The authors provide the first model of the Mis18 complex, with extensive evidence to back up this model. The authors provide additional evidence as to how the deposition/renewal of CENP-A might be mediated by the Mis18 complex. The advance comes from both the level of clarity, detail, and scope achieved in this paper.

Audience This will likely be of great interest to anyone with an interest in chromosome biology, plus be of interest to structural biologists as an outstanding example of hybrid structural biology.

Expertise I am a biochemist with a background in structural biology with some familiarity with centromere biology

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

Summary: The manuscript "structural basis for Mis18 complex assembly: implications for centromere maintenance" by Thamkachy and colleagues describes a study that uses structural analysis to test essential candidate residues in Mis18 complex components in CENP-A loading. For chromosomes to faithfully segregate during cell division, CENP-A levels must be maintained at the centromere. How CENP-A levels are maintained is therefore important to understand at the mechanistic level. The Mis18 complex has been found to be important, but how exactly the various Mis18 complex components interact and how they regulate new CENP-A loading remains not fully understood. This study set out to characterize the critical residues using X-ray crystallography, negative staining EM, SEC analysis, molecular modeling (Raptorx, AlphaFold2, and AlphaFold-multimer) to identify the residues of Mis18a and Mis18b that are critical for the formation of the Mis18a/b hetero-hexamer and which residues are important for Mis18a and Mis18BP1 interactions. A complex beta-sheet interface dictates the Mis18a and Mis18b interactions. Mutating the Mis18a residues that are important for the Mis18a/b interactions resulted in impaired pull-down of Mis18b and reduced centromeric levels of mutated Mis18a. The functional consequences of mutating residues that impair Mis18a/b interactions is that with reduced centomeric levels of Mis18a, also impaired new CENP-A loading. Interestingly, mutated Mis18b did not impact centromeric Mis18a levels and only modestly impaired new CENP-A loading. These data were interpreted that Mis18a is critical for new CENP-A loading, whereas Mis18b might be involved in finetuning how much new CENP-A is loaded. Overall, it is a very well described and well written study with exciting data.

Major comments:

• Overall, the structural data and the IF data support the importance of Mis18a residues 103-105 are critical for centromeric localization and new CENP-A loading, whereas Mis18b residues L199 and I203 are critical for centromeric localization, but only very modestly impair centromeric Mis18a localization and new CENP-A loading. In the discussion the authors argue that the N-terminal helical region of Mis18a mediate HJURP binding. This latter is postulated based on published work, but not tested in this work. This should be clarified as such.

We thank the reviewer for this comment. Our very recent study aimed at understanding the licencing role of Plk1, independent of the work reported here, serendipitously has now validated this suggestion and demonstrates that a Plk1-mediated phosphorylation cascade activates the Mis18a/b complex via a conformational switch of the N-terminal helical region of Mis18a, which facilitates a robust HJURP-Mis18a/b interaction (Parashara et al. bioRxiv 2024). An independent study from the Musacchio lab (Conti et al. bioRxiv, 2024) also reports similar findings, mutually strengthening our independent conclusions. Overall, these studies highlight the importance of the critical structural insights into the Mis18 complex this study reports. We now explicitly discuss the validation of our original hypothesis by citing our recent work along with that of the Musacchio lab. The corresponding section of the last paragraph now reads as follows (page 17 line 10): "Previously published work identified amino acid sequence similarity between the N-terminal region of Mis18a and R1 and R2 repeats of the HJURP that mediates Mis18a/b interaction (Pan et al., 2019). Deletion of the Mis18a N-terminal region enhanced HJURP interaction with the Mis18 complex (Pan et al., 2019). Here, we show that the N-terminal helical region of Mis18a makes extensive contact with the C-terminal helices of Mis18a and Mis18b, which had previously been shown to mediate HJURP binding by Pan et al., 2019. Collectively these observations suggest that the N-terminal region of Mis18a might directly interfere with HJURP - Mis18 complex interaction. Two independent recent studies (Parashara et al., 2024, Conti et al., 2024) reveal that this is indeed the case and a Plk1-mediated phosphorylation cascade involving several phosphorylation and binding events of the Mis18 complex subunits relieve the intramolecular interactions between the Mis18a N-terminal helical region and the HJURP binding surface of the Mis18a/b C-terminal helical bundle. This facilitates robust HJURP-Mis18a/b interaction in vitroand efficient HJURP centromere recruitment and CENP-A loading in cells. Overall, these studies also highlight the importance of the critical structural insights into the Mis18 complex we report here."

• Overall, the authors clearly describe their data and methodology and use adequate statistical analyses. The structural data of the Mis18a/b complex being a hetero-hexamer is convincing, but the validation in vivo is missing. As structural experiment are not performed under physiological conditions, it is important to establish the stoichiometry in vivo to further support the totality of the findings of the structural experiments and modeling. The data for the hierarchical assembly of Mis18a and Mis18b at the centromere and its importance in new CENP-A loading is convincing. An additional open question is whether "old" centromeric CENP-A or HJURP:new CENP-A complex is needed to recruit Mis18a to the centromere and whether the identified residues have a role in Mis18a centromeric localization. These data would provide a solid link between the Mis18 complex and how it is directly linked to new CENP-A loading.

We agree that establishing the stoichiometry of Mis18 subunits of the Mis18 complex in vivo would be insightful. However, considering that the Mis18 complex assembles in a specific window of the cell cycle (late Mitosis and early G1), we think characterising the stoichiometry in cells is extremely difficult and technically challenging. However, consistent with our structural model, several lines of independent evidence (Pan et al., 2017 and Spiller et al., 2017) using different biophysical methods (Analytical Ultra Centrifugation (Pan et al., 2017), SEC-MALS (Spiller et al., 2017)) showed that recombinantly purified Mis18 complex (irrespective of the expression host, from both E. Coli or insect cells) is a hetero-octamer made of a hetero-hexameric Mis18a/b (4 Mis18a and 2 Mis18 b) complex bound to two copies of Mis18BP1. These observations suggested that hetero-hexamerisation of the Mis18a/b complex may be needed to bind and dimerise Mis18BP1 in cells. Previously published cellular studies support the in vivo requirement of the hetero-octameric Mis18 assembly as: (i) Perturbing the hetero-hexamerisation of the Mis18a/b complex (by introducing mutations at the Mis18a/b Yippee dimerisation interface, which while did not disrupt Mis18a/b complex formation, perturbed its hetero-hexamerisation and resulted in a hetero-trimeric Mis18a/b complex made of 2 Mis18aand 1 Mis18b) abolished Mis18BP1 binding in vitro and in cells, consequently abolished CENP-A deposition (Spiller et al., 2017) and (ii) artificial dimerisation of Mis18BP1, by expressing Mis18BP1 as a GST-tagged protein, enhanced the centromere localisation of Mis18BP1 highlighting the requirement of Mis18a/b hexameric assembly mediated dimerization of Mis18BP1 in cells (Pan et al., 2017). While these studies highlighted the importance of maintaining the right stoichiometry (hetero-octamer of 4 Mis18a, 2 Mis18b and 2 Mis18BP1), lack of structural information on how this essential biological assembly is established remained a major knowledge gap. Our work presented here fills this critical knowledge gap by showing that a segment of Mis18BP1 (aa 20-51) also binds at the Yippee dimerisation interface. To highlight this, we have included the following statements in the introduction on page 5 and 20 "Perturbing the Yippee domain-mediated hexameric assembly of Mis18a/b (that resulted in a Mis18a/b hetero-trimer, 2 Mis18a and 1 Mis18b) abolished its ability to bind Mis18BP1 in vitro and in cells (Spiller et al., 2017), emphasising the requirement of maintaining correct stoichiometry of Mis18a/b subunits. Consistent with this, artificial dimerisation of Mis18BP1, by expressing Mis18BP1 as a GST-tagged protein, enhanced the centromere localisation of Mis18BP1 (Pan et al., 2017)." and in the Results section on page 14 line 12: "Mis18BP120-51 contains two short b strands that interact at Mis18a/b Yippee interface extending the six-stranded-b sheets of both Mis18a and Mis18b Yippee domains. This provides the structural rationale for why Yippee domains-mediated Mis18a/b hetero-hexamerisation is crucial for Mis18BP1 binding (Spiller et al., 2017)."

Regarding the question "whether 'old' centromeric CENP-A or HJURP:new CENP-A complex is needed to recruit Mis18a centromere localisation and whether identified residues have a role in Mis18a centromere localisation": According to the published literature, the Mis18 complex associates with centromeres through interaction with CCAN components CENP-C and CENP-I (Shono et al., 2015, Dambacher et al., 2012, Moree et al., 2011, Hoffmann et al., 2020). Considering CCAN assembles on CENP-A nucleosomes, and HJURP:new CENP-A centromere recruitment depends on the Mis18 complex, it will be reasonable to argue that the 'old' centromeric CENP-A contributes to the centromere localisation of the Mis18 complex. Amongst the components of the Mis18 complex, Mis18BP1 and Mis18bhave previously been suggested to interact with CENP-C. Within the Mis18 complex, we (Spiller et al., 2017) and others (Pan et al., 2017) have shown that Mis18a can directly interact with Mis18BP1, but it does so more efficiently when Mis18a hetero-oligomerises with Mis18b via their Yippee domains. Here, our structural analysis mapped the interaction interfaces and showed that Mis18a residues E103, D104 and T105 contribute to Mis18BP1 binding, as mutating these residues abolishes centromere localisation of Mis18a (Fig. 5c and 5d). To accentuate our findings, we have now included the following paragraph in the discussion section (page 17 line 26): "One of the key outstanding questions in the field is how does the Mis18 complex associate with the centromere. Previous studies identified CCAN subunits CENP-C and CENP-I as major players mediating the centromere localisation of the Mis18 complex mainly via Mis18BP1 (Shono et al., 2015, Dambacher et al., 2012, Moree et al., 2011), although Mis18b subunit has also been suggested to interact with CENP-C (Stellfox et al., 2016). Within the Mis18 complex, we and others have shown that the Mis18a/b Yippee hetero-dimers can directly interact with Mis18BP1. Here our structural analysis allowed us to map the interaction interface mediating Mis18a/b-Mis18BP1 binding. Perturbing this interface on Mis18a completely abolished Mis18a centromere localisation and reduced Mis18BP1 centromere levels. These observations show that Mis18a associates with the centromere mainly via Mis18BP1, and assembly of the Mis18 complex itself is crucial for its efficient centromere association, as previously suggested. Future work aimed at characterising the intermolecular contact points between the subunits of the Mis18 complex, centromeric chromatin and CCAN components and understanding if the Mis18 complex undergoes any conformational and/or compositional variations upon centromere association and/or during CENP-A deposition process, will be crucial to delineate the mechanisms underpinning the centromere maintenance."

Minor comments:

• The bar graphs shown ideally also show the individual data points for the authros to appreciate the spread of the data. These figures can be replicated in the Supplemental to avoid making the main figures look too busy.

We thank the reviewers for this suggestion. Reviewer #3 made a similar comment and suggested we use Superplot, which allows visualisation of individual data points of independent experiments. We have now revised all bar graphs using Superplot to address both reviewers' suggestions.

Reviewer #2 (Significance (Required)):

• This study uses a broad range of structural techniques, including molecular modeling which were subsequently validated by in vitro pull-down assays, co-IP, and IF. This combination of these techniques is important because many structural techniques cannot be performed under physiological conditions. Validating the main findings of the structural results by IF and co-IP is therefore critical.
• This work greatly advances our structural understanding how Mis18a, Mis18b, and Mis18BP1 form the Mis18 complex and how the critical residues in especially Mis18a help the Mis18 complex localize to the centromere and influence new CENP-A loading. This study also provides the first strong evidence in hierarchical assembly of the Mis18 complex.
• How centromere identity is maintained is a critical question in chromosome biology and genome integrity. The Mis18 complex has been identified as an important complex in the process. Several structural and mutational studies (all adequately cited in this manuscript) have tried to address which residues guide the assembly and functional regions of the Mis18 complex. This work builds and expands our understanding how especially Mis18a holds a pivotal role in both Mis18 complex formation and its impact on maintaining centromeric CENP-A levels.
• This work will be of interest to the chromosome field in general and anyone studying the mechanism of cell division.
• Chromatin, centromere, CENP-A, cell division. This reviewer has limited expertise in structural biology.

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

Centromere identity is defined by CENP-A loading to specific sites on genomic DNA. CENP-A loading is known to rely on the Mis18 complex, and several regulators are known; yet how the Mis18 complex achieves this complex process has remained puzzle. By elucidating the structural basis of Mis18 complex assembly using integrative structural approaches the authors show that multiple homo and heterodimeric interfaces of Mis18alpha, beta and Mis18BP1 are involved in centromere maintenance. The authors show that Mis18alpha can associate with centromeres and deposit CENP-A independent of Mis18 β. Mis18α functions in CENP-A deposition at centromeres independent of Mis18β. Mis18β is required for maintaining a specific level of CENP-A occupancy at centromeres. Thus, using structure-guided and separation-of-function mutants the study reveals how Mis18 complex ensures centromere maintenance. Major comments: This is an excellent study on centromere inheritance, combining structural and cell biology techniques. The comments here primarily refer to Cell biology aspect of the work.

Figures show that new CENP-A deposits in Mis18βL199D/I203D mutants, but the level was reduced moderately. Based on this observation, the authors make a strong conclusion that Mis18β licenses the optimal levels of CENP-A at centromeres. Mis18α may be essential for both CENP-A incorporation and depositing a specific amount of CENP-A, as Mis18α and CENP-A levels are both reduced in Mis18βL199D/I203D mutants which failed to form the triple helical assembly with Mis18α as shown in Figure 3B and 3C. The authors may want to qualify some of these claims as preliminary or speculative.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We agree that although the reduction in CENP-A levels upon replacing WT Mis18b with Mis18b L199D/I203D is more prominent than the reduction in centromere localised Mis18a, one cannot completely rule out the contribution of reduced Mis18a on CENP-A loading. This also raises an interesting possibility where Mis18b ensures the correct amount of CENP-A deposition by facilitating the optimal level of Mis18a at centromeres. We now explicitly discuss this in the discussion as follows (page 16 line 26): "Whilst proteins involved in CENP-A loading have been well established, the mechanism by which the correct levels of CENP-A are controlled is yet to be thoroughly explored and characterised. The data presented here suggest that Mis18b mainly contributes to the quantitative control of centromere maintenance - by ensuring the right amounts of CENP-A deposition at centromeres - and maybe one of several proteins that control CENP-A levels. We also note that the Mis18b mutant, which cannot interact with Mis18a, moderately reduced Mis18a levels at centromeres, and hence, it is possible that Mis18b ensures the correct level of CENP-A deposition by facilitating optimal Mis18a centromere recruitment. Future studies will focus on dissecting the mechanisms underlying the Mis18b-mediated control of CENP-A loading amounts along with any other mechanisms involved."

This work and others show that phosphorylation of Mis18BP1 by CDK1 can interfere with complex function (Spiller et al., 2017, Pan et al., 2017). Does the structure provide any insight into PLK1-mediated phosphorylation surfaces for activation of the complex? If yes, a brief discussion would help to link CDK1 and PLK1 mediated opposing actions will strengthen the work.

As described in our response to the first major comment of Reviewer 2, our very recent study aimed at understanding the licencing role of Plk1, independent of the work reported here, identified and evaluated the functional contribution of Plk1 phosphorylation on the subunits of the Mis18 complex (Parashara et al., bioRxiv 2024). Serendipitously, this recent work has now validated our hypothesis proposed based on the structural characterisation reported here and demonstrates that a Plk1-mediated phosphorylation cascade activates the Mis18a/b complex via a conformational switch of the N-terminal helical region of Mis18a which facilitates a robust HJURP-Mis18a/b interaction (Parashara et al. bioRxiv 2024). An independent study from the Musacchio lab (Conti et al., bioRxiv 2024) also reports similar findings, mutually strengthening our independent conclusions. Overall, these studies highlight the importance of the critical structural insights into the Mis18 complex this study reports. We now explicitly discuss the validation of our original hypothesis by citing our recent work along with that of the Musacchio lab. The corresponding section of the last paragraph now reads as follows (page 17 line 10): "Previously published work identified amino acid sequence similarity between the N-terminal region of Mis18a and R1 and R2 repeats of the HJURP that mediates Mis18a/binteraction (Pan et al., 2019). Deletion of the Mis18a N-terminal region enhanced HJURP interaction with the Mis18 complex (Pan et al., 2019). Here, we show that the N-terminal helical region of Mis18a makes extensive contact with the C-terminal helices of Mis18a and Mis18b, which had previously been shown to mediate HJURP binding by Pan et al., 2019. Collectively these observations suggest that the N-terminal region of Mis18a might directly interfere with HJURP - Mis18 complex interaction. Two independent recent studies (Parashara et al., 2024, Conti et al., 2024) reveal that this is indeed the case and a Plk1-mediated phosphorylation cascade involving several phosphorylation and binding events of the Mis18 complex subunits relieve the intramolecular interactions between the Mis18a N-terminal helical region and the HJURP binding surface of the Mis18a/b C-terminal helical bundle. This facilitates robust HJURP-Mis18a/b interaction in vitro and efficient HJURP centromere recruitment and CENP-A loading in cells. Overall, these studies also highlight the importance of the critical structural insights into the Mis18 complex we report here."

I am happy with the way cell biology data and the methods are presented so that they can be reproduced. The experiments are adequately replicated and the statistical analysis adequate. It will help to include sample size of cells or centromeres used for building the graphs.

We have now included this information in figure legends of Fig. 3a, 3c, 4b, 4c, 5b, 5c and 5d.

This is a strong interdisciplinary study using a variety of in vitro and in vivo techniques. Can the authors discuss if they expect chromatin associated Mis18 complex to host a similar structure as the soluble one? In other words, are they able to comment on any key differences between chromatin and non-chromatin associated Mis18 complexes.

We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We agree that one cannot rule out the possibility of the Mis18 complex undergoing compositional and/or conformational variations during the processes of CENP-A loading at centromeres. We now explicitly discuss this possibility in the last paragraph of the discussion section (page 18 line 10): "Future work aimed at characterising the intermolecular contact points between the subunits of the Mis18 complex, centromeric chromatin and CCAN components and understanding if the Mis18 complex undergoes any conformational and/or compositional variations upon centromere association and/or during CENP-A deposition process, will be crucial to delineate the mechanisms underpinning the centromere maintenance."

Minor comments: -

In cell biology experiments, fluorescence intensities could be presented as a superplot for added value across cells and repeats (instead of bar graphs). More on superplot:https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.202001064.

We thank the reviewers for this kind suggestion. We have now included graphs made using 'superplot' as suggested.

In general, ACA levels do not appear to change significantly between WT and mutant expressing cells although new CENP-A loading is significantly absent in the presence of a few mutants - please comment if ACA used here can recognise CENP-A. Would this mean that old CENP-A remains normally?

We thank the reviewer for this comment. While new CENP-A incorporated at centromeres is selectively labelled using the SNAP-tag, the ACA antibody used in these experiments can recognise CENP-A, CENP-B and CENP-C, with CENP-B being the primary target (Kallenberg, Clinical Rheumatology,1990). We would also like to note that ACA has commonly been used to locate the centromere in CENP-A loading assays where new CENP-A levels are assessed via selective labelling (e.g. McKinley 2014).

It is unclear whether any of the mutant acted in a dominant negative fashion in the presence of endogenous Mis18 proteins. It would have been useful to test this particularly in the context of mis18alpha mutants that seem to fully abolish new CENP-A recruitment.

As Mis18 subunits oligomerise (homo and hetero), we thought expressing these mutants in the presence of endogenous proteins might interfere with endogenous protein in a heterogenous manner and might make the interpretation difficult. Hence, we did not test this. Instead, as described in the manuscript we have tested these mutants in siRNA rescue experiments (Fig. 3, 4 and 5).

In figure 3a, GFP panel (input lane, 1) is shown to mark a band corresponding to GFP. Is this expected? Please comment.

Yes, as a control, an empty vector was transfected to express just GFP along with Mis18a-mCherry. These were used to show that there was no unspecific interaction between the beads used for IP or Mis18a-mCherry and GFP tag, and that any interaction seen was due to Mis18b. A similar control was used in S4b, where mCherry was expressed along with Mis18b-GFP. We have now clarified this in the corresponding legends of Fig. 4a and S4b.

Would be useful to have the scale for the cropped images presented as insets. Figure 4B should read YFP and not YPF.

We apologise for this typographical error. We have now corrected this.

The authors may want to explain whether the tag differences matter for their study (Case in point: His-SUMO-Mis18a191-233 WT and mutant His-MBP-Mis18b188-229 proteins).

The MBP tag was chosen to perform amylose pull-down assays, whereas the SUMO tag was chosen to increase the protein size. This is crucial as the C-terminal fragments of Mis18a and Mis18b are less than 50 amino acids long and are not easy to visualise by the band intensity in the Coomassie-stained SDS PAGE gels.

Reviewer #3 (Significance (Required)):

This work elucidates the structural basis of Mis18 complex assembly and the intermolecular interfaces essential for Mis18 functions. This is a significant advance in the field as it helps researchers in the field better understand CENP-A deposition and mechanism underpinning the maintenance of centromere identity. This is a broad area of research benefitting those studying cell division, genome stability, centromere identity and epigenetics might all be interested in and influenced by these findings. Novelty and strength lies in combining structural and cell biology work. Strengths of the work are structural details of the Mis18 complex. Minor weakness is the link between Mis18 structure and Centromere inheritance is limited to one immunostaining assay (I have mentioned this as a minor comment because addressing this may not be within the scope of this manuscript and is likely to require a repeat of a vast majority of the work with additional reagents which may not directly add value to the current manuscript).

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

Manuscript number: RC-2023-02270

Corresponding author(s): Usha Vijayraghavan

General Statements

We thank all three Reviewers for their thorough assessment of our manuscript and their constructive feedback and comments.

Point-by-point description of the revisions

This section is mandatory. *Please insert a point-by-point reply describing the revisions that were already carried out and included in the transferred manuscript. *

Reviewer #1

We are encouraged by the very positive comments made on the significance of our study that it provides convincing insights on alternative modes of nuclear positioning and division which is an important question in cell biology. We also took all possible suggestions to improve the interpretation of our results, have also added some newer data to address the constructive points raised by the reviewer.

Major comments:

1. A) I am concerned about the lethal phenotype caused by slu7 deprivation. Slu7 deficiency causes defective nuclear positioning at the bud in late G2. This phenotype per se should not cause defective mitosis, so slu7 deficiency may also be interfering with other aspects of mitosis which might indeed impinge on cell viability.

Response: Our data indeed show Slu7 knockdown has severe growth defect when grown on non-permissive media (YPD) where a two-fold difference in O.D. was seen by 12 hours (Supplementary figure 2.B).

We agree with the reviewer that defective mitosis, arises from several aspects of cell cycle including those in mitosis. The data we present show G2 arrest, small-budded cells with unsegregated nuclei and large-budded cells with segregated nuclei, all which do not progress through cell cycle phases and contribute to the severe growth defect. Further, GO enrichment analysis of deregulated pathways on knockdown of Slu7 support the above findings as various cell cycle related pathways are abnormal in their expression levels. In this study, we have focused on an in depth analysis of the role of Slu7 in a particular window and uncover how it controls nuclear position for progress G2-M phase cell cycle progression. The likely targets and mechanisms by which Slu7 regulates other phases of the cell cycle which needs similar other deeper investigations in future. Our detailed analysis of nuclear movement in Slu7 knockdown cells grown in YPD for 12 hours showed no nuclear movement (Supplementary figure 3B) which is the terminal phenotype. To examine events that lead to nuclear mispositioning phenotype we investigated the dividing slu7kd cells grown in non-permissive media for only 6 hours; under these conditions Slu7 protein is still detected at lower amount (Supplementary figure 1D). From the studies of nuclear position, mitotic spindle position and dynein distribution in mother and daughter cell, we propose that in the dividing cells, the nucleus does not experience enough force to move inside the daughter bud during mitosis. Further, we delineate the role of Slu7 in the splicing of transcripts for PAC1 encoding a protein whose homolog in S. cerevisiae has a proven role in nuclear migration. In live imaging of slu7kd cells that show nuclear segregation at the start of live imaging, new bud was not formed till the end of 60 minutes, implying that are arrested after transition to mitosis. We could speculate a role for Slu7 through regulation of genes involved in mitotic exit or cytokinesis.

1. B) Supp. Fig4 shows defective mitosis in TBZ, so TBZ may be exacerbating defective mitosis of slu7-deficient cells.

__Response: __Studies with yeast and mammalian model systems have revealed that the mobility and repair of damaged DNA are compromised upon disruption of microtubules (Wu et al, 2008; Chung et al, 2015; Lottersberger et al, 2015; Lawrimore et al, 2017; Oshidari et al, 2018; Laflamme et al, 2019). These data point to reasons why the mutants in DNA damage checkpoint genes are sensitive to TBZ. In this context, we observed that CnSlu7 knockdown is also sensitive to MMS stress (shown below). In addition, recent work on human Slu7 in Hela cell lines has elucidated the its role in the maintenance of genome integrity by preventing the formation of R-loops (Jiménez et al, 2019). We suggest that TBZ may exacerbate the defective mitosis of Slu7 depleted cells, however, whether it is particular only to mitosis or to the other cellular processes where the microtubules are involved needs further investigation.

Throughout the figures it can be observed uneven chromosome/nuclear segregation in cells deprived of slu7, however, these mitotic defects have not been mentioned or explored in depth. From Supp Figure 3C it can be inferred that CENP-A segregation is uneven. Is this correct? Is CENP-A-GFP segregation normal?

__Response: __ It should be noted that in Cryptococcus, the kinetochore remains unclustered during the early phase of cell cycle, cluster to a single punctum at the end of G2 phase and then de-cluster at the end of mitosis. Since this is a highly dynamic process, its technically challenging to measure the intensity CENP-A in mother and daughter cell. In the fixed cell imaging or live imaging data, there are no appreciable differences in intensity of the GFP signal of the tagged proteins (H4 and CENPA). The uneven chromosome/nuclear segregation observed in certain panels images presented are due to technical issues in that particular stack while generating the montage. This has been re-examined and we infer that there are no major differences in the signals from GFP-H4 and GFP - CENPA through mitosis.

Additionally, taking the cue from the reviewer’s comment, we examined the likelihood of improper chromosome segregation by evaluating if there are any appreciable cell populations that are aneuploid. We revisited our flow cytometry data, we found no significant difference in the population of aneuploid cells between the knockdown strain and wildtype strain grown in non-permissive condition for 12 hours. This data was assessed again in new experiments where we also analyzed by flow cytometry the ipl1 mutant where aneuploidy is reported (Varshney et al, 2019). It has been reported in Cryptococcus neoformans that aneuploid cells are resistance to anti-fungal drug fluconazole. Preliminary experiments showed that slu7kd cells were sensitive to fluconazole and in this assay were similar to wildtype cells. Hence, we speculate that chromosome segregation is normal in Slu7 depleted cells.

If chromosome segregation is altered upon slu7 deprivation, this might also explain the drop in cell viability and slow growth rates of this condition.

__Response: __ From live microscopy imaging and flow cytometry data, we believe that the chromosome segregation is normal in Slu7 depleted cells. Dilution spotting in permissive media after growth in non-permissive media revealed that slu7kd cells resumed growth without losing viability, indicating the arrest phenotype associated with the depletion of Slu7 is largely reversible and does not cause chromosome mis-segregation (figure is now added to manuscript as supplementary figure 2D). Prolonged arrest at various cell cycle phase might lead to cell death and hence drop in cell viability.

The manuscript will improve if authors analyse chromosome segregation for example, by showing time-lapse images of chromosome dynamics during mitosis.

__Response: __Chromosome dynamics during the mitotic phase is given below. We observe that the chromosome segregation is equal in both mother and daughter bud. The uneven chromosome/nuclear segregation observed in certain panels images presented in original manuscript were due to technical issues while generating the montage.

The authors perform an RNA seq comparing wild-type cells with slu7 deficiency and detect changes in gene expression, however, they do not explore from this data the percentage of un-spliced introns genome-wide which might be very informative, even more than changes in gene expression, which many of them, might be an indirect consequence of Slu7 deficiency. Authors should re-analyze the RNA seq data looking for unprocessed mRNAs and provide information about the overall impact of slu7 in intron processing.

__Response: __ A very detailed bioinformatic analysis of the impact on slu7 on global transcriptome and splice pattern, is an ongoing study in the laboratory. The findings are indeed giving good leads which are being validated by further experiments using mini-gene exon-intron constructs. These studies are extensive and form a future manuscript identifying and characterizing intronic features which predispose an intron towards Slu7 dependency. Therefore, it falls outside the scope for this study on the cell biological role of Slu7 on mitosis, specifically nuclear position to ensure faithful mitotic segregation.

Minor comments:

__ __1. "Previous studies of slu7 mutants in S. cerevisiae and the conditional knockdown of its S. pombe homolog". Consider replacing homolog with Ortholog.

Response: The suggestion is well taken, and the word “homolog” has been replaced with word “ortholog”.

1. A) Taking these results together, we conclude that the inability of the conditional mutant to grow in the non-permissive media is due to impaired progression through the G2-M phase of the cell cycle. Is the G2/M delay the cause of the slow growth phenotype of the Slu7 deficiency?

Response: From the live microscopy, we note that even when the budding index for mitosis has been reached the nucleus in slu7kd cells is still in the mother cell and spends more time here rather than reaching the bud or bud neck. We present G2/M delay as ONE of the reasons for the slow growth of Slu7 depleted cells. Although we have showed that Slu7 depletion does not activate MAD2 dependent Spindle Assembly Checkpoint, we have not investigated the activation of other cell cycle checkpoints such as G2 DNA damage checkpoint. These are potential new leads as we infer from our RNA seq datasets that CHK1, TEL1, BDR1 and RAD51 show increased expression in Slu7 knockdown condition when compared to wildtype. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that Slu7 might play a role at various cell cycle phases through direct or indirect effect on genes involved in these phases. Delayed positioning of the nucleus during G2/M is one of the major effects that is investigated in depth in this study.

1. B) If so, growth defects of slu7 deficiency could be suppressed by ectopic expression of G2/M activators.

Response: We have not tested this possibility, but we predict that expression of G2/M activators would at best offer only partial rescue the growth defect of Slu7 depleted cells since multiple pathways are adversely affected in cells depleted of Slu7.

In this line of investigation, we have tested the consequences of PAC1 overexpression, as PAC1 expression levels and splicing are affected by loss of Slu7. We report a partial rescue of nuclear position defect during mitosis, yet these cells were arrested at cytokinesis. Further, the unavailability of an array of suitable auxotrophic (or other) markers in this model system makes it technically challenging to do rescue experiments by overexpression of multiple candidate downstream genes.

Supp Figure 3C, remove the drawing on the right. Adjust times relative to panels.

Response: The drawing has been removed and the time points have been adjusted.

1. Tracking the nucleus in wild-type cells with a small bud showed that the nucleus moved into the daughter bud, divided into two, and one-half migrated to the mother bud (Supplementary Figure 3B, top row).

Please replace the sentence: "one-half" with "one of the daughter nuclei". Additionally, as this nuclear positioning occurring during late mitosis is due to spindle elongation, I would not use the term migrated but "positioned" or "moved". Nuclear movement into the bud, which is referred to as "moved", can indeed be named "migrated".

Response: The word “migrated” in the above sentence has been replaced with the word “moved”.

1. Indicates in Figure 2B the marker used (GFP-H4), as in Fig Supp 3B.

Response: The marker has been indicated in the figure.

1. Nuclear division initiates in the bud, and one of the divided nuclei with segregated chromosomes migrates back to the mother cell (Figure 2B, top panel, wildtype, quantified in Figure 2C grey bar).

As mentioned before, I would not name this, nuclear migration as it is the result of spindle elongation, and it can be confusing or misleading for non-expert readers.

Response: The word “migrate” in the above sentence has been replaced with the word “move”.

1. These two conclusions should be revised and described in temporal/sequential order.
2. Thus, we identify that the depletion of CnSlu7 severely affects the temporal and spatial sequence of events during mitosis, particularly nuclear migration and division.
3. Together, these results confirmed that without affecting the kinetochore clustering, depletion of Slu7 affects nuclear migration during the G2 to mitotic transition in Cryptococcus neoformans.

Response: We thank the reviewer for bringing out the clarity in the concluding statements. These has now been revised to read as follows:

“Together, these results confirm that without affecting the kinetochore clustering, depletion of Slu7 affects nuclear movement during the G2 to mitotic transition in Cryptococcus neoformans. Thus, we identify that the depletion of CnSlu7 severely affects the temporal and spatial sequence of events during mitosis, particularly nuclear migration, and division.”

1. In slu7d cells, in cells with small buds, numerous cMTs were nucleated from the MTOCs, and as the cell cycle progressed, they organized to form the unipolar mitotic spindle (Figure 3A, slu7kd GFP-TUB1 panel, time point 55 mins).

Please, revise whether the term unipolar mitotic spindle is correct here.

Response: The word unipolar has been removed.

1. I suggest including page and line numbers in the manuscript to facilitate revision.

Response: We regret missing out this formatting guideline. The Page and line numbers have provided.

Reviewer #2

We are thankful by the very positive comments on the significance of our work, its novelty and findings being of broad interest to microbiology; splicing; cell cycle and cell division communities. We respond to all comments raised below.

1. The authors test the Mad2-dependent spindle assembly checkpoint and show that it is not relevant for slu7-depletion. This is as expected if the defect is in nuclear positioning. They could test other checkpoint pathways that would monitor nuclear positioning in budding yeasts. Perhaps they have considered this: Bub2, Bfa1, Tem1, Lte1 mutants? I don't think this experiment is essential for publication, but it could strongly support their model.

Response: We appreciate the comment on other checkpoints operating during mitosis. However, we have not done these experiments to examine role of components that arrest mitosis (Bub2, Tem1 etc.) in response to spindle or kinetochore damage. We hope the reviewer appreciates that this line of work would require the generation of bub2Δ strain and extensive characterization for their role in checkpoint in Cryptococcus before it can be brought into strains compromised for Slu7.

__ Minor comments:__ 1. in Figure 3, Dyn1-GFP is imaged and in many of the cells in which Slu7 is depleted, nothing (or very little) can be seen. It is later argued that this is an indirect effect, due to defects in Pac1 and associated functions. Have the authors attempted a Dynein western blot (the 3xGFP tag should be quite sensitive)? It would be good to demonstrate that the Dynein motor complex hasn't simply fallen apart and Dynein been degraded in the slu7-depletion.

Response: A study in S. cerevisiae has reported the dynein expression does not change in pac1Δ cells (Lee et al., 2003). Since the molecular weight of CnnDYN1 along with the tag is 630kDa, we did attempt the very challenging experiment of western blot to check for the expression levels this very large protein in wildtype and slu7kd cells. Based on the reviewer’s suggestion, we have attempted dot blot of protein lysates from wild type and from slu7kd cells probed with anti GFP antibody for estimating DYN-GFP levels. Untagged WT H99 strain was used as negative control. The same blot was stripped and re-probed for PSTAIRE which served as a loading control. This experiment revealed that dynein levels are same in both wildtype and slu7kd cells.

in Figure 7: have any intronless genes been tested for rescue of the post-mitotic delay/arrest? This is not necessary for publication, but if any have been tested already, they could be listed here.

Response: We have not tested intronless genes for their role in the rescue of post mitotic delay/arrest. From the RNA seq data, we observed that most of the genes involved in mitotic exit network (MEN) and cytokinesis were highly expressed in slu7kd cells as compared to the wildtype indicating and indirect role for Slu7 in their expression level. So, we had validated three candidates MOB2, CDC12 and DBF2 by qRT PCR (Supplementary 7.D) and found they were upregulated in slu7kd cells and hence speculate that deregulation of these transcript could contribute to the post mitotic arrest in slu7kd.

In SFig2C legend make it clear that these cells are HU arrested at time zero. Are the cells in glucose or galactose during HU treatment.?

Response: We regret the lack of clarity in the legend and the required details have been added. The cells were initially grown in non-permissive media for 2 hours to deplete Slu7 and then HU was added to the non-permissive media and the cell were allowed to grow for 4 hours.

in SFig4, the TBZ sensitivity isn't very convincing as the slu7kd strain is struggling to grow at all on YPD.

Response: We agree with the reviewer comment on the growth of slu7kd cells on media YPD containing TBZ. TBZ may exacerbate the defective mitosis of Slu7 depleted cells, however whether it pertains only to mitosis or any cellular processes where microtubules are involved requires further investigation.

In SFig5 legend the volcano plot needs to be better explained. What are the dashed lines etc. ?

Response: We regret missing these details on the volcano plot which has now been added to the legend.

__Reviewer #3 __

We appreciate the views that our work provides strong evidence to support out conclusions that Cryptococcus neoformans Slu7 controls mitotic progression by efficient splicing of cell cycle regulators and cytoskeletal elements. We have taken all comments of the reviewer into account to revise our manuscript with additional data, and by improving the presentation. The key additional data are summarized below.

Major comments:

1) The authors claimed that CnSlu7 is the most divergent among the fungal homologs and closer to its human counterpart (Fig. 1A, Supplementary Fig 1A). -Just based on the phylogenetic tree including limited members, as in Supplementary Fig. 1, it cannot be concluded that CnSlu7 is closer to its human counterpart since the basidiomycete yeast such as C. neoformans itself is more closely positions to humans compared to the ascomycete yeasts S. cerevisiae and Sch. pombe in phylogenetic tree analysis. It is strongly recommended to include other fungal species from the Basidiomycota, such as Ustilago maydis, in phylogenetic analysis in Supplementary Fig. 1. - Conservation analysis among diverse eukaryotes is more meaningful data that the conservation withing the fungi group, so that it is recommended that the data of Fig. 1 A would be replaced with the revised Supplementary Fig 1. -The analysis data on amino acid identities among Slu7 homologues should be presented to support the claim.

Response: We agree with the reviewer that our data would be better served by an improved analysis of the phylogenetic relationship between various Slu7 homologs. We have therefore reconstructed the phylogenetic tree by including other fungal groups. This is presented here and also in the revised manuscript Supplementary Figure 1A. These data too, show that Cryptococcus (deneoformans and neoformans) Slu7 is the most diverged among its homologs from various fungal species with its closest homologs being other pathogens Puccinia graminis and Ustilago maydis.

2) Despite that CnSlu7 is the main key subject, the comparative analysis of CnSlu7 to the previously reported Slu7 homologues, in the aspect of functional domain organization, is not provided in the present manuscript. - It was reported that Slu7 contains the four motifs that control its cellular localization and canonical function as a splicing factor, such as a nuclear location signal, a zinc knuckle motif, four stretches of leucine repeats and a lysine-rich domain. Notably, human Slu7 protein is 204 amino acids longer than S. cerevisiae homolog with only 24% identity in the zinc knuckle motif (Molecular Biology of the Cell Vol. 15, 3782-3795). Thus, it is strongly recommended to provide additional information on the conserved and diverged features of CnSlu7 compared to other Slu7 homologs as a part of revised Figure.

Response: The multiple sequence alignment of Cryptococcus neoformans Slu7 with its fungal and higher eukaryote homologs such as human Slu7 and plant Slu7 proteins revealed that only the CCHC zinc finger motif is highly conserved. We do not detect conservation in the nuclear localization signal, stretch of leucine repeats and lysine rich domain except for leucine 3 stretch near the C terminal. This additional information is presented in revised Figure 1A.

3) The manuscript clearly demonstrated that one of key targets of Slu7-mediated splicing is PAC1 in C. neoformans. Considering, Pac1 is also conserved from S. cerevisiae to human, it could be speculated that the defect of Slu7 can affect nuclear migration in other fungal species and human cells by inefficient splicing of PAC1, despite striking differences in their nuclear position during cell division. Please discuss this possibility or provide the qRT-PCR analysis data of PAC1 homologs in the available fungal Slu7 mutant strains.

Response: Cell cycle arrest phenotypes of splicing factor mutants (studied largely in budding and fission yeast) results from inefficient pre-mRNA splicing of cell cycle-related genes. Slu7 is a well characterized second step splicing factor in S. cerevisiae where in vitro splicing assays with ACT1 minigene transcripts with a modified single intron showed ScSlu7 is dispensable for splicing when the branchpoint to 3'SS distance is less than seven nucleotides in the mini transcript (Brys and Schwer, 1996). In fission yeast we reported the effects of metabolic depletion of Slu7, which is an essential gene (Banerjee et al., 2013) and showed unexpectedly that in addition to BrP to 3'SS distance new intronic features contributors of dependency of fission yeast intron containing transcripts on Slu7 functions. The work also showed in multi-intronic transcripts its role is intron-specific and thus the candidate gene/ transcript is likely to be to dependent on Slu7 by virtue of the intronic features and not its biological function. In this study a splicing dependent role of CnSlu7 in cell cycle progression is investigated where based on a strong nuclear mis-positioning phenotype we narrowed on PAC1 transcripts as one of targets. We show PAC1, encoding a cytoskeletal factor, has introns dependent on CnSlu7 for efficient splicing and show partial rescue of nuclear position in strain complemented with expression of an intronless PAC1 gene. In this scenario, while it is likely that in other species where PAC1 exon-introns nucleotide sequences are similar to that in Cryptococcus a role for Slu7 may be predicted, for validation by other experimentalists.

Interestingly, PAC1 in S. cerevisiae is an intronless gene and its homolog is not annotated in S. pombe. In human cell lines, knockdown of Slu7 by siRNA resulted in metaphase arrest by inefficient splicing of soronin – which is crucial in sister chromatid cohesion and correct spindle assembly, according to recent research in human cell lines (Jiménez et al., 2019).

Hence the roles of splicing factor in cell cycle is through splicing of targets involved in cell cycle wherein the targets regulated by splicing factor may or may not be conserved in other species.

Minor comments:

General points 1) Provide information on the marker sizes in the data of qRT-PCR analysis presented in Figures 5 and 6, and Supplementary Fig 2A.

Response: We regret the omission of this technical data and have corrected the same by providing the marker sizes in all the figures.

2) Please unify the format of gene names. Some genes were written with superscript of "+", such as CLN1+ and PAC1+ in Fig. 4. What does "+" mean in the gene names?

Response: We have taken the suggestion to carefully review the nomenclature of genes and their expressed transcripts as is typical for Cryptococcus neoformans. To depict the wildtype form of transcript we had used +. Thus CLN1+ was used to denote Cyclin 1 cellular transcript from expressed from its own locus without any modification of promoter or the intronic features.

3) Supplementary Figure 1 C: Please correct "Slu7KD" 6 hrs YPD to "slu7kd" 6 hrs YPD.

Response: This error has been corrected.

4) Supplementary Figure 2A: What do "mRNA" and "No RT29X/", respectively, indicate?

Response: The mRNA indicates the spliced form across any intron after intron is spliced out, so denotes exon-exon sequences in the mRNA. The reactions marked as “No RT 29 X” denote semi- quantitative PCR performed on DNase treated RNA sample, without reverse transcription to generate the cDNA. These reactions were done to confirm that there is no genomic DNA present in the RNA sample used for reverse transcription reaction of the cellular transcripts. Some of these details are now included in the Supp Fig 2A legend.

5) Supplementary Figure 4C: Please provide brief explanation in the text on why the authors employed mad2Δ slu7kd cells.

Response: In Page 8, line 6, we had provided the rationale for generating and studying mad2Δ slu7kd strain. This is recapitulated below:

“To investigate whether Slu7 knockdown triggers the activation of spindle assembly checkpoint (SAC), we generated a strain with conditional slu7kd in cells with mad2Δ allele and the GFP-H4 nuclear marker.”

6) Supplementary Figure 6D legend: Please correct the description of "slu7kd SH:Slu7 FL" from "expressing intronless PAC1" to "expressing full length of SLU7".

Response: The error in the legend is regretted and this has been corrected.

7) Supplementary Figure 7D: The authors confirmed that MOB2, CDC12, and DFB1 were expressed at higher levels in slu7kd when compared to wildtype. Please briefly explain in the text why the expression level of these genes in slu7kd was mentioned.

Response: slu7kd cells expressing intronless Pac1 arrest post nuclear division. Revisiting our transcriptomic data, we found that genes involved in mitosis exit network and cytokinesis, such as DFB1, MOB2, CDC12, BUD4, and CHS2, were deregulated in slu7kd when compared to wildtype. We confirmed the same by performing qRT PCRs for three candidates, MOB2, DBF1 and CDC12 and that these transcript were expressed at high levels in knockdown when compared to wildtype.

8) The species name should be written as abbreviation after the first mention. For example, please correct Cryptococcus neoformans to C. neoformans throughout manuscript.

Response: The suggestion is well taken, and the required edits have been made throughout the text.

9) Please unify the format of paper titles listed in References.

Response: This formatting error is regretted and corrected to have all references in a single format.

10) No page information for Hoffmann et al (2010) in References.

Response: This omission is corrected.

11) Update the information on the published journal of Chatterjee et al. (2021) in References.

Response: This omission is regretted and is now corrected.

12) Information on the authors, title, published journal and pages should be provided for the papers (Yadav and Sanyal, 2018; Sridhar et al., 2021) in Supplementary Table 1, which were not included in the main Reference list.

Response: The references are now added to the main list.

References used for addressing the reviewer’s comments:

1. Chung DKC, Chan JNY, Strecker J, Zhang W, Ebrahimi-Ardebili S, Lu T, Abraham KJ, Durocher D, Mekhail K (2015) Perinuclear tethers license telomeric DSBs for a broad kinesin- and NPC-dependent DNA repair process. Nat Commun doi:10.1038/NCOMMS8742.
2. Jiménez M, Urtasun R, Elizalde M, Azkona M, Latasa MU, Uriarte I, Arechederra M, Alignani D, Bárcena-Varela M, Alvarez-Sola G et al (2019) Splicing events in the control of genome integrity: Role of SLU7 and truncated SRSF3 proteins. Nucleic Acids Res 47: 3450–3466. doi:10.1093/nar/gkz014.
3. Laflamme G, Sim S, Leary A, Pascariu M, Vogel J, D’Amours D (2019) Interphase Microtubules Safeguard Mitotic Progression by Suppressing an Aurora B-Dependent Arrest Induced by DNA Replication Stress. Cell Rep 26: 2875-2889.e3. doi:10.1016/J.CELREP.2019.02.051.
4. Lawrimore J, Barry TM, Barry RM, York AC, Friedman B, Cook DM, Akialis K, Tyler J, Vasquez P, Yeh E et al (2017) Microtubule dynamics drive enhanced chromatin motion and mobilize telomeres in response to DNA damage. Mol Biol Cell 28: 1701–1711. doi:10.1091/MBC.E16-12-0846.
5. Lee WL, Oberle JR, Cooper JA (2003) The role of the lissencephaly protein Pac1 during nuclear migration in budding yeast. J Cell Biol. doi:10.1083/jcb.200209022.
6. Lottersberger F, Karssemeijer RA, Dimitrova N, De Lange T (2015) 53BP1 and the LINC Complex Promote Microtubule-Dependent DSB Mobility and DNA Repair. Cell 163: 880–893. doi:10.1016/J.CELL.2015.09.057.
7. Oshidari R, Strecker J, Chung DKC, Abraham KJ, Chan JNY, Damaren CJ, Mekhail K (2018) Nuclear microtubule filaments mediate non-linear directional motion of chromatin and promote DNA repair. Nat Commun doi:10.1038/S41467-018-05009-7.
8. Varshney N, Som S, Chatterjee S, Sridhar S, Bhattacharyya D, Paul R, Sanyal K (2019) Spatio-temporal regulation of nuclear division by Aurora B kinase Ipl1 in Cryptococcus neoformans. PLoS Genet doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1007959.
9. Wu G, Zhou L, Khidr L, Guo XE, Kim W, Lee YM, Krasieva T, Chen PL (2008) A novel role of the chromokinesin Kif4A in DNA damage response. Cell Cycle 7: 2013–2020. doi:10.4161/CC.7.13.6130.

Author Response

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

eLife assessment

This important study elucidates the molecular divergence of caspase 3 and 7 in the vertebrate lineage. Convincing biochemical and mutational data provide evidence that in humans, caspase 7 has lost the ability to cleave gasdermin E due to changes in a key residue, S234. However, the physiological relevance of the findings is incomplete and requires further experimental work.

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary

In this study, Xu et al. provide insights into the substrate divergence of CASP3 and CASP7 for GSDME cleavage and activation during vertebrate evolution vertebrates. Using biochemical assays, domain swapping, site-directed mutagenesis, and bioinformatics tools, the authors demonstrate that the human GSDME C-terminal region and the S234 residue of human CASP7 are the key determinants that impede the cleavage of human GSDME by human CASP7.

Strengths

The authors made an important contribution to the field by demonstrating how human CASP7 has functionally diverged to lose the ability to cleave GSDME and showing that reverse-mutations in CASP7 can restore GSDME cleavage. The use of multiple methods to support their conclusions strengthens the authors' findings. The unbiased mutagenesis screen performed to identify S234 in huCASP7 as the determinant of its GSDME cleavability is also a strength.

Weaknesses

While the authors utilized an in-depth experimental setup to understand the CASP7-mediated GSDME cleavage across evolution, the physiological relevance of their findings are not assessed in detail. Additional methodology information should also be provided.

Specific recommendations for the authors

(1) The authors should expand their evaluation of the physiological relevance by assessing GSDME cleavage by the human CASP7 S234N mutant in response to triggers such as etoposide or VSV, which are known to induce CASP3 to cleave GSDME (PMID: 28045099). The authors could also test whether the human CASP7 S234N mutation affects substrate preference beyond human GSDME by testing cleavage of mouse GSDME and other CASP3 and CASP7 substrates in this mutant.

(1) The physiological relevance was discussed in the revised manuscript (lines 328-340). Our study revealed the molecular mechanism underlying the divergence of CASP3- and CASP7-mediated GSDME activation in vertebrate. One of the physiological consequences is that in humans, CASP7 no longer directly participates in GSDME-mediated cell death, which enables CASP7 to be engaged in other cellular processes. Another physiological consequence is that GSDME activation is limited to CASP3 cleavage, thus restricting GSDME activity to situations more specific, such as that inducing CASP3 activation. The divergence and specialization of the physiological functions of different CASPs are consistent with and possibly conducive to the development of refined regulations of the sophisticated human GSDM pathways, which are executed by multiple GSDM members (A , B, C, D, and E), rather than by GSDME solely in teleost, such as Takifugu. More physiological consequences of CASP3/7 divergence in GSDME activation need to be explored in future studies.

With respect to the reviewer’s suggestion of assessing GSDME cleavage by the human CASP7 S234N mutant in response to triggers such as etoposide or VSV: (i) CASP7 S234N is a creation of our study, not a natural human product, hence its response to CASP7 triggers cannot happen under normal physiological conditions except in the case of application, such as medical application, which is not the aim of our study. (ii) CASP3/7 activators (such as raptinal) induced robust activation of the endogenous CASP3 (Heimer et al., Cell Death Dis. 2019;10:556) and CASP7 (Author response image 1, below) in human cells. Since CASP3 is the natural activator of GSDME, the presence of the triggers inevitably activates GSDME via CASP3. Hence, under this condition, it will be difficult to examine the effect of CASP7 S234N.

Author response image 1.

HsCASP7 activation by raptinal. HEK293T cells were transfected with the empty vector (-), or the vector expressing HsCASP7 or HsCASP7-S234N for 24 h. The cells were then treated with or without (control) 5 μM raptinal for 4 h. The cells were lysed, and the lysates were blotted with anti-CASP7 antibody.

(2) As suggested by the reviewer, the cleavage of other CASP7 substrates, i.e., poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 (PARP1) and gelsolin, by HsCASP7 and S234N mutant was determined. The results showed that HsCASP7 and HsCASP7-S234N exhibited similar cleavage capacities. Figure 5-figure supplement 1 and lines 212-214.

(2) It would also be interesting to examine the GSDME structure in different species to gain insight into the nature of mouse GSDME, which cannot be cleaved by either mouse or human CASP7.

Because the three-dimensional structure of GSDME is not solved, we are unable to explore the structural mechanism underlying the GSDME cleavage by caspase. Since our results showed that the C-terminal domain was essential for caspase-mediated cleavage of GSDME, it is likely that the C-terminal domain of mouse GSDME may possess some specific features that render it to resist mouse and human CASP7.

(3) The evolutionary analysis does not explain why mammalian CASP7 evolved independently to acquire an amino acid change (N234 to S234) in the substrate-binding motif. Since it is difficult to experimentally identify why a functional divergence occurs, it would be beneficial for the authors to speculate on how CASP7 may have acquired functional divergence in mammals; potentially this occurred because of functional redundancies in cell death pathways, for example.

According to the reviewer’s suggestion, a speculation was added. Lines 328-340.

(4) For the recombinant proteins produced for these analyses, it would be helpful to know whether size-exclusion chromatography was used to purify these proteins and whether these purified proteins are soluble. Additionally, the SDS-PAGE in Figure S1B and C show multiple bands for recombinant mutants of TrCASP7 and HsCASP7. Performing protein ID to confirm that the detected bands belong to the respective proteins would be beneficial.

The recombinant proteins in this study are soluble and purified by Ni-NTA affinity chromatography. Size-exclusion chromatography was not used in protein purification.

For the SDS-PAGE in Figure 4-figure supplement 1B and C (Figure S1B and C in the previous submission), the multiple bands are most likely due to the activation cleavage of the TrCASP7 and HsCASP7 variants, which can result in multiple bands, including p10 and p20. According to the reviewer’s suggestion, the cleaved p10 was verified by immunoblotting. Figure 4-figure supplement 1B and C.

(5) For Figures 3C and 4A, it would be helpful to mention what parameters or PDB files were used to attribute these secondary structural features to the proteins. In particular, in Figure 3C, residues 261-266 are displayed as a β-strand; however, the well-known α-model represents this region as a loop. Providing the parameters used for these callouts could explain this difference.

For Figure 3C, in the revised manuscript, we used the structure of mouse GSDMA3 (PDB: 5b5r) for the structural analysis of HsGSDME. As indicated by the reviewer, the region of 261-266 is a loop. The description was revised in lines 172 and 174, Figure 3C and Figure 3C legend.

For Figure 4A, the alignment of CASP7 was constructed by using Esprit (https://espript.ibcp.fr/ESPript/cgi-bin/ESPript.cgi) with human CASP7 (PDB:1k86) as the template. The description was revised in the Figure legend.

(6) Were divergent sequences selected for the sequence alignment analyses (particularly in Figure 6A)? The selection of sequences can directly influence the outcome of the amino acid residues in each position, and using diverse sequences can reduce the impact of the number of sequences on the LOGO in each phylogenetic group.

In Figure 6A, the sequences were selected without bias. For Mammalia, 45 CASP3 and 43 CASP7 were selected; for Aves, 41 CASP3 and 52 CASP7 were selected; for Reptilia, 31CASP3 and 39 CASP7 were selected; for Amphibia, 11 CASP3 and 12 CASP7 were selected; for Osteichthyes, 40 CASP3 and 43 CASP7 were selected. The sequence information was shown in Table 1 and Table 2.

(7) For clarity, it would help if the authors provided additional rationale for the selection of residues for mutagenesis, such as selecting Q276, D278, and H283 as exosite residues, when the CASP7 PDB structures (4jr2, 3ibf, and 1k86) suggest that these residues are enriched with loop elements rather than the β sheets expected to facilitate substrate recognition in exosites for caspases (PMID: 32109412). It is possible that the inability to form β-sheets around these positions might indicate the absence of an exosite in CASP7, which further supports the functional effect of the exosite mutations performed.

According to the suggestion, the rationale for the selection of residues for mutagenesis was added (lines 216-222). Unlike the exosite in HsCASP1/4, which is located in a β sheet, the Q276, D278, and H283 of HsCASP7 are located in a loop region (Figure 5-figure supplement 2), which may explain the mutation results and the absence of an exosite in HsCASP7 as suggested by the reviewer.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors wanted to address the differential processing of GSDME by caspase 3 and 7, finding that while in humans GSDME is only processed by CASP3, Takifugu GSDME, and other mammalian can be processed by CASP3 and 7. This is due to a change in a residue in the human CAPS7 active site that abrogates GSDME cleavage. This phenomenon is present in humans and other primates, but not in other mammals such as cats or rodents. This study sheds light on the evolutionary changes inside CASP7, using sequences from different species. Although the study is somehow interesting and elegantly provides strong evidence of this observation, it lacks the physiological relevance of this finding, i.e. on human side, mouse side, and fish what are the consequences of CASP3/7 vs CASP3 cleavage of GSDME.

Our study revealed the molecular mechanism underlying the divergence of CASP3- and CASP7-mediated GSDME activation in vertebrate. One of the physiological consequences is that in humans, CASP7 no longer directly participates in GSDME-mediated cell death, which enables CASP7 to be engaged in other cellular processes. Another physiological consequence is that GSDME activation is limited to CASP3 cleavage, thus restricting GSDME activity to situations more specific, such as that inducing CASP3 activation. The divergence and specialization of the physiological functions of different CASPs are consistent with and possibly conducive to the development of refined regulations of the sophisticated human GSDM pathways, which are executed by multiple GSDM members (A , B, C, D, and E), rather than by GSDME solely in teleost, such as Takifugu. More physiological consequences of CASP3/7 divergence in GSDME activation need to be explored in future studies. Lines 328-340.

Fish also present a duplication of GSDME gene and Takifugu present GSDMEa and GSDMEb. It is not clear in the whole study if when referring to TrGSDME is the a or b. This should be stated in the text and discussed in the differential function of both GSDME in fish physiology (i.e. PMIDs: 34252476, 32111733 or 36685536).

The TrGSDME used in this study belongs to the GSDMEa lineage of teleost GSDME. The relevant information was added. Figure 1-figure supplement 1 and lines 119, 271, 274-276, 287 and 288.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) For the chimeric and truncated constructs, such as HsNT-TrCT, TrNT-HsCT, Hsp20-Trp10, Trp20-Hsp10, etc., the authors should provide a table denoting which amino acids were taken from each protein to create the fusion or truncation.

According to the reviewer’s suggestion, the information of the truncate/chimeric proteins was provided in Table 4.

(2) Both reviewers agree that functional physiological experiments are needed to increase the significance of the work. Specifically, the physiological relevance of these findings can be assessed by using western blotting to monitor GSDME cleavage by the human CASP7 S234N mutant compared with wild type CASP7 in response to triggers such as etoposide or VSV, which are known to induce CASP3 to cleave GSDME (PMID: 28045099).

Additionally, the authors can assess cell death in HEK293 cells, HEK293 cells transfected with TrGSDME, HEK293 cells expressing TrCASP3/7 plus TrGSDME, and TrCASP3/7 plus the D255R/D258A mutant. These cells can be stimulated, and pyroptosis can be assessed by using ELISA to measure the release of the cytoplasmic enzyme LDH as well as IL-1β and IL-18, and the percentage of cell death (PI+ positive cells) may also be assessed.

(1) With respect to the physiological relevance, please see the above reply to Reviewer 1’s comment of “Specific recommendations for the authors, 1”.

(2) As shown in our results (Fig. 2), co-expression of TrCASP3/7 and TrGSDME in HEK293T cells induced robust cell death without the need of any stimulation, as evidenced by LDH release and TrGSDME cleavage. In the revised manuscript, similar experiments were performed as suggested, and cell death was assessed by Sytox Green staining (Figure 2-figure supplement 3A and B) and immunoblot to detect the cleavage of both wild type and mutant TrGSDME (Figure 2-figure supplement 3C). The results confirmed the results of Figure 2.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Abstract:

Although the authors try to summarize the principal results of this study, please rewrite the abstract section to make it easier to follow and to empathise the implications of their results.

We have modified the Abstract as suggested by the reviewer.

Introduction:

The authors do not mention anything about the implication of the inflammasome activation to get pyroptosis by GSDM cleave by inflammatory caspases. Please consider including this in the introduction section as they do in the discussion section.

The introduction was modified according to the reviewer’s suggestion. Lines 58-61.

From the results section the authors name the human GSDM as HsGSDM and the human CASP as HsCASP, maybe the author could use the same nomenclature in the introduction section. The same for the fish GSDM (Tr) and CASP.

According to the reviewer’s suggestion, the same nomenclature was used in the introduction.

Line 39. Remove the word necrotic.

“necrotic” was removed .

Line 42. Change channels by pores. In the manuscript, change channels by pores overall.

“channels” was replaced by “pores”.

Line 42: Include that: by these pores can be released the proinflammatory cytokines and if these pores are not solved then pyroptosis occurs. Please rephrase this statement.

According to the reviewer's suggestion, the sentence was rephrased. Lines 46-48.

Line 45. GSDMF is not an approved gene name, its official nomenclature is PJVK (Uniprot Q0ZLH3). Please use PJVK instead GSDMF.

GSDMF was changed to PJVK.

Line 103: Can the authors explain better the molecular determinant?

The sentence was revised, line 109.

Results:

Line 110: Reference for this statement. The reference for this statement was added in line 116.

Figure 1A, B: Concentration or units used of HsCASP?

The unit (1 U) of HsCASPs was added to the figure legend (line 661).

Line 113: Add Hs or Tr after CASP would be helpful to follow the story.

“CASP” was changed to “HsCASP”.

Fig 1D: Why the authors do not use the DMPD tetrapeptide (HsGSDME CASP3 cut site) in this assay? Comparing with the data obtained in Fig 3B the TrCASP3 activity is going to be very closer to that obtained for VEID o VDQQD in the CASP3 panel.

The purpose of Figure 1D was to determine the cleavage preference of TrCASPs. For this purpose, a series of commercially available CASP substrates were used, including DEVD, which is commonly used as a testing substrate for CASP3. Figure 3B was to compare the cleavage of HsCASP3/7 and TrCASP3/7 specifically against the motifs from TrGSDME (DAVD) and HsGSDME (DMPD).

Figure 1D and Figure 3B are different experiments and were performed under different conditions. In Figure 1D, CASP3 was incubated with the commercial substrates at 37 ℃ for 2 h, while in Figure 3B, CASP3/7 were incubated with non-commercial DAVD (motif from TrGSDME) and DMPD (motif from HsGSDME) at 37 ℃ for 30 min. More experimental details were added to Materials and Methods, lines 443 and 447.

Fig 1H: What is the concentration used of the inhibitors?

The concentration (20 μM) was added to the figure legend (line 669).

Does the Hs CASP3/7 fail to cleave the TrGSDME mutants (D255R and D258A)? the authors do not show this result so they cannot assume that HsCASP3/7 cleave that sequence (although this is to be expected).

The result of HsCASP3/7 cleavage of the TrGSDME mutants was added as Figure 1-figure supplement 2 and described in Results, line 133.

Line 132-133: Can the author specify where is placed the mCherry tag? In the N terminal or C terminal portion of the different engineered proteins?

The mCherry tag is attached to the C-terminus. Figure 2 legend (line 676).

Fig 2A: Although is quite clear, a column histogram showing the quantification is going to be helpful.

The expression of TrGSDME-FL, -NT and -CT was determined by Western blot, and the result was added as Figure 2-figure supplement 1.

Fig 2A, B, C: After how many hours of expression are the pictures taken? Can the authors show a Western blot showing that the expression of the different constructions is similar?

The time was added to Figure 2 legend and Materials and Methods (line 466). The expression of TrGSDME-FL, -NT and -CT was determined by Western blot, and the result was added as Figure 2-figure supplement 1.

Fig 2C: Another helpful assay can be to measure the YO-PRO or another small dye internalization, to complete the LDH data.

According the reviewer’s suggestion, in addition to LDH release, Sytox Green was also used to detect cell death. The result was added as Figure 2-figure supplement 2 and described in Results, line 146.

Fig 2C: In the figure y axe change LHD by LDH.

The word was corrected.

Fig 2D: Change HKE293T by HEK293T in the caption.

The word was corrected.

Fig 2G: Please add the concentration used with the two plasmids co-transfection. A Western blot showing CASP3/7 expression vs TrGSDME is missing. Is that assay after 24h? please specify better the methodology.

The concentration of plasmid used in co-transfection and the time post transfection were added to the Materials and Methods (lines 422 and 424). In addition, the expression of CASP3/7 was added to Figure 2I.

Fig 2 J, K: Change HKE293T by HEK293T in the figure caption. The concentration of the caspase inhibitors is missing. Depending on the concentration used, these inhibitors used could provoke toxicity on the cells by themselves.

The word was corrected in the figure caption. The inhibitor concentration (10 μM) was added to the figure legend (line 690).

Line 151: TrCASP3/7 instead of CASP3/7

CASP3/7 was changed to TrCASP3/7.

Fig 3A, 3B: Please add the units used of the HsCASP

The unit was added to the figure legends (lines 697).

Fig 3A: Can the authors add the SDS-PAGE to see the Nt terminal portion as has been done in Fig 1A? Maybe in a supplementary figure.

The SDS-PAGE was added as Figure 3-figure supplement 1.

Fig 3B: If the authors could add some data about the caspase activity using any other CASP such as CASP2, CASP1 to compare the activity data with CASP3 and CASP7 would be helpful.

The proteolytic activity of TrCASP1 was provided as Figure 3-figure supplement 2.

Fig 3C: To state this (Line 160), the authors should use another prediction software to reach a consensus with the sequences of the first analysis. In fact, what happens when GSDME is modelled 3-dimensionally by comparing it to crystalized structures such as mouse GSDMA? If the authors add an arrow indicating where the Nt terminal portion ends and where Ct portion begins would make the figure clearer.

According to the suggestions of both reviewers, in the revised manuscript, we used mouse GSDMA3 (PDB: 5b5r) for the structural analysis of HsGSDME, which showed that the 261-266 region of HsGSDME was a loop. As a result, Figure 3C was revised. Relevant change in Results: lines 172 and 174.

As suggested by the reviewer, we modelled the three-dimensional structure of HsGSDME by using SWISS-MODEL with mouse GSDMA3 as the template (Author response image 2, below).

Author response image 2.

The three-dimensional structure model of HsGSDME. (A) The structure of HsGSDME was modeled by using mouse GSDMA3 (MmGSDMA3) as the template. The N-terminal domain (1-246 aa) and the C-terminal domain (279-468 aa) of HsGSDME are shown in red and blue, respectively. (B) The superposed structure of HsGSDME (cyan) and MmGSDMA3 (purple).

Fig 3F: if this is an immunoblotting why NT can be seen? In other Western blots only the CT is detected, why? The use of the TrGSDME mouse polyclonal needs more details (is a purify Ab, was produced for this study, what are the dilution used...)

Since the anti-TrGSDME antibody was generated using the full-length TrGSDME, it reacted with both the N-terminal and the C-terminal fragments of TrGSDME in Figure 3F. In Figure 3G, the GSDME chimera contained only TrGSDME-CT, so only the CT fragment was detected by anti-TrGSDME antibody. More information on antibody preparation and immunoblot was added to “Materials and Methods” (lines 390 and 391).

Fig 4B: Can the authors show in which amino acid the p20 finish for each CASP? (Similarly, as they have done in panel 3E)

Fig 4B was revised as suggested.

Fig 5F: With 4 units of WT CASP7 the authors show a HsGSDME Ct in the same proportion than when the S234N mutant is used (at lower concentrations). How do the authors explain this?

The result showed that the cleavage by 4U of HsCASP7 was comparable to the cleavage by 0.25U of HsCASP7-S234N, indicating that S234 mutation increased the cleavage ability of HsCASP7 by 16 folds.

Line 203: Can the authors show an alignment between this region of casp1/4 and 7? Maybe in supplementary figures.

As reported by Wang et. al (PMID: 32109412), the βIII/βIII’ sheet of CASP1/4 forms the exosite critical for GSDMD recognition. The structural comparison among HsCASP1/4/7 and the sequence alignment of HsCASP1/4 βIII/βIII’ region with its corresponding region in HsCASP7 were added as Figure 5-figure supplement 2.

Line 205: A mutation including S234N with the exosite mutations (S234+Q276W+D278E+H283S) is required to support this statement.

The sentence of “suggesting that, unlike human GSDMD, HsGSDME cleavage by CASPs probably did not involve exosite interaction” was deleted in the revised manuscript.

Fig 5I, 5J: which is the amount of HsGSDME and TrGSDME? I would place these figures in supplementary material.

The protein expression of TrGSDME/HsGSDME was shown in the figure. Fig 5I and 5J were moved to Figure 5-figure supplement 3.

Line 218: I would specify that this importance is in HUMAN CASP7 to cleavage Human GSDME.

“CASP7” and “GSDME” were changed to “HsCASP7” and “HsGSDME”, respectively.

Fig 6C: 4 units is the amount of S234N mutant needed to see an optimal HsGSDME cleavage in Fig 5F.

In Figure 6C, the cleavage efficacy of HsCASP3-N208S was apparently decreased compared to that of HsCASP3, and 4U of HsCASP3-N208S was roughly equivalent to 1U of HsCASP3 in cleavage efficacy. In Figure 5F, cleavage by 4U of HsCASP7 was comparable to the cleavage by 0.25U of HsCASP7-S234N. Together, these results confirmed the critical role of S234/N208 in HsCASP3/7 cleavage of HsGSDM.

Fig 6I: Could be the fact that the mouse GSDME has a longer Ct than human GSDME affect the interaction with CASP7? Less accessible to the cut site? Needs a positive control of mouse GSDME with mouse Caspase 3.

Although mouse GSDME (MmGSDME) (512 aa) is larger than HsGSDME (496 aa), the length of the C-terminal domain of MmGSDME (186 aa) is comparable to that of HsGSDME (190 aa).

Author response image 3.

Conserved domain analysis of mouse (upper) and human (lower) GSDME.

As suggested by the reviewer, the cleavage of MmGSDME by mouse caspase-3 (MmCASP3) was added as Figure 6-figure supplement 2 and described in Results, lines 258.

Material and Methods:

-Overall, concentrations or amounts used in this study regarding the active enzyme or plasmids used are missing and need to be added.

The missing concentrations of the enzymes and plasmids were added in Material and Methods (lines 421, 453, 457, and 470) or figure legends (Figure 1 and 3).

-It would be helpful if the authors label in the immunoblotting panels what is the GSDME that they are using. (Hs GSDME FL...).

As suggested, the labels were added to Figures 1A ,1B, and 3.

-Add the units of enzyme used.

The units of enzyme were added to figure legends (Figure 1A, 3A, 3D, and 3F) or Material and Methods (lines 453 and 457).

The GSDME sequence obtained for Takifugu after amplification of the RNA extracted should be shown and specified (GSDMEa or GSDMEb). From which tissue was the RNA extracted?

The details were added to Materials and Methods (lines 398 and 402).

Author Response

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

First of all, we'd like to thank the three reviewers for their meticulous work that enable us to present now an improved manuscript and substantial changes were made to the article following reviewers' and editors' recommendations. We read all their comments and suggestions very carefully. Apart from a few misunderstandings, all comments were very pertinent. We responded positively to almost all the comments and suggestions, and as a result, we have made extensive changes to the document and the figures. This manuscript now contains 16 principal figures and 15 figure supplements.

The number of principal figures is now 16 (1 new figure), and additional panels have been added to certain figures. On the other hand, we have added 7 additional figures (supplement figures) to answer the reviewers' questions and/or comments.

Main figures

▪ Figures 1, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14: unchanged ▪ Figure 7 and 8 were switched.

▪ Figure 2: we added panel F in response to reviewer 3's and request for sperm defect statistics

▪ Figure 3: the contrast in panel B has been taken over to homogenize colors

▪ Figure 6: This figure was recomposed. The WB on testicular extract was suppressed and we present a new WB allowing to compare the presence of CCDC146 in the flagella fraction. Using an anti-HA Ab, we demonstrate that the protein is localized in the flagella in epididymal sperm. Request of the 3 reviewers.

▪ Figure 7 (old 8): to avoid the issue of the non-specificity of secondary antibodies, we performed a new set of IF experiments using an HA Tag Alexa Fluor® 488-conjugated Antibody (anti-HA-AF488-C Ab) on WT and HA-CCDC146 sperm. These results are now presented in figure 7 panel A (new). The specificity of the signal obtained with the anti-HA-AF488-C Ab on mouse spermatozoa was evaluated by performing a statistical study of the density of dots in the principal piece of the flagellum from HA-CCDC146 and WT sperm. These results are now presented in figure 7 panel B (new). This study was carried out by analyzing 58 WT spermatozoa and 65 CCDC146 spermatozoa coming from 3 WT and 3 KI males. We found a highly significant difference, with a p-value <0.0001, showing that the signal obtained on spermatozoa expressing the tagged protein is highly specific. We have added a paragraph in the MM section to describe the process of image analysis. We finally present new images obtained by ExM showing no staining in the midpiece (figure 7C new). Altogether, these results demonstrate unequivocally the presence of the protein in the flagellum. Moreover, the WB was removed and is now presented in figure 6 (improved as requested).

▪ Figure 8. Was old figure 7

▪ Figure 9: figure 9 was recomposed and improved for increased clarity as suggested by reviewer 2 and 3.

▪ Figure 16 was before appendix 11

Figure supplements and supplementary files

▪ Figure 1-Figure supplement 1 New. Sperm parameters of the 2 patients. requested by editor (remark #1) by the reviewer 1 (Note #3)

▪ Figure 2-Figure supplement 1 new. Sperm parameters of the line 2 (KO animals) requested by the reviewer 1 (Note #5)

▪ Figure 4-Figure supplement 1 New. Experiment to evaluate the specificity of the human CCDC146 antibody. Minimal revision request and reviewer 1 note #8

▪ Figure 6-Figure supplement 1 New. Figure recomposed; Asked by reviewer 2 note #4 and reviewer 3

▪ Figure 8-Figure supplement 1 New. We now provide new images to show the non-specific staining of the midpiece of human sperm by secondary Abs in ExM experiments; Asked by reviewer 2

▪ Figure 10-Figure supplement 1 New. We added new images to show the non-specific staining of the midpiece of mouse sperm by secondary Abs in IF (panel B). Rewiever 1 note #9 and reviewer 2 note #5

▪ Figure 12-Figure supplement 1 New. Control requested by reviewer 3 Note #23

▪ Figure 13-Figure supplement 1 New. We provide a graph and a statistical analysis demonstrating the increase of the length of the manchette in the Ccdc146 KO. Requested by editor and reviewer 3 Note 24

▪ Figure 15-Figure supplement 1 New. Control requested by reviewer 2. Minor comments

▪ Figure supplementary 1 New. Answer to question requested by reviewer 2 note #1

All the reviewers' and editors’ comments have been answered (see our point to point response) and we resubmit what we believe to be a significantly improved manuscript. We strongly hope that we meet all your expectations and that our manuscript will be suitable for publication in "eLife". We look forward to your feedback,

Point by point answer

Please note that there has been active discussion of the manuscript and the summarize points below is the minimal revision request that the reviewers think the authors should address even under this new review model system. It was the reviewers' consensus that the manuscript is prepared with a lot of oversights - please see all the minor points to improve your manuscript.

All minimal revision requests have been addressed

Minimal revision request

1) Clinical report/evaluation of the two patients should be given as it was not described even in their previous study as well as full description of CCDC146.

We provide now a new Figure 1-figure supplement 1 describing the patients sperm parameters

2) Antibody specificity should be provided, especially given two of the reviewers were not convinced that the mid piece signal is non-specific as the authors claim. As both KO and KI model in their hands, this should be straightforward.

To validate the specificity of the Antibody, we transfected HEK cells with a human DDK-tagged CCDC146 plasmid and performed a double immunostaining with a DDK antibody and the CCDC146 antibody. We show that both staining are superimposable, strongly suggesting that the CCDC146 Ab specifically target CCDC146. This experiment is now presented in Figure 4-Figure supplement 1. Next, to avoid the issue of the non-specificity of secondary antibodies, we performed a new set of IF experiments using an HA Tag Alexa Fluor® 488-conjugated Antibody (anti-HA-AF488-C Ab) on WT and HA-CCDC146 sperm. These results are now presented in figure 7 panel A (new). The specificity of the signal obtained with the anti-HA-AF488-C Ab on mouse spermatozoa was evaluated by performing a statistical study of the density of dots in the principal piece of the flagellum from HA-CCDC146 and WT sperm. These results are now presented in figure 7 panel B (new). This study was carried out by analyzing 58 WT spermatozoa and 65 CCDC146 spermatozoa coming from 3 WT and 3 KI males. We found a highly significant difference, with a p-value <0.0001, showing that the signal obtained on spermatozoa expressing the tagged protein is highly specific. We have added a paragraph in the MM section to describe the process of image analysis. We finally present new images obtained by ExM showing no staining in the midpiece (figure 7C new). Altogether, these results demonstrate unequivocally the presence of the protein in the flagellum.

3) The authors should improve statistical analysis to support their experimental results for the reader can make fair assessment. Combined with clear demonstration of ab specificity, this lack of statistical analysis with very few sample number is a major driver of dampening enthusiasm towards the current study.

Several statistical analyses were carried out and are now included:

1) distribution of the HA signal in mouse sperm cells (see point 2 Figure 7 panel B)

2) quantification and statistical analyses of the defect observed in Ccdc146 KO sperm (figure 2 panel E)

3) Quantification and statistical analyses of the length of the manchette in spermatids 13-15 steps (Figure 13-Figure supplement 1 new)

4) The authors need to clarify (peri-centriolar vs. centriole)

In figure 4A, we have clearly shown that the protein colocalizes with centrin, a centriolar core protein in somatic cells. This colocalization strongly suggests that CCDC146 is therefore a centriolar protein, and this is now clearly indicated lines 211-212. However, its localization is not restricted to the centrioles and a clear staining was also observed in the pericentriolar material (PCM). The presence of a protein in PCM and centriole was already described, and the best example is maybe gamma-tubulin (PMID: 8749391).

or tone down (CCDC146 to be a MIP) of their claim/description.

Concerning its localization in sperm, we agree with the reviewer that our demonstration that CCDC146 is MIP would deserve more results. Because of that, we have toned down the MIP hypothesis throughout the manuscript. See lines 491495

Testis-specific expression of CCDC146 as it is not consistent with their data.

We have also modified our claim concerning the testis-expression of CCDC146. Line 176

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Major comments

1) As described in general comments, this study limits how the CCDC146 deficiency impairs abnormal centriole and manchette formation. The authors should explain their relationship in developing germ cells.

In fact, there are limited information about the relationship between the manchette and the centriole. However, few articles have highlighted that both organelles share molecular components. For instance, WDR62 is required for centriole duplication in spermatogenesis and manchette removal in spermiogenesis (Commun Biol. 2021; 4: 645. doi: 10.1038/s42003-021-02171-5). Another study demonstrates that CCDC42 localizes to the manchette, the connecting piece and the tail (Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2019 https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2019.00151). These articles underline that centrosomal proteins are involved in manchette formation and removal during spermiogenesis and support our results showing the impact of CCDC146 lack on centriole and manchette biogenesis. This information is now discussed. See lines 596-603

2) The authors generated knock-in mouse model. If then, are the transgene can rescue the MMAF phenotype in CCDC146-null mice? This reviewer strongly suggest to test this part to clearly support the pathogenicity by CCDC146.

We indeed wrote that we created a “transgenic mice”, which was misleading. We actually created a CCDC16 knock-in expressing a tagged-protein. The strain was actually made by CRISPR-Cas9 and a sequence coding for the HA-tag was inserted just before the first amino acid in exon 2, leading to the translation of an endogenous HA-tagged CCDC146 protein. We have removed the word transgenic from the text and made changes accordingly (see lines 250-253). We can therefore not use this strain to rescue the MMAF phenotype as suggested by the reviewer.

3) Although the authors cite the previous study (Coutton et al., 2019), the study does not describe any information for CCDC146 and clinical information for the patients. The authors must show the results for clinical analysis to clarify the attended patients are MMAF patients without other phenotypic defects.

We have now inserted a table, indicating all sperm parameters for the patients harboring a mutation in the CCDC146 gene (Figure 1-Figure supplement 1) and is now indicated lines 159-160

4) The authors describe CCDC146 expression is dominant in testes, However, the level in testis is only moderate in human (Supp Figure 1). Thus, this description is not suitable.

In Figure 1-figure supplement 2 (old FigS1), the median of expression in testis is around 12 in human, a value considered as high expression by the analysis software from Genevestigator. However, for mouse, it is true that the level of expression is medium. We assumed that reviewer’s comment concerned testis expression in mouse. To take into account this remark, we changed the text accordingly. See line 176.

5) Although the authors mentioned that two mice lines are generated, only one line information is provided. Authors must include information for another line and provide basic characterization results to support the shared phenotype within the lines.

We now provide a revised Figure 2-figure supplement 1CD, presenting the second line and the corresponding text in the main text is found lines 178-183.

6) In somatic cells, the CCDC146 localizes at both peri-centriole and microtubule but its intracellular localization in sperm is distinguished. The authors should explain this discrepancy.

The multi-localization of a centriolar protein is already discussed in detail in discussion lines 520-526. We have written:

“Despite its broad cellular distribution, the association of CCDC146 with tubulin-dependent structures is remarkable. However, centrosomal and axonemal localizations in somatic and germ cells, respectively, have also been reported for CFAP58 [37, 55], thus the re-use of centrosomal proteins in the sperm flagellar axoneme is not unheard of. In addition, 80% of all proteins identified as centrosomal are found in multiple localizations (https://www.proteinatlas.org/humanproteome/subcellular/centrosome). The ability of a protein to home to several locations depending on its cellular environment has been widely described, in particular for MAP. The different localizations are linked to the presence of distinct binding sites on the protein…. “

7) Authors mention CCDC146 is a centriolar protein in the title and results subtitle. However, the description in results part depicts CCDC146 is a peri-centriolar protein, which makes confusion. Do the authors claim CCDC146 is centrosomal protein?

In figure 4A, we have clearly shown that the protein colocalizes with centrin, a centriolar core protein. This colocalization strongly suggests that CCDC146 is therefore a centriolar protein in somatic cells, and is now clearly indicated lines 211-212. However, its localization is not restricted to the centrioles and a clear staining was also observed in the pericentriolar material (PCM). The presence of a protein in PCM and centriole was already described and the best example is maybe gamma-tubulin (PMID: 8749391).

8) Verification of the antibody against CCDC146 must be performed and shown to support the observed signal are correct. 2nd antibody only signal is not proper negative control.

It is a very important remark. The commercial antibody raised against human CCDC146 was validated in HEK293-cells expressing a DDK-tagged CCDC146 protein. Cells were co-marked with anti-DDK and anti-CCDC146 antibodies. We have a perfect colocalization of the staining. This experiment is now presented in Figure 4-figure supplement 1 and presented in the text (lines 206-208).

9) In human sperm, conventional immunostaining reveals CCDC146 is detected from acrosome head and midpiece. However, in ExM, the signal at acrosome is not detected. How is this discrepancy explained? The major concern for the ExM could be physical (dimension) and biochemical (properties) distortion of the sample. Without clear positive and negative control, current conclusion is not clearly understood. Furthermore, it is unclear why the authors conclude the midpiece signal is non-specific. The authors must provide experimental evidence.

Staining on acrosome should always be taken with caution in sperm. Indeed, numerous glycosylated proteins are present at the surface of the plasma membrane regarding the outer acrosomal membrane for sperm attachment and are responsible for numerous nonspecific staining. Moreover, this acrosomal staining was not observed in mouse sperm, strongly suggesting that it is not specific.

Concerning the staining in the midpiece observed in both conventional and Expansion microscopy, it also seems to be nonspecific and associated with secondary Abs.

For IF, we now provide new images showing clearly the nonspecific staining of the midpiece when secondary Ab were used alone (see Figure 10-figure supplement 1B).

For ExM, we provide new images in Figure 8-figure supplement 1B (POC5 staining) showing a staining of the midpiece (likely mitochondria), although POC5 was never described to be present in the midpiece. Both experiments (CCDC146 and POC5 staining by ExM) shared the same secondary Ab and the midpiece signal was likely due to it.

Moreover, we now provide new images (figure 7C) in ExM on mouse sperm showing no staining in the midpiece and demonstrating that the punctuated signal is present all along the flagellum. Finally, we would like to underline that we now provide new IF results, using an anti-HA conjugated with alexafluor 488 and confirming the ExM results.

These points are now discussed lines 498-502 for acrosome and lines 503-511 for midpiece staining.

10) For intracellular localization of the CCDC146 in mouse sperm, the authors should provide clear negative control using WT sperm which do not carry the transgene.

This experiment was performed.

To avoid the issue of the non-specificity of secondary antibodies, we performed a new set of IF experiments using an HA Tag Alexa Fluor® 488-conjugated Antibody (anti-HA-AF488-C Ab) on WT and HA-CCDC146 sperm. These results are now presented in figure 7 panel A (new). The specificity of the signal obtained with the anti-HA-AF488-C Ab on mouse spermatozoa was evaluated by performing a statistical study of the density of dots in the principal piece of the flagellum from HA-CCDC146 and WT sperm. These results are now presented in figure 7 panel B (new). This study was carried out by analyzing 58 WT spermatozoa and 65 CCDC146 spermatozoa coming from 3 WT and 3 KI males. We found a highly significant difference, with a p-value <0.0001, showing that the signal obtained on spermatozoa expressing the tagged protein is highly specific. We have added a paragraph in the MM section to describe the process of image analysis. We finally present new images obtained by ExM showing no staining in the midpiece (figure 7C new). Altogether, these results demonstrate unequivocally the presence of the protein in the flagellum.

11) Current imaging data do not clearly support the intracellular localization of the CCDC146. Although western blot imaging reveal that CCDC146 is detected from sperm flagella, this is crude approach. Thus, this reviewer highly recommends the authors provide more clear experimental evidence, such as immuno EM.

We provide now a WB comparing the presence of the protein in the flagellum and in the head fractions; see new figure 6. We show that CCDC146 is only present in the flagellum fraction; The detection of the band appeared very quickly at visualization and became very strong after few minutes, demonstrating that the protein is abundant in the flagella. It is important to note that epididymal sperm do not have centrioles and therefore this signal is not a centriolar signal. We also now provide new statistical analyses showing that the immuno-staining observed in the principal piece is very specific (Figure 7B). Altogether, these results demonstrate unequivocally the intracellular localization of CCDC146 in the flagellum. This point is now discussed lines 480-489

12) Although sarkosyl is known to dissociate tubulin, it is not well understood and accepted that the enhanced detection of CCDC146 by the detergent indicates its microtubule inner space. Sperm axoneme to carry microtubule is also wrapped peri-axonemal components with structural proteins, which are even not well solubilized by high concentration of the ionic detergent like SDS.

We agree with the reviewer that the solubilization of the protein by sarkozyl is not a proof of the presence of the protein inside microtubule. Taking into account this point, the MIP hypothesis was toned down and we now discuss alternative hypothesis concerning these results; See discussion lines 490-497

13) SEM image is not suitable to explain internal structure (line 317-323).

We agree with the reviewers and changes were made accordingly. See lines 354-357

Minor comments

1) In main text, supplementary figures are cited "Supp Figure". And the corresponding legends are written in "Appendix - Figure". Please unify them.

Done Labelled now “Figure X-figure supplement Y”

2) Line 159, "exon 9/19" is not clear.

We have written now exons 9 and indicated earlier that the gene contains 19 exons

3) Line 188, "positive cells" are vague.

Positive was changed by “fluorescent”

4) Representative TUNEL assay image for knockout testes were not shown in Supp Figure 3B.

It was a mistake now Figure 2-figure supplement 2C

5) Please provide full description for "IF" and "AB" when described first.

Done

6) Line 262, It is unclear what is "main piece".

Changed to principal piece

7) Line 340, Although the "stage" information might be applicable, this is information for "seminiferous tubule" rather than "spermatid". This reviewer suggests to provide step information rather than stage information.

We agree with the reviewer that there was a confusion between “stage” and “step”. We change to step spermatids

8) Line 342, Step 1 is not correct in here.

OK corrected. now steps 13-15 spermatids

9) Line 803, "C." is duplicated.

Removed

10) Figure 3A, it will be good to mark the defective nuclei which are described in figure legends.

These cells are now indicated by white arrow heads

11) Figure 5, Please provide what MT stands for.

Now explained in the legend of figure 5

12) Figure 6. Author requires clear blot images for C. In addition, Panel B information is not correct. If the blot was performed using HA antibody, then how "WT" lane shows bands rather than "HA" bands?

The reviewer is correct. It was a mistake; The figure was recomposed and improved.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Overall, editing oversights are present throughout the manuscript, which has made the review process quite difficult. Some repetitive figures can be removed to streamline to grasp the overall story easier. Some claims are not fully supported by evidence that need to tone down. Some figures not referenced in the main text need to be mentioned at least once.

All figures are now referenced in the text

Major comments:

1) 163-164 - Please clarify the claim that there is going to be an absence of the protein or nonfunctional protein, especially for the patient with a deletion that could generate a truncated protein at two third size of the full-length protein. Similarly, 35% of the protein level is present for the patient with a nonsense mutation. Some in silico structural analysis or analysis of conserved domains would be beneficial to support these claims.

Both mutations are predicted to produce a premature stop codons: p.Arg362Ter and p.Arg704serfsTer7, leading either to the complete absence of the protein in case of non-sense mediated mRNA decay or to the production of a truncated protein missing almost two third or one fourth of the protein respectively. CCDC146 is very well conserved throughout evolution (Figure supplementary 1), including the 3’ end of the protein which contains a large coil-coil domain (Figure 1B). In view of the very high degree of conservation, it is most likely that the 3’ end of the protein, absent in both subjects, is critical for the CCDC146 function and hence that both mutations are deleterious. This explanation is now added to the discussion. see lines 439-448

2) 173, 423 - Please clearly state a rationale of your mouse model design (i.e., why a mouse model that recapitulate human mutation is not generated) as the truncations identified in human patients are located further towards the C-terminus, and it is not clear whether truncated proteins are present, and if so, they could still be functional. Basically, the current mouse model supports the causality of the human mutations.

This is an important question, which goes beyond the scope of this article, and raises the question of how to confirm the pathogenicity of mutations identified by high-throughput sequencing. The production of KO or KI animals is an important tool to help confirm one’ suspicions but the first element to take into consideration is the nature of the genetic data.

Here we had two patients with homozygous truncating variants. In human, it is well established that the presence of premature stop codons usually induces non-sense mediated mRNA decay (NMD), inducing the complete absence of the protein or a strong reduction in protein production. In the unlikely absence of NMD in our two patients, the identified variants would induce the production of proteins missing 60% and 30% of their C terminal part. Often (and it is particularly true for structural proteins) the production of abnormal proteins is more deleterious than the complete absence of the protein (and it is most likely the purpose of NMD, to limit the production of abnormal “toxic” proteins). For these reasons, to try to recapitulate the most likely consequences of the human variants, without risking obtaining an even more severe effect, we decided to introduce a stop codon in the first exon in order to remove the totality of the protein in the KO mice.

The second element is to interpret the phenotype of the KO animals. Here, the human sperm phenotype is perfectly recapitulated in the KO mice.

Overall, we have strong genetic arguments in human and the reproduction of the phenotype in KO mice confirming the pathogenicity of the variants identified in men.

This point is now discussed see lines 433-438

3) Figure 6A - the labelling is misleading as it seems to suggest that the specific cells were isolated from the testes for RT-PCR.

We have modified the labelling to avoid any confusion.

Figure 6B -Signal of HA-tag is shown in WT, not in transgenic. Please check the order of the labels. Figure 6C - This blot is NOT a publication-quality figure. The bands are very difficult to observe, especially in lane D18. Because it is one of the important data of this study, replacing this figure is a must.

The figure has been completely remade, including new results. See new figure 6. Figure 6C was suppressed.

4) Supplementary fig 6 is also not a publication-level figure, and the top part seems largely unnecessary (already in the figure legend).

The figure has been completely remade as well (now Figure 6-Figure Supplement 1).

5) 261/267- The conclusion that mitochondrial staining in the flagellum (in both mice and humans) is non-specific is not convincing. Supplementary fig 8 shows that the signal from secondary only IF possibly extends beyond the midpiece - but it is hard to determine as no mitochondrial-specific staining is present. Either need to tone down the conclusion or provide supporting experimental evidence.

First, to avoid the issue of the non-specificity of secondary antibodies, we performed a new set of IF experiments using an HA Tag Alexa Fluor® 488-conjugated Antibody (anti-HA-AF488-C Ab) on WT and HA-CCDC146 sperm. These results are now presented in figure 7 panel A (new). The specificity of the signal obtained with the anti-HA-AF488-C Ab on mouse spermatozoa was evaluated by performing a statistical study of the density of dots in the principal piece of the flagellum from HA-CCDC146 and WT sperm. These results are now presented in figure 7 panel B (new). This study was carried out by analyzing 58 WT spermatozoa and 65 CCDC146 spermatozoa coming from 3 WT and 3 KI males. We found a highly significant difference, with a p-value <0.0001, showing that the signal obtained on spermatozoa expressing the tagged protein is highly specific. We have added a paragraph in the MM section to describe the process of image analysis. We finally present new images obtained by ExM showing no staining in the midpiece (figure 7C new). Altogether, these results demonstrate unequivocally the presence of the protein in the flagellum. These experiments are now described lines 271-279

Second, we provide new images of the signal obtained with secondary Abs only that shows more clearly that the secondary Ab gave a non-specific staining (Figure 10-Figure supplement 1B). This point is discussed lines 503-511

6) Figure 9 A - Please relate the white line to Fig. 9B label in X-axis. The information from Fig 9A+D and 9E+F are redundant. The main text nor the figure legends indicate why these specific two sperm were chosen for quantification and demonstrating the outcomes. One of them could be moved to supplementary information or removed, or the two could be combined.

As suggested by the reviewer, we have combined the two sperm to demonstrate that CCDC146 staining is mostly located on microtubule doublets. Moreover, the figure was recomposed to make it clearer.

Minor comments:

All of the supplementary figures are referred to as Supp Fig X in the text, however, they are actually titled Appendix - Figure X. This needs to be consistent.

The figures are now referred as figure supplement x in both text and figures

Line 125 - edit spacing.

We think this issue (long internet link) will be curated later and more efficiently by the journal, during the step of formatting necessary for publication.

144 - With which to study  with which we studied?

We made the change as suggested.

151 - Supp Fig 1 - the text says that the gene is highly transcribed in human and mouse testes, but the information in the figure states that the level in mouse tissues is "medium"

We have corrected this mistake in the text; See line 176

165 - The two mutations are most likely deleterious. Please specifically mention what analyses done to predict the deleterious nature to support these claims.

Both variants, c.1084C>T and c.2112del, are extremely rare in the general population with a reported allele frequency of 6.5x10-5 and 6.5x10-06 respectively in gnomAD v3. Moreover, these variants are annotated with a high impact on the protein structure (MoBiDiC prioritization algorithm (MPA) score = 10, DOI: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2018.03.009) and predicted to induce each a premature termination codon, p.(Arg362Ter) and p.(Arg704SerfsTer7) respectively, leading to the production of a truncated protein. This information is now given line 164-169

196-200/Figure 4 - As serum starved cells/basal body (B) are not mentioned in the main text, as is, Fig 4A would be sufficient/is relevant to the text. Please make the text reflect the contents of the whole figure, or re/move to supplement.

We agree with the reviewer that the full description of the figure should be in the text. We added two sentences to describe figure 4B see lines 217-218.

224 - spermatozoa (plural) fits better here, not spermatozoon

OK changed accordingly

236 - According to the figure legend, 6B is only showing data from the epididymal sperm, not postnatal time points; should be referencing 6C. Alignment of Marker label

As indicated above, the figure has been completely remade, including new results. See new figure 6. Figure 6C was suppressed. The corresponding text was changed accordingly see lines 249-266

255-256 - Referenced figure 7B3, however, 7B3 only shows tubulin staining, so no CCDC146 can be observed. Did authors mean to reference fig 7B as a whole?

Sorry for this mistake. We agree and the text is now figure 8B6 (figure 7 and 8 were switched)

305 - "of tubules" - I presume it is meant to be microtubules?

Yes; The text was changed as suggested

317-321 - a diagram of HTCA would be useful here

We have added a reference where HTCA diagram is available see line 363. Moreover, a TEM view of HTCA is presented figure 12A

322/Fig 11A - an arrow denoting the damage might be useful, as A1 and A3 look similar. The size of the marker bar is missing. Please update the information on figure legend.

Concerning, the comparison between A1 and A3, the take home message is that there is a great variability in the morphological damages. This point is now underlined in the corresponding text. We updated the size of the marker bar as suggested (200 nm). See line 365-367

323 - Please mark where capitulum is in the figure

Capitulum was changed for nucleus

Since Fig 11B2 is not referenced in the main text, it does not seem to add anything to the data, and could be removed/moved to supplement.

We added a sentence to describe figure 11B2 line 370

342-343 - manchette in step I is not seen clearly - the figure needs to be annotated better. However, DPY19L2 is absent in step I in the KO, but the main text does not reflect that - why is that?

We do not understand the remark of the reviewer “manchette in step I is not seen clearly”. The figure shows clearly the manchette (red signal) in both WT and KO (Figure 13 D1/D2).

For steps 13-15 WT spermatids, the size of the manchette decreases and become undetectable. In KO spermatids, the shrinkage of the manchette is hampered and in contrast continue to expand (Figure 13D2). We also provide a new Figure 13-figure supplement 1 for other illustrations of very long manchettes and a statistical analysis. In the meantime, the acrosome is strongly remodeled, as shown in figure 16-new, with detached acrosome (panel H). This morphological defect may induce a loss of the DPY19L2 staining (Figure 13 D2 stage I-III). This explanation is now inserted in the text line 396399

Figure 15B and 15C only show KO, corresponding images from the WT should be present for comparison.

WT images are now provided in Figure 1-figure supplement 1 new

Figure 12 - Figure 12 - JM?.

JM was removed. It does not mean anything

Figure 12C and Supplementary Fig 10 - structures need to be labelled, as it is unclear what is where

Done

338 - text mentions step III, but only sperm from step VII are shown in Figure 13

As suggested by reviewer 3, we changed stage by step. The text was modified to take into account this remark see lines 388-396

360 - This is likely supposed to say Supp Figure 11E-G, not 13??

Yes, it is a mistake. Corrected

388 Typo "in a in a".

Yes, it is a mistake. Corrected

820 - Fig 3 legend - in KO spermatid nuclei were elongated - could this be labelled by arrows? I am not convinced this phenotype is that different from the WT.

In fact, the nuclei of elongating KO spermatids are elongated and also very thin, a shape not observed in the WT; We have added arrow heads and modified the text to indicate this point line 200.

836 - Figure 5 legend says that in yellow is centrin, but that is not true for 5A, where the figure shows labelling for y-tubulin (presumably, according to the figure itself).

We have modified the text of the legend to take into account the remark

837- 5A supposedly corresponds to synchronized HEK293T cells, but the reasoning behind using synchronized cells is not mentioned at all in the main text; furthermore, how this synchronization is achieved is not explained in materials and methods (serum starvation? Thymidine block?).

Yes, figure 5A was obtained with synchronized cells. We have added one paragraph in the MM section. For cell synchronization experiments, cells underwent S-phase blockade with thymidine (5 mM, SigmaAldrich) for 17 h followed by incubation in a control culture medium for 5 h, then a second blockade at the G2-M transition with nocodazole (200 nM, Sigma-Aldrich) for 12 h. Cells were then fixed with cold methanol at different times for IF labelling. See line 224 for changes made in the result section and lines 700-704 for changes made in the MM section.

845- figure legend says that the RT-PCR was done on CCDC146-HA tagged mice, but the main text does not reflect that.

We made changes and the description of the KI is now presented before (line 240) the RT-PCR experiment (line 257).

949 - it is likely supposed to say A2, not B1 (B1 does not exist in Fig 15)

Yes, it is a mistake. Corrected

971 - Appendix Fig 3 legend - I believe that the description for B and C are swapped.

Yes, it is a mistake. Corrected

Furthermore, some questions to address in A would be: Which cross sections were from which animal/points? How many per animal? Were they always in the same location?

Yes, we have a protocol for arranging and orienting all testes in the same way during the paraffin embedding phase. The cross-sections are therefore not taken at random, and we can compare sections from the same part of the testis. The number of animals was already indicated in the figure legend (see line 1128)

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

1) There are a number of grammatical and orthographical errors in the text. Careful proofreading should be performed.

We have sent the manuscript to a professional proofreader

2) The author should also check for redundancies between the introduction and the discussion.

The discussion has modified to take into account reviewers’ remarks. Nevertheless, we did our best to avoid redundancies between introduction and discussion.

3) Can the authors provide a rationale why they have chosen to tag their gene with an HA tag for localisation? One would rather think of fluorescent proteins or a Halo tag.

Because the functional domains of the protein are unknown, adding a fluorescent protein of 24 KDa may interfere with both the localization and the function of CCDC146. For this reason, we choose a small tag of only 1.1 KDa, to limit as such as possible the risk of interfering with the structure of the protein. This rational is now indicated in the manuscript lines 251-254. It is worth to note, that the tagged-strain shows no sperm defect, demonstrating that the HA-tag does not interfere with CCDC146 function.

4) In the abstract, line 53, "provide evidence" is not the right term for something that is just suggestive. The term "suggests" would be more appropriate.

The text was modified to take into account this remark

5) Line 74: "genetic deficiency" sounds strange here, do the authors mean simply "mutation"?

Infertility may be due to several genetic deficiency such as chromosomal defects (XXY (Klinefelter syndrome)), microdeletion of the Y chromosome or mutations in a single gene. Therefore, mutation is too restrictive. Nevertheless, we modified the sentence which is now “…or a genetic disorder including chromosomal or single gene deficiencies”

6) Lines 163-164: the authors describe the mutations (premature stop mutations) and say that they could either lead to complete absence of the gene product, or the expression of a truncated protein. Did they test this, for example, with some immuno blot analyses?

As stated above, unfortunately, we were unable to verify the presence of RNA-decay in these patients for lack of biological material.

7) Line 184 and Fig 2E: the sperm head morphologies should be quantitatively assessed.

We provide now a full statistical analysis of the observed defects: see new panel in Figure 2 F

8) Fig 3: The annotation should be more precise - KO certainly means CDCC146-KO. The colours of the IH panels is different, which attracts attention but is clearly a colour-adjustment artefact. Colours should be adjusted for the panels to look comparable. It would be also helpful to add arrowheads into the figure to point at the phenotypes that are highlighted in the text.

We have added Ccdc146 KO in all figures. We have added arrow heads to point out the spermatids showing a thin and elongated nucleus. Concerning adjustment of colors, we attempted to make images of panel B comparable. See new figure 3.

9) Fig 6A: the authors use RT PCR to determine expression dynamics of their gene of interested, and use actin (apparently) as control. However, actin and CDCC146 expression levels follow the same trend. How is the interpreted?

The reviewer did not understand the figure. The orange bars do not correspond to actin expression and the grey bars to Ccdc146 expression but both bars represent the mRNA expression levels of Ccdc146 relative to Actb (orange) and Hprt (grey) expression in CCDC146-HA mouse pups’ testes. We tested two housekeeping genes as reference to be sure that our results were not distorted by an unstable expression of a housekeeping gene. We did not see significant difference between both house keeping genes. Actin was not used.

10) In line 235, the authors suggest posttranslational modifications of their protein as potential cause for a slightly different migration in SDS PAGE as predicted from the theoretical molecular weight. This is not necessarily the case, some proteins do migrate just differently as predicted.

We have changed the text accordingly and now provide alternative explanation for the slightly different migration. See lines 258-259

11) The annotation of Fig 6 panels is problematic. First, why do the authors write "Laemmli" as description of the gel? It would be more helpful to write what is loaded on the gel, such as "sperm". Second, in panels B and C it would be helpful to add the antibodies used. It is not clear why there is a signal in the WT lane of panel B, but not in the HA lane (supposing an anti-HA antibody is used: why has WT a specific HA band?). In panel C, it is not clear why the blot that has so beautifully shown a single band in panel B suddenly gives such a bad labelling. Can the authors explain this? Also, they cut off the blot, likely because to too much background, but this is bad practice as full blots should be shown. In the current state, the panel C does not allow any clear conclusion. To make it conclusive, it must be repeated.

Several mistakes were present in this figure. This figure was recomposed. The WB on testicular extract was suppressed and we now present a new WB allowing to compare the presence of CCDC146 in the flagella and head fractions from WT and HA-CCDC146 sperm. Using an anti-HA Ab, we demonstrate that in epididymal sperm the protein is localized in the flagella only. See new figure 6. The corresponding text was changed accordingly.

12) The authors have raised an HA-knockin mouse for CDCC146, which they explained by the unavailability of specific antibodies. However, in Fig 7, they use a CDCC146 antibody. Can they clarify?

The commercial Ab work for HUMAN CCDC146 but not for MOUSE CCDC146. We have added few words to make the situation clearer, we have added the following information “the commercial Ab works for human CCDC146 only”. See line 240

13) In Fig 7A (line 258), the authors hypothesise that they stain mitochondria - why not test this directly by co-staining with mitochondria markers?

We chose another solution to resolve this question:

To avoid the issue of the non-specificity of secondary antibodies, we performed a new set of IF experiments using an HA Tag Alexa Fluor® 488-conjugated Antibody (anti-HA-AF488-C Ab) on WT and HA-CCDC146 sperm. These results are now presented in figure 7 panel A (new). The specificity of the signal obtained with the anti-HA-AF488-C Ab on mouse spermatozoa was evaluated by performing a statistical study of the density of dots in the principal piece of the flagellum from HA-CCDC146 and WT sperm. These results are now presented in figure 7 panel B (new). This study was carried out by analyzing 58 WT spermatozoa and 65 CCDC146 spermatozoa coming from 3 WT and 3 KI males. We found a highly significant difference, with a p-value <0.0001, showing that the signal obtained on spermatozoa expressing the tagged protein is highly specific. We have added a paragraph in the MM section to describe the process of image analysis. We finally present new images obtained by ExM showing no staining in the midpiece (figure 7C new). Altogether, these results demonstrate unequivocally the presence of the protein in the whole flagellum.

14) It seems that in both, Fig 7 and 8, the authors use expansion microscopy to localise CDCC146 in sperm tails. However, the staining differs substantially between the two figures. How is this explained?

In figure 8 we used the commercial Ab in human sperm, whereas in figure 7 we used the anti-HA Abs in mouse sperm. Because the antibodies do not target the same part of the CCDC146 protein (the tag is placed at the N-terminus of the protein, and the HPA020082 Ab targets the last 130 amino acids of the Cter), their accessibility to the antigenic site could be different. However, it is important to note that both antibodies target the flagellum. This explanation is now inserted see lines 304-312

15) Fig 8D and line 274: the authors do a fractionation, but only show the flagella fraction. Why?

Showing all fractions of their experiment would have underpinned the specific enrichment of CDCC146 in the flagella fraction, which is what they aim to show. Actually, given the absence of control proteins, the fact that the band in the flagellar fraction appears to be weaker than in total sperm, one could even conclude that there is more CDCC146 in another (not analysed) fraction of this experiment. Thus, the experiment as it stands is incomplete and does not, as the authors claim, confirm the flagellar localisation of the protein.

We agree with the reviewer’s remark. We provide now new results showing both flagella and nuclei fractions in new figure 6A. This experiment is presented lines 253-256

16) Line 283, Fig 9D,F: The description of the microtubules in this experiment is not easy to understand. Do the authors mean to say that the labelling shows that the protein is associated with doublet microtubules, but not with the two central microtubules? They should try to find a clearer way to explain their result.

As suggested by reviewer 2, we have changed the figure to make it clearer. The text was changed accordingly. See new figure 9 and new corresponding legend lines 1006.

17) Fig 9G - how often could the authors observe this? Why is the axoneme frayed? Does this happen randomly, or did the authors apply a specific treatment?

Yes, it happens randomly during the fixation process.

18) Line 300 and Fig 10A - the authors talk about the 90-kDa band, but do say anything about what they think this band is representing.

We have now added the following sentence lines 340-342: “This band may correspond to proteolytic fragment of CCDC146, the solubilization of microtubules by sarkosyl may have made CCDC146 more accessible to endogenous proteases.”

19) Fig 11A, lines 321-322: the authors write that the connecting piece is severely damaged. This is not obvious for somebody who does not work in sperm. Perhaps the authors could add some arrow heads to point out the defects, and briefly describe them in the text.

We realized from your remark that our message was not clear. In fact, there is a great variability in the morphological damages of the HTCA. For instance, the HTCA of Ccdc146 KO sperm presented in figure 10A2 is quite normal, whereas that in figure 10A4 is completely distorted. This point is now underlined in the corresponding text. See lines 367-369

We also added the size of the marker bar (200 nm), which were missing in the figure’s legend.

20) Line 323: it will be important to name which tubulin antibody has been used to identify centrioles, as they are heavily posttranslationally modified.

The different types of anti-tubulin Abs are described in the corresponding figure’s legend

21) Fig 11B - phenotypes must be quantified to make these observations meaningful.

We agree that a quantification would improve the message. However, testicular sperm are obtained by enzymatic separation of spermatogenic cells and the number of testicular sperm are very low. Moreover, not all sperm are stained. Taking these two points into account, it seems to us that quantification could be difficult to analyze. For this reason, the quantification was not done; however, it is important to note that these defects were not observed in WT sperm, demonstrating that these defects are cased by the lack of CCDC146. We have added a sentence to underline this point; See lines 374-375

22) Line 329: Figure 12AB - is this a typo - should it read Figure 12B?

We have split the panel A in A1 and A2 and changed the text accordingly. See line 378

23) Why are there not wildtype controls in Fig 12B, C?

We provide now as Figure 12-figure supplement 1, a control image for fig 12B. For figure 12C, the emergence of the flagellum from the distal centriole in WT is already shown in Fig 12A1

24) Fig 13: the authors write that the manchette is "clearly longer and wider than in WT cells" (lines 342-343). How can they claim this without quantitative data?

We now provide a statistical analysis of the length of the manchette. See figure 13-figure supplement 1A. We also provide a new a new image illustrating the length of the manchette in Ccdc146 KO spermatids; See Figure 13-figure supplement 1B.

Author Response

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Koumoundourou et al., identify a pathway downstream of Bcl11b that controls synapse morphology and plasticity of hippocampal mossy fiber synapses. Using an elegant combination of in vivo, ex vivo, and in vitro approaches, the authors build on their previous work that indicated C1ql2 as a functional target of Bcl11b (De Bruyckere et al., 2018). Here, they examine the functional implications of C1ql2 at MF synapses in Bcl11b cKO mice and following C1ql2 shRNA. The authors find that Bcl11b KO and shRNA against C1ql2 significantly reduces the recruitment of synaptic vesicles and impairs LTP at MF synapses. Importantly, the authors test a role for the previously identified C1ql2 binding partner, exon 25b-containing Nrxn3 (Matsuda et al., 2016), as relevant at MF synapses to maintain synaptic vesicle recruitment. To test this, the authors developed a K262E C1ql2 mutant that disrupts binding to Nrxn3. Curiously, while Bcl11b KO and C1ql2 KD largely phenocopy (reduced vesicle recruitment and impaired LTP), only vesicle recruitment is dependent on C1ql2-Nrxn3 interactions. These findings provide new insight into the functional role of C1ql2 at MF synapses. While the authors convincingly demonstrate a role for C1ql2-Nrxn3(25b+) interaction for vesicle recruitment and a Nrxn3(25b+)independent role for C1ql2 in LTP, the underlying mechanisms remain inconclusive. Additionally, a discussion of how these findings relate to previous work on C1ql2 at mossy fiber synapses and how the findings contribute to the biology of Nrxn3 would increase the interpretability of this work.

As suggested by reviewer #1, we extended our discussion of previous work on C1ql2 and additionally discussed the biology of Nrxn3 and how our work relates to it. Moreover, we extended our mechanistic analysis of how Bcl11b/C1ql2/Nrxn3 pathway controls synaptic vesicle recruitment as well as LTP (please see also response to reviewer #2 points 5 and 8 and reviewer #3 point 4 of public reviews below for detailed discussion).

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This manuscript describes experiments that further investigate the actions of the transcription factor Bcl11b in regulating mossy fiber (MF) synapses in the hippocampus. Prior work from the same group had demonstrated that loss of Bcl11b results in loss of MF synapses as well as a decrease in LTP. Here the authors focus on a target of Bcl11b a secreted synaptic organizer C1ql2 which is almost completely lost in Bcl11b KO. Viral reintroduction of C1ql2 rescues the synaptic phenotypes, whereas direct KD of C1ql2 recapitulates the Bcl1 phenotype. C1ql2 itself interacts directly with Nrxn3 and replacement with a binding deficient mutant C1q was not able to rescue the Bcl11b KO phenotype. Overall there are some interesting observations in the study, however there are also some concerns about the measures and interpretation of data.

The authors state that they used a differential transcriptomic analysis to screen for candidate targets of Bcl11b, yet they do not present any details of this screen. This should be included and at the very least a table of all DE genes included. It is likely that many other genes are also regulated by Bcl11b so it would be important to the reader to see the rationale for focusing attention on C1ql2 in this study.

The transcriptome analysis mentioned in our manuscript was published in detail in our previous study (De Bruyckere et al., 2018), including chromatin-immunoprecipitation that revealed C1ql2 as a direct transcriptional target of Bcl11b. Upon revision of the manuscript, we made sure that this was clearly stated within the main text module to avoid future confusion. In the same publication (De Bruyckere et al., 2018), we discuss in detail several identified candidate genes such as Sema5b, Ptgs2, Pdyn and Penk as putative effectors of Bcl11b in the structural and functional integrity of MFS. C1ql2 has been previously demonstrated to be almost exclusively expressed in DG neurons and localized to the MFS.

There it bridges the pre- and post-synaptic sides through interaction with Nrxn3 and KAR subunits, respectively, and regulates synaptic function (Matsuda et al., 2016). Taken together, C1ql2 was a very good candidate to study as a potential effector downstream of Bcl11b in the maintenance of MFS structure and function. However, as our data reveal, not all Bcl11b mutant phenotypes were rescued by C1ql2 (see supplementary figures 2d-f of revised manuscript). We expect additional candidate genes, identified in our transcriptomic screen, to act downstream of Bcl11b in the control of MFS.

All viral-mediated expression uses AAVs which are known to ablate neurogenesis in the DG (Johnston DOI: 10.7554/eLife.59291) through the ITR regions and leads to hyperexcitability of the dentate. While it is not clear how this would impact the measurements the authors make in MF-CA3 synapses, this should be acknowledged as a potential caveat in this study.

We agree with reviewer #2 and are aware that it has been demonstrated that AAV-mediated gene expression ablates neurogenesis in the DG. To avoid potential interference of the AAVs with the interpretability of our phenotypes, we made sure during the design of the study that all of our control groups were treated in the same way as our groups of interest, and were, thus, injected with control AAVs. Moreover, the observed phenotypes were first described in Bcl11b mutants that were not injected with AVVs (De Bruyckere et al., 2018). Finally, we thoroughly examined the individual components of the proposed mechanism (rescue of C1ql2 expression, over-expression of C1ql3 and introduction of mutant C1ql2 in Bcl11b cKOs, KD of C1ql2 in WT mice, and Nrxn123 cKO) and reached similar conclusions. Together, this strongly supports that the observed phenotypes occur as a result of the physiological function of the proteins involved in the described mechanism and not due to interference of the AAVs with these biological processes. We have now addressed this point in the main text module of the revised ms.

The authors claim that the viral re-introduction "restored C1ql2 protein expression to control levels. This is misleading given that the mean of the data is 2.5x the control (Figure 1d and also see Figure 6c). The low n and large variance are a problem for these data. Moreover, they are marked ns but the authors should report p values for these. At the least, this likely large overexpression and variability should be acknowledged. In addition, the use of clipped bands on Western blots should be avoided. Please show the complete protein gel in primary figures of supplemental information.

We agree with reviewer #2 that C1ql2 expression after its re-introduction in Bcl11b cKO mice was higher compared to controls and that this should be taken into consideration for proper interpretation of the data. To address this, based also on the suggestion of reviewer #3 point 1 below, we overexpressed C1ql2 in DG neurons of control animals. We found no changes in synaptic vesicle organization upon C1ql2 over-expression compared to controls. This further supports that the observed effect upon rescue of C1ql2 expression in Bcl11b cKOs is due to the physiological function of C1ql2 and not as result of the overexpression. These data are included in supplementary figure 2g-j and are described in detail in the results part of the revised manuscript.

Additionally, we looked at the effects of C1ql2 overexpression in Bcl11b cKO DGN on basal synaptic transmission. We plotted fEPSP slopes versus fiber volley amplitudes, measured in slices from rescue animals, as we had previously done for the control and Bcl11b cKO (Author response image 1a). Although regression analysis revealed a trend towards steeper slopes in the rescue mice (Author response image 1a and b), the observation did not prove to be statistically significant, indicating that C1ql2 overexpression in Bcl11b cKO animals does not strongly alter basal synaptic transmission at MFS. Overall, our previous and new findings support that the observed effects of the C1ql2 rescue are not caused by the artificially elevated levels of C1ql2, as compared to controls, but are rather a result of the physiological function of C1ql2.

Following the suggestion of reviewer #2 all western blot clipped bands were exchanged for images of the full blot. This includes figures 1c, 4c, 6b and supplementary figure 2g of the revised manuscript. P-value for Figure 1d has now been included.

Author response image 1.

C1ql2 reintroduction in Bcl11b cKO DGN does not significantly alter basal synaptic transmission at mossy fiber-CA3 synapses. a Input-output curves generated by plotting fEPSP slope against fiber volley amplitude at increasing stimulation intensities. b Quantification of regression line slopes for input-output curves for all three conditions. Control+EGFP, 35 slices from 16 mice; Bcl11b cKO+EGFP, 32 slices from 14 mice; Bcl11b cKO+EGFP-2A-C1ql2, 22 slices from 11 mice. The data are presented as means, error bars represent SEM. Kruskal-Wallis test (non-parametric ANOVA) followed by Dunn’s post hoc pairwise comparisons. p=0.106; ns, not significant.

Measurement of EM micrographs: As prior work suggested that MF synapse structure is disrupted the authors should report active zone length as this may itself affect "synapse score" defined by the number of vesicles docked. More concerning is that the example KO micrographs seem to have lost all the densely clustered synaptic vesicles that are away from the AZ in normal MF synapses e.g. compare control and KO terminals in Fig 2a or 6f or 7f. These terminals look aberrant and suggest that the important measure is not what is docked but what is present in the terminal cytoplasm that normally makes up the reserve pool. This needs to be addressed with further analysis and modifications to the manuscript.

As requested by reviewer #2 we analyzed and reported in the revised manuscript the active zone length. We found that the active zone length remained unchanged in all conditions (control/Bcl11b cKO/C1ql2 rescue, WT/C1ql2 KD, control/K262E and control/Nrxn123 cKO), strengthening our results that the described Bcl11b/C1ql2/Nrxn3 mechanism is involved in the recruitment of synaptic vesicles. These data have been included in supplementary figures 2c, 4h, 5f and 6g and are described in the results part of the revised manuscript.

We want to clarify that the synapse score is not defined by the number of docked vesicles to the plasma membrane. The synapse score, which is described in great detail in our materials and methods part and has been previously published (De Bruyckere et al., 2018), rates MFS based on the number of synaptic vesicles and their distance from the active zone and was designed according to previously described properties of the vesicle pools at the MFS. The EM micrographs refer to the general misdistribution of SV in the proximity of MFS. Upon revision of the manuscript, we made sure that this was clearly stated in the main text module to avoid further confusion.

The study also presents correlated changes in MF LTP in Bcl11b KO which are rescued by C1ql2 expression. It is not clear whether the structural and functional deficits are causally linked and this should be made clearer in the manuscript. It is also not apparent why this functional measure was chosen as it is unlikely that C1ql2 plays a direct role in presynaptic plasticity mechanisms that are through a cAMP/ PKA pathway and likely disrupted LTP is due to dysfunctional synapses rather than a specific LTP effect.

The inclusion of functional experiments in this and our previous study (de Bruyckere et al., 2018) was first and foremost intended to determine whether the structural alterations observed at MFB disrupt MFS signaling. From the signaling properties we tested, basal synaptic transmission (this study) and short-term potentiation (de Bruyckere et al., 2018) were unaltered by Bcl11b KO, whereas MF LTP was found to be abolished (de Bruyckere et al., 2018). Indeed, because MF LTP largely depends on presynaptic mechanisms, including the redistribution of the readily releasable pool and recruitment of new active zones (Orlando et al., 2021; Vandael et al., 2020), it appears to be particularly sensitive to the specific structural changes we observed. We therefore believe that it is valuable information that MF LTP is affected in Bcl11b cKO animals - it conveys a direct proof for the functional importance of the observed morphological alterations, while basic transmission remains largely normal. Furthermore, it subsequently provided a functional marker for testing whether the reintroduction of C1ql2 in Bcl11b cKO animals or the KD of C1ql2 in WT animals can functionally recapitulate the control or the Bcl11b KO phenotype, respectively.

We fully agree with the reviewer that C1ql2 is unlikely to directly participate in the cAMP/PKA pathway and that the ablation of C1ql2 likely disrupts MF LTP through an alternative mode of action. Our original wording in the paragraph describing the results of the forskolin-induced LTP experiment might have overstressed the importance of the cAMP pathway. We have now rephrased that paragraph to better describe the main idea behind the forskolin experiment, namely to circumvent the initial Ca2+ influx in order to test whether deficient presynaptic Ca2+ channel/KAR signaling might be responsible for the loss of LTP in Bcl11b cKO. The results are strongly indicative of a downstream mechanism and further investigation is needed to determine the specific mechanisms by which C1ql2 regulates MFLTP, especially in light of the result that C1ql2.K262E rescued LTP, while it was unable to rescue the SV recruitment at the MF presynapse. This raises the possibility that C1ql2 can influence MF-LTP through additional, yet uncharacterized mechanisms, independent of SV recruitment. As such, a causal link between the structural and functional deficits remains tentative and we have now emphasized that point by adding a respective sentence to the discussion of our revised manuscript. Nevertheless, we again want to stress that the main rationale behind the LTP experiments was to assess the functional significance of structural changes at MFS and not to elucidate the mechanisms by which MF LTP is established.

The authors should consider measures that might support the role of Bcl11b targets in SV recruitment during the depletion of synapses or measurements of the readily releasable pool size that would complement their findings in structural studies.

We fully agree that functional measurements of the readily releasable pool (RRP) size would be a valuable addition to the reported redistribution of SV in structural studies. We have, in fact, attempted to use high-frequency stimulus trains in both field and single-cell recordings (details on single-cell experiments are described in the response to point 8) to evaluate potential differences in RRP size between the control and Bcl11b KO (Figure for reviewers 2a and b). Under both recording conditions we see a trend towards lower values of the intersection between a regression line of late responses and the y-axis. This could be taken as an indication of slightly smaller RRP size in Bcl11b mutant animals compared to controls. However, due to several technical reasons we are extremely cautious about drawing such far-reaching conclusions based on these data. At most, they suffice to conclude that the availability of release-ready vesicles in the KO is likely not dramatically smaller than in the control.

The primary issue with using high-frequency stimulus trains for RRP measurements at MFS is the particularly low initial release probability (Pr) at these synapses. This means that a large number of stimulations is required to deplete the RRP. As the RRP is constantly replenished, it remains unclear when steady state responses are reached (reviewed by Kaeser and Regehr, 2017). This is clearly visible in our single-cell recordings (Author response image 2b), which were additionally complicated by prominent asynchronous release at later stages of the stimulus train and by a large variability in the shapes of cumulative amplitude curves between cells. In contrast, while the cumulative amplitude curves for field potential recordings do reach a steady state (Author response image 2a), field potential recordings in this context are not a reliable substitute for single cell or, in the case of MFB, singlebouton recordings. Postsynaptic cells in field potential recordings are not clamped, meaning that the massive release of glutamate due to continuous stimulation depolarizes the postsynaptic cells and reduces the driving force for Na+, irrespective of depletion of the RRP. This is supported by the fact that we consistently observed a recovery of fEPSP amplitudes later in the trains where RRP had presumably been maximally depleted. In summary, high-frequency stimulus trains at the field potential level are not a valid and established technique for estimating RRP size at MFS.

Specialized laboratories have used highly advanced techniques, such as paired recordings between individual MFB and postsynaptic CA3 pyramidal cells, to estimate the RRP size of MFB (Vandael et al., 2020). These approaches are outside the scope of our present study which, while elucidating functional changes following Bcl11b depletion and C1ql2 rescue, does not aim to provide a high-end biophysical analysis of the presynaptic mechanisms involved.

Author response image 2.

Estimation of RRP size using high-frequency stimulus trains at mossy fiber-CA3 synapses. a Results from field potential recordings. Cumulative fEPSP amplitude in response to a train of 40 stimuli at 100 Hz. All subsequent peak amplitudes were normalized to the amplitude of the first peak. Data points corresponding to putative steady state responses were fit with linear regression (RRP size is indirectly reflected by the intersection of the regression line with the yaxis). Control+EGFP, 6 slices from 5 mice; Bcl11b cKO+EGFP, 6 slices from 3 mice. b Results from single-cell recordings. Cumulative EPSC amplitude in response to a train of 15 stimuli at 50 Hz. The last four stimuli were fit with linear regression. Control, 5 cells from 4 mice; Bcl11b cKO, 3 cells from 3 mice. Note the shallow onset of response amplitudes and the subsequent frequency potentiation. Due to the resulting increase in slope at higher stimulus numbers, intersection with the y-axis occurs at negative values. The differences shown were not found to be statistically significant; unpaired t-test or Mann-Whitney U-test.

Bcl11b KO reduces the number of synapses, yet the I-O curve reported in Supp Fig 2 is not changed. How is that possible? This should be explained.

We agree with reviewer #2– this apparent discrepancy has indeed struck us as a counterintuitive result. It might be that synapses that are preferentially eliminated in Bcl11b cKO are predominantly silent or have weak coupling strength, such that their loss has only a minimal effect on basal synaptic transmission. Although perplexing, the result is fully supported by our single-cell data which shows no significant differences in MF EPSC amplitudes recorded from CA3 pyramidal cells between controls and Bcl11b mutants (Author response image 3; please see the response below for details and also our response to Reviewer #1 question 2).

Matsuda et al DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2016.04.001 previously reported that C1ql2 organizes MF synapses by aligning postsynaptic kainate receptors with presynaptic elements. As this may have consequences for the functional properties of MF synapses including their plasticity, the authors should report whether they see deficient postsynaptic glutamate receptor signaling in the Bcl11b KO and rescue in the C1ql2 re-expression.

We agree that the study by Matsuda et al. is of key importance for our present work. Although MF LTP is governed by presynaptic mechanisms and we previously did not see differences in short-term plasticity between the control and Bcl11b cKO (De Bruyckere et al., 2018), the clustering of postsynaptic kainate receptors by C1ql2 is indeed an important detail that could potentially alter synaptic signaling at MFS in Bcl11b KO. We, therefore, re-analyzed previously recorded single-cell data by performing a kinetic analysis on MF EPSCs recorded from CA3 pyramidal cells in control and Bcl11b cKO mice (Figure for reviewers 3a) to evaluate postsynaptic AMPA and kainate receptor responses in both conditions. We took advantage of the fact that AMPA receptors deactivate roughly 10 times faster than kainate receptors, allowing the contributions of the two receptors to mossy fiber EPSCs to be separated (Castillo et al., 1997 and reviewed by Lerma, 2003). We fit the decay phase of the second (larger) EPSC evoked by paired-pulse stimulation with a double exponential function, yielding a fast and a slow component, which roughly correspond to the fractional currents evoked by AMPA and kainate receptors, respectively. Analysis of both fast and slow time constants and the corresponding fractional amplitudes revealed no significant differences between controls and Bcl11b mutants (Figure for reviewers 3e-h), indicating that both AMPA and kainate receptor signaling is unaffected by the ablation of C1ql2 following Bcl11b KO.

Importantly, MF EPSC amplitudes evoked by the first and the second pulse (Author response image 3b), paired-pulse facilitation (Author response image 3c) and failure rates (Author response image 3d) were all comparable between controls and Bcl11b mutants. These results further corroborate our observations from field recordings that basal synaptic transmission at MFS is unaltered by Bcl11b KO.

We note that the results from single cell recordings regarding basal synaptic transmission merely confirm the observations from field potential recordings, and that the attempted measurement of RRP size at the single cell level was not successful. Thus, our single-cell data do not add new information about the mechanisms underlying the effects of Bcl11b-deficiency and we therefore decided not to report these data in the manuscript.

Author response image 3.

Basal synaptic transmission at mossy fiber-CA3 synapses is unaltered in Bcl11b cKO mice. a Representative average trace (20 sweeps) recorded from CA3 pyramidal cells in control and Bcl11b cKO mice at minimal stimulation conditions, showing EPSCs in response to paired-pulse stimulation (PPS) at an interstimulus interval of 40 ms. The signal is almost entirely blocked by the application of 2 μM DCG-IV (red). b Quantification of MF EPSC amplitudes in response to PPS for both the first and the second pulse. c Ratio between the amplitude of the second over the first EPSC. d Percentage of stimulation events resulting in no detectable EPSCs for the first pulse. Events <5 pA were considered as noise. e Fast decay time constant obtained by fitting the average second EPSC with the following double exponential function: I(t)=Afaste−t/τfast+Aslowe−t/τslow+C, where I is the recorded current amplitude after time t, Afast and Aslow represent fractional current amplitudes decaying with the fast (τfast) and slow (τslow) time constant, respectively, and C is the offset. Starting from the peak of the EPSC, the first 200 ms of the decaying trace were used for fitting. f Fractional current amplitude decaying with the fast time constant. g-h Slow decay time constant and fractional current amplitude decaying with the slow time constant. For all figures: Control, 8 cells from 4 mice; Bcl11b cKO, 8 cells from 6 mice. All data are presented as means, error bars indicate SEM. None of the differences shown were found to be statistically significant; Mann-Whitney U-test for nonnormally and unpaired t-test for normally distributed data.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Overall, this is a strong manuscript that uses multiple current techniques to provide specific mechanistic insight into prior discoveries of the contributions of the Bcl11b transcription factor to mossy fiber synapses of dentate gyrus granule cells. The authors employ an adult deletion of Bcl11b via Tamoxifen-inducible Cre and use immunohistochemical, electron microscopy, and electrophysiological studies of synaptic plasticity, together with viral rescue of C1ql2, a direct transcriptional target of Bcl11b or Nrxn3, to construct a molecular cascade downstream of Bcl11b for DG mossy fiber synapse development. They find that C1ql2 re-expression in Bcl11b cKOs can rescue the synaptic vesicle docking phenotype and the impairments in MF-LTP of these mutants. They also show that C1ql2 knockdown in DG neurons can phenocopy the vesicle docking and plasticity phenotypes of the Bcl11b cKO. They also use artificial synapse formation assays to suggest that C1ql2 functions together with a specific Nrxn3 splice isoform in mediating MF axon development, extending these data with a C1ql2-K262E mutant that purports to specifically disrupt interactions with Nrxn3. All of the molecules involved in this cascade are disease-associated and this study provides an excellent blueprint for uncovering downstream mediators of transcription factor disruption. Together this makes this work of great interest to the field. Strengths are the sophisticated use of viral replacement and multi-level phenotypic analysis while weaknesses include the linkage of C1ql2 with a specific Nrxn3 splice variant in mediating these effects.

Here is an appraisal of the main claims and conclusions:

1) C1ql2 is a downstream target of Bcl11b which mediates the synaptic vesicle recruitment and synaptic plasticity phenotypes seen in these cKOs. This is supported by the clear rescue phenotypes of synapse anatomy (Fig.2) and MF synaptic plasticity (Fig.3). One weakness here is the absence of a control assessing over-expression phenotypes of C1ql2. It's clear from Fig.1D that viral rescue is often greater than WT expression (totally expected). In the case where you are trying to suppress a LoF phenotype, it is important to make sure that enhanced expression of C1ql2 in a WT background does not cause your rescue phenotype. A strong overexpression phenotype in WT would weaken the claim that C1ql2 is the main mediator of the Bcl11b phenotype for MF synapse phenotypes.

As suggested by reviewer #3, we carried out C1ql2 over-expression experiments in control animals. We show that the over-expression of C1ql2 in the DG of control animals had no effect on the synaptic vesicle organization in the proximity of MFS. This further supports that the observed effect upon rescue of C1ql2 expression in Bcl11b cKOs is due to the physiological function of C1ql2 and not a result of the artificial overexpression. These data are now included in supplementary figure 2g-j and are described in detail in the results part of the revised manuscript. Please also see response to point 3 of reviewer #2.

2) Knockdown of C1ql2 via 4 shRNAs is sufficient to produce the synaptic vesicle recruitment and MFLTP phenotypes. This is supported by clear effects in the shRNA-C1ql2 groups as compared to nonsense-EGFP controls. One concern (particularly given the use of 4 distinct shRNAs) is the potential for off-target effects, which is best controlled for by a rescue experiment with RNA insensitive C1ql2 cDNA as opposed to nonsense sequences, which may not elicit the same off-target effects.

We agree with reviewer #3 that the usage of shRNAs could potentially create unexpected off-target effects and that the introduction of a shRNA-insensitive C1ql2 in parallel to the expression on the shRNA cassette would be a very effective control experiment. However, the suggested experiment would require an additional 6 months (2 months for AAV production, 2-3 months from animal injection to sacrifice and 1-2 months for EM imaging/analysis and LTP measurements) and a high number of additional animals (minimum 8 for EM and 8 for LTP measurements). We note here, that before the production of the shRNA-C1ql2 and the shRNA-NS, the individual sequences were systematically checked for off-target bindings on the murine exome with up to two mismatches and presented with no other target except the proposed (C1ql2 for shRNA-C1ql2 and no target for shRNA-NS). Taking into consideration our in-silico analysis, we feel that the interpretation of our findings is valid without this (very reasonable) additional control experiment.

3) C1ql2 interacts with Nrxn3(25b+) to facilitate MF terminal SV clustering. This claim is theoretically supported by the HEK cell artificial synapse formation assay (Fig.5), the inability of the K262-C1ql2 mutation to rescue the Bcl11b phenotype (Fig.6), and the altered localization of C1ql2 in the Nrxn1-3 deletion mice (Fig.7). Each of these lines of experimental evidence has caveats that should be acknowledged and addressed. Given the hypothesis that C1ql2 and Nrxn3b(25b) are expressed in DG neurons and work together, the heterologous co-culture experiment seems strange. Up till now, the authors are looking at pre-synaptic function of C1ql2 since they are re-expressing it in DGNs. The phenotypes they are seeing are also pre-synaptic and/or consistent with pre-synaptic dysfunction. In Fig.5, they are testing whether C1ql2 can induce pre-synaptic differentiation in trans, i.e. theoretically being released from the 293 cells "post-synaptically". But the post-synaptic ligands (Nlgn1 and and GluKs) are not present in the 293 cells, so a heterologous synapse assay doesn't really make sense here. The effect that the authors are seeing likely reflects the fact that C1ql2 and Nrxn3 do bind to each other, so C1ql2 is acting as an artificial post-synaptic ligand, in that it can cluster Nrxn3 which in turn clusters synaptic vesicles. But this does not test the model that the authors propose (i.e. C1ql2 and Nrxn3 are both expressed in MF terminals). Perhaps a heterologous assay where GluK2 is put into HEK cells and the C1ql2 and Nrxn3 are simultaneously or individually manipulated in DG neurons?

C1ql2 is expressed by DG neurons and is then secreted in the MFS synaptic cleft, while Nrxn3, that is also expressed by DG neurons, is anchored at the presynaptic side. In our work we used the well established co-culture system assay and cultured HEK293 cells secreting C1ql2 (an IgK secretion sequence was inserted at the N-terminus of C1ql2) together with hippocampal neurons expressing Nrxn3(25b+). We used the HEK293 cells as a delivery system of secreted C1ql2 to the neurons to create regions of high concentration of C1ql2. By interfering with the C1ql2-Nrxn3 interaction in this system either by expression of the non-binding mutant C1ql2 variant in the HEK cells or by manipulating Nrxn expression in the neurons, we could show that C1ql2 binding to Nrxn3(25b+) is necessary for the accumulation of vGlut1. However, we did not examine and do not claim within our manuscript that the interaction between C1ql2 and Nrxn3(25b+) induces presynaptic differentiation. Our experiment only aimed to analyze the ability of C1ql2 to cluster SV through interaction with Nrxn3. Moreover, by not expressing potential postsynaptic interaction partners of C1ql2 in our system, we could show that C1ql2 controls SV recruitment through a purely presynaptic mechanism. Co-culturing GluK2-expressing HEK cells with simultaneous manipulation of C1ql2 and/or Nrxn3 in neurons would not allow us to appropriately answer our scientific question, but rather focus on the potential synaptogenic function of the Nrxn3/C1ql2/GluK2 complex and the role of the postsynaptic ligand in it. Thus, we feel that the proposed experiment, while very interesting in characterization of additional putative functions of C1ql2, may not provide additional information for the point we were addressing. In the revised manuscript we tried to make the aim and methodological approach of this set of experiments more clear.

4) K262-C1ql2 mutation blocks the normal rescue through a Nrxn3(25b) mechanism (Fig.6). The strength of this experiment rests upon the specificity of this mutation for disrupting Nrxn3b binding (presynaptic) as opposed to any of the known postsynaptic C1ql2 ligands such as GluK2. While this is not relevant for interpreting the heterologous assay (Fig.5), it is relevant for the in vivo phenotypes in Fig.6. Similar approaches as employed in this paper can test whether binding to other known postsynaptic targets is altered by this point mutation.

It has been previously shown that C1ql2 together with C1ql3 recruit postsynaptic GluK2 at the MFS. However, loss of just C1ql2 did not affect the recruitment of GluK2, which was disrupted only upon loss of both C1ql2 and C1ql3 (Matsuda et al., 2018). In our study we demonstrate a purely presynaptic function of C1ql2 through Nrxn3 in the synaptic vesicle recruitment. This function is independent of C1ql3, as C1ql3 expression is unchanged in all of our models and its over-expression did not compensate for C1ql2 functions (Fig. 2, 3a-c). Our in vitro experiments also reveal that C1ql2 can recruit both Nrxn3 and vGlut1 in the absence of any known postsynaptic C1ql2 partner (KARs and BAI3; Fig.5; please also see response above). Furthermore, we have now performed a kinetic analysis on single-cell data which we had previously collected to evaluate postsynaptic AMPA and kainate receptor responses in both the control and Bcl11b KO. Our analysis reveals no significant differences in postsynaptic current kinetics, making it unlikely that AMPA and kainate receptor signaling is altered upon the loss of C1ql2 following Bcl11b cKO (Author response image 3e-h; please also see our response to reviewer #2 point 8). Thus, we have no experimental evidence supporting the idea that a loss of interaction between C1ql2.K262E and GluK2 would interfere with the examined phenotype. However, to exclude that the K262E mutation disrupts interaction between C1ql2 and GluK2, we performed co-immunoprecipitation from protein lysate of HEK293 cells expressing GluK2myc-flag and GFP-C1ql2 or GluK2-myc-flag and GFP-K262E and could show that both C1ql2 and K262E had GluK2 bound when precipitated. These data are included in supplementary figure 5k of the revised manuscript.

5) Altered localization of C1ql2 in Nrxn1-3 cKOs. These data are presented to suggest that Nrx3(25b) is important for localizing C1ql2 to the SL of CA3. Weaknesses of this data include both the lack of Nrxn specificity in the triple a/b KOs as well as the profound effects of Nrxn LoF on the total levels of C1ql2 protein. Some measure that isn't biased by this large difference in C1ql2 levels should be attempted (something like in Fig.1F).

We acknowledge that the lack of specificity in the Nrxn123 model makes it difficult to interpret our data. We have now examined the mRNA levels of Nrxn1 and Nrxn2 upon stereotaxic injection of Cre in the DG of Nrxn123flox/flox animals and found that Nrxn1 was only mildly reduced. At the same time Nrxn2 showed a tendency for reduction that was not significant (data included in supplementary figure 6a of revised manuscript). Only Nrxn3 expression was strongly suppressed. Of course, this does not exclude that the mild reduction of Nrxn1 and Nrxn2 interferes with the C1ql2 localization at the MFS. We further examined the mRNA levels of C1ql2 in control and Nrxn123 mutants to ensure that the observed changes in C1ql2 protein levels at the MFS are not due to reduced mRNA expression and found no changes (data are included in supplementary figure 6b of the revised manuscript), suggesting that overall protein C1ql2 expression is normal.

The reduced C1ql2 fluorescence intensity at the MFS was first observed when non-binding C1ql2 variant K262E was introduced to Bcl11b cKO mice that lack endogenous C1ql2 (Fig.6). In these experiments, we found that despite the overall high protein levels of C1ql2.K262E in the hippocampus (Fig. 6c), its fluorescence intensity at the SL was significantly reduced compared to WT C1ql2 (Fig. 6d-e). The remaining signal of the C1ql2.K262E at the SL was equally distributed and in a punctate form, similar to WT C1ql2. Together, this suggests that loss of C1ql2-Nrxn3 interaction interferes with the localization of C1ql2 at the MFS, but not with the expression of C1ql2. Of course, this does not exclude that other mechanisms are involved in the synaptic localization of C1ql2, beyond the interaction with Nrxn3, as both the mutant C1ql2 in Bcl11b cKO and the endogenous C1ql2 in Nrxn123 cKOs show residual immunofluorescence at the SL. Further studies are required to determine how C1ql2-Nrxn3 interaction regulates C1ql2 localization at the MFS.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

In addition to addressing the comments below, this study would benefit significantly from providing insight and discussion into the relevant potential postsynaptic signaling components controlled exclusively by C1ql2 (postsynaptic kainate receptors and the BAI family of proteins).

We have now performed a kinetic analysis on single-cell data that we had previously collected to evaluate postsynaptic AMPA and kainate receptor responses in both the control and Bcl11b cKO. Our analysis reveals no significant differences in postsynaptic current kinetics, making it unlikely that AMPA and kainate receptor signaling differ between controls and upon the loss of C1ql2 following Bcl11b cKO (Author response image 3e-h; please also see our response to Reviewer #2 point 8). This agrees with previous findings that C1ql2 regulates postsynaptic GluK2 recruitment together with C1ql3 and only loss of both C1ql2 and C1ql3 results in a disruption of KAR signaling (Matsuda et al., 2018). In our study we demonstrate a purely presynaptic function of C1ql2 through Nrxn3 in the synaptic vesicle recruitment. This function is independent of C1ql3, as C1ql3 expression is unchanged in all of our models and its over-expression did not compensate for C1ql2 functions (Fig. 2, 3a-c). Our in vitro experiments also reveal that C1ql2 can recruit both Nrxn3 and vGlut1 in the absence of any known postsynaptic C1ql2 partner (KARs and BAI3; Fig.5; please also see our response to reviewer #3 point 4 above). We believe that further studies are needed to fully understand both the pre- and the postsynaptic functions of C1ql2. Because the focus of this manuscript was on the role of the C1ql2-Nrxn3 interaction and our investigation on postsynaptic functions of C1ql2 was incomplete, we did not include our findings on postsynaptic current kinetics in our revised manuscript. However, we increased the discussion on the known postsynaptic partners of C1ql2 in the revised manuscript to increase the interpretability of our results.

Major Comments:

The authors demonstrate that the ultrastructural properties of presynaptic boutons are altered after Bcl11b KO and C1ql2 KD. However, whether C1ql2 functions as part of a tripartite complex and the identity of the postsynaptic receptor (BAI, KAR) should be examined.

Matsuda and colleagues have nicely demonstrated in their 2016 (Neuron) study that C1ql2 is part of a tripartite complex with presynaptic Nrxn3 and postsynaptic KARs. Moreover, they demonstrated that C1ql2, together with C1ql3, recruit postsynaptic KARs at the MFS, while the KO of just C1ql2 did not affect the KAR localization. In our study we demonstrate a purely presynaptic function of C1ql2 through Nrxn3 in the synaptic vesicle recruitment. This function is independent of C1ql3, as C1ql3 expression is unchanged in all of our models and its over-expression did not compensate for C1ql2 functions (Fig. 2, 3a-c). Our in vitro experiments also reveal that C1ql2 is able to recruit both Nrxn3 and vGlut1 in the absence of any known postsynaptic C1ql2 partner (Fig. 5; please also see our response to reviewer #3 point 4 above). Moreover, we were able to show that the SV recruitment depends on C1ql2 interaction with Nrxn3 through the expression of a non-binding C1ql2 (Fig. 6) that retains the ability to interact with GluK2 (supplementary figure 5k of revised manuscript) or by KO of Nrxns (Fig. 7). Furthermore, we have now performed a kinetic analysis on single-cell data which we had previously collected to evaluate postsynaptic AMPA and kainate receptor responses in both the control and Bcl11b cKO. Our analysis reveals no significant differences in postsynaptic current kinetics, making it unlikely that AMPA and kainate receptor signaling differ between controls and Bcl11b mutants (Author response image 3e-h; please also see our response to Reviewer #2 question 8). Together, we have no experimental evidence so far that would support that the postsynaptic partners of C1ql2 are involved in the observed phenotype. While it would be very interesting to characterize the postsynaptic partners of C1ql2 in depth, we feel this would be beyond the scope of the present study.

Figure 1f: For a more comprehensive understanding of the Bcl11b KO phenotype and the potential role for C1ql2 on MF synapse number, a complete quantification of vGlut1 and Homer1 for all conditions (Supplement Figure 2e) should be included in the main text.

In our study we focused on the role of C1ql2 in the structural and functional integrity of the MFS downstream of Bcl11b. Bcl11b ablation leads to several phenotypes in the MFS that have been thoroughly described in our previous study (De Bruyckere et al., 2018). As expected, re-expression of C1ql2 only partially rescued these phenotypes, with full recovery of the SV recruitment (Fig. 2) and of the LTP (Fig. 3), but had no effect on the reduced numbers of MFS nor the structural complexity of the MFB created by the Bcl11b KO (supplementary figure 2d-f of revised manuscript). We understand that including the quantification of vGlut1 and Homer1 co-localization in the main figures would help with a better understanding of the Bcl11b mutant phenotype. However, in our manuscript we investigate C1ql2 as an effector of Bcl11b and thus we focus on its functions in SV recruitment and LTP. As we did not find a link between C1ql2 and the number of MFS/MFB upon re-expression of C1ql2 in Bcl11b cKO or now also in C1ql2 KD (see response to comment #4 below), we believe it is more suitable to present these data in the supplement.

Figure 3/4: Given the striking reduction in the numbers of synapses (Supplement Figure 2e) and docked vesicles (Figure 2d) in the Bcl11b KO and C1ql2 KD (Figure 4e-f), it is extremely surprising that basal synaptic transmission is unaffected (Supplement Figure 2g). The authors should determine the EPSP input-output relationship following C1ql2 KD and measure EPSPs following trains of stimuli at various high frequencies.

We fully acknowledge that this is an unexpected result. It is, however, well feasible that the modest displacement of SV fails to noticeably influence basal synaptic transmission. This would be the case, for example, if only a low number of vesicles are released by single stimuli, in line with the very low initial Pr at MFS. In contrast, the reduction in synapse numbers in the Bcl11b mutant might indeed be expected to reflect in the input-output relationship. It is possible, however, that synapses that are preferentially eliminated in Bcl11b cKO are predominantly silent or have weak coupling strength, such that their loss has only a minimal effect on basal synaptic transmission. Finally, we cannot exclude compensatory mechanisms (homeostatic plasticity) at the remaining synapses. A detailed analysis of these potential mechanisms would be a whole project in its own right.

As additional information, we can say that the largely unchanged input-output-relation in Bcl11b cKO is also present in the single-cell level data (Author response image 3; details on single-cell experiments are described in the response to Reviewer #2 point 8).

As suggested by the reviewer, we have now additionally analyzed the input-output relationship following C1ql2 KD and again did not observe any significant difference between control and KD animals. We have incorporated the respective input-output curves into the revised manuscript under Supplementary figure 3c-d.

Figure 4: Does C1ql2 shRNA also reduce the number of MFBs? This should be tested to further identify C1ql2-dependent and independent functions.

As requested by reviewer #1 we quantified the number of MFBs upon C1ql2 KD. We show that C1ql2 KD in WT animals does not alter the number of MFBs. The data are presented in supplementary figure 4d of the revised manuscript. Re-expression of C1ql2 in Bcl11b cKO did not rescue the loss of MFS created by the Bcl11b mutation. Moreover, C1ql2 re-expression did not rescue the complexity of the MFB ultrastructure perturbed by the Bcl11b ablation. Together, this suggests that Bcl11b regulates MFs maintenance through additional C1ql2-independent pathways. In our previously published work (De Bruyckere et al., 2018) we identified and discussed in detail several candidate genes such as Sema5b, Ptgs2, Pdyn and Penk as putative effectors of Bcl11b in the structural and functional integrity of MFS (please also see response to reviewer #2- point 1 of public reviews).

Figure 5: Clarification is required regarding the experimental design of the HEK/Neuron co-culture: 1. C1ql2 is a secreted soluble protein - how is the protein anchored to the HEK cell membrane to recruit Nrxn3(25b+) binding and, subsequently, vGlut1?

C1ql2 was secreted by the HEK293 cells through an IgK signaling peptide at the N-terminus of C1ql2. The high concentration of C1ql2 close to the secretion site together with the sparse coculturing of the HEK293 cells on the neurons allows for the quantification of accumulation of neuronal proteins. We have now described the experimental conditions in greater detail in the main text module of the revised manuscript

2) Why are the neurons transfected and not infected? Transfection efficiency of neurons with lipofectamine is usually poor (1-5%; Karra et al., 2010), while infection of neurons with lentiviruses or AAVs encoding cDNAs routinely are >90% efficient. Thus, interpretation of the recruitment assays may be influenced by the density of neurons transfected near a HEK cell.

We agree with reviewer #1 that viral infection of the neurons would have been a more effective way of expressing our constructs. However, due to safety allowances in the used facility and time limitation at the time of conception of this set of experiments, a lipofectamine transfection was chosen.

However, as all of our examined groups were handled in the same way and multiple cells from three independent experiments were examined for each experimental set, we believe that possible biases introduced by the transfection efficiency have been eliminated and thus have trust in our interpretation of these results.

3) Surface labeling of HEK cells for wild-type C1ql2 and K262 C1ql2 would be helpful to assess the trafficking of the mutant.

We recognize that potential changes to the trafficking of C1ql2 caused by the K262E mutation would be important to characterize, in light of the reduced localization of the mutant protein at the SL in the in vivo experiments (Fig. 6e). In our culture system, C1ql2 and K262E were secreted by the HEK cells through insertion of an IgK signaling peptide at the N-terminus of the myc-tagged C1ql2/K262E. Thus, trafficking analysis on this system would not be informative, as the system is highly artificial compared to the in vivo model. Further studies are needed to characterize C1ql2 trafficking in neurons to understand how C1ql2-Nrxn3 interaction regulates the localization of C1ql2. However, labeling of the myc-tag in C1ql2 or K262E expressing HEK cells of the co-culture model reveals a similar signal for the two proteins (Fig. 5a,c). Nrxn-null mutation in neurons co-cultured with C1ql2-expressing HEK cells disrupted C1ql2 mediated vGlut1 accumulation in the neurons. Selective expression of Nrxn3(25b) in the Nrxn-null neurons restored vGlut1 clustering was (Fig. 5e-f). Together, these data suggest that it is the interaction between C1ql2 and Nrxn3 that drives the accumulation of vGlut1.

Figure 6: Bcl11b KO should also be included in 6f-h.

As suggested by reviewer #1, we included the Bcl11b cKO in figures 6f-h and in corresponding supplementary figures 5c-j.

Figure 7b: What is the abundance of mRNA for Nrxn1 and Nrxn2 as well as the abundance of Nrxns after EGFP-Cre injection into DG?

We addressed this point raised by reviewer #1 by quantifying the relative mRNA levels of Nrxn1 and Nrxn2 via qPCR upon Nrxn123 mutation induction with EGFP-Cre injection. We have now examined the mRNA levels of Nrxn1 and Nrxn2 upon stereotaxic injection of Cre in the DG of Nrxn123flox/flox animals and found that Nrxn1 was only mildly reduced. At the same time Nrxn2 showed a tendency for reduction that was not significant. The data are presented in supplementary figure 6a of the revised maunscript.

Minor Comments for readability:

Synapse score is referred to frequently in the text and should be defined within the text for clarification.

'n' numbers should be better defined in the figure legends. For example, for protein expression analysis in 1c, n=3. Is this a biological or technical triplicate? For electrophysiology (e.g. 3c), does "n=7" reflect the number of animals or the number of slices? n/N (slices/animals) should be presented.

Figure 7a: Should the diagrams of the cre viruses be EGFP-Inactive or active Cre and not CRE-EGFP as shown in the diagram?

Figure 7b: the region used for the inset should be identified in the larger image.

All minor points have been fixed in the revised manuscript according to the suggestions.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

-Please describe the 'synapse score' somewhere in the text - it is too prominently featured to not have a clear description of what it is.

The description of the synapse score has been included in the main text module of the revised manuscript.

-The claim that Bcl11b controls SV recruitment "specifically" through C1ql2 is a bit stronger than is warranted by the data. Particularly given that C1ql2 is expressed at 2.5X control levels in their rescue experiments. See pt.2

Please see response to reviewer #3 point 1 of public reviews. To address this, we over-expressed C1ql2 in control animals and found no changes in the synaptic vesicle distribution (supplementary figure 2g-j of revised manuscript). This supports that the observed rescue of synaptic vesicle recruitment by re-expression of C1ql2 is due to its physiological function and not due to the artificially elevated protein levels. Of course, we cannot exclude the possibility that other, C1ql2-independent, mechanisms also contribute to the SV recruitment downstream of Bcl11b. Our data from the C1ql2 rescue, C1ql2 KD, the in vitro experiments and the interruption of C1ql2-Nrxn3 in vivo, strongly suggest C1ql2 to be an important regulator of SV recruitment.

-Does Bcl11b regulate Nrxn3 expression? Considering the apparent loss of C1ql2 expression in the Nrxn KO mice, this is an important detail.

We agree with reviewer #3 that this is an important point. We have previously done differential transcriptomics from DG neurons of Bcl11b cKOs compared to controls and did not find Nrxn3 among the differentially expressed genes. To further validate this, we now quantified the Nrxn3 mRNA levels via qPCR in Bcl11b cKOs compared to controls and found no differences. These data are included in supplementary figure 5a of the revised manuscript.

-It appears that C1ql2 expression is much lower in the Nrxn123 KO mice. Since the authors are trying to test whether Nrxn3 is required for the correct targeting of C1ql2, this is a confounding factor. We can't really tell if what we are seeing is a "mistargeting" of C1ql2, loss of expression, or both. If the authors did a similar analysis to what they did in Figure 1 where they looked at the synaptic localization of C1ql2 (and quantified it) that could provide more evidence to support or refute the "mistargeting" claim.

Please also see response to reviewer #3 point 5 of public reviews. To exclude that reduction of fluorescence intensity of C1ql2 at the SL in Nrxn123 KO mice is due to loss of C1ql2 expression, we examined the mRNA levels of C1ql2 in control and Nrxn123 mutants and found no changes (data are included in supplementary figure 6b of the revised manuscript), suggesting that C1ql2 gene expression is normal. The reduced C1ql2 fluorescence intensity at the MFS was first observed when non-binding C1ql2 variant K262E was introduced to Bcl11b cKO mice that lack endogenous C1ql2 (Fig.6). In these experiments, we found that despite the overall high protein levels of C1ql2.K262E in the hippocampus (Fig. 6c), its fluorescence intensity at the SL was significantly reduced compared to WT C1ql2 (Fig. 6d-e). The remaining C1ql2.K262E signal in the SL was equally distributed and in a punctate form, similar to WT C1ql2. Together, this indicates that the loss of C1ql2-Nrxn3 interaction interferes with the localization of C1ql2 along the MFS, but not with expression of C1ql2. Of course, this does not exclude that additional mechanisms regulate C1ql2 localization at the synapse, as both the mutant C1ql2 in Bcl11b cKO and the endogenous C1ql2 in Nrxn123 cKO show residual immunofluorescence at the SL.

We note here that we have not previously quantified the co-localization of C1ql2 with individual synapses. C1ql2 is a secreted molecule that localizes at the MFS synaptic cleft. However, not much is known about the number of MFS that are positive for C1ql2 nor about the mechanisms regulating C1ql2 targeting, transport, and secretion to the MFS. Whether C1ql2 interaction with Nrxn3 is necessary for the protection of C1ql2 from degradation, its surface presentation and transport or stabilization to the synapse is currently unclear. Upon revision of our manuscript, we realized that we might have overstated this particular finding and have now rephrased the specific parts within the results to appropriately describe the observation and have also included a sentence in the discussion referring to the lack of understanding of the mechanism behind this observation.

-Title of Figure S5 is "Nrxn KO perturbs C1ql2 localization and SV recruitment at the MFS", but there is no data on C1ql2 localization.

This issue has been fixed in the revised manusript.

-S5 should be labeled more clearly than just Cre+/-

This issue has been fixed in the revised manuscript.

References

Castillo, P.E., Malenka, R.C., Nicoll, R.A., 1997. Kainate receptors mediate a slow postsynaptic current in hippocampal CA3 neurons. Nature 388, 182–186. https://doi.org/10.1038/40645

De Bruyckere, E., Simon, R., Nestel, S., Heimrich, B., Kätzel, D., Egorov, A.V., Liu, P., Jenkins, N.A., Copeland, N.G., Schwegler, H., Draguhn, A., Britsch, S., 2018. Stability and Function of Hippocampal Mossy Fiber Synapses Depend on Bcl11b/Ctip2. Front. Mol. Neurosci. 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnmol.2018.00103

Kaeser, P.S., Regehr, W.G., 2017. The readily releasable pool of synaptic vesicles. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 43, 63–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2016.12.012

Lerma, J., 2003. Roles and rules of kainate receptors in synaptic transmission. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 4, 481–495. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1118

Orlando, M., Dvorzhak, A., Bruentgens, F., Maglione, M., Rost, B.R., Sigrist, S.J., Breustedt, J., Schmitz, D., 2021. Recruitment of release sites underlies chemical presynaptic potentiation at hippocampal mossy fiber boutons. PLoS Biol. 19, e3001149. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001149

Vandael, D., Borges-Merjane, C., Zhang, X., Jonas, P., 2020. Short-Term Plasticity at Hippocampal Mossy Fiber Synapses Is Induced by Natural Activity Patterns and Associated with Vesicle Pool Engram Formation. Neuron 107, 509-521.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2020.05.013

Author Response

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

We are very grateful to both reviewers for taking the time to review our manuscript and data in great detail. We thank you for the fair assessment of our work, the helpful feedback, and for recognizing the value of our work. We have done our best to address your concerns below:

eLife assessment This work reports a valuable finding on glucocorticoid signaling in male and female germ cells in mice, pointing out sexual dimorphism in transcriptomic responsiveness. While the evidence supporting the claims is generally solid, additional assessments would be required to fully confirm an inert GR signaling despite the presence of GR in the female germline and GR-mediated alternative splicing in response to dexamethasone treatment in the male germline. The work may interest basic researchers and physician-scientists working on reproduction and

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Cincotta et al set out to investigate the presence of glucocorticoid receptors in the male and female embryonic germline. They further investigate the impact of tissue-specific genetically induced receptor absence and/or systemic receptor activation on fertility and RNA regulation. They are motivated by several lines of research that report inter and transgenerational effects of stress and or glucocorticoid receptor activation and suggest that their findings provide an explanatory mechanism to mechanistically back parental stress hormone exposure-induced phenotypes in the offspring.

Strengths:

A chronological immunofluorescent assessment of GR in fetal and early life oocyte and sperm development.

RNA seq data that reveal novel cell type specific isoforms validated by q-RT PCR E15.5 in the oocyte.

2 alternative approaches to knock out GR to study transcriptional outcomes. Oocytes: systemic GR KO (E17.5) with low input 3-tag seq and germline-specific GR KO (E15.5) on fetal oocyte expression via 10X single cell seq and 3-cap sequencing on sorted KO versus WT oocytes both indicating little impact on polyadenylated RNAs

2 alternative approaches to assess the effect of GR activation in vivo (systemic) and ex vivo (ovary culture): here the RNA seq did show again some changes in germ cells and many in the soma.

They exclude oocyte-specific GR signaling inhibition via beta isoforms.

Perinatal male germline shows differential splicing regulation in response to systemic Dex administration, results were backed up with q-PCR analysis of splicing factors. Weaknesses:

COMMENT #1: The presence of a protein cannot be entirely excluded based on IF data

We agree that very low levels of GR could escape the detection by IF and confocal imaging. We feel that our IF data do match transcript data in our validation studies of the GR KO using (1) qRT-PCR on fetal ovary in Fig 2E and (2) scRNA-seq in germ cells and ovarian soma in Fig S2B.

COMMENT #2: (staining of spermatids is referred to but not shown).

You are correct that this statement was based on a morphological identification of spermatids using DAPI morphology. We have performed a co-stain for GR with the spermatocyte marker SYCP3, and the spermatid/spermatozoa marker PNA (Peanut Agglutinin; from Arachis hypogaea) in adult testis tissue. We have updated Figure 4D to reflect this change, as well as the corresponding text in the Results section.

COMMENT #3: The authors do not consider post-transcriptional level a) modifications also triggered by GR activation b) non-coding RNAs (not assessed by seq).

We thank the reviewer for raising this very important point about potential post-transcriptional (non-genomic) effects of GR in the fetal oocyte. We agree that while our RNA-seq results show only a minimal transcriptional response, we cannot rule out a non-canonical signaling function of GR, such as the regulation of cellular kinases (as reviewed elsewhere1), or the regulation of non coding RNAs at the post-transcriptional level, and we have amended the discussion to include a sentence on this point. However, while we fully acknowledge the possibility of GR regulating non-genomic level cellular signaling, we chose not to explore this option further based on the lack of any overall functional effect on meiotic progression when GR signaling was perturbed- either by KO (Figure 2D) or dex-mediated activation (Figure S3C).

COMMENT #4: Sequencing techniques used are not total RNA but either are focused on all polyA transcripts (10x) or only assess the 3' prime end and hence are not ideal to study splicing

We thank the reviewer for raising this concern, however this statement is not correct and we have clarified this point in the Results section to explain how the sequencing libraries of the male germ cell RNA-seq were prepared. We agree that certain sequencing techniques (such as 3’ Tag-Seq) that generate sequencing libraries from a limited portion of an entire transcript molecule are not appropriate for analysis of differential splicing. This was not the case, however, for the RNA-seq libraries prepared on our male germ cells treated with dexamethasone. These libraries were constructed using full length transcripts that were reverse transcribed using random hexamer priming, thus accounting for sequencing coverage across the full transcript length. As a result, this type of library prep technique should be sufficient for capturing differential splicing events along the length of the transcript. We do, however, point out that these libraries were constructed on polyA-enriched transcripts. Thus while we obtained full length transcript coverage for these polyA transcripts, any differential splicing taking place in non poly-adenylated RNA moieties were not captured. While we are excited about the possibility of exploring GR-mediated splicing regulation of other RNA species in the future, we chose to focus the scope of our current study on polyA mRNA molecules specifically.

COMMENT #5: The number of replicates in the low input seq is very low and hence this might be underpowered

While the number of replicates (n=3-4 per condition) is sufficient for performing statistical analysis of a standard RNA-seq experiment, we do acknowledge and agree with the reviewer that low numbers of FACS-sorted germ cells from individual embryos combined with the low input 3’ Tag-Seq technique could have led to higher sample variability than desired. Given that we validated our bulk RNA-seq analysis of GR knockout ovaries using an orthogonal single-cell RNA-seq approach, we feel that our conclusions regarding a lack of transcriptional changes upon GR deletion remain valid.

COMMENT #6: Since Dex treatment showed some (modest) changes in oocyte RNA - effects of GR depletion might only become apparent upon Dex treatment as an interaction.

We may be missing the nuance of this point, but our interpretation of an effect that is seen only when the KO is treated with Dex would be that the mechanism would not be autonomous in germ cells but indirect or off-target.

COMMENT #7: Effects in oocytes following systemic Dex might be indirect due to GR activation in the soma.

As both the oocytes and ovarian soma express GR during the window of dex administration, we agree that it is possible that the few modest changes seen in the oocyte transcriptome are the result of indirect effects following robust GR signaling in the somatic compartment. However, given that these modest oocyte transcript changes in response to dex treatment did not significantly alter the ability of oocytes to progress through meiosis, we chose not to explore this mechanism further.

COMMENT #8: Even though ex vivo culture of ovaries shows GR translocation to the nucleus it is not sure whether the in vivo systemic administration does the same.

AND

The conclusion that fetal oocytes are resistant to GR manipulation is very strong, given that "only" poly A sequencing and few replicates of 3-prime sequencing have been analyzed and information is lacking on whether GR is activated in germ cells in the systemically dex-injected animals.

If we understand correctly, the first part refers to a technical limitation and the second part takes issue with our interpretation of the data. For the former, we appreciate this astute insight on the conundrum of detecting a response to systemic dex in fetal oocytes, which is generally monitored by nuclear translocation of GR. As shown in Figure 1A and 1B, GR localization is overwhelmingly nuclear in fetal oocytes of WT animals at E13.5 without addition of any dex. We could not, therefore, use GR translocation as a proxy for activation in response to dex treatment. We instead used ex vivo organ culture to monitor localization changes, as we were able to maintain fetal ovaries ex vivo in hormone-depleted and ligand negative conditions. As shown in Fig. 3, these defined culture conditions elicited a shift of GR to the cytoplasm of fetal oocytes. This led us to conclude that GR is capable of translocating between nucleus and cytoplasm in fetal oocytes, and we were able to counteract this loss in nuclear localization by providing dex ligand in the media.

We feel that our conclusion that oocytes are resistant to manipulation of glucocorticoid signaling despite their possession of the receptor and capacity for nuclear translocation is substantiated by multiple results: meiotic phenotyping, bulk RNA-seq and scRNA-seq analysis of both GR KO and dex dosed mice. Our basis for testing the timing and fidelity of meiotic prophase I was the coincident onset of GR expression in female germ cells at E13, and the disappearance of GR in neonatal oocytes as they enter meiotic arrest. The lack of transcriptional changes observed in oocytes in response to dex has made it even more challenging to demonstrate a bona fide “activation” of GR. Observation of a dose-dependent induction of the canonical GR response gene Fkbp5 in the somatic cells of the fetal ovary (Figure S3A and 3A) affirmed that dex traverses the placenta. We agree with the reviewer that it remains possible that dex or GR KO could lead to changes in epigenetic marks or small RNAs in oocytes, and have mentioned these possibilities in the discussion, but we note that even epigenetic perturbations during oocyte development such as the loss of Tet1 or Dnmt1 result in measurable changes in the transcriptome and the timing of meiotic prophase 2–4.

COMMENT #9: This work is a good reference point for researchers interested in glucocorticoid hormone signaling fertility and RNA splicing. It might spark further studies on germline-specific GR functions and the impact of GR activation on alternative splicing. While the study provides a characterization of GR and some aspects of GR perturbation, and the negative findings in this study do help to rule out a range of specific roles of GR in the germline, there is still a range of other potential unexplored options. The introduction of the study eludes to implications for intergenerational effects via epigenetic modifications in the germline, however, it does not mention that the indirect effects of reproductive tissue GR signaling on the germline have indeed already been described in the context of intergenerational effects of stress.

The reviewer raises an excellent point that we have not made sufficient distinction in our manuscript between prior studies of gestational stress and preconception stress and the light that our work may shed on those findings. We have revised the introduction to clarify this difference, and added reference to an outstanding study that identifies glucocorticoid-induced changes to microRNA cargo of extracellular vesicles shed by epididymal epithelial cells that when transferred to mature sperm can induce changes in the HPA axis and brain of offspring 5. Interestingly, this GR-mediated effect in the epididymal epithelial cells concurs with our observation in the adult testis that GR can be detected only cKit+ spermatogonia but not in subsequent stages of spermatids.

COMMENT #10: Also, the study does not assess epigenetic modifications.

We agree with the reviewer that exploring the role of GR in regulating epigenetic modifications within the germline is an area of extreme interest given the potential links between stress and transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. As this is a broader topic that requires a more thorough and comprehensive set of experiments, we have intentionally chosen to keep this work separate from the current study, and hope to expand upon this topic in the future.

COMMENT #11: The conclusion that the persistence of a phenotype for up to three generations suggests that stress can induce lasting epigenetic changes in the germline is misleading. For the reader who is unfamiliar with the field, it is important to define much more precisely what is referred to as "a phenotype". Furthermore, this statement evokes the impression that the very same epigenetic changes in the germline have been observed across multiple generations.

We see how this may be misleading, and we have amended the text of the introduction and discussion accordingly to avoid the use of the term “phenotype”.

COMMENT #12: The evidence of the presence of GR in the germline is also somewhat limited - since other studies using sequencing have detected GR in the mature oocyte and sperm.

As described above in response to Comment #2, we have included immunostaining of adult testis in a revised Figure 4D and shown that we detect GR in PLZF+ and cKIT+ spermatogonia. We also show low/minimal expression in some (SYCP3+) early meiotic spermatocytes, but not in (Lectin+) spermatids. We are not aware of any studies that have shown expression of GR protein in the mature oocyte.

COMMENT #13: The discussion ends again on the implications of sex-specific differences of GR signaling in the context of stress-induced epigenetic inheritance. It states that the observed differences might relate to the fact that there is more evidence for paternal lineage findings, without considering that maternal lineage studies in epigenetic inheritance are generally less prevalent due to some practical factors - such as more laborious study design making use of cross-fostering or embryo transfer.

We thank the reviewer for this valid point, and we have amended the discussion section.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

There is increasing evidence in the literature that rodent models of stress can produce phenotypes that persist through multiple generations. Nevertheless, the mechanism(s) by which stress exposure produces phenotypes are unknown in the directly affected individual as well as in subsequent offspring that did not directly experience stress. Moreover, it has also been shown that glucocorticoid stress hormones can recapitulate the effects of programmed stress. In this manuscript, the authors test the compelling hypothesis that glucocorticoid receptor (GR)-signaling is responsible for the transmission of phenotypes across generations. As a first step, the investigators test for a role of GR in the male and female germline. Using knockouts and GR agonists, they show that although germ cells in male and female mice have GR that appears to localize to the nucleus when stimulated, oocytes are resistant to changes in GR levels. In contrast, the male germline exhibits changes in splicing but no overt changes in fertility.

Strengths:

Although many of the results in this manuscript are negative, this is a careful and timely study that informs additional work to address mechanisms of transmission of stress phenotypes across generations and suggests a sexually dimorphic response to glucocorticoids in the germline. The work presented here is well-done and rigorous and the discussion of the data is thoughtful. Overall, this is an important contribution to the literature.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

RECOMMENDATION #1: To assess whether in females the systemic Dex administration directly activates GR in oocytes it would be great to assess GR activation following Dex administration, and ideally to see the effects abolished when Dex is administered to germline-specific KO animals.

In regard to the recommendation to assess GR activation in response to systemic dex administration, we refer the reviewer back to our response in Comment #8 highlighting the difficulties defining and measuring GR activation in the germline.

This therefore has made it difficult to assess whether any of the modest effects seen in response to dex are abolished in our germline-specific KO animals. While repeating our RNA-seq experiment in dex-dosed germline KO animals would address whether the ~60 genes induced in oocytes are the result of oocyte-intrinsic GR activity, we have decided not to explore this mechanism further due to the overall lack of a functional effect on meiotic progression in response to dex (Figure S3C).

RECOMMENDATION #2: To further strengthen the link between GR and alternative splicing it would be great to see the dex administration experiment repeated in germline specific GR KO's.

While we understand the reviewer’s suggestion to explore whether deletion of GR in the spermatogonia is sufficient to abrogate the dex-mediated decreases in splice factor expression, we chose not to explore the details of this mechanism given that deletion of GR in the male germline does not impair fertility (Figure 6).

RECOMMENDATION #3: I am wondering how much a given reduction in one of the splicing factors indeed affects splicing events. Can the authors relate this to literature, or maybe an in vitro experiment can be done to see whether the level of differential splicing events detected is in a range that can be expected in the case of the magnitude of splicing factor reduction?

It has been shown in many instances in the literature that a full genetic deletion of a single splice factor leads to impairments in spermatogenesis, and ultimately infertility 6–16. We suspect that dex treatment leads to fewer differential splicing events than a full splice factor deletion, given that dex treatment causes a broader decrease in splice factor expression without entirely abolishing any single splice factor. We have amended the discussion section to include this point. While we share the reviewer’s curiosity to compare the effects of dex vs genetic deletion of splicing machinery on the overall magnitude of differential splicing events, we unfortunately do not have access to mice with a floxed splice factor at this time. While we have considered knocking out one or more splice factors in an ex vivo cultured testis to compare alongside dex treatment, our efforts to date have proven unsuccessful due to high cell death upon culture of the postnatal testis for more than 24 hours.

RECOMMENDATION #4: It is unclear from the methods whether in germline-specific KO's also the controls received tamoxifen.

We thank the reviewer for catching this missing piece of information. All control embryos that were assessed received an equivalent dose of tamoxifen to the germline-specific KO embryos. The only difference between cKOs and controls was the presence of the Cre transgene. We have updated the Materials and Methods 3’ Tag-Seq sample preparation section to include the sentence: “Both GRcKO/cKO and control GRflox/flox embryos were collected from tamoxifen-injected dams, and thus were equally exposed to tamoxifen in utero”.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

I just have only a few comments/questions.

RECOMMENDATION #5: It is somewhat surprising that GR is expressed in female germ cells, yet there doesn't seem to be a requirement. Is there any indication of what it does? Is the long-term stability of the germline compromised?

We thank the reviewer for these questions, and we agree that it was quite surprising to find a lack of GR function in the female germline despite its robust expression. The question of whether loss of GR affects the long-term stability of the female germline is interesting, given that similar work in GR KO zebrafish has shown impairments to female reproductive capacity, yet only upon aging 17–19.

While we have shared interest in this question, technical limitations thus far have prevented us from properly assessing the effect of GR loss in aged females. Homozygous deletion of GR results in embryonic lethality at approximately E17.5. Conditional deletion of GR using Oct4-CreERT2 with a single dose of tamoxifen (2.5 mg / 20g mouse) at E9.5 results in complete deletion of GR by E10.5, although dams consistently suffer from dystocia and are no longer able to deliver viable pups. While using the more active tamoxifen metabolite (4OHT) at 0.1 mg / 20g has allowed for successful delivery, the resulting deletion rate is very poor (see qPCR results in panel below, left). While using half the dose of standard tamoxifen (1.25 mg / 20g mouse) at E9.5 has on rare occasions led to a successful delivery, the resulting recombination efficiency is insufficient (Author response image 1 right panel).

Author response image 1.

While a Blimp1-Cre conditional KO model was used to assess male fertility on GR deletion, we believe this model may not be ideal for studying fertility in the context of aging. While Blimp1-Cre is highly specific to the germ cells within the gonad, there are many cell types outside of the gonad that express Blimp1, including the skin and certain cells of the immune system. It is unclear, particularly over the course of aging, whether any effects on fertility seen would be due to an oocyte-intrinsic effect, or the result of GR loss elsewhere in the body. While we hope to explore the role of GR in the aging oocyte further using alternative Cre models in the future, this is currently outside the scope of this work.

RECOMMENDATION #6: Figure 5b: what is the left part of that panel? Is it the same volcano plot for germ cells as shown in part a but with splicing factors?

We apologize if this panel was unclear. Yes, the left panel of Figure 5B is in fact the same volcano plot in 5A, labeled with splicing factors instead of top genes. We have edited Figure 5B and corresponding figure legend to clarify this.

References: 1. Oakley, R.H., and Cidlowski, J.A. (2013). The biology of the glucocorticoid receptor: New signaling mechanisms in health and disease. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 132, 1033–1044. 10.1016/j.jaci.2013.09.007.

1. Hargan-Calvopina, J., Taylor, S., Cook, H., Hu, Z., Lee, S.A., Yen, M.-R., Chiang, Y.-S., Chen, P.-Y., and Clark, A.T. (2016). Stage-Specific Demethylation in Primordial Germ Cells Safeguards against Precocious Differentiation. Dev. Cell 39, 75–86. 10.1016/j.devcel.2016.07.019.

2. Hill, P.W.S., Leitch, H.G., Requena, C.E., Sun, Z., Amouroux, R., Roman-Trufero, M., Borkowska, M., Terragni, J., Vaisvila, R., Linnett, S., et al. (2018). Epigenetic reprogramming enables the transition from primordial germ cell to gonocyte. Nature 555, 392–396. 10.1038/nature25964.

3. Eymery, A., Liu, Z., Ozonov, E.A., Stadler, M.B., and Peters, A.H.F.M. (2016). The methyltransferase Setdb1 is essential for meiosis and mitosis in mouse oocytes and early embryos. Development 143, 2767–2779. 10.1242/dev.132746.

4. Chan, J.C., Morgan, C.P., Leu, N.A., Shetty, A., Cisse, Y.M., Nugent, B.M., Morrison, K.E., Jašarević, E., Huang, W., Kanyuch, N., et al. (2020). Reproductive tract extracellular vesicles are sufficient to transmit intergenerational stress and program neurodevelopment. Nat Commun 11, 1499. 10.1038/s41467-020-15305-w.

5. Kuroda, M., Sok, J., Webb, L., Baechtold, H., Urano, F., Yin, Y., Chung, P., Rooij, D.G. de, Akhmedov, A., Ashley, T., et al. (2000). Male sterility and enhanced radiation sensitivity in TLS−/− mice. Embo J 19, 453–462. 10.1093/emboj/19.3.453.

6. Liu, W., Wang, F., Xu, Q., Shi, J., Zhang, X., Lu, X., Zhao, Z.-A., Gao, Z., Ma, H., Duan, E., et al. (2017). BCAS2 is involved in alternative mRNA splicing in spermatogonia and the transition to meiosis. Nat Commun 8, 14182. 10.1038/ncomms14182.

7. Li, H., Watford, W., Li, C., Parmelee, A., Bryant, M.A., Deng, C., O’Shea, J., and Lee, S.B. (2007). Ewing sarcoma gene EWS is essential for meiosis and B lymphocyte development. J Clin Invest 117, 1314–1323. 10.1172/jci31222.

8. O’Bryan, M.K., Clark, B.J., McLaughlin, E.A., D’Sylva, R.J., O’Donnell, L., Wilce, J.A., Sutherland, J., O’Connor, A.E., Whittle, B., Goodnow, C.C., et al. (2013). RBM5 Is a Male Germ Cell Splicing Factor and Is Required for Spermatid Differentiation and Male Fertility. Plos Genet 9, e1003628. 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003628.

9. Zagore, L.L., Grabinski, S.E., Sweet, T.J., Hannigan, M.M., Sramkoski, R.M., Li, Q., and Licatalosi, D.D. (2015). RNA Binding Protein Ptbp2 Is Essential for Male Germ Cell Development. Mol Cell Biol 35, 4030–4042. 10.1128/mcb.00676-15.

10. Xu, K., Yang, Y., Feng, G.-H., Sun, B.-F., Chen, J.-Q., Li, Y.-F., Chen, Y.-S., Zhang, X.-X., Wang, C.-X., Jiang, L.-Y., et al. (2017). Mettl3-mediated m6A regulates spermatogonial differentiation and meiosis initiation. Cell Res 27, 1100–1114. 10.1038/cr.2017.100.

11. Horiuchi, K., Perez-Cerezales, S., Papasaikas, P., Ramos-Ibeas, P., López-Cardona, A.P., Laguna-Barraza, R., Balvís, N.F., Pericuesta, E., Fernández-González, R., Planells, B., et al. (2018). Impaired Spermatogenesis, Muscle, and Erythrocyte Function in U12 Intron Splicing-Defective Zrsr1 Mutant Mice. Cell Reports 23, 143–155. 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.03.028.

12. Ehrmann, I., Crichton, J.H., Gazzara, M.R., James, K., Liu, Y., Grellscheid, S.N., Curk, T., Rooij, D. de, Steyn, J.S., Cockell, S., et al. (2019). An ancient germ cell-specific RNA-binding protein protects the germline from cryptic splice site poisoning. Elife 8, e39304. 10.7554/elife.39304.

13. Legrand, J.M.D., Chan, A.-L., La, H.M., Rossello, F.J., Änkö, M.-L., Fuller-Pace, F.V., and Hobbs, R.M. (2019). DDX5 plays essential transcriptional and post-transcriptional roles in the maintenance and function of spermatogonia. Nat Commun 10, 2278. 10.1038/s41467-019-09972-7.

14. Yuan, S., Feng, S., Li, J., Wen, H., Liu, K., Gui, Y., Wen, Y., and Wang, X. (2021). hnRNPH1 recruits PTBP2 and SRSF3 to cooperatively modulate alternative pre-mRNA splicing in germ cells and is essential for spermatogenesis and oogenesis. 10.21203/rs.3.rs-1060705/v1.

15. Wu, R., Zhan, J., Zheng, B., Chen, Z., Li, J., Li, C., Liu, R., Zhang, X., Huang, X., and Luo, M. (2021). SYMPK Is Required for Meiosis and Involved in Alternative Splicing in Male Germ Cells. Frontiers Cell Dev Biology 9, 715733. 10.3389/fcell.2021.715733.

16. Maradonna, F., Gioacchini, G., Notarstefano, V., Fontana, C.M., Citton, F., Valle, L.D., Giorgini, E., and Carnevali, O. (2020). Knockout of the Glucocorticoid Receptor Impairs Reproduction in Female Zebrafish. Int J Mol Sci 21, 9073. 10.3390/ijms21239073.

17. Facchinello, N., Skobo, T., Meneghetti, G., Colletti, E., Dinarello, A., Tiso, N., Costa, R., Gioacchini, G., Carnevali, O., Argenton, F., et al. (2017). nr3c1 null mutant zebrafish are viable and reveal DNA-binding-independent activities of the glucocorticoid receptor. Sci Rep-uk 7, 4371. 10.1038/s41598-017-04535-6.

18. Faught, E., Santos, H.B., and Vijayan, M.M. (2020). Loss of the glucocorticoid receptor causes accelerated ovarian ageing in zebrafish. Proc Royal Soc B 287, 20202190. 10.1098/rspb.2020.2190.

Author Response

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

eLife assessment:

This important study represents a comprehensive computational analysis of Plasmodium falciparum gene expression, with a focus on var gene expression, in parasites isolated from patients; it assesses changes that occur as the parasites adapt to short-term in vitro culture conditions. The work provides technical advances to update a previously developed computational pipeline. Although the findings of the shifts in the expression of particular var genes have theoretical or practical implications beyond a single subfield, the results are incomplete and the main claims are only partially supported.

The authors would like to thank the reviewers and editors for their insightful and constructive assessment. We particularly appreciate the statement that our work provides a technical advance of our computational pipeline given that this was one of our main aims. To address the editorial criticisms, we have rephrased and restructured the manuscript to ensure clarity of results and to support our main claims. For the same reason, we removed the var transcript differential expression analysis, as this led to confusion.

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1:

The authors took advantage of a large dataset of transcriptomic information obtained from parasites recovered from 35 patients. In addition, parasites from 13 of these patients were reared for 1 generation in vivo, 10 for 2 generations, and 1 for a third generation. This provided the authors with a remarkable resource for monitoring how parasites initially adapt to the environmental change of being grown in culture. They focused initially on var gene expression due to the importance of this gene family for parasite virulence, then subsequently assessed changes in the entire transcriptome. Their goal was to develop a more accurate and informative computational pipeline for assessing var gene expression and secondly, to document the adaptation process at the whole transcriptome level.

Overall, the authors were largely successful in their aims. They provide convincing evidence that their new computational pipeline is better able to assemble var transcripts and assess the structure of the encoded PfEMP1s. They can also assess var gene switching as a tool for examining antigenic variation. They also documented potentially important changes in the overall transcriptome that will be important for researchers who employ ex vivo samples for assessing things like drug sensitivity profiles or metabolic states. These are likely to be important tools and insights for researchers working on field samples.

One concern is that the abstract highlights "Unpredictable var gene switching..." and states that "Our results cast doubt on the validity of the common practice of using short-term cultured parasites...". This seems somewhat overly pessimistic with regard to var gene expression profiling and does not reflect the data described in the paper. In contrast, the main text of the paper repeatedly refers to "modest changes in var gene expression repertoire upon culture" or "relatively small changes in var expression from ex vivo to culture", and many additional similar assessments. On balance, it seems that transition to culture conditions causes relatively minor changes in var gene expression, at least in the initial generations. The authors do highlight that a few individuals in their analysis showed more pronounced and unpredictable changes, which certainly warrants caution for future studies but should not obscure the interesting observation that var gene expression remained relatively stable during transition to culture.

Thank you for this comment. We were happy to modify the wording in the abstract to have consistency with the results presented by highlighting that modest but unpredictable var gene switching was observed while substantial changes were found in the core transcriptome. Moreover, any differences observed in core transcriptome between ex vivo samples from naïve and pre-exposed patients are diminished after one cycle of cultivation making inferences about parasite biology in vivo impossible.

Therefore, – to our opinion – the statement in the last sentence is well supported by the data presented.

Line 43–47: “Modest but unpredictable var gene switching and convergence towards var2csa were observed in culture, along with differential expression of 19% of the core transcriptome between paired ex vivo and generation 1 samples. Our results cast doubt on the validity of the common practice of using short-term cultured parasites to make inferences about in vivo phenotype and behaviour.” Nevertheless, we would like to note that this study was in a unique position to assess changes at the individual patient level as we had successive parasite generations. This comparison is not done in most cross-sectional studies and therefore these small, unpredictable changes in the var transcriptome are missed.

Reviewer #2:

In this study, the authors describe a pipeline to sequence expressed var genes from RNA sequencing that improves on a previous one that they had developed. Importantly, they use this approach to determine how var gene expression changes with short-term culture. Their finding of shifts in the expression of particular var genes is compelling and casts some doubt on the comparability of gene expression in short-term culture versus var expression at the time of participant sampling. The authors appear to overstate the novelty of their pipeline, which should be better situated within the context of existing pipelines described in the literature.

Other studies have relied on short-term culture to understand var gene expression in clinical malaria studies. This study indicates the need for caution in over-interpreting findings from these studies.

The novel method of var gene assembly described by the authors needs to be appropriately situated within the context of previous studies. They neglect to mention several recent studies that present transcript-level novel assembly of var genes from clinical samples. It is important for them to situate their work within this context and compare and contrast it accordingly. A table comparing all existing methods in terms of pros and cons would be helpful to evaluate their method.

We are grateful for this suggestion and agree that a table comparing the pros and cons of all existing methods would be helpful for the general reader and also highlight the key advantages of our new approach. A table comparing previous methods for var gene and transcript characterisation has been added to the manuscript and is referenced in the introduction (line 107).

Author response table 1.

Comparison of previous var assembly approaches based on DNA- and RNA-sequencing.

Reviewer #3:

This work focuses on the important problem of how to access the highly polymorphic var gene family using short-read sequence data. The approach that was most successful, and utilized for all subsequent analyses, employed a different assembler from their prior pipeline, and impressively, more than doubles the N50 metric.

The authors then endeavor to utilize these improved assemblies to assess differential RNA expression of ex vivo and short-term cultured samples, and conclude that their results "cast doubt on the validity" of using short-term cultured parasites to infer in vivo characteristics. Readers should be aware that the various approaches to assess differential expression lack statistical clarity and appear to be contradictory. Unfortunately, there is no attempt to describe the rationale for the different approaches and how they might inform one another.

It is unclear whether adjusting for life-cycle stage as reported is appropriate for the var-only expression models. The methods do not appear to describe what type of correction variable (continuous/categorical) was used in each model, and there is no discussion of the impact on var vs. core transcriptome results.

We agree with the reviewer that the different methods and results of the var transcriptome analysis can be difficult to reconcile. To address this, we have included a summary table with a brief description of the rationale and results of each approach in our analysis pipeline.

Author response table 2.

Summary of the different levels of analysis performed to assess the effect of short-term parasite culturing on var and core gene expression, their rational, method, results, and interpretation.

Additionally, the var transcript differential expression analysis was removed from the manuscript, because this study was in a unique position to perform a more focused analysis of var transcriptional changes across paired samples, meaning the per-patient approach was more suitable. This allowed for changes in the var transcriptome to be identified that would have gone unnoticed in the traditional differential expression analysis.

We thank the reviewer for his highly important comment about adjusting for life cycle stage. Var gene expression is highly stage-dependent, so any quantitative comparison between samples does need adjustment for developmental stage. All life cycle stage adjustments were done using the mixture model proportions to be consistent with the original paper, described in the results and methods sections:

• Line 219–221: “Due to the potential confounding effect of differences in stage distribution on gene expression, we adjusted for developmental stage determined by the mixture model in all subsequent analyses.”

• Line 722–725: “Var gene expression is highly stage dependent, so any quantitative comparison between samples needs adjustment for developmental stage. The life cycle stage proportions determined from the mixture model approach were used for adjustment.“

The rank-expression analysis did not have adjustment for life cycle stage as the values were determined as a percentage contribution to the total var transcriptome. The var group level and the global var gene expression analyses were adjusted for life cycle stages, by including them as an independent variable, as described in the results and methods sections.

Var group expression:

• Line 321–326: “Due to these results, the expression of group A var genes vs. group B and C var genes was investigated using a paired analysis on all the DBLα (DBLα1 vs DBLα0 and DBLα2) and NTS (NTSA vs NTSB) sequences assembled from ex vivo samples and across multiple generations in culture. A linear model was created with group A expression as the response variable, the generation and life cycle stage as independent variables and the patient information included as a random effect. The same was performed using group B and C expression levels.“

• Line 784–787: “DESeq2 normalisation was performed, with patient identity and life cycle stage proportions included as covariates and differences in the amounts of var transcripts of group A compared with groups B and C assessed (Love et al., 2014). A similar approach was repeated for NTS domains.”

Gobal var gene expression:

• Line 342–347: “A linear model was created (using only paired samples from ex vivo and generation 1) (Supplementary file 1) with proportion of total gene expression dedicated to var gene expression as the response variable, the generation and life cycle stage as independent variables and the patient information included as a random effect. This model showed no significant differences between generations, suggesting that differences observed in the raw data may be a consequence of small changes in developmental stage distribution in culture.”

• Line 804–806: “Significant differences in total var gene expression were tested by constructing a linear model with the proportion of gene expression dedicated to var gene expression as the response variable, the generation and life cycle stage as an independent variables and the patient identity included as a random effect.“

The analysis of the conserved var gene expression was adjusted for life cycle stage:

• Line 766–768: “For each conserved gene, Salmon normalised read counts (adjusted for life cycle stage) were summed and expression compared across the generations using a pairwise Wilcoxon rank test.”

And life cycle stage estimates were included as covariates in the design matrix for the domain differential expression analysis:

• Line 771–773: “DESeq2 was used to test for differential domain expression, with five expected read counts in at least three patient isolates required, with life cycle stage and patient identity used as covariates.”

Reviewer #1:

1. In the legend to Figure 1, the authors cite "Deitsch and Hviid, 2004" for the classification of different var gene types. This is not the best reference for this work. Better citations would be Kraemer and Smith, Mol Micro, 2003 and Lavstsen et al, Malaria J, 2003.

We agree and have updated the legend in Figure 1 with these references, consistent with the references cited in the introduction.

1. In Figures 2 and 3, each of the boxes in the flow charts are largely filled with empty space while the text is nearly too small to read. Adjusting the size of the text would improve legibility.

We have increased the size of the text in these figures.

1. My understanding of the computational method for assessing global var gene expression indicates an initial step of identifying reads containing the amino acid sequence LARSFADIG. It is worth noting that VAR2CSA does not contain this motif. Will the pipeline therefore miss expression of this gene, and if so, how does this affect the assessment of global var gene assessment? This seems relevant given that the authors detect increased expression of var2csa during adaptation to culture.

To address this question, we have added an explanation in the methods section to better explain our analysis. Var2csa was not captured in the global var gene expression analysis, but was analyzed separately because of its unique properties (conservation, proposed role in regulating var gene switching, slightly divergent timing of expression, translational repression).

• Line 802/3: “Var2csa does not contain the LARSFADIG motif, hence this quantitative analysis of global var gene expression excluded var2csa (which was analysed separately).”

1. In Figures 4 and 7, panels a and b display virtually identical PCA plots, with the exception that panel A displays more generations. Why are both panels included? There doesn't appear to be any additional information provided by panel B.

We agree and have removed Figure 7b for the core transcriptome PCA as it did not provide any new information. The var transcript differential analysis (displayed in Figure 4) has been removed from the manuscript.

1. On line 560-567, the authors state "However, the impact of short-term culture was the most apparent at the var transcript level and became less clear at higher levels." What are the high levels being referred to here?

We have replaced this sentence to make it clearer what the different levels are (global var gene expression, var domain and var type).

• Line 526/7: “However, the impact of short-term culture was the most apparent at the var transcript level and became less clear at the var domain, var type and global var gene expression level.”

Reviewer #2:

The authors make no mention or assessment of previously published var gene assembly methods from clinical samples that focus on genomic or transcriptomic approaches. These include:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28351419/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34846163/

These methods should be compared to the method for var gene assembly outlined by the co-authors, especially as the authors say that their method "overcomes previous limitations and outperforms current methods" (128-129). The second reference above appears to be a method to measure var expression in clinical samples and so should be particularly compared to the approach outlined by the authors.

Thank you for pointing this out. We have included the second reference in the introduction of our revised manuscript, where we refer to var assembly and quantification from RNA-sequencing data. We abstained from including the first paper in this paragraph (Dara et al., 2017) as it describes a var gene assembly pipeline and not a var transcript assembly pipeline.

• Line 101–105: “While approaches for var assembly and quantification based on RNA-sequencing have recently been proposed (Wichers et al., 2021; Stucke et al., 2021; Andrade et al., 2020; TonkinHill et al., 2018, Duffy et al., 2016), these still produce inadequate assembly of the biologically important N-terminal domain region, have a relatively high number of misassemblies and do not provide an adequate solution for handling the conserved var variants (Table S1).”

Additionally, we have updated the manuscript with a table (Table S1) comparing these two methods plus other previously used var transcript/gene assembly approaches (see comment to the public reviews).

But to address this particular comment in more detail, the first paper (Dara et al., 2017) is a var gene assembly pipeline and not a var transcript assembly pipeline. It is based on assembling var exon 1 from unfished whole genome assemblies of clinical samples and requires a prior step for filtering out human DNA. The authors used two different assemblers, Celera for short reads (which is no longer maintained) and Sprai for long reads (>2000bp), but found that Celera performed worse than Sprai, and subsequently used Sprai assemblies. Therefore, this method does not appear to be suitable for assembling short reads from RNA-seq.

The second paper (Stucke et al. 2021) focusses more on enriching for parasite RNA, which precedes assembly. The capture method they describe would complement downstream analysis of var transcript assembly with our pipeline. Their assembly pipeline is similar to our pipeline as they also performed de novo assembly on all P. falciparum mapping and non-human mapping reads and used the same assembler (but with different parameters). They clustered sequences using the same approach but at 90% sequence identity as opposed to 99% sequence identity using our approach. Then, Stucke et al. use 500nt as a cut-off as opposed to the more stringent filtering approach used in our approach. They annotated their de novo assembled transcripts with the known amino acid sequences used in their design of the capture array; our approach does not assume prior information on the var transcripts. Finally, their approach was validated only for its ability to recover the most highly expressed var transcript in 6 uncomplicated malaria samples, and they did not assess mis-assemblies in their approach.

For the methods (619–621), were erythrocytes isolated by Ficoll gradient centrifugation at the time of collection or later?

We have updated the methods section to clarify this.

• Line 586–588: “Blood was drawn and either immediately processed (#1, #2, #3, #4, #11, #12, #14, #17, #21, #23, #28, #29, #30, #31, #32) or stored overnight at 4oC until processing (#5, #6, #7, #9, #10, #13, #15, #16, #18, #19, #20, #22, #24, #25, #26, #27, #33).”

Was the current pipeline and assembly method assessed for var chimeras? This should be described.

Yes, this was quantified in the Pf 3D7 dataset and also assessed in the German traveler dataset. For the 3D7 dataset it is described in the result section and Figure S1.

• Line 168–174: “However, we found high accuracies (> 0.95) across all approaches, meaning the sequences we assembled were correct (Figure 2 – Figure supplement 1b). The whole transcript approach also performed the best when assembling the lower expressed var genes (Figure 2 – Figure supplement 1e) and produced the fewest var chimeras compared to the original approach on P. falciparum 3D7. Fourteen misassemblies were observed with the whole transcript approach compared to 19 with the original approach (Table S2). This reduction in misassemblies was particularly apparent in the ring-stage samples.” - Figure S1:

Author response image 1.

Performance of novel computational pipelines for var assembly on Plasmodium falciparum 3D7: The three approaches (whole transcript: blue, domain approach: orange, original approach: green) were applied to a public RNA-seq dataset (ENA: PRJEB31535) of the intra-erythrocytic life cycle stages of 3 biological replicates of cultured P. falciparum 3D7, sampled at 8-hour intervals up until 40hrs post infection (bpi) and then at 4-hour intervals up until 48 (Wichers al., 2019). Boxplots show the data from the 3 biological replicates for each time point in the intra-erythrocytic life cycle: a) alignment scores for the dominantly expressed var gene (PF3D7_07126m), b) accuracy scores for the dominantly var gene (PF3D7_0712600), c) number of contigs to assemble the dominant var gene (PF3D7_0712600), d) alignment scores for a middle ranking expressed vargene (PF3D7_0937800), e) alignment scores for the lowest expressed var gene (PF3D7_0200100). The first best blast hit (significance threshold = le-10) was chosen for each contig. The alignment score was used to evaluate the each method. The alignment score represents √accuracy* recovery. The accuracy is the proportion of bases that are correct in the assembled transcript and the recovery reflects what proportion of the true transcript was assembled. Assembly completeness of the dominant vargene (PF3D7 071200, length = 6648nt) for the three approaches was assessed for each biological f) biological replicate 1, g) biological replicate 2, h) biological replicate 3. Dotted lines represent the start and end of the contigs required to assemble the vargene. Red bars represent assembled sequences relative to the dominantly whole vargene sequence, where we know the true sequence (termed “reference transcript”).

For the ex vivo samples, this has been discussed in the result section and now we also added this information to Table 1.

• Line 182/3: “Remarkably, with the new whole transcript method, we observed a significant decrease (2 vs 336) in clearly misassembled transcripts with, for example, an N-terminal domain at an internal position.”

• Table 1:

Author response table 3.

Statistics for the different approaches used to assemble the var transcripts. Var assembly approaches were applied to malaria patient ex vivo samples (n=32) from (Wichers et al., 2021) and statistics determined. Given are the total number of assembled var transcripts longer than 500 nt containing at least one significantly annotated var domain, the maximum length of the longest assembled var transcript in nucleotides and the N50 value, respectively. The N50 is defined as the sequence length of the shortest var contig, with all var contigs greater than or equal to this length together accounting for 50% of the total length of concatenated var transcript assemblies. Misassemblies represents the number of misassemblies for each approach. **Number of misassemblies were not determined for the domain approach due to its poor performance in other metrics.

Line 432: "the core gene transcriptome underwent a greater change relative to the var transcriptome upon transition to culture." Can this be shown statistically? It's unclear whether the difference in the sizes of the respective pools of the core genome and the var genes may account for this observation.

We found 19% of the core transcriptome to be differentially expressed. The per patient var transcript analysis revealed individually highly variable but generally rather subtle changes in the var transcriptome. The different methods for assessing this make it difficult to statistically compare these two different results.

The feasibility of this approach for field samples should be discussed in the Discussion.

In the original manuscript we reflected on this already several times in the discussion (e.g., line 465/6; line 471–475; line 555–568). We now have added another two sentences at the end of the paragraph starting in line 449 to address this point. It reads now:

• Line 442–451: “Our new approach used the most geographically diverse reference of var gene sequences to date, which improved the identification of reads derived from var transcripts. This is crucial when analysing patient samples with low parasitaemia where var transcripts are hard to assemble due to their low abundancy (Guillochon et al., 2022). Our approach has wide utility due to stable performance on both laboratory-adapted and clinical samples. Concordance in the different var expression profiling approaches (RNA-sequencing and DBLα-tag) on ex vivo samples increased using the new approach by 13%, when compared to the original approach (96% in the whole transcript approach compared to 83% in Wichers et al., 2021. This suggests the new approach provides a more accurate method for characterising var genes, especially in samples collected directly from patients. Ultimately, this will allow a deeper understanding of relationships between var gene expression and clinical manifestations of malaria.”

MINOR

The plural form of PfEMP1 (PfEMP1s) is inconsistently used throughout the text.

Corrected.

404-405: statistical test for significance?

Thank you for this suggestion. We have done two comparisons between the original analysis from Wichers et al., 2021 and our new whole transcript approach to test concordance of the RNAseq approaches with the DBLα-tag approach using paired Wilcoxon tests. These comparisons suggest that our new approach has significantly increased concordance with DBLα-tag data and might be better at capturing all expressed DBLα domains than the original analysis (and the DBLα-approach), although not statistically significant. We describe this now in the result section.

• Line 352–361: “Overall, we found a high agreement between the detected DBLα-tag sequences and the de novo assembled var transcripts. A median of 96% (IQR: 93–100%) of all unique DBLα-tag sequences detected with >10 reads were found in the RNA-sequencing approach. This is a significant improvement on the original approach (p= 0.0077, paired Wilcoxon test), in which a median of 83% (IQR: 79–96%) was found (Wichers et al., 2021). To allow for a fair comparison of the >10 reads threshold used in the DBLα-tag approach, the upper 75th percentile of the RNA-sequencingassembled DBLα domains were analysed. A median of 77.4% (IQR: 61–88%) of the upper 75th percentile of the assembled DBLα domains were found in the DBLα-tag approach. This is a lower median percentage than the median of 81.3% (IQR: 73–98%) found in the original analysis (p= 0.28, paired Wilcoxon test) and suggests the new assembly approach is better at capturing all expressed DBLα domains.”

Figure 4: The letters for the figure panels need to be added.

The figure has been removed from the manuscript.

Reviewer #3:

It is difficult from Table S2 to determine how many unique var transcripts would have enough coverage to be potentially assembled from each sample. It seems unlikely that 455 distinct vars (~14 per sample) would be expressed at a detectable level for assembly. Why not DNA-sequence these samples to get the full repertoire for comparison to RNA? Why would so many distinct transcripts be yielded from fairly synchronous samples?

We know from controlled human malaria infections of malaria-naive volunteers, that most var genes present in the genomic repertoire of the parasite strain are expressed at the onset of the human blood phase (heterogenous var gene expression) (Wang et al., 2009; Bachmann et al, 2016; Wichers-Misterek et al., 2023). This pattern shifts to a more restricted, homogeneous var expression pattern in semi-immune individuals (expression of few variants) depending on the degree of immunity (Bachmann et al., 2019).

Author response image 2.

In this cohort, 15 first-time infections are included, which should also possess a more heterogenous var gene expression in comparison to the pre-exposed individuals, and indeed such a trend is already seen in the number of different DBLa-tag clusters found in both patient groups (see figure panel from Wichers et al. 2021: blue-first-time infections; grey–pre-exposed). Moreover, Warimwe et al. 2013 have shown that asymptomatic infections have a more homogeneous var expression in comparison to symptomatic infections. Therefore, we expect that parasites from symptomatic infections have a heterogenous var expression pattern with multiple var gene variants expressed, which we could assemble due to our high read depth and our improved var assembly pipeline for even low expressed variants.

Moreover, the distinct transcripts found in the RNA-seq approach were confirmed with the DBLα tag data. To our opinion, previous approaches may have underestimated the complexity of the var transcriptome in less immune individuals.

Mapping reads to these 455 putative transcripts and using this count matrix for differential expression analysis seems very unlikely to produce reliable results. As acknowledged on line 327, many reads will be mis-mapped, and perhaps most challenging is that most vars will not be represented in most samples. In other words, even if mapping were somehow perfect, one would expect a sparse matrix that would not be suitable for statistical comparisons between groups. This is likely why the per-patient transcript analysis doesn't appear to be consistent. I would recommend the authors remove the DE sections utilizing this approach, or add convincing evidence that the count matrix is useable.

We agree that this is a general issue of var differential expression analysis. Therefore, we have removed the var differential expression analysis from this manuscript as the per patient approach was more appropriate for the paired samples. We validated different mapping strategies (new Figure S6) and included a paragraph discussing the problem in the result section:

• Line 237–255: “In the original approach of Wichers et al., 2021, the non-core reads of each sample used for var assembly were mapped against a pooled reference of assembled var transcripts from all samples, as a preliminary step towards differential var transcript expression analysis. This approach returned a small number of var transcripts which were expressed across multiple patient samples (Figure 3 – Figure supplement 2a). As genome sequencing was not available, it was not possible to know whether there was truly overlap in var genomic repertoires of the different patient samples, but substantial overlap was not expected. Stricter mapping approaches (for example, excluding transcripts shorter than 1500nt) changed the resulting var expression profiles and produced more realistic scenarios where similar var expression profiles were generated across paired samples, whilst there was decreasing overlap across different patient samples (Figure 3 – Figure supplement 2b,c). Given this limitation, we used the paired samples to analyse var gene expression at an individual subject level, where we confirmed the MSP1 genotypes and alleles were still present after short-term in vitro cultivation. The per patient approach showed consistent expression of var transcripts within samples from each patient but no overlap of var expression profiles across different patients (Figure 3 – Figure supplement 2d). Taken together, the per patient approach was better suited for assessing var transcriptional changes in longitudinal samples. It has been hypothesised that more conserved var genes in field isolates increase parasite fitness during chronic infections, necessitating the need to correctly identify them (Dimonte et al., 2020, Otto et al., 2019). Accordingly, further work is needed to optimise the pooled sample approach to identify truly conserved var transcripts across different parasite isolates in cross-sectional studies.” - Figure S6:

Author response image 3.

Var expression profiles across different mapping. Different mapping approaches Were used to quantify the Var expression profiles of each sample (ex Vivo (n=13), generation I (n=13), generation 2 (n=10) and generation 3 (n=l). The pooled sample approach in Which all significantly assembled van transcripts (1500nt and containing3 significantly annotated var domains) across samples were combined into a reference and redundancy was removed using cd-hit (at sequence identity = 99%) (a—c). The non-core reads of each sample were mapped to this pooled reference using a) Salmon, b) bowtie2 filtering for uniquely mapping paired reads with MAPQ and c) bowtie2 filtering for uniquely mapping paired reads with a MAPQ > 20. d) The per patient approach was applied. For each patient, the paired ex vivo and in vitro samples were analysed. The assembled var transcripts (at least 1500nt and containing3 significantly annotated var domains) across all the generations for a patient were combined into a reference, redundancy was removed using cd-hit (at sequence identity: 99%), and expression was quantified using Salmon. Pie charts show the var expression profile With the relative size of each slice representing the relative percentage of total var gene expression of each var transcript. Different colours represent different assembled var transcripts with the same colour code used across a-d.

For future cross-sectional studies a per patient analysis that attempts to group per patient assemblies on some unifying structure (e.g., domain, homology blocks, domain cassettes etc) should be performed.

Line 304. I don't understand the rationale for comparing naïve vs. prior-exposed individuals at ex-vivo and gen 1 timepoints to provide insights into how reliable cultured parasites are as a surrogate for var expression in vivo. Further, the next section (per patient) appears to confirm the significant limitation of the 'all sample analysis' approach. The conclusion on line 319 is not supported by the results reported in figures S9a and S9b, nor is the bold conclusion in the abstract about "casting doubt" on experiments utilizing culture adapted

We have removed this comparison from the manuscript due to the inconsistencies with the var per patient approach. However, the conclusion in the abstract has been rephrased to reflect the fact we observed 19% of the core transcript differentially expressed within one cycle of cultivation.

Line 372/391 (and for the other LMM descriptions). I believe you mean to say response variable, rather than explanatory variable. Explanatory variables are on the right hand side of the equation.

Thank you for spotting this inaccuracy, we changed it to “response variable” (line 324, line 343, line 805).

Line 467. Similar to line 304, why would comparisons of naïve vs. prior-exposed be informative about surrogates for in vivo studies? Without a gold-standard for what should be differentially expressed between naïve and prior-exposed in vivo, it doesn't seem prudent to interpret a drop in the number of DE genes for this comparison in generation 1 as evidence that biological signal for this comparison is lost. What if the generation 1 result is actually more reflective of the true difference in vivo, but the ex vivo samples are just noisy? How do we know? Why not just compare ex vivo vs generation 1/2 directly (as done in the first DE analysis), and then you can comment on the large number of changes as samples are less and less proximal to in vivo?

In the original paper (Wichers et al., 2021), there were differences between the core transcriptome of naïve vs previously exposed patients. However, these differences appeared to diminish in vitro, suggesting the in vivo core transcriptome is not fully maintained in vitro.

We have added a sentence explaining the reasoning behind this analysis in the results section:

• Lines 414–423: “In the original analysis of ex vivo samples, hundreds of core genes were identified as significantly differentially expressed between pre-exposed and naïve malaria patients. We investigated whether these differences persisted after in vitro cultivation. We performed differential expression analysis comparing parasite isolates from naïve (n=6) vs pre-exposed (n=7) patients, first between their ex vivo samples, and then between the corresponding generation 1 samples. Interestingly, when using the ex vivo samples, we observed 206 core genes significantly upregulated in naïve patients compared to pre-exposed patients (Figure 7 – Figure supplement 3a). Conversely, we observed no differentially expressed genes in the naïve vs pre-exposed analysis of the paired generation 1 samples (Figure 7 – Figure supplement 3b). Taken together with the preceding findings, this suggests one cycle of cultivation shifts the core transcriptomes of parasites to be more alike each other, diminishing inferences about parasite biology in vivo.”

Overall, I found the many DE approaches very frustrating to interpret coherently. If not dropped in revision, the reader would benefit from a substantial effort to clarify the rationale for each approach, and how each result fits together with the other approaches and builds to a concise conclusion.

We agree that the manuscript contains many different complex layers of analysis and that it is therefore important to explain the rationale for each approach. Therefore, we now included the summary Table 3 (see comment to public review). Additionally, we have removed the var transcript differential expression due to its limitations, which we hope has already streamlined our manuscript.

Author Response

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

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

"MAGIC" was introduced by the Rong Li lab in a Nature letters article in 2017. This manuscript is an extension of this original work and uses a genome wide screen the Baker's yeast to decipher which cellular pathways influence MAGIC. Overall, this manuscript is a logical extension of the 2017 study, however the manuscript is challenging to follow, complicated by the data often being discussed out of sequence. Although the manuscripts make claims of a mechanism being pinpointed, there are many gaps and the true mechanisms of how the factors identified in the screen influence MAGIC is not clear. A key issue is that there are many assumptions drawn on previous literature, but central aspects of the mechanisms being proposed are not adequately shown.

Key comments:

1. Reasoning and pipelines presented in the first two sections of the results are disordered and do not follow figure order. In some instances, the background to experimental analyses such as detailing the generation of spGFP constructs in the YKO mutant library, or validation of Snf1 activation are mentioned after respective results are discussed. This needs to be fixed.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out potential confusion to readers. We have revised the first two sections according to reviewer’s suggestion. (Page 4-6)

1. In general there is a lack of data to support microscopy data and supporting quantification analysis. The validity of this data could be significantly strengthened with accompanying western blots showing accumulation of a given constructs in mitochondrial sub compartments (as was the case in the lab’s original paper in 2017).

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion on biochemical validations. However, the validity of this imaging-based assay for detecting import of cytosolic misfolded proteins into mitochondria, including the use of FlucSM as a model misfolding-prone protein, was carefully established in our previous study by using appropriate controls, super resolution imaging, APEX-based proximity labeling, and classical biochemical fractionation and protease protection assay (Ruan et al., 2017 Nature, ref. 10). We have reminded readers of these validation experiments in the previous study on Page 4, line 14-17.

In recent years, advancements in imaging-based tools have allowed many protein interactions and dynamic processes, which were previously examined by using biochemical assays in lysates of populations of cells, to be observed with various level of quantitation in live cells with intact cellular compartments. Many of these assays, e.g., the RUSH assay for ER to Golgi transport, FRAP-based analysis for nuclear/cytoplasmic shuttling of proteins, or FRET-based assays for protein-protein interactions, have been well accepted and even embraced by the respective fields of study once validated with genetic and biochemical approaches. The advantages for live-cell imaging-based assays are often their unique ability to report dynamic processes or unstable molecular species with spatiotemporal sensitivity. Respectfully, it is our view, based on our own experience, that the traditional protease protection assay is not adequate or sufficiently quantitative for examining the presence of unstable misfolded proteins in mitochondrial sub-compartments, given the obligatorily lengthy in vitro cell lysis and mitochondrial isolation process, during which the unstable proteins are continuously being degraded. This likely explains our previous biochemical fractionation result that only weak protein signals were detected in the matrix fraction (Ruan et al., 2017 Nature, ref. 10). In addition, unlike stably folded, native mitochondrial matrix proteins, misfolded/unfolded proteins such as Lsg1 or FlucSM are highly susceptible to protease treatment. This sensitivity makes the assay unreliable for detecting such proteins if trace amount of the protease penetrates mitochondrial membranes during cell lysis even without detergent treatment.

While we agree that protease protection assay is highly valuable for qualitative detection of the presence of a protein in certain mitochondrial compartments or determining its topology on membranes, this assay (regrettably in our hands) does not allow quantitative comparisons that were necessary for this study, because of inherent sample to sample variation, yet the laborious and low throughput nature of this assay makes it difficult for adequate statistical analysis. Furthermore, the level of protein detection in various fractions is highly sensitive to how the sample is treated with protease and detergent. Our imaging-based quantification, on the other hand, allows us to compare increased or decreased presence of GFP11-tagged proteins in mitochondria under different metabolic conditions or in different mutant or wild-type strains. Data from hundreds of cells and at least three independent biological replicates allowed us to apply adequate statistical analysis to aid our conclusion.

1. Much of the mechanisms proposed relies on the Snf1 activation. This is however not shown but assumed to be taking place. Given that this activation is central to the mechanism proposed, this should be explicitly shown here - for example survey the phosphorylation status of the protein.

Both REG1 deletion and low glucose conditions have been demonstrated extensively for Snf1 phosphorylation and activation in yeast (e.g., many seminal papers from Marian Carlson’s and other lab, such as ref. 24-28). In our study, we have indeed corroborated this by showing that Mig1 was exported from the nucleus in Δreg1 mutant and in low glucose conditions (Figure 1—figure supplement 2H and I. The mechanism of Snf1-mediated nuclear export of Mig1 has been characterized in detail as well (e.g., ref. 29-31).

Recommendations for the authors: please note that you control which, if any, revisions, to undertake

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

Genetic Screen o Line 20 - the narrative moves to SNF1, but the reasoning for the selection of this Class I substrate is not defined. What was the basis for this selection - what happened to the other Class I substrates. It is stated in the text that the other Class I proteins show the same increase in spGFP signal. The data showing this should be included in the Supp Figure 1 for transparency.

We have moved the narratives of Snf1 function to the second section and clarified that we were interested in this gene due to its central role in metabolism and mitochondrial functions that may influence MAGIC (Page 5: line 16-20). Other genes in class 1 were shown in Table S1. Detailed discussion of other genes in this category is beyond the scope of this study.

Snf1/AMPK prevents MP accumulation in mitochondria:

The FlucDM data in human RPE-1 mitochondria seems to be added to only increase the significance of the work. The mechanisms suggested here with Hap4 would not be possible in human cells as there is no homologue of this protein in human cells. Making generalisations that these pathways are conserved based on this one experiment is not appropriate.

We appreciate this feedback. Although the focus of this study is the regulation of MAGIC by the yeast AMPK Snf1, we would like to share our initial observation that suggests a similar role of AMPK in human RPE-1 cells. We acknowledge that the underlying mechanisms regarding the downstream transcription factors and pathway for misfolded protein import could be different in mammalian cells, but the overall effect of AMPK in mitochondrial biogenesis is well known to resemble that of Snf1. To avoid making over-generalization, we changed our statement of conclusion to: ‘These results suggest that AMPK in human cells regulates MP accumulation in mitochondria following a similar trend as in yeast, although the underlying mechanisms might differ between these organisms.’ (Page 7: line 2-4)

Mechanisms of MAGIC regulation by Snf1:

While the lysosome is ruled out here the authors have not considered the proteasomes. Is there a reason for this? Given accumulation of aggregates outside of mitochondria, and previous connections of the proteasome to mitochondrial quality control this would be an obvious thing to check. We examined the role of lysosomal degradation here because it is known to be activated under Snf1active condition (ref. 37). We appreciate this feedback and have included a new analysis on MG132treated FlucSM spGFP strains in which PDR5 gene was deleted to avoid drug efflux.

This result suggests that the proteosome inhibitor did not ablate the difference in FlucSM accumulation between these conditions. That MG132 promoted mitochondrial accumulation of FlucSM in both high glucose and low glucose conditions was not surprising, as FlucSM is also degraded by proteasome in the cytosol (Ruan et al., 2017 Nature, ref. 10), and preventing this pathway could divert more of such protein molecules toward MAGIC. (Page 7: line 26-29).

Line 13 "we hypothesized that elevated expression of mitochondrial preproteins induced by the activation of Snf1-Hap4 axis (REF) may outcompete MPs for import channels". This statement has some assumptions. The authors have not shown that Snf1 is activated in thier models and more importantly that they have an accumulation of mitochondrial preproteins. The data that follows using the cytosolic domains of the receptors is hard to rationalise without seeing evidence that there is in fact pre-protein accumulation or impacts on the mitochondrial proteome in this system.

As stated in our response to main point [3], Snf1 activation in reg1 mutant or in low glucose is evidenced by our data showing Mig1 export from nucleus to cytoplasm and had also been shown in many previous publications. A recent study (Tsuboi et al., 2020 eLife) also showed a dramatic increase in mitochondrial volume fraction in Δreg1 cells and wild-type cells in respiratory conditions, further supporting the role of Snf1 in mitochondrial biogenesis. We have provided relevant references in the manuscript (ref. 24-28).

The ability of Tom70 cytosolic domain (Tom70cd), which can bind mitochondrial preproteins but not localize to mitochondria due to lack of N-terminal targeting sequence, to compete with endogenous Tom70 for mitochondrial preproteins has been well documented (ref. 47-49). However, we agree with the reviewer that a future quantitative proteomics study to measure changes in mitochondrial proteome under Tom70cd over-expression could allow more accurate interpretation of our experimental result.

AMPK protects cellular fitness during proteotoxic stress:

The inhibition of preprotein import by overexpressing the cytosolic domains of receptors is not supported with some proof of principle data. If this was working as the authors assume, it is not clear why only an effect with Tom70 is observed. The majority of the mitochondrial proteome is imported via Tom20/Tom22 so this does not align with what the authors are suggesting. Is the Tom70CD and any associated Hsp proteins facilitating the observed changes to the MPs?

We thank the reviewer for raising this point. We expressed different TOM receptor cytosolic domains but found that Tom70cd had the strongest rescue on MAGIC under AMPK activation conditions. It is possible that certain Tom70 substrates or Tom70-assoicated heat shock proteins inhibit the import of MAGIC substrates. We admit that a clear explanation of this unexpected observation necessitates a better understanding of how native and MAGIC substrates are selected and imported by the outer-membrane channel. We can only offer our best interpretation based on the current state of the understanding, and we feel that we have been careful to acknowledge such in the manuscript.

While the effect of AMPK inactivation reducing FUS accumulation was striking, this was all in the context of overexpression and may not be physiologically relevant - or may occur very transiently under basal conditions. Is GST an appropriate control here, why not use WT FUS? Likewise, one representative image is shown in Figure 5 - can the authors show western blotting that mitochondrial accumulation of FUS can be reduced with AMPK activation?

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion, however, overexpressed FUS WT is also aggregation prone (Zhihui Sun et al., 2011, PloS Biology; Shulin Ju, 2011, PloS Biology; Jacqueline C. Mitchell et., 2013, Acta Neuro). We believe that GST, as a well-folded protein, is an appropriate control (Ruan et al., 2017 Nature, ref. 10). As we discussed in response to main point [1], the in vitro assay involving protease protection and western blots do not allow reliable quantitative comparison in our hands.

In text changes.

The analysis pipeline of the YKO mutant library should be introduced at the very start of the first paragraph, not the end.

Addressed on Page 4, second paragraph

"Fluc" should be introduced as "Firefly luciferase" within the first paragraph of the first section, also need to define SM and DM in FlucSM/FlucDM - these appear to be missing.

Addressed in both Introduction (Page 2: line 29; Page 3: line 8-9) and re-clarified in Result (Page 5: line 27-29)

The role of Reg1 should be explicitly stated in the text, not just in the figure.

Addressed on Page 6: line 3-6

Figure 1H legend states Reg1 (WT) is Snf1-inactive and Reg1 KO is Snf1-active. This wording is confusing and is not supported by data, but by assumption. If the authors want to use this wording then evidence needs to be provided - as suggested above.

We have changed this and other legends to only show genotypes and medium conditions.

"Tom70cd overexpression also exacerbated growth rate reduction due to FlucSM expression in HG medium (Figure 4A; Figure 4 - figure supplement 1A)" should be figure supplement 1B.

Fixed on Page 10: line 10

"These results suggest that glucose limitation protects mitochondria and cellular fitness during FlucSM induced proteotoxic stress through Snf1-dependent inhibition of MP import into mitochondria". The phrase "Snf1-dependent inhibition of MP import into mitochondria" may be misleading, as Snf1 isn't modulating import directly but is acting on transcriptional regulators to modulate mitochondrial import under stress.

We restated the conclusion as follows: ‘These results suggest that Snf1 activation under glucose limitation protects mitochondrial and cellular fitness under FlucSM-associated proteotoxic stress.’ (Page 10: line 20- 21)

"... Significantly increased the fraction of spGFP-positive and MMP-low cells in both HG and LG medium (Figure 4G-K)" should be (Figure 4J-K).

Fixed on Page 11: line 3

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Work of Rong Li´s lab, published in Nature 2017 (Ruan et al, 2017), led the authors to suggest that the mitochondrial protein import machinery removes misfolded/aggregated proteins from the cytosol and transports them to the mitochondrial matrix, where they are degraded by Pim1, the yeast Lon protease. The process was named mitochondria as guardian in cytosol (MAGIC).

The mechanism by which MAGIC selects proteins lacking mitochondrial targeting information, and the mechanism which allows misfolded proteins to cross the mitochondrial membranes remained, however, enigmatic. Up to my knowledge, additional support of MAGIC has not been published. Due to that, MAGIC is briefly mentioned in relevant reviews (it is a very interesting possibility!), however, the process is mentioned as a "proposal" (Andreasson et al, 2019) or is referred to require "further investigation to define its relevance for cellular protein homeostasis (proteostasis)" (Pfanner et al, 2019).

Rong Li´s lab now presents a follow-up story. As in the original Nature paper, the major findings are based on in vivo localization studies in yeast. The authors employ an aggregation prone, artificial luciferase construct (FlucSM), in a classical split-GFP assay: GFP1-10 is targeted to the matrix of mitochondria by fusion with the mitochondrial protein Grx5, while GFP11 is fused to FlucSM, lacking mitochondrial targeting information. In addition the authors perform a genetic screen, based on a similar assay, however, using the cytosolic misfolding-prone protein Lsg1 as a read-out.

My major concern about the manuscript is that it does not provide additional information which helps to understand how specifically aggregated cytosolic proteins, lacking a mitochondrial targeting signal could be imported into mitochondria. As it stands, I am not convinced that the observed FlucSM-/Lsg1-GFP signals presented in this study originate from FlucSM-/Lsg1-GFP localized inside of the mitochondrial matrix. The conclusions drawn by the authors in the current manuscript, however, rely on this single approach.

In the 2017 paper the authors state: "... we speculate that protein aggregates engaged with mitochondria via interaction with import receptors such as Tom70, leading to import of aggregate proteins followed by degradation by mitochondrial proteases such as Pim1." Based on the new data shown in this manuscript the authors now conclude "that MP (misfolded protein) import does not use Tom70/Tom71 as obligatory receptors." The new data presented do not provide a conclusive alternative. More experiments are required to draw a conclusion.

In my view: to confirm that MAGIC does indeed result in import of aggregated cytosolic proteins into the mitochondrial matrix, a second, independent approach is needed. My suggestion is to isolate mitochondria from a strain expressing FlucSM-GFP and perform protease protection assays, which are well established to demonstrate matrix localization of mitochondrial proteins. In case the authors are not equipped to do these experiments I feel that a collaboration with one of the excellent mitochondrial labs in the US might help the MAGIC pathway to become established.

We thank Reviewer 2 for these suggestions, but we would like to respectfully offer our difference in opinion:

a. Regarding the suggestion “to isolate mitochondria from a strain expressing FlucSM-GFP and perform protease protection assays”, in our previous study (Ruan et al., 2017 Nature, ref. 10), we have indeed applied two independent biochemical approaches: APEX-mitochondrial matrix proximity labeling and classic protease protection assay using non-spGFP strains, both consistently confirmed the entry of misfolded proteins into mitochondria under proteotoxic stress. Our super-resolution imaging further confirmed the import of the split GFP-labeled proteins to be inside mitochondria. Moreover, as we discussed in response to Reviewer 1’s main point [2], while the suggested biochemical assay is useful for validating topology within mitochondria, it is not quantitative and may not reliably report the in vivo accumulation of misfolded proteins in mitochondria due to the isolation process that takes hours, during which the unstable proteins could be continuously degraded within mitochondria.

While we agree with the reviewer that we do not yet understand how misfolded proteins are imported into mitochondria, it would be unfair to state “as it stands, I am not convinced..” simply because the underlying mechanism remains to be elucidated. We would like to point out that targeting sequences for many well-established mitochondrial proteins are still not well defined. It is well known that mitochondrial targeting sequences are not as uniformly predictable as, for example, nuclear targeting sequences. Our finding that deletion of TOM6 enhances the import of misfolded proteins suggest that their import may involve the TOM channel in a more promiscuous conformation, which may reduce the requirement for a specific sequence-based targeting signal associated with the substrate.

b. Regarding the role of Tom70, in our 2017 study, using proteomics and subsequently immunoprecipitation we validated the binding, albeit not necessarily direct, between misfolded protein FlucSM and Tom70. Therefore, “we speculate that protein aggregates engaged with mitochondria via interaction with import receptors such as Tom70”. Recent studies from different labs confirmed the interactions between Tom70 and aggregation prone proteins (Backes et al., 2021, Cell Reports; Liu et al., 2023, PNAS). In the current study, surprisingly, knockout of TOM70 did not block MAGIC, suggesting redundant components of mitochondria import system may facilitate the recruitment of misfolded proteins in the absence of Tom70, and this does not contradict the notion that Tom70 helps tether protein aggregates to mitochondria.

c. Regarding other studies also showing the import of misfolding or aggregation-prone cytosolic proteins into mitochondria, there have been at least several recent studies in the literature for mammalian cells involving either model substrates or disease proteins (e.g., ref. 12-15; 56-58; Vicario, M. et al. 2019 Cell Death Dis.). The studies are briefly mentioned in Introduction (Page 3, paragraph 2). The present manuscript documents a major effort from our group using whole genome screen in yeast to understand the mechanism and regulation of MAGIC. Many of the screen hits have yet to be studied in detail. We full agree that much remains to be understood about whether and how this pathway affects proteostasis and what might be the evolutionary origin for such a mechanism.

Additional comments:

The genetic screen:

The genetic screen identified five class 1 deletion strains, which lead to enhanced accumulation of Lsg1GFP and a larger set of class 2 mutants, which lead to reduced accumulation. Please note, in my opinion it is not clear that accumulation of the reporters occurs inside the mitochondria. In any case, the authors selected one single protein for further analysis: Snf1, the catalytic subunit of the yeast SNF complex, which is required for respiratory growth of yeast.

The results of the screen are not discussed in any detail. The authors mention that ribosome biogenesis factors are abundant among class 2 mutants. Noteworthy, Lsg1 is involved in 60S ribosomal subunit biogenesis. As Lsg1-GFP11 is overexpressed in the screen this should be discussed. Class 2 mutants also .include several 40S ribosomal subunit proteins (only one of the 60S subunit). What does this imply for the MAGIC model? Also, it should be discussed that the screen did not identify reg1 and hap4, which I had expected as hits based on the data shown in later parts of the manuscript.

We apologize for the confusion, but the GFP11 tag was in fact knocked into the C-terminus of Lsg1 in the endogenous LSG1 locus, and so Lsg1 was not overexpressed in the screen. We have made sure that this information is clearly conveyed in the revised manuscript (Page 4: line 20-22). How the ribosome small subunit affects MAGIC is beyond the focus of the current study and will be pursued in the future.

Regarding why certain mutants did not come out of our initial screen, this is not unexpected as the YKO collection, although extremely valuable to the community, is known to be potentially affected by false knockouts, suppressor accumulation and cross contamination (for references, e.g., Puddu et al., 2019 Nature). Additionally, high-through screens can also miss real hits. In our experience using this collection in several studies, we often found additional hits from analysis of genes implicated by known genetic or biochemical interactions.

Mutant yeast strains and growth assays:

The Δreg1 strain grows poorly in all growth conditions and frequently accumulates extragenic suppressor mutations (Barrett et al, 2012). It would be good to make sure that this is not the case in the strains employed in this study. My suggestion is to do (and show) standard yeast plating assays with the relevant mutant strains including Δreg1, snf1, hap4, Δreg1Δhap4 without the split GFP constructs and also with them (i.e. the strains that were used in the assays).

We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We were indeed aware of potential accumulation of suppressor mutations from the YKO library. Therefore, deletion mutants like Δreg1 and loss of TFs downstream of Snf1 that we used in the study after the initial screen were all freshly made and validated. At least 3 independent colonies were analyzed for each mutant (mentioned in Methods & Materials; Page 33, line 57). Moreover, the plating assay suggested here may not reveal additional information other than growth, which was taken into consideration during our experiments.

Activation of Snf1 in the relevant strains should be tested with the commercially available antibody recognizing active Snf1, which is phosphorylated at Snf1-T210.

Snf1 activation was validated by the Mig1 exporting from the nucleus. We also noted above that many studies have clearly demonstrated Snf1 activation in reg1 mutant and under low glucose growth (e.g., ref. 24-28).

Effects of Snf1, Reg1, Hap4 and respiratory growth conditions:

The authors show that split GFP reporters show enhanced accumulation during fermentative growth, in Δsnf1, and Δreg1Δhap4 and fail to accumulate during respiratory growth, in Δreg1 and upon overexpression of HAP4. Analysis of Δhap4 should be included in Fig. 2. The suggestion that upon activation of Snf1 enhanced Hap4-dependent expression "outcompetes" misfolded protein import seems unlikely as only a fraction of mitochondrial genes is under control of Hap4. Without further experimental evidence I do not find that a valid assumption. More likely, the membrane potential plays a role: it is low during fermentative growth, in Δsnf1 and Δreg1Δhap4, and high during respiratory growth and in Δreg1 (Hübscher et al, 2016). Such an effect of the membrane potential seems to contradict the findings in the 2017 paper and the issue should be clarified and discussed. In any case, these data do not reveal that GFP reporters accumulate inside of the mitochondria. Based on the currently available evidence they may accumulate in close proximity/attached to the mitochondria. This has to be tested directly (see above).

We have included our analysis of Δhap4 in Page 8: line 14-15 and Figure 2—figure supplement 1H. Consistent with our result for Δreg1Δhap4 in glucose-rich medium, HAP4 deletion also resulted in a significant increase in mitochondrial accumulation of FlucSM in low glucose medium compared to WT. It did not have effect in high glucose condition in which Snf1 is largely inactive.

It is our view that the importance of Hap4 should not be judged by the number of nuclear encoded mitochondrial proteins they regulate. Still, this sub-group comprises a considerable number of proteins (at least 55 genes upregulated by Hap4 overexpression, ref. 43), and certain substrates may be more competitive with misfolded cytosolic proteins for import. Our genetic data strongly suggest that the inhibitory effect of active Snf1 on MAGIC is through Hap4, although we agree with the reviewer that detailed mechanism on how Hap4 substrates may compete with misfolded proteins need to be addressed in future studies.

Membrane potential is important for mitochondrial import. During respiratory growth and in Δreg1, membrane potential is well known to be elevated comparing to fermentative condition (e.g., Figure 4C). Our observation that the import of misfolded proteins into mitochondria is reduced under these conditions simply suggests that this reduction is not due to a lack of membrane potential. This is not in any way contradictory to our 2017 finding that misfolded protein import requires membrane potential (ref. 10).

Again, the accumulation of misfolded proteins in mitochondria, especially the model protein FlucSM, has been validated by using super resolution imaging (Figure 1—figure supplement 1A) in addition to the protease protection assay in our 2017 study.

Introduction and Discussion:

Both are really short, too short in my view. Please provide some background of the general principals of mitochondrial protein import and information of how exactly translocation of cytosolic, aggregated proteins (lacking targeting information) is supposed to work. I do not understand exactly how the authors actually envisage the process.

We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have extended both Introduction (Page 2-3) and Discussion section (Page 11-13)

The results from the 2022 eLife paper (Liu et al, 2022), which suggests that Tom70 may "regulate both the transcription/biogenesis and import of mitochondrial proteins so the nascent mitochondrial proteins do not compromise cytosolic proteostasis or cause cytosolic protein aggregation" should be discussed with regard to the data obtained with overexpression of the Tom70 soluble domain.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out that study and we have included a brief comment in Discussion section (Page 12: line 13-16). As the function of Tom70 appears to be complex, we cannot exclude the possibility that overexpression of the cytosolic domain has additional or indirect effects in addition to that due to preprotein binding.

Andreasson, C., Ott, M., and Buttner, S. (2019). Mitochondria orchestrate proteostatic and metabolic stress responses. EMBO Rep 20, e47865.

Barrett, L., Orlova, M., Maziarz, M., and Kuchin, S. (2012). Protein kinase A contributes to the negative control of Snf1 protein kinase in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Eukaryot Cell 11, 119-128.

Hubscher, V., Mudholkar, K., Chiabudini, M., Fitzke, E., Wolfle, T., Pfeifer, D., Drepper, F., Warscheid, B., and Rospert, S. (2016). The Hsp70 homolog Ssb and the 14-3-3 protein Bmh1 jointly regulate transcription of glucose repressed genes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, 5629-5645.

Liu, Q., Chang, C.E., Wooldredge, A.C., Fong, B., Kennedy, B.K., and Zhou, C. (2022). Tom70-based transcriptional regulation of mitochondrial biogenesis and aging. Elife 11

Pfanner, N., Warscheid, B., and Wiedemann, N. (2019). Mitochondrial proteins: from biogenesis to functional networks. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 20, 267-284.

Ruan, L., Zhou, C., Jin, E., Kucharavy, A., Zhang, Y., Wen, Z., Florens, L., and Li, R. (2017). Cytosolic proteostasis through importing of misfolded proteins into mitochondria. Nature 543, 443-446.

I prefer to have "all in one", also due to time limitation.

It would be great to be able to upload the review file as otherwise formatting and symbols get lost.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this study, Wang et al extend on their previous finding of a novel quality control pathway, the MAGIC pathway. This pathway allows misfolded cytosolic proteins to become imported into mitochondria and there they are degraded by the LON protease. Using a screen, they identify Snf1 as a player that regulates MAGIC. Snf1 inhibits mitochondrial protein import via the transcription factor Hap4 via an unknown pathway. This allows cells to adapt to metabolic changes, upon high glucose levels, misfolded proteins an become imported and degraded, while during low glucose growth conditions, import of these proteins is prevented, and instead import of mitochondrial proteins is preferred.

This is a nice and well-structured manuscript reporting on important findings about a regulatory mechanism of a quality control pathway. The findings are obtained by a combination of mostly fluorescent protein-based assays. Findings from these assays support the claims well.

While this study convincingly describes the mechanisms of a mitochondria-associated import pathway using mainly model substrates, my major concern is that the physiological relevance of this pathway remains unclear: what are endogenous substrates of the pathway, to which extend are they imported and degraded, i.e. how much does MAGIC contribute to overall misfolded protein removal (none of the experiments reports quantitative "flux" information). Lastly, it remains unclear by which mechanism Snf1 impacts on MAGIC or whether it is "only" about being outcompeted by mitochondrial precursors.

We thank Reviewer 3 for the positive and encouraging comments on our manuscript. We agree with the reviewer that identifying MAGIC endogenous substrates and understanding what percentage of them are degraded in mitochondria are very important issues to be addressed. We are indeed carrying out projects to address these questions. We also agree with Reviewer 3 that the effect of Snf1 on MAGIC may have additional mechanisms in addition to precursors competition, such as Tom6 mediated conformational changes of TOM pores. In the revised manuscript, we had added a discussion to address these comments (Page 12: line 21-28).

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

1. In their screen, the authors utilize differences in GFP intensity as a measure for import efficiency. However, reconstitution of the GFP from GFP1-10 and GFP11 in the matrix might also be affected (folding factors, differential degradation).

Upon Snf1 activation, the protein abundance of mitochondrial chaperones such as Hsp10, Hsp60, and Mdj1, and mitochondrial proteases such as Pim1 are not significantly changed (ref. 35). Therefore, it is unlikely that the folding and degradation capacity of mitochondrial matrix is drastically affected by Snf1 activation.

To examine the effect of Snf1 activation on spGFP reconstitution, Grx5 spGFP strain was constructed in which the endogenous mitochondrial matrix protein Grx5 was C-terminally tagged with GFP11 at its genomic locus, and GFP1-10 was targeted to mitochondria through cleavable Su9 MTS (MTS-mCherryGFP1-10) (ref. 10). Only modest reduction in Grx5 spGFP intensity was observed in LG compared to HG, and no significant difference after adjusting the GFP1-10 abundance (spGFP/mCherry ratio) (Figure 1— figure supplement 3A-D). These data suggest that any effect on spGFP reconstitution is insufficient to explain the drastic reduction of MP accumulation in mitochondria under Snf1 activation. Overall, our results demonstrate that Snf1 activation primarily prevents mitochondrial accumulation of MPs, but not that of normal mitochondrial proteins. (Page 6: line 17-25).

We admit, however, that to fully rule out these factors, specific intra-mitochondrial folding or degradation reporter assays would be needed.

1. Scoring of protein import always takes place using fluorescence-based assays. These always require folding of the "sensors" in the matrix. An additional convincing approach that would not rely on matrix folding could be pulse chase approaches coupled to fractionation assays and immunoprecipitation.

We thank reviewer 3 for this suggestion. In our previous study, we applied two different biochemical assays: APEX proximity labeling, and mitochondrial fractionation followed by protease protection. Both confirmed the entry of misfolded proteins into mitochondria as observed by using split GFP. As we discussed in response to Reviewer 1’s main point [3], the fractionation assays are not quantitative enough for the comparisons made in our study. In particular, during the over 2-hour assay, misfolded proteins continue to be degraded within mitochondria. By using proper controls, our spGFP system provides quantitative comparisons for mitochondrial accumulation of misfolded proteins in non-disturbed physiological conditions.

1. Could the pathway be reconstituted in vitro with isolated mitochondria to test for the "competition hypothesis"

This is an excellent suggestion, but setting up such a reconstituted system is a project on its own. The study documented in this manuscript already encompasses a large amount of work that we feel should be published timely.

1. Fluorescence figures are not colour blind friendly (red-green). This should be improved by changing the color scheme.

We thank reviewer 3 for pointing this out and sincerely apologize for any inconvenience. However, we are unfortunately unable to change all images within a limited time. We will adopt another color scheme in future work.

1. spGFP in human cells appears to form "spot-like" structures. What are these granules?

We indeed observed granule-like structures by spGFP labeled FUS in mitochondria, which is interesting, but we did not investigate this further because it is a not a focus of this study.

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)): *

*In their study, Yamano et al. dissect the mechanism of TBK1 activation and downstream effects, especially in its relation to mitophagy adaptor OPTN. The authors find that OPTN's interaction with ubiquitin and the autophagy machinery, forming contact sites between mitochondria and autophagic membranes, results in TBK1 accumulation and subsequent autophosphorylation. Based on these findings, the authors propose a self-propagating feedback loop wherein OPTN phosphorylation by TBK1 promotes recruitment and accumulation of OPTN to damaged mitochondria and specifically the autophagosome formation site. This formation site is then involved in TBK1 autophosphorylation, and the activated TBK1 can then further phosphorylate other pairs of OPTN and TBK1. A OPTN monobody investigation strengthens their findings. *

*Critique: *

• It would be helpful if the authors could more clearly highlight the previous findings in OPTN-TBK1 relationship and which gaps in the understanding their study addresses.* We thank the reviewer for this comment. As suggested, we have highlighted previous findings and detailed in the Discussion how the study advances our understanding of TBK1 activation.

• It is not always clear whether experiments have been replicated sufficiently; this should be indicated in the figure descriptions.* In the original manuscript, most of the data shown was derived from duplicated experiments. For the revised version, we repeated experiments as needed to generate the replication necessary (i.e, N = 3) for determining statistical significance. Error bars and statistical significance have been added to the graphs and figure legends accordingly.

• During the discussion, references to the figures that indicate conclusions should be added where appropriate.* We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. References to figures have been added were appropriate to the Discussion.

*Figure 1 / Result "OPTN is required for TBK1 phosphorylation and subsequent autophagic Degradation": *

*o In a) the TBK1 and TOMM20 blots feature an image artefact that makes it appear like the blots are stitched together or there was a problem with the digital imager. The quantification in b) seems to be missing replications. *

We found that the artifact came from an automatic pixel interpolation process in Adobe Photoshop when the image was rotated by a small angle. We have provided the original immunoblotting data below as evidence that the data were not stitched from separate images. More accurate representations of the images without the artifact are now shown in Fig1 A of the revised manuscript.

For Fig 1b, the experiment was independently replicated three times with error bars added to each plot on the graph.

*o g) should feature the wt cell line on the same blot for better comparability as well as quantification and replication like done in f) *

As suggested, we have included the WT cell line in the immunoblot (See Fig 1g). In addition, Reviewer 2 asked that we provide data for Penta KO cells without exogenous expression of the autophagy adaptors and expressed concern regarding the lower expression of NDP52 relative to OPTN. To address these issues, we repeated the mitophagy experiments and detected phosphorylated TBK1 in six different cell lines: WT, Penta KO, Penta KO stably expressing OPTN at both low and high expression levels, and Penta KO stably expressing NDP52 at low and high expression levels. Immunoblots of phos-TBK1(pS172), TBK1, OPTN, NDP52, TOMM20, and actin were generated under four different conditions (DMSO, valinomycin for 1 hr, valinomycin for 3 hrs, and valinomycin in the presence of bafilomycin for 3 hrs). In addition, phos-TBK1 abundance in the six cell lines was determined in response to val and baf for 3 hrs and the expression levels of NDP52 and OPTN were similarly determined in response to DMSO. Error bars based on three independent experiments have been incorporated into the data, which are shown in Figure 1g and 1h of the revised manuscript.

*o h) is missing the blots for controls actin and TOMM20 *

Immunoblots for actin and TOMM20 have been added, please see Fig 1i in the revised manuscript.

*o In the text to e/f), the authors write that NDP52 KO effect on pS172 are comparable to controls, though the quantitation in f) indicates that pS172 signal is indeed significantly reduced compared to wt *

The reviewer is correct, the phos-TBK1 (pS172) signal in NDP52 KO cells is reduced compared to that in WT cells, but is only moderately lower in NDP52 KO cells relative to OPTN KO. We regret the error, which has been corrected in the revised manuscript.

*o In the text to h/i), the authors write "there was a significant increase in the TBK1 pS172 signal in cells overexpressing OPTN", though the quantification in i) does not indicate significance levels *

We performed statistical analyses on the phos-TBK1 (pS172) levels between cells with or without OPTN overexpression and have added the degree of significance to Fig 1j. As indicated in the original manuscript, there was a significant increase in phos-TBK1 (pS172) levels when OPTN was overexpressed.

*Figure 2 / Result "OPTN association with the autophagy machinery is required for TBK1 activation": ** o In b), pTBK1 at val 1 hr only features one dot/experiment per cell line *

Three independent replicates of the experiment (val 1 hr) were performed. The levels of phos-TBK1 (pS172), total TBK1, and actin were quantified, and the graph was remade with error bars and statistical significance incorporated. Please see Fig 2b in the revised manuscript.

*o In the text to c), the authors claim that the mutants reduce/abolish the recruitment of OPTN to the autophagosome site. A costain for LC3, as done for SupFig 1b, would be necessary to support that specific claim. *

To address the reviewer’s concern regarding the recruitment of OPTN mutants to the autophagosomal formation site, we performed two different experiments. First, when OPTN WT is recruited to the contact site between the autophagosomal formation site and damaged mitochondria, it should be heterogeneously distributed across mitochondria. In contrast, OPTN mutants that are unable to associate with the autophagosome formation sites should be largely localized to damaged mitochondria since the mutants are still capable of binding ubiquitin. When we examined the mitochondrial distribution of OPTN WT following valinomycin treatment for 1 hr, more than 80% of the Penta KO cells exhibited a heterogeneous distribution, whereas only 10% of the cells showed a similar distribution for OPTN 4LA or OPTN 4LA/F178A (please see Fig 2g in the revised manuscript). Although the OPTN F178A mutant exhibited 50% heterogeneous distribution (Fig 2g), this may be because OPTN F178A retains the ability to interact with ATG9A vesicles. In fact, our previous mitophagy analyses (Keima-based FACS analysis, Yamano et al 2020 JCB), which are strongly correlated with OPTN mitochondrial distribution, showed that the OPTN F178A mutant moderately (~ 60%) induced mitochondrial degradation. This degradation effect was slightly higher (80%) with OPTN WT but significantly lower (9%) with the 4LA/F178A mutant. In the second experiment, Penta KO cells expressing either OPTN WT or the OPTN mutants were immunostained for exogenous FLAG-tagged OPTN, endogenous WIPI2, and HAP60 (a mitochondrial marker) after valinomycin treatment for 1 hr (see Fig 2e and 2f in the revised manuscript). Because LC3B is assembled on the autophagosomal formation site as well as completed autophagosomes, we detected endogenous WIPI2 because WIPI2 is only recruited to autophagosomal formation sites (Dooley et al. 2014 Mol Cell). Confocal microscopy images and their associated quantification data indicate that WIPI2 foci formation during mitophagy was reduced in Penta KO cells expressing the OPTN mutants (4LA, F178A and 4LA/F178A) as compared to Penta KO cells expressing OPTN WT.

*o d) and g) as simple confirmations of KO/KD efficiency might be better suited for the supplemental part, or blots for FIP/ATG be included with the blots in e) and h) *

Based on the reviewer comments, we performed additional experiments related to Figure 2 and have incorporated the new data into the revised figure. The original Figure 2d, e, f, g, h, and I have been moved to supplemental Figure 5.

*o In the text to e), the authors claim that the levels of pS172 in the KO cell lines did not increase during mitophagy, though the blot and quantification in f) seem to indicate an increase. The results therefore don't seem to align completely with the claims that pS172 generation in response to mitophagy requires the autophagy machinery, or that FIP200 and ATG9A rather than ATG5 are critical for TBK1 phosphorylation. *

Although newly generated pS172 TBK1 was reduced in FIP200 KO and ATG9A KO cells relative to WT cells, the signals gradually increased. In the autophagy KO cell lines (FIP200 KO and ATG9A KO), phos-TBK1 accumulates prior to mitophagy stimulation. Although suggesting it is mitophagy-independent, phos-TBK1 accumulation prior to mitophagy stimulation in autophagy KO cell lines complicated interpretation of the results. To avoid this issue, we used siRNA to transiently knock down FIP200 and ATG9A. As shown in the original manuscript (Fig 2g, h, I in the original manuscript, supplementary Fig 5d, e, f in the revised manuscript), knockdown of FIP200 and ATG9A prior to mitophagy induction allowed us to observe mitophagy-dependent phosphorylation of TBK1. This result strongly suggests that the autophagy machinery does induce TBK1 phosphorylation in response to Parkin-mediated mitophagy. However, TBK1 phosphorylation still increases, albeit very slightly, in the FIP200 and ATG9A knock down cells. Thus, it may be reasonable to assume that OPTN-dependent phosphorylation of TBK1 can occur to a certain degree even in the absence of autophagy components. We have noted this in the Discussion.

While conducting experiments for the revised manuscript, we determined that TAX1BP1 is responsible for the accumulation of phos-TBK1 in the autophagy KO cell lines under basal conditions. When TAX1BP1 is knocked down in FIP200 KO or ATG9A KO cells, the basal accumulation of phos-TBK1 was eliminated and then we could observe mitophagy-specific TBK1 phosphorylation (please see Fig 2h, i, j, k in the revised manuscript). These results showed that mitophagy-dependent phos-TBK1 is largely attenuated in FIP200KO and was almost completely eliminated in ATG9A KO cells (Fig 2k in the revised manuscript).

*o f) is missing significance indications. Its description has a typo: "bad" instead of "baf" *

Newly synthesized pTBK1 (pS172) during mitophagy was quantified and statistical significance incorporated into the figure (please see supplementary Fig 5c). The identified typo has been corrected.

*Figure 3 / Result "TBK1 activation does not require OPTN under basal autophagy conditions": *

*o In the text to SupFig2, the authors claim that pS172 levels are significantly elevated, but no significance levels are indicated *

Statistical significance was determined for all proteins shown in original supplementary Fig 2 and the results have been incorporated into the relevant figure. The original supplementary Fig 2 is now supplementary Fig 6.

*o In the text to a), NBR1 is claimed to colocalize with Ub, but no costaining with Ub is shown. The claimed lacking colocalization of OPTN with Ub is not obvious from the images; a quantification might be appropriate. *

Since the anti-NBR1 antibody used in the original manuscript is derived from mouse, we were unable to use it in conjunction with the mouse ubiquitin antibody. Because ubiquitin-positive foci and NBR1-positive foci contain p62 (original Fig 3a) and NBR1 and p62 are known to tightly interact each other (Kirkin et al. 2009 Mol Cell and Sanchez-Martin et al. 2020 EMBO Rep), we stated that "NBR1 colocalizes with Ub". However, the reviewer is correct. To remedy this confusion, we obtained a rabbit anti-NBR1 antibody (a gift from the Masaaki Komatsu group) and used it to co-immunostain with anti-Ub antibodies (please see supplementary Fig 7a of the revised manuscript). NBR1 foci colocalize with both ubiquitin and p62 in FIP200 KO and ATG9A KO cells. Further, based on comments from Reviewer 2, we purchased several anti-TBK1 antibodies and identified one that was able to detect endogenous TBK1 by immunostaining (see Figure 1 for reviewers in our response to Reviewer 2 below). Using this anti-TBK1 antibody, we showed that a part of TBK1 also associates with ubiquitin and p62-positive aggregates.

*o In the text to b), the authors make reference to significant changes, but replication/ quantification/ significance testing is missing. *

We independently performed the same experiments three times. The levels of TBK1, phos-TBK1 (pS172), all five autophagy adaptors, and TOMM20 in both the supernatants and pellets have been quantified with error bars and statistical significance indicated. These results have been incorporated into Figure 3c in the revised manuscript.

*Figure 4b) is missing the pTBK1 data that is referenced in the text. In the text to figure 5 c/d), the authors claim that certain mutants have no significant effect on mitophagy, though d) is missing significance testing *

*Figure 6 c/d/i) appear to be missing replication. *

For Figure 4b, phos-TBK1 was immunoblotted (See Fig 4b of the revised manuscript). For Figure 5b and d, statistical significance was determined for the effect of TBK1 mutations on autophosphorylation and OPTN phosphorylation and the effect of the TBK1 mutants on Parkin-mediated mitophagy. For Figure 6 c/d/I, the experiment was repeated; error bars and statistical significance have been added to the associated graphs.

*Reviewer #1 (Significance (Required)): Removal of damaged mitochondria by the mitophagy pathway provides an important safeguarding mechanism for cells. The Pink1/Parkin mechanism linked to numerous modulators and adaptor proteins ensures an efficient targeting of damaged mitochondria to the phagophore. The Ser/Thr kinase TBK1, in addition of multiple roles in innate immunity, is a major mitophagy regulator as has been revealed by the Dikic and Youle groups in 2016 (Richter et al., PNAS). The mechanistic insights provided by this manuscript add to a growing body of studies of how the autophagy machinery interconnects with cellular signalling networks. Although parts of the results need to be further validated, the data shown is of high quality, revealing an important conceptual advance. The paper is interesting and of general relevance beyond the signalling and autophagy community. *

We would like to thank Reviewer 1 for the comments and suggestions, many of which improved our manuscript. We hope that the reviewer’s comments have been adequately addressed in the revised manuscript.

*Reviewer #2 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)): Summary In this manuscript, Yamano and colleagues show that as for Sting-mediated TBK1 activation, Optn provides a platform for TBK1 activation by autophosphorylation and that TBK1 is activated after the interaction of Optn with the autophagy machinery and ubiquitin and not before. They show that TBK1 phosphorylation is blocked by bafilomycine A1, an inhibitor of vacuolar ATPases that blocks the late phase of autophagy. Furthermore, they demonstrate that Optn is require for TBK1 phosphorylation since variation of Optn expression regulates TBK1 phosphorylation in response to PINK/Parkin-mediated autophagy. Interestingly, using immunofluorescence microscopy, they show that Optn forms sphere like structures at the surface of damage mitochondria which are more dispersed in the absence of TBK1. In addition, TBK1 is also recruited at the surface of damage mitochondria and as Optn and NDP52 (but not p62) colocalize with LC3B in response to PINK/Parkin-mediated mitophagy. Next, it is demonstrated that the Leucin zipper and LIR domains of Optn (which modulate Optn interaction with autophagosome) play an important role for TBK1 activation. Additionally, the autophagy core is shown to be required for TBK1 activation. Under basal conditions, depletion of the autophagosome machinery leads to an increase in autophagy receptors (except Optn) and TBK1 phosphorylation which colocalize with ubiquitin in insoluble moieties. In contrast, Optn remains cytosolic and is dispensable for TBK1 activation in these conditions. Then, using the fluoppi technic, the authors demonstrate that the generation of Optn-Ubiquitin condensates recruits and activates TBK1. They express in HCT116 TBK1-deficient cells engineered or pathological ALS mutations of TBK1 that affect ubiquitin interaction, structure, dimerization and kinase activity of TBK1. The expression level of TBK1 was only affected by the dimerization-deficient mutations. None of the mutations impaired Optn and TBK1 ubiquitination. Interestingly, some ALS-associated mutations affect TBK1 activity and it is said in the text that the dimerization-deficient mutations of TBK1 affect its activity proportionally to their level of expression, which is not really correct (the expression level of the mutants is very heterogenous and not always correlate to their activity). Regarding their effect on mitophagy, the authors claim that the phosphorylation of TBK1 correlate with mitophagy which is not really the case. By using TBK1 inhibitor or TBK1-depleted cells, the authors conclude that TBK1 is the only kinase phosphorylating Optn. However, BX-795 is not completely specific to TBK1. Finally, the authors use monobodies against Optn effective in inhibiting mitophagy in NDP52 KO cells. Some of the monobodies have been shown to form a ternary complex with Optn and TBK1, while others compete for the interaction between Optn and TBK1 which involves the amino-terminal region of Optn and the C-terminal region of TBK1. Monobodies that compete for the interaction of Optn with TBK1 could alter the cellular distribution of Optn and inactivate TBK1, but they do not alter the ubiquitination of Optn. Finally, these monobodies inhibit 50% of mitophagy. *

*Major and minor points: Introduction The first paragraph of the Introduction section is confused and difficult to read. First and second paragraphs (page 3 and top of page 4) are dedicated to macroautophagy processes but ended with one sentence on Parkin-mediated autophagy without further introduction, while all processes regarding mitophagy are detailed in the next paragraph. Links between ideas developed are also somewhat missing. For example, in page 6, the three last sequences detailed the phosphorylation of autophagosome component, the fact that Optn and TBK1 genes are involved in neurodegenerative diseases and autophosphorylation of TBK1 as a pre-requirement for TBK1 activation without evident links between them, except "interestingly". *

In response to the reviewer’s suggestion, we have rewritten the Introduction. The first paragraph focused on introducing the molecular mechanism underlying macroautophagy and the second paragraph focused on Parkin-mediated mitophagy. As the reviewer indicated, the ALS mutations and TBK1 phosphorylation during Parkin-mediated mitophagy are not well related, so we moved the background material on the relationship between OPTN and TBK1 in neurodegenerative diseases to the beginning of the section describing Figure 5. We believe these changes have made the Introduction easier to read and understand.

*Results *

*Major points: *

*1- Results are often over-interpreted regarding data obtained leading to inadequate conclusions (see below for details); *

We regret the reviewer’s concerns regarding over-interpretation. To address this issue, we have carefully considered the data, performed additional experiments where necessary, and rewritten the results accordingly. Please see our point-by-point responses below.

*2- Quantification of protein levels detected by western blot are provided as "relative intensities" without referring to specific loading control or to total protein when -phosphorylated forms are quantified (Fig. 1b, 1d, 1f, 1i, 2b, 2f, 2i, 5b, 7b, supplemental figures 2b). *

For the immunoblots, we loaded the same amount of total cell lysate and the phosphorylated forms were quantified relative to the total protein input. This has been mentioned in the Materials and Methods.

*3- In western blotting experiments, authors described slower migrating bands as "ubiquitinated" forms of detected proteins, but never provided experimental evidences that it could be the case. Use of non-specific deubiquitinase incubation of extracts prior to western blot could help to correctly identified ubiquitination versus other post-translational modifications such as phosphorylation, glycosylation, acetylation etc... *

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. The cell lysates after mitophagy induction were incubated in vitro with a recombinant USP2 core domain (non-specific DUB), and then immunoblotted. As shown in supplemental Fig 1 of the revised manuscript, the slower migrating OPTN bands disappeared in a USP2-dependent manner. The slower migrating NDP52 and TOMM20 bands likewise disappeared. These results confirm that the slower migrating OPTN, NDP52, and TOMM20 bands are ubiquitinated.

*4- Conclusions from data obtained by immunofluorescent imaging are often drawn from only one image presented without further statistical analysis. *

Statistical significance was determined for the immunofluorescent data (original figures 1j, 2c and 3a). Please see Fig 1l, 2f, 2g, and 3a in the revised manuscript.

*Page 7: - authors referred to TBK1 phosphorylation induced by mitophagy induction as "TBK1 phosphorylation induced by Parkin-mediated ubiquitination" while mitophagy can be induced independently of Parkin (ex: via mitochondrial receptors) and without any evidence (according to referee's knowledge) of a link between ubiquitination by Parkin and TBK1 phosphorylation. *

As the reviewer indicated, Parkin-independent and ubiquitination-independent mitophagy pathways are also known (i.e. receptor-mediated mitophagy driven by NIX, BNIP3, BCL2L13, FKBP8, FUNDC1, or Atg32). Therefore, references to "mitophagy" in our manuscript were reworded as "Parkin-mediated mitophagy". Since TBK1 phosphorylation is observed before mitochondria are degraded and is dependent on Parkin-mediated ubiquitin (for example, see Fig 1c), we use the phrase "TBK1 phosphorylation triggered by Parkin-mediated OMM ubiquitination".

*Fig 1g: Western blots performed in Penta KO cells without exogene expression of any autophagy receptors should be provided as control. Furthermore, lower expression of NDP52 relative to that of Optn (using flag antibodies) should be discussed as it can explained the differential levels in TBK1 phosphorylation observed. *

As suggested, we repeated the experiment using Penta KO cells in the absence of exogeneous autophagy adaptor expression. Furthermore, we expressed different amounts of NDP52 and OPTN (indicated as low and high in the figure) in Penta KO cells to rule out the possibility that higher TBK1 phosphorylation is induced by simple overexpression of autophagy adaptor (please see Fig 1g and h in the revised manuscript). At high NDP52 expression (2.5-3.0-fold higher than endogenous NDP52), phosphorylated TBK1 was reduced to ~30% the level of that observed in WT cells after 3 hrs with val and baf. In contrast, Penta KO cells with higher OPTN expression (3.0-fold higher than endogenous OPTN) had phosphorylated TBK1 signals that were 2-fold higher than those in WT cells. Based on these results, we concluded that OPTN is an important adaptor for TBK1 activation during Parkin-mediated mitophagy.

*Page 8: Supplemental Fig 1a: - The inability of authors to observe TBK1 endogenous signal in HeLa cells using commercially available antibodies is surprising as many publications reported successful staining (see Figure 1 of Suzuki et al. 2013 Cell type-specific subcellular localization of phospho-TBK1 in response to cytoplasmic viral DNA. PLoS One. 8:e83639 among others) as well as commercial promotion (see Anti-NAK/TBK1 antibody from Abcam reference: ab235253). *

For the original manuscript, anti-TBK1 antibodies purchased from abcam (ab235253), CST (#3013S), Proteintech (28397-1-AP), and GeneTex (GTX12116) for immunostaining were unable to yield TBK1-positive signals (please see Fig 1 for reviewers below). WT and TBK1-/- HCT116 cells stably expressing Parkin were treated with valinomycin for 1 hr and immunostained with the indicated antibodies. Anti-phos-TBK1 antibody (CST, #5483) was used as a positive control. Based on these results, we stated in the original manuscript that the "endogenous TBK1 signal could not be observed using commercially available antibodies". At the reviewer’s suggestion, we purchased anti-TBK1 antibodies from abcam (ab40676) and CST (#38066). As shown in the figure below, the immunofluorescent signals generated by these antibodies were detected in WT, but not in TBK1-/- cells. The CST (#38066) antibody yielded a stronger signal, most of which was on damaged mitochondria. Thanks to this suggestion, we repeated the experiment using the new anti-TBK1 antibody. Furthermore, based on a suggestion from Reviewer 3, we detected mitochondrial recruitment of TBK1 during mitophagy stimulation (valinomycin for 30 min or 2 hrs in the presence and absence of bafilomycin; supplemental Fig 2 in the revised manuscript). We also detected association of endogenous TBK1 with ubiquitin-positive condensates in WT, FIP200KO, and ATG9A KO cells (Fig 3a and supplementary Fig 7a in the revised manuscript).

*- Conclusions of the localization of signal on mitochondria (dispersed, in the periphery or at contact sites) are clearly over-interpreted in the absence of other membrane or autophagosome specific labeling and statistical colocalization analyses of multiple images. It is particularly difficult to assess any difference between Tax1BP1, p62 and NBR1 localization on mitochondria subdomains. *

We previously expressed each FLAG-tagged autophagy adaptor in Penta KO cells and observed their localization during Parkin-mediated mitophagy and found that exogenous FLAG-tagged OPTN and NDP52, but not p62, colocalized with LC3B (Yamano et al 2020 JCB). No one has assessed and compared the localization of all five endogenous autophagy adaptors. Although we still believe that the results (supplemental Fig1 in the original manuscript) are informative for researchers in the autophagy field, we decided to remove that data from the revised manuscript since they are not the main focus of the study. We will consider publishing those data elsewhere in the future after co-staining with autophagosome markers and assessing the statistical significance of colocalization as the reviewer suggested.

*Page 9: *

*- First part of results ended without any conclusions. *

As detailed in the previous response, we have removed results for mitophagic recruitment of autophagy adaptors (supplementary Figure 1 in the original manuscript).

*- The observation that "TBK1 phosphorylation was not apparent in the Optn mutant cell lines, even after 3 hrs of valinomycin, ..." is inconsistent with detection of bands with anti-pS172-TBK1 antibodies in Fig 2a detected at 1hr (with F178A) and 3 hrs (4LA, F178A, and 4LA/F178A mutants) of treatment. *

We apologize for the confusion. This statement was clearly our mistake. We had intended to state when "all autophagy adaptors are deleted" no phosphorylated TBK1 was observed. We have rewritten this part as "TBK1 phosphorylation was not apparent in the Penta KO cells even after 3 hrs with valinomycin".

*- Similarly, decreased levels of phosphorylated TBK1 stated for F178A mutant was only observed at 1 but not 3hrs or at 3hrs in the presence of bafilomycin. *

Based on the mitophagy assay previously reported (Yamano et al 2020 JCB), the F178A mutant only moderately inhibited mitophagy (60% mitophagy with the F178A mutant vs 80% mitophagy with OPTN WT). Conversely, the 4LA mutant and 4LA/F178A double mutant had stronger inhibitory effects on mitophagy (35% for 4LA and 9% mitophagy for 4LA/F178A). Therefore, the levels of phos-TBK1 after 1 hr with valinomycin or 3 hrs with valinomycin in the presence of bafilomycin are consistent with mitophagy progression. When mitophagy proceeds efficiently, the amount of phos-TBK1 in the 1 hr val samples is reduced relative to the 3 hr val samples due to autophagic degradation.

To more clearly observe and compare the levels of mitophagy-dependent phos-TBK1 among Penta KO cells expressing OPTN WT and the mutants, we treated cells with valinomycin in the presence of bafilomycin for 0, 0.5, 1, and 2 hrs and quantified phos-TBK1. The results are shown in Fig 2c and d in the revised manuscript. The phos-TBK1 signal increased over time with val and baf treatment in all OPTN expressing cells. Cells with OPTN WT generated the most phos-TBK1, whereas the signal generated by the F178A mutant was 75% that of the OPTN WT-expressing cells and the 4LA and 4LA/F178A mutants were about 40%. The experiments were independently replicated three times and error bars and statistical significance were incorporated into the associated graph. These results indicate that OPTN association with the autophagy machinery, in particular ATG9A vesicles, is important for TBK1 activation.

*Page 10: *

*The results and their repartition between figure 2 d, e, f, g, h, I and figure 3 is a bit confusing. In these experiments, it is shown Figure 2 that the absence or depletion of the autophagy machinery increase the phosphorylation of TBK1 and in Figure 3 it is shown that not only the phosphorylation of TBK1 accumulate but also the expression of NDP52, Tax1BP1 and p62. Is it because their degradation by autophagy is blocked (like for phosphoTBK1)? *

The reviewer is correct that autophagy adaptors other than OPTN (especially TAX1BP1, p62 and NBR1) are constantly degraded by macro/micro autophagy (Mejlvang et al. 2018 J Cell Biol and Yamano et al. 2021 BBA Gen Subj). Therefore, these adaptors accumulate in autophagy deficient cell lines (original Fig 3). In this study, we found that in the absence of mitophagy stimulation phos-TBK1 accumulates in autophagy deficient cell lines. This suggests that the accumulated autophagy adaptors induce TBK1 phosphorylation under basal conditions. In the original manuscript, we claimed that TBK1 phosphorylation under basal conditions does not require OPTN since in FIP200 KO and ATG9A KO cells it did not accumulate and did not primarily colocalize with ubiquitin- and TBK1-positive foci (original Fig 3). To gain more direct evidence for the revised manuscript, we performed additional experiments and discovered that TAX1BP1 is the adaptor responsible for TBK1 autophosphorylation under basal autophagy. We treated FIP200KO and ATG9A KO cells with siRNAs against OPTN, NDP52, TAX1BP, p62, and NBR1, and immunoblotted total cell lysates with an anti-phos-TBK antibody. As shown in Fig 3f in the revised manuscript, TAX1BP1 siRNA treatment decreased phos-TBK1 levels without affecting total TBK1. This result indicates that the accumulation of TAX1BP1 in the FIP200 KO and ATG9A KO cells induced TBK1 autophosphorylation under basal conditions. Considering this result, we treated WT, FIP200 KO, and ATG9A KO cells with TAX1BP1 siRNA, and then induced Parkin-mediated mitophagy with valinomycin in the presence of bafilomycin. This strategy eliminated the basal accumulation of phos-TBK1 and allowed us to focus on mitophagy-dependent TBK1 phosphorylation. Please see revised Fig 2h, I, j, and k. The results showed that mitophagy-dependent phos-TBK1 is predominantly attenuated in FIP200 KO and ATG9A KO cells. In Figs 2 and 3, we would like to emphasize that OPTN is required for TBK1 phosphorylation in response to Parkin-mediated mitophagy, whereas TAX1BP1 is required for TBK1 phosphorylation in basal autophagy. Since Reviewer 3 commented that interpretation of the data in original Figs 2d, e, and f was challenging, we elected to move those results to the supplemental figures. We have incorporated the newly acquired data (mitophagy using FIP200 KO or ATG9A KO with TAX1BP1 siRNA cells) into the main figure. We believe that this makes the text easier for readers to understand.

*- Fig 2c: conclusions on *

*the reduction of recruitment of Optn mutants on autophagosome formation seem over-interpreted as: *

*1- no labeling with LC3 has been used to identified autophagsome, *

*2- immunofluorescent signals observed with mutants are dispersed throughout the entire mitochondria network (see the merged images) rendering impossible to distinguish between autophagosome-associated mitochondria and others. *

*The following conclusive sentence stating that association of Optn to damaged mitochondria is not sufficient for TBK1 activation based solely on IF of figure 2c seems therefore unrelated to the obtained data. *

To address concerns about the recruitment of OPTN mutants to the autophagosome formation site, we performed additional experiments. Penta KO cells and those expressing OPTN WT and mutants were treated with valinomycin for 1 hr, and FLAG-tagged OPTN, endogenous WIPI2, and HAP60 (mitochondrial marker) were detected by immunostaining. We detected endogenous WIPI2 because WIPI2 is recruited only to autophagosome formation sites (Dooley et al. 2014 Mol Cell), whereas LC3B assembles on autophagosome formation sites and is also associated with completed autophagosomes. Confocal microscopy images showed that cup-shaped OPTN WT that had been recruited to damaged mitochondria colocalized with WIPI2. Quantification further showed that during mitophagy the number of WIPI2 foci seen in cells expressing OPTN WT decreased in Penta KO cells and cells expressing OPTN mutants (4LA, F178A and 4LA/F178A). These data are shown in Fig 2e and f in the revised manuscript. In addition, we quantified the number of cells that either exhibited heterogeneous or homogeneous recruitment of OPTN to damaged mitochondria after treatment with valinomycin for 1 hr. More than 80% of Penta KO cells with OPTN WT had heterogeneous OPTN recruitment, whereas this distribution was only present in 10% of cells expressing either OPTN 4LA or OPTN 4LA/F178A. Although cells expressing the OPTN F178A mutant exhibited 50% heterogeneous recruitment, this may be because the mutant can interact with ATG9A. As mentioned above, our previous mitophagy analyses (Keima-based FACS analysis, Yamano et al 2020 JCB) showed that the OPTN F178A mutant induced ~60% mitochondrial degradation (which is correlated strongly with OPTN distribution), whereas it was 80% with OPTN WT and 9% with 4LA/F178A.

*- Fig 2d: authors should explain why ATG KO cells displayed lipidated LC3B in the absence of efficient autophagy processes. *

We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We added the following sentence to explain the function of ATG5 in LC3B lipidation. "Since LC3B lipidation is catalyzed by ATG5, but not FIP200 and ATG9A, the lipidated form disappears only in ATG5 KO cells (Hanada et al 2007 J Biol Chem). "

*- Fig 2e: despite authors statement that TBK1 phosphorylation did not increase during mitophagy in ATG KO cells, increased pS172-TBK1 is visible in FIP200 and ATG5 KO cells especially between 1 and 3 hrs of stimulation, leading to inaccurate conclusions that TBK1 phosphorylation requires the autophagy machinery. Therefore, overall assumption that both ubiquitination and autophagy subunits are required for TBK1 autophosphorylation appears erroneous. *

As the reviewer indicated, phos-TBK1 levels gradually increased in ATG KO cells. The main text was rewritten to more accurately reflect this increase. Based on experiments using the monobodies and those conducted during the revision process, it is apparent that although the autophagy machinery may not be completely essential for TBK1 phosphorylation, it clearly facilitates TBK1 phosphorylation in response to Parkin-mediated mitophagy.

*Page 12: *

*- Fig 3a: conclusion that Optn signal is more cytosolic and did not localize with Ub condensates seems speculative as based on: *

*1- only one immunofluorescence image without statistical analysis *

*2- Optn and Ub signals are lower in images with Optn is analyzed compared to other images in which NDP52, TAX1BP1 and NBR1 are detected. *

To address these concerns, we compared and quantified the signal intensities of all endogenous autophagy adaptors in FIP200 KO and ATG9A KO cells. The quantification data are shown in Fig 3a and the immunofluorescence images are shown in supplementary Fig 6a of the revised manuscript.

*- Fig 3b: interpretation of western blot data is uncertain due to lack of appropriate loading control, especially with pellets (P) extracts. In addition, it is not clear how to conclude from the experiments in Fig 3b that autophagy adaptors other than Optn mediate TBK1 phosphorylation. *

When autophagy is inhibited, p62 accumulates in the cytosol as aggregates (Komatsu et al. 2007 Cell). Therefore, p62 should be a positive control. Indeed, Fig 3b in the original manuscript (Fig 3b and c in the revised manuscript) showed that the amount of p62 in the pellet fraction was elevated in FIP200 KO and ATG9A KO cells. Furthermore, these aggregates were also observed in the imaging data (Fig 3a and supplementary Fig 7 in the revised manuscript). As the reviewer indicated, the original manuscript did not clarify whether autophagy adaptors other than OPTN mediated TBK1 phosphorylation; however, our revised results clearly demonstrate that TAX1BP1 is the adaptor responsible inducing TBK1 autophosphorylation when basal autophagy is impaired (please see Fig 3f in the revised manuscript).

*Minor point: reference is missing in the last sentence of the paragraph stating that K48-linked chains dominate when autophagy pathways are impaired. *

While several autophagy adaptors preferentially interact with K48-linked ubiquitin chains (Donaldson et al. 2003 PNAS etc), TRAF6 is recruited to ubiquitin-condensates via p62-mediated K63-linked ubiquitination (Linares et al. 2013 Mol Cell). Furthermore, K33-linked ubiquitin chains are also present in p62-positive condensates (Nibe et al. 2018 Autophagy). Because it’s not clear which ubiquitin-linkage is dominant in the condensates, we decided to delete the sentence. We regret the confusion.

*Page 13: *

*Conversely to Optn, they find that the other autophagic receptors localize in insoluble fractions (what does it mean?) independently of TBK1 expression (experiments with DKO cells) and also independently of Optn (where is this shown?). Altogether, these experiments are far from the message of the manuscript. The title of the paragraph "TBK1 activation does not require Optn under basal autophagy conditions" is not correct because even if the level of expression of autophagic receptors and TBK1 phosphorylation are increase in response to the depletion of the autophagy machinery, it does not increase autophagy. *

According to the suggestion, we changed the title of the paragraph to "TAX1BP1, but not OPTN, mediates TBK1 phosphorylation when basal autophagy is impaired." In addition, we rewrote this section.

*- Fig 3d: authors should mention the nature of the upper band observed in Optn western blot and show the same experiment in since solely TBK1 depleted cells since they stated that "electrophoretic migration of Optn was not affected by TBK1 deletion". In addition, suggesting from these sole experiments that "NP52, TAX1BP1, p62, NBR1 and AZI2 form Ub-positive condensates where TBK1 is activated" seems over-interpretated. *

Reviewer 3 suggested we characterize the upper band in the OPTN blot (Fig 3d in the original manuscript). To determine if the band is genuine OPTN, we used phostag-PAGE to analyze cell lysates from cells treated with control siRNA or OPTN siRNA and found that both the lower and upper bands were OPTN species (please see "Figure 2 for reviewers" in our response to Reviewer 3). The same pattern was reported by the Wade Harper group (Heo et al. 2015 Mol Cell). They showed that the OPTN double band pattern on phos-tag PAGE was not affected by TBK1 deletion. We have cited this literature where appropriate in the revised manuscript. In WT cells, it is difficult to detect phosphorylation of autophagy adaptors by TBK1 because basal autophagy constantly degrades them. That’s why we used autophagy KO cell lines.

*Page 14: *

*- Fig 4: TBK1 phosphorylation was analyzed in Fig4d and not in Fig4b as stated. In addition, it is rather difficult to conclude from artificial multimerization experiments, as the authors have done, that interaction between Optn and autophagy components contributes to Optn multimerization in genuine conditions. *

Detection of phos-TBK1 has been corrected to Fig 4b. Although artificial, the fluoppi assay provides insights into how OPTN activates TBK1 and how the autophagy machinery contributes to TBK1 activation via OPTN. To determine if artificial OPTN multimerization could bypass the autophagy machinery requirement, we used the fluoppi assay. This assay was important for us to conclude that the autophagy machinery and Parkin-mediated ubiquitination allow OPTN to be assembled in close proximity to where TBK1 is activated. The main text was rewritten to better convey the benefits of the fluoppi assay.

*Page 15: *

*This work could have therapeutic consequences but the pathological mutants of TBK1 used affect ALS (Figure 5) while in the discussion it is proposed that monobodies could have a therapeutic interest in familial forms of glaucoma due to the E50K mutation of Optn. It should be better to target only one pathology. *

Both TBK1 and OPTN are causative genes for ALS and many pathogenic mutations are known to impact their function. In this study, we focused on ALS mutations in TBK1 that affect self-dimerization and investigated their impact in response to Parkin-mediated mitophagy. We created the monobodies as a tool to physically inhibit OPTN assembly at the contact site. Although our monobodies inhibit Parkin-mediated mitophagy, they would not be a useful therapeutic strategy for ALS due to the loss of function with the TBK1 mutations. However, because TBK1 E50K is a glaucomatous mutation that causes OPTN-TBK1 to bind more tightly, our monobodies might be applicable to glaucomatous pathology since they could disrupt this interaction. We thus feel that it is appropriate to mention the potential of the monobodies and their future utility in the Discussion.

*- Fig 5c, d: Authors stated that degree of TBK1 autophosphorylation correlated with OPTN phosphorylation at S177 whereas phosphorylated TBK1 is unaffected by L693Q and V700Q mutants that display decreased phosphorylated Optn In addition, authors interpretation of Figure 5 data is clearly problematic as they stated that: *

*1- neither 693Q and V700Q mutants had "significant effect on mitophagy", while decreasing efficiency from 78% to 37-51% *

*2- but conclude that 49.7% mitophagy levels of R357Q mutant is significant mitochondrial degradation. *

*Overall conclusion that mitophagy efficiency is correlated with phosphorylated TBK1 levels is therefore inaccurate. *

We regret that this section did not sufficiently describe the data. Reviewer 3 also noted that the text referencing Fig 5 was difficult to interpret. One of the reasons for the complicated data interpretation is the number of TBK1 mutants used. The L693Q and V700Q mutations used by Li et al. (2016 Nat Commun) were expected to inhibit Parkin-mediated mitophagy since those authors reported that the mutations prevented interactions with OPTN. However, our in-cell assay showed that the two mutations only moderately affected Parkin-mediated mitophagy. Furthermore, both the L693Q and V700Q mutations were engineered based on the X-ray structure, rather than being authentic pathogenic ALS mutations. To avoid any potential confusion, we decided to remove the L693Q and V700A data. We have re-evaluated the other data and have rewritten this section accordingly. Please see the revised main text.

*Discussion *

*Minor points: *

*page 20: - reference is missing in the sentence "Optn cannot oligomerize on its own on ubiquitin-decorated mitochondria". *

We have provided the appropriate reference.

*Major points: *

*Authors stated that they showed that Optn recruitment to damaged mitochondria, itself, is insufficient for TBK1 autophosphorylation, but did not show experiment of Optn recruitment to mitochondria and its consequences on TBK1 phosphorylation in the absence of mitophagy induction signal. Authors could for example target HA-Ash-6Ub to mitochondria in order to artificially recruit hAG-Optn to "ubiquitinated" mitochondria in the absence of mitophagy signal. *

We showed that the efficiency of TBK1 autophosphorylation was reduced in cells expressing the OPTN 4LA/F178A mutant, which cannot interact with the autophagy machinery (Fig 2c and d in the revised manuscript). Cells with FIP200 or ATG9A knockdown also have reduced phos-TBK1 (pS172) as shown in supplementary Fig 5e and f. The rate of phos-TBK1 (pS172) generation in ATG9AKO cells during Parkin-mediated mitophagy is reduced relative to that in WT cells (Fig 2j and k). Since a small amount of phos-TBK1 was generated in both ATG9A knockdown and KO cells (supplementary Fig 5e, f, Fig 2j and k), we concur that it would be premature to conclude that phosphorylation of TBK1 does not occur at all when autophagy core components are absent. A small amount of phos-TBK1 may be generated by OPTN that is freely distributed on the outer mitochondrial membrane. In the revised manuscript, we mention the possibility that TBK1 might be phosphorylated by OPTN independent of the autophagy machinery and were careful to avoid over-interpretation.

As shown in Fig 4, fusing OPTN with an Azami-Green tag can induce artificial multimerization and trigger the generation of phos-TBK1 (pS172). Therefore, we expect that mitochondria-targeted HA-Ash-6Ub would induce TBK1 phosphorylation in a hAG-OPTN-dependent manner as was observed with cytosolic HA-Ash-6Ub (Fig 4). The accumulation of OPTN at the contact site in Parkin-mediated mitophagy is important for TBK1 phosphorylation. Even if OPTN is forced to anchor to the mitochondria, this would induce isolation membrane formation and subsequent autophosphorylation of TBK1. Therefore, the utility of forcing OPTN to anchor to mitochondria is questionable.

*Similarly, experimental approaches used by authors lack dynamics parameters to conclude on formation and elongation of isolation membranes and contacts sites that could be probably obtained through video microscopy. *

Based on the reviewer’s comment, we performed time-lapse microscopy to observe OPTN recruitment to the contact site and followed its movement along with the elongation of isolation membranes during Parkin-mediated mitophagy. HeLa cells stably expressing GFP-OPTN and pSu9-mCherry (a mitochondrial marker) were treated with valinomycin (please see Fig 2l in the revised manuscript). Initial recruitment of GFP-OPTN near mitochondria was evident as small dot-like structures that then elongated over time to become cup-shaped structures and culminated in the formation of spherical structures. Considering the colocalization of OPTN with WIPI1/WIPI2 (markers of autophagosome formation site) in Fig 2e and supplementary Fig 2a, the time-lapse images strongly suggest that OPTN assembles at contact sites followed by elongation in tandem with isolation membranes during Parkin-mediated mitophagy.

*Finally, the model proposed by the authors does not take into account data showing that Optn basally interacts with ubiquitinated mitochondria and LC3 family members (see Wild et al., Phosphorylation of the autophagy receptor optineurin restricts Salmonella growth. Science. 2011 333:228-33), although at lower levels compared to induced conditions, relativizing the impact of the proposed model. *

According to the Reviewer 2 comment, we again read the Science paper (Wild et al. 2011) but could not find data showing that OPTN basally interacts with ubiquitinated mitochondria. At least, we think that under steady state conditions without mitophagy induction, mitochondrial ubiquitination and mitochondrial localization of OPTN are undetectable as shown in supplementary Figure 2 in our revised manuscript.

*In conclusion, this manuscript represents a lot of work but the experiments often lack controls and are over-interpretated. *

***Referees cross-commenting** *

*In my opinion, what emerges from these 3 reviews is that the results lack controls or have not been repeated enough to support the message that the interaction of Optn with ubiquitin and the ubiquitination machinery is sufficient to activate TBK1. In particular, as reviewer 1 says, the phosphorylation kinetics shown in Figure 1a are not consistent with TBK1 phosphorylation following the interaction of Optn with the ubiquitination machinery and ubiquitin. In Figure 1e, there is a decrease in TBK1 phosphorylation in contrast to WTcells as mentioned by Reviewer 1. In agreement with Reviewer 1, we believe that the WT cells are missing in Figure 1g. *

*With regard to Figure 2c, we agree with reviewer 1 that an LC3 label is missing in order to be able to interpret the data. In Figure 2e and f, we agree with reviewer 1 that it is difficult to understand why TBK1 phosphorylation increases in the absence of the autophagy machinery (FIP200 KO and ATG5KO). In Figure 3, loading controls are missing for 3b and c. The TBK1 KO cells alone are missing in Fig 2d. In Figure 2b, pTBK1 is missing. In agreement with reviewer 3, we believe that the data with fluoppi contradict the message of the manuscript since they show that TBK1 can be phosphorylated by ubiquitin in the absence of the ubiquitination machinery. In agreement with reviewer 3, we believe that the experiments in Figure 5 are very difficult to interpret. The first reviewer is right to ask the question of the replicates for figures 6c and d. *

We appreciate the summary of the reviewers’ comments. To address their concerns, we have included the appropriate controls and included the results of three independent experiments in the graphs, which now include appropriate error bars and statistical significance. Thus, we believe we have answered the most critical comments concerning the lack of controls.

In Fig 1a, phos-TBK1 was maximal following 30 min of valinomycin treatment. We confirmed using microscopy-based observations that recruitment of endogenous TBK1 and OPTN and the generation of phos-TBK1 and phos-OPTN at contact sites (marked by WIPI1) near damaged mitochondria was also maximal after 30 min of valinomycin treatment (supplementary Fig 2 and 3). Therefore, the kinetics of phos-TBK1 and phos-OPTN generation are consistent with the recruitment of OPTN-TBK1 to the contact site.

The data presented in Fig 2 clearly indicate that the autophagy components are involved in phos-TBK1 generation during Parkin-mediated mitophagy. Therefore, the claim that ubiquitination machinery is sufficient for TBK1 activation is incorrect. Although we agree that the autophagy gene deletions cannot completely inhibit TBK1 autophosphorylation, mitophagy-dependent generation of phos-TBK1 is largely impaired by ATG9A KO (Fig 2j and k). Thus, there is no doubt that isolation membrane formation is important for TBK1 activation following Parkin-mediated mitophagy.

Fig 1e - The reviewer is correct that phos-TBK1 is reduced in the NDP52 knockout. We have rewritten the main text. It is also true that NDP52 has a smaller effect on TBK1 autophosphorylation as compared to OPTN.

Fig 1g - Immunoblots using total cell lysates prepared from six different cell lines (WT, Penta KO alone, Penta KO stably expressing low or high OPTN or NDP52) under four different conditions (DMSO, valinomycin 1 hr, valinomycin 3 hrs, valinomycin + bafilomycin 3 hrs) showed that OPTN is a rate-limiting factor for TBK1 phosphorylation. Please see Fig 1g and h in the revised manuscript

Fig 2c - The recruitment of OPTN WT and associated mutants to the contact site was re-examined by immunostaining with WIPI2 labeling. We found that OPTN WT was both efficiently recruited to and formed the contact site. In contrast, the OPTN 4LA/F178A mutant was unable to interact with FIP200/LC3/ATG9A and was uniformly (i.e. homogenously) distributed on damaged mitochondria with the rate of autophagosome site formation reduced. Please see Fig 2e, f, g in the revised manuscript.

Fig 2e and f - KO of the autophagy core components FIP200 and ATG9A increased phos-TBK1 under basal, non-mitophagy-associated conditions (see Fig 3). The levels of autophagy adaptors other than OPTN also increased in FIP200 KO and ATG9A KO cells. Furthermore, as shown in Fig 3a and supplementary Fig 7, both phos-TBK1 and the autophagy adaptors accumulated in Ub-positive condensates. Based on previous reports (Mejlvang 2018 J Cell Biol), TAX1BP1, p62, and NBR1 have short half-lives and are quicky degraded by macro/micro autophagy. The accumulation of phos-TBK1 in the absence of autophagy occurs because autophagy-dependent degradation of TAX1BP1 (and other adaptors) is inhibited. This allows for the formation of Ub-positive condensates, which brings TBK1 into sufficient proximity for activation. This has been noted in the revised manuscript.

Fig 3b and 3c - We wonder if the "loading controls are missing for Fig 3b and 3c" statement might be a misinterpretation by the reviewer as TOMM20 was used as the loading control in the original Fig 3b. It was recovered in the supernatant fractions of WT, FIP200 KO, and ATG9A KO cells, indicating that the accumulation of autophagy adaptors in the pellet fractions depends on autophagy gene deletion. Similarly, actin and TOMM20 were used as loading controls in the original manuscript Fig 3c.

Fig 2d (perhaps meant to be Fig 3d) – A previous study reported that phos-tag PAGE blot of OPTN in TBK1 KO cells alone revealed no differences between WT and TBK1 KO cells (Heo et al 2015 Mol Cell). We cited this reference in the revised manuscript.

Fig 2b (perhaps meant to be Fig 4b) - Immunoblots of phos-TBK1 have been incorporated into the results of Fig 4b in the revised manuscript.

Fig 4 - We show in Fig 2 that induction of Parkin-mediated mitophagy promotes OPTN accumulation at contact sites formed by isolation membranes and ubiquitinated mitochondria, and that autophagy core subunits are required for efficient generation of phos-TBK1. Fig 3 shows that phos-TBK1 accumulates in Ub-positive condensates with TAX1BP1, rather than OPTN, and that it is responsible for phos-TBK1 accumulation. Together, these results suggest a model in which TBK1 is activated when OPTN and TBK1 are positioned near each other. We hypothesized that if we could force OPTNs into close proximity the autophagy machinery requirement for TBK1 activation might be bypassed. To assess this model, we designed the fluoppi assay shown in Fig 4. This assay was critical in that it provided an important clue for the molecular mechanism that OPTN and the autophagy machinery use to cooperatively induce TBK1 trans-autophosphorylation. Because the original manuscript may not have sufficiently conveyed our reasoning for the fluoppi analysis, we have rewritten this section. The main point of the fluoppi assay is that engineered OPTN multimerization was able to bypass the autophagy requirement for TBK1 activation.

Fig 5 - For easier interpretation, the L693Q and V700Q data, which are not related to ALS pathology, have been removed.

Fig 5d – Statistical significance has been determined for the mitophagy results and the main text has been rewritten for better clarity.

Fig 6c, d, and I – The experiments were independently replicated more than three times with statistical support and error bars incorporated into the associated graphs.

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

*this manuscript represents a lot of work but the experiments often lack controls and are over-interpretated. The manuscript is for a broad audience. *

For the revised manuscript, additional experiments were carefully performed with appropriate controls and the manuscript was rewritten to address concerns regarding over-interpretation. We hope that we have adequately addressed the reviewer’s comments.

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

*The authors investigated the mechanisms by which TBK1 is phosphorylated and thus activated in PINK1/Parkin-mediated mitophagy. They show data indicating that OPTN, by interacting both with ubiquitin-coated mitochondria and with the autophagy machinery, provides a platform where OPTN-bound TBK1 can be hetero-autophosphorylated by adjacent TBK1. *

*According to the prevailing model (prior to this manuscript), TBK1 activation via autophosphorylation leads to TBK1-mediated phosphorylation of OPTN S177 and subsequent pOPTN-mediated recruitment of autophagic isolation membranes to the mitochondria. However, based on the model provided in this manuscript, OPTN needs to interact first with both autophagic membranes and ubiquitin before TBK1 can become activated. *

*This is an important topic. Overall, the experimental data are of high scientific quality. For the most part, the manuscript is clearly written. The figures have been made with great care. The novel insights are relevant. However, a number of issues need to be addressed or clarified. *

*Major comments: *

• Fig. 1a-b shows that pTBK1 (pS172) formation already peaks after 30 min of valinomycin. Even when bafilomycin is added, pTBK1 level already reaches a near maximum after 30 min of valinomycin. If the model proposed by the authors is correct and pTBK1 (pS172) formation requires extensive interaction of OPTN with both ubiquitin and autophagic isolation membranes, they should be able to show (by immunostaining) that OPTN already extensively forms peri-mitochondrial cup/sphere-shaped structures that colocalize with isolation membrane markers after only 30 min of valinomycin. In the present manuscript, they only show formation of such structures after 1-3 h of valinomycin.* We thank the reviewer for the critical comments. Based on the suggestion, we performed immunostaining to observe the recruitment of TBK1 and OPTN to damaged mitochondria as well as the generation of phos-TBK1 (pS172) and phos-OPTN (pS177). HeLa cells stably expressing Parkin and 3HA-WIPI1 were treated with valinomycin for 30 min, and then TBK1, OPTN, phos-TBK1, and phos-OPTN were immunostained along with 3HA-WIPI1 (a marker of the autophagosome formation site) and TOMM20 (a mitochondria marker). Please see supplementary Fig 2a and 3a in the revised manuscript. The TBK1, OPTN, phos-TBK1, and phos-OPTN signals formed dot-like, cup-shaped, and/or spherical structures, most of which were peri-mitochondrial and colocalized with 3HA-WIPI1. In separate experiments, HeLa cells stably expressing Parkin were treated with valinomycin in the presence or absence of bafilomycin for 30 min or 2 hrs and then immunostained. Please see supplementary Fig 2b in the revised manuscript. After 30 min valinomycin in the absence of bafilomycin, many TBK1 and OPTN signals were observed on damaged mitochondria. These signals were quantified from more than 160 cells for each of the four conditions. Each microscopic image generated contained 18-36 cells and corresponds to one dot in supplementary Fig 2c. Based on these results, the abundance of TBK1 and OPTN on mitochondria after 30 min of valinomycin was much higher than that after 2 hrs with valinomycin (supplementary Fig 2c). Similar results were obtained for phos-TBK1 and phos-OPTN (supplementary Fig 3b and c). These results are consistent with the immunoblot data (Fig1a and b).

Furthermore, we show that Parkin expression levels affect the amount of phos-TBK1 generated during mitophagy. Please see supplementary Fig 4 in the revised manuscript. When PARKIN was integrated into HeLa cells under a CMV promoter via an AAVS1 (Adeno-associated virus integration site 1)-locus, the resultant cell line (referred to as high-Parkin) had higher Parkin levels than HeLa cells in which PARKIN was introduced by retrovirus infection (referred to as low-Parkin). In high-Parkin HeLa cells, phos-TBK1 levels reached a maximum after 30 min with valinomycin, while in low-Parkin HeLa cells, phos-TBK1 levels were comparable after 30 min and 1 hr. High-Parkin HeLa was used for Fig 1a, b, c, and d as well as supplementary Fig 1, 2, 3 and 4. For all other Figs, PARKIN genes were introduced by retrovirus infection. This is one of the reasons why val was used for 30 min in Fig1, but 1-3 hrs for the other Figs. Because 3 hrs valinomycin treatment may be unsuitable for evaluating OPTN recruitment to mitochondria/isolation membrane contact sites, we deleted the original Fig 2c and replaced it with the val 1 hr data (Please see Fig 2e in the revised manuscript).

• The authors propose that OPTN needs to interact both with ubiquitin on mitochondria and with isolation membrane proteins such as ATG9A to allow TBK1 phosphorylation. However, their fluoppi experiments in Fig. 4 seem to contradict this. In the fluoppi experiments, the authors generate multimeric OPTN-Ub foci and this is apparently sufficient to induced TBK1 phosphorylation at S172 (shown in 4d,f). In this experiment, there is no induction of autophagy or formation of isolation membranes, and TBK1 nevertheless gets activated.*

Figure 2 demonstrates that both ubiquitin on mitochondria and formation of the isolation membranes are needed to provide a platform for OPTN to assemble in close proximity to each other and subsequently induce TBK1 autophosphorylation. To determine if OPTN proximity is sufficient for TBK1 autophosphorylation (i.e., if engineered OPTN multimerization can bypass the autophagy machinery requirement for TBK1 autophosphorylation), we used the fluoppi assay. The results clearly showed that engineered OPTN multimerization induced TBK1 autophosphorylation without the need for the autophagy machinery. Although this is not a mitophagy experiment, the fluoppi assay provided crucial insights into the molecular mechanism underlying OPTN-mediated TBK1 autophosphorylation. The main text was rewritten to provide more clarity regarding the purpose of the fluoppi experiments.

• Can the authors be more concrete/specific in the discussion about the molecular mechanisms that explain why this 'platform' that is created by OPTN-autophagy machinery interactions is so crucial for TBK1 activation? If I understand the model in Fig. 7D correctly, the OPTN-autophagy machinery interactions are mainly important because they reduce the distance between OPTN-bound TBK1 molecules so that they can trans-phosphorylate each other. But if TBK1 autophosphorylation was just a matter of proximity between OPTN-bound TBK1 molecules, interaction of OPTN with densely ubiquitinated mitochondria should already be sufficient for TBK1 phosphorylation. When multiple OPTN molecule bind to one ubiquitin chain or to closely adjacent ubiquitin chains (similar to the fluoppi experiments), TBK1 molecules binding to OPTN would be expected to be already closely enough to one another for trans-autophosphorylation.*

The amount of phos-TBK1 during Parkin-mediated mitophagy was reduced in cells with the OPTN 4LA/F178A mutant, which cannot interact with the autophagy machinery (e.g. FIP200, ATG9A, and LC3) but can be targeted to mitochondria (see Fig 2c, d). ATG9AKO cells also had reduced amounts of phos-TBK1 relative to WT cells (See Fig 2j, k). Therefore, rather than OPTN-ubiquitin freely diffusing laterally on the outer membrane, we suggest that the contact site OPTN forms with ubiquitin and the autophagy machinery provides a more suitable platform for TBK1 autophosphorylation because it maintains TBK1 in a proximal position for a longer period of time.

The OPTN UBAN domain binds a ubiquitin-chain composed of two ubiquitin molecules (Oikawa et al. 2016 Nat Comm), and during Parkin-mediated mitophagy only shorter length poly-ubiquitin chains are generated on the mitochondrial surface (Swatek et al. 2019 Nature). Based on those findings, it is unlikely that multiple OPTN bind to one ubiquitin chain. Of course, we cannot rule out the possibility that TBK1 autophosphorylation does not occur on mitochondria in the absence of autophagy components. While full activation of TBK1 requires OPTN to associate with the isolation membrane, initial TBK autophosphorylation at the onset of mitophagy may occur based only on the OPTN-ubiquitin interaction. These explanations have been added to the Discussion in the revised manuscript.

Furthermore, based on comments from Reviewer 2, we performed time-lapse microscopy to observe OPTN dynamics during Parkin-mediated mitophagy (please see Fig 2l). HeLa cells stably expressing GFP-OPTN and pSu9-mCherry (a mitochondrial marker) were treated with valinomycin. GFP-OPTN was initially a peri- mitochondrial dot-like structure that elongated over time to a cup-shaped structure and which eventually ended up forming a spherical structure. The time-laps imaging showed that, at least in WT cells, OPTN is directly recruited to the contact sites and elongates along with the isolation membranes. We thus concluded that TBK1 is activated (autophosphorylated) at the contact site rather than on the outer membrane where OPTN-TBK can move freely.

• Fig. 5c,d and P. 16: the mitophagy experiments in TBK1-/- cells expressing the different mutant forms of TBK1 are hard to interpret because it is not clear which mitophagy differences are statistically significant. The main text about this part (p. 16) is also confusing.*

We regret the confusion. Reviewer 2 also noted that the main text for Fig 5 was difficult to interpret. One of the reasons that complicated interpretation of the data is the number of TBK1 mutants used. The L693Q and V700Q mutations used by Li et al. (2016 Nat Commun) were expected to inhibit mitophagy since those authors reported that the mutations prevented interactions with OPTN. However, our in-cell assay showed that the two mutants only moderately affected Parkin-mediated mitophagy. Furthermore, both L693Q and V700Q were engineered based on the X-ray structure and are not ALS pathogenic mutations. To simplify the data and to make data interpretation easier, we decided to delete the L693Q and V700A data. We also determined statistical significance and rewrote this section.

• Many graphs lack statistics: Fig. 2b (pTBK1), Fig. 2f, Fig. 5b, Fig. 5d, Fig. 6c.*

We apologize for the lack of statistical analyses. We repeated experiments (if the experiments had not been independently performed more than three times) with statistical significance and error bars incorporated into the relevant figures.

*Other comments: *

• Fig. 1a: how do they know that the upper OPTN band is ubiquitinated OPTN? Reviewer 2 raised the same question. To demonstrate that the upper OPTN band is ubiquitinated, cell lysates after mitophagy induction were incubated in vitro* with a recombinant USP2 core domain, and the samples immunoblotted. As shown in supplementary Fig 1 in the revised manuscript, the upper OPTN band disappeared in a USP2-dependent manner. The upper NDP52 and TOMM20 bands similarly disappeared. Therefore, the upper OPTN, NDP52 and TOMM20 bands observed after mitophagy induction are ubiquitinated.

• Fig. 1a,b: the bafilomycin stabilization of pTBK1, OPTN and pOPTN indicates that these proteins are substantially degraded by autophagy within 30-60 minutes. This seems extremely fast for mitophagy completion. Please discuss.*

According to Kulak et al. (2014 Nat Methods), autophagy adaptor abundance (OPTN: 2.32E+4 and NDP52: 3.34E+4 in HeLa cell line) is low compared to that of mitochondria (TOMM20: 1.45E+6 in HeLa cell line). This is one of the reasons why autophagic degradation of adaptors is easier to see. Degradation of phos-TBK1 was likewise easy to detect, whereas total TBK1 was not. This discrepancy is likely based on differences in the abundance of phos-TBK1 and total TBK1. In addition, because autophagy adaptors are localized outside of the mitochondrial membrane they may be easier targets for lysosomal degradation than matrix proteins, which are localized inside the outer and inner membranes.

• Fig. 1a and rest of the manuscript: is there a reason why the authors only looked at S177 phosphorylation of OPTN and not also at OPTN S473, which is also phosphorylated by TBK1?*

Both mass spectrometry and mutational analyses indicated that OPTN S473 is phosphorylated during Parkin-mediated mitophagy and that OPTN phosphorylated at S473 strongly binds ubiquitin chains (Richter et al. 2016 PNAS and Heo et al. 2015 Mol Cell). However, because a phos-S473 OPTN antibody is, to the best of our knowledge, currently not commercially available, we did not focus on S473 phosphorylation.

• Fig. 1e-f: the main text states that "NDP52 KO effects on the pS172 signal were comparable to controls", but the blot in 1e and the graph in 1f indicate a difference between NDP52KO and WT (significant difference shown in 1f). This is confusing.*

We regret the over-interpretation. As the reviewer indicated, the amount of phos-TBK generated in response to mitophagy was reduced in NDP52 KO cells relative to that in WT cells. This has been corrected. We would like to emphasize that, unlike OPTNdeletion, NDP52 deletion has relatively minor effects on TBK1 phosphorylation.

• P. 9: "TBK1 phosphorylation however was not apparent in the OPTN mutant lines, even after 3 hrs with valinomycin, indicating that autophagy adaptors are essential for TBK1 activation (Fig. 2a)". However, the pTBK1 blot in Fig. 1a does show pTBK1 formation in the OPTN mutant (4LA etc.) lines. This is confusing.*

We apologize for this error. We intended to state “TBK1 phosphorylation was not apparent in the Penta KO cells without OPTN expression even after 3 hrs with valinomycin, indicating that autophagy adaptors are essential for TBK1 activation”. This sentence has been corrected in the revised manuscript.

• P. 10: "we subtracted the basal phosphorylation signal from that generated post-valinomycin (1 hr) and bafilomycin (3 hr)". Do they mean "from that generated post-valinomycin (3 hr) and bafilomycin (3 hr)?*

The reviewer is correct, we have corrected the error.

• P. 10, same paragraph: "the phosphorylation signal was ~90 but was less than 30 in ATG9A KO cells." Unclear what they mean by 90 and 30. 90% and 30%? 90-fold and 30-fold?*

The newly generated pTBK1 levels following Parkin-mediated mitophagy were calculated as pTBK1 [val & baf 3 hrs] minus pTBK1 [DMSO]. Since pTBK1 [val & baf 3 hrs] in WT cells is set to 100%, the newly generated pTBK1 in WT cells was 100% - 5% = 95%. The calculated values for pTBK1 [DMSO] and pTBK1 [val & baf 3 hrs] in ATG9A KO cells were ~55% and ~85%, respectively. Consequently, newly generated pTBK1 in the ATG9A KO cells is ~85% - ~55% = 30%. For clarity, we modified the figure to make the meaning of the numbers more apparent.

• Fig. 3a: Do they have an idea what kind of ubiquitinated substrates are contained in the ubiquitin-positive condensates that accumulate in FIP200 KO and ATG9A KO cells (i.e. without valinomycin treatment)?*

According to Kishi-Itakura et al. (2014 J Cell Sci), ferritin accumulates in the p62 condensates in FIP200 KO and ATG9A KO cells. However, it is unknown if the ferritin in the condensates is ubiquitinated. In the original manuscript, we confirmed by immunostaining that the p62-NBR1 condensates contain ferritin (Fig 3a in the original manuscript and supplementary Fig 7b in the revised manuscript).

• P. 12 and Fig. 3a: please explain why they look at ferritin, to improve readability.*

We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. As mentioned, ferritin is a known substrate that accumulates in p62 condensates, we thus sought to confirm its presence. We have included this explanation in the revised manuscript.

• Fig. 3a: please also include Ub stain for NBR1.*

We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We obtained a rabbit anti-NBR1 antibody that allowed us to co-immunostain with the mouse anti-ubiquitin antibody (please see supplementary Fig 7b in the revised manuscript).

• Fig. 3d: the OPTN blot shows 2 OPTN bands. What does the upper OPTN band represent here?*

To determine if the two bands are genuine OPTN, total cell lysates prepared from HeLa cells treated with control siRNA or OPTN siRNA were subjected to phos-tag PAGE followed by immunoblotting with an anti-OPTN antibody. As shown below (Figure 2 for reviewers), the two bands (indicated as blue arrowheads) were absent in the OPTN knock down cells, indicating that both are derived from OPTN. Since phosphorylated species migrate slower in phos-tag PAGE, the upper band might be a phosphorylated form. The specific Ser/Thr phosphorylated in OPTN, however, remains to be determined. Heo et al. (2015 Mol Cell) also reported the two OPTN bands on phos-tag PAGE and that both were unchanged in TBK1 KO cells, suggesting that at least the upper band is not affected by TBK1.

• P. 14 and Fig. 4b: "Here, we found that phosphorylation of ... TBK1 (S172) was induced by the OPTN-ub fluoppi (Fig. 4b)." However, Fig 4b does not show a pTBK1 blot.*

We immunoblotted phos-TBK1. Please see Fig 4b in the revised manuscript.

*Reviewer #3 (Significance (Required)): *

*The novel insights are relevant. *

*According to the prevailing model (prior to this manuscript), TBK1 activation via autophosphorylation leads to TBK1-mediated phosphorylation of OPTN S177 and subsequent pOPTN-mediated recruitment of autophagic isolation membranes to the mitochondria. However, based on the model provided in this manuscript, OPTN needs to interact first with both autophagic membranes and ubiquitin before TBK1 can become activated. *

Based on our time-lapse microscopy observations (Fig 2l), OPTN recruited to the vicinity of mitochondria was visible as a small dot-like structures that likely correspond to contact sites between mitochondria and the isolation membrane since OPTN colocalizes with WIPI1 (please see supplementary Fig 2). These results support our proposed model that OPTN interacts with both isolation membranes and ubiquitin at the onset of mitophagy. Without TBK1 activation, OPTN can interact with ATG9A vesicles, a seed for isolation membrane formation (Yamano et al 2020 JCB), and TBK1 can interact with the PI3K complex (Nguyen et al 2023 Mol Cell). Therefore, OPTN-TBK1 can be recruited to the contact site from the very beginning of mitophagy induction prior to TBK1 being fully activated. Furthermore, the proposed model also includes an OPTN-TBK1 positive feedback loop; however, the earliest reactions in the positive feedback loop are too difficult to observe. For example, it’s widely known that PINK1 and Parkin form a positive feedback loop to generate ubiquitin-chains on damaged mitochondria, but the initial reaction has yet to be observed. It remains unclear if PINK1 is the first to phosphorylate mitochondrial ubiquitin (if this is the case, it remains unknown how ubiquitin comes to mitochondria) or if cytosolic Parkin first adds ubiquitin to the outer membrane albeit with very weak activity. Similarly, in our proposed model, we cannot determine the earliest OPTN-TBK1 reaction. As described in the Discussion in the revised manuscript, it remains possible that in the absence of autophagy machinery OPTN distributed freely on the outer membrane can induce trans-autophosphorylation, albeit weakly, as the earliest reaction.

We would like to thank Reviewer 3 for the critical comments and suggestions. We have performed several of the suggested experiments, added new data, and rewritten the text. We hope that these changes have sufficiently addressed the reviewer’s concerns.

Note: This rebuttal was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. 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 taking the time to evaluate our manuscript. Many helpful suggestions and discussion points were raised. These comments were instrumental to provide more data that strengthen our conclusion about the relevance of centrin condensation in vivo, expand our findings to other organisms, and improve the manuscript in general. Details are given in the following individual replies.

Reviewer #1 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity):

Voss and colleagues show calcium-dependent assembly of Plasmodium falciparum centrins in vitro and in parasites. This assembly is dependent on the EF-hands of centrin and an N-terminal disordered region.

Major concerns:

1. The very definitive title is not wholly supported by the data. This should be qualified by specifying the conditions under which the centrins can accumulate in this way.

We understand this comment by the reviewer. There are multiple dimensions to the potential of centrins to condensate, such as the specific centrin family member, in vivo vs in vitro situation, and media conditions. Naturally it is difficult to represent these various conditions in a concise and compelling title but in line with the suggestion by Reviewer 2 we are changing the title to “Malaria parasite centrins can assemble by Ca2+-inducible condensation” to reflect the conditionality of this process.

1. A major concern is whether this behaviour of centrins represents a biologically relevant mechanism in centriolar plaque formation. Is this limited to high overexpression conditions or in vitro high concentrations? Or is it a result of the tagging of the P. falciparum centrins?...

Centrin accumulation at the centriolar plaque and assembly of the centriolar plaque itself must be differentiated. Although compelling we are already very careful in the text about extrapolating our findings about centrin accumulation in cells to centriolar plaque or centrosomal assembly in general. We, however, thank the reviewer for this important comment and now have carried out hexanediol treatment of wild type parasites to test the effect on centrin in a native context. After IFA staining we failed to detect any centrin foci at the centriolar plaques, suggesting that they can be resolved by inhibiting weak hydrophobic interactions that are typical for phase separation (now Fig. 6, lines 283ff).

Concerning the effect of tagging we have generated new data of cells overexpressing an untagged version of PfCen1 in parasites, which still shows formation of ECCAs as revealed by IFA (now Fig. 4H-K, lines 243ff). This significantly alleviates the concern that the observed phenomenon is only a consequence of GFP-tagging. Our in vitro data already showed that native and tagged PfCentrin1 & 3 can undergo condensation.

Concerning the critical concentration of our in vitro assay we find it to be around 10-15 µM without the addition of crowding agents such as PEG (now Fig. S3C, lines 120ff). To our understanding it is challenging to select an in vitro concentration that is adequate to define a threshold for “biological relevance” due to so many additional factors playing a role in vivo. Those factors can also favor a phase separation locally when total saturation concentration is not reached as we now discuss in more detail (lines 440ff). For reference the critical concentration of FUS, which is one of the most studied phase separating proteins in model system, is around 2 µM, but concentrations below 15 µM are well within the range of what is observed for in vitro LLPS. Additionally, it is important to consider that we find Cen1/3 and HsCen2 LLPS is inducible and reversible and that very homologous proteins i.e. Cen2 and 4 serve as an adequate internal control.

… A convincing approach to addressing this issue would be to knock-in a fluorescent tag to the centrin loci. Roques et al. (ref. 12 in this submission) report the GFP tagging of centrin-4 in P. berghei, although they note that centrins-1 to -3 were refractory to tagging in this organism. It is unclear whether Voss et al. attempted this tagging in P. falciparum. This should be clarified and relevant data presented.

We indeed attempted several unsuccessful iterations of tagging Cen1/3 with HA and GFP tag and now explain this in the text more clearly (lines 81ff). We did not attempt tagging Cen2 and 4 as they do not display phase separation in vitro or carry IDRs.

If the tagged molecules used in the biochemical parts of this study are functional, it is challenging to understand why the centrins cannot be tagged in P. falciparum. If the tags render the P. falciparum centrins dysfunctional, the study becomes significantly less useful.

Our data shows that in vitro Cen1-GFP can undergo Ca2+-inducible and reversible LLPS and that GFP-tagged centrins can still localize to the centriolar plaque. Centrin function, however, certainly goes beyond its ability to condensate and localize. It is easily conceivable that interaction with critical binding partners at the centriolar plaque is inhibited by tagging a protein as small as centrin, which prohibits tagging the endogenous version, while its ability to phase separate remains unaltered. To dynamically study a protein in cells tagging is, however, unavoidable. Even though tagging affects any proteins function to highly variable degree we are still convinced that studying those proteins still provides useful information. Our mutant versions of PfCen1 in vivo shows that non-condensating version display different localization. Importantly, as mentioned above, we now provide images of cells overexpressing an untagged Cen1 version, which still causes ECCA formation (Fig. 5H-K). Ultimately, even though tagged versions might not be fully functional, our observations are compatible with the ability of centrins to condensate in vivo.

1. If a knock-in cannot be achieved, it must be shown that the transgenic expression of tagged Plasmodium centrins does not confound the analysis of centrin behaviour. It is known that these proteins can behave anomalously when overexpressed (Yang et al. 2010, PMID: 20980622; Prosser et al. 2009, PMID: 19139275), at least in other species.

Thank you for this comment. Transgenic expression of proteins can in principle influence their behavior. In the context of this study the overexpression is, however, used intentionally since protein concentration correlates with the phase separation. Here, transgenic overexpression is used as a tool, rather than being a confounding factor, and ECCA formation can be used as quantifiable phenotype. The observation that ECCAs appear significantly earlier the higher they are expressed is in our opinion one of the stronger points of evidence that this result from phase separation in vivo. Yet centrins maintain their centriolar plaque localization and no significant impact on growth is observed. To definitely answer whether phase separation of endogenous centrin is occurring during centriolar plaque accumulation is challenging. These challenges and limitations are now addressed in the significantly extended discussion. As explained above untagged Cen1 also forms ECCAs.

A previous description of centriolar plaque from the authors' lab (Simon et al. 2021, PMID: 34535568) shows an organized structure of an established size. It should be demonstrated whether the structures formed with the GFP tagged centrins show the same dimensions and dynamics as those in wild-type parasites. The extent of the overexpression of the GFP-tagged centrins should also be demonstrated.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have now added spatial measurements of the centrin signal dimensions at the centriolar plaque of mitotic spindle containing nuclei in PfCen1-GFP overexpressing vs non-induced cell lines. We found that the width of the centrin-signal at the centriolar plaque was unaltered while the height only increased by 11% (Fig. S9). Further, we found no significant growth phenotype in overexpressing parasites, which indicates that the centriolar plaque is functional.

Due to several confounding factors, we were, unfortunately, unable to clearly quantify the extent of overexpression. Most notably the induction of overexpression only works in about 50% of the cells (Fig. S6). The mean intensity after induction further displays quite some variability. Furthermore, the expression kinetics along the IDC of endogenous centrin and our overexpression system that we use as a tool differ. Lastly, our centrin antibodies display crossreactivity (see also Fig. S12) making it impossible to identify how much of the endogenous pool we are labeling in comparison to the GFP- tagged Cen1 protein.

1. It would also be useful to remove the His tag from the recombinantly expressed and purified centrins for the in vitro analyses, particularly if concern remains about the impact of tags on Plasmodium centrin behaviour.

Based on the published in vitro studies on other centrins, we did not anticipate the His-tag to change LLPS properties. Also, Cen1 and 3 and Cen2 and 4 would need to be differentially affected by the tag. We further have experimented with N-terminally tagged 6His-Cen3 protein and found no significant differences in our turbidity assays. Nevertheless, we expressed new versions of the recombinant PfCen1-4 proteins with a TEV cleavage site inserted after the His-tag to purify untagged proteins and found no fundamental differences in our LLPS assay aside some slight variation in the kinetics (Fig. S3E).

1. The discussion is very short and does not consider the findings presented here in the context of the literature, with respect to centrins, Plasmodium MTOC assembly mechanisms, or to general considerations around biological condensates. Andrea Musacchio's recent commentary (ref. 44 in the current submission) advocates caution in ascribing phase separation as an assembly mechanism for organelles in vivo, particularly on the basis of in vitro experiments with high concentrations of homogeneous protein. It is not clear that the concentration dependence of extracentrosomal centrin accumulations (ECCAs) at the onset of schizogony provides sufficient justification of a phase separation model in vivo. The authors' recent description of the involvement of an SFI1-like protein, SIp (Wenz et al. 2023 PMID: 37130129), in the centriolar plaque makes a case for non-homotypic interactions also driving assembly and alternative models for ECCA are not convincingly excluded. The absence of a robust discussion of such considerations is unhelpful to the reader.

We very much thank the reviewer for this suggestion, which helped to significantly improve the manuscript. We have purposefully included the commentary by Andrea Musacchio to highlight a different (possibly the most antipodal) point of view on the role of biomolecular condensation in membraneless organelle formation for the unfamiliar readers that might be just getting to know the field of phase separation. In the absence of word limitations, the reviewer is right to point out the lack of more extensive discussion. We now have significantly extended this section and address the suggested points including the potential role of the novel centriolar plaque protein Slp, which was not published upon submission of our previous version (lines 450ff.)

1. It is also unclear whether the analysis of human centrin is suggested to indicate a phase separation mechanism for centrins in human cells. As this is readily testable, this notion could be considered further. Although its experimental examination may lie outside the theme of this study, one would expect some discussion of the significance of the data presented in the study.

Since it is the first description of phase separation of centrin, it would indeed be interesting to explore the functional relevance in other organisms such as humans. We are considering approaching this in the future. We have, as requested above, significantly extended the discussion and now also include this aspect. Earlier reports have e.g. shown centriole overduplication in human cells upon centrin overexpression.

Minor points

1. There are only three centrins in humans. Centrin 4 is a pseudogene (Gene ID: 729338 on NCBI).

Thank you for detecting this error, which we now corrected (line 60). Centrin 4 seems only to be an expressed gene in mice.

1. Line 175 should say 'temporally', rather than 'temporarily. The Abstract should say 'evolutionarily conserved', rather than 'evolutionary conserved'. 'To condensate' is not ideal as a phrase- 'to form a condensate' would be clearer.

Thank you for those suggestions. The text has been modified accordingly.

Referees cross-commenting

I think the other 2 reviewers have made fair, cogent and constructive points. There is good convergence between the reviewers on the significant issues around the study. These concern in vivo and in vitro effects of tagging and of high concentrations.

Reviewer #1 (Significance):

The biology of the Plasmodium centriolar plaque is of great interest as an alternative MTOC structure, with obvious additional interest deriving from the role of this organism in malaria. Much remains to be learned about this structure, so the topic of this paper is likely to attract a broad readership. Furthermore, the centrins are a widely-expressed and evolutionarily conserved family of eukaryotic proteins, with multiple roles; a new model for their behaviour, such as is suggested here, would be of interest to many cell biologists.

With that in mind, significant additional data should be provided to substantiate the model proposed by the authors.

We appreciate that the reviewer considers our manuscript of interest for a broad audience. We feel that our modifications of the text including a more thorough contextualization and addition of some new experimental data now sufficiently supports our claims.

Reviewer #2 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity):

The authors analyzed the properties of the four Centrin proteins of the malaria parasite using a combination of in vitro and in vivo approaches. Their findings indicate that two of the four Plasmodium Centrin proteins, PfCen1 and PfCen3, as well as the human Centrin protein HsCen2, exhibit features of biomolecular condensates. Moreover, analysis of cells overexpressing PfCen1 indicates that such biomolecular condensates become more numerous as cells approach mitosis and are dissolved thereafter.

Major comments

A) A critical point that requires clarification is how the protein concentrations used in the in vitro and in vivo assays (20-200 microM in vitro, and not estimated in vivo) compare to that of the endogenous components. This is important because it may well be that 6His-tagged PfCen1, PfCen3 and HsCen2 can form biomolecular condensates when present in vast excess, but not when present in physiological concentrations. The authors should report the estimated cellular concentration of PfCen1-4, as well as that achieved upon PfCen1-GFP overexpression (on top of endogenous PfCen1), for instance using semi-quantitative immunoblotting analysis. Given this limitation, the authors may also want to temper their title by introducing the word "can" after "centrins".

In the context of phase separation, protein concentration is of course a critical metric. However, in vitro and in vivo concentrations cannot be directly compared as the composition of the surrounding solute has a significant impact on the effective saturation concentration. In vitro we find a saturation concentration for Cen1 of 10-15 µM (Fig. S3C), which is within a range that is frequently found other in vitro studies as listed in the in vitro LLPS data base (PMID: 35025997). We now more explicitly discuss this in the text (lines 422ff). At this point, unfortunately, we have no means of investigating the absolute concentrations of centrin in vivo and to our knowledge no such data is available for apicomplexan. Additionally, one has to keep in mind the presence of other centrin family members in the cell which can interact and co-condensate as well as other centriolar plaque proteins, like PfSlp, but are difficult to separate through analysis. Further we now discuss several contexts that modify the saturation concentration in vivo (lines 440ff).

As explained above in a response to Reviewer 1, we were not able to produce a satisfactory quantification of the overexpression levels. We are repasting the previous response here:

“Due to several confounding factors we were, unfortunately, unable to clearly quantify the extent of overexpression. Most notably the induction of overexpression only works in about 50% of the cells (Fig. S6). The mean intensity after induction further displays quite some variability. Lastly the expression kinetics along the IDC of endogenous centrin and our overexpression system that we use as a tool differ. Lastly, our centrin antibodies display crossreactivity (see also Fig. S12) making it impossible to identify how much of the endogenous pool we are labeling in comparison to the GFP- tagged Cen1 protein. “

Concerning the title, as explained above, we followed the suggestion and added the word “can”.

B) Movies S1 and S2 (and the related Fig. 1D and 1E) are not the most convincing to support the notion that the observed assemblies are biomolecular condensates, as not much activity is going on during the recordings. Likewise, Movies S3, and even more so Movie S4, as out of focus for a large fraction of the time, making it difficult to assess what happens at the beginning of the process. Moreover, it appears that fusion events, while occurring, are rather rare. The movies should be exchanged for ones that are in focus, and ideally a rough quantification of fusion events as a function of biomolecular condensate size provided.

We thank the reviewer for requesting clarification. Movies S1 and S2 are by no means direct evidence for biomolecular condensation and we do not claim them to be but rather say that they are “…reminiscent of biomolecular condensates…”. We think that this is an appropriate entry into the subsequent analyses. For Movie S1 it is noteworthy that the shape of the accumulation, which can only be resolved by super-resolution microscopy in live cells, is round as would be expected for a liquid condensate in the absence of forces and on these short time scales. Nevertheless, the centriolar plaque must be duplicated which might be the process partly depicted in Movie S2. The observation that centrin can be still change its shape at least suggests that it is not a solid aggregate. In the context of centriolar plaque biology and the technological advance of applying live cell STED in P. falciparum, we think these data are still worth reporting.

Concerning Movies S3 and S4 we have carefully selected the focal plane to highlight all the hallmarks of LLPS. Since the protein droplets freely move in 3D throughout the entire imaged liquid volume there is no z-plane that is in focus. Our positioning of the focal plane presents the best compromise between showing round droplet shape, droplet fusion events, and surface wetting. All those observations demonstrate the liquid nature of the condensates. Fusion events are indeed relatively rare, and we do not go beyond this qualitative statement that it can be seen.

C) An important control is missing from Fig. 2, namely assaying PfCen1-4 without the 6His tag, to ensure that the tag does not contribute to the observed behavior (although it can of course not be sufficient as evidenced by the lack of biomolecular condensates for PfCen2 and PfCen4).

Thank you for this suggestion. Since reviewer 1 made a similar comment, I’m reiterating our previous reply here: Generally speaking, and based on the published in vitro studies on other centrins, we didn’t anticipate the very small His-tag to change LLPS properties. Also, Cen1 and 3 and Cen2 and 4 would need to be differentially affected by the tag. We further have experimented with N-terminally tagged 6xHis-Cen3 protein and found no significant differences in our turbidity assays. However, we expressed new versions of the recombinant PfCen1-4 proteins with a TEV cleavage site inserted after the His-tag to purify untagged proteins and found no significant differences in our LLPS assay (Fig. S3E).

D) The authors should test whether the assemblies formed by PfCen1 and PfCen3 are sensitive to 1,6-hexanediol treatment, as expected for biomolecular condensates.

This is an interesting and helpful suggestion. We now tested 1,6-hexanediol addition to recombinant PfCen1 and wildtype parasites (now Fig. 6). Interestingly the dissolving effect of hexanediol on PfCen1 in vitro was moderate, which we attribute to the polar component in centrin assembly, which has been documented earlier (Tourbez et al. 2004). In vivo, however, only 5 min of treatment caused a striking dissolution of most centrin foci in wild type parasites, which is compatible with the interpretation that centrin or centriolar plaque assembly could be driven by biomolecular condensation.

E) The fact that HsCen2 also forms biomolecular condensates is very intriguing, but further investigation would be needed to assess the generality of these findings. For instance, the authors could test in vitro also S. cerevisiae Cdc31, the founding member of the Centrin family of proteins to further enhance the impact of their study.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. It would of course be exciting to investigate in more detail how widely this biochemical property of some centrins is conserved. To take a first step in that direction, we have recombinantly expressed centrins containing some N-terminal IDRs from C. reinhardtii, T. brucei and S. cerevisiae to represent organism of significant evolutionary distance. Using our in vitro phase separation assays, we found a very similar behavior to PfCen1 for two centrins while yeast Cdc31, although forming droplets, had a much higher saturation concentration, which could be explained by the significantly lower intrinsic disorder in its sequence (now new Fig. 3).

Minor comments

1) For the experiments reported in Fig. 3D, the same concentrations as those used in Fig. 3A-C (namely 10 microM, and not 30 microM as in Fig. 3D) should be used. Moreover, it would be informative to test whether PfCen2 and PfCen4 as PfCen3 when added to PfCen1.

Unfortunately, this experiment is not feasible since Cen3 does not produce droplets at 10 µM. Hence, in Fig. 3D we aimed to test if Cen1 is incorporated into preformed droplets i.e. whether there is still some interaction between them. We have, however, tested the addition of Cen2 to Cen1 and Cen3 and as expected from the inability PfCen2 to condensate we did not find the same synergistic effect as for Cen1 and 3 together (now Fig. S6). The combination of Cen1/2/3 still enabled co-condensation while addition of Cen4 did not further improve droplet formation. Taken together this strongly suggests that only Cen1 and 3 contribute to the phase separation in vitro (lines 184ff).

2) The authors mention that the effect of Calcium in inducing biomolecular condensates is specific, as Magnesium was not effective (lines 94-95). However, an examination of Fig. S3B indicates that the Magnesium also exhibits some activity, albeit less potent than Calcium. The authors should discuss this point and rectify the wording in the main text.

Thank you for pointing this out. While PfCen1 is not reactive to Magnesium, PfCen3 and HsCen2 do display a small reaction, which we now more clearly mention in the text (lines 118ff). Of note Mg2+ and other divalent cation are known to generally promote phase separation.

3) Do the authors think that PfCen2 and PfCent4 localize to the centriolar plaque in vivo using another mechanism that deployed by PfCen1 and PfCent3? It would be good to discuss this point.

This is indeed a point worth discussing. Centrins can of course still interact in the absence of biomolecular condensation and their localization to the centriolar plaque is not dependent on their ability to phase-separate as seen for PfCen2 and 4. We have recently described a novel centriolar plaque protein PfSlp that interacts with centrins and might assist recruitment (Wenz et al. 2023). Cellular condensates are, however, often separated into scaffold proteins, which actually phase separate and client protein which get recruited into those condensates. It is easily conceivable that Cen1 and 3 participate in formation of the biomolecular condensate into which Cen2 and 4 as well as other centriolar plaque proteins might be recruited. Unfortunately, we were not yet able to establish a recruitment hierarchy by e.g. dual-labeling of centrins to test whether PfCen1 and 3 might appear prior to PfCen2 and 4. We now include those aspects in the extended discussion.

4) Given that the EFh-dead mutant exhibits no activity in vitro and fails to localize in vivo, one potential concern is that the protein is misfolded. The authors should conduct a CD spectrum to investigate this.

Thank you for suggesting this relevant control experiment. We have carried out CD spectroscopy of wild type and EFh-dead PfCen1 and find no difference in secondary structure distribution. We now added these data to the supplemental information (now Fig. S14).

5) It is not entirely clear from the main text in lines 103-104, as well as from the legend, what Fig. S3B shows. When was EDTA added in this case?

Thank you for requesting clarification. We will assume the reviewer is referring to Fig S4B. We wanted to show that contrary to PfCen3 that PfCen1 droplets can still be resolved after an elongated period of incubation with calcium but forgot to mark the timepoint of EDTA addition at 180 min in the graph. We have now corrected this and further reworded the sentence for more clarity (lines 132ff).

6) Fig. S7: the correlation between PfCen1-GFP expression levels and ECCA appearance is modest at best. What statistical test was applied? This should be spelled out. Moreover, the authors should combine the two data sets, as this will provide further statistical power to assess whether a correlation is truly present.

Indeed, the correlation is modest but statistically significant, which is why we decided to place this data in the supplemental information. The used statistical test was an F-test provided by Prism, which compares two competing regression models, which we now mention in the legend. Combining the two data sets is unfortunately not possible since they arise from two independent sets of measurements where different imaging settings had to be used to adjust for the very different fluorescent protein levels in both lines after induction.

7) The authors may want to discuss how their findings can be reconciled with the notion that Centrin assemble into a helical polymer on the inside of the centriole (doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aaz4137).

This is an interesting point. Although centrin does localize to the inside of the centriole (https://doi.org/10.15252/embj.2022112107), more precisely one pool at the distal part and one pool at the core, there is no evidence that it is itself part of the helical inner scaffold described by the authors even though it might localize in close proximity to it. Further, there are several examples where polymers such as microtubules act as seeding point for biomolecular condensates or the other way around, and our work suggest this could be a potential working model for centrins. We have discussed our results extensively with the two corresponding authors of the aforementioned study (i.e. Virginie Hamel and Paul Guichard) and agreed that our data are not conflicting. Nevertheless, we include the inner centriole localization and potential association with polymer structures of centrin in our extended discussion.

9) Likewise, the authors may want to speculate regarding what their findings signify for the role of Centrin proteins in detection of nucleotide excision repair (doi: 10.1083/jcb.201012093).

We appreciate the comment by the reviewer. Centrins seem to have many different potential roles that remain to be clarified. While we are excited about this, we think it is too early to speculate about the impact of centrin condensation on less well studied aspects of centrins such as nucleotide excision repair. We, however, now cite this study in the discussion to highlight the functional diversity of centrins.

Small things

• Fig. 1A: change color for microtubules as red on red is difficult to discern.

Throughout our publications we use this shade of magenta to label microtubules in schematics and have therefore opted to use a slightly brighter shade of red for the RBCs instead to improve visibility.

• Fig. 1C: the indicated boxes in the top row do not seem to correspond exactly to the insets shown in the bottom row.

We have verified the position of the boxes and found them to be accurate. Possibly the different imaging modality used for both panels (confocal vs STED) creates this impression.

• line 266: typo, promotor > promoter.

Has been corrected.

• line 360: a reference should be provided for the GFP-booster, including the concentration at which it was used.

Has been added.

• line 363: "an" missing before "HC".

Has been corrected.

• line 428: it would be best to deposit the macros on Github or an analogous repository.

Macros have been deposited on https://github.com/SeverinaKlaus/ImageJ-Macros (line 737)

• line 461: "to the" is duplicated.

Has been corrected.

• Fig. S5A: maybe draw the lines in red (as red in Fig. S5B correspond to the proteins that do not have IDRs).

Since we cannot easily change the line colors of the IDR graphs, we have inverted the font color for Fig. S5B instead.

• Movie S7, legend: left frames shows PfCen1-GFP, not microtubules as currently stated.

Has been corrected.

Reviewer #2 (Significance):

This is a provocative study that extends initial observations regarding self-assembly properties of Centrin proteins, and posits that some members of this evolutionarily conserved family can form biomolecular condensates. After the above outstanding issues have been properly addressed, these data could have important implications for understanding Centrin function in centriole biology and DNA repair. Therefore, these findings will be of interest to a cell biology audience.

Field of expertise: cell biology.

Reviewer #3 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity):

Summary:

The authors have provided a comprehensive characterisation of centrin proteins in Plasmodium falciparum. Through expression of episomal GFP-tagged centrin for in vitro, they were able to observe co-localisation of centrin with centriolar plaques during the replicative stage of the parasite. They also utilised live cell STED microscopy to track dynamic changes in centrin morphology. They have also demonstrated calcium-dependent phase separation dynamics in bacterially-expressed P. falciparum centrin and human centrin 2. The formation of liquid-liquid phase separation in PfCen1, 3 and HsCen2 tied well with IUPred3 predictions of intrinsically disordered regions in these proteins. Using an inducible DiCre overexpression system with two promoters of varying strengths, the authors have shown accumulation of centrin1 outside of centrosomes and premature appearance of centriolar plaques. Finally, changes on the centrin1 protein, i.e., N-terminal deletion, and mutations in calcium binding sites in the EFh domains, have shown a reduction in the formation of ECCAs during overexpression and inability to form LLPS in vitro, respectively.

Major comments:

1. Given that parasites cannot tolerate endogenous C-terminal tagging of some centrins (but not all, as PbCen4 was successfully tagged), has N-terminal tagging been attempted either by the authors or in previous publications? Note that this is not a request for further experimentation; rather, maybe this can be noted in the manuscript; and line 62 can be rephrased for transparency.

We have not attempted N-terminal tagging ourselves but through personal communication with Rita Tewari we were informed that neither N- nor C-terminal tagging for PbCen1-3 was successful in the context of the study published by Roques et al 2018. We have only unsuccessfully attempted C-terminal tagging in several iterations. Due to importance of N-terminus for interaction and function in other organisms it is plausible that N-terminal tagging is even more unlikely to work. Since we have not exhaustively attempted every tagging strategy on every centrin we, as suggested, rephrased the text accordingly (lines 81ff).

1. Is there a possibility that by adding a C-terminal tag, centrin may lose a specific function or cause change in the physicochemical properties of the protein (thus making C-terminal tagging lethal)? Was His tag removal attempted so the native protein can be used in the LLPS experiments? IUPred3 analysis showed potential IDR at the C-terminal end of PfCen4. Could the C-terminal tag have caused the protein to not form droplets in the presence of Ca2+?

As we could show for PfCen1-GFP, the tag did not impair its ability to undergo LLPS which is at least partly mediated by the N-terminus, and that it could still properly localizes to the centriolar plaque. The fact that some endogenous centrins cannot be tagged suggest that there is a functional relevance to the C-terminus that could e.g. be an interaction with other essential centriolar plaque components. As suggested in a reply to Reviewer 1, we consider a substantial and centrin-specific effect of the small His-tag on phase separation unlikely. To be sure, we have repeated our turbidity assays with tag-free versions of PfCen1-4 and found no change in phase separation properties (now Fig. S3E).

1. It has been shown by the authors that different tagged centrins co-condense which may support the localisation data (Figure 1C). However, is there a way to show that the episomally- and endogenously-expressed centrin co-localise with each other (e.g., confocal microscopy with anti-centrin vs anti-gfp in PfCen-GFP lines, that is if the authors have access to anti-centrin antibodies)? Has endogenous centrin been demonstrated to form ECCAs (in previous publications or by the authors)?

These are important questions by the reviewer. Due to the high sequence homology centrin antibodies, even if raised against a specific centrin (such as PfCen3 in this study), will likely cross-react with other centrins. So far, we have not been able to produce a staining were the anti-GFP-positive foci are devoid of anti-centrin3 staining, which limits the interpretation of these data. The outer centriolar plaque compartment containing centrin is, however, well defined by now and the localization pattern of endogenous centrin and Centrin1 and 4-GFP seems identical. In a more recent study from our lab Cen1-GFP IP has identified other endogenous centrins as interaction partners (Wenz et al 2023), like the Roques et al. 2018 study did for PbCen4-GFP indicating that the tag does not abolish interaction between centrins. So far, we have never detected any ECCAs, nor have we identified any similar structure in the literature. This suggest that this is indeed a consequence of excessive centrin concentration. Importantly we now have added data from a new parasite line overexpressing untagged PfCen1 using the T2A skip peptide (pFIO+_GFP-T2A-Cen1) which displays ECCAs upon induction, showing that this effect is not a mere consequence of tagging (now Fig. 5H-K).

Minor comments:

1. How were the times (post addition of Ca2+) presented in Figure 2A determined?

We noted down the time of calcium addition and cross-referenced it with the timestamps available in the metadata of the movie files (e.g. file creation timepoint marks the start of the movie). We now mention this in the legend.

1. Line 126: Figure 1B should be Figure 1C

2. Line 145: Figure 1C-D should be Figure 1D-E

3. Line 151: Figure 3A should be Figure 4A

Thank you for spotting these mistakes, which now have been corrected.

1. Line 152: Suggest rephrasing "placing the gene of interest in front of the promoter" to "placing the gene of interest immediately downstream of the promoter" or something similar

Thank you for this good suggestion.

1. Any growth phenotype changes observed in the overexpressors?

The parasite lines seem to silence the Cen1-4-GFP expression plasmids readily, which suggest that there might be a growth disadvantage. However, repeated attempts to quantify a growth phenotype were unsuccessful due to high variability in the data, which might be partly connected to the fact that the fraction of GFP positive cells after induction can vary between lines and replicas.

1. How often are ECCAs observed in pARL strains, or are they not observed at all? This might be good to mention.

ECCAs in the pArl strains have been observed on very limited instances but are too rare to be quantified. We now mention this in the text (lines 217ff).

1. Line 192 and Figure S8: n {less than or equal to} 33 (either a typographical error and should have been {greater than or equal to}, otherwise, it may be expressed as a range)

It was indeed a typographical error that was now corrected.

1. Line 258: Methods on the generation of FIO/FIO+ was a bit difficult to understand. Maybe a simple plasmid schematic with the restriction sites (at least for the original plasmid) in the supplementary may help clarify this.

Cloning strategy has been expanded with additional information for clarity.

1. Line 295: include abbreviation of cRPMI here rather than in Line 303

Has been corrected.

1. Line 322: typographical error on WR99210 working concentration?

Has been corrected.

1. Line 372: Last sentence on area and raw integrated density measurement is unclear.

We have reformulated the sentence for more clarity.

1. Line 461: typographical error in last sentence

Has been corrected.

1. Line 532: Figure 4E should be Figure 4F

Has been corrected.

Reviewer #3 (Significance):

DNA replication is vital to the survival of malaria parasites. A deeper understanding on their unusual form of replication may be exploited to find drug targets uniquely directed to the parasite. Biological insights from this work can also provide a jump-off point for unravelling unusual replication in other organisms. Data on the physicochemical analysis of centrin is not just of great interest for those in the field of parasitology, but also for those in the much wider fields of biology, physics and chemistry. Techniques presented in this work (e.g., DiCre overexpression with different promoters) can definitely be utilised for the elucidation of protein function within and outside the field of parasitology.

My field of expertise is in Plasmodium spp., particularly in parasite replication, molecular and cellular biology, and epigenetics.

We thank the reviewer for the appreciation of our work in terms of insight and technology development.

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 #3

Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

Summary:

The authors have provided a comprehensive characterisation of centrin proteins in Plasmodium falciparum. Through expression of episomal GFP-tagged centrin for in vitro, they were able to observe co-localisation of centrin with centriolar plaques during the replicative stage of the parasite. They also utilised live cell STED microscopy to track dynamic changes in centrin morphology. They have also demonstrated calcium-dependent phase separation dynamics in bacterially-expressed P. falciparum centrin and human centrin 2. The formation of liquid-liquid phase separation in PfCen1, 3 and HsCen2 tied well with IUPred3 predictions of intrinsically disordered regions in these proteins. Using an inducible DiCre overexpression system with two promoters of varying strengths, the authors have shown accumulation of centrin1 outside of centrosomes and premature appearance of centriolar plaques. Finally, changes on the centrin1 protein, i.e., N-terminal deletion, and mutations in calcium binding sites in the EFh domains, have shown a reduction in the formation of ECCAs during overexpression and inability to form LLPS in vitro, respectively.

Major comments:

1. Given that parasites cannot tolerate endogenous C-terminal tagging of some centrins (but not all, as PbCen4 was successfully tagged), has N-terminal tagging been attempted either by the authors or in previous publications? Note that this is not a request for further experimentation; rather, maybe this can be noted in the manuscript; and line 62 can be rephrased for transparency.
2. Is there a possibility that by adding a C-terminal tag, centrin may lose a specific function or cause change in the physicochemical properties of the protein (thus making C-terminal tagging lethal)? Was His tag removal attempted so the native protein can be used in the LLPS experiments? IUPred3 analysis showed potential IDR at the C-terminal end of PfCen4. Could the C-terminal tag have caused the protein to not form droplets in the presence of Ca2+?
3. It has been shown by the authors that different tagged centrins co-condense which may support the localisation data (Figure 1C). However, is there a way to show that the episomally- and endogenously-expressed centrin co-localise with each other (e.g., confocal microscopy with anti-centrin vs anti-gfp in PfCen-GFP lines, that is if the authors have access to anti-centrin antibodies)? Has endogenous centrin been demonstrated to form ECCAs (in previous publications or by the authors)?

Minor comments:

1. How were the times (post addition of Ca2+) presented in Figure 2A determined?
2. Line 126: Figure 1B should be Figure 1C
3. Line 145: Figure 1C-D should be Figure 1D-E
4. Line 151: Figure 3A should be Figure 4A
5. Line 152: Suggest rephrasing "placing the gene of interest in front of the promoter" to "placing the gene of interest immediately downstream of the promoter" or something similar
6. Any growth phenotype changes observed in the overexpressors?
7. How often are ECCAs observed in pARL strains, or are they not observed at all? This might be good to mention.
8. Line 192 and Figure S8: n {less than or equal to} 33 (either a typographical error and should have been {greater than or equal to}, otherwise, it may be expressed as a range)
9. Line 258: Methods on the generation of FIO/FIO+ was a bit difficult to understand. Maybe a simple plasmid schematic with the restriction sites (at least for the original plasmid) in the supplementary may help clarify this.
10. Line 295: include abbreviation of cRPMI here rather than in Line 303
11. Line 322: typographical error on WR99210 working concentration?
12. Line 372: Last sentence on area and raw integrated density measurement is unclear.
13. Line 461: typographical error in last sentence
14. Line 532: Figure 4E should be Figure 4F

Significance

DNA replication is vital to the survival of malaria parasites. A deeper understanding on their unusual form of replication may be exploited to find drug targets uniquely directed to the parasite. Biological insights from this work can also provide a jump-off point for unravelling unusual replication in other organisms. Data on the physicochemical analysis of centrin is not just of great interest for those in the field of parasitology, but also for those in the much wider fields of biology, physics and chemistry. Techniques presented in this work (e.g., DiCre overexpression with different promoters) can definitely be utilised for the elucidation of protein function within and outside the field of parasitology.

My field of expertise is in Plasmodium spp., particularly in parasite replication, molecular and cellular biology, and epigenetics.

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 #2

Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

The authors analyzed the properties of the four Centrin proteins of the malaria parasite using a combination of in vitro and in vivo approaches. Their findings indicate that two of the four Plasmodium Centrin proteins, PfCen1 and PfCen3, as well as the human Centrin protein HsCen2, exhibit features of biomolecular condensates. Moreover, analysis of cells overexpressing PfCen1 indicates that such biomolecular condensates become more numerous as cells approach mitosis and are dissolved thereafter.

Major comments

• A) A critical point that requires clarification is how the protein concentrations used in the in vitro and in vivo assays (20-200 microM in vitro, and not estimated in vivo) compare to that of the endogenous components. This is important because it may well be that 6His-tagged PfCen1, PfCen3 and HsCen2 can form biomolecular condensates when present in vast excess, but not when present in physiological concentrations. The authors should report the estimated cellular concentration of PfCen1-4, as well as that achieved upon PfCen1-GFP overexpression (on top of endogenous PfCen1), for instance using semi-quantitative immunoblotting analysis. Given this limitation, the authors may also want to temper their title by introducing the word "can" after "centrins".
• B) Movies S1 and S2 (and the related Fig. 1D and 1E) are not the most convincing to support the notion that the observed assemblies are biomolecular condensates, as not much activity is going on during the recordings. Likewise, Movies S3, and even more so Movie S4, as out of focus for a large fraction of the time, making it difficult to assess what happens at the beginning of the process. Moreover, it appears that fusion events, while occurring, are rather rare. The movies should be exchanged for ones that are in focus, and ideally a rough quantification of fusion events as a function of biomolecular condensate size provided.
• C) An important control is missing from Fig. 2, namely assaying PfCen1-4 without the 6His tag, to ensure that the tag does not contribute to the observed behavior (although it can of course not be sufficient as evidenced by the lack of biomolecular condensates for PfCen2 and PfCen4).
• D) The authors should test whether the assemblies formed by PfCen1 and PfCen3 are sensitive to 1,6-hexanediol treatment, as expected for biomolecular condensates.
• E) The fact that HsCen2 also forms biomolecular condensates is very intriguing, but further investigation would be needed to assess the generality of these findings. For instance, the authors could test in vitro also S. cerevisiae Cdc31, the founding member of the Centrin family of proteins to further enhance the impact of their study.

Minor comments

1. For the experiments reported in Fig. 3D, the same concentrations as those used in Fig. 3A-C (namely 10 microM, and not 30 microM as in Fig. 3D) should be used. Moreover, it would be informative to test whether PfCen2 and PfCen4 as PfCen3 when added to PfCen1.
2. The authors mention that the effect of Calcium in inducing biomolecular condensates is specific, as Magnesium was not effective (lines 94-95). However, an examination of Fig. S3B indicates that the Magnesium also exhibits some activity, albeit less potent than Calcium. The authors should discuss this point and rectify the wording in the main text.
3. Do the authors think that PfCen2 and PfCent4 localize to the centriole plaque in vivo using another mechanism that deployed by PfCen1 and PfCent3? It would be good to discuss this point.
4. Given that the EFh-dead mutant exhibits no activity in vitro and fails to localize in vivo, one potential concern is that the protein is misfolded. The authors should conduct a CD spectrum to investigate this.
5. It is not entirely clear from the main text in lines 103-104, as well as from the legend, what Fig. S3B shows. When was EDTA added in this case?
6. Fig. S7: the correlation between PfCen1-GFP expression levels and ECCA appearance is modest at best. What statistical test was applied? This should be spelled out. Moreover, the authors should combine the two data sets, as this will provide further statistical power to assess whether a correlation is truly present.
7. The authors may want to discuss how their findings can be reconciled with the notion that Centrin assemble into a helical polymer on the inside of the centriole (doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aaz4137).
8. Likewise, the authors may want to speculate regarding what their findings signify for the role of Centrin proteins in detection of nucleotide excision repair (doi: 10.1083/jcb.201012093).

Small things

• Fig. 1A: change color for microtubules as red on red is difficult to discernn.
• Fig. 1C: the indicated boxes in the top row do not seem to correspond exactly to the insets shown in the bottom row.
• line 266: typo, promotor > promoter.
• line 360: a reference should be provided for the GFP-booster, including the concentration at which it was used.
• line 363: "an" missing before "HC".
• line 428: it would be best to deposit the macros on Github or an analogous repository.
• line 461: "to the" is duplicated.
• Fig. S5A: maybe draw the lines in red (as red in Fig. S5B correspond to the proteins that do not have IDRs).
• Movie S7, legend: left frames shows PfCen1-GFP, not microtubules as currently stated.

Significance

This is a provocative study that extends initial observations regarding self-assembly properties of Centrin proteins, and posits that some members of this evolutionarily conserved family can form biomolecular condensates. After the above outstanding issues have been properly addressed, these data could have important implications for understanding Centrin function in centriole biology and DNA repair. Therefore, these findings will be of interest to a cell biology audience.

Field of expertise: cell biology.

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

Learn more at Review Commons

---

Reply to the reviewers

Please find our point-to-point response to the reviewer’s comments below, where we marked all changes implemented in the manuscript in italics.

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

With the emergence and spread of resistance to Artemisinin (ART), a key component of current frontline malaria combination therapies, there is a growing effort to understand the mechanisms that lead to ART resistance. Previous work has shown that ART resistant parasites harbour mutations in the Kelch13 protein, which in turn leads to reduced endocytosis of host haemoglobin. The digestion of haemoglobin is thought to be critical for the activation of the artemisinin endoperoxide bridge, leading to the production of free radicals and parasite death. However, the mechanisms by which the parasites endocytose host cell haemoglobin remain poorly understood.

Previous work by the authors identified several proteins in the proximity of K13 using proximity-based labelling (BioID) (Birnbaum et al. 2020). The authors then went on to characterise several of these proteins, showing that when proteins including EPS15, AP2mu, UBP1 and KIC7 are disrupted, this leads to ART resistance and defects in endocytosis leading to the hypothesis that these two processes are inextricably linked.

In this manuscript, Schmidt et al. set themselves the task of characterising more K13 component candidates identified in their previous work (Birnbaum et al. 2020) that were not previously validated or characterised. They chose 10 candidates and investigated their localisations, and colocalisation with K13, and their involvement in endocytosis and in vitro ART resistance, 2 processes mediated by K13 and some members of the K13 compartments

The authors show that of their 10 candidates, only 4 can be co-localised with K13. Then, using a combination of targeted gene disruption (TGD) as well as knock sideways (KS), they characterised these 4 proteins found in the K13 compartment. They show that MyoF and KIC12 are involved in endocytosis and are important for parasite growth, however their disruption does not lead to a change in ART sensitivity. The authors also confirm the findings of their previous publication (Birnbaum et al. 2020), using a slightly different TGD

(note from the authors: we apologise if this has not properly transpired from the manuscript but the difference between the TGDs is substantial and relevant: one has less than 3% of the protein left and hence can be considered to fully inactivate MCA2 and has a growth defect whereas the other contains about two thirds of the protein (1344 amino acids/~66% are left), has no growth defect, although it lacks the MCA2 domain (hence that domain can not be critical for the growth defect)),

that MCA2 is involved in ART resistance, however they did not check whether its disruption impacts haemoglobin uptake. They also show that KIC11 is not involved in mediating haemoglobin uptake or ART resistance. To finish, the authors used AlphaFold to identify new domains in the proteins of the K13 compartment. This led them to the conclusion that vesicle trafficking domains are enriched in proteins of the K13 compartment involved in endocytosis and in vitro ART resistance.

The majority of the experiments conducted by the authors are performed to a good standard in biological and technical replicates, with the correct controls. Their findings provide confirmation that their 4 candidate genes seem to be important for parasite growth, and show that some of their candidates are involved in endocytosis. While the KD and KS approaches employed by the authors to study their candidate genes each have their own advantages and can be excellent tools for studying a large sets or genes, this manuscript highlights the many limitations of these approaches. For example, the large tag used for the KS approach can mislocalise proteins or disrupt their function (as is the case for MyoF), resulting in spurious results, or indeed the inability to generate the tagged line (as is the case for MCA2). The KS approach also makes the results of a protein with a dual localisation, like KIC12, extremely difficult to interpret.

We thank the reviewer for this thorough and insightful review.

The limitations mentioned above were addressed in the response to the main points and a general detailed response in regards to the systems used for this research are added at the end of this rebuttal. Briefly summarised here: while we agree that there are limitations of the system used, we are convinced that

• the advantages of using a large tag in most cases outweighs the drawbacks as it permits to track the inactivation of the target, if need be on the individual cell level

• while not optimal for MyoF, the partial inactivation actually helps in its functional study as detailed in major point 23&28 or reviewer#3 major point 11: it shows a consistent correlation of the phenotype with different causes and degrees of inactivation (this is now better illustrated in Figure 1L1M). Further, regarding the concern of the large tag: the effect of the tag based on localisation was overestimated in the review by what seems to have been a mix up comparing numbers from MyoF with a number from MCA2 (there is a difference, but it is only small) (see reviewer#1 major point #23).

• KS is the optimal method for most of the assays in this work (e.g. bloated food vacuole assays and RSAs); these assays would be impossible or difficult to use with other inactivation systems currently used in P. falciparum research (see details in the response to the specific points and after the rebuttal)

In regards to the difficulty to interpret KIC12 data: this is only true for measuring absolute essentiality, everything else we believe we actually have the optimal method. If not KS, which method targets a specific pool of a protein with a dual localisastion? Again, our assays targeting the K13 pool and revealing the specific function would have been difficult or impossible with any other system.

Ultimately the question is whether any other system would have resulted in a different conclusion on the function of the proteins studied. At present we are confident this would not be the case and other systems probably would not have delivered the specific functional data shown in this work. Clearly, more in depth work will provide more nuanced and detailed insights into the proteins analysed in this work and this likely will also include the use of other systems for specific aspects they are most suitable for. However, this (e.g. different complementations in a diCre cKO) is complex and therefore beyond what fits into this work which had the goal to assess which proteins are true positives for the K13 compartment and to place them into functional groups in regards to endocytosis.

Moreover, the manuscript is disjointed at times, with the authors choosing to conduct certain experiments for only a subset of genes, but not for others. For example, considering that the aim of this paper was to identify more proteins involved in ART resistance and endocytosis, it is confusing why the authors do not perform the endocytosis assays for all their selected proteins, and why they do not do this for the proteins they identify in their domain search. There is significant room for improvement for this manuscript, and a generally interesting question.

The reviewer remarks that not every experiment was done for every target. Based on the rebuttal we tried to amend this but also note that there was some sentiment by the reviewers to better stick to the point and not make the manuscript more disjointed. We attempted to balance that as much as possible and hope we were able to honour both aspects (amendments were done as detailed in the point by point response below).

In regards to endocytosis and choice of targets: We did do endocytosis assays for all proteins that showed a growth phenotype upon inactivation in this work. We therefore assume the reviewer here refers to major point #40 asking for endocytosis assays with KIC4 and KIC5 (which were not studied in this manuscript) as well as MCA2 (point 17). We fully agree with the reviewer that this would fill a gap in the work on K13 compartment proteins but such assays are difficult with TGDs (there are issues with non-comparable samples and compensatory effects) and proteins that are not essential (and hence likely have a smaller impact on endocytosis when truncated). We nevertheless now carried them out, but due to the limitations to do this with these lines would be hesitant to draw definite conclusions (see major point 17 and 40 for details and outcomes).

But in it's current format, other than confirming that MCA2 is involved in ART resistance (which was already known from the Birnbaum paper), the authors do not further expand our understanding of the link between ART resistance and endocytosis in this manuscript.

We would like to point out that the importance of the K13 compartment and endocytosis goes beyond ART resistance (see e.g. also newly published papers on the K13 compartment in Toxoplasma, (Wan et al., 2023; Koreny et al., 2023)). Endocytosis is an essential and prominent process in blood stages. However, in contrast to processes such as invasion, our understanding about endocytosis is only rudimentary. Hence, this manuscript provides important insights on an emerging topic that in our opinion deserves more attention:

• it identifies novel proteins at the K13 compartment and provides 2 new proteins in endocytosis (MyoF and KIC12); getting an as complete as possible list of proteins involved in the process will be critical to study and understand it

• it leads to the realisation that not all growth-relevant proteins detected at the K13 compartment are needed for endocytosis

• it provides domains and stage specificity of function for several K13 compartment proteins, overall bolstering the model of endocytosis in ART resistance and providing a framework critical to direct future studies on endocytosis and their detailed mechanistic function at the cytostome

• the identified vesicle trafficking domains (for instance now also found in UBP1) are expected to strengthen the support for the role of endocytosis of the K13 compartment; this and also the above points are important as (based on the current literature) there still seems to be prominent sentiment in the field that (in part due to the involvement of UBP1 and K13) the cause of ART resistance is due to various unclearly defined stress response pathways

• with MyoF it also shows the first protein in connection with the K13 compartment that acts downstream of the generation of hemoglobin-filled containers in the parasite and provides the first protein that explains the suspected involvement of actin in endocytosis (so far this was only based on CytD studies)

Overall we therefore believe this manuscript contains critical information and a framework for future studies on endocytosis and the K13 compartment. We hope the relevance of endocytosis as one of the most prominent and essential processes in the parasites and the connection to various aspects linked with many commercial drugs (in addition to the role of endocytosis in ART resistance), is adequately explained in the introduction. We also would like to mention that the main focus of the work is reflected in the title of the manuscript which does not mention ART susceptibility.

Major Comments

1) line 31: please change defined to characterised - defined suggests that novel proteins were identified in this study, which is not the case.

We apologise, but we do not fully understand this comment. We did identify novel proteins not before known to be at the K13 compartment (MCA2 (admittedly this one was likely but had not previously been verified), MyoF, KIC11 and KIC12). In our view "further defining the composition of the K13 compartment" therefore is an accurate statement. Additionally, the identification of previously not-discovered domains, the stage-specificity and function of these proteins helped to further define the K13 compartment.

If the reviewer is referring to the fact that the proteins analysed in this study were taken from a previously generated list of hits, we would like to stress that the presence in such a list (obtained from a BioID, but also if from an IP etc) can not be equalled for them to be true positives, they are merely candidates that still need to be experimentally validated. This is what we did in this work to find out which further proteins from the list can be classified as K13 compartment proteins (for hits with lower FDRs this is even more relevant as illustrated by the fact that 6 of the here analysed hits were not at the K13 compartment). In an attempt to address this comment in the manuscript, we changed the wording of this sentence to (line 31): "Here we further defined the composition of the K13 compartment by analysing more hits from a previous BioID, showing that MyoF and MCA2 as well as Kelch13 interaction candidate (KIC) 11 and 12 are found at this site."

2) line 37: please change 'second' to "another". As explained further below, the authors identified 3 classes of proteins (confer ART resistance + involved in HCCU, involved in HCCU only, or involved in neither).

We realized that the groups description wasn’t clear in the abstract. Please see response to major comment #41 for a detailed answer to this (endocytosis is an overarching criterion, ART resistance is a subgroup and applies only to those proteins with a function in endocytosis in ring stages). To clarify this (see also major point #8) we added an explanation on the influence of stage-specificity of endocytosis on ART susceptibility to the introduction (line 76): “In contrast to K13 which is only needed for endocytosis in ring stages (the stage relevant for in vitro ART resistance), some of these proteins (AP2µ and UBP1) are also needed for endocytosis in later stage parasites (Birnbaum et al., 2020). At least in the case of UBP1, this is associated with a higher fitness cost but lower resistance compared to K13 mutations (Behrens et al., 2021; Behrens et al., 2023). Hence, the stage-specificity of endocytosis functions is relevant for in vitro ART resistance: proteins influencing endocytosis in trophozoites are expected to have a high fitness cost whereas proteins not needed for endocytosis in rings would not be expected to influence resistance.” The abstract was changed in response to this and other comments and hope it is now clearer in regards to the groups.

3) Line 40: You define KIC11 as essential but according to your data some parasites are still alive and replicating 2 cycles after induction of the knock sideways. Please consider changing "essential" to "important for asexual parasite growth".

We fully agree with the reviewer, we reworded the sentence as suggested.

4) Line 40: please change 'second group' to 'this group'

We reworded this part of the abstract and it know reads: (line 38): “While this strengthened the link of the K13 compartment to endocytosis, many proteins of this group showed unusual domain combinations and large parasite-specific regions, indicating a high level of taxon-specific adaptation of this process.”

5) line 41: state here that despite it being essential, it is unknown what it is involved in.

With the newly added data we show that this protein either has a function in invasion or very early ring development although we did not see any evidence for the latter. We therefore changed the sentence to (line 43): “We here identified the first protein of this group that is important for asexual blood stage development and showed that it likely is involved in invasion*..” *

6) Line 50: the authors should state here that there is actually a reversal in this trend over the last few years.

Done as suggested.

7) Line 54: please separate out the references for each of the two statements made in this line (a: that ART resistance is widespread in SEA, and b: that ART resistance is now in Africa) Reference 14 also seems to reference ART resistance in Amazonia - which is not covered by the statement made by the authors (in which case the authors should state ART is now present in Africa and South America). The authors should also reference PMID: 34279219 for their statement that ART resistance is now found in Africa (albeit a different mutation to the one found in SEA).

Done as suggested.

8) Line 65: it is also worth mentioning here that there are other mutations in proteins other than K13, such as AP2mu and UBP1 (PMID: 24994911;24270944) that can lead to ART resistance.

As suggested by the reviewer, we included a sentence about non-K13 mutations linked with reduced ART susceptibility in the introduction (line 74): “Beside K13 mutations in other genes, such as Coronin (Demas et al., 2018) UBP1 (Borrmann et al., 2013; Henrici et al., 2020b; Birnbaum et al., 2020; Simwela et al., 2020) or AP2µ (Henriques et al., 2014; Henrici et al., 2020b)* have also been linked with reduced ART susceptibility." *

We here also added data on fitness cost that is related to this and is also relevant for the issue of proteins with a stage-specific function in endocytosis, making a transition for this statement which might help clarifying the grouping of K13 compartment proteins (see also major point #2).

9) Line 80, 86: ref 43 is misused. Reference 43 refers to Maurer's clefts trafficking which takes place in the erythrocyte cytosol and is not involved in haemoglobin uptake as far as I know. Please replace ref 43 with one showing the role of actin in haemoglobin uptake.

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out, Ref 43 was removed from the manuscript.

10) Line 98: the authors state here that they 'identified' further candidates from the K13 proxiome. This suggests that they identified new proteins in this paper, when in fact the list was already generated in ref 26. All they did was characterise proteins from that list that were not previously characterised. The authors should therefore remove identified from this statement.

We agree with the reviewer that we did not identify further candidates, we identified new K13 compartment proteins from the list of potential K13 compartment proteins. We therefore changed “identified further candidates” into “identified further K13 compartment proteins” (line 116). Please see also response to major comment #1.

11) Line 107-108: it is not clear from this sentence why these proteins were left out of the initial analysis in Ref 26. A sentence here explaining this would be valuable for the reader.

This is a good point. One reason why we did not analyse more in our previous publication was that we had to stop somewhere and adding more would have been very difficult to fit into what was already a packed paper. However, as shown in this work, the list does contain further interesting candidates (e.g. K13 compartment proteins that are involved in endocytosis).

We altered the relevant part of the introduction to highlight that we previously analysed the top hits, clarifying that the 'remaining' hits analysed in this work were further down in the list. This now reads: (line 113)“We reasoned that due to the high number of proteins that turned out to belong to the K13 compartment when validating the top hits of the K13 BioID (Birnbaum et al., 2020), the remaining hits of these experiments might contain further proteins belonging to the K13 compartment.” We hope this clarifies that we simply moved further down in the candidate list.

12) Line 117-123: The authors say that PF3D7_0204300, PF3D7_1117900 and PF3D7_1016200 were not studied because they were not in the top 10 hits. However, the current organisation of Supplementary Table 1 shows all 3 proteins among the top 10 hits (MyoF, KIC12, UIS14 and 0907200 being after them). I think the authors should reorganise their table. It is also unclear according to what the proteins in the table are ranked. Could the authors indicate the metric used for the ranking?

We thank the reviewer for alerting us to this. The issue here is that the 3 non-analysed proteins belong to a 'lower stringency' group comprising hits significant with FDRThe information about ranking is now also included as “Table legend” in the revised manuscript and the Table heading has been changed to: “List of putative K13 compartment proteins, proteins selected for further characterization in this manuscript are highlighted.”

13) Line 129-141: Can the authors be clearer with their explanations of the identification of mutation Y1344Stop? One dataset (ref 61) shows that 52% of African parasites have a mutation in MCA2 in position 1344 leading to a STOP codon. But another dataset (ref 62) shows that the next base is also mutated, reverting the stop codon. That should have been seen in the first dataset as well. Could the authors please clarify.

This mutation was first spotted in the MalariaGEN database (https://www.malariagen.net) (MalariaGEN et al., 2021), which allows online accessing of the data by using the “variant catalogue” tool, which is in a table format of frequency rather than in a sequence context. Hence, only after further research later on it became evident to us, that this mutation does not occur alone when looking at individual MCA2 sequences from patient samples in (Wichers et al., 2021b). We hope this is accurately reflected in our results section.

14) Line 147: the authors say that MCA2 is expressed throughout the intraerythrocytic cycle as shown by live cell imaging. In Birnbaum et al 2020 fig 4I, the authors show that MCA2 is mainly expressed between 4 and 16hpi. But in Figure 1B of this manuscript there is a clear multiplication of MCA2 signal between trophozoite and schizont. How do the authors explain this discrepancy? Could expression of the truncated MCA2 be different than the full length? This cannot be assessed as expression and localisation of the full-length HA tag MCA2 is not shown in Schizonts.

The key difference lies in transcription vs protein expression (usually protein levels peak after mRNA levels peak and - depending on turnover - protein levels can stay high even after mRNA levels have declined). Figure 4 of the Birnbaum et al paper presents transcriptomic data, but with a peak in trophozoites (The axis label in Fig. 4l of that publication is a bit confusing, as hour 0 is at the top, 48 h at the bottom; it is clearer in Fig. S13 of that paper) which would fit very well with the multiplication of the signal between trophozoites and schizonts mentioned by the reviewer. So, overall, the temporal peaks of transcripts and protein of that protein fit well.

For the signal in rings: Likely the protein has a turnover rate that is sufficiently low for some protein to be taken into the new cycle after re-invasion. Also different transcriptomic datasets e.g. (Otto et al., 2010; Wichers et al., 2019; Subudhi et al., 2020) available on plasmoDB show some mRNA present across the complete asexual development cycle, with each dataset showing maximum peak at a slightly different stage.

Even when located in foci and hence aiding detection of small amounts of protein (as is the case for MCA2-Y1344-GFP), the MCA2 signal in rings is not strong. For MCA2-TGD, the GFP signal is dispersed and therefore likely below our detection limit, while the same amount of protein concentrated at the K13 compartment is visible as foci in the MCA2-Y1344 cell line. Please note that MCA2-TGD has only 2.8% of the protein left whereas MCA2-Y1344 has 66.5% left and based on our manuscript is almost fully functional, hence fitting the different locations between the two versions.

Overall we believe this shows that there are actually no significant discrepancies of the expression of the different MCA2 versions.

15) Line 158: would it not have been more useful for the authors to have episomally expressed MCA2-3xHA in their MCA2Y1344STOP-GFPENDO line to make sure that the truncated protein is indeed going to the correct compartment? The experiments done by the authors suggests that the MCA2Y1344STOP goes to the right location but does not really confirm it.

We appreciate the reviewers caution here. However, considering that MCA2Y1344STOP-GFPendo co-locates with mCherryK13 and endogenously HA-tagged full length MCA2 does the same to a similar extent, there is in our opinion little doubt that MCA2 is found at the K13 compartment and that this is similar with both constructs. If there are minor differences, these might as well occur if MCA2 is episomally (as suggested in the comment) instead of endogenously expressed. Given the limited insight, we therefore decided against the episomal overexpression (which due to its size of > 6000bp may also be somewhat less straight forward than it may sound).

16) Line 191: it is stated that MCA2 confers resistance independently of the MCA domain, however in both the MCA2-TGD and MCA2Y1344STOP-GFPENDO parasites, the MCA domain is deleted, and for both parasites, there is resistance (albeit to a lower level in the MCA2Y1344STOP-GFPENDO line). Therefore, how can the authors state that the ART resistance is independent of the MCA domain? This statement should be that resistance is dependent on the loss of the MCA domain.

We agree that this can’t be categorically excluded. However, a ~5 fold difference in ART sensitivity was observed between the parasites with MCA2 truncated at amino acid 57 compared to those with MCA at amino acid 1344 even though both do not contain the MCA2 domain. Hence, at least this difference is not dependent on the MCA2 domain. The larger construct missing the MCA domain shows only a very moderate reduction in RSA survival, again suggesting the MCA domain is not the main factor. We amended our statement in an attempt to more accurately reflect the data (line 487): “This considerable reduction in ART susceptibility in the parasites with the truncation at MCA2 position 57 compared to the parasites still expressing 1344 amino acids of MCA2, despite both versions of the protein lacking the MCA domain, indicates that the influence on ART resistance is not, or only partially due to the MCA domain.” We would be hesitant to state the reviewer's conclusion that “resistance is dependent on the loss of the MCA domain”, as the larger construct missing the MCA2 domain has a milder RSA effect compared to MCA2-TGD, which suggests the reduction in ART susceptibility is independent of the MCA domain. These considerations also agree with the fact that the parasites with the longer MCA2 version (in contrast to the MCA2-TGD) do not have any detectable growth defect which indicates that the protein can fulfil its function without the MCA2 domain.

17) Line 192: Why did the authors not check if MCA2 is involved in endocytosis? They state later on in the manuscript that they did not do endocytosis assays with TGD lines, however if the authors include the correct controls, this could be easily done. It would also be really interesting to see whether endocytosis gets progressively worse going from WT to MCA2Y1344STOP to MAC2TGD. This experiment (as well as doing endocytosis assays for KIC4 and KIC5 TGD lines) would drastically increase the impact of this study. These experiments would not take more than 3 weeks to perform, and would not require the generation of new lines.

So far were very hesitant to do bloated FV assays with TGDs (even though TGDs were available for the genes encoding MCA2 and KIC4 and KIC5). The reason for this was:

1. the fact that these proteins could be disrupted indicated either redundancy or only a partial effect on endocytosis which might lead to only small effects that likely are difficult to pick up in an assay scoring for the rather absolute phenotype of bloated vs non-bloated. Using the refined assay measuring FV size could partly amend this but we note that also FV without hemoglobin have a certain size, reducing the relative effect if there are smaller differences.
2. a TGD line does not permit tightly controlled inactivation of the target which makes comparing the outcome of bloated food vacuole assays difficult if there are smaller growth and stage differences to the 3D7 control.
3. in contrast to conditional inactivation parasites, the TGD lines had ample times to adapt to loss of the target protein (compensatory mechanisms are well known for endocytosis, for instance in clathrin mediated endocytosis loss of individual components can be compensated (Chen and Schmid, 2020)). We nevertheless see the reviewer's point that this should at least be attempted and now conducted these assays (see also major point 40). For MCA2 (as requested in this point), the data is shown in Figure S5C-E. This assay showed that in MCA2-TGD, MCA2Y1344STOP-GFPendo (similar to the 3D7 control) >95% of parasites developed bloated food vacuoles. Additionally, we also measured the parasite and food vacuole size of individual cells in an attempt to solve some of the problems with TGDs with such assays. In order to specifically solve problem 2 mentioned above, we analysed the food vacuoles of similarly sized parasites, however, they were non-distinguishable between the three lines. Of note, in agreement with the reduced parasite proliferation rate (Birnbaum et al., 2020) a general effect on parasite and food vacuole size was observed for MCA2-TGD parasites, indicating reduced development speed in these parasites. Hence, it is possible that a potential endocytosis reduction was accompanied by a slowed growth, and the comparison of similarly sized parasites may have obscured the effect. It is therefore not sure if there indeed is no endocytosis phenotype, although we can exclude a strong effect in trophozoites.

Based on the RSA results at least rings can be expected to have a reduced endocytosis in the MCA2-TGD. Apart from options 1-3 mentioned above, it is therefore possible there is an effect restricted to rings, although in that case the reduced growth in trophozoites would be due to other functions of MCA2. Overall, we can conclude that the MCA2-TGD parasites do not have a strongly reduced endocytosis, but given the fact that the parasites are viable, this is not surprising. Whether the MCA2-TGD has no effect at all on endocytosis we would be very hesitant to postulate based on these results.

18) The authors should consider re-organising the MCA2 section, first showing that the 3xHA tagged line colocalises with K13, then performing the new truncation.

We attempted to re-organise as suggested but because we now included additional fluorescence microscopy images of schizont and merozoites (in response to reviewer 2 major comment 3) the main figure would become even larger. To prevent this, we kept the 3xHA data in the supplement.

19) Line 197: Once again ref 43 is not correct to illustrate that actin/myosin is involved in endocytosis

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out – we removed Ref 43.

20) Line 202: the authors state that MyoF localises near the food vacuole from ring stage/trophs onwards. However, how can this statement be made in schizonts based on these images (Fig. 2A), where it doesn't look like MyoF is anywhere near the FV? This statement can only be made for schizonts if co-localised with a FV marker (which is done in Fig. 2B), however, based on the number of MyoF foci, it appears that this was not done for schizonts. Please either remove the statement that MyoF is near the food vacuole from trophs onwards (because it is only seen near the FV up until trophs) or show the data in Fig. 2B of schizonts to substantiate these claims.

This is a valid point. We originally did not focus on schizonts because most markers end up in some focal area in the forming merozoite but other proteins (such as e.g. K13) also have one or more additional foci at the FV, making interpretation unclear, particularly if the schizont is still organizing to become fully segmented. This is why we generally focused the K13 co-localisations on the trophozoite stage to obtain the clearest information on endocytosis. However, given the fact that this manuscript gives the first localization of MyoF in P. falciparum parasites, we now provide a comprehensive time course (Figure 1C, S1A) including schizonts, which show quite a complex pattern: while the MyoF-GFP localization in trophozoites appeared as multiple foci close to K13 and also the FV, the MyoF-GFP pattern changes in late schizonts (fully segmented) and merozoites, appearing as elongated foci no longer close to K13 or the FV. Of note, this pattern has been previously reported for MyoE in P. berghei (Wall et al., 2019).

We therefore revised the statement about MyoF localization in schizont to better reflect the observed localization: (line 175): “In late schizonts and merozoite the MyoF-GFP signal was not associated with K13, but showed elongated GFP foci (Figure 1C, S2A) reminiscent of the MyoE signal previously reported in P. berghei schizonts (Wall et al., 2019).”

21) Line 204-206: what does this statement bring to the paper? Is it to show that it is the real localisation of MyoF because 2 tag cell line show the same localisation? I don't think this is needed, especially as later in the manuscript an HA-tag MyoF line is used and show similar localisation.

We see the reviewers point, but prefer to keep this data included in the supplement, particularly because potential differences in the location of tagged MyoF were a major concern.

Related to the tag issue: in order to get a better understanding of the effect of C-terminally tagging with different sized tags we now performed a more detailed analysis of the MyoF-3xHA cell line (Figure S2F-G), showing that this cell line shows a growth rate similar to the 3D7 wild type parasites, and has less vesicles than the 2x-FKBP-GFP-2xFKBP cell line, but still slightly, but significantly more than 3D7 parasites. Overall, this indicates that the smaller 3xHA tag has less effect on the parasite, than the larger 2x-FKBP-GFP-2xFKBP tag (see also new Figure 1L, showing a correlation of level of inactivation and the endocytosis phenotype for MyoF).

22) Line 212: The overlap of K13 with MyoF in Figure 2C 3rd panel (1st trophozoite panel) is not obvious, especially as the MyoF signal seems inexistant. I would advise the authors to replace with a better image. Also, why are there no images of schizonts shown in Figure 2C?

As suggested we exchanged the trophozoite image of panel Figure 2 C (now Figure 1C) and expanded this panel with images covering the complete asexual development cycle including schizonts in response to this and the previous points. As indicated above (point 20), schizont stages are complex to interpret. While late schizonts likely are not very relevant for endocytosis this is the first description of the location of the protein in this parasite and we therefore now provide a more thorough representation of the MyoF location across asexual stages in Figure1C and S2A.

23) Line 217: the spatial association of MyoF with K13 is very different when it is tagged with GFP and when it is tagged with 3xHA. The way the authors word it here, it seems that there is agreement with the two datasets, when this is not in fact the case (59% overlap for MyoF-GFP and only 16% overlap with MyoF-3xHA). These data suggest that the GFP and the multiple FKBP tags are doing something to the protein and therefore maybe the ensuing results using this line should not be trusted or be taken with a pinch of salt.

We agree with the reviewer that the location of this MyoF-GFP in the cell might differ due to the partial inactivation but in contrast to this comment, the data does not indicate any large differences. It seems the reviewer mixed something up (the 59% mentioned might come from the MCA2 figure?). The data with the two lines with differently tagged MyoF co-localised with K13 are actually quite comparable: GFP-tagged vs HA-tagged MyoF overlapping with K13 was 8% vs 16% full overlap, 12% vs 19% partially overlapping foci, 36% vs 63% foci that were touching but not overlapping (compare what now is Figure 1D and Figure S2C). Only in the 'no overlap' there is a much smaller proportion in the HA-tagged line. However, given that these are IFAs which on the one hand are more sensitive to see small protein pools but on the other hand also have pitfalls due to fixing of the cells (e.g. tiny increase in focus size due to fixing could increase the number of touching foci that in live cells might be close but did not touch), some variation can be expected to the live cells. We agree though that the partly reduced functionality of MyoF might be the reason for the consistent tendency of a lower overlap even though the difference is much less than indicated in the comment. We added "with a tendency for higher overlap with K13 which might be due to the partial inactivation of the GFP-tagged MyoF" to the sentence "IFA confirmed the focal localisation of MyoF and its spatial association with mCherry-K13 foci"

While we expect the fact that the difference between these parasites is only small somewhat reduces the "pinch of salt" with the MyoF line, we do agree that the partial functional inactivation of the GFP-tagged MyoF line may have some impact. However, we do not think that this means the results with the MyoF-GFP line are untrustworthy. On the contrary, it provides insights into its function that in some ways is equivalent to a knock down or TGD. Overall all the MyoF lines show: few vesicles occur in the MyoF-HA-line, more in the MyoF-GFP line and even more after knock sideways of MyoF-GFP. Importantly the severity of this phenotype correlates with the growth rates in these lines. Hence, together with the bloated food vacuole assays, this provides consistent data indicating that MyoF has a role in the transport of HCC to the FV and its level of activity correlates with the number of vesicles and growth. To better highlight this, it is now summarised in Figure 1M.

24) Line 219: the authors state here that they could not detect MyoF-GFP in rings, when in Figure 2C they show MyoF-GFP in rings, and also show that they could detect MyoF in Sup Fig. 3B with the 3xHA tagged line. Is this a labelling mistake in Figure 2C? If the authors could indeed not see MoyF-GFP in rings, this statement should have been made when Figure 2A was presented, and not so late in the manuscript, which causes confusion.

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We now provide a detailed time course (see also previous points) which shows that there is no detectable MyoF-GFP signal during ring stage development until the stage where the parasites starts the transition to trophozoites (i.e. MyoF-GFP signal could only be observed in parasites already containing hemozoin). In addition to the extended time course in Figure 1C (previously 2C) we included a panel of example ring stage images below to further highlight this. We also changed the labelling of the parasite with MyoF-GFP signal the reviewer mentions in Figure 1C to “late ring stage” (it already contains hemozoin) to clarify this.

The description of Figure 1A is now changed to: (line 153) *“The tagged MyoF was detectable as foci close to the food vacuole from the stage parasites turned from late rings to young trophozoite stage onwards, while in schizonts multiple MyoF foci were visible (Figure 1A, S2A).” *

Please see our answer to major comment #45 where we provide an explanation for the difference between MyoF-3xHA and MyoF-GFP signal in ring stage parasites.

[Figure MyoF]

25) Line 237: Showing a DNA marker (DAPI, Hoecht) for Figure 2E, and subsequent figures using mislocalisation to the nucleus, would help the reader assess efficiency of the mislocalisation.

Please see response to major comment #64 for a detailed answer on why we did not include DNA staining in the imaging used to assess mislocalization upon knock-sideways.

26) Line 254-256: authors should show the results of the bloating assay for parental 3D7 parasites (+ and - rapalog) to see whether the MyoF line - rapalog has increased baseline bloating. This applies to all subsequent FV bloating assays.

We did do several controls for bloated assays (including +/- rapalog of an irrelevant knock sideways line as well as using a chemical insult for which the control was 3D7 without treatment) in previous work (Birnbaum et al., 2020), which indicated that there is no effect of rapalog to reduce bloating. Although these controls are more stringent, we nevertheless did a 3D7 +/- rapalog control and added this to the manuscript (Figure S2I). As it is not possible to do this side by side with the assays that are already in the manuscript and the +/- rapalog 3D7 cells consistently showed no or very low numbers of cells without bloating (and stringent controls in the past equally did not show an effect), we believe adding this control once suffices.

27) Line 254-257: The authors say that because fewer parasites show a bloated food vacuole upon inactivation of MyoF it means that less hemoglobin reached the food vacuole. I understand the authors statement, however, shouldn't they look at the size of the food vacuole, instead of the number of parasites with bloated FV, to make such a statement? This has been done for KIC12 so why not doing it for MyoF?

This was now done and is provided as Figure 1J-K, S2J. The results confirm the assessment scoring bloated vs non-boated food vacuoles.

28) Line 259-261: these results would be difficult to interpret namely because the authors have dying parasites, which is exacerbated with the protein being knocked sideways. The authors should mention the pitfalls their knock sideways and tagging design here. Line 260-261: RSA is an assay relying on measuring parasite growth 1 cycle after a challenge with ART for 6 hours.

Fortunately, this concern is unfounded, as the survival (measured by parasitemia after one cycle) of the same sample + and - DHA is assessed, isolating the DHA effect independent of potential growth defects which are cancelled out. Hence, if there were parasites dying in the MyoF line (please note that they might not actually die, but simply grow more slowly), this factor applies for both the + and - ART condition. As we are testing for a decreased susceptibility to ART which would manifest as an increased survival in RSA surfacing above 1%, antagonistic effects of reduced MyoF function and ART treatment would not result in detectable differences as without effect, the RSA survival is always close to zero.

The same applies for the knock sideways where we assess the survival of +rapalog between +ART and -ART. If the reduced MyoF activity of the knock sideways leads to a decreased survival, this applies to both +ART and -ART. Please also note that rapalog was lifted after the DHA pulse (see e.g. Figure S2K).

That effects on growth are cancelled out is nicely illustrated for proteins where there is a stronger and more rapid effect on growth upon their conditional inactivation. For instance when KIC7 is knocked aside, there is a considerable increased of RSA survival, even though continued inactivation of KIC7 would have a severe growth defect (Birnbaum et al., 2020). Vice versa, a growth defect alone does not result in reduced RSA susceptibility as evident from knock sideways of an unrelated protein or using a chemical insult (Figure 4H in (Birnbaum et al., 2020) or simply slowing the ring stage by e.g. reducing EXP1 levels (Mesén-Ramírez et al., 2019). Hence, a growth reduction is not expected to alter the RSA outcome. And even if it did, it would only lead to an underestimation of the readout if growth is too severely affected (which would be obvious in the + rapalog without DHA sample, which was not the case).

In that respect it is valuable to have the rapid kinetics of knock sideways which permit inactivation of a protein before severe growth defects occur (although the only partial responsiveness of MyoF clearly is not the most optimal). In contrast, the absolute loss of a gene (as is the case if diCre is used) prevents (or at least makes it extremely difficult as the timing would need to exactly hit sufficient protein reduction without killing the parasite until the end of the RSA) using this system in these experiments (again see (Mesén-Ramírez et al., 2021) where in a EXP1 diCre based knock out RSA was only possible because we complemented with a lowly, episomally expressed EXP1 copy to have parasites with only a partial phenotype to do this assay).

29) Line 261-263: the authors sate that MyoF has a function in endocytosis but at a different step compared to K13 compartment proteins. I am not sure what they mean here. Can this be clarified?

The different steps in endocytosis are explained in the introduction and we now tried to further clarify this (line 98). “So far VPS45 (Jonscher et al., 2019), Rbsn5 (Sabitzki et al., 2023), Rab5b (Sabitzki et al., 2023), the phosphoinositide-binding protein PX1 (Mukherjee et al., 2022), the host enzyme peroxiredoxin 6 (Wagner et al., 2022) and K13 and some of its compartment proteins (Eps15, AP2µ, KIC7, UBP1) (Birnbaum et al., 2020) have been reported to act at different steps in the endocytic uptake pathway of hemoglobin. While inactivation of VPS45, Rbsn5, Rab5b, PX1 or actin resulted in an accumulation of hemoglobin filled vesicles (Lazarus et al., 2008; Jonscher et al., 2019; Mukherjee et al., 2022; Sabitzki et al., 2023), indicative of a block during endosomal transport (late steps in endocytosis), no such vesicles were observed upon inactivation of K13 and its compartment proteins (Birnbaum et al., 2020), suggesting a role of these proteins during initiation of endocytosis (early steps in endocytosis).“

VPS45 has not apparent spatial connection to the K13 compartment but the fact that MyoF does - and its inactivation also results in vesicle accumulation - indicates that it is downstream of vesicle initiation, providing the first connection from the initiation phase to the transport phase. More evidence for these different steps of endocytosis has been published in a recent preprint from our lab, where we simultaneously inactivated a protein of both “endocytosis steps” (Sabitzki et al., 2023).

To clarify this in the results as requested, we changed the statement to: (line 256) “Overall, our results indicate a close association of MyoF foci with the K13 compartment and a role of MyoF in endocytosis albeit not in rings and at a step in the endocytosis pathway when hemoglobin-filled vesicles had already formed and hence is subsequent to the function of the other so far known K13 compartment proteins.”

30) Do the authors mean that it is involved in endocytosis but not in ART resistance? If so, this is a very difficult statement to make since the parasites are dying. Is there any evidence of point mutations in MyoF in the field?

We split this point to address all issues raised here. Please see response to point 29 which clarifies that this was meant in a different way and our response to point 28 which explains why the dying parasite issue is not expected to affect the RSA (please also note that we do not have evidence of actually dying parasites in the MyoF-2xFKBP-GFP-2xFKBP line, most likely the growth is slowed).

The mutation issue is interesting. In fact evidence exists that MyoF mutations may be associated with resistance (Cerqueira et al., 2017) (please note that there it is still called MyoC) but in a recent preprint from our lab we did not find any evidence for a significantly changed RSA survival in 12 tested mutations in the corresponding gene (Behrens et al., 2023).

To clarify this we added the following statement to the discussion (line 709): "Of note, mutations in myoF have previously been found to be associated with reduced ART susceptibility (Cerqueira et al., 2017), but 12 mutations tested in the laboratory strain 3D7 did not result in increased RSA survival (Behrens et al., 2023)*. *

31) Line 298: the authors state that there is no growth defect in the first cycle when rapalog is added to the KIC11 line, however based on Figure 3D, there is evidently a 25% reduction in growth compared to - rapalog at day 1 post treatment, and a 60% reduction by day 2, which is still within the 1st growth cycle. The authors should either revise their statement or provide an explanation for these findings. The authors should also explain why their Giemsa data in Fig. 3E is not in accordance with their FACS data.

We think there is a misunderstanding here, as our figure legend was not detailed enough and we apologise if this had been misleading. The growth effect is restricted to invasion or possibly the first hours of ring stage development (see point 4&5, reviewer 2), which in asynchronous cultures more rapidly takes effect as the culture also contains schizonts that immediately generate cells that re-invade but can't due to inactivation of KIC11 (due to the rapid action of the knock sideways, KIC11 is already inactivated). In contrast, in highly synchronous cultures, this effect can only be evident once the parasites reached the schizont stage (starting with rings this takes close to 2 days). We now clarify that Figure 2E (previously Figure 3D) shows growth data obtained with an asynchronous parasite culture, while in Figure 2F the growth assay is performed with tightly synchronized (4h window) parasites as stated in the Figure legend.

We now explicitly state in each Figure legend and for each growth experiment throughout the manuscript whether we used asynchronous or synchronized parasites for growth assays.

Related to this, the incorrect y-axis label of what is now Figure 2E mentioned in major comment #58 is now corrected.

32) Line 301: KIC11 could also be important very early for establishment of the ring stage for example for establishment of the PV. Also, was mislocalisation assessed in rapalog-treated parasites at 72 hours or in cycle 3?

This is a valid point and this has now been addressed. We performed an invasion/egress assay revealing similar schizont rupture rates, but significantly reduced numbers of newly formed ring stage parasites (Figure 2H, S3G), indicating an effect of KIC11 inactivation either on invasion or possibly the first hours of ring stage development. A very similar point was raised by Reviewer 2, please see reviewer 2; major comment #4. This is now also reflected in line 302, which now reads: ”… indicating an invasion defect or an effect on parasite viability in merozoites or early rings but no effect on other parasite stages (Figure 2F-H, Figure S3F-G).”

We further included an assessment of mislocalization 80 hours after the induction of knock-sideways by addition of rapalog in Figure S3E which showed mislocalization of KIC11 to the nucleus.

33) Line 311: the authors should change the sentence from 'not related to endocytosis' to 'not related to endocytosis or ART resistance'.

Done as suggested.

34) Line 323-325: Authors say that a nuclear GFP signal can be observed in early schizonts for KIC12. According to the pictures provided in Figure 4A and Figure S5A it is not very obvious. Also faint cytoplasmic GFP signal could only be background as we can see that exposure is higher for schizont pictures

We changed the sentence (line 339) to: “…nuclear signal and a faint uniform cytoplasmic GFP signal was detected in late trophozoites and early schizonts and these signals were absent in later schizonts and merozoites (Figure 3A, Figure S4A,B).” in order to emphasize that the nuclear signal disappears early during schizont development.

35) Line 326-328: The authors say that kic12 transcriptional profile indicate mRNA levels peak (no s at peak) in merozoites. Should they show live cell imaging of merozoites then? Because from the Figure 4A schizont pictures where schizonts are almost fully segmented no signal can be observed.

The observation that mRNA levels of early ring stage expressed proteins tend to increase already in mature schizonts and merozoites is well established (e.g. (Bozdech et al., 2003)). A very good example for this are exported proteins of which most show a transcription peak in schizonts but the proteins are only detected in rings see e.g. (Marti et al., 2004). Hence, our observation for KIC12 is quite typical.

We originally did not include merozoites, as in the last row of Figure 3B fully developed merozoites within a schizont with already ruptured PVM are shown and no GFP signal can be detected in these parasites. We now provide images of free merozoites in Figure S4A-B showing again no detectable GFP signal.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out the typo, "peak" has been corrected.

36) Line 347: The authors state that using the Lyn mislocaliser the nuclear pool of KIC12 is inactivated by mislocalisation to the PPM. This tends to suggest that only the nuclear pool of KIC12 is mislocalised. How is it possible that only the nuclear pool is mislocalised?

The Lyn mislocaliser is at the PPM which is continuous with the cytostomal neck where the K13 compartment likely is found. The effect of the Lyn mislocalizer on the KIC12 protein pool localizing at the K13 compartment is therefore somewhat unclear. For this reason we already had the following statement in the original submission (line 400): “Foci were still detected in the parasite periphery and it is unclear whether these remained with the K13 compartment or were also in some way affected by the Lyn-mislocaliser.” We would like to stress here that the same does not apply to the nuclear mislocaliser, which is only a trafficking signal delivering KIC12 to the nucleus and hence likely does not affect the nuclear pool of KIC12, only the K13 compartment pool (the main interest of this manuscript).

We realised that the statement towards the end of this paragraph was unnecessarily ambiguous in regards to the K13 compartment pool of KIC12 which might have caused some confusion about the function of this pool of KIC12 and therefore modified it to (line 374): "Due to the possible influence on the K13 compartment located foci of KIC12 with the Lyn mislocaliser, a clear interpretation in regard to the functional importance of the nuclear pool of KIC12 other than that it confirms the importance of this protein for asexual blood stages is not possible. In contrast, the results with the nuclear mislocaliser indicate that the K13 located pool of KIC12 is important for efficient parasite growth.". It is also important to note that this limitation does not apply to the NLS knock sideways in regard to the K13 compartment and that the endocytosis function of this pool of KIC12 seems solid which with this statement is enforced.

37) Line 368-369: Effect was also only partial for MyoF. Why didn't you measure the same metrics for MyoF?

This was now done and is provided as Figure 1J-K, S2J, confirming our previous interpretation, see also point #27 which raises the same point.

38) Line 379: you don't know if all proteins acting later in endocytosis will have an increased number of vesicles as a phenotype

This is based on our current definition as stated in the introduction. It assumes a directional vesicular transport of hemoglobin to the food vacuole where inhibition of early stages will prevent transport before HCC-filled autonomous vesicular containers have formed and entered the cell. In contrast later inhibition stops such containers from further transport, leading to their accumulation. Such an accumulation is visible after VPS45-inactivation and other proteins (Jonscher et al., 2019; Mukherjee et al., 2022; Sabitzki et al., 2023) or treatment with cytochalasin D (Lazarus et al., 2008). While it is possible that there may be smaller intermediates formed at the K13 compartment that later on unite or fuse with the compartment evident after VPS45 inactivation and these might be missed due to small size (i.e. inhibition of a step between K13 compartment and an early endosome or equivalent), this would still be upstream of the VPS45 induced containers and hence would be earlier. We therefore believe that based on the framework given in the introduction (see also (Spielmann et al., 2020)) to assume that a phenotype manifesting as reduced food vacuole bloating without formation of detectable vesicles likely signifies inhibition of the process early whereas reduced bloating but with vesicles signifies inhibition later in the process.

39) Line 413-414: The authors state that no growth defect was observed upon KS of 1365800. Is growth alone enough to say that there is no impact on endocytosis?

This is an interesting point. The endocytosis proteins we studied so far indicate that efficient impairment of endocytosis manifests as a severe growth defect. Hence, lack of a growth defect can be assumed to be an indicator for absence of an important role for endocytosis (or any other growth relevant process). Clearly there is a gradual response, such as seen in the different MyoF versions resulting in proportional growth and vesicle appearance phenotypes. Hence, a protein with a minor role might have slipped our attention but then it probably is also not a very important protein in endocytosis.

To further strengthen our assessment of PF3D7_1365800 importance for asexual blood stage development, we now also generated a cell line expressing the PPM Mislocalizer, enabling knock sideways to the PPM. This was done because this protein consistently has a focus at the nucleus that may be within the nucleus. Again this revealed no growth defect upon inactivation (Figure S7D).

40) Line 432: in this section, the authors state that KIC4 and KIC5 seem to have domains that may suggest these proteins are involved in endocytosis, based on the alpha fold data that is publicly available. Considering the authors have TGD-SLI versions of these lines (Birnbaum et al. 2020) and have already confirmed in this previous publication that they confer resistance to ART; it would make sense to look at endocytosis for these genes. This would be a relatively simple and straightforward experiment, taking no longer than two to three weeks, and would require no additional reagents or line generation. Doing these experiments would add a lot more weight to this final section. The authors later state that KIC4 and 5 are TGD lines, so not the best for endocytosis assays. It is unclear why this would be difficult to do if an adequate control is contained in the experiment (such as parental 3D7). It explains why they did not perform the MCA2 endocytosis assays further up, but in my opinion, an attempt at doing these assays is important and would significantly increase the impact of this paper. Identical as major comment #17.

As stated in the manuscript and above, we were originally hesitant to do these assays due to the fact that we can't induce inactivation which is less ideal than comparing the identical parasite population split into plus and minus and is further complicated by the likely smaller effect as the TGDs still permitted growth. However, we see the point of the reviewer and now performed these assays using 3D7 as controls and taking extra care to account for stage differences between the TGD lines and 3D7. However, there was no significant difference in the bloated food vacuole assays with these cell lines. Due to the reasons mentioned in major point 17, we are not sure this indeed means these proteins have no role in endocytosis. One possible reason why we were able to obtain these TGDs may have been because the effect on endocytosis is less than in the essential proteins (or is ring stage specific) and in a TGD an endocytosis defect may therefore not be detectable with our assays (see details and further possible explanations in response to point 17).

In an attempt to address the TGD issue, we generated knock sideways cell lines for KIC4 and KIC5. Unfortunately, the mislocalization of KIC5 to the nucleus was inefficient (see figure below). As this did not result in a growth defect (in contrast to the clear KIC5-TGD growth defect (Birnbaum et al., 2020)), this line is not suitable to study a potential role of this protein in endocytosis. Therefore, we performed the bloated food vacuole assay only with KIC4-2xFKBP-GFP-2xFKBPendo+1xNLSmislocaliser parasites. However, this revealed no effect on HHC uptake, which is in line with the normal growth of KIC4-TGD parasites (Birnbaum et al., 2020) and suggests that this protein could only have a minor or redundant role in endocytosis (it is the line that shows the smallest effect in RSA). As the KIC4 and KIC5 knock sideway lines did not permit any conclusions, we did not include them into the revised manuscript but they can be found here:

[Figure KIC4 knock sideways & KIC5 knocksideways]

Figure legend: (A) Live-cell microscopy of knock sideways (+ rapalog) and control (without rapalog) KIC4-2xFKBP-GFP-2xFKBPendo+ 1xNLS mislocaliser parasites 4 and 20 hours after the induction of knock-sideways by addition of rapalog. Scale bar, 5 µm. Relative growth of asynchronous KIC4-2xFKBP-GFP-2xFKBPendo+1xNLSmislocaliser plus rapalog compared with control parasites over five days. Three independent experiments were performed. Growth of knock sideways (+ rapalog) compared to control (without rapalog) KIC4-2xFKBP-GFP-2xFKBPendo+1xNLSmislocaliser (blue) or KIC5-2xFKBP-GFP-2xFKBPendo+1xNLSmislocaliser (red) parasites over five days. Mean relative parasitemia ± SD is shown. (B) Live-cell microscopy of knock sideways (+ rapalog) and control (without rapalog) KIC5-2xFKBP-GFP-2xFKBPendo+1xNLSmislocaliser parasites 4 and 20 hours after the induction of knock-sideways by addition of rapalog. Scale bar, 5 µm. Growth of asynchronous KIC5-2xFKBP-GFP-2xFKBPendo+ 1xNLSmislocaliser plus rapalog compared with control parasites over five days. Four independent experiments were performed. __(C) __Bloated food vacuole assay with KIC4-2xFKBP-GFP-2xFKBPendo+1xNLSmislocaliser parasites 8 hours after inactivation of KIC4 (+rapalog). Cells were categorized as with ‘bloated FV’ or ‘non-bloated FV’ and percentage of cells with bloated FV is displayed; n = 3 independent experiments with each n=19-30 (mean 21.4) parasites analysed per condition. Representative DIC are displayed. Area of the FV, area of the parasite and area of FV divided by area of the corresponding parasites were determined. Mean of each independent experiment indicated by coloured symbols, individual datapoints by grey dots. Data presented according to SuperPlot guidelines (Lord et al., 2020); Error bars represent mean ± SD. P-value determined by paired t-test. Area of FV of individual cells plotted versus the area of the corresponding parasite. Line represents linear regression with error indicated by dashed line.

41) Line 490-493: the authors state that the K13 compartment proteins fall in two groups, some that are involved in ART resistance AND endocytosis, and some that have different functions. However, in this manuscript the authors have demonstrated 3 flavours that K13 compartment proteins can come in: • Some that confer ART resistance and are involved in HCCU (MCA2) • Some that are involved in HCCU but not ART resistance (MyoF & KIC12) • Some that are involved in neither (KIC11) The authors should therefore revise this statement.

We agree that this was not well phrased. To account for the fact that not all endocytosis proteins confer increased RSA survival to the parasites when inactivated we changed this statement (line 604): "This analysis suggests that proteins detected at the K13 compartment can be classified into at least two groups of which one comprises proteins involved in endocytosis or in vitro ART resistance whereas the other group might have different functions yet to be discovered.“

Generally, we believe that endocytosis is the overarching criterion and we therefore would like to keep the definitions of the main groups (endocytosis or not). As indicated by the title, the focus of the manuscript is on the K13 compartment for which so far endocytosis is the only experimentally associated function. That this group contains proteins that do not confer reduced ART susceptibility when conditionally inactivated (KIC12 and MyoF) is explained by their stage-specificity, making this a subgroup of the overarching endocytosis group.

We realise that with the endocytosis data on the KIC4, KIC5 and MCA2 TGD there is now also a subgroup we were unable to demonstrate an endocytosis effect in trophozoites although they show changes in RSA survival. However, as indicated above, we would be hesitant to fully exclude some role of these proteins in endocytosis in rings. Particularly as a comparably small reduction in endocytosis protein activity or abundance is sufficient to increase RSA survival (Behrens et al., 2023). A principal classification of "endocytosis or ART resistance" or "neither endocytosis nor ART resistance" still accounts for this and therefore seems to us to be the most useful, particularly also in light of our domain identification that then can be linked with one or the other group.

42) Line 508: the authors state that they expanded the repertoire of K13 compartments, when in fact they functionally analysed them - they did not do another BioID to identify more candidates.

We respectfully disagree with the reviewer in this point, we did expand the repertoire of known K13 compartment proteins. Only independently experimentally validated proteins from proximity biotinylation experiments can be considered part of the K13 compartment (or any other cellular site or complex). Without validation of the location, the identified proteins can only be considered candidates. This is highlighted in this manuscript by the finding that several proteins of the list did not localize at the K13 compartment.

43) Line 570-572: has anyone ever tested whether CytoD or JAS treatment in rings, is sufficient to mediate ART resistance? Something similar to what was done in PMID 21709259 with protease inhibitors. If not this would be a pretty interesting experiment for the authors to do that could shed more light on the MyoF data. It would take maybe 2 weeks to do and not require the generation of any new lines. This would clarify whether other Myosins other than MyoF are involved in endocytosis, as is suggested by previous publications (PMID: 17944961).

We now included this experiment. In agreement with a lacking need of MyoF in rings and no effect on RSA survival, there was no increased survival of the parasites in RSA (neither on 3D7 nor on K13 C580Y parasites) after cytD treatment (new part in Figure 1M). We thank the reviewer for pointing out that this experiment might also inform on whether other myosins influence endocytosis in ring stages. We added (line 250): “Similarly, also incubation with the actin destabilising agent Cytochalasin D (Casella et al., 1981), had no effect on RSA survival in 3D7 or K13C580Y (Birnbaum et al., 2020) parasites, indicating an actin/myosin independent endocytosis pathway in ring stage parasites (Figure 1M) and speaking against other myosins taking over the MyoF endocytosis function in rings.”

44) Line 608: inhibitors targeting the metacaspase domain of MCA2 may inadvertently inactivate other essential parts of the protein. They authors should acknowledge this possibility in the text.

The inhibitors used in the cited studies (Kumari et al., 2018) are validated metacaspase inhibitors, such as Z-FA-FMK (Lopez-Hernandez et al., 2003). Activity against the other parts of PfMCA2 - which apart from the MCA domain shows no homology to other proteins - is therefore unlikely.

45) Line 624-625: the authors state that MyoF is 'lowly expressed in rings' - indeed this is the case in their MyoF-2xFKBP-GFP-2xFKBP line which the authors established has defects due to the tag, but it appears from their MyoF-3xHA tagged line that it is expressed in rings. The authors should therefore revise their statement, and be careful of making claims based on their defective line and using fluorescence imaging as their only metric. If they do want to make the statement that it is not there in rings, they should also do a western blot, which is much more sensitive since it amplifies the signal compared to an image of one parasite.

This comment is related to major point #24. We also would like to stress that while the MyoF-GFP line already shows a phenotype, the impression of defectiveness based on its location is due to a mix up (see major point #23).

We now provide a comprehensive time course of the MyoF-GFP signal (Figure 1C, S2A) showing that there is no detectable MyoF-GFP signal until the transition from ring to trophozoite stage. As this is all under the endogenous promoter, we do not think the partial functional inactivation of the tagging is the reason for the absence of the signal. If anything, we would have expected adding a stably folded structure such as GFP to increase the stability of the protein. The main reason for the discrepancy of MyoF signal in rings between the GFP-tagged line (of note there is also no detectable MyoF-GFP signal in MyoF-2xFKBP-GFP ring stage parasites (Figure S2B)) and the HA-tagged line likely is that IFA is much more sensitive than live GFP detection (similar to the high sensitivity the reviewer mentions in regards to WB). This discrepancy therefore is likely due to the fact that the lowly expressed MyoF only become apparent with the HA-tagged line due to the IFA. We therefore believe that MyoF is 'lowly expressed in rings' is an appropriate description of our results obtained with three different cell lines (MyoF-2xFKBP-GFP-2xFKBP, MyoF-2xFKBP-GFP and MyoF-3xHA). We hope this is sufficiently well reflected in the manuscript where we write ‘a low level of expression of MyoF in ring stage parasites.’ not that it is ‘not there in rings’ (line 174).

46) Line 635: arguably this is the 3rd variety and not the 2nd (the authors already mentioned 2 types - ones that are involved in HCCU AND ART and those involved in HCCU only). See comment for line 490-493 above.

See response for major comment #41, we now consistently used "or" instead of "and". See line 490-493 how this was resolved for what previously was line 635.

47) Line 785: Bloated food vacuole assay/E64 hemoglobin uptake assay method specify that a concentration of 33mM E64protease inhibitor was used. However, in reference 44, cited in the manuscript, a concentration of 33µM E64 was used. Please confirmed if this is just a typo or if 1000x E64 concentration was used which renders the experiment invalid.

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out, we corrected this typo and will look out for symbol font conversion errors for the resubmission.

48) Line 788: it is unclear from this section what is considered a bloated food vacuole - is there an area above which the FV is considered bloated? Do the authors do these measurements manually or use an addon in FIJI/ImageJ? What is the cutoff for if a FV is bloated? Please clarify. Additionally, for the representative images + rapalog for Figures 2H and 4H, it would be useful to see where the authors delineate the FV (add a white circle showing what is actually measured).

The bloated FV assay is well established (Jonscher et al., 2019; Birnbaum et al., 2020; Sabitzki et al., 2023). Although the bloating of the FV is a human judgment call, it is actually quite obvious: bloating appears as an easily spotted bulging of the FV in DIC. As also minor bloating is scored as 'bloated', it is a very conservative assay. Using an-add on to measure this is not straight forward. It is unclear how this bulging effect of the FV in DIC could be spotted by a software and due to the obviousness to human operators, potentially lengthy and complicated efforts to design appropriate machine learning options were not undertaken. The situation faced by the scorer of the assay is evident from Figure S4F-G which contains close to 50 "on rapalog" cells and close to 50 control cells, giving representative cells from all replicas of bloated FV assays with KIC12. Please note that these images shows the most complicated situation as far as bloated assays go, because the phenotype is not 100% (see Figure 3F) compared to e.g. KIC7 inactivation which leads to lack of bloating in almost all cells (see (Birnbaum et al., 2020) Figure 3E) but nevertheless the difference is still obvious. We are aware that in such situations (less than absolute inhibition) this assay scoring of "yes" or "no" is a surrogate for the actual level of inhibition and may be more subjective. This is why in this case we also did the FV size measurements (which are less dependent on human judgment) to further support this and give a better quantifiable measure. Of note, the bloated food vacuole judgments are done "blinded", i.e. the examiner does not know which sample they are looking at.

In response to this reviewer's point we now also added the FV size refinement of the assay for MyoF inactivation which is one of the cases where inhibition of bloating is not in 100% of the cells (see major comment #27). Please also note here the advantage of the rapidly acting knock sideways technique for these assays which shows the sum of effect 8 h after initiating inactivation and for which we carefully control size of the cells which shows that there is no significant growth reduction over the assay time, excluding secondary effects due to a generally reduced viability. Compared to slower acting systems suggested to have been used instead (see introductory part and significance of this review), the rapid speed of knock sideways reduces the risk of potential pleiotropic or compensatory effects due to the time needed for proteins to be depleted if the gene or mRNA is targeted instead.

The suggestion to include a ‘white circle’ (raised also as minor comment#27) is useful as an aid to see the food vacuole. However, in contrast to the Figures in (Birnbaum et al., 2020) (where we did add such a circle), we here included the DHE staining images in the figure, labelling the parasite cytosol which readily shows the FV (the FV corresponds to the region where there is no DHE staining). As this shows the position of the FV we would prefer to not obscure the DIC images with additional features to permit the reader to see the difference between bloated or non-bloated food vacuoles and keeping the image as natural as possible.

49) Line 863-864: this sentence seems to be out of place.

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out, the details of nucleus staining were moved to the correct part.

50) Line 875: the authors state that there is a light blue wedge, when the circle consists of grey and black wedges. Please revise this.

This has been corrected.

51) Line 1059-1061: it is unclear whether the individual growth curves are different clones or whether they are just the same experiment repeated? If it is the latter, then why are they not combined, as is traditionally done?

These are the individual replicates of the growth curves shown in Figure 1G of the same cell lines done on a different occasion. We always try to show as much of the primary data as possible and believe that showing individual data points from the different experiments is better than only the combined values which obscure the actual course of each experiment.

52) Line 919-924: the authors mention a blue and red line, but there is only a black line in figure 3D. Moreover, the experiment of using the LYN mislocaliser was only done for KIC12 according to the manuscript. Additionally, the y axis of the figure states relative growth day 4[%] compared to rapalog, but then on the x axis there are several days. In the text it says there is no growth defect until the second cycle, but from this graph it appears the growth defect is evident as early as 1 day post rapalog treatment. Can the authors please clarify and correct the issues pointed out.

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out, this was due to a copy & paste error in the figure legend that was now amended. We also fixed the incorrect axis label. For the last part (growth defect) please see detailed answer to Major comment#31 raising the same concern for KIC11 (in synchronous parasites the defect only takes effect once the cells reached the relevant stage whereas in asynchronous cultures there are always cells in the relevant stage that due to the rapid effect of the knock sideways already have a growth phenotype).

53) Figure 1 panel B & C: the label of the figure where the signal from MCA2Y1344STOP-GFP is shown with the DAPI signal overlayed is deceptive since it suggests that this is the signal of full length MCA2. Please change the label of this panel from MAC2/DAPI to MCA2Y1344STOP/DAPI. The same is true for Panel C for the image labeled MCA2/K13 - please change this to MCA2Y1344STOP/K13.

Done as requested.

54) Figure 2B: what stages are these parasites? Please state this in the figure. Based on the MyoF pattern, it looks like rings in the upper panel and trophs in the bottom pannel. Why were schizonts not shown?

Both are trophozoites (early trophozoite in top panel and late trophozoite in bottom panel). This is now labelled in what now is figure 1B. As stated above, schizont stages are less relevant for the topic of this manuscript and in order to prevent the manuscript from getting more disjointed and keeping it more focussed on the main topic, we decided to not include a schizont in the manuscript. Nevertheless, we included an example image below.

[Figure MyoF_p40px schizont]

55) Figure 2D&F: it is not very meaningful when growth assays are shown as a final bar after 4 days of growth. It is much more useful and informative to see a growth curve instead (as is shown in the supplementary), since it shows if the defect is apparent in the first growth cycle or later. With the way the data is currently shown, this is not apparent. I would advise the authors to switch the graph in 2F out of a combined graph of all the biological replicates growth curves for S3D - showing error bars.

While we in principle fully agree with the reviewer in showing the course of the full experiment (which is available in Figure S2E), the key here is to show the overall difference. Hence, we would like to keep this comparison of the overall effect on growth in what now is Figure 1E and G. It is part of the argument to the doubts this reviewer raises to the function of MyoF (mainly in the overall assessment and the significance statement) to show that the phenotype is actually very consistent (partial inactivation through tagging or further inactivation using knock sideways increases endocytosis phenotypes, correlating with parasite viability).

Please also note, that the growth curves upon knock sideways shown in Figure 1G, S2E are performed with asynchronous parasite cultures, which doesn’t allow us to draw direct conclusions about growth cycle effects.

Nevertheless, we now also included the suggested combined data representation in Figure S2E.

56) Figure 3: why were the calculation of FV area, parasite area and FV/parasite area only done for KIC12 and not done for MyoF? It would be interesting to see if any of these values are different for MyoF - whether the parasites are smaller in area and therefore FV smaller. Please present them Figure 2. Images should be already available and would not require further experiments to be done, only the analysis.

This now has been done (confirming our results) and is included as Figure 1J-K, S2J. This point was also raised as major comment #37, please also see detailed answer there.

57) Figure 3B: why is there no spatial association assessment for KIC11 and K13 as was done for the MCA2 and MyoF? The authors should show a pie chart showing the degree of association here as was done for the other proteins.

This is now included in Figure 2C.

58) Figure 3D: The y axis of the figure states relative growth day 4[%] compared to rapalog, but then on the x axis the experiment takes place over several days. Is this a typo in the y axis? Additionally, the authors state in line 287-290 that the growth defect upon addition of rapalog is only seen in the second cycle, but from this graph it appears the growth defect is already evident 1 day post rapalog addition. The figure legend also does not make sense for this figure since it mentions a blue and a red line, when there is only a black line present. The legend also mentions the LYN mislocaliser which was used for KIC12 not KIC 11 (see above).

We apologise for the inadequate legend and colour issues, this was amended. This point was also raised in major comment #31 and #52, please find detailed answer there.

59) Figure 3E: the colour for Control and Rapalog 4 hpi are very similar and very hard to discern. Please choose an alternative colour or add a pattern to one of the samples. The y axis is also missing a label. Is this supposed to be parasitemia (%)?

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out, the missing label is now included and the colour has been adapted to make them better distinguishable.

60) Figure 4A: the ring shown in this figure does not appear to be a ring (it is far too large and appears to have multiple nuclei?). Do the authors have any other representative images to show instead?

This is in fact a ring, but we realize that we accidentally included an incorrect size bar in the ring image of Figure 4A (now Figure 3A) (size bar for 63x objective instead of the correct one for the 100x objective), we apologise for this oversight. We don’t think this parasite has multiple nuclei, instead the Hoechst signal shows the often elongated nucleus seen in rings that can appear as two foci in Giemsa stained smears which leads to the typical diagnostic feature of P. falciparum rings in diagnostics. In order to exclude any doubts about the nuclear localization of KIC12 in rings, we here attached a panel with more examples of KIC12-2xFKBP-GFP-2xFKBP ring stage parasites.

[Figure KIC12]

61) Figure 4B: why is there no spatial association assessment for KIC12 and K13 as was done for the MCA2 and MyoF? The authors should show a pie chart showing the degree of association here as was done for the other proteins. This should be done for the different life cycle stages considering the changing localisation of KIC12.

This is now provided in Figure S4A. As suggested by the reviewer, we independently quantified the association for ring stage, early trophozoite and late trophozoites stage. As there is no KI12 signal in schizonts, we did not include a quantification for this stage.

62) Figures 4C&E: it is extremely important to show the DNA stain in both these samples considering that a portion of KIC12 is in the nucleus! Please add the DAPI signal for these figures (as for all other figures!).

Please see major comment #64 for a detailed answer why we did not include DNA staining in the imaging used to assess mislocalization upon knock-sideways.

63) Figure 4E: this figure should be presented before 4D (considering the line being presented in 4E is used in an experiment in 4D). The authors should switch the order of these two.

We see the point the reviewer is raising here, Figure 4D (now Figure 3D) also contains the data with the Lyn mislocaliser while we first talk about the NLS mislocaliser. This permits a better comparison between the two mislocaliser lines. However, first explaining the Lyn-mislocaliser and then going back to the NLS would make it rather complicated for the reader to follow the storyline and therefore we would like to keep the order as it is. We realise that this means the reader has to go back one figure part for seeing the Lyn growth data, but believe this is worth the benefit that the data is there compared to the NLS result.

64) It is unclear why in many of the fluorescence images the authors do not show the DAPI signal - particularly when colocalising with K13 and when doing the knock sideways experiments. Please add these images to the figures - I would assume they have already been taken, so would simply involved adding the images to the panel.

We did not include DNA staining (DAPI or Hoechst) for any of the images used to assess the efficacy of mislocalization, as we would prefer to keep the parasites as representative of a viable parasites in culture as possible. Hence they were imaged without DNA stain (these stains are toxic). We would like to point out that a DNA stain is not necessary, as the mislocaliser already marks the nucleus (in the case of the NLS mislocaliser), actually even somewhat more accurately, as it fills the entire nuclear space rather than only the DNA which is marked by DAPI or Hoechst.

For LYN this admittedly is not the case, there the mislocaliser marks the plasma membrane. However, we think the proper control for efficient mislocalisation is the comparison between the GFP-tagged protein of interest and the mCherry mislocaliser to show mislocalisation, as previously done in our lab (e.g. (Birnbaum et al., 2017; Jonscher et al., 2019; Birnbaum et al., 2020)).

Due to their toxicity, we also avoided nuclear staining in some other parts of the manuscript when we were of the opinion that a nucleus signal was not necessary.

65) Throughout the manuscript, there is no western blot confirming the correct size of their modified proteins. This should be provided.

We did perform Western blot analysis for both MCA2 cell lines. MCA2 is the only gene-product for which we generated a disruption for this work, and together with the severe truncation from previous work, we provided a Western blot-based confirmation of the correct size.

The MCA2 disruptions are at least partially dispensable for in vitro parasite growth, hence if degradation occurred, this might not have been noticed. In that case we considered it relevant to show that the truncations were of the expected size. The other proteins in the main figures are essential for growth. Hence, if the tagging approach would lead to unexpected changes in protein integrity (which we assume is what was intended by this concern to be assessed with a Western blot), the parasites expressing the tagged MyoF, KIC11 and KIC12 would - due to their importance for asexual blood stage development - not have been obtained. Hence, we can assume the integrity of the tagged protein is very unlikely to have been affected in a functionally relevant way.

66) None of the figures are appropriate for individuals with colour blindness, limiting their accessibility to the paper. Please change the colour schemes for all fluorescent images using magenta/green or an alternative colour combination appropriate for colourblind individuals.

We thank the reviewer for this comment. This has now been amended, individual channels of fluorescence microscopy images are now shown in greyscale, while the overlay was changed to green/magenta.

Minor Comments

1) line 29: remove 'are'.

Done.

2) Line 29: the text says "HCCU is critical for parasite survival but is poorly understood, with the K13 compartment proteins are among the few proteins so far functionally linked to this process." The sentence should be: 'HCCU is critical for parasite survival but is poorly understood, with the K13 compartment proteins among the few proteins so far functionally linked to this process."

Done.

3) line 44: remove 'the'

Done.

4) Line 48: consider mentioning here that malaria is caused by the parasite Plasmodium - otherwise the first mention of parasite in line 52 is confusing for the non-specialist reader.

Done.

5) Line 49: estimated malaria-related death and case numbers are from the 2021 WHO World malaria report. You cite the 2020 WHO World malaria report.

We now cite the newest WHO report.

6) Line 53: please insert the word 'have' between now and also.

Done.

7) Line 54: please change 'was linked' to is linked

Done

8) Line 72: I would specify that free heme is toxic to the parasite. Especially as you mention that hemozoin is nontoxic.

Sentence would be "where digestion results in the generation of free heme, toxic to the parasite, which is further converted into nontoxic hemozoin"

Done.

9) Line 90: authors should either say "in previous works" or "in a previous work"

The text has been altered to say: “ in a previous work”.

10) Line 91: "We designated these proteins as K13 interaction candidates (KICs)"

Done.

11) Line 95: please change 'rate' to number

Done.

12) Line 109: Please include a coma before (ii).

Done.

13) Line 112: as shown by Rudlaff et al in the paper you are citing, PPP8 is actually associated with the basal complex. You can say that "(ii) were either linked or had been shown to localise to the inner membrane complex (IMC) or the basal complex (PF3D7...).

Done.

14) Line 114: Protein PF3D7_1141300 is called APR1 in the manuscript but ARP1 in Supplementary Table 1. Please correct.

Done.

15) Line 131: please define SNP - this is the first use of the acronym.

Done.

16) Line 133-134: South-East Asia instead of "South Asia"

Done.

17) Line 135: please explain what TGD is - it is referred to over and over again in the manuscript without ever being explained.

We apologise for this oversight. We now explain what is meant with TGD at the suggested point of the manuscript.

18) Line 145: change 'Western blot' to western blot - only Southern blot is capitalised since it is named after an individual, while the other techniques are not.

To the best of our knowledge this issue has not been resolved, some Journals capitalize the “W” (e.g. Science), while others don’t (e.g. Nature). We would prefer to continue to capitalize the “W”, as this is consistent with the original publication from (Burnette, 1981), but if there are strong objections, we would be happy to change this____.

19) Line 152: add "the" between 'and spatial'

Done.

20) Line 158: please define SLI as selected linked integration, since it is the first use of the acronym.

Done.

21) Line 178: introduce a coma after protein. Sentence should be "Proliferation assays with the MCAY1344STOP-GFPendo parasites which express a larger portion of this protein, yet still lacking the MCA domain (Figure 1), indicated no growth ...

Done.

22) Line 195: the authors could mention that MyoF was previously called MyoC in the Birnbaum 2020 paper. I wanted to check back in the Birnbaum 2020 paper and could not find MyoF

Good point, this was done.

23) Line 200: "Expression and localisation of the fusion protein was analysed by fluorescent microscopy". Why expression was not analysed also by western Blot same as for MCA2?

Please see major comment #64 for a detailed answer.

24) Line 204: I could not find any mention of MyoF (Pf3D7_1329100) in reference 65. Please remove reference 65 if not correct. Also reference 66 looks at Plasmodium chabaudii transcriptomes so I would specify that "This expression pattern is in agreement with the transcriptional profile of its Plasmodium chabaudii orthologue"

Reference 65 (Wichers et al., 2019) provides an RNAseq transcriptome dataset for asexual blood stage development of 3D7 (originating from the same source as the 3D7 used in this study). While Ref 66 (Subudhi et al., 2020) indeed contain transcriptomic data from P. chabaudi, the authors also provide a nice 2h window RNAseq transcriptome dataset for asexual blood stage development of Plasmodium falciparum. Both datasets are therefore suitable as reference for the statement about myoF transcription pattern. Both datasets are also easily accessible and show the pattern in a graph in PlasmoDB.

25) Line 208: Please indicate a reference for P40 being a marker of the food vacuole

Done.

26) Line 220-224: The authors should consider changing to " Taken together these results show that MyoF is in foci that are mainly close to K13 and, at times, overlapping, indicating that MyoF is found in a regular close spatial association with the K13 compartment."

The suggested wording introduces "mainly" for "frequently" and likely was in part motivated by the discrepancy in location between cell lines that we hope we now could clarify to be only minor (see major point #23). We therefore think the original wording appropriately summarises the findings (line 178): “*Taken together these results show that MyoF is in foci that are frequently close or overlapping with K13, indicating that MyoF is found in a regular close spatial association with the K13 compartment and at times overlaps with that compartment.” *

27) Line 255: In Figure 2H, and subsequent figures showing bloated FV assay, I would delineate the food vacuole with dashed line as in Birnbaum et al. 2020 to help the reader understanding where the food vacuole is.

In contrast to the Figures in Birnbaum et al. 2020, we here included the DHE staining (parasite cytosol) in images of bloated FV assays which visualizes the FV. We therefore decided to avoid any further marking, to keep the image as unprocessed as possible (see also major point 48).

28) Line 265-266: Here the title says that KIC11 is a K13 compartment associated protein, but the title of Figure 3 says KIC11 is a K13 compartment protein. I noticed that you make the difference between K13 compartment protein et K13 compartment associated protein for MyoF for example which is not clearly associated with the K13 compartment. Which one is it for KIC11?

The interpretation of the reviewer is correct, we indeed graded this subconsciously based on level of overlap. Based on the newly added quantification shown in Figure 2C, we describe KIC11 now as K13 compartment protein.

29) Line 309-310: indicate a reference for your statement "which is in contrast to previously characterised essential K13 compartment proteins".

Done, we now included Birnbaum et al. 2020 as reference for this.

30) Line 377: Figure 4I, please correct 1st panel Y axis legend

Done.

31) Line 404: replace "dispensability" with dispensable

Done.

32) Line 416: can the authors provide any speculation as to why they observed these proteins as hits in the BioID experiments?

As some of these proteins were less well or less consistently enriched, they could be background of the experiment. Alternatively, some could be proteins that only transiently interact with the K13 compartment.

33) Line 451: Where the "97% of proteins containing these domains also contain an Adaptin_N domain and function in vesicle adaptor complexes as subunit a" come from. Do you have a reference?

The statement now includes references and reads (with small changes to original submission): "More than 97% of proteins containing these domains also contain an Adaptin_N (IPR002553) domain (Blum et al., 2021) and in this combination typically function in vesicle adaptor complexes as subunit α (Hirst and Robinson, 1998; Traub et al., 1999) (Figure 5D) but no such domain was detectable in KIC5."

34) Line 465-467: the same could be said for KIC4 as it also has a VHS domain.

The critical issue is the combination of domains and their position within the protein. While KIC4 also contains a VHS domain, the VHS domain in KIC4 is N-terminal, not in a central position and it is also not the first structural domain to be identified in KIC4. The similarity to adaptin domains was already described ((Birnbaum et al., 2020) and annotated in PlasmoDB) and these domains are also involved in vesicle formation and trafficking. These aspects of the statement can therefore not be extended to KIC4. With regards to VHS domains being involved in vesicle trafficking, this is already stated in line 538: «KIC4 contained an N-terminal VHS domain (IPR002014), followed by a GAT domain (IPR004152) and an Ig-like clathrin adaptor α/β/γ adaptin appendage domain (IPR008152) (Figure 5A-C, Figure S8). This is an arrangement typical for GGAs (Golgi-localised gamma ear-containing Arf-binding proteins) which are vesicle adaptors first found to function at the trans-Golgi (Dell’Angelica et al., 2000; Hirst et al., 2000).»

35) Line 477-479: Can be rephrased to "However, we found this protein as being likely dispensable for intra-erythrocytic parasite development and no colocalisation with K13 could be demonstrated, suggesting a limited role for PF3D7_1365800 in endocytosis. Or something like that. Makes it clearer.

We rephrased this sentence and it now reads (line 592): “However, we found this protein as being likely dispensable for intra-erythrocytic parasite development and no colocalisation with K13 was observed, suggesting PF3D7_1365800 is not needed for endocytosis“.

36) Line 535: Have AP-2a or AP-2b been shown to be at the K13 compartment?

AP2m is at the K13 compartment (Birnbaum et al., 2020). Adaptor complexes are heterotetramers and their subunits do not typically function on their own and this is conserved across evolutionarily distant organisms. In agreement that this is also the case in P. falciparum, Henrici et al. (Henrici et al., 2020a) showed that both, AP-2a and AP-2b, were present in an AP2µ Co-IP, indicating that the AP2 complex consist of the ‘classical’ subunits in P. falciparum. Therefore, the presence of all subunits at the K13 compartment is very likely, although this has only been experimentally confirmed for AP2µ. Of note, for Toxoplasma gondii the presence of AP-2a and AP-2b at the micropore has been experimentally confirmed (Wan et al., 2023; Koreny et al., 2023) and interaction suggested by presence in the same IP as DRPC (Heredero-Bermejo et al., 2019).

37) Line 569: reference 43 is wrong

We thanks the reviewer for pointing this out – we removed Ref 43.

38) Line 746: typo "ot" instead of or.

Changed.

39) Line 801: method for Domain Identification using AlphaFold specify that RMSDs of under 5Å over more than 60 amino acids are listed in the results. However, there is a typo in Figure 5B for KIC5 where it says "RMSD 4.0 Å over 8 aa". Please correct.

Done. In addition, we have now applied a more stringent cut-off of 4Å over more than 60 amino acids to ensure a higher reliability of our hits. This decision was based on results from our preprint (Behrens and Spielmann, 2023). Because of this the phosphatase domain in KIC12 is no longer included in this manuscript and accordingly the following sentence has been deleted. “In KIC12 we identified a potential purple acid phosphatase (PAP) domain. However, with the high RMSD of 4.9 Å, the domain might also be a divergent similar fold, such as a C2 domain, which targets proteins to membranes.”

40) Line 856: In Figure 1E, please use the same Y axis legend as in Figure 2D "relative growth at day 4 [%] compared with 3D7"

Done.

41) Figure S1: Some PCR gels check for integration are presented as 5', 3' and ori whereas other gels are presented as ori, 5' and 3'. This is confusing.

We agree that ideally the order of sample loading should be consistent and we apologise for this. The explanation for this is that these gels were run by different people at different times before we were able to better standardize the loading scheme. However, in the interest of not unnecessarily using resources for something that has a similar meaning, we would prefer not to repeat these PCRs and re-run them only for consistency reasons (as the conclusion is not affected by the different loading schemes).

42) Figure S1: Why was the expression of only MCA2 was verified by Western blot? What about the other proteins?

See response to major comment 56.

43) Line 493: Considering KIC11 was not involved in HCCU or ART resistance it might be worth mentioning in this section that it is of note that there are no domains detected that would be involved in endocytosis.

We agree that this is the case, however it is also the case for all other proteins that either are not involved in endocytosis and/or lowered susceptibility to ART. We therefore now added a summary statement addressing this in line 602: “In contrast, the K13 compartment proteins where no role in ART resistance (based on RSA) or endocytosis was detected, KIC1, KIC2, KIC6, KIC8, KIC9 and KIC11, do not contain such domains (Figure 5E).” We did not add this at the suggested part of the manuscript as at that point the domain search results are not yet introduced and doing this each time for all the individual proteins would disconnect the flow of the manuscript.

44) Line 503-506: is it wise to generate more drugs that target a pathway that is already highly susceptible to mutations? The authors should add a statement explaining how this might be avoided.

The only protein for which mutations do not have a large fitness cost is K13 (see also our preprint on fitness cost of ubp1 mutation (Behrens et al., 2023) and even with K13 the level of resistance seems to be limited by amino acid deprivation when endocytosis is reduced (Mesén-Ramírez et al., 2021). We therefore do not think that this pathway is particularly prone for mutations. Further, the number of commercial drugs targeting the "endproduct" of endocytosis (hemoglobin digestion and detoxification of heme) highlight it as the most prominent vulnerability for drug-based intervention if we go by number of commercially available drugs acting on things associated with a single process.

45) Throughout, scale bars are stated in the figure legends at the end of the legend. This is a slightly confusing format. The authors should consider stating the scale bar for each sub-legend where a fluorescence image is taken.

Done.

** Referees cross-commenting**

After reading reviewer 2 and 3's comments, I think there are significant overlaps in the key points raised in terms of questions about fusion proteins and their potential partial mis-localisation, better descripton of results and target selection. Overall I think we agree that the work has potential, but in its current form does not represent a major advance. It would be immensely helpful if the manuscript would be carefully edited for a better flow and linear description of results.

We now rearranged the manuscript for better flow but would like to highlight that the many requests for smaller experimental issues (and "better description of results") worked somewhat in the opposite way of a more linear description. We hope the rearranged version acceptably balances these two issues. The issues raised in regards to target selection and potential partial mis-localisation are addressed in our responses mainly to this reviewer. Please also see comments on systems used at the end of the rebuttal.

Reviewer #1 (Significance (Required)):

The authors set out to test whether other proteins that are in the vicinity of K13 are involved in mediating ART resistance and endocytosis. This is an interesting question. However, other than MCA2 which was already known to be involved in mediating ART resistance (and was not tested for its involvement in endocytosis), none of their candidate proteins seem to be involved in mediating both these functions. The authors show that the other proteins tested appear important for parasite growth, with KIC12 and MyoF involved in mediating endocytosis. While these findings are novel, the KS approach used by the authors casts some doubt over the findings, and would mean that these findings would have to be re-tested with a more reliable approach, such as the GlmS system or generating a conditional knockout using the DiCre system. Despite not advancing our understanding of ART resistance, or identifying further players involved in this process, this manuscripts provides two candidates that are involved in mediating endocytosis and a further candidate that appears to be important for parasite growth. Further work on these proteins will be required to understand their exact roles. As stated above, there is currently limited interest for these results (limited to researchers working on endocytosis in apicomplexan parasites and possibly the wider endocytosis field from an evolutionary perspective), however with further work, this could increase the impact and interest of this work substantially.

The authors do not describe any novel methods/approaches within this work.

In the significance statement the reviewer indicates that other systems would have been more reliable for the work here. This is addressed in our response above and in a detailed considerations on the properties of conditional inactivation systems at the end of the rebuttal. The systems used in this work were not only chosen because they permit rapid targeting of many different proteins, but because they have merits that are beneficial for our assays. In fact many of the functional assays in this manuscript are difficult or impossible to carry with the suggested conditional inactivation systems (please note that we have extensive experience with the systems considered preferable:

• DiCre (Birnbaum et al., 2017; Mesén-Ramírez et al., 2019; Mesén-Ramírez et al., 2021; Wichers et al., 2022; Kimmel et al., 2023)

• glmS (Wichers et al., 2021c; Wichers et al., 2021a; Wichers et al., 2022; Wichers-Misterek et al., 2023)).

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

In a previous publication the Spielmann lab identified the molecular mechanism of ART resistance in P. falciparum by connecting reduced levels of the protein K13 to decreased endocytosis (uptake of hemoglobin from the RBC cytosol), which results in reduced ART susceptibility. Using quantitative BioID the authors further identified proteins belonging to a K13 compartment, highlighting an unusual endocytosis mechanism.

In the present manuscript the authors follow up on this work and closely examine ten more proteins of the K13/Eps15-related "proxiome". They successfully link MCA2 to ART resistance in vitro, while the proteins MyoF and KIC12 are involved in endocytosis but do not confer in vitro ART resistance when impaired. They further characterize one candidate (KIC11) that partially colocalizes with K13 in trophozoites but to a lesser degree in schizonts. Growth assays suggest an important function for KIC11 in late stages of the intraerythrocytic developmental cycle. Five analyzed proteins however do not colocalize with the K13 compartment, while a sixth was refractory to endogenous tagging.

Using AlphaFold predictions of the KIC protein structures the author identify domains in most constituents of the K13 compartment, highlighting vesicle trafficking-related features that were not identified on primary sequence level before.

The combination of functional data together with structure predictions leads them to propose a refinement of the K13 compartment as being divided into proteins participating in endocytosis and proteins that have an unknown function.

We thank the reviewer for the assessment of the manuscript and the constructive comments.

Major comments:

1) -Table 1 is missing

We apologise for this mistake; Table 1 is now included.

2) -Lines 117-123: Given the total list of uncharacterized candidates encompasses 13 proteins, can the author gives the reason why only the top 10 and not all 13 were characterized in this study?

A similar point has been raised by Reviewer 1 in major comment #12, please see our response there for an explanation why we chose which targets.

3) -Line 174: 20% of observed MCA2 foci show no overlap with K13 and 21% only partially overlap, can the author confirm that the observed MCA2 foci in schizonts are the ones that co-localize with K13. (Addition of a schizont stage image in Fig 1C would be sufficient).

We now extended Figure 4C with images of MCA2-Y1344STOP-GFP+mCherryK13 parasites covering the schizont and merozoite stage, showing that the majority of the MCA2 foci in schizonts are also mCherry-K13 positive.

4) -The localization and observed phenotype of KIC11 is interesting but unfortunately the authors do not explore it further. Does KIC11 localize with markers of e.g. the secretory organelles (micronemes or rhoptries) in schizonts and could therefore be involved in RBC invasion?

While we intended to focus mainly on the endocytosis aspect of these proteins, we see the reviewer's point and now generated new cell lines enabling assessment of spatial association of KIC11 with markers for rhoptry (ARO), micronemes (AMA1), and inner membrane complex (IMC1c). This revealed that the KIC11-GFP signal in schizonts does not overlap with apical organelle markers and the signal does not resemble a typical apical localization. In addition, we assessed all three organelle markers after inactivating KIC11 by knock sideways which showed that KIC11 inactivation has no apparent effect on the appearance of these markers, suggesting no major alterations in schizont morphology in respect to apical markers. These results are now presented as Figure S3A and in line 304 of the results.

5) Can the author distinguish if KIC11 is involved in RBC invasion or in establishment of the ring-stage parasite?

In order to look into this, we performed egress/invasion assays, quantifying schizont and ring stage parasites in tightly synchronized parasites at two different time points (pre-egress: 38-42 hpi & post-egress: 46-50 hpi). This revealed a significant decrease in newly formed ring stage parasite per ruptured schizont in parasites with inactivated KIC11, while the egress efficacy remained unaffected. This indicated an invasion or very early ring stage development defect (new Figure 2H, Figure S3G). To further determine at which point exactly the phenotype occurs (ie during invasion or early after invasion) would require extensive experimentation that goes beyond the scope of this study (e.g. invasion assays using video microscopy with a representative number of parasites or sophisticated flow based quantification assays). We hope by excluding egress and gross changes of apical organelles as well as no indication for similar number of early rings (indicating it is invasion or a very early ring-establishment phenotype) will sufficiently narrow down the phenotype for labs interested in invasion to more definitely answer this question.

Minor comments:

1) Table S1: Please add the criterion for the order of proteins (abundance in "proxiome"?) in the table as a separate column. I would also suggest adding a new column that highlights the 10 proteins investigated in this study as I found the color-coding slightly confusing.

Done as suggested: we now include the “average log2 Ratio normalized Kelch13” values from the four DiQ-BioID experiments performed with K13 in (Birnbaum et al., 2020), as well as the suggested column to highlight the investigated proteins. Please also see reviewer 1 major point # 12 for additional information on the selection criteria and how this was added to the manuscript.

2) -154-155: There is a discrepancy between the text and Fig1C regarding the % of partial overlapping and non-overlapping foci.

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out, this was corrected.

3) -The y-axis label is missing in Fig 3E

Done.

4) -Fig 4I left graph, the superscript 2 is missing in μm2

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out, this is now changed.

5) -Did the author colocalize KIC11 in schizonts with other proteins found in the K13 compartment group of proteins not involved in endocytosis/ART resistance? This may help to further subgroup these proteins.

This is an interesting point but would actually be technically challenging to do. For this we would need to generate a KIC11endo parasite line for each of these KICs and then do co-localisation in schizonts. However, the outcome of this likely would not be very clear. The reason for this is as follows. There are foci of KIC11 that do overlap with K13 in schizonts. One can expect that these foci show KIC11 at the K13 compartment and that the other KICs would overlap with KIC11 in these K13 foci in schizonts. Hence, we would also need to see K13 to find the non-K13 compartment KIC11 foci and see if these contained the KIC of interest. This is technically challenging because it would mean we would need a third fluorescent protein which is not that trivial to do. Due to the difficulty to do this and the large amount of work involved and the already considerable amount of data in this manuscript, we believe this will be better suited for a different study.

6) -As a general comment: to make the beautiful IFAs more accessible to a broader readership, I would encourage the authors to switch the color-coding to green/magenta/blue or an equivalent color system or add grayscale images.

This was done as suggested, all fluorescence images are now provided as greyscale images and the overlays are shown in magenta/green.

Reviewer #2 (Significance (Required)):

Characterizing the molecular components involved in Plasmodium endocytosis will not only reveal interesting biology in these highly adapted parasites, but will more importantly lead to a better understanding and potentially open new avenues for intervention of ART resistance. The here presented manuscript is a carefully executed follow-up on previous work done in Dr. Spielmann's lab focusing on the K13 compartment. The authors use established assays to characterize novel components and reveal three new players in endocytosis with one mediating ART resistance in vitro. The proposition that parts of the K13 compartment have a function other than endocytosis is interesting, but will have to await more data from future studies. Taken together this manuscript adds significantly to our understanding of endocytosis in P. falciparum.

This work is of interest for cell and molecular biologists working on Apicomplexa, but especially for the Plasmodium community.

We thank the reviewer for this positive assessment.

I am a cell and molecular biologist working on Toxoplasma gondii

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

Summary: The authors characterized 4 proteins from P. falciparum via cellular (co-)localization, endocytosis, parasite growth, and artemisinin resistance assays. These proteins have been identified as candidates for Kelch13 compartment and a possible role in endocytosis in their previously work with quantitative BioID for potential proximity to K13 and Eps15 (Birnbaum et al. 2020). In the current work, additional 6 proteins were not confirmed as being associated to the K13 compartment. This experimental work was complemented by an in-silico analysis of protein domains based on AlphaFold algorithm. For this protein structure evaluation all proteins were chosen, which were experimentally confirmed to be linked to the K13 compartment in the current publication and previous work. With the work 3 novel proteins linked to artemisinin resistance or endocytosis could be functionally described (KIC12, MCA2, and MyoF) and a number of hypotheses were generated.

We thank the reviewer for the assessment of the manuscript and the constructive comments.

Major comments:

The quality of the presented work is solid, the experimental design is adequate, and methods are presented clearly. The publication contains a lot of results both presented in text and in the figures and it is not always straight forward for the reader to follow the descriptions due to many details presented and a lack of context for some of these experiments.

We thank the reviewer for this overall positive assessment.

We now reordered the results section in an attempt to increase the flow of the manuscript. We also made changes to improve the context for the results. Given the further (very valid) requests for data on schizonts and invasion, there was an increased danger for a less linear manuscript that we hope to have acceptably managed with the re-arrange.

Specific suggestions for consideration by the authors to improve the manuscript. Abstract: 1) R 31: Mention how the 4 proteins were identified as candidates, you need to refer to previous work to clarify this

To clarify this the sentence was changed to (line 31): "Here we further defined the composition of the K13 compartment by analysing more hits from a previous BioID, showing that MyoF and MCA2 as well as Kelch13 interaction candidate (KIC) 11 and 12 are found at this site."

2) R38: "Second group of proteins" is confusing - different from the 4 mentioned above? Significance to endocytosis unclear. Please unify terminology in the manuscript, see also comment below on proxiome.

We changed the wording to clarify the group issue in the abstract as follows line 34: "Functional analyses, tests for ART susceptibility as well as comparisons of structural similarities using AlphaFold2 predictions of these and previously identified proteins showed that canonical vesicle trafficking and endocytosis domains were frequent in proteins involved in resistance or endocytosis (or both), comprising one group of K13 compartment proteins, While this strengthened the link of the K13 compartment to endocytosis, many proteins of this group showed unusual domain combinations and large parasite-specific regions, indicating a high level of taxon-specific adaptation of this process. Another group of K13 compartment proteins did not influence endocytosis or ART susceptibility and lacked detectable vesicle trafficking domains. We here identified the first protein of this group that is important for asexual blood stage development and showed that it likely is involved in invasion.”

3) Abstract can only be understood after reading the full publication

We attempted to amend this by expanding the abstract, particularly the changes highlighted in the previous two points.

Results: 4) Table 1 is missing from the submitted materials

We apologise for this mistake. Table 1 is now included.

5) Consider to shorten and stratify the result section to focus on the significant data

We rearranged the results in an attempt to streamline this section and are now starting with MyoF in the revised manuscript. However, as highlighted by the requests from reviewer 1, many details need to be available to support our conclusions. For instance the fact that GFP-tagging partially inactivated MyoF asked for further data to support our conclusion (HA-tagged version, showing that the location of the GFP-tagged version was consistent with the HA-tagged version, showing to what extent the different constructs affected growth and correlated with number of vesicles and bloating, see new figure 1M) or that KIC12 has two locations. Overall, we are therefore hesitant to remove data or description from the result part.

6) Unclear how the localization and functionalization assays might be impaired by the fusion proteins Significance of ART resistance assay is not clear, in presence of strong growth effects due to inactivation or truncation of genes/proteins

As indicated also in the example given in the previous point (this reviewer #5), the use of different cell lines (GFP-tagged live cells and small epitope tag in IFA) for targets with an indication for an effect of the tagging confirm that the location we assigned is reasonable. In the case of MyoF, the HA-tagged line, the partial inactivation due to GFP and the further inactivation in the GFP-tagged line by knock sideways show plausible increase of phenotypes (vesicle accumulation and bloated FV assays). Thereby the GFP-tagged line can be seen as a partial inactivation line that further supports our conclusions and overall this paints a consistent picture of the function of this protein in endocytosis (see new Figure 1M better illustrating this). Please note that the difference in location shown by this line compared to the HA-tagged proteins is only small (see also reviewer 1 major point 23ff). See also general discussion on tags at the end of this rebuttal.

Significance of ART resistance assay: The ‘ART resistance assay’ is done comparing +/- ART (DHA) in identical parasites (originating from the same culture and the same condition). Hence, any growth effects are cancelled out and effects in reducing ART susceptibility would - if at all - be underestimated (see more detailed response to point 28, reviewer 1 and controls in Birnbaum et al., 2020 where we tested an unrelated essential protein, unrelated chemical insult and rapalog on 3D7 and did not detect any effect on RSA survival).

MCA 7) Stratify results, order by significance of findings, it appears to be described in chronological order, improve readability/flow, eg ART resistance if mentioned in r138, but only reported in r183ff

We attempted to stratify, but then the reason for generating the partial MCA2 disruption parasite line becomes very arbitrary and would leave the reader wondering why we at all truncated the protein at two thirds of the protein. Hence, we do not see a way around this chronological reporting. However, this part is now not at the start of the experimental results section anymore, possibly making it overall a bit more palatable.

MyoF 8) R195 to 197 - consider moving to discussion as it is distracting here

This was shortened and additional information (asked for by reviewer 1, major point 22) to clarify that MyoF was previously called MyoC, was added (line 147): “The presence of MyosinF (MyoF; PF3D7_1329100 previously also MyoC), in the K13 proxiome could indicate an involvement of actin/myosin in endocytosis in malaria parasites. "

9) Term proxiome is introduced above, but not used in result section - suggest to unify language, eg r195 uses "K13 compartment DiQ-BioIDs" instead, which is not very convenient for the reader

We carefully reviewed this and made this more consistent.

10) What is the enrichment factor? Please provide for this and the following proteins, eg in Table 1

The enrichment factor is log2 enrichment over control and this is now provided in table S1 (see also detailed answer for Reviewer 1 major point 12).

11) R225 to 243 - overall significance of the growth experiments with mislocaliser is not clear, consider removing from manuscript or explain relevance more clearly

See also point 28, reviewer 1: This experiment is actually quite important. It shows that if we conditionally inactivate the GFP-tagged MyoF, the growth is further reduced, as stated in line 208. It might have been confusing that the mislocalisation is only partial, but this is equivalent to a partial knock down and hence is useful. This becomes even more relevant with the specific assays following in the next paragraph: while the tagging of MyoF already resulted in vesicles, conditional inactivation with KS generated even more vesicles, showing that the same phenotype was rapidly increased when MyoF was further inactivated by a different means and this also correlated with growth. Hence, this is actually a very consistent phenotype that despite some shortcomings of the tools available to analyse this protein (due to the partial inactivation by the GFP tag) in our eyes looks very convincing. We now added a graph showing the correlation of growth and phenotypes to illustrate this (Figure 1L).

We also tried to make this clearer by changing line 200 to: “Hence, conditional inactivation of MyoF further reduced growth despite the fact that the tag on MyoF already led to a substantial growth defect, indicating an important role for MyoF during asexual blood stage development.” And line 208 to:“ This was even more pronounced upon conditional inactivation of MyoF by KS (Figure 1H), suggesting this is due to a reduced function of MyoF.”

12) KIC11/KIC12 Enrichment factor?

The enrichment (’average log2 Ratio normalized Kelch13 from Birnbaum et al. 2020’) is 1.65 for KIC11 and 1.32 for KIC12, which is now also explicitly shown in column D of Table S1.

** Referees cross-commenting**

I would like to applaud reviewer #1 for a great, very thorough review and lots of detailed suggestions. I agree with the conclusions mentioned in the significance evaluation from reviewer #1 and #2: the work presented does not contain novel methods and the scope is rather narrow with the current results. (I am working on clinical studies with novel antimalarial agents)

Reviewer #3 (Significance (Required)):

On the one hand side, the authors have wrapped up some of the remaining protein candidates of the K13 compartment and could verify 4 of 10 proteins. The work is of interest for the scientific community working on endocytosis and malaria drug resistance mechanisms. Overall, the conclusions and findings from the previous work, Birnbaum et al. 2020, could be confirmed and extended mainly using the methods previously described. On the other hand, the authors made use of progress in protein structure predictions and identified domains linking the K13 compartment proteins to putative functions. The overlaid protein folds of the newly identified domains in figure 5 look convincing, but I can't comment on the technical details or cut-off used for this in-silico analysis.

Extended general remarks on the systems used for this work:

Mainly reviewer 1 suggest (in the general comments and the significance statement) that other systems would have been better suited to use for this work, namely glmS and diCre and also has concerns about the large tag which is seconded by a comment of reviewer 3. In light of this we here provide some extended considerations on the properties for conditional systems and tagging in regards to the goals of this work.

We would like to point out that we do have experience with the systems considered better-suited by the reviewer (one of the first authors has extensively used glmS (Wichers et al., 2021c; Wichers et al., 2021a; Wichers et al., 2022; Wichers-Misterek et al., 2023) and our lab was one of the first to adopt the diCre system in P. falciparum parasites and we regularly us it (Birnbaum et al., 2017; Mesén-Ramírez et al., 2019; Kimmel et al., 2023)). Clearly, these methods have a lot of strengths but there are a number of issues to be considered for the assays we use in this work (see the next section on conditional inactivation systems). In a nutshell, we believe diCre would give a more reliable readout of the absolute level of "essentiality" (i.e. importance for growth) but is unsuitable or at least difficult to use for the assays that reveal the function of our interest in this work. GlmS basically combines the drawbacks of diCre and knock sideways and hence for most targets is not expected to give a better readout of level of "essentiality" but is similarly difficult to use for our specific assays. The fact that both of these systems are possible to use without adding a tag to the target may be an advantage but without tag one loses some very important features that can be critical to understand the outcome with a given system (see considerations on the tag further below).

Conditional inactivation systems:

1. __ speed of inactivation:__ glms acts on mRNA and diCre on the gene level, which makes them slower than techniques acting directly on the protein such as DD or KS. With diCre, mRNA and protein is still left, even if the gene is very rapidly excised. For instance for Kelch13 it takes 3-4 days after excising the gene until protein levels have waned enough that this manifests in a reduced growth (Birnbaum et al., 2017). While in some instances diCre permits same cycle analyses if the protein has a very rapid turn-over (e.g. Rab5a, (Birnbaum et al., 2017)), control in a few hours is still difficult. For vesicle accumulation and bloated food vacuole assays, which are done over comparably short time frames and with specific stages, it is rather challenging to hit the correct time of induction to have all the cells at the correct stage with suitably (and uniformly, ie all cells) sufficiently reduced target protein levels during the assay time. Slow acting systems are also more prone to secondary effects. The more immediate the inactivation, the closer it is to the core of the affected function. With vesicle trafficking processes this is particularly relevant as all vesicle trafficking in a cell is interconnected and there are always recycling pathways that maintain the membrane and protein homeostasis of individual compartments. Particularly for endocytosis there seem to be compensatory capacities at least in other organisms (see e.g. (Chen and Schmid, 2020)). One reason why knock sideways was developed is that it permitted to avoid compensatory changes when vesicle adaptors are inactivated (Robinson et al., 2010).

The comparably short time frame for malaria parasites to go through different stages during blood stage development also is an issue relevant for inactivation speed. The advantage of speed and the danger of obscured phenotypes is highlighted by our work on VPS45 which showed that in trophozoites this protein is involved in the transport of hemoglobin to the FV whereas in late stages it also has a role in secretory processes. Both of these functions we were able to specifically assess in the same growth cycle using KS to rapidly inactivate the protein (Bisio et al., 2020) but with a slower system would have been more complicated to dissect.

Speed of effect with glmS: unless the KS does not work well, glmS is slower acting than KS (it does not target the already synthesised protein which can remain in the cell) and also often suffers from only partial inactivation, hence the benefit of using it here is unclear. The option to have an untagged protein is a plus, however it also is a minus, as assessing efficiency (particularly in live cells e.g. for bloated assays etc a fluorescent tag is the only direct option to assess inactivation of target) is critical to ensure the phenotype manifests at the stage of interest.

lethality/absolute phenotypic effects are detrimental to some assays to study the functions we are interested in for this work: no RSA can be conducted, if the gene is lost and the parasites die. Again, with diCre, one could attempt to hit the point when the parasites have lost sufficient amounts of the target protein when they are placed under ART but then the parasites need to continue growing for ~3 days, which is not possible if the cKO is lethal except for very slowly turning over proteins. However, in that latter case, the parasites likely still had full functionality of the target protein at the beginning of the RSA, when the drug pulse happens and there would be no effect. Knock sideways solves these problems by permitting knock sideways inactivation only under ART (or with a few hours pre-incubation depending on the inactivation speed) to not yet affect growth in a severe manner but inhibiting the process the protein is involved in. It may be possible to use glmS for RSAs, but the slow speed would complicate it (it would not permit control of target protein levels in a matter of a few hours to inactivate the target protein and then re-install it).

None-absolute inactivation is also a strength for some functional assays. While we really like using diCre, in the case of EXP1 it made it necessary to complement the exp1 cKO parasites with low levels of EXP1 to be able to do functional assays without killing the parasites (Mesén-Ramírez et al., 2019; Mesén-Ramírez et al., 2021). While the lethality issue does not apply to glmS (like knock sideways, it also can be tuned), it is unclear what would be gained over knock sideways. Knockdown levels with glmS vary from gene to gene and cannot be predicted, it is in most cases considerably slower than KS, it requires glucosamine which becomes toxic at higher concentrations and might introduce off target effects and tracking protein levels during the assay would equally need GFP tagging.

Integration of properties of conditional systems

Given the above discussed properties, several factors have to be considered to be able to use a system for a given assay. Stage-specific transcription is one example. For diCre a protein not expressed in e.g. rings permits to remove the gene and the protein is never made in that parasite development cycle. We exploited this for instance for two proteins only expressed from the trophozoite stage onwards (Kimmel et al., 2023). However, if lethal (absolute effect problem), this also means one can also only see the phenotype on onset of expression of the target (e.g. if in mitosis, the first nuclear division in case the protein is absolutely essential for the process). This is just one example of such issues. Expression timing, turnover of the protein and homogeneity of stage-specific loss of protein will all influence how clearly the phenotype can be determined. All this will decide the exact time of loss/inactivation of the target protein to levels generating a phenotype and ideally therefore can be monitored during an assay (see considerations on tagging).

For these reasons vesicle accumulation or bloated food vacuole assays are difficult with slow systems as ideally the target should rapidly be inactivated at the trophozoite stage and the result monitored before the cells have moved to the schizont stage. For this a well responding knock sideways is ideal as the protein can be rapidly taken away (sometimes within seconds) to visualise the immediate, direct effect in the cell.

As shown for KIC11, there is also no disadvantage of using KS for proteins with other assays or proteins that result in different phenotypes. It permits stage-specific same cycle inactivation without having to worry about the turnover of mRNA and protein (Fig. 2F,G). Thus, besides the advantages of knock sideways for endocytosis related assays and RSAs, we also see no disadvantage of using knock sideways for the functional study of KIC11 which has a role other than endocytosis. KS also permits to specifically target the K13 pool of KIC12, something impossible or very difficult to do with other systems. Hence, we are of the opinion that the system for inactivation was adequate for most of the proteins analysed in this manuscript.

Large tag: we agree that GFP-tagging can be a disadvantage but in our opinion its benefits often outweigh the drawbacks because it permits easy and immediate (on individual cell level, if need be) monitoring of the presence/location of the target protein (e.g. after KS, but given the discrepancy of the timing between gene excision and protein loss, it might be even more important for techniques such as diCre). No fixing/permeabilisation (prone to artifacts, prevents immediate view of cells) to detect a target with specific antibodies or via a small tag is needed with GFP. Similarly, the use of Western blots to do this is time consuming and impractical if monitoring of left-over protein in the course of an assay such as a bloated food vacuole assay is needed.

In many cases, adding GFP has no negative effect. In addition, if the bulky folded structure of GFP is tolerated, it usually also tolerates the 2 to 4 12kDa FKBP domains in our standard tag. We also typically add a linker. This approach has worked for a large number of different proteins, including many essential ones for which we would not otherwise have obtained the integration cell lines (Birnbaum et al., 2017; Jonscher et al., 2019; Hoeijmakers et al., 2019; Birnbaum et al., 2020; Kimmel et al., 2023; Sabitzki et al., 2023). Hence, whenever a cell line is obtained with it, this tag in most cases is not a disadvantage. Admittedly an exception in this is MyoF and to some extent maybe MCA2 (we would like to stress that in the case of MCA2 the reason for not being able to obtain the full length tagged cell line is unclear: the protein can be severely truncated to less than 3% of its amino acid sequence and a GFP-tag is tolerated on the version with 2/3s of the protein left, which gives no good reason why the full length was not obtained; a potential reason could be a dominant negative effect). However, we obtained the full length with a small tag detected by IFA for both, MyoF and MCA2 and the location of these agreed well with the GFP tagged versions, indicating that the GFP-tagged versions are useful to show the location of these proteins in live cells.

There are also tricks to attempt monitoring the effect of e.g. diCre without tagging the target. For instance, if a fluorescent protein is connected to excision without actually being fused to the target (ie excision of the gene leads to its expression of e.g. GFP), which would avoid adding a tag to the target itself. However, the problem with this is that expression of GFP does only show excision, but mRNA producing the target protein and left over target protein may still be there in the cell. All in all, the GFP-tag on the target, while with some drawbacks, is still our preferred method to control to monitor the target protein in the cell (in principle permitting quantification of ablation efficiency on the individual cell level).

Conclusion on these considerations for this manuscript

Based on these considerations we do not see the immediate benefit of changing the system for the conclusions drawn from this study and are unsure if they are indeed better suited for this work as suggested. While a more exact readout of "essentiality" might be possible with the diCre system we are of the opinion this is less important than learning the function of a protein which - as outlined above - we believe to be considerably more difficult with diCre and even more so with glmS considering our target functions. The same applies to target specific cellular pools of a protein as done here for KIC12. Clearly MyoF is one example where the employed systems shows limitations, but with the new Figure part showing consistency in phenotype with degree of inactivation (importantly with two different forms of inactivation) and the clarification that the location of the GFP-tagged and HA-tagged versions are actually quite similar in location, we do not think employing an extra system is warranted for the conclusions of this work. Admittedly, the apparent lack of need in ring stags might give an opening to attack MyoF using diCre (by excision before its major expression peak), but depending on lethality this might preclude extended analyses (possibly vesicle assays, for sure not RSAs).

In the end the question is, if our approach provides the function of target analysed in this work and based on the data in our manuscript and the arguments in the rebuttal, we are reasonably confident that this is the case. It is not very likely the other mentioned techniques would result in a different conclusion on the function of the here studied proteins. In fact, we expect other commonly used techniques to be less suitable for the key assays in this work.

References used in our responses to the reviewers’ comments:

Behrens, H.M., Schmidt, S., Peigney, D., Sabitzki, R., Henshall, I., May, J., et al. (2023) Impact of different mutations on Kelch13 protein levels, ART resistance and fitness cost in Plasmodium falciparum parasites. bioRxiv 2022.05.13.491767.

Behrens, H.M., Schmidt, S., and Spielmann, T. (2021) The newly discovered role of endocytosis in artemisinin resistance. Med Res Rev med.21848.

Behrens, H.M., and Spielmann, T. (2023) Identification of domains in Plasmodium falciparum proteins of unknown function using DALI search on Alphafold predictions. bioRxiv 2023.06.05.543710.

Birnbaum, J., Flemming, S., Reichard, N., Soares, A.B., Mesén-Ramírez, P., Jonscher, E., et al. (2017) A genetic system to study Plasmodium falciparum protein function. Nat Methods 14: 450–456.

Birnbaum, J., Scharf, S., Schmidt, S., Jonscher, E., Hoeijmakers, W.A.M., Flemming, S., et al. (2020) A Kelch13-defined endocytosis pathway mediates artemisinin resistance in malaria parasites. Science (80- ) 367: 51–59.

Bisio, H., Chaabene, R. Ben, Sabitzki, R., Maco, B., Baptiste Marq, J., Gilberger, T.W., et al. (2020) The zip code of vesicle trafficking in apicomplexa: Sec1/munc18 and snare proteins. MBio 11: 1–21.

Blum, M., Chang, H.Y., Chuguransky, S., Grego, T., Kandasaamy, S., Mitchell, A., et al. (2021) The InterPro protein families and domains database: 20 years on. Nucleic Acids Res 49: D344–D354.

Borrmann, S., Straimer, J., Mwai, L., Abdi, A., Rippert, A., Okombo, J., et al. (2013) Genome-wide screen identifies new candidate genes associated with artemisinin susceptibility in Plasmodium falciparum in Kenya. Sci Rep 3.

Bozdech, Z., Llinás, M., Pulliam, B.L., Wong, E.D., Zhu, J., and DeRisi, J.L. (2003) The transcriptome of the intraerythrocytic developmental cycle of Plasmodium falciparum. PLoS Biol 1: e5.

Burnette, W.N. (1981) “Western Blotting”: Electrophoretic transfer of proteins from sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gels to unmodified nitrocellulose and radiographic detection with antibody and radioiodinated protein A. Anal Biochem 112: 195–203.

Casella, J.F., Flanagan, M.D., and Lin, S. (1981) Cytochalasin D inhibits actin polymerization and induces depolymerization of actin filaments formed during platelet shape change. Nature 293: 302–305.

Cerqueira, G.C., Cheeseman, I.H., Schaffner, S.F., Nair, S., McDew-White, M., Phyo, A.P., et al. (2017) Longitudinal genomic surveillance of Plasmodium falciparum malaria parasites reveals complex genomic architecture of emerging artemisinin resistance. Genome Biol 18: 78.

Chen, Z., and Schmid, S.L. (2020) Evolving models for assembling and shaping clathrin-coated pits. J Cell Biol 219.

Dell’Angelica, E.C., Puertollano, R., Mullins, C., Aguilar, R.C., Vargas, J.D., Hartnell, L.M., and Bonifacino, J.S. (2000) GGAs: A family of ADP ribosylation factor-binding proteins related to adaptors and associated with the Golgi complex. J Cell Biol 149: 81–93.

Demas, A.R., Sharma, A.I., Wong, W., Early, A.M., Redmond, S., Bopp, S., et al. (2018) Mutations in Plasmodium falciparum actin-binding protein coronin confer reduced artemisinin susceptibility. Proc Natl Acad Sci 201812317.

Henrici, R.C., Edwards, R.L., Zoltner, M., Schalkwyk, D.A. van, Hart, M.N., Mohring, F., et al. (2020a) The plasmodium falciparum artemisinin susceptibility-associated ap-2 adaptin μ subunit is clathrin independent and essential for schizont maturation. MBio 11.

Henrici, R.C., Schalkwyk, D.A. van, and Sutherland, C.J. (2020b) Modification of pfap2μ and pfubp1 Markedly Reduces Ring-Stage Susceptibility of Plasmodium falciparum to Artemisinin in Vitro. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 64.

Henriques, G., Hallett, R.L., Beshir, K.B., Gadalla, N.B., Johnson, R.E., Burrow, R., et al. (2014) Directional selection at the pfmdr1, pfcrt, pfubp1, and pfap2mu loci of Plasmodium falciparum in Kenyan children treated with ACT. J Infect Dis 210: 2001–2008.

Heredero-Bermejo, I., Varberg, J.M., Charvat, R., Jacobs, K., Garbuz, T., Sullivan, W.J., and Arrizabalaga, G. (2019) TgDrpC, an atypical dynamin-related protein in Toxoplasma gondii, is associated with vesicular transport factors and parasite division. Mol Microbiol 111: 46–64.

Hirst, J., Lui, W.W.Y., Bright, N.A., Totty, N., Seaman, M.N.J., and Robinson, M.S. (2000) A family of proteins with γ-adaptin and VHS domains that facilitate trafficking between the trans-golgi network and the vacuole/lysosome. J Cell Biol 149: 67–79.

Hirst, J., and Robinson, M.S. (1998) Clathrin and adaptors. Biochim Biophys Acta - Mol Cell Res 1404: 173–193.

Hoeijmakers, W.A.M., Miao, J., Schmidt, S., Toenhake, C.G., Shrestha, S., Venhuizen, J., et al. (2019) Epigenetic reader complexes of the human malaria parasite, Plasmodium falciparum. Nucleic Acids Res 47: 11574–11588.

Jonscher, E., Flemming, S., Schmitt, M., Sabitzki, R., Reichard, N., Birnbaum, J., et al. (2019) PfVPS45 Is Required for Host Cell Cytosol Uptake by Malaria Blood Stage Parasites. Cell Host Microbe 25: 166-173.e5.

Kimmel, J., Schmitt, M., Sinner, A., Jansen, P.W.T.C., Mainye, S., Ramón-Zamorano, G., et al. (2023) Gene-by-gene screen of the unknown proteins encoded on Plasmodium falciparum chromosome 3. Cell Syst 14: 9-23.e7.

Koreny, L., Mercado-Saavedra, B.N., Klinger, C.M., Barylyuk, K., Butterworth, S., Hirst, J., et al. (2023) Stable endocytic structures navigate the complex pellicle of apicomplexan parasites. Nat Commun 14: 2167.

Kumari, V., Singh, A.P., Singh, J., Sharma, R., Akhter, M., Mishra, P.K., et al. (2018) Biochemical characterization of unusual cysteine protease of P. falciparum, metacaspase-2 (MCA-2). Mol Biochem Parasitol 220: 28–41.

Lazarus, M.D., Schneider, T.G., and Taraschi, T.F. (2008) A new model for hemoglobin ingestion and transport by the human malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum. J Cell Sci 121: 1937–1949.

Lopez-Hernandez, F.J., Ortiz, M.A., Bayon, Y., and Piedrafita, F.J. (2003) Z-FA-fmk inhibits effector caspases but not initiator caspases 8 and 10, and demonstrates that novel anticancer retinoid-related molecules induce apoptosis via the intrinsic pathway. Mol Cancer Ther 2: 255–263.

Lord, S.J., Velle, K.B., Mullins, R.D., and Fritz-Laylin, L.K. (2020) SuperPlots: Communicating reproducibility and variability in cell biology. J Cell Biol 219.

MalariaGEN, Ahouidi, A., Ali, M., Almagro-Garcia, J., Amambua-Ngwa, A., Amaratunga, C., et al. (2021) An open dataset of Plasmodium falciparum genome variation in 7,000 worldwide samples. Wellcome open Res 6: 42.

Marti, M., Good, R.T., Rug, M., Knuepfer, E., and Cowman, A.F. (2004) Targeting malaria virulence and remodeling proteins to the host erythrocyte. Science 306: 1930–3.

Mesén-Ramírez, P., Bergmann, B., Elhabiri, M., Zhu, L., Thien, H. von, Castro-Peña, C., et al. (2021) The parasitophorous vacuole nutrient pore is critical for drug access in malaria parasites and modulates the fitness cost of artemisinin resistance. Cell Host Microbe 0: 283.

Mesén-Ramírez, P., Bergmann, B., Tran, T.T., Garten, M., Stäcker, J., Naranjo-Prado, I., et al. (2019) EXP1 is critical for nutrient uptake across the parasitophorous vacuole membrane of malaria parasites. PLoS Biol 17: e3000473.

Mukherjee, A., Crochetière, M.-È., Sergerie, A., Amiar, S., Thompson, L.A., Ebrahimzadeh, Z., et al. (2022) A Phosphoinositide-Binding Protein Acts in the Trafficking Pathway of Hemoglobin in the Malaria Parasite Plasmodium falciparum. MBio 13.

Otto, T.D., Wilinski, D., Assefa, S., Keane, T.M., Sarry, L.R., Böhme, U., et al. (2010) New insights into the blood-stage transcriptome of Plasmodium falciparum using RNA-Seq. Mol Microbiol 76: 12–24.

Robinson, M.S., Sahlender, D.A., and Foster, S.D. (2010) Rapid Inactivation of Proteins by Rapamycin-Induced Rerouting to Mitochondria. Dev Cell 18: 324–331.

Sabitzki, R., Schmitt, M., Flemming, S., Jonscher, E., Hoehn, K., Froehlke, U., and Spielmann, T. (2023) Identification of a Rabenosyn-5 like protein and Rab5b in host cell cytosol uptake reveals conservation of endosomal transport in malaria parasites. bioRxiv 2023.04.05.535711.

Simwela, N. V., Hughes, K.R., Roberts, A.B., Rennie, M.T., Barrett, M.P., and Waters, A.P. (2020) Experimentally engineered mutations in a ubiquitin hydrolase, UBP-1, modulate in vivo susceptibility to artemisinin and chloroquine in plasmodium berghei. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 64.

Spielmann, T., Gras, S., Sabitzki, R., and Meissner, M. (2020) Endocytosis in Plasmodium and Toxoplasma Parasites. Trends Parasitol 36: 520–532.

Subudhi, A.K., O’Donnell, A.J., Ramaprasad, A., Abkallo, H.M., Kaushik, A., Ansari, H.R., et al. (2020) Malaria parasites regulate intra-erythrocytic development duration via serpentine receptor 10 to coordinate with host rhythms. Nat Commun 11.

Traub, L.M., Downs, M.A., Westrich, J.L., and Fremont, D.H. (1999) Crystal structure of the α appendage of AP-2 reveals a recruitment platform for clathrin-coat assembly. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 96: 8907–8912.

Wagner, M.P., Formaglio, P., Gorgette, O., Dziekan, J.M., Huon, C., Berneburg, I., et al. (2022) Human peroxiredoxin 6 is essential for malaria parasites and provides a host-based drug target. Cell Rep 39: 110923.

Wall, R.J., Zeeshan, M., Katris, N.J., Limenitakis, R., Rea, E., Stock, J., et al. (2019) Systematic analysis of Plasmodium myosins reveals differential expression, localisation, and function in invasive and proliferative parasite stages. Cell Microbiol 21.

Wan, W., Dong, H., Lai, D.-H., Yang, J., He, K., Tang, X., et al. (2023) The Toxoplasma micropore mediates endocytosis for selective nutrient salvage from host cell compartments. Nat Commun 14: 977.

Wichers-Misterek, J.S., Binder, A.M., Mesén-Ramírez, P., Dorner, L.P., Safavi, S., Fuchs, G., et al. (2023) A Microtubule-Associated Protein Is Essential for Malaria Parasite Transmission. MBio .

Wichers, J.S., Gelder, C. van, Fuchs, G., Ruge, J.M., Pietsch, E., Ferreira, J.L., et al. (2021a) Characterization of Apicomplexan Amino Acid Transporters (ApiATs) in the Malaria Parasite Plasmodium falciparum. mSphere 6.

Wichers, J.S., Mesén-Ramírez, P., Fuchs, G., Yu-Strzelczyk, J., Stäcker, J., Thien, H. von, et al. (2022) PMRT1, a Plasmodium -Specific Parasite Plasma Membrane Transporter, Is Essential for Asexual and Sexual Blood Stage Development. MBio 13.

Wichers, J.S., Scholz, J.A.M., Strauss, J., Witt, S., Lill, A., Ehnold, L.-I., et al. (2019) Dissecting the Gene Expression, Localization, Membrane Topology, and Function of the Plasmodium falciparum STEVOR Protein Family. MBio 10: e01500-19.

Wichers, J.S., Tonkin-Hill, G., Thye, T., Krumkamp, R., Kreuels, B., Strauss, J., et al. (2021b) Common virulence gene expression in adult first-time infected malaria patients and severe cases. Elife 10.

Wichers, J.S., Wunderlich, J., Heincke, D., Pazicky, S., Strauss, J., Schmitt, M., et al. (2021c) Identification of novel inner membrane complex and apical annuli proteins of the malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum. Cell Microbiol 23: e13341.

Author Response

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

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This study presents an important finding on human m6A methyltransferase complex (including METTL3, METTL14 and WTAP). The evidence supporting the claims of the authors is convincing, although the model and assays need to be further modified. The work will be of interest to biologists working on RNA epigenetics and cancer biology.

In mammals, a large methyltransferase complex (including METTL3, METTL14 and WTAP) deposits m6A across the transcriptome, and METTL3 serves as its catalytic core component. In this manuscript, the authors identified two cleaved forms of METTL3 and described the function of METTL3a (residues 239-580) in breast tumorigenesis. METTL3a mediates the assembly of METTL3-METTL14-WTAP complex, the global m6A deposition and breast cancer progression. Furthermore, the METTL3a-mTOR axis was uncovered to mediate the METTL3 cleavage, providing potential therapeutic target for breast cancer. This study is properly performed and the findings are very interesting; however, some problems with the model and assays need to be modified. It is widely known that METTL3 and METTL14 form a stable heterodimer with the stoichiometric ratio of 1:1 (Wang X et al. Nature 534, 575-578 (2016), Su S et al. Cell Res 32(11), 982994 (2022), Yan X et al. Cell Res 32(12), 1124-1127 (2022)), the numbers of METTL3 and METTL14 in the model of Fig 7P are not equivalent and need to be modified.

We thank for reviewer’s good suggestion. We have modified the model in Fig. 7P.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this study, Yan et al. report that a cleaved form of METTL3 (termed METTL3a) plays an essential role in regulating the assembly of the METTL3-METTL14-WTAP complex. Depletion of METTL3a leads to reduced m6A level on TMEM127, an mTOR repressor, and subsequently decreased breast cancer cell proliferation. Mechanistically, METTL3a is generated via 26S proteasome in an mTOR-dependent manner.

The manuscript follows a smooth, logical flow from one result to the next, and most of the results are clearly presented. Specifically, the molecular interaction assays are welldesigned. If true, this model represents a significant addition to the current understanding of m6A-methyltransferase complex formation.

A few minor issues detailed below should be addressed to make the paper even more robust. The specific comments are contained below.

1) The existence of METTL3a and METTL3b.<br /> In this study, the author found the cleaved form of METTL3 in breast cancer patient tissues and breast cancer cell lines. Is it a specific event that only occurs in breast cancer? The author may examine the METTL3a in other cell lines if it is a common rule.

We thank reviewer for point this out. We discovered the cleaved form of METTL3 in breast cancer, and we further examined this cleaved METTL3 in other cell lines such as lung cancer cell lines, renal cancer cell lines, HCT116 and MEF (new Supplementary Figures 1A-1C), these data suggest that it is a common rule. Therefore, we speculate that METTL3a may be ubiquitiously expressed. We have added this part in the revised manuscript, please see Line 118-120.

2) Generation of METTL3a and METTL3b.

1) Figure 1 shows that METTL3a and METTL3b were generated from the C-terminal of full-length METTL3. Because the sequence of METTL3a is involved in the sequences of METTL3b, can METTL3b be further cleaved to produce METTL3a?

Although the sequence of METTL3a is involved in the sequences of METTL3b, overexpression of METTL3b in T47D, MDA-MB-231 and 293T cells did not show METTL3a expression in these cells (please see Figures 3A, 3C, 3G), suggesting that METTL3b can not be further cleaved to produce METTL3a, and the METTL3 cleavage may require its N-terminal region. We have added this in the discussion, please see Line 358 to 360.

2) Based on current data, the generation of METTL3a and METTL3b are separated. Are there any factors that affect the cleavage ratio between METTL3a and METTL3b?

We thank for reviewer’s excellent question. In this study, we show that both METTL3a and METTLb are produced through proteasomal cleavage, and both of them are positively regulated by the mTOR pathway. On the other hand, we indeed observed the differential cleavage ratios between METTL3a and METTL3b across different cell lines. For example, METTL3a/METTLb ratio was greater than 1 in MDA-MB-231 cells (see Figure 7C), less than 1 in T47D and 293T cell lines (see Figure 7A and 7B), and equal to 1 in MEF cells (see Figure 7O). Based on these results, we speculate that there may be some factors that control the cleavage ratio between METTL3a and METTL3b, which warrants further investigation. We have added this in the discussion, please see Line 374 to 379.

3) In Figure 2G, the author shows the result that incubation of the Δ198+Δ238 METTL3 protein with T47D cell lysates cannot produce the METTL3a and METTL3b variants. The author may also show the results that Δ198 METTL3 protein or Δ238 METTL3 protein incubates with T47D cell lysates, respectively.

Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we had performed in vitro cleavage assays by incubation of METTL3-Δ238 or METTL3-Δ198 with T47D cell lysates, and had incorporated this result in the revised manuscript. Please see our new Supplementary Figure 3A.

4) As well as many results published in previous studies, the in vitro methylation assay shows that WT METTL3 is capable of methylating RNA probe (figure 2H). The main point of this study is that METTL3a is required for the METTL3-METTL14 assembly. However, the absence of METTL3a in the in vitro system did not inhibit METTL3METTL14 methylation activity. Moreover, the presence of METTL3a even resulted in a weak m6A level.

The main point of this study is that METTL3a is required for the METTL3WTAP interaction, but dispensable for the METTL3-METTL14 assembly (see Figure 4A-4B). In this in vitro methylation assays, METTL3 and METTL14 is capable of methylating RNA probe in the absent of WTAP. In this condition, we found that METTL3 WT as well as its different variants (METTL3-Δ238, METTL3-Δ198, METTL3b and METTL3a) except the catalytically dead mutant METTL3 APPA showed methylation activity in vitro.

5) In Figure 4A, the author suggests that WTAP cannot be immunoprecipitated with METTL3a and 3b because WTAP interacted with the N-terminal of METTL3. If this assay is performed in WT cells, the endogenous full-length METTL3 may help to form the complex. In this case, WTAP is supposed to be co-immunoprecipitated.

We thank reviewer for point this out. METTL3 interacts with WTAP through its N-terminal (1-33aa) (1). Consistently, we find that the two cleaved forms METTL3a and METTL3b which lack the N-terminal region are not able to bind with WTAP. In Figure 4A, we overexpressed METTL3 WT as well as its different variants METTL3-Δ238, METTL3-Δ198, METTL3b and METTL3a respectively in WT cells, and compared the binding ability with WTAP or METTL14 across these overexpressed METTL3 variants. We acknowledge that the exogenous METTL3a and METTL3b interact with endogenous full-length METTL3, and the endogenous full-length METTL3 may help them to form the complex with WTAP. But in fact, the exogenous expression levels of METTL3a and METTL3b are much higher than that of endogenous full-length METTL3 (see Figure 3A and 3C). In this case, METTL3a or METTL3b predominantly interacts with itself, METTL3, METTL14 or other potential interacting proteins through its C-terminal region, this may greatly dilute the condition for the interaction between WTAP and endogenous full-length METTL3. Moreover, in Figure 4A, the comparison is among overexpressed METTL3 variants, the week indirect interactions through much lower expression levels of endogenous protein are probably not comparable to those direct interactions between overexpressed METTL3 variants and WTAP.

Reference:

1) Schöller, E., Weichmann, F., Treiber, T., Ringle, S., Treiber, N., Flatley, A., Feederle, R., Bruckmann, A., and Meister, G. (2018). Interactions, localization, and phosphorylation of the m6A generating METTL3–METTL14–WTAP complex. Rna 24, 499-512

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Major points:

1) It is widely known that METTL3 and METTL14 form a stable heterodimer with the stoichiometric ratio of 1:1 (Wang X et al. Nature 534, 575-578 (2016), Su S et al. Cell Res 32(11), 982-994 (2022), Yan X et al. Cell Res 32(12), 1124-1127 (2022)), the numbers of METTL3 and METTL14 in the model of Fig 7P are not equivalent and need to be modified.

We thank for reviewer’s good suggestion. We have modified the model in Fig. 7P.

2) The in vitro methylation activity was detected by the m6A antibody, which has limited linear range. The MTase-Glo{trade mark, serif} Methyltransferase Assay is a SAMdependent enzyme assay with wide applications (Please refer to the references below).

Could this assay be performed by authors?

Wilkinson AW et al. Nature 565(7739), 372-376 (2019).

Yu D et al. Nucleic Acids Res 49(20),11629-11642 (2021).

Yan X et al. Cell Res 32(12), 1124-1127 (2022).

Chen J et al. Nat Commun 13(1), 3257 (2022).

Thanks for reviewer’s good suggestion. We had performed the in vitro methylation assay by using MTase-Glo kit, and the data is consistent with the dot blot results. Please see the new Figure 2H-J.

3) When expressed alone in mammalian cell lines, METTL14 is unstable and is easily contaminated with endogenous METTL3 during purification (Yang W et al. Nat Cell Biol 16(2), p.191-8 (2014), Fig 1e). In Fig 2I, Co-expressing METTL3 and METTL14 maybe a good choice.

We thank for reviewer’s good suggestion. In fact, we co-expressed METTL3 and METTL14 in this in vitro methylation assay in Fig 2I (new Figure 2J in the revised version), METTL3-Flag or its mutant with Flag tag and METTL14-Flag were co-transfected into 293T cells, and co-purified by using Flag M2 magnetic beads from the cell lysates. We have added these details in the indicated method section, please see Line 574-585.

Other minor points:

1) In Fig 5D, the protein domain information of METTL3 and relevant references need to be added (Su S et al. Cell Res 32(11), 982-994 (2022), Fig 6g; Yan X et al. Cell Res 32(12), 1124-1127 (2022), Fig 1a).

We have added these references in the revised manuscript.

2) In Fig 5, would METTL3b contribute to the METTL3-METTL3 interaction?

Our data showed that METTL3a but not METTL3b is responsible for the METTL3-WTAP interaction, breast cancer cell proliferation and the m6A modification. Then, we investigated the mechanism of how METTL3a regulates the METTL3-WTAP interaction, and found that METTL3a is essential for METTL3-METTL3 interaction, which is a prerequisite step for WTAP recruitment in MTC complex. In this case, we speculate that METTL3b is not required for the METTL3-METTL3 interaction. Indeed, through Co-IP assays,we found that METTL3b has no effect on the METTL3-METTL3 interaction (new supplementary Figure 4D), which is consistent with our above data showing that METTL3b is dispensable for the METTL3-WTAP interaction. We have added this comment in Page 6, Line 226 to 228.

3) In Fig 3F, the color in the legend and figure is inconsistent.

We have corrected the inconsistent color in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

1) In Figure 5D, the construction details of METTL3-HA and Flag should have been included in the method section. Are these tag sequences in the N-terminal of METTL3 protein?

These tags are all in the C-terminal of METTL3. We have added the construction details of these plasmids in the method section. Please see Line 434.

2) In Figure 7A, the labels of the inhibitors are overlapped with the figures.

We have corrected the labels of the inhibitors in Figure 7A in the revised manuscript.

Author Response

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This paper investigates whether bistable rhodopsins can be used to manipulate GPCR signalling in zebrafish. As a first step, the authors compared the performance of bistable rhodopsins fused with a flag tag or with a fluorescent protein tag (TagCFP). Constructs were compared by expressing in HEK cells followed by calcium imaging with aequorin or cAMP monitoring with GloSensor. This showed that the protein with a smaller flag tag performed better. Then, a series of transgenic zebrafish lines were made, in which tagged rhodopsins were expressed in reticulospinal neurons or cardiomyocytes.

The data indicate that bistable rhodopsin can be used to manipulate Gq and Gi/o signalling in zebrafish. The Gq-coupled SpiRh1 was effective in manipulating reticulospinal neurons, as indicated by analysis of tail movements and calcium imaging of the neurons. Gi/o signalling could be manipulated by Opn3 from mosquitoes, TMT from pufferfish, and parapinopsin from lamprey, as shown by their effects on the heartbeat. Lamprey parapinopsin has the interesting property that it can be turned on and off by different wavelengths of light, and this was used to stop and restart the heart. Finally, the authors show that the cardiac effects are mediated by an inward-rectifier K+ channel, through the use of pharmacological inhibitors.

A strength of this paper is the testing of a range of bistable rhodopsins, with a total of 10 proteins tested. This provides a good resource for future experiments. A weakness is the failure to show that some experiments involved repeated sampling of the same animal. Figure 3 gives the impression that there are 48 independent datapoints. However, there are 8 animals, with 6 datapoints coming from each. Similarly, Figure 4 shows the data from 6 trials of 4 animals, not 24 independent animals. Repeated sampling should be reflected in the data presentation, and in the statistical analysis. Was there an effect of trial number, which is suggested in Figure 6?

In response to the reviewer’s comments, we modified the graph to show the average data for individual animals in Figure 3A-E, Figure 3-supplement 2, Figure 4D-F, H, and Figure 4-supplement 2B. We also showed the effect of trial number (difference between trials 1 and 6) in Figure 3-supplement 1 and Figure 4-supplement 1. In addition, we also showed all data as source data. We believe that more accurate statistical analyses were conducted using data from each individual animal.

Delta F/F refers to relative change, which should be (F-F0)/F0. This should be zero when t = 0. The values in Figure 3E, and 3F are ~ 1 when t = 0, however. Are these figures showing F/F0?

The reviewer is correct. It is indeed F-F0/F0 (ΔF/F0). In Figure 3F (3E in the original manuscript), t=0 was the time when 470-495 nm light (for both stimulation of SpiRh1 and detection of GCaMP6s fluorescence) started to be applied. In the experiment in Figure 3G (3F in the original manuscript), 405 nm light was applied to activate SpiRh1[S186F] for 2 s and then 470-495 nm light was applied to detect GCaMP6s fluorescence. In other words, t=0 is the time when 405 nm light started to be applied.

The authors' conclusions that the bistable rhodopsins are useful tools in the zebrafish system appear largely justified. This is consistent with findings from other organisms, including mouse (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8097317/, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627321001616). The tools here are likely to find broad use by scientists who use the zebrafish as the experimental system for a variety of different areas.

For the studies on LamPP and MosOpn3, we cited the references mentioned by the reviewer. We believe that our study substantiates that LampPP and MosOpn3, as well as other bistable rhodopsins, are valuable tools for zebrafish research, as pointed out by the reviewer.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The presented study aims at deciphering the physiological function of GPCR signaling in excitable cells. To this end, the authors developed transgenic zebrafish models expressing a selection of Gq- and Gi/o-coupled bistable rhodopsins in either reticulospinal neurons or cardiomyocytes and elucidated behavioral responses (tail movements) or physiological responses (heartbeat) as well as intracellular Ca2+ dynamics following optical stimulation of rhodopsins.

One of the major strengths of the presented study is the functional comparison of five Gq- and five Gi/o-coupled rhodopsins in two major classes of excitable cells, however; the selection of rhodopsins tested remains elusive. More importantly, it is not obvious why some of the effects of rhodopsin activation were assessed in both neurons and cardiomyocytes, while others were only tested in one of the two systems without further explanation. The main chosen experimental readouts (swimming/tail bending or cardiac contractions) have limited informative value regarding GPCR signaling, as they will only report the peak of the iceberg, namely whether movements are elicited or heartbeats inhibited. No analysis on subtle changes in heart rate and contraction force was included, but such modulation of cardiac activity (e.g. positive or negative chronotropic, inotropic, dromotropic, bathmotropic, and/or lusitropic responses) would represent better the physiological modulation of the heart via GPCR and down-stream signaling events. In line, the presented data only represents behavior at one light intensity tested, whereas a light titration of observed effects could provide more meaningful insight into both rhodopsin responses and signaling mechanisms. Also, the potential promiscuity of G protein activation of selected receptors has not been addressed, neither experimentally nor in the discussion part. As a result of the above-mentioned limitations, it is difficult to follow the logic of the study and especially to interconnect the data obtained in reticulospinal neurons (where activation of jumping spider rhodopsin elicited tail bending) to myocyte data (where three Gi-coupled rhodopsins suppressed cardiac activity). Moreover, as such, the study does not provide explanations on why a certain tool might evoke an effect in one system or the other, or not, which could be the main deliverable of such a comparative analysis.

We are grateful for helpful and insightful comments from the reviewer. We believe that the presentation of experimental findings in the original manuscript may have led to a misunderstanding. We examined the effects of Gq and Gi/o-coupled bistable rhodopsins on both reticulospinal V2a neurons and cardiomyocytes. We observed noticeable effects of Gq rhodopsins on reticulospinal V2a neurons, but no significant effects on cardiomyocytes. Similarly, we found effects of Gi/o-coupled rhodopsins on cardiomyocytes, but no significant effects on reticulospinal V2a neurons. These discrepancies could be attributed to differences in the target cells and experimental conditions, suggesting the need for further optimization. We described the data on page 13, lines 16-22 and page 16, lines 9-10 in the Result section and Table 1, and discussed the relationship between the activity of bistable rhodopsins and their effects on target cells on page 21, lines 6-15 and page 24, line 19-page 25, line 2 in the Discussion section of the revised manuscript.

In order to clarify the function of Gi/o-coupled rhodopsins on the heart in more detail, we conducted experiments in which we activated cardiomyocytes expressing bistable rhodopsins at various light intensities to observe the effects on heartbeats. We analyzed cardiac arrest rate, latency to cardiac arrest, and time to resumption of heartbeat. The results of these experiments are shown in Figure 4 and Figure 4-supplement 2, 3 in the revised manuscript. We described the data on page 15, line 16-page 16, line 1 in the revised manuscript, as follows.

To analyze the photosensitivity of Gi/o-coupled rhodopsins, we applied light of various intensities for 1 s and examine their effect on HBs (Figure 4-supplement 2). Cardiac arrest was induced and sustained for over 20 s after stimulation of MosOpn3 with 0.05 mW/mm2 light for 1 s. Photoactivation of PufTMT and LamPP at lower light intensities (0.2 or 0.05 mW/mm2) resulted in cardiac arrest, but faster HB recovery than stimulation with 0.5 mW/mm2 light (Figure 4-supplement 2). The data indicate that the ability of MosOpn3 to suppress HBs is more photosensitive than PufTMT and LamPP in the zebrafish heart. We further examined atrial-ventricular (AV) conductivity by measuring the time difference between atrial and ventricular contractions before and after light stimulation when HBs had slightly recovered. There was no significant difference in AV conductivity before and after light stimulation (Figure 4-supplement 3).

We performed experiments to the best of our ability with current technology regarding cardiac function. However, we hope that the reviewer is willing to acknowledge that there are certain limitations in conducting a detailed analysis of the zebrafish larval heart, since many experimental techniques, such as electrophysiological analysis, have not yet been fully or effectively established for this animal model.

While the presented data is interesting, the graphical presentation and description of the data are insufficient. Most importantly, the current version of the text does not include a quantitative description of effects and statistical analyses (which are found in the figures and legends!). The lack of quantitative description also extends to both the introduction and discussion, which remain general without a specific dissection of observed effects.

We have described quantitative data in the Result section.

One major concern is the selective citation of own work. While single statements in both the introduction and discussion are supported by up to ten own papers, recent studies using rhodopsins for dissecting GPCR signaling in neurons are not sufficiently discussed and new data is not compared to published results by other teams. Moreover, relevant papers on cardiomyocytes (e.g. PMID: 35579776, 35365606, 34987414, 30894542) are not cited at all, despite the use of similar rhodopsins and/or optogenetic activation of the same signaling pathways. Taking into account these published studies may help to better understand the observed responses.

We apologize for not citing important relevant papers in the original manuscript. We have now cited all four papers (Dai et la., 2022; Wagdi et al., 2022; Cokic et al., 2021; Makowka et al., 2019) mentioned by the reviewer, as well as a new paper describing the use of MosOpn3 and LamPP in C. elegans neurons (Koyanagi et al., 2022) in the Introduction section. We also discussed the differences between our findings and previously published data in the Discussion section.

Additional comment: Data were obtained from larvae zebrafish. It would be useful to include a discussion on how GPCR signaling might be different in adult fish compared to larvae, and how to test whether the observed effects are more generally applicable.

We discussed the differences between the hearts of zebrafish larvae and adults, and the differences in GPCR signaling, on page 27, lines 10-16, as follows. In this study, we used zebrafish larvae to study the role of GPCR signaling in cardiac function, and there are differences in heart structure and function between larvae and adult zebrafish. As a zebrafish grows, blood pressure increases and the heart becomes more complex with the development of valves and ventricular trabeculae. Therefore, GPCR signaling, which regulates heart structure and function, may differ between juvenile and adult fish. Optogenetic manipulation of the heart’s function in adult zebrafish using bistable opsins should clarify this issue.

Author Response:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The study investigates the nature of "trailblazer" cells in distinct tumor models, including luminal B (MMTV/PyMT) and triple negative (TNBC) tumors (C3-TAg). The authors note that the trail-blazer phenotypes in the TNBC model are more complex relative to the Luminal B model and represent distinct EMT programs associated with the expression of distinct EMT-TFs (Zeb1, Zeb2 and Fra-1). They demonstrated that of numerous EMT-TFs, Zeb1 and Fra-1 were required for increased cancer cell migration and invasion. They reveal that TGF-beta and EGF-mediated signaling are required for the diverse EMT states that are required for trailblazer cell activity and increased cell migration/invasion. TGF-beta signaling engaged Zeb 1 and Zeb2 while EGF sig-naling activated Fra-1. Indeed, inhibitors of either TGF-beta or EGF signaling could impair cell migration/invasion. While both pathways contributed to trailblazer phenotypes, EGF signaling was shown to interfere with certain TGF-beta induced transcriptional response, including the ex-pression of genes encoding extracellular matrix proteins.

One concern was the heavy reliance of the C3-TAg as the sole TNBC model in which the dis-tinct trailblazer phenotypes were described. The data in Fig. 3 of the submission reveals that the phenotypes observed in the C3-TAg model could be recapitulated in a TNBC patient-derived xenograft model (PDX). Using this PDX, the authors were able to show vimentin expression in lung metastatic TNBC cells that were intravascular, those that had extravasated and clusters of cancer cells fully within the lung parenchyma. This was an important addition to the manuscript. The additional experiments to investigate the role of Zeb1 and Zeb1 more fully, beyond the focus on Fra-1 in the initial submission was an additional strength of the new submission. Additional clarifications to the discussion also clarified the concepts articulated in the study. The study em-ploys multiple breast cancer models, utilizes numerous in vitro and in vivo assessments of the trailblazer phenotypes, and the experimental design is rigorous and the interpretation of the data is sound. The manuscript will be of general interest to the research community.

Thank you for the supportive comments. We are glad that the revisions addressed your prior concerns.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This represents an important study that demonstrates a high degree of heterogeneity within trailblazer cells in clusters that participate in collective migration. Solid methods highlight this het-erogeneity and show that in TNBC cancers, trailblazer cells are defined by vimentin (and not Keratin 14) and are dependent on both TGFbeta and EGFR signaling. Additional, single cell stud-ies would further support this work.

Thank you for the suggestion. Our current data establishes that trailblazer cells are heterogene-ous using FACS, immunostaining and functional studies of fresh tumor organoids and estab-lished tumor organoid lines. In addition, our RNA-seq experiments provided deep insight into the nature of gene expression changes that corresponded with the evolution of new trailblazer states. This discovery of trailblazer cell heterogeneity was one of multiple key new discoveries in this manuscript, along with revealing a Krt14-independent invasion mechanism, the regulation of trailblazer cells by Tgfβ and Egfr signaling and a new compromise mode of signal integration. We agree that our results support further investigation of the nature and function of basal-like breast cancer heterogeneity during the progression to metastasis. However, a comprehensive implementation of scRNA-seq is mostly likely required to further unravel new aspects of hetero-geneity that substantially advance upon the conclusions supported by our current data. Such an undertaking is beyond the scope of this investigation.

We agree that scRNA-seq would be confirmatory of trailblazer cell heterogeneity that has been demonstrated with multiple approaches rather than a new discovery of heterogeneity.

Strengths:

The paper highlights that collective migration, and the nature of trailblazer cells can be highly heterogeneous. This is important as it suggests that the ability to move between states may su-persede a singular phenotype.

The paper uses animal models and organoids and in several areas attempts to correlate find-ings to human tissues.

The experiments are logically described.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Cancer is a disease of many faces and in particular, the ability of cancers cells to change their phenotypes and cell behaviors - cancer cell plasticity - is a major contributor to cancer lethality and therapeutic challenge of treating this disease. In this study, Nasir, Pearson et al., investigate tumor cell plasticity through the lens of invasive heterogeneity, and in particular in models of tri-ple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), a subtype of breast cancer with particularly poor clinical prognosis and more limited treatment modalities. Using organoid models in a variety of matrix systems, microscopy, and signaling pathway inhibitors, they find that invading TNBC breast tu-mors, primarily in the C31-Tag genetically engineered mouse model of TNBC, are composed of heterogeneous invasive/"trailblazer" type tumor cells that in many cases express vimentin, a classical intermediate filament marker of epithelial-mesenchymal transition, and reduced keratin-14, another filament marker of basal epithelial cells associated with collective invasion in differ-ent breast cancer models. Supportive genetic and pharmacologic evidence is provided that gen-eration of these cells is TGF-beta signaling pathway driven, likely in vivo from the surrounding tumor microenvironment, in accord with published studies in this space. Another important as-pect of this study is the good transcriptional evidence for multiple migratory states showing dif-fering degrees of partial overlap with canonical EMT programs, dependent on TGF-beta, and suggestive but at present incomplete understanding of a parallel program involving Egfr/Fra-1 mediated effects on invasion. When taken in context with other recent studies (Grasset et al. Science Translational Medicine 2022), these data are broadly supportive of concept of targeting vimentin-dependent invasion programs in TNBC tumors.

The core conclusions of this paper are generally supported by the data, but there are some conceptual and technical considerations that should be taken into account when interpreting this study. Specific comments:

1) The contribution of the different vimentin-positive trailblazer cells to distant metastasis was not directly confirmed in vivo in this study. Given the limited proliferative potential of many fully EMT'd cells and in light of recent studies indicating that invasion can be uncoupled from meta-static potential, it seems important to directly test whether the different C31-tag isolates, varying in invasive potential in this study, produce metastases and if so do metastases abundance corre-late with the invasive potential in 3D culture. The collection of lungs at 34 days post injection de-scribed in methods is too short to evaluate metastatic frequency.

We agree that it is important to determine the contribution of trailblazer cells towards metastatic dissemination. In this manuscript, we show that Vimentin expressing cells in a triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) PDX model disseminate to the lungs (Figure 3F). We have also shown that Vimentin expressing SUM159 breast cancer (BC) trailblazer cells spontaneously metasta-size to the lungs in previous publications (Fig. 2–figure supplement 1C) and (Westcott et al, J Clin Invest, 2015, 10.1172/JCI77767 and Maine et al, Oncotarget, 2016, 10.18632/oncotarget.7408). Notably, the depletion of genes specifically expressed in trailblazer cells reduced spontaneous metastasis without significantly impinging on primary tumor growth (Westcott et al, J Clin Invest, 2015, 10.1172/JCI77767 and Maine et al, Oncotarget, 2016, 10.18632/oncotarget.7408). Our new results in Figure 5D show that Tgfβ activates genes that define the trailblazer state in the metastatic SUM159 trailblazer cell model. Thus, features of the Tgfβ regulated trailblazer program in the C3-TAg cells is active in the SUM159 trailblazer model of spontaneous metastasis. In addition, commonly employed BC cell line metastasis models, such as MDAMB231 derivatives are highly mesenchymal (Fig. 2–figure supplement 1C) and (Kang et al, Cell, 2003, 10.1016/S1535-6108(03)00132-6 and Minn et al, Nature, 2005, 10.1038/nature03799, as examples).

It is not technically feasible to establish a correlation between the relative invasion of The C3-TAg GEMM primary tumors and spontaneous metastasis. C3-TAg GEMM primary tumors de-velop rapidly and the mice must be euthanized prior to the detection of metastasis. This limitation of the model is mentioned in the Results section “Trailblazer cells are specified by Vimentin ex-pression in basal-like breast cancer patient tumors”. The aggressive primary tumor growth and limited spontaneous metastasis of the the C3-TAg model has also been previously reported by others (Green et al, Oncogene, 2000, 10.1038/sj.onc.1203280). Surgical resection of the original primary tumor is not feasible option to allow metastases to form since additional tumors develop in multiple mammary glands.

In response to reviewer requests, we initiated the growth of orthotopic primary tumors from con-trol or Tgfβ treated 1339-org cells to address the relationship between induction of the trailblazer state and primary tumor cell dissemination. We had to euthanize the mice at day 34 (d34) be-cause tumors within both cohorts had reached the maximum permitted diameter of 2 cm. This will be indicated in the Methods section with revised text. We detected CTCs from the mice bearing control and Tgfβ treated 1339-org cell tumors. However, no micrometastases were de-tected, which is indicated in the text describing Figure 4–figure supplement 3A-B. Thus, per-forming surgical resection in new experiments would not be expected to allow the later detection of metastasis, as there did not appear to be DTCs in the lungs that could initiate colonization. In addition, we would have to resect the tumors prior to d34 to successfully and humanely remove the primary tumors, further reducing the odds of metastases developing. We will continue our work to identify an experimental balance that permits sufficient primary tumor growth to initiate spontaneous metastasis. However, the time scale of resolving this technical challenge is uncer-tain and we believe that our published analysis of trailblazer cell metastasis and new findings here showing the dissemination of Vimentin expressing cells in a PDX model addresses the question of whether Vimentin expressing trailblazer cells metastasize.

We agree that certain cell states induced by EMT programs can limit the proliferative potential of tumor cells. As described in the Introduction, we previously found that the induction of a trailblaz-er state in a subset of breast cancer cell line models triggers a collateral cost in fitness that limits the ability of trailblazer cells to initiate tumor growth (Westcott et al, Cancer Res, 2020, 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-20-0014). The traits that distinguish trailblazer cells which are capable of tumor initiation and metastasis versus trailblazer cells with reduced fitness have begun to be delineated. Our prior report suggested that cells that were dependent on p63 for growth lost their proliferative capacity when converting to a trailblazer state (Westcott et al, Cancer Res, 2020, 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-20-0014). C3-TAg cells are not dependent on p63 for growth, which is indicated by the vast majority of the tumor cells lacking p63 expression in primary tumors and primary tumor organoids (Westcott et al, Cancer Res, 2020, 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-20-0014), similar to the metastatic SUM159 breast cancer cell line model. We were also able to derive clonal trailblazer cell lines that lacked detectable p63 expression from a C3-TAg tumor (Figure 2—figure supplement 1B) and grow organoids even when the limited extent of p63 expression was further reduced by Tgfβ (Figure 5C). Additionally, the persistent Tgfβ treated 1339-org cells, which were enriched for trailblazer cells and had reduced p63 expression, were capable of initiating primary tumor growth (Figure 4F). Together, these results indicate that C3-TAg trail-blazer cells are capable of initiating metastatic colonization. However, given the heterogeneity in trailblazer states that we discovered, it is possible that a subset of trailblazer cell states have re-duced proliferative capacity. Our analysis approach in this manuscript would not necessarily de-tect these low fitness trailblazer cells if they were a relatively small fraction of the total trailblazer population. We will clarify this point in the Discussion section in the revised manuscript. Our re-sults have begun to reveal mechanisms for the transcriptional regulation of trailblazer cell heter-ogeneity. We plan to continue delineating the regulatory programs conferring specific transcrip-tion state, defining approaches for the prospective isolation of distinct trailblazer subpopulations and determining trailblazer subpopulation specific biomarkers to understand the specific contri-bution of distinct trailblazer subpopulations towards metastasis. Given the scope of this analysis, it is not feasible to incorporate these future studies into this manuscript.

2) The invasion of cancer cells is dependent on 3D matrix composition. In other studies, collec-tive cancer invasion is performed in exclusively collagen type 1 gels or in other instances entirely in 3D reconstituted basement membrane gel, e.g. lung cancer invasion studies. In this study, the authors use a mixture composed of both matrices. Given the invasion suppressive effects of matrigel, particularly for epithelial type cells, further studies would be important to determine whether the invasion phenotypes seen in this study are generalizable across matrix environ-ments.

The invasion of C3-TAg and PyMT organoids embedded in a 100% pure reconstituted base-ment is shown in Fig. 1–figure supplement 1G. We will emphasize that trailblazer invasion was evaluated in multiple ECM compositions with revised text and figure graphic. We also provide images for the reviewer showing that C3-TAg organoids collectively invade in a pure Collagen I ECM. Importantly, these findings are consistent with our results showing that Vimentin express-ing cells are associated with basal-like mammary tumor cell invasion in the complex ECM of C3-TAg GEMM primary tumors (Figure 2G) and patient primary tumors (Figure 3D). Moreover, Vimentin expressing cells disseminated to the lungs in the TNBC PDX that we evaluated (Figure 3F).

The ECM composition selected for experiments is dictated by the experimental question(s) being addressed. It is unlikely that mammary tumor cells would only ever collectively invade through an ECM that is either pure Collagen I or pure reconstituted basement membrane (BM). Indeed, it has been proposed that mixtures of Collagen I and BM proteins best reconstitute the complexity of primary tumor ECM (Hooper et al, Methods Enzymol, 2006, 10.1016/S0076-6879(06)06049-6). In line this observation, mixtures of Collagen I and BM proteins have been routinely used for the past 20 years to define mechanisms of 3D invasion; Xiang and Muthuswamy, Methods En-zymol, 2006, 10.1016/S0076-6879(06)06054-X; Calvo et al, Nat Cell Biol, 2013 10.1038/ncb2756; and Kato et al, eLife, 2023, 10.7554/eLife.76520, as examples).

Consistent with the known complexity of the ECM in the tumor microenvironment (TME), we detect Collagen I and Collagen IV (a key component of experimental BM) in the TME of primary breast cancer tumor models (Westcott et al, J Clin Invest, 2015, 10.1172/JCI77767). Important-ly, we have found that a mixture of collagen I and experimentally derived BM proteins reliably reveals breast cancer trailblazer cell invasion mechanisms that promote the malignant progres-sion and metastasis of primary tumors and whose expression correlates with poor patient out-come (Westcott et al, J Clin Invest, 2015, 10.1172/JCI77767 and Westcott et al, Cancer Res, 2020, 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-20-0014, as examples). Notably, the relative differences in trail-blazer and opportunist cell invasive phenotypes are not dictated by the ECM composition used in our 3D assays. We have previously tested the invasion of trailblazer and opportunist subpopula-tions in different ECM compositions using both spheroid vertical invasion assays (Westcott et al, J Clin Invest, 2015, 10.1172/JCI77767). Increasing collagen I concentration enhanced the rela-tive rate of trailblazer cell invasion, with trailblazer cells always showing a significantly enhanced invasion relative to opportunist cells.

The relationship between trailblazer and opportunist cells that we have detected in primary tu-mors is recapitulated when using mixtures of Collagen I and BM proteins in our past publications and in this manuscript. The clonal opportunist cell lines derived from a C3-TAg tumor expressed high levels of the transcription factor p63 (Figure 2–figure supplement 1A-B). We previously showed that p63 restricts induction of a trailblazer state in human breast cancer trailblazer cell lines (Westcott et al, Cancer Res, 2020, 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-20-0014). Notably, we showed that p63 expressing C3-TAg cells were not able to initiate collective invasion in the same ECM composition used in our current manuscript. Moreover, p63 cells in primary C3-TAg tumors were noninvasive opportunist cells that were limited to trailing p63-low trailblazer cells when collective-ly invading in primary tumors and in organoids (Westcott et al, Cancer Res, 2020). We now show that p63 expressing opportunist cell lines are limited to invading behind primary C3-TAg trailblazer cells and trailblazer cell lines in our 3D invasion assays (Figure 1B and Figure 1–figure supplement 1D-E). Together, these results indicate that the ECM employed in our 3D assays reveals the mechanistic underpinnings of both trailblazer and opportunist cell invasion in primary tumors.

With respect to lung cancer invasion, leader cells that we would classify as trailblazer cells have been isolated from 2 non-small cell lung cancer cell line spheroid models grown in pure reconsti-tuted BM extract (Konen et al, Nat Comm, 2017, 10.1038/ncomms15078). However, it unclear whether these cell line derived NSCLC trailblazer cells are more intrinsically invasive than non-trailblazer siblings in primary NCSCLC tumors or if the traits associated cell line NSCLC trail-blazer cells are required for metastasis. These tests have never been reported to the best of our knowledge. Similarly, it is not clear whether these NSCLC cell line derived trailblazer cells reflect features of primary NSLC primary tumor cells, as we are unaware of any such comparisons be-ing reported. Thus, there is no reason to consider pure reconstituted BM to be an equivalent or preferred experimental option to define trailblazer cell features. Nevertheless, as we mentioned before, our discovery approach identifies trailblazer cells that are intrinsically more invasive than opportunist siblings across multiple ECM conditions, including pure reconstituted BM and, im-portantly, in primary tumors.

3) TGF-beta is well known to induce EMT. Although this study identifies potential transcriptional mediators of the invasion/trailblazer program, is this program reversible?

We have previously shown the breast cancer trailblazer cells can convert to an opportunist state, demonstrating that trailblazer states are reversible (Westcott et al, J Clin Invest, 2015, 10.1172/JCI77767). In this manuscript. we show that C3-TAg organoid lines derived in the Tgfbr1 inhibitor A83-01 have few if any cells with a trailblazer phenotype relative to C3-TAg pri-mary tumors, suggesting a reversion of the trailblazer state (Fig. 4C and Figure 4–figure sup-plement 2A-C). However, our results do not entirely rule out the possibility that only non-trailblazer cells grew to establish the organoid lines. Indeed, the problem of tracing phenotypic conversions when evaluating heterogeneous populations is a systemic challenge that extends beyond our analysis of trailblazer cells. Clearly defining the conversion rates for trailblazer cells will require multiple genetic markers to distinguish the different trailblazer states we have now identified, in addition to phenotypic and molecular analysis over multiple days, or possibly weeks. Thus, further definition of the rate of reversion of different trailblazer cells is worthy line of future investigation rather than a feasible objective of this study.

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

Learn more at Review Commons

---

Reply to the reviewers

Reply to the reviewers

Manuscript number: RC-2023-01932

Corresponding author(s): Dennis KAPPEI

We would like to thank all reviewers for their recognition of our approach and the quality of our work as well as their constructive criticism.

Reviewer #1

Reviewer #1: The manuscript by Yong et. al. describes a comparison of various chromatin immunoprecipitation-mass spectrometric (ChIP-MS) methods targeting human telomeres in a variety of systems. By comparing antibody-based methods, crosslinkers, dCas9 and sgRNA targeted methods, KO cells and various controls, they provide a useful perspective for readers interested in similar experiments to explore protein-DNA interactions in a locus-specific manner.

Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for the feedback and the appreciation of our work.

Reviewer #1: While interesting, I found it somewhat difficult to extract a clear comparison of the methods from the text. It was also difficult to compare as data and findings from each method was discussed in its own context. Perhaps it is not in their interest to single out a specific method and it is indeed true that there are caveats with each of the methods.

Response: Across our manuscript we have established one single workflow, for which we present some technical comparisons (e.g. using single or double cross-linking in Fig. 2a/b), technical recommendations such as the use of loss-of-function controls (e.g. Fig. 1c v. Fig. 2a and Extended Data Fig. 3g vs. 3i) and an application to unique loci using dCas9 (Fig. 3f). Based on the suggestions below, we believe that we will improve the clarity of communicating our approach.

Reviewer #1: I think the manuscript would be of interest but I believe that there are remaining questions that need to be addressed before publication. In particular, I found it difficult to reconcile the discrepancy in protein IDs between most experiments vs. the WT/KO experiment in Fig 2. The authors make a big deal about the importance of the KO control but I think the fewer proteins identified there may be experiment-specific and not general to the KO system. I ask that this be investigated more carefully by the authors in their revisions.

Response: We thank the reviewer for highlighting this point. We do not think that the ChIP-MS comparison between U2OS WT and ZBTB48 KO clones (Fig. 2a) has experiment-specific caveats. Instead the KO controls as well as the dTAGV-1 degron system for MYB ChIP-MS (Extended Data Fig. 3) reveal antibody-specific off-targets, which are indeed false-positives. Please see below for further details.

Reviewer #1: Ln 57: What is "standard double cross-linking ChIP reactions" in this context? Is it the two different crosslinkers? The two proteins? The reciprocal IPs of one protein, and blotting for another? It's not clear here or from Extended Fig 1A. Upon further reading, it seems to pertain to the two crosslinkers - if so, the authors should briefly describe their workflow to help readers.

Response: As the reviewer correctly concludes, we indeed intended to highlight the use of two separate crosslinkers (formaldehyde/FA and DSP). This combination is important as illustrated in the side-by-side comparison of Fig. 2a and Fig. 2d. Here, we performed ZBTB48 ChIP-MS in five U2OS WT and five U2OS ZBTB48 KO clones. While in both experiments the bait protein ZBTB48 was abundantly enriched in the samples that were fixed with formaldehyde we lose about half of the telomeric proteins that are known to directly bind to telomeric DNA independent of ZBTB48 and all of their interaction partners. For instance, while the FA+DSP reaction in Fig. 2a enriched all six shelterin complex members, the FA only reaction in Fig. 2d only enriches TERF2. These data suggest that the use of a second cross-linker helps to stabilise protein complexes on chromatin fragments. This is a critical message of our manuscript as ChIP-MS only truly lives up its name if we can enrich proteins that genuinely sit on the same chromatin fragment without protein interactions to the bait protein. We will expand on this in both the text and our schematics in Fig. 1a and 3a to make this clearer for the readers.

Reviewer #1: Ln 95: It is surprising and quite unclear to me why it is that the WT ZBTB48 U2OS pulldown in Fig 1B shows 83 hits for the WT vs Ig control experiment but 27 hits for the WT vs KO condition in Fig 2A. The two WT experiments have the same design and reagents, shouldn't they be as close as technical replicates and provide very similar hits?

The authors seem to make the claim that most of the 'extra' proteins in WT vs Ig are abundant and false positives, but if this is so, shouldn't they bind non-specifically to the beads and be enriched equally in Ig control and ZBTB48 WT IPs?

Response: We again thank the reviewer for raising this point and the need to explain in more detail why we interpret the difference between 83 hits (anti-ZBTB48 antibody vs. IgG; Fig. 1c) and 27 hits (anti-ZBTB48 antibody used in both U2OS WT and ZBTB48 KO cells; Fig. 2a) primarily as false-positives. The KO controls in Fig. 2a allow to keep the ZBTB48 antibody as a constant variable while instead comparing the presence (WT) or absence (KO) of the bait protein. Hence, proteins that were enriched in the IgG comparison in Fig. 1c but that are lost in the WT vs. KO comparison in Fig. 2a are likely directly (or indirectly) recognised by the ZBTB48 antibody, akin to off-targets to this particular reagent. In a Western blot this would be equivalent to seeing multiple bands at different molecular weights with only the band belonging to the protein-of-interest disappearing in KO cells. To illustrate this we would like to refer to Extended Data Fig. 2, in which we have replotted the exact same data from Fig. 2a. However, in addition we have here highlighted proteins that were enriched in the IgG comparison in Fig. 1c. 46 proteins (in pink) are indeed quantified in the WT vs. KO comparison, but these proteins are found below the cut-offs (and most of them with very poor fold changes and p-values). In contrast to the other several hundred proteins common between both experiments that can be considered common background non-specifically bound to the protein G beads, these 46 proteins represent antibody-specific false-positives.

The above consideration is not unique to ChIP-MS as illustrated by the Western blot example. We also do not claim novelty on the experimental logic, e.g. pre-CRISPR in 2006 Selbach and Mann demonstrated the usefulness of RNAi controls in immunoprecipitations (IPs) (PMID: 17072306). However, our data suggests that ChIP-MS is particularly vulnerable to this type of false-positives given that the approach requires (double-)cross-linking to sufficiently stabilise true-positives on the same chromatin fragment.

To supplement the WT vs. ZBTB48 KO comparison, we had included a second experiment in the manuscript that illustrates the same point in even more dramatic fashion. First, KO controls are very clean in principle, but they themselves might come with caveats if e.g. the expression levels between WT and KO samples differ greatly. This might create a situation that the reviewer hinted to, i.e. differential expression of abundant proteins that would proportionally to their expression levels stick to the beads, resulting in “fold enrichments”. The resulting false positives could e.g. be controlled by matched expression proteomes. For ZBTB48 we have previously measured this (PMID: 28500257) and demonstrated that only a small number of genes are differentially expressed (~10) and hence we can interpret the WT vs. ZBTB48 KO comparison quite cleanly. However, for other classes of proteins such as transcription factors that regulate a large number of genes, E3 ligases etc. this might present a more serious concern. Therefore, we extended our loss-of-function comparison to such a transcription factor, MYB, by using the dTAGV-1 degron system. Importantly, the MYB antibody has been used in previous work for ChIP-seq applications (e.g. PMID: 25394790). Here, instead of 186 hits in the MYB vs. IgG comparison using the same MYB antibody in control-treated and dTAGV-1-treated cells (upon 30 min of treatment only) we only detect 9 hits. Again, similar to the WT vs. ZBTB48 KO comparison, 180 proteins are quantified in the DMSO vs. dTAGV-1 comparison, but these proteins fall below the cut-offs (Extended Data Fig. 3g vs. 3i). Again, we believe that this quite drastically illustrates how vulnerable ChIP-MS data is to large numbers of false-positives. This is not only a technical consideration as such datasets are frequently used in downstream pathway/gene set enrichment analyses etc. Such large false discovery rates would obviously lead to error-carry-forward and additional (unintended) misinterpretations. We will carefully expand our textual description across the manuscript to make these points much clearer. In addition, we will move the previous Extended Data Fig. 3 into the main manuscript to more clearly highlight this important point.

Reviewer #1: Volcano plots in Figs 1, 2, and Suppl. Tables etc: Are the plotted points the mean of 5 replicates? Was each run normalized between the replicates in each group, for e.g. by median normalization of the log2 MS intensities? This does not appear to be the case upon inspection of the Suppl Tables. Given the variability in pulldown efficiency, gel digest and peptide recovery, this would certainly be necessary.

Response: All volcano plots are indeed based on 4-5 biological replicates (most stringently in the WT vs. KO comparisons in Fig. 2 based on each 5 independent WT and ZBTB48 KO single cell clones). The x-axis of each volcano plot represents the ratio of mean MS1-based intensities between both experimental conditions in log2 scale. However, precisely to account for the variation that the reviewer highlighted we did not base our analysis on raw MS1 intensities but we used the MaxLFQ algorithm (PMID: 24942700) as part of the MaxQuant analysis software (PMID: 19029910) for genuine label-free quantitation across experimental conditions and replicates. In this context, we would also like to refer to a related comment by reviewer #2 based on which we will now addd concordance information for each replicate (heatmaps for Pearson correlations and PCA plots). We will improve this both in the text and methods section accordingly.

Reviewer #1: Ln 125: The authors make the claim that the ChIP-MS experiments are inherently noisy, with examples from WT cells, dTAG system and IgG controls. This is likely the case, yet their experiments with WT vs KO cells do not identify as many proteins overall. I find this inconsistency somewhat unclear and does not seem to match the claim of ChIP-MS experiments and crosslinking adding to non-specificity. Can the authors add the total number of identified proteins in each volcano plot, for easier reference?

Response: The number of identified proteins does not vary majorly between matched IgG and loss-of-function comparisons and for instance the single cross-linking (FA only) experiment in Fig. 2c has the largest number of quantified proteins among all ZBTB48 IPs. But we will of course add the requested information to all plots.

Reviewer #1: I think the manuscript is interest as it provides important benchmarks for ChIP-proteomics experiments. I believe that there are remaining questions that need to be addressed before publication. In particular, I found it difficult to reconcile the discrepancy in protein IDs between most experiments vs. the WT/KO experiment in Fig 2. The authors make a big deal about the importance of the KO control but I think the fewer proteins identified there may be experiment-specific and not general to the KO system. I ask that this be investigated more carefully by the authors in their revisions.

Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for recognising our work as a source for important benchmarks for ChIP-MS experiments. We hope that with a more detailed description and discussion the highlighted aspects will be more clearly communicated. We originally conceived our manuscript as a short report and now realised that some of the information became too condensed and might therefore benefit from more extensive explanations.

Reviewer #2

Reviewer #2: Summary: In this manuscript, Yong and colleagues have introduced a optimized technique for studying actors on chromatin in specific regions with a localized approach thanks to revisited ChIP-mass spectrometry (MS) with label-free quantitative (LFQ). The authors exhibited the utility of their approach by demonstrating its effectiveness at telomeres from cell culture (human U2OS cells) to tissue samples (liver, mouse embryonic stem cells). As a proof of concept, this technique was tested by the authors with proteins from complex shelterin specific to telomeres (TERF2 and ZBTB48), transcription factors (MYB), and through dCas9-driven locus-specific enrichment. Notably, the authors created a U2OS dCas9-GFP clone and then introduced sgRNAs to target either telomeric DNA (sgTELO) or an unrelated control (sgGAL4). The cells expressing sgTELO exhibited a significant localization of telomeres and an enriched amount of telomeric DNA in ChIP with dCas9. They also found the proteins previously identified as known to be enriched at telomeres (for example, the 6 shelterin members).

Moreover, the authors illustrated the importance of double crosslinking (formaldehyde (FA) and dithiobis(succinimidyl propionate) (DSP) in ChIP-MS. Their data demonstrated also that ChIP-MS is inclined towards false-positives, possibly owing to its inherent cross-linking. However, by utilizing loss-of-function conditions specific to the bait, it can be tightly managed.

• Can you show the concordance between biological replicates for each ChIP with LFQ? (heatmap of Pearson correlation and PCA plot). This will confirm the robustness of the use of LFQ.

Response: We will add the requested concordance data for all volcano plots both in the form of heatmaps of Pearson correlation and PCA plots. Across our datasets, the replicates from the same experimental condition clearly cluster with each other and replicates have high concordance values of >0.9. As expected replicates for the target/bait samples have slightly higher concordance values compared to the negative controls (IgG or loss-of-function samples). We thank the reviewer for this suggestion as the new Extended Data panel will strengthen the illustration of our robust LFQ data.

Reviewer #2: You say that your technique is " a simple, robust ChIP-MS workflow based on comparably low input quantities » (line 139). What would be really interesting for a technical paper would be: a schematic and a table illustrating the differences between your method and the previously published methods (amount of material, timeline,...) to really highlight the novelty in your optimized techniques.

Response: We will add a comparison table with previous publications using ChIP-MS and for reference include some complementary approaches as requested by reviewer #3. On this note, we would like to stress that we are not “only” intending to use less material and to have an easy-to-adopt protocol. A cornerstone of our manuscript is to apply rigorous expectations to ChIP-MS experiments, in particular the ability to enrich proteins that independently bind to the same chromatin fragments as the bait protein (regardless of whether this is an endogenous protein or a exogenous, targeted bait such as dCas9). Otherwise, such experiments risk to be regular protein IPs under cross-linking conditions, which as illustrated by our loss-of-function comparisons are prone to yield particularly large fractions of false-positives.

Reviewer #2: It would be interesting to perform the dCas9 ChIP experiment in telomeric regions with and without LFQ. Since the novelty lies in this parameter, at no time does the paper show that LFQ really allows to have as many or more proteins identified but in a simpler way and with less material. A table allowing to compare with and without LFQ would be interesting.

Response: We do not fully understand what the suggestion “without LFQ” refers to exactly. We assume that this reviewer might suggest to use a different quantitative mass spectrometry approach other than LFQ, e.g. SILAC labelling, TMT labelling etc. Please note that we do not claim that LFQ quantification is per se superior to the various quantification methods that had been developed and widely used across the proteomics community especially before instrument setups and analysis pipelines were stable enough for label-free quantification (a name that is strongly owed to this historic order of development). However, a central goal of our workflow is to make robust and rigorous ChIP-MS accessible to the myriad of laboratories using ChIP-qPCR/-seq and that may not be extensively specialised in mass spectrometry. Both metabolic and isobaric labelling come not only at a higher cost but also present an experimental hurdle to non-specialists compared to performing biological replicates without any labelling, essentially the same way as for any ChIP-qPCR etc. experiment. We will further elaborate on these points in the manuscript to more clearly convey these notions.

In general, with the right effort different quantitative methods should and will likely yield qualitatively similar results. However, comparisons between LFQ approaches (MaxLFQ, iBAQ,…) and labelling approaches (SILAC, TMT, iTRAQ) have already been better explored and verbalised elsewhere (e.g. PMID: 31814417 & 29535314). Therefore, we believe that this will add relatively little value to our manuscript.

Reviewer #2: Put a sentence to explain "label free quantification". For a reader who is not at all familiar with this technique, it would be interesting to explain it and to quote the advantages compared to PLEX.

Response: Thanks for highlighting this. In line with the point above as well as a similar comment by reviewer #1 we will improve this both in the main text and manuscript to clearly explain the terminology, the MaxLFQ algorithm (PMID: 24942700) used and to highlight the advantages compared to labelling approaches.

Reviewer #2: what does the ranking on the right of each volcano plot represent (figure 1 b-e, figure 2a,d,e for example)? top of the most enriched proteins in the mentioned categories? Not very clear when we look on the volcano plot. it must be specified in the legend.

Response: The numbering these panels is meant to link protein names to the data points on the volcano plots. The order of hits is ranked based on strongest fold enrichment, i.e. from right to center. We will clarify this in the figure legends.

Reviewer #2: General assessment/Advance: The authors explain in their article that the ChIP exploiting the sequence specificity of nuclease-dead Cas9 (dCas9) to target specific chromatin loci by directly enriching for dCas9 was already published. Here, the novelty of this study lies in the use of LFQ mass spectrometry to optimize the technique and make it easier to handle. Some comparisons with previous papers or data generated by the lab will be interesting to really show the improvement and the advantage to use LFQ and therefore, to highlight better the novelty of the study.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this assessment and as mentioned above we will include such a comparison table. dCas9 has been used previously in a ChIP-MS approach termed CAPTURE (PMID: 28841410). While this is clearly a landmark paper that illustrated the dCas9 enrichment concept across multiple omics applications (i.e. not limited to proteomics) in their application to telomeres, the authors enriched only 3 out of the 6 shelterin proteins with quite moderate fold enrichments (POT1: 0.99, TERF2: 2.13, TERF2IP: 1.06; in log2 scale). Based on this alone, POT1 and TERF2IP would not have qualified for our cut-off criteria. In addition, while the authors had performed three replicates, detection is only reported in 1-2 out of 3 replicates. While it is difficult to reconstruct statistical values based on the publicly accessible data, it is therefore unlikely that even these 3 proteins would have robustly be considered hits in our datasets. Similarly, using recombinant dCas9 with a sgRNA targeting telomeres that was in vitro reconstituted with sonicated chromatin extracts from 500 million HeLa cells (CLASP; PMID: 29507191) the authors identified only up to 3 shelterin subunits (TERF2, TERF2IP and TPP1/ACD) based on 1 unique peptide each only. For comparison, in our dCas9 ChIP-MS dataset all 6 shelterin subunits are identified with 9-19 unique peptides, contributing to our robust quantification. Even when considering cell line-specific differences (HeLa cells have shorter telomeres and hence provide less biochemical material for enrichment per cell), these comparisons illustrate that prior attempts struggled to robustly replicate even the most abundant telomeric complex members.

Based on these findings, others had suggested that dCas9 “might exclude some relevant proteins from telomeres in vivo” (PMID: 32152500), implying that dCas9 ChIP-MS might inherently not be feasible including at repetitive regions such as telomeres. Therefore, we believe that our dCas9 ChIP-MS data is a proof-of-concept that the method has the genuine ability to robustly enrich key proteins at individual loci. In concordance with the comment above we will include a comparison table with previous papers and expand on these points in the discussion.

Reviewer #2: By presenting this technical paper, the authors allow laboratories across different fields to use this technique to gain insights into protein enrichment in specific chromatin regions such as the promoter of a gene of interest or a particular open region in ATACseq in a easier way and with less materials. This paper holds value in enabling researchers to answer many pertinent questions in various fields.

Response: We again thank the reviewer for this encouraging assessment and we do indeed hope that this manuscript makes a contribution to a much wider use of ChIP-MS approaches as a promising complement to existing genome-wide epigenetics analyses.

Reviewer #3

Reviewer #3: Strengths of the study:

The study is well-structured and provides a robust workflow for the application of ChIP-MS to investigate chromatin composition in various contexts.

The use of telomeres as a model locus for testing the developed ChIP-MS approach is appropriate due to its well-characterized protein composition.

The comparison of WT vs KO lines for ZBTB48 is a rigorous way to control for false-positives, providing more confidence in the results.

The direct comparison of double vs only FA-crosslinking provides valuable insights into the benefit of additional protein-protein crosslinking in ChIP-MS workflows.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this assessment and we agree that the above are several of the key features of our manuscript.

Reviewer #3: Areas for improvement: The novelty of the method is more than questionable as both ChIP-MS coupled to LFQ and dCas9 usage for locus-specific proteomics have been previously reported. The fact that the authors directly pulldown dCas9 instead of using a dCas9-fused biotin ligase and subsequent streptavidin pulldown is only a very minor change to previous methods (not even improvement). It would be more accurate for the authors to present their study as an optimization and rigorous validation of existing techniques rather than a novel approach.

Response: While we appreciate where the reviewer is coming from, it occurs to us that most of the reviewer’s comments equate ChIP approaches with other complementary methods, in particular proximity labelling. The latter is indeed a powerful experimental strategy and in fact we are ourselves avid users. As highlighted to reviewer #1 as well, our manuscript was originally conceived as a shorter report and based on the feedback we will now expand our discussion to more broadly incorporate related approaches.

However, we would like to stress that dCas9 ChIP-MS and dCas9-biotin ligase fusions are not the same thing and this is not a minor tweak to an existing protocol. While both approaches have converging aims – to identify proteins that associate with individual genomic loci – the experimental workflows differ fundamentally. Biotin ligases use a “tag and run” approach by promiscuously leaving a biotin tag on encountered proteins. Subsequently, cellular proteins are extracted and in fact proteins can even be denatured prior to enrichment with streptavidin beads. While this is an in vivo workflow that (depending on the biotin ligase used) may provide sensitivity advantages, it does not retain complex information. The latter is inherently part of ChIP workflows due to the use of cross-linkers. One obvious future application would be to maintain (= not to reverse as we have done here) the crosslink during the mass spectrometry sample preparation in order to read out cross-linked peptides to gain insights into interactions and structural features. We will now more clearly incorporate such notions into our discussion.

In addition, we would like to stress that while this reviewer focuses primarily on the dCas9 aspect of our manuscript, we believe that our general ChIP-MS workflow including the combination with label-free quantitation is useful and important already by itself as e.g. recognised by both reviewers #1 and #2.

Reviewer #3: The authors should more thoroughly discuss previous works using ChIP-MS and dCas9 for locus-specific proteomics. This would give readers a better understanding of how the current work builds on and improves these earlier methods. For a paper that aims on presenting an optimized ChIP-MS workflow it is crucial to showcase in which use cases it outperforms previously published methods.

E.g., compare locus-specific dCas9 ChIP-MS to CasID (doi.org/10.1080/19491034.2016.1239000) and C-Berst (doi.org/10.1038/s41592- 018-0006-2); how does your method perform in comparison to these?

Response: Again, while we will now incorporate more extensively comparisons with previous ChIP-MS publications (and the few prior manuscripts that included dCas9) as well as related techniques, we would like to stress that dCas9 ChIP-MS is not the same approach as CasID and C-BERST, which rely on dCas9 fusions to BirA* and APEX2, respectively. dCas9-APEX2 strategies were also published by two additional groups as CASPEX (back-to-back with the C-BERST manuscript; PMID: 29735997) and CAPLOCUS (PMID: 30805613). All of these methods target specific loci with dCas9 and promiscuously biotinylate proteins that are in proximity to the dCas9-biotin ligase fusion protein. As described above, while the application of the BioID principle (PMID: 22412018) to chromatin regions has converging aims with the dCas9 ChIP-MS part of our manuscript, they do not test the same. ChIP carries chromatin complexes through the entire workflow while the CasID approaches are independent of that. This is the same scenario if we were to compare IP-MS reactions (such as the ChIP-MS reactions presented here for endogenous proteins) and BioID-type experiments for proximity partners of the same bait proteins.

Reviewer #3: Compare likewise the described protein interactomes to previously published interactomes.

Response: We will add comparisons in form of Venn diagrams with previously published interactomes. However, we would like to stress that a key aspect of our manuscript is the smaller yet rigorous hit lists based on e.g. loss-of-function controls, higher stringencies and specificity. Simply comparing final interactomes remains reductionist relative to the importance of other variables such as experimental design, number of replicates, data analysis etc.

Reviewer #3: The authors use sgGAL4 as a control for the telomeric targeting of dCas9. The IF results (Fig3b) show that sgGAL4 barely localizes to the nucleus with very faint signals. It would be helpful to use a control with homogenous nuclear localization of dCas9 to further strengthen the author's conclusions.

Response: dCas9-EGFP in the presence of sgGAL4 localises diffusely to the nucleus as expected. We have here used a very widely used non-targeting sgRNA control that has been originally used for imaging purposes (PMID: 24360272) and has since been used in a variety of studies (e.g. PMID: 26082495, 32540968, 28427715) including a previous dCas9 ChIP-MS attempt (PMID: 28841410). In addition, to the diffuse nuclear, non-telomeric localisation we provide complementary validation of clean enrichment of telomeric DNA specifically in the sgTELO samples. Therefore, we do not see how other non-targeting sgRNAs would provide for better controls or improve our data.

Reviewer #3: The extrapolation of results from the use of telomeres as a proof-of-concept to other loci is not a given considering the highly repetitive structure of telomeric DNA. The authors should either be more cautious about generalizing the results to other loci or demonstrate that their method can also capture locus-specific interactomes at non-repetitive regions.

Response: We agree that the adoption of any locus-specific approach to single genomic loci is a steep additional hurdle and warrants rigorous data on well characterised loci with very clear positive controls. We will expand on these challenges in our discussion. However, we would like to stress that we did not make any such statement in our original manuscript apart from simply referring to our telomeric experiment as proof-of-concept evidence that locus-specific approaches are feasible by ChIP.

Reviewer #3: What are concrete biological insights from this optimized ChIP-MS workflow that previous methods failed to show?

Response: We explicitly used telomeres as an extensively studied locus with clear positive controls that at the same time allows us to evaluate likely false positives. As such the intention of the manuscript was not to yield concrete biological insights but to develop a new methodological workflow.

As also highlighted in a response to reviewer #2, based on other prior attempts to enrich telomers in ChIP-like approaches with dCas9 (PMID: 28841410 & 29507191), it had been suggested that dCas9 “might exclude some relevant proteins from telomeres in vivo” (PMID: 32152500), implying that dCas9 ChIP-MS might inherently not be feasible including at repetitive regions such as telomeres. Therefore, recapitulating the set of well-described telomeric proteins was no trivial feat and our ChIP-MS workflow (both targeted and applied to individual proteins) represents a well-validated method to in the future systematically interrogate changes in chromatin composition. As one example at telomeres, this may include chromatin changes upon the induction of telomeric fusions or general DNA damage.

Reviewer #3: For instance, the authors could compare their mouse and human TERF2 interactomes and discuss similarities and differences between both species.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion, but the comparison between mouse and human TERF2 interactomes is not suitable across the datasets that we generated. U2OS is a human osteosarcoma cell line that relies on the Alternative Lengthening of Telomeres (ALT) pathway while our mouse data is based on embryonic stem cells (mESCs) and mouse liver tissue. Even the latter, in contrast to adult human tissue, expresses telomerase. We can certainly still pinpoint (as already done in our original manuscript) individual differences among known factors, e.g. the fact that proteins such as NR2C2 are more abundantly found at ALT telomeres (PMID: 19135898, 23229897, 25723166) vs. the detection of the CST complex as telomerase terminator (PMID: 22763445) in the mouse samples. However, the TERF2 datasets contain hundreds of proteins as “hits” above our cut-offs and a key message of our manuscript is that the majority of them are likely false positives. Here, differences are likely extending to expression differences between U2OS cells, mESCs and liver samples. So while appealing in theory, this cross data set comparison would remain rather superficial and error prone at this point. As a biology focused follow-up study, this would need to be rigorously conceived based on an appropriate choice of human and murine cell line models. In addition, this would likely require the generation of FKBP12-TERF2 knock-in fusion clones to allow for rapid depletion of TERF2 for a clean loss-of-function control since sustained loss of TERF2 leads to chromosomal fusions and eventually cell death in most cell types.

Reviewer #3: The authors should also describe which interaction partners are novel and try to validate some of these using orthogonal methods.

Response: We will now highlight more explicitly two proteins, POGZ and UBTF, that are most robustly and reproducibly enriched on telomeric chromatin across datasets, including the U2OS WT vs. ZBTB48 KO comparison (Fig. 2a). However, we would like to abstain from a molecular characterization at this point. As mentioned above, the discovery of novel telomeric proteins is not the focus of this manuscript, which is primarily dedicated to method development. In addition, these type of validations in methods papers are often limited to a few assays (e.g. can 1 or 2 proteins be enriched by ChIP? Do you see some localisation by IF? etc.). However, our research group has a history of publishing in-depth mechanistic papers on the characterisation of novel telomeric proteins (e.g. PMID: 23685356, 28500257, 20639181, doi.org/10.1101/2022.11.30.518500). Therefore, a genuine validation of such factors would require functional insights and clearly warrants independent follow-up work.

Reviewer #3: Human Terf2 ChIP-MS (Fig1A) seems to be much more specific than the mouse counterpart (Fig1D) (32 TERF2 interactors out of 176 hits in human vs 12 TERF2 interactors out of 500 hits in mouse). Could the authors explain this notable difference?

Response: As eluded to above, Fig. 1A and 1D cannot be directly compared, starting with the difference in complexity in the input material – cell line vs. tissue. For comparison, the Terf2 ChIP-MS data from mouse embryonic stem cells tallies up to 19 out of 169 hits, which is much closer to the U2OS results. Again, we deem the majority of hits from the TERF2 ChIP-MS data to be false-positives and the more complex input material from mouse livers likely accounts for the difference in these numbers.

Reviewer #3: The authors used much higher cell numbers than previously published ChIP-MS experiments; while this is understandable for dCas9-based pulldowns, the cell number is expected to be down-scalable for the other IPs (TERF2, ZBTB48, MYB). Since this work primarily describes an optimized Chip-MS workflow, the authors should show that they can reasonably downscale to at least 15 Mio cells per replicate; one way of achieving this could be through digesting on the beads and not in-gel.

Response: As we will illustrate in the comparison table that was also requested by reviewer 2, our approach does not use higher cell numbers than previous ChIP-MS approaches – quite the contrary. In addition, we would like to highlight that while we state 50 million cells in Fig. 1a, we only inject 50% of our samples for MS analysis to retain a back-up sample in case of technical issues with the instruments. In other words, our workflow is already effectively based on 25 million cells and thereby pretty close to the requested 15 million cells while simultaneously requiring substantially less reagents.

Importantly, our examples are based on rather lowly expressed bait proteins such as ZBTB48 (not detected within DDA-based proteomes of ~10,000 proteins in U2OS cells). While the workflow can be applied across proteins, exact input numbers might vary depending on the bait protein, e.g. histones and its modifications would likely require less for the same absolute sample enrichment. For instance, PMID 25990348 and 25755260 performed ChIP-MS on common histone modifications but still used 300-800 million cells per replicate. Considering that we worked on substantially less abundant proteins, we here present a workflow with comparably low input samples.

Reviewer #3: It is not clear from the text or figure what the authors are trying to show in Fig2c. They should either explain this further or take the figure out.

Response: We are trying to illustrate the following: As in any IP reaction the bait protein is the most enriched protein with very high relative intensities, e.g. TERF2 in the TERF2 ChIP-MS data. Direct protein interaction partners – here the other shelterin members – follow at about 1 order of magnitude lower signal intensities. In contrast, proteins that are enriched via an interaction with the same DNA molecule (i.e. that do not physically interact with the bait protein) such as NR2C2, HMBOX1 and ZBTB48 further trail by at least 1 more order of magnitude. These are information that are not easily visualised within the volcano plots and mainly “buried” within the Supplementary Tables. However, these relative intensities displayed in Fig. 2c clearly illustrate the dynamic range challenge that ChIP-MS poses for proteins that independently bind to the same chromatin fragment. We have now modified our text to make this point more clear.

Reviewer #3: Was there any benefit in using a Q Exactive HF vs timsTOF flex?

Response: Yes, measuring the same samples (e.g. the 50% backup mentioned above) on both instruments enriches more telomeric proteins/shelterin proteins in e.g. the dCas9 ChIP-MS data set on the timsTOF fleX. However, given the difference in age of these instruments/technologies between a Q Exactive HF and a timsTOF fleX (in the context of these experiments the equivalent of a timsTOF Pro 2), this is not a fair comparison beyond concluding that a more recent instrument like the timsTOF fleX achieves better coverage and is more sensitive with otherwise comparable measurement parameters. As we did not have the opportunity to run matched samples on e.g. an Exploris 480, we would not want to make claims across vendors. As stated in the discussion we are expecting that even newer generation of mass spectrometers, such as the very recently released Orbitrap Astral or timsTOF Ultra would further improve the sensitivity and/or allow to reduce the amount of input material. Therefore, the main conclusion is that improvements in the mass spec generations improve proteomics data quality and our samples are no exception, i.e. this is not specifically pertinent to our approach.

Reviewer #3: How did the authors analyze the PTM data? This is not described in the methods section. In addition, it would be important to validate the novel PTMs described for NR2C2.

Response: We apologise for the oversight and we will add the description of PTMs as variable modifications during our MaxQuant search in the methods section. The originally deposited datasets already include this and we had simply missed this in our methods text.

While we are not 100% sure to understand the request for validation correctly, we would like to point out that the PTMs on NR2C2 have been previously reported in several high-throughput datasets and for S19 in functional work on NR2C2 (PMID: 16887930). However, the relevance in our data set is as follows: While the PTMs on TERF2 as the bait protein could occur both on telomere-bound TERF2 as well as on nucleoplasmic TERF2, NR2C2 is only enriched in the TERF2 ChIP-MS reactions due to its direct interaction with telomeric DNA. The co-detection of its modifications therefore implies that at least some of the telomere-bound NR2C2 carries these modifications. We showcase this example as an additional angle of how such ChIP-MS datasets can be analysed.

While the robust, MS2-based detection of these modified peptides in our data set and several other publicly available datasets provides strong evidence that these modifications are genuine, further functional validation would involve rather labour-intensive experiments and resource generation (e.g. phospho-site specific antibodies). We hope that the reviewer agrees with us that this would require an independent follow-up study and that this goes beyond the scope of our current manuscript.

Reviewer #3: For this kind of methods paper one would expect to see the shearing results of the ChIP-MS experiments since variations in DNA shearing can impact the detection of false-positives in the ChIP-MS experiments

Response: We will include agarose gel pictures of our sonicates, which we indeed routinely quality controlled prior to ChIP experiments as stated in our methods description.

Reviewer #3: Overall, the current state of the manuscript neither provides direct evidence that the "optimized" ChIP-MS workflow is better in certain aspects/use cases than previously published methods nor does it provide novel biological insights. At the current state it even cannot be considered as a validation of previously published methods since it does not discuss them.

Response: We politely disagree with this conclusion. Again, as mentioned above we are under the impression that this reviewer somehow equates our entire manuscript to a comparison with dCas9-biotin ligase fusions.

Instead, we here provide a workflow for ChIP-MS that incorporates label-free quantification as the experimentally easiest, most intuitive quantification method for non-mass spectrometry experts. This offers a particularly low barrier to entry aimed at making ChIP-MS more widely accessible as a complement to commonly used ChIP-seq applications. Furthermore, we showcase that as a gold standard ChIP-MS – to truly live up to its name – should have the ability to enrich proteins independently binding to the same chromatin fragment. We demonstrated that double cross-linking is critical for these assays and in return illustrate how rigorous loss-of-function controls (both KOs and degron systems) can mitigate prevalent false-positives that are exacerbated due to the cross-linking. Finally, we applied this workflow to different types of endogenous proteins (transcription factors, telomeric proteins) in cell lines and tissue and extend our work to dCas9 ChIP-MS as a targeted method.

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

Learn more at Review Commons

---

Reply to the reviewers

1. General Statements [optional]

Thank you for your letter dated on May 5, 2023 concerning our manuscript (MS# RC-2023-01906) entitled “Activation of Nedd4L Ubiquitin Ligase by FCHO2-generated Membrane Curvature.”

We thank the reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions. We have considered all reviewers’ comments and plan to revise our manuscript accordingly.

We believe that our revision plan will greatly improve the quality of our manuscript.

1. Description of the planned revisions

__Reviewer #1 __

I enjoyed reading the paper by Sakamoto and colleagues, where they show that Nedd4L ubiquitin ligase activity is stimulated by membranes and in particular positive membrane curvature. This paper is a conceptual advance that hopefully will be extended by many other groups where membranes topology participates in the activation of associated enzymes, giving rise to added complexity but also specificity and further compartmentalization. It is an important paper for all cell biologists to understand.

1. My comments are all relatively minor and I hope can improve the readability of the paper, but will not alter the overall conclusion as this is well backed up. In general I would like to see more/better statistics/quantitation and better figure legends. I found that often one had to read the paper to understand a figure where reading the figure legend should suffice.

__Reply: __According to the reviewer’s comment, we will quantify the experiments (Fig. 1C, Fig. 2, Fig. 9B, and Fig. 10B) and add descriptions of statistics (Fig. 5, Fig. 6, B and D, and Fig. 7C). We will also write better figure legends to enable the readers to easily understand experiments.

1. This paper reminds me of a paper from Gilbert Di Paolo's lab on the activation of synaptojanin PIP2 hydrolysis by high membrane curvature. One would expect that there may be many such proteins whose activities will be dependent on their membrane environment. I find it conceptually rather likely that a protein which interacts with membranes via a C2 domain (which has membrane insertions and will thus likely be curvature sensitive) will likely show some positive curvature sensitivity. Can I suggest this paper is referenced and discussed in the light of the discussion statement "Thus, our findings provide a new concept of signal transduction in which a specific degree of membrane curvature serves as a signal for activation of an enzyme that regulates a number of substrates."

Reply: __According to the reviewer’s comment, we will cite the paper entitled “synaptojanin-1-mediated PI(4,5)P2 hydrolysis is modulated by membrane curvature and facilitates membrane fission” by Chang-Ileto et al. (Dev. Cell __20, 206–18 , 2011). We will also discuss this paper in the light of the discussion statement.

1. Where the paper could be improved (or I have not understood fully). In figure 1 there is a robust endocytosis of ENaC that is FCHo2 and Nedd4L sensitive. There is a rescue for FCHo2 in a fluorescence image (unquantified), so it would be good to have the more quantitative approach of rescue with both FCHo2 and Nedd4L in the biochemical assay.

__Reply: __Although the reviewer suggests a rescue experiment in the biochemical assay, the experiment is difficult because the transfection efficiency is low (about 50%). On the other hand, we agree with the reviewer that a quantitative approach is required in the rescue experiment (Fig. 1C). Therefore, we plan to quantify the rescue experiment for FCHO2 in the immunofluorescence assay. The reviewer also suggests a rescue experiment for Nedd4L as well as FCHO2. However, since the involvement of Nedd4L in ENaC endocytosis is well established, we do not think that the rescue experiment for Nedd4L is further required.

1. In figure 2 there is nice co-localisation between clathrin/FCHo2 and ENaC but not with Nedd4L. It would be good to have some quantitation of the co-localisation. But also one should use a Nedd4L mutant or a mutant of ENaC and so be able to visualise co-localisation between receptor and ub-ligase. I find it strange that there is no (or much less) Nedd4L-GFP visible in the cells overexpressing ENaC... Is there an explanation? Does overexpression of ENaC lead to more auto-ubiquitination of Nedd4L. Also the Nedd4L-GFP signal in other cells is punctate, while in the next figure Myc-Nedd4L is not.

__Reply: __According to the reviewer’s comment, we will perform quantitative colocalization analysis in Fig. 2.

We have found that a catalytically inactive Nedd4L mutant, C922A, co-localizes with cell-surface αENaC and FCHO2 in αβγENaC-HeLa cells. According to the reviewer’s comment, these data will be added in the revised manuscript.

In Fig. 2C, Nedd4L was transiently transfected in cells stably expressing ENaC. In Nedd4L-transfected cells, overexpression of Nedd4L stimulated ENaC internalization, resulting in the disappearance of ENaC at the cell surface. On the other hand, in non-transfected cells, cell-surface ENaC was detected. Thus, Nedd4L-negative cells are non-transfected cells (cell-surface ENaC positive cells). This explanation will be added in the revised manuscript.

The staining pattern of Nedd4L depends on what section of the cell a confocal microscope was focused on. Nedd4L-GFP signals were punctate at the bottom section of the cell in Fig. 2, whereas Myc-Nedd4L was diffusely distributed at the upper section (cytoplasm) of the cell (Fig. 3). Thus, Nedd4L shows distribution throughout the cytoplasm and punctate staining at the bottom (cell surface). The staining pattern of Nedd4L is also affected by the expression amount of Nedd4L in cells. When Nedd4L was highly expressed in COS7 and HEK293 cells in Fig. 3, the punctate staining was hardly detected. This localization pattern of Nedd4L will be clearly described in the revised manuscript.

1. In figure 3 it appears to me that there is co-localization between ENaC and amphiphysin. Is this not a positive piece of information? I am not sure that FBP17 is a good F-BAR domain to use given its oligomerization may well prevent membrane association of Nedd4L. Minor comment: I don't see tubules for amphiphysin in panel B.

__Reply: __The reviewer states that there is co-localization between Nedd4L and amphiphysin1 (Fig. 3A). However, Nedd4L was not recruited to membrane tubules generated by amphiphysin1. We will clearly show that there is no colocalization between Nedd4L and amphiphysin1.

The reviewer states that FBP17 may not be a good F-BAR domain to use because its oligomerization may well prevent membrane association of Nedd4L. However, we have shown that FCHO2 as well as FBP17 forms oligomer (Uezu et al. Genes Cells, 16, 868-878, 2011). Furthermore, we have found that FCHO2 inhibits the membrane binding and catalytic activity of Nedd4L when the PS percentage in liposomes is elevated (unpublished data and Fig. 9C). Thus, since FBP17 and FCHO2 probably have similar properties, we presume that FBP17 is a good F-BAR domain to use.

As the reviewer pointed out, membrane tubules generated by amphiphysin1 were hardly detected in HEK293 cells (Fig. 3B). It showed punctate staining, but did not co-localized with Nedd4L. This description will be added in the revised manuscript.

1. Figure 5: The affinity of Nedd4 C2 domain for calcium is quite high given we normally assume a cytosolic concentration of 100nM (approximate). The authors have rightly buffered the calcium with EGTA. Normally we would check that the buffering is sufficient by varying the protein concentration and making sure the affinity is still the same, so can I suggest the authors use 3 or 4 times the amount of C2 domain and make sure the curve does not change (provided liposomes are not limiting). Minor comment: How many experiments and what are error bars (SD?).

__Reply: __According to the reviewer’s comment, we will check that the buffering is sufficient by varying the protein concentration (Fig. 5). We will also add a description of statistics to the legend to Fig. 5.

1. Figure 6: Controls have been performed to ensure that liposomes are pelleted, according to methods. In Figure 6B can the authors show that there is the same amount of liposomes in each sample by showing more of the coomassie gel so that the reader can see the Neutravidin band is the same in each sample. Also I believe a student t-test should not be used in this experiment (but perhaps an Anova test), and in panel D there does not appear to be a description of statistics.

__Reply: __To ensure that the same amounts of liposomes were pelleted, the reviewer suggests that we show more of the Coomassie gel to present the neutravidin bands in Fig. 6B. However, as the molecular weight of neutravidin is about 15 kDa, neutravidin run out of the gel (7% SDS-PAGE gel) where Nedd4L (As the reviewer pointed out, we will use an Anova test in Fig. 6B. We will also add a description of statistics in Fig. 6D.

1. Figure 11: In panel B I note that the FCHo2 BAR domain on small liposomes appears to inhibit Ubiquitination. Is this consistent with the BAR domain not preventing Nedd4L binding?

__Reply: __The FCHO2 BAR domain enhances the liposome binding and catalytic activity of Nedd4L when the strength of interaction of Nedd4L with liposomes (20% PS) is weak. In contrast, we have also found that the FCHO2 BAR domain inhibits the membrane binding and catalytic activity of Nedd4L when the interaction of Nedd4L with liposomes is increased by elevating the PS percentage in liposomes (unpublished data and Fig. 9C). The reason for the different effects of FCHO2 on Nedd4L is considered as follows: When liposomes (20% PS) are used (the interaction of Nedd4L with PS in liposomes is weak), Nedd4L binds to liposomes mainly through ENaC (Fig. 8F). The liposome binding is hardly mediated by PS. Addition of the FCHO2 BAR domain increases the strength of interaction Nedd4L with PS by generating membrane curvature. Consequently, the FCHO2 BAR domain newly induces the PS-mediated liposome binding of Nedd4L, resulting in the enhancement of liposome binding and catalytic activity of Nedd4L. On the other hand, when the interaction of Nedd4L with PS in liposomes is increased by elevating the PS percentage in liposomes (50% PS), the liposome binding of Nedd4L is mainly mediated by PS. Addition of the FCHO2 BAR domain inhibits the PS-mediated liposome binding of Nedd4L. Since both FCHO2 and Nedd4L are PS-binding proteins, they compete with each other to bind to PS in liposomes. Therefore, the results in Fig. 11B are consistent, because the interaction of Nedd4L with PS is increased by 0.05 µm pore-size liposomes. This explanation will be added in the revised manuscript.

__Reviewer #2 __

The authors have reported the involvement of the BAR domain-containing protein FCHO2 in the Nedd4L-mediated endocytosis of ENaC. They propose a model in which the membrane curvature induced by the BAR domain-FCHO2 relieves the auto-inhibition of E3 ligase causing its activation and recruitment. The paper describes a series of in vitro reconstituted experiments that are interesting but not fully connected with the mechanism of ENaC endocytosis. Additional experiments are needed to fully support the authors' conclusions.

Major comments:

1. Although the data reported by the authors regarding FCHO2 and Nedd4L involvement in ENaC endocytosis are convincing, it is suggested that the authors perform the same ENaC endocytosis assay presented in Fig.1B under conditions of FBP17 and amphiphysin1 siRNA to formally prove the selective involvement of FCHO2 in the process among other BAR-containing proteins.

__Reply: __The reviewer suggests the same ENaC endocytosis assay presented in Fig. 1B under conditions of FBP17 and amphiphysin1 siRNA to prove the selective involvement of FCHO2 in ENaC endocytosis. There seems to be a misunderstanding. Similar to FCHO2, FBP17 and amphiphysin are well known to be involved in clathrin-mediated endocytosis. As ENaC is internalized through clathrin-mediated endocytosis, FBP17 and amphiphysin siRNA presumably inhibit ENaC endocytosis. We cannot understand the significance of FBP17 and amphiphysin1 siRNA in the ENaC endocytosis assay.

1. According to the previous point, it will be interesting to see not only a snapshot image of the internalisation assay performed by immunofluorescence (Fig.1C) but a more quantitative analysis of the different time points (as in Fig.1B) in condition of FCHO2 siRNA and eventually FBP17 and amphiphysin1 siRNA.

__Reply: __According to the reviewer’s comment, we will perform a quantitative analysis in Fig. 1C. The reviewer also suggests the immunofluorescence assay at the different time point in Fig. 1C. However, we show the time course of ENaC internalization in Fig. 1B. We do not think that the time course in the immunofluorescence assay is further required. As for FBP17 and amphiphysin siRNA, our response is the same as that to the comment 1 of this reviewer.

1. In Fig.2B, overexpression of the catalytically inactive version of Nedd4L (Nedd4L C922A) would help to see Nedd4L-ENaC co-localization.

__Reply: __This comment is the same as the comment 4 of the reviewer#1.

1. In Fig.4D, the authors need to analyse ENaC ubiquitination in the same experimental setting as Fig. 4A instead of transfecting cells with increasing amounts of Nedd4L in the presence or absence of FCHO2 BAR. It is also recommended to include Nedd4L C922A as an additional control.

__Reply: __The reviewer requests us to analyse ENaC ubiquitination in the same setting as Fig. 4A. However, an in vivo autoubiquitination assay is widely used to determine the catalytic activity of E3 Ub ligase, because the E3 activity is typically reflected in their autoubiquitination. Therefore, the autoubiquitination assay is sufficient to show that Nedd4L is specifically activated by membrane tubules generated by FCHO2 in cells. Furthermore, we have found it very difficult to compare ENaC ubiquitination among many GFP-BAR proteins (GFP alone, GFP-FCHO2, GFP-FBP17, amphiphysin1-GFP, GFP-FCHO2 mutant) in the same experimental setting as Fig. 4A. In Fig. 4A, three types of cDNAs (HA-Ub, Myc-Nedd4L, and GFP-BAR protein) were transfected in cells. The expression amounts of Myc-Nedd4L were similar among the GFP-BAR proteins. On the other hand, in Fig. 4D, four types of cDNA (HA-Ub, Myc-Nedd4L, GFP-BAR protein, and FLAG-αENaC) were transfected in cells. Under these conditions, it is very difficult to adjust the expression amounts of Nedd4L and αENaC among many GFP-BAR proteins. Even when comparing two GFP-BAR proteins (GFP alone and GFP-FCHO2), it was necessary to assess the expression amounts of Nedd4L by transfection with various cDNA amounts of Nedd4L (Fig. 4D). Moreover, as shown in Fig. 4D, enhancement of ENaC ubiquitination by FCHO2 is decreased at higher expression of Nedd4L (1.0 and 1.5 μg DNA), although the reason is unknown. Therefore, we are not sure that we will able to accurately analyse ENaC ubiquitination in the same setting as Fig. 4A instead of transfecting cells with increasing amounts of Nedd4L.

According to the reviewer’s comment, we will examine the effect of Nedd4L C922A on ENaC ubiquitination.

1. While discussing the role of hydrophobic residues in Nedd4L C2 domain,the authors never mentioned the publication by Escobedo et al., Structure 2014 (DOI:10.1016/j.str.2014.08.016), which highlighted how I37 and L38 are directly involved in Ca2+ binding. This aspect should be discussed since the authors show the importance of Ca2+ for PS binding in the sedimentation assay.

__Reply: __According to the reviewer’s comment, we will cite the reference (Escobedo et al.) and discuss the aspect (I37 and L38 are directly involved in Ca2+ binding).

1. As stated by the authors those two residues I37 and L38 are also involved in E3 enzyme activation by relieving C2-HECT interaction. It is important to further demonstrate the effect of these mutations on ENaC substrate.

__Reply: __To prove that the I37 and F38 residues are involved in E3 enzyme activation by relieving C2-HECT interaction, the reviewer requests us to further demonstrate the effect of Nedd4L I37A+F38A on ENaC ubiquitination. However, these two residues are critical noy only for Nedd4L activation but also for membrane binding and curvature sensing of Nedd4L. We also show that membrane binding of Nedd4L is critical for ENaC ubiquitination. Actually, we have found that Nedd4L I37A+F38A mutant, which loses membrane binding, shows little ENaC ubiquitination (unpublished data), whereas it enhances autoubiquitination (Fig. 4C). Thus, the effect of the I37A+F38A mutant on ENaC ubiquitination is not appropriate to prove that the two residues are involved in E3 enzyme activation.

1. There are some concerns regarding the in vitro ubiquitination assay performed in Fig.8 and following figures. The Nedd4L proteins used during the assay has been produced as His tagged at the C-terminus, it was reported (Maspero et al, Nat Struct Mol Biol 2013 DOI: 10.1038/nsmb.2566), at least for the isolated HECT domain, that modification of the C-terminal residue of the protein affects its activity. It would be important to judge the activity of the purified proteins used in the assay. Moreover, as additional control it is suggested the introduction of a mSA-ENaC PY mutant protein. The authors claimed the importance of membrane localized PY motif for recruitment and activation of Nedd4L, it would be informative to perform the experiment in presence of PY mutated ENaC.

__Reply: __The reviewer states that there are some concerns regarding His-tagged Nedd4L proteins. We have prepared Nedd4L that has no tag at its N- or C-terminus. N-terminal GST-tagged, C-terminal untagged Nedd4L was expressed in E. coli and purified by Glutathione-Sepharose column chromatography. The GST tag was cleaved off and Nedd4L was further purified by Mono Q anion-exchange column chromatography. Using this purified sample, we have examined the catalytic activity of untagged Nedd4L. We have found that concerning Ca2+-dependency, PS-dependency, and curvature-sensing, the properties of untagged Nedd4L are similar to those of C-terminal His-tagged Nedd4L (unpublished data).

According to the reviewer’s comment, we will perform the experiment in the presence of PY-mutated ENaC.

1. It is not clear why increasing the concentration of PS (from 20% to 50%) the presence of BAR domain doesn't allow ENaC ubiquitination (Fig.9C), is Nedd4L not recruited to the pellet? It would be interesting to see the sedimentation experiment of Fig.9A done in presence of 50% PS.

__Reply: __This comment is essentially the same as the comment 8 of the reviewer#1. We have found that FCHO2 BAR domain inhibits the membrane binding of Nedd4L when the PS percentage in liposomes is elevated (~50%) (unpublished data). According to the reviewer’s comment, these data will be added in the revised manuscript.

1. This reviewer is not an expert of lipids biology, thus the explanations related to the effect of FCHO2 BAR in presence of PI(4,5)P2 (Fig. 10) or 0.05 pore-size liposomes (Fig.11) were not clear. Does FCHO2 BAR have a different effect in inducing membrane tubulation in these two conditions? Is this parameter measurable by tubulation assay?

__Reply: __According to the reviewer’s comment, we will write more clearly the explanation related to the effect of FCHO2 BAR domain in the presence of PI(4,5)P2 or 0.05 μm pore-size liposomes.

Minor Comments

1. It would be appreciated if a nuclei staining panel is included in all immunofluorescence images, as it would help to identify the number of cells in the field of view (e.g., Fig. 1C, Fig. 2B).

__Reply: __According to the reviewer’s comment, we will show immunofluorescence images to identify the number of cells in Fig. 1C and Fig. 2B.

1. It would be recommended to include colocalization analysis, such as Pearson's correlation coefficient or Manders coefficient in immunofluorescence images.

__Reply: __According to the reviewer comment, we plan to perform quantitative colocalization analysis in Fig. 2.

1. It is not clear how the quantitation of mSA-ENaC ubiquitination in Fig.8D, 8C, and 9B was performed. Did the authors normalise the detected Ub signal over the amount of unmodified mSA-ENaC?

__Reply: __We did not normalize the detected Ub signals over the amount of unmodified mSA-ENaC, because the same amount of mSA-ENaC was added in each assay. The chemiluminescence intensity of Ub signals was quantified by scanning using ImageJ. According to the reviewer’ comment, we will clearly describe how the quantification of mSA-ENaC ubiquitination was performed.

__Reviewer #3 __

--- Summary ---

The manuscript by Sakamoto et al. describes how the ubiquitin ligase Nedd4L is activated by membrane curvature generated by the endocytic protein FCHO2. For their experiments, the authors use the epithelial sodium channel (ENaC) as a model Nedd4L target and CME cargo. The authors start their manuscript by showing in cells the importance of FCHo2 and Nedd4L in ENaC internalization. Using a combination of experiments in cells and biochemistry, the authors show that Nedd4L binds preferentially to membranes with the same curvature generated by FCHO2. Next, the authors show that a combination of membrane composition (PS), calcium concentration, PY domain presence and membrane curvature all act in concert to recruit Nedd4L to membranes and fully release its ubiquitination activity. Crucially, the authors show that role of FCHO2 in Nedd4L recruitment is not direct, with FCHO2 simply generating an optimal membrane curvature for Nedd4L binding. Taken together, the authors suggest a mechanism by which the curvature of early clathrin coated pits, generated by FCHO1/2 define an optimal environment for the recruitment and activation of the ubiquitin ligase Nedd4L.

The manuscript convincingly shows the membrane curvature-dependent mechanism of Nedd4L activation. The biochemistry experiments in the manuscript are well designed and the results are of clear. The quality of these experiments is very high. The experiments in cells are, however, not of the same level of quality.

--- Major comments ---

1) The results do not show convincingly that Nedd4L is recruited to CCPs. There is plenty of indirect evidence, but to support the model shown in the last figure, authors need to show more than the staining in figure 2C. Live-cell imaging showing the post-FCHo2 recruitment of Nedd4L would be required. I understand that the recruitment would possibly occur in a fraction of events and may be difficult to catch. The cmeAnalysis script from the danuser lab(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2013.06.019 can facilitate the identification of these events.

__Reply: __According to the reviewer comment, we plan to examine by live-cell TIRF microscopy that Nedd4L is recruited to CCPs.

2) What happens to ENaC in Nedd4L and FCHO2 knockdown cells? One would expect accumulation of the receptor on the surface.

__Reply: __We have found that upon Nedd4L or FCHO2 knockdown, αENaC accumulates at the cell surface in αβγENaC-HeLa cells. According to the reviewer’s comment, we will show these data in the revised manuscript.

*3) In the experiments in figure 1, it would be important to use a standard CME cargo as an internal control (transferrin). This will serve as a functional confirmation of FCHO2 knockdown and help the reader to put the Need4L knockdown experiments into the context of CME. *

__Reply: __According to the reviewer’s comment, we will use a standard CME cargo as an internal control (transferrin).

*4) Quantification for the rescue experiment is required (figure 1C). if not possible, at least a picture where the reader can see transfected and non-transfected cells side-by-side is necessary. *

Reply: This comment is the same as those of the reviewer#1 (comment 3) and reviewer#2 (comment 2). According to the reviewer’s comment, we plan to quantify the rescue experiment (Fig. 1C).

*--- Minor comments --- *

*1) The experiments in figure 3 must be presented in order as they are in the text. For example, figure 3E is cited in the text into the context of figure 7. It is very confusing. *

__Reply: __According to the reviewer’ s comment, we will present the experiments in Fig. 3 in order they are in the text.

*2) A better explanation of the assay in 1C would facilitate its understanding for the non-specialist reader. The reader needs to read the methods section to understand how it was done. *

__Reply: __According to the reviewer’ comment, we will write a better explanation of the assay in the Fig. 1C legend to enable the readers to understand how it was done.

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

Learn more at Review Commons

---

Reply to the reviewers

We thank the reviewers for their comments and constructive suggestions to improve the manuscript. We are encouraged to see that both reviewers acknowledge how the results from our manuscript uses state-of-art technologies to advance molecular underpinnings of centriole length, integrity and function regulation. Both reviewers also highlighted that the manuscript is well laid out and presents clear, rigorous, and convincing data. Reviewer#1 described our manuscript of highest experimental quality and broad interest to the field of centrosome and cell biology form a basic research and genetics/clinical point of view. Here, we explain the revisions, additional experimentations and analyses planned to address the points raised by the referees. We will perform most of the experimentations and corrections requested by the reviewers. We have already made several revisions and are currently working on additional experiments.

Our responses to each reviewer comment in bold are listed below. References mentioned here are listed in the references section included at the of this document.

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

Summary: __In this manuscript, Arslanhan and colleagues use proximity proteomics to identify CCDC15 as a new centriolar protein that co-localizes and interacts with known inner scaffold proteins in cell culture-based systems. Functional characterization using state-of-the-art expansion microscopy techniques reveals defects in centriole length and integrity. The authors further reveal intriguing aberrations in the recruitment of other centriole inner scaffold proteins, such as POC1B and the SFI1/centrin complex, in CCDC15-deficient cells, and observe defects in primary cilia. __

We thank the reviewer for the accurate summary of the major conclusions of our manuscript.

Major points:

1) The authors present a high-quality manuscript that identifies a novel centriolar protein by elegantly revealing and comparing the proximity proteomes of two known centriolar proteins, which represents an important component for the maintenance of centrioles.

We thank the reviewer for highlighting that our manuscript is of high quality and presents important advances for the field.

__2) Data are often presented from two independent experiments (n = 2), which is nice, but also the minimum for experiments in biology. It is strongly recommended to perform at least three independent experiments. __

We agree with the reviewer that analysis of data form three experimental replicates is ideal for statistical analysis. We performed three replicates for the majority of experiments in the manuscript. However, as the reviewer pointed out, we included analysis from two experiments for the following figures:

• Fig. 4H: quantification of CCDC15 total cellular levels throughout the cell cycle by western blotting
• Fig. 5A: CCDC15-positive centrioles in control and CCDC15 siRNA-transfected cells
• Fig. 6B: % centriolar coverage of POC5, FAM161A, POC1B and Centrin-2 in control and CCDC15 siRNA-transfected cells
• Fig. 6C, 6E: Centrin-2 or SFI1-positive centrioles in control and CCDC15 siRNA-transfected cells
• Fig. 6J, K: normalized tubulin length and percentage of defective centrioles in cells depleted for CCDC15 or co-depleted for CCDC15 and POC1B
• Fig. 7F, H: SMO-positive cilia and basal body IFT88 levels in control and CCDC15 siRNA-transfected cells
• Fig. S3H: centriole amplification in HU-treated control and CCDC15 siRNA-transfected cells (no)
• Fig. S3A: centrosomal levels upon CCDC15 depletion There are two reasons for why we performed two experimental replicates for these experiments: 1) results from the two experimental replicates were similar, 2) quantification of data by U-ExM is laborious. To address the reviewer’s comments, we will perform the third experimental replicate for the sets of data that led to major conclusions of our manuscript, which are Figures 4H, 6C, 6E, 6J, 6K, 7F, 7H and S3A.

3) The protein interaction studies presented in Fig. 3 could be of higher quality. While it is great that the authors compared interactions to the centriolar protein SAS6, which is not expected to interact with CCDC15, the presented data raise many questions.

__a) In most cases, co-expression of tagged CCDC15 stabilizes the tested interaction partners, such that the overall abundance seems to be higher. The increase in protein abundance is substantial for Flag-FAM161A (Fig. 3D) and GFP-Centrin-2 (Fig. 3E) and is even higher for the non-interactor SAS6 (Fig. 3G), while it cannot be assessed for GFP-POC1B (Fig. 3F). Hence, the higher expression levels under these conditions make it more likely that these proteins are "pulled down" and therefore do not represent appropriate controls. __

We agree with the reviewer that the differences in protein abundance of the prey proteins upon expression of CCDC15 relative to control might impact the interpretation of the interaction data. To address this concern, we will perform the following experiments:

• To account of the potential stabilizing effects of CCDC15 expression, we will change the relative ratio of plasmids expressing proteins of interest and assess the expression of bait and prey protein levels. We will then repeat the co-immunoprecipitation experiments in conditions where prey expression levels are similar.
• To avoid the potential stabilizing effects of CCDC15 overexpression, we will perform immunoprecipitation experiments in cells expressing GFP or V5-tagged inner scaffold proteins and assess their potential physical or proximity interaction by blotting for endogenous CCDC15. __b) All Co-IP experiments are lacking negative controls in the form of proteins that are not pulled down under the presented conditions. __

For the co-IP experiments, we only included a specificity control for the interaction of the bait protein with the tag of the prey protein (i.e. GBP pulldown of GFP or GFP-CCDC15-expressing cells). As the reviewer suggested, we will also include a specificity control for the interaction of bait with the tag of the prey protein for co-immunoprecipitation experiments (i.e. GFP pulldown of cells expressing GFP-CCDC15 with V5-BirA* or V5-BirA*-FAM161A).

__c) The amounts of co-precipitation of the tested proteins appears very different. Could this reflect strong or weak interactors, or does it reflect the abundance of the respective proteins in centrioles? __

We agree with the reviewer that the quantity of the co-precipitated prey proteins might be a proxy for the interaction strength if the abundance of the bait proteins is similar. However, the expression levels of bait and prey proteins in co-transfected cells are different and thus, cannot be used to derive a conclusion on the interaction strength. For the revised manuscript, we will repeat the IP experiments and comment on this in the discussion section.

__4) The observation that IFT88 is supposedly decreased at the base of cilia in CCDC15-depleted cells requires additional experiments/evidence. Fig. 7G shows the results of n = 2 and more importantly, a similar reduction of gamma-tubulin in siCCDC15. Could the observed reduction in IFT88 be explained by a decrease in accessibility to immunofluorescence microscopy? Would the reduction in IFT88 at the base also be apparent when the signals were normalized to gamma-tubulin signals? __

To address the reviewer’s concern, we quantified the basal body gamma-tubulin and IFT88 levels in control and CCDC15-depleted cells and plotted the basal body IFT88 levels normalized to gamma-tubulin levels in Fig. 7H. Similar to the reduction in IFT88 levels, gamma-tubulin-normalized IFT88 levels was significantly less relative to control cells. Moreover, the gamma-tubulin basal body levels were similar between control and CCDC15 cells. We revised the gamma-tubulin micrographs in Fig. 7G to represent this. These results indicate that the reduction in basal body IFT88 levels upon CCDC15 depletion in specific.

__5) The observed Hedgehog signaling defects are described as follows: "CCDC15 depletion significantly decreased the percentage of SMO-positive cells". It is similarly described in the figure legend. If this was true, the simplest explanation would be that it reflects the reduction in ciliation rate (which is in a similar range). If SMO-positive cilia (instead of "cells") were determined, the text needs to be changed accordingly. __

As the reviewer pointed out, we quantified SMO-positive cilia, but not cells. We are sorry for this typo. We corrected SMO-positive cells as SMO-positive cilia in the manuscript text, Fig. 7 and figure legends.

__6) OPTIONAL: While expansion microscopy is slowly becoming one of the standard super-resolution microscopy methods, which is particularly well validated for studying centrioles, the authors should consider confirming part of their findings (as a proof of principle, surely not in all instances) by more established techniques. This could serve to convince critical reviewers that may argue that the expansion process may induce architectural defects of destabilized centrioles, as observed after disruptions of components, such as in Fig. 6. Alternatively, the authors could cite additional work that make strong cases about the suitability of expansion microscopy for their studies, ideally with comparisons to other methods. __

• SIM imaging was previously successfully applied for nanoscale mapping of other centriole proteins including CEP44, MDM1 and PPP1R35 (Atorino et al., 2020; Sydor et al., 2018; Van de Mark et al., 2015). To complement the U-ExM analysis, we have started imaging cells stained for CCDC15 and different centriole markers (i.e. distal appendage, proximal linker, centriole wall) using a recently purchased 3D-SIM superresolution microscope. We already included the SIM imaging data for CCDC15 localization in centrosome fractions purified from HEK293T cells in Fig. S5B. In the revised manuscript, we will replace confocal imaging data in Fig. 3A and 3B with SIM imaging data.
• As the reviewer noted, expansion microscopy has been successfully used for the analysis of a wide range of cellular structures and scientific questions including nanoscale mapping of cellular structures across different organisms. In particular, U-ExM of previously characterized centrosome proteins various centriole proteins have significantly advanced our understanding of centriole ultrastructure. In our manuscript, we used the U-ExM protocol that was validated for centrioles by comparative analysis of U-ExM and cryo-ET imaging by our co-authors (Gambarotto et al., 2019; Hamel et al., 2017). To clarify these points, we included the following sentence along with the relevant references in the introduction: “Application of the U-ExM method to investigate known centrosome proteins has started to define the composition of the inner scaffold as well as other centriolar sub-compartments (Chen et al., 2015; Gambarotto et al., 2021; Gambarotto et al., 2019; Kong and Loncarek, 2021; Laporte et al., 2022; Mahen, 2022; Mercey et al., 2022; Odabasi et al., 2023; Sahabandu et al., 2019; Schweizer et al., 2021; Steib et al., 2022; Tiryaki et al., 2022; Tsekitsidou et al., 2023).”

Minor points:

1) Text, figures, and referencing are clear and accurate, apart from minor exceptions.

We clarified and corrected the points regarding text, figures and references as suggested by the two reviewers.

__ 2) The title suggests a regulator role for CCDC15 in centriole integrity and ciliogenesis, which has formally not been shown. __

We revised the title as “CCDC15 localizes to the centriole inner scaffold and functions in centriole length control and integrity”.

__3) As the authors observe changes in centriole lengths in the absence of CCDC15, it would be very insightful to compare these phenotypes to other components that affect centriolar length, such as C2CD3, human Augmin complex components (as HAUS6 is identified in Fig. 1) or others. These could be interesting aspects for discussion, additional experiments are OPTIONAL. __

We agree with the reviewer that comparative analysis of centriole length phenotypes for CCDC15 and other components that regulate centriole length will provide insight into how these components work together at the centriole inner core. To this end, we phenotypically compared CCDC15 loss-of-function phenotypes to that of other components of the inner scaffold (POC5, POC1B, FAM161A) that interact with CCDC15. In agreement with their previously reported functions in U2OS or RPE1 cells, we found that POC5 depletion resulted in a 4% slight but significant increase in centriole length and POC1B depletion resulted in a 15% significant decrease. In contrast, FAM161A depletion did not alter centriole length (siControl: 447.8±59.7 nm, siFAM161A 436.3±64 nm). Together, our analysis of their centriolar localization dependency and regulatory roles during centriole length suggest that CCDC15 and POC1B might form a functional complex as positive regulators of centriole length. In contrast, POC5 functions as a negative regulator and might be part of a different pathway for centriole length regulation. We integrated the following sub-paragraph in the results section and also included discussion of this data in the discussion section:

“Moreover, we quantified centriole length in control cells and cells depleted for POC5 or POC1B. While POC5 depletion resulted in longer centrioles, POC1B resulted in shorter centrioles (POC5: siControl: 414.1 nm±38.3, siPOC5: 432.7±44.8 nm, POC1B: siControl: 400.6±36.1 nm, siPOC1B: 341.5±44.39 nm,). FAMA161A depletion did not alter centriole length (siControl: 447.8±59.7 nm, siFAM161A 436.3±64 nm). Together, these results suggest that CCDC15 might cooperate with POC1B and compete with POC5 to establish and maintain proper centriole length.”

__ 4) While the reduced ciliation rate in the absence of CCDC15 is convincing, the authors did not investigate "ciliogenesis", i.e. the formation of cilia, and hence should re-phrase. The sentence in the discussion that "CCDC15 functions during assembly" should be removed. __

To clarify that we only investigated the role of CCDC15 in the ability of cells to form cilia, we replaced sentences that indicates “CCDC15 functions in cilium assembly” with “CCDC15 is required for the efficiency of cilia formation”.

__5) The existence of stably associated CCDC15 pools with centrosomes (Fig. 2) requires further evidence. The recovery of fluorescence after photobleaching in FRAP experiments is strongly dependent on experimental setups and is only semi-quantitative. A full recovery is unrealistic, hence, it is ideally compared to a known static or known mobile component. I personally think this experiment -as it is presented now- is of little value to the overall fantastic study. The authors may consider omitting this piece of data. __

We agree with the reviewer that FRAP data by itself does not prove the existence of stably associated CCDC15 pool. As controls in these experiments, we use FRAP analysis of GFP-CCDC66, which has a 100% immobile pool at the cilia and 50% immobile pool at the centrosomes as assessed by FRAP (Conkar et al., 2019). To address these points, we toned down the conclusions derived from this experiment by revising the sentence as follows:

Additionally, we note that the following data provides support for the stable association of CCDC15 at the centrioles:

• About 49.6% (± 3.96) of the centrioles still had CCDC15 fluorescence signal at one of the centrioles upon CCDC15 siRNA treatment (Fig. 5A, 5B). The inefficient depletion of the mature centriole pool of CCDC15 is analogous to what was observed upon depletion of other centriole lumen and inner scaffold proteins including WDR90 and HAUS6 (Schweizer et al., 2021; Steib et al., 2020). __6) The data that CCDC15 is a cell cycle-regulated protein is not very convincing (see Fig. 3H), as the signals area weak and the experiment has been performed only once (n= 1). This piece of data does not appear to be very critical for the main conclusions of the manuscript and may be omitted. Otherwise, this experiment should be repeated to allow for proper statistical analysis. __

We will perform these experiments two more times, quantify cellular abundance of CCDC15 in synchronized populations from three experimental replicates and plot it with proper statistical analysis.

__7) Experimental details on how "defective centrioles" are determined are missing. __

We included the following experimental details to the methods section:

“Centrioles were considered as defective when the roundness of the centriole was lost or the microtubule walls were broken or incomplete. In the longitudinal views of centrioles, defective centrioles were visualized as heterogenous acetylated signal along the centriole wall or irregularities in the cylindrical organization of the centriole wall (Fig. 5F). We clarified these points in the methods section.

__ 8) For figures, in which the focus should be on growing centrioles (see Fig. 4), it could be helpful to guide the reader and indicate the respective areas of the micrographs by arrows. __

We added arrows to point to the respective areas of the micrographs in Fig. 4F.

__ 9) Page18: "centriole length shortening" could be changed to "centriole shortening". __

We corrected this description as suggested.

__10) It is unclear how the authors determine distal from proximal ends of centrioles in presented micrographs (see Fig. 5D). __

We determined the proximal and distal ends of the centrioles by taking the centriole pairs as a proxy. Even though we only represent a micrograph containing a single centriole in some of the U-ExM figures including Fig. 5D, the uncropped micrographs contain two centrioles, which are oriented orthogonally and tethered to each other at their proximal ends in interphase cells. We added the following sentence to the methods section to clarify this point:

*“Since centrioles are oriented orthogonally and tethered to each other at their proximal ends in interphase cells, we also used the orientation of the centriole pairs as a proxy to determine the proximal and distal ends of the centrioles.” *

__11) Fig. 7A is missing scale bars and Fig.7 overall is lacking rectangle indicators of the areas that are shown at higher magnification in the insets. __

We added scale bar to Fig. 7A and rectangle indicators for zoomed in regions in Fig. A, E, G.

12) Fig. 7C displays cilia that appear very short, especially when comparing to the micrographs and bar graphs presented. The authors may want to explain this discrepancy.

We thank the reviewer for the comment. The zoomed in representative cilia is 4.1 µM in control cells and 1.4 µM in CCDC15-depleted cells. Therefore, the representative cilia is in agreement with the quantification of cilia in Fig. 7C.

Reviewer #1 (Significance (Required)): • From a technical point of view the authors use two state-of-the-art technologies, namely proximity labeling combined with proteomics and ultrastructure expansion microscopy, that are both challenging and very well suited to address the main questions of this study. ____ • General assessment: The presented study is of highest experimental quality. Despite being very challenging, the expansion microscopy and proximity proteomics experiments have been designed and performed very well to allow solid interpretation. The results of the central data are consistent and allow strong first conclusions about the putative function of the newly identified centriolar protein CCDC15. The study presents a solid foundation for future hypothesis-driven, mechanistic analysis of CCDC15 and inner scaffold proteins in centriole length control and maintaining centriole integrity. The only limitation of the study is that the technically simpler experiments should be repeated to allow proper statistical assessment, which can be addressed easily. • Advance: This is the first study that identifies CCDC15 as a centriolar protein and localizes it to the inner scaffold. It further describes a function for CCDC15 in centriole length control and shows its importance in maintaining centriole integrity with consequences for stable cilia formation in tissue culture. The study provides further functional insights into the interdependence of inner scaffold proteins and the role of CCDC15 in the recruitment of the SFI1/centrin distal complex. • Audience: The manuscript will be of broad interest to the fields of centrosome and cell biology, both from a basic research and genetics/clinical point of view due to the association with human disorders. The state-of-the-art technologies applied will be of interest to a broader cell and molecular biology readership that studies subcellular compartments and microtubules. • Reviewer's field of expertise: Genetics, imaging, and protein-protein interaction studies with a focus on centrosomes and cilia.

We thank the reviewer for recognizing the importance of our work and for supportive and insightful comments that will further strengthen the conclusions of our manuscript. Our planned revisions will address the only major technical limitation raised by the reviewer that requires adding one more experimental replicate for analysis of the data detailed in major point#1. Notably, we also thank the reviewer to specifying the experiments that are not essential or will be out of the scope of our manuscript as “optional”.

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

Summary:

__In this study, Arslanhan et al. propose CCDC15 as a novel component of the centriole inner scaffold structure with potential roles in centriole length control, stability and the primary cilium formation in cultured epithelial cells. Using proximity labelling they explore the common interactors of Poc5 and Centrin-2, two resident molecules of the centriole inner scaffold, to hunt for novel regulators of this structure. The authors leverage expansion microscopy-based localization and siRNA-dependent loss-of-function experiments to follow up on one such protein they identify, CCDC15, with the aforementioned roles in centriole and cilia biology.

This study is designed and laid out nicely; however, to be able to support some of the important claims regarding their proximity labelling results and exploration on the roles of CCDC15, there are several major technical and reproducibility concerns that deem major revision. Similarly, the introduction (perhaps inadvertently) omits much of the recent studies on centriole size control that have highlighted the complexity of this biological problem. As such, addressing the following major points will be essential in further considering this work for publication. __

__We thank the reviewer for recognizing the importance of our work and appreciate the positive reflections on our manuscript and the feedback comments that were well thought-out and articulated and will further strengthen the conclusions of our manuscript. Our planned revisions focus on addressing the reviewer’s comments especially in further supporting our conclusions for proximity-labeling, phenotypic characterization and immunoprecipitation experiments, examining CCDC15 centriole localization in an additional cell line and investigating how CCDC15 works together during centriole length control with known components of the inner scaffold. __

Major points:

__1a) The authors use Poc5 and Centrin-2 molecules as joint baits to reveal the interactome of the centriole inner scaffold, however the work lacks appropriate experimental and analytical controls to argue that this is a proximity mapping "at the centriole inner scaffold". In its current state, it is simply an interactome of total Poc5 and Centrin-2, and it might be misleading to call it an interactome at the centriole inner scaffold (the statistical identification of shared interactors cannot do full justice to their biology at the centrosome). Appropriate expression data needed to delineate how large the centrosomal vs. cytoplasmic (or nucleoplasmic) fraction is for either of these molecules, both without and upon the addition of biotin (to see whether the bulk of interaction data stem from the cytoplasm/nucleoplasm or the centrioles themselves). The authors can test this by selectively blotting a lysate fraction containing the centrosomes after centrifugation, and compare them with the simultaneous blot of the supernatant (which were readily used for the blots presented in Fig. 1B). This experiment also becomes very relevant for the case of Centrin-2, as it also heavily localizes to the nucleoplasm as the authors found out (see Fig. 1A and Fig. S1A). __

__ Additionally, an orthogonal approach should be taken to perform bio-image analysis on their biotin/streptavidin imaging data to demonstrate the exact ratios between the centrosomal vs. cytoplasmic/nucleoplasmic biotin activation with appropriate signal normalization between the biotin/streptavidin images. This is particularly important, as although the authors claim that these cells stably express the V5BirA*, it seems that there is partial clonality to the expression. Some cells in both the Poc5 and Centrin-2 fusion constructs appear to lack the V5/Streptavidin signals upon Biotin addition (such as the two cells in the centre right in Poc5, and again a cell in the centre right for Centrin-2 images). In its current form, Fig. 1A lacks signal quantification and does not report any information about the replicates and distributions of the data. I worry that this may raise concerns on the reproducibility if published in its current form. __a) We agree with the reviewer that the proximity maps of POC5 and

a) Centrin-2 are not specific to the centriole inner scaffold and thus, do not represent the inner scaffold interactome. The proximity maps identified interactions across different pools of POC5 and Centrin-2 in nucleus, cytoplasm and centrosomes (Fig. 1, S1). To highlight these important points, we already included extensive analysis of the different cellular compartments and biological processes identified by the POC5 and Centrin-2 proximity maps in the results section (pg. 9-10).

We think that there are two reasons that caused the misinterpretation of the use of these proximity maps as the “inner scaffold interactome”: 1) the way we introduced the motivation for proximity mapping studies, 2) proposing the use of the resulting interactomes as resources for identification of the full repertoire of the inner scaffold proteins. To clarify these points, we revised the manuscript in all relevant parts that might have led to misinterpretation. Following are the specific revisions:

• To clarify that the proximity maps are not specific to the inner scaffold pools of POC5 and Centrin-2, we revised the title of the results section for Fig. 1 and 2 as follows: “Proximity mapping of POC5 and Centrin-2 identifies new centriolar proteins”.

• To indicate that POC5 and Centrin-2 localizes to the cytoplasm and/or nucleus in addition to the centrosome, we added the following sentence to the result section: “In addition to centrosomes, both fusion proteins also localized to and induced biotinylation diffusely in the cytoplasm and/or nucleus (Fig. 1A).”

• In the introduction, we revised the following sentence “Here, we used the known inner scaffold proteins as probes to identify the molecular makeup of the inner scaffold in an unbiased way.” as follows: *“Here, we used the known inner scaffold proteins as probes to identify new components of the inner scaffold”. *

• To highlight the different cellular pools of POC5 and Centrin-2 and identification of their interactors in these pools, we included the following sentence in the results section: “As shown in Fig. S1, Centrin-2 and POC5 proximity interactomes were enriched for GO categories that are relevant for their published functions during centrosomal, cytoplasmic and/or nuclear biological processes and related cellular compartments (Azimzadeh et al., 2009; Dantas et al., 2013; Heydeck et al., 2020; Khouj et al., 2019; Resendes et al., 2008; Salisbury et al., 2002; Steib et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2010; Ying et al., 2019).”

• We replaced the “interactome” statement with “proximity interaction maps” or “proximity interactors” throughout the manuscript to prevent the conclusion that the proximity maps represent the inner scaffold interactome. b) As the reviewer noted, most centrosome proteins have multiple different cellular pools including the centrosome. For most proteins like gamma-tubulin and centrin, their cytoplasmic/nucleoplasmic pools are more abundant than their centrosomal pools (Moudjou et al., 1996; Paoletti et al., 1996). For the Firat-Karalar et al. Current Biology 2015 paper, I compared the biotinylation levels of centrosomal fractions versus cytoplasmic fractions and confirmed that this is also true in cells expressing myc-BirA* fusions of CDK5RAP2, CEP192, CEP152 and CEP63 (unpublished) (Firat-Karalar et al., 2014). For the revised manuscript, we will compare the biotinylation level of centrosomal, nuclear and cytoplasmic pools of V5Bir*-POC5 and V5BirA*-Centrin-2 using the stable lines. To this end, we will use published centrosome purification protocols. We will include this data in Fig. S1 to highlight that the proximity interactomes represent the different pools of the bait proteins and to show the relative levels of the baits across their different pools.

c) BioID approach has been successfully used to probe centrosome interactions by my lab and other labs in the field. In fact, proximity interaction maps of over 50 centrosome proteins were published as resource papers by Pelletier&Gingras labs (Gheiratmand et al., 2019; Gupta et al., 2015). Analogous to our strategy in this manuscript, these studies generated proximity maps of centrosome proteins by creating cell lines that stably express BioID-fusions of centrosome proteins followed by streptavidin pulldowns from whole cell extracts and mass spectrometry analysis. Since majority of centrosome proteins also have pools in multiple cellular locations, the published BioID proximity maps for centrosome proteins are not specific to centrosomes. However, the proximity maps included all known centrosome proteins and identified new proteins, which shows that centrosome interactions are represented in pulldowns form whole cell lysates. Moreover, maps form whole cell lysates are also advantageous as they are are unbiased and can be used in future studies as resources for studying the functions and interactions of the bait proteins in different contexts.

In the Firat-Karalar et al. Current Biology 2015 paper, I combined centrosome purifications with BioID pulldowns to enrich for the centrosomal interactions in the proximity maps of centriole duplication proteins(Firat-Karalar et al., 2014). However, I started the purification with cells transiently transfected with the BioID-fusion constructs, which resulted in high ectopic expression of the fusions in the cytoplasm and/or nucleus. Therefore, centrosome enrichments were useful as an additional step before mass spectrometry. Comparative analysis of the data for proximity maps of 4 centrosome proteins generated from stable lines or centrosome fractions of transiently transfected cells substantially overlap as compared in the Gupta et al. Cell 2015 study and were more comprehensive (Table S2) (Gupta et al., 2015). Therefore, we are confident that the proximity interactomes we generated for POC5 and Centrin-2 include their centrosomal interactions.

__1b) Similarly, it is not clear whether the expression of Poc5 and Centrin-2 fusion molecules somehow interfere with their endogenous interactions or function. At least some loss-of-function (e.g., RNAi) experiments should be performed where the depletion of endogenous proteins should be attempted to rescue by the fusion constructs. This will help evaluate whether the fusion proteins can rescue the depletion of their endogenous counterparts and behave as expected from a wild-type scenario. __

The reviewer raises an important concern regarding the physiological relevance of the POC5 and Centrin-2 proximity maps. In the manuscript, we showed and discussed the validation of their proximity interactomes by two lines of evidence, which are: 1) the interactomes identified the previously described cellular compartments, biological processes or interactors of POC5 and Centrin-2, 2) the interactomes led to the identification of CCDC15 as a new inner scaffold protein.

As the reviewer indicated, stable expression of POC5 and Centrin-2 in the presence of their endogenous pools might affect cellular physiology and thereby the landscape of the interactomes. We plan to address this using the following experiments:

a) We will perform a set of functional assays to assess whether stable V5BirA*-Centrin-2 and V5BirA*-POC5 cells behaves like control cells in terms of their centrosome number, cell cycle profiles and mitotic progression. We will specifically quantify:

• centrosome number (immunofluorescence analysis for gamma-tubulin and centrin)
• their mitotic index (immunofluorescence analysis by DAPI)
• spindle polarity and percentage of multinucleation (immunofluoerescence analysis for microtubules, gamma-tubulin and DAPI)
• cell cycle profiles (flow cytometry and immunofluorescence)
• apoptosis (immunoblotting for caspase 3) Together, results from these experiments indicate that the V5BirA*-POC5 or Centrin-2-expressing stable lines do not exhibit defects associated with their stable expression.

b) We will perform expansion microscopy in V5BirA*-Centrin-2 and V5BirA*-POC5 cells to assess whether the fusion protein specifically localizes to the centriole inner scaffold, which will provide support for the presence of inner scaffold proteins in their proximity maps. Specifically, we plan to stain the fusion proteins by V5 or BirA antibodies and include the data for the antibody that works for expansion microscopy. This experiment will address whether their stable expression results in specific localization of these proteins at the centriole inner scaffold.

1c) Overall, as the entire claim around the proximity mapping revolve around its assumption about the centriole inner scaffold, these controls seem imperative to substantiate the ground truth of the biology presented in the manuscript.

In the revised manuscript, we toned down and made it clear that Centrin-2 and POC5 proximity maps are not specific to the inner scaffold and do not represent the inner scaffold interactome. Since the maps were generated from the whole cell extract, they will provide a resource for future studies aimed at studying functions and mechanisms of POC5 and Centrin-2 across their different cellular pools including the centrosome.

We would like to also highlight that the proximity maps of POC5 and Centrin-2 are not the major advances of our manuscript. The major advance of our manuscript is the identification of CCDC15 as a new inner scaffold protein that is required for regulation of centriole size and architectural integrity and thereby, for maintaining the ability of centrioles to template the assembly of functional cilia. Importantly, our results identified CCDC15 as the first dual regulator of centriolar recruitment of inner scaffold protein POC1B and the distal end SFI1/Centrin complex and provided important insight into how inner scaffold proteins work together during centriole integrity and size regulation. The new set of experiments we will perform for the revisions of the paper will strengthen these conclusions.

__2) I am curious about the choices of the cell lines in this work. The proximity mapping to reveal CCDC15 as a candidate protein for centriole inner scaffold was performed in HEK293T cells (human embryonic kidney), however its immunostaining was performed using RPE1 and U2OS cells (human retinal and osteosarcoma epithelial cells respectively). This raises questions regarding the generality of CCDC15 as a centriole inner scaffold protein. Could CCDC15 be simply unique to the centriole inner scaffold of epithelial cells such as RPE1 and U2OS cells? Or could the authors demonstrate any information/data on whether it's similarly localized to the inner scaffold in embryonic kidney cells or other cell types? If not, the claims should be moderated to reflect this fine detail. __

To test whether CCDC15 localizes to the inner scaffold in other cell types, we performed U-ExM analysis of CCDC15 localization relative to the centriolar microtubules in differentiating multiciliated epithelial cultures (MTEC). As shown in Fig. S3A, CCDC15 localized to the inner scaffold in the centrioles in MTEC ALI+4 cells. Given that the inner scaffold proteins including CCDC15 and previously characterized ones have not been studied in multiciliated epithelia, this result is important and provides support for potential role of the inner scaffold in ensuring centriole integrity during ciliary beating. Additionally, we examined CCDC15 localization by 3D-SIM in centrosomes purified from HEK293T cells, which showed that CCDC15 localizes between the distal centriole markers CEP164 and Centrin-3 and proximal centriole markers gamma-tubulin and rootletin (Fig. S3B).

3) Discussions and data on the localization of CCDC15 to centriolar satellites appear anecdotal and not fully convincing (Fig. S2D). Given that the authors test the relevance of PCM1 for CCDC15's centriolar localization, it is key to have quantitative data supporting their claim that centriolar satellites can help recruit CCDC15 to the centriole. Could the authors quantify what proportion of CCDC15 localize to the centriolar satellites? One way to do this could be to quantify the colocalization coefficience of CCDC15 and PCM1 signals.

We only observed co-localization of CCDC15 with the centriolar satellite marker PCM1 in cells transiently transfected with mNG-CCDC15. In Fig. S2E, we included the quantification of the percentage of U2OS and RPE1 cells that exhibit co-localization of PCM1 (100% of U2OS cells, about 80% of RPE1 cells). Like CCDC15, ectopic expression of WDR90 revealed its centriolar satellite localization, suggesting a potential link between centriolar satellites and inner scaffold proteins that can be investigated in future studies (Steib et al., 2020). We now included these results in the discussion section as follows:

“As assessed by co-localization with the centriolar satellite marker PCM1, mNG-CCDC15 localized to centriolar satellites in all U2OS cells and in about 80% of RPE1 cells (Fig. S2C-E). Association of CCDC15 with centriolar satellites is further supported by its identification in the centriolar satellite proteomes(Gheiratmand et al., 2019; Quarantotti et al., 2019).”

Even though endogenous staining for CCDC15 did not reveal its localization to centriolar satellites, following lines of data support the presence of a dynamic and low abundance pool of CCDC15 at the centriolar satellites: 1) CCDC15 was identified in the centriolar satellite proteome and interactome (Gheiratmand et al., 2019; Quarantotti et al., 2019). 2) CCDC15 centrosomal targeting is in part regulated by PCM1 (Fig. S2F, S2G). For majority of the proteins identified in the centriolar satellite proteome, their satellite pool can only be observed upon ectopic expression. This might be because their centriolar satellite pool is of low abundance and transient as satellite interactions are extensively identified only in proximity mapping studies, but not in traditional pulldowns

__4) Similar to above (#3), there is no quantitative information on the co-localization or partial co-localization of the signal foci in Fig. 3A and 3B. The authors readily study CCDC15's localization in wonderful detail in their expansion microscopy data, so they could actually consider taking out Fig. 3A and 3B, as the data seem redundant without any quantification. __

To address the reviewer’s concern, we included plot intensity profile analysis of CCDC15 and different centriole markers along a line drawn at the centrioles in Fig. 3A and 3B, which shows the extent of their overlap. As part of our revision plan, we will replace the confocal imaging data in Fig. 3A and 3B with 3D-SIM imaging data of CCDC15 relative to different centriole markers together with plot profile analysis. We already included 3D-SIM imaging of centrosomes purified form HEK293T cells in Fig. S3B. 3D-SIM imaging data will complement the localization data revealed by U-ExM.

__5) Do the authors also feel that CCDC15 localize to the core lumen in a somehow helical manner (Fig. 1A, Fig. 1F top and bottom panels, Fig. 5A etc.)? Le Guennec et al. 2020's helical lattice proposal for the inner scaffold further reaffirms that CCDC15 is indeed a likely major component of the inner scaffold. In my view, authors should state this physical similarity explicitly to further support their findings on CCDC15. __

As the reviewer indicated, cryo–electron tomography and subtomogram averaging of centrioles from four evolutionarily distant species showed that centriolar microtubules are bound together by a helical inner scaffold covering ~70% of the centriole length (Le Guennec et al., 2020). Although U-ExM data do not have enough resolution to show that CCDC15 localizes in a helical manner, we agree with the reviewer that the discussion of this possibility is important and thus we included the following sentence in the results:

“Longitudinal views suggest potential helical organization of CCDC15 at the inner scaffold, which is consistent with its reported periodic, helical structure (Le Guennec et al., 2020).”

__6a) The data on the link between the CCDC15 recruitment and the centriole growth (Fig. 4F) or the G2 phase of the cell cycle (Fig. 4H) are not fully convincing without quantitative data. For Fig. 4F, the authors should consider plotting the daughter centriole length vs the daughter CCDC15 intensities against each another, to see whether more elongated daughters truly tend to have more CCDC15. __

To address the reviewer’s concern, we will plot the daughter centriole length versus CCDC15 intensity at different stages of centriole duplication. In asynchronous cultures that we analyzed with U-ExM, we were not able to find enough cells to perform such quantification. To overcome this limitation, we will perform U-ExM analysis of cells fixed at different points after mitotic shake-off and stained for CCDC15 and tubulin. We will include minimum 10 different representative U-ExM data for different stages of centriole duplication in the revised manuscript along with quantification of length versus signal.

As detailed in the results section, the goal of these experiments was to determine when CCDC15 is recruited to the procentrioles during centriole duplication, but not to suggest a role for CCDC15 in centriole growth. We clarified this by including the following sentence:

“To investigate the timing of CCDC15 centriolar recruitment during centriole biogenesis, we examined CCDC15 localization relative to the length of procentrioles that represent cells at different stages of centriole duplication (Fig. 4F).”

__6b) For Fig. 4H, the argument regarding the cell cycle regulation requires quantification of the bands from several WB repeats, normalized to the expression of GAPDH within each blot (this is particularly relevant, as the bands of CCDC15 do not look dramatically different enough to draw conclusions by eye). __

We will perform these experiments two more times, quantify cellular abundance of CCDC15 in synchronized populations from three experimental replicates and plot it with proper statistical analysis.

__7a) The authors find herein that CCDC15 depletion lead to centrioles that are ~10% shorter than the controls. With the depletion of Poc5 and Wdr90 (other proposed components of the inner scaffold), the centrioles end up larger however (Steib et al., 2020). If the role of inner scaffold in promoting centriole elongation is structural, why are these two results the opposite of each other? I realize there is a brief discussion about this at the end of the paper, however, this requires a detailed discussion and speculation on the relevance of these findings. It would be key to clarify whether the inner scaffold as a structure inhibits or promotes centriole growth - or somehow both? If so, how? __

We agree with the reviewer that comparative analysis of centriole length phenotypes for CCDC15 and other components that regulate centriole length will provide insight into how these components work together at the centriole inner core. To this end, we phenotypically compared CCDC15 loss-of-function phenotypes to that of other components of the inner scaffold (POC5, POC1B, FAM161A) that interact with CCDC15. In agreement with their previously reported functions in U2OS or RPE1 cells, we found that POC5 depletion resulted in a 4% slight but significant increase in centriole length and POC1B depletion resulted in a 15% significant decrease. In contrast, FAM161A depletion did not alter centriole length (siControl: 447.8±59.7 nm, siFAM161A 436.3±64 nm). Together, our analysis of their centriolar localization dependency and regulatory roles during centriole length suggest that CCDC15 and POC1B might form a functional complex as positive regulators of centriole length. In contrast, POC5 functions as a negative regulator and might be part of a different pathway for centriole length regulation. We integrated the following sub-paragraph in the results section in pg. 19 and also included discussion of this data in the discussion section in pg. 23:

“Moreover, we quantified centriole length in control cells and cells depleted for POC5 or POC1B. While POC5 depletion resulted in longer centrioles, POC1B resulted in shorter centrioles (POC5: siControl: 414.1 nm±38.3, siPOC5: 432.7±44.8 nm, POC1B: siControl: 400.6±36.1 nm, siPOC1B: 341.5±44.39 nm,). FAMA161A depletion did not alter centriole length (siControl: 447.8±59.7 nm, siFAM161A 436.3±64 nm). Together, these results suggest that CCDC15 might cooperate with POC1B and compete with POC5 to establish and maintain proper centriole length.”

__7b) There might be some intriguing opposing regulatory action of Poc5 and CCDC15 as demonstrated here, where CCDC15 depletion leads to slightly over-recruitment of Poc5, and vice versa. Does this suggest that a tug-of-war going on between different molecules that localize to the inner scaffold? Does this provide some dynamicity to this structure, which might in turn regulate centriole length both positively and negatively? This may be analogous to how opposing forces of dyneins and kinesins provide robust length control for mitotic spindles. I am speculating here, but hopefully these may provide some useful grounds for further discussion in the paper. If the authors deem it interesting experimentally, they can test whether the two molecules indeed regulate centriole length by opposing each other's action, by a double siRNA of CCDC15 and Poc5 to see if this retains the centriole length at its control siRNA size (like how they do a similar test for Poc1's potential co-operativity with CCDC15 in Fig. 6J). __

We thank the reviewer for proposing excellent ideas on how inner scaffold proteins work together to regulate centriole length. As proposed by the reviewer, different proteins oppose each other analogous to how dynein and kinesin regulate mitotic spindle length. Loss-of-function and localization dependency data support that CCDC15 cooperates with POC1B, which was supported by phenotypic characterization of co-depleted cells (Fig. 6I-K).

The increase in POC5 levels and coverage at the centrioles upon CCDC15 depletion and vice versa (Fig. 7B, 7G) suggest that CCDC15 and POC5 compete with each other in centriole length regulation. As suggested by the reviewer, we attempted to test this by comparing centriole length in cells co-depleted for CCDC15 and POC5 relative to their individual depletions. Although we tried different depletion workflows, we were not able to co-deplete CCDC15 and POC5. Specifically, we tried transfecting cells with CCDC15 and POC5 siRNAs at the same time or sequentially for 48 h or 96 h. The centrioles in cells that survived co-depletion were positive for both CCDC15 and POC5. This might be because co-depletion of both proteins is toxic to cells. Since CCDC15 and POC5 are likely part of two different pathway in regulation of centrioles and also have other cellular functions, this might have caused cell death. We included the following statement in the discussion to address the excellent model proposed by the reviewer:

“Taken together, our results suggest that CCDC15 cooperates with POC1B and competes with POC5 during centriole length regulation. Moreover, they also raise the exciting possibility that centriole length can be regulated by opposing activities of inner scaffold proteins. Future studies that explore the relationship among centriole core proteins are required to uncover the precise mechanisms by which they regulate centriole integrity and size.”

__8) In their introduction section, the authors discuss how relatively little is known about the size control of centrioles, however they fail to mention a series of recent primary literature that uncover striking, new mechanisms and novel molecular players that highlight the complexity of centriole size control. This complexity appears to arise from the existence of multitude of length control mechanisms that influence the cartwheel or the microtubule length individually, or simultaneously via yet-to-be further explored crosstalk mechanisms. a. As such, when the authors talk about the procentriole size control in the introduction, they should discuss and refer to the following studies, in terms of: • How theoretical and experimental work demonstrate that procentriole length may vary dependent on the levels of its building block Sas-6 in animals (Dias Louro et al., 2021 PMID: 33970906; Grzonka and Bazzi, 2022 bioRxiv). • How a homeostatic Polo-like kinase 4 clock regulates centriole size during the cell cycle (Aydogan et al., 2018 JCB PMID: 29500190), and how biochemistry and genetics coupled with mathematical modelling unravel a conserved negative feedback loop between Cep152 and Plk4 that constitutes the oscillations of this clock in flies (Boese et al., 2018 PMID: 30256714; Aydogan et al., 2020 PMID: 32531200) and human cells (Takao et al., 2019 PMID: 31533936). __

__b. Similarly, when the authors refer to centriole size control induced by microtubule-related proteins, they should highlight the further complexity of this process by referring to: • How a molecule located at the microtubule wall, Cep295/Ana1, can regulate centriole length in flies (Saurya et al., 2016 PMID:27206860) and human cells (Chang et al., 2016 PMID:27185865) - like all the other centriolar MT molecules that the authors discuss in the manuscript. • How a crosstalk between Cep97 and Cep152 influences centriole growth in fly spermatids (Galletta et al., 2016 PMID:27185836). • How a crosstalk between CP110-Cep97 and Plk4 influences centriole growth in flies (Aydogan et al., 2022 PMID:35707992), and this molecular crosstalk is conserved, at least biochemically, in human cells (Lee et al., 2017 PMID:28562169). __

We thank the reviewer for highlighting the papers that uncovered new mechanisms and players of centriole size and integrity control as well as for the detailed explanation of how different studies led to these discoveries in different organisms. We should have discussed these proteins, functional complexes and mechanisms in our manuscript and cited the relevant literature. We inadvertently focused on literature that uncovered centriole length regulation by MAPs and the inner scaffold. In the introduction section of the revised manuscript where we introduced centriole size regulation in pg. 5, we summarized the major findings on the role of different MAPs, cartwheel and PLK4 homeostatic clock in ensuring formation of centrioles at the correct size in different organisms.

__Minor points: __

__1) Introduction section: Literature reference missing for the sentence starting with "Importantly, the stable nature of centrioles enables them to withstand...". __

We cited research articles that show the importance of centriole motility during ciliary motility and cell division.

“Importantly, the stable nature of centrioles enables them to withstand mechanical forces during cell division and upon ciliary and flagellar motility (Abal et al., 2005; Bayless et al., 2012; Meehl et al., 2016; Pearson et al., 2009).

__2) Fig. S1 legend: A typo as follows: CRAPome banalysis should read CRAPome analysis. __

We corrected this typo.

__3) Fig. S2: Info on the scale bar in the legend is missing in Fig. S2A. Scale bars for different panels are missing in general in Fig. S2A. __

We added scale bar information for Fig. S2A and to all other supplementary figure legends that lack scale bar information.

__4) Fig. 3A and 3B: When displaying the data, coloured cartoon diagrams would be beneficial to guide the reader who are not fully familiar with the spatial orientation of these proteins. __

As suggested by the reviewer, we will remove the confocal imaging data for CCDC15 localization from Fig. 3A and 3B. For the revised version, we will include 3D-SIM imaging data along with a diagram that represents the spatial orientation of CCDC15 relative to the chosen centriole markers.

__5) Fig. 3H: No information about the sample number (number of cells or technical repeats examined) reported. __

We included information on the number of experimental replicates and cells analyzed.

__6) Fig. S3B legend: A typo as follows: CCD15-depelted RPE1 cells should read CCDC15-depleted RPE1 cells. __

We corrected this typo.

__7) Fig. S3B legend: A typo as follows: cellswere fixed with should read cells were fixed with. __

We corrected this typo.

__8) There are many spelling mistakes and typos throughout the paper. I have listed a few examples above, but please carefully read through the manuscript to correct all the errors. __

Thank you for indicating the spelling mistakes we missed to correct for initial submission. In the revised manuscript, we carefully read through the manuscript to correct the mistakes.

__9) Fig. S3E: The orange columns depicting % of cells with Sas-6 dots look awkward. Why the columns look larger than the mean line? Please correct as appropriate. __

The total percentage of cells in the two categories (orange and purple) we counted is 100%, which corresponds to the column value at the y-axis. Therefore, the value for each experimental replicate for the orange category is less than 100% and is marked below the 100% line.

__10) Although authors provide microscopy information for the U-ExM and FRAP experiments, there is no information about the microscopy on regular confocal imaging experiments which should be detailed in Materials and Methods. Also, there is no information about the lenses, laser lines and the filter sets that were used in the imaging experiments. These should be provided as well. __

In the methods section, we now included detailed information for the microscopes we used and imaging setup (lenses, laser lines, filter sets, detectors, z-stack size, resolution).

11)

• __ Fig. 2A: lacks a scale bar. __
• __ Fig. 2C legend: lacks info on the scale bar length. __
• __ Fig. 5A legend: lacks info on the scale bar length. __
• __ Fig. 7A: lacks a scale bar. __
• __ Fig. 7G legend: lacks info on the scale bar length. __
• __ Fig. S2C-E: lack scale bars. __
• __ Fig. S3D, F and H: lack scale bars. (Fig. S4 in the revised manuscript)__
• __ Fig. S3J legend: lacks info on the scale bar length. (Fig. S4 in the revised manuscript)__
• __ Fig. S4A, B, D and E: lack scale bars. (Fig. S5 in the revised manuscript)__
• __ Fig. S4C legend: lacks info on the scale bar length. (Fig. S5 in the revised manuscript)__
• __ Fig. S4G legend: lacks info on the scale bar length. (Fig. S5 in the revised manuscript)__ We added the scale bars and the size information to the figures and figure legends for the above figures.

Reviewer #2 (Significance (Required)): __The findings of this study join among the relatively new literature (e.g., Steib et al., 2020 and Le Guennec et al. 2020) on the nature of centriole inner scaffold and its potential roles in centriole formation, integrity and its propensity to form the primary cilium. Therefore, it will be of interest to a group of scientists studying these topics in the field of centrosomes/cilia.

My expertise is on the biochemistry and genetics of centriole formation in animals.__

We thank the reviewer for his/her comments and constructive feedback to improve our manuscript. We are encouraged to see that the reviewer acknowledges how the results from our manuscript advances our understanding of centriole length, integrity and function regulation.

References

Abal, M., G. Keryer, and M. Bornens. 2005. Centrioles resist forces applied on centrosomes during G2/M transition. Biol Cell. 97:425-434.

Atorino, E.S., S. Hata, C. Funaya, A. Neuner, and E. Schiebel. 2020. CEP44 ensures the formation of bona fide centriole wall, a requirement for the centriole-to-centrosome conversion. Nat Commun. 11:903.

Azimzadeh, J., P. Hergert, A. Delouvee, U. Euteneuer, E. Formstecher, A. Khodjakov, and M. Bornens. 2009. hPOC5 is a centrin-binding protein required for assembly of full-length centrioles. J Cell Biol. 185:101-114.

Bayless, B.A., T.H. Giddings, Jr., M. Winey, and C.G. Pearson. 2012. Bld10/Cep135 stabilizes basal bodies to resist cilia-generated forces. Mol Biol Cell. 23:4820-4832.

Chen, F., P.W. Tillberg, and E.S. Boyden. 2015. Optical imaging. Expansion microscopy. Science. 347:543-548.

Conkar, D., H. Bayraktar, and E.N. Firat-Karalar. 2019. Centrosomal and ciliary targeting of CCDC66 requires cooperative action of centriolar satellites, microtubules and molecular motors. Sci Rep. 9:14250.

Dantas, T.J., O.M. Daly, P.C. Conroy, M. Tomas, Y. Wang, P. Lalor, P. Dockery, E. Ferrando-May, and C.G. Morrison. 2013. Calcium-binding capacity of centrin2 is required for linear POC5 assembly but not for nucleotide excision repair. PLoS One. 8:e68487.

Firat-Karalar, E.N., N. Rauniyar, J.R. Yates, 3rd, and T. Stearns. 2014. Proximity interactions among centrosome components identify regulators of centriole duplication. Curr Biol. 24:664-670.

Gambarotto, D., V. Hamel, and P. Guichard. 2021. Ultrastructure expansion microscopy (U-ExM). Methods Cell Biol. 161:57-81.

Gambarotto, D., F.U. Zwettler, M. Le Guennec, M. Schmidt-Cernohorska, D. Fortun, S. Borgers, J. Heine, J.G. Schloetel, M. Reuss, M. Unser, E.S. Boyden, M. Sauer, V. Hamel, and P. Guichard. 2019. Imaging cellular ultrastructures using expansion microscopy (U-ExM). Nat Methods. 16:71-74.

Gheiratmand, L., E. Coyaud, G.D. Gupta, E.M. Laurent, M. Hasegan, S.L. Prosser, J. Goncalves, B. Raught, and L. Pelletier. 2019. Spatial and proteomic profiling reveals centrosome-independent features of centriolar satellites. EMBO J.

Gupta, G.D., E. Coyaud, J. Goncalves, B.A. Mojarad, Y. Liu, Q. Wu, L. Gheiratmand, D. Comartin, J.M. Tkach, S.W. Cheung, M. Bashkurov, M. Hasegan, J.D. Knight, Z.Y. Lin, M. Schueler, F. Hildebrandt, J. Moffat, A.C. Gingras, B. Raught, and L. Pelletier. 2015. A Dynamic Protein Interaction Landscape of the Human Centrosome-Cilium Interface. Cell. 163:1484-1499.

Hamel, V., E. Steib, R. Hamelin, F. Armand, S. Borgers, I. Fluckiger, C. Busso, N. Olieric, C.O.S. Sorzano, M.O. Steinmetz, P. Guichard, and P. Gonczy. 2017. Identification of Chlamydomonas Central Core Centriolar Proteins Reveals a Role for Human WDR90 in Ciliogenesis. Curr Biol. 27:2486-2498 e2486.

Heydeck, W., B.A. Bayless, A.J. Stemm-Wolf, E.T. O'Toole, A.S. Fabritius, C. Ozzello, M. Nguyen, and M. Winey. 2020. Tetrahymena Poc5 is a transient basal body component that is important for basal body maturation. J Cell Sci. 133.

Khouj, E.M., S.L. Prosser, H. Tada, W.M. Chong, J.C. Liao, K. Sugasawa, and C.G. Morrison. 2019. Differential requirements for the EF-hand domains of human centrin 2 in primary ciliogenesis and nucleotide excision repair. J Cell Sci. 132.

Kong, D., and J. Loncarek. 2021. Analyzing Centrioles and Cilia by Expansion Microscopy. Methods Mol Biol. 2329:249-263.

Laporte, M.H., I.B. Bouhlel, E. Bertiaux, C.G. Morrison, A. Giroud, S. Borgers, J. Azimzadeh, M. Bornens, P. Guichard, A. Paoletti, and V. Hamel. 2022. Human SFI1 and Centrin form a complex critical for centriole architecture and ciliogenesis. EMBO J. 41:e112107.

Le Guennec, M., N. Klena, D. Gambarotto, M.H. Laporte, A.M. Tassin, H. van den Hoek, P.S. Erdmann, M. Schaffer, L. Kovacik, S. Borgers, K.N. Goldie, H. Stahlberg, M. Bornens, J. Azimzadeh, B.D. Engel, V. Hamel, and P. Guichard. 2020. A helical inner scaffold provides a structural basis for centriole cohesion. Sci Adv. 6:eaaz4137.

Mahen, R. 2022. cNap1 bridges centriole contact sites to maintain centrosome cohesion. PLoS Biol. 20:e3001854.

Meehl, J.B., B.A. Bayless, T.H. Giddings, Jr., C.G. Pearson, and M. Winey. 2016. Tetrahymena Poc1 ensures proper intertriplet microtubule linkages to maintain basal body integrity. Mol Biol Cell. 27:2394-2403.

Mercey, O., C. Kostic, E. Bertiaux, A. Giroud, Y. Sadian, D.C.A. Gaboriau, C.G. Morrison, N. Chang, Y. Arsenijevic, P. Guichard, and V. Hamel. 2022. The connecting cilium inner scaffold provides a structural foundation that protects against retinal degeneration. PLoS Biol. 20:e3001649.

Moudjou, M., N. Bordes, M. Paintrand, and M. Bornens. 1996. gamma-Tubulin in mammalian cells: the centrosomal and the cytosolic forms. J Cell Sci. 109 ( Pt 4):875-887.

Odabasi, E., D. Conkar, J. Deretic, U. Batman, K.M. Frikstad, S. Patzke, and E.N. Firat-Karalar. 2023. CCDC66 regulates primary cilium length and signaling via interactions with transition zone and axonemal proteins. J Cell Sci. 136.

Paoletti, A., M. Moudjou, M. Paintrand, J.L. Salisbury, and M. Bornens. 1996. Most of centrin in animal cells is not centrosome-associated and centrosomal centrin is confined to the distal lumen of centrioles. J Cell Sci. 109 ( Pt 13):3089-3102.

Pearson, C.G., D.P. Osborn, T.H. Giddings, Jr., P.L. Beales, and M. Winey. 2009. Basal body stability and ciliogenesis requires the conserved component Poc1. J Cell Biol. 187:905-920.

Quarantotti, V., J.X. Chen, J. Tischer, C. Gonzalez Tejedo, E.K. Papachristou, C.S. D'Santos, J.V. Kilmartin, M.L. Miller, and F. Gergely. 2019. Centriolar satellites are acentriolar assemblies of centrosomal proteins. EMBO J.

Resendes, K.K., B.A. Rasala, and D.J. Forbes. 2008. Centrin 2 localizes to the vertebrate nuclear pore and plays a role in mRNA and protein export. Mol Cell Biol. 28:1755-1769.

Sahabandu, N., D. Kong, V. Magidson, R. Nanjundappa, C. Sullenberger, M.R. Mahjoub, and J. Loncarek. 2019. Expansion microscopy for the analysis of centrioles and cilia. J Microsc. 276:145-159.

Salisbury, J.L., K.M. Suino, R. Busby, and M. Springett. 2002. Centrin-2 is required for centriole duplication in mammalian cells. Curr Biol. 12:1287-1292.

Schweizer, N., L. Haren, I. Dutto, R. Viais, C. Lacasa, A. Merdes, and J. Luders. 2021. Sub-centrosomal mapping identifies augmin-gammaTuRC as part of a centriole-stabilizing scaffold. Nat Commun. 12:6042.

Steib, E., M.H. Laporte, D. Gambarotto, N. O’lieric, C. Zheng, S. Borgers, V. Olieric, M.L. Guennec, F. Koll, A.M. Tassin, M.O. Steinnmetz, P. Guichard, and V. Hamel. 2020. WDR90 is a centriolar microtubule wall protein important for centriole architecture integrity. eLife.

Steib, E., R. Tetley, R.F. Laine, D.P. Norris, Y. Mao, and J. Vermot. 2022. TissUExM enables quantitative ultrastructural analysis in whole vertebrate embryos by expansion microscopy. Cell Rep Methods. 2:100311.

Sydor, A.M., E. Coyaud, C. Rovelli, E. Laurent, H. Liu, B. Raught, and V. Mennella. 2018. PPP1R35 is a novel centrosomal protein that regulates centriole length in concert with the microcephaly protein RTTN. Elife. 7.

Tiryaki, F., J. Deretic, and E.N. Firat-Karalar. 2022. ENKD1 is a centrosomal and ciliary microtubule-associated protein important for primary cilium content regulation. FEBS J. 289:3789-3812.

Tsekitsidou, E., C.J. Wong, I. Ulengin-Talkish, A.I.M. Barth, T. Stearns, A.C. Gingras, J.T. Wang, and M.S. Cyert. 2023. Calcineurin associates with centrosomes and regulates cilia length maintenance. J Cell Sci. 136.

Van de Mark, D., D. Kong, J. Loncarek, and T. Stearns. 2015. MDM1 is a microtubule-binding protein that negatively regulates centriole duplication. Mol Biol Cell. 26:3788-3802.

Yang, C.H., C. Kasbek, S. Majumder, A.M. Yusof, and H.A. Fisk. 2010. Mps1 phosphorylation sites regulate the function of centrin 2 in centriole assembly. Mol Biol Cell. 21:4361-4372.

Ying, G., J.M. Frederick, and W. Baehr. 2019. Deletion of both centrin 2 (CETN2) and CETN3 destabilizes the distal connecting cilium of mouse photoreceptors. J Biol Chem. 294:3957-3973.

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

Learn more at Review Commons

---

Reply to the reviewers

Reviewer 1:

We would like to thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. Your thoughtful and insightful comments have greatly improved the quality of our work. We appreciate your thoroughness in evaluating our study and providing valuable feedback.

Your constructive criticism and suggestions have helped us identify areas that needed further clarification and improvement, and we are grateful for your efforts in guiding us towards a stronger manuscript.

Thank you again for your time and expertise in reviewing our work. We hope that you find our revisions satisfactory and look forward to hearing your thoughts on the revised manuscript.

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

In this manuscript by Sharma and colleagues, the authors investigate the transcriptional regulation of the TAL1 isoforms - that derive from differential promoter usage and/or alternative splicing - and the contribution of TAL1 long and TAL1 short protein isoforms in normal haematopoietic development and disease.

The study suggests that TAL1 transcript isoforms are fine-tuned regulated. By using CRISPR/Cas9 techniques, the authors show that the enhancer -8 (MuTE) and enhancer -60 differentially regulate the TAL1 isoforms. Whether the remaining enhancers at the TAL1 locus (see Zhou Y et al, Blood 2013) also differentially regulate TAL1 transcription remains to be elucidated.

The authors found that TAL1 short isoform interacts strongly with T-cell specific transcription factors such as TCF3 and TCF12, as compared to TAL1 long isoform. TAL1 short shows an apoptotic transcription signature and it fails in rescuing cell growth as compared to TAL1 long in T-ALL. In addition, TAL1 short promotes erythropoiesis.

Lastly, the authors suggest that altering TAL1 long and TAL1 short protein isoforms ratio could have a potential therapeutic application in disease, but further studies are needed. *

We would like to thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your constructive feedback and insightful comments have been immensely valuable in improving the quality of our work. Your expertise in the field has undoubtedly contributed to the credibility and accuracy of this research. In addition, your dedication and attention to detail have been instrumental in shaping the final version of the manuscript.

* I have a number of comments: Figure 1 It was not mentioned that MOLT4 cells also have MuTE. Do Jurkat and MOLT4 share a similar profile in terms of TAL1 transcript isoforms? It would have been very interesting to see whether the TAL1 transcript isoforms are similar in SIL-TAL1+ cells (e.g RPMI-8402). In these cells, TAL1 activation results from a deletion that fuses the 5' non-coding region of SIL with TAL1. *

Thank you for your comment. We apologize for the confusion regarding the MOLT4 cells in our analysis. We have now updated the manuscript to explicitly mention the presence of MuTE in MOLT4 cells (Line 127). Additionally, we agree that it would be interesting to investigate whether the TAL1 transcript isoforms are similar in SIL-TAL1+ cells, such as RPMI-8402. To address this point, we have included the CCRF-CEM cell line that harbors the SIL-TAL1 recombination in our analysis. We have updated the manuscript with these new findings (Fig. 1C&D and S1A&B). Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

Figure 2 * It is not very clear how the expression of the short isoform delta exon 3 is quantified. Detailed information and a schematic of the primer location could be helpful. *

Thank you for your comment. We apologize for any confusion regarding the quantification of the expression of the short isoform (delta exon 3). The detailed information and schematic of the primer location can be found in Supplementary Figure 2B. We have included the location of each primer used in real-time PCR analysis for the quantification of all TAL1 isoforms. We hope this additional information will address your concerns.

* The results on Figure 2 derive from complex Cas9/CRISPR experiments. A schematic representation showing the location of the following elements is missing: CTCF sites, CTCF gRNA target region, dCas9-p300 gRNA target region and -60 enhancer. *

We agree that providing a schematic representation of the Cas9/CRISPR experiments would be helpful for better understanding the data in Figure 2. We have now included a detailed schematic of the location of the CTCF sites, CTCF gRNA target region, dCas9-p300 gRNA target region and -60 enhancer in Supplementary Figure 2E. We believe this new figure will provide a clearer overview of the experiments performed and will aid in the interpretation of the results.

* Are the levels of dCas9-p300 WT and dCas9-p300 MUT comparable in transfected HEK 293 cells? Were those possibly measured by qPCR or Western Blot? Why the authors chose to use 293T cells for the CTCF del as the enhancer usage around the locus must be so different from haematopoietic cells. *

Thank you for your question. We have added Western Blot analysis to compare the levels of dCas9-p300 WT and dCas9-p300 MUT in transfected HEK293T cells, as suggested. The results are presented in Supp. Fig. S2H.

Regarding the choice of HEK293T cells for the CTCF deletion experiment, we selected this cell line for its low expression of TAL1, which contributes to a high dynamic range when tethering p300 core to a closed chromatin region. We have added a clarification of our rationale for using HEK293T cells in the revised manuscript (Lines 177-8). Thank you for your valuable feedback.

* Is CPT - camptothecin? A control gene that is sensitive to CPT treatment would ensure the inhibitor is working. *

Thank you for your comment. Indeed, CPT stands for camptothecin, and this information is already included in the methods section. We have also added this information to the results section (Line 221) to make it clearer.

Regarding the suggestion to use a control gene sensitive to CPT treatment, we agree that this could be a useful addition to our experimental design. To address this, we have quantified the amount of TAL1 transcript to an endogenous control which is not transcribed by RNA Polymerase II (RNAPII) (18s rRNA). As a positive control, we compared Cyclo A, our endogenous control, to 18s rRNA and observed a reduction (Supp. Fig. S2K). This allows us to confidently conclude that the inhibitor is working as intended.

Thank you for bringing up this point, and we hope that our response addresses your concern.

*

In supplementary Figure 2D, the reduction in expression in Jurkat Del-12 is restricted to TSS2. There is no reduction in TAL1 TSS1 and TAL1 TSS4 (this is not clear from the result description section). As seen, these isoforms are upregulated and that could suggest a compensatory mechanism mediated by alternative promoter activation. The fact that Jurkat Del-12 express TAL1 from MSCV-TAL1 could also suggest that TSS1 and TSS4 are upregulated by TAL1 or indirectly, by other members of the TAL/LMO complex (see Sanda T et al, Cancer Cell 2012) *

Certainly, we appreciate your feedback. Supplementary Figure 2D indeed shows that the MuTE enhancer has a differential effect on the promoters, and we have now included this in the text of the manuscript. Regarding the TAL1-long isoform, while MSCV-TAL1 in the Jurkat Del-12 cell line does give rise to this isoform, our results from Figure 3A did not find TAL1-long to have a differential effect on TAL1 promoters. It is important to note that the experiment conducted was an exogenous construct in HEK293T cells, which has its limitations. Thus, the speculation that TAL1-long drives the result in supplementary Figure 2D is possible, and we have added this to the text. Thank you for bringing up this important point (Lines 167-9).

Figure 3 * A. Are the levels of TAL1 short cDNA and TAL1 long cDNA comparable in the co-transfection luciferase experiments? The overexpression of the isoforms does not reflect the endogenous expression levels in cell lines where one of the isoforms is more predominantly expressed (e.g Jurkat cells express low levels of TAL1 short). *

Thank you for your comment. To address your concern, we have added real time (Supp. Fig. S3A) as well as Western blot in a new figure (Supp. Fig. S3B) to show that the levels of TAL1-short and TAL1-long cDNA are comparable in the co-transfection luciferase experiments. Additionally, we observed a very low amount of endogenous TAL1 isoforms in the cell line (Supp. Fig. S3A&B), which was below detection using these methods. This suggests that the effect of the endogenous TAL1 in this cell line is low. We appreciate your feedback, and we hope this additional information addresses your concern.

* Figure 4 Are the levels of flag-TAL1 long and flag-TAL1 short comparable? The levels of expression could explain the low intensity signal for TAL1 long. *

Thank you for your insightful comment. Indeed, the issue of isoform quantification is critical in understanding the functional differences between TAL1-short and TAL1-long. To address this concern, we performed careful quantification of the isoforms and made sure that the amount was equal or slightly in favor of TAL1-long before conducting the experiments in this manuscript. We have also added a Western blot in Supp. Fig. S3A and real time in Supp. Fig. S3B showing the similar amount of the two isoforms. Furthermore, in Figure 4A, we provided the amount of each isoform in the input section, showing a higher amount of TAL1-long. This strengthens our result, which shows that TAL1-short binds stronger to TCF-3 and 12. Protein levels for ChIP-seq experiment (Fig. 4B-H) is now in Supp. Fig. S4B. We thank you for bringing up this important point, and we hope that our additional data and clarifications have addressed your concern

*Is there any reason for not performing a depletion of endogenous TAL1 prior to the ChIP seq flag experiment? *

Thank you for your comment. In our experience, infecting Jurkat cells with shRNA or an expressing vector systems can induce some cellular stress, and we did not want to add additional stress to the cells by depleting endogenous TAL1. Since we immunoprecipitated using a Flag-tagged protein, we did not see a need to deplete the endogenous TAL1 protein. However, in our RNA-seq experiment, depletion of endogenous TAL1 was critical, and we have added this additional step in this experiment.

* Could the authors speculate about MAF motif enrichment in both isoforms and not in TAL1-total? *

Thank you for bringing up this interesting point. It is worth noting that while all ChIP-seq experiments were performed in Jurkat cells, not all of them were conducted by us. In particular, ChIP-seq of TAL1 total was performed by Sanda et al., 2012, using an endogenous antibody against both isoforms, whereas we conducted ChIP-seq for TAL1-short and TAL1-long using a FLAG tag antibody in cells expressing each of the isoforms. Therefore, the different conditions of these experiments may have contributed to the observed MAF motif enrichment in both isoforms and not in TAL1-total. While we cannot provide a definitive explanation, we speculate that the overexpression of the isoforms or the presence of the FLAG tag may have facilitated the detection of the MAF motif. We have added this discussion to the manuscript to acknowledge and address this interesting observation (Lines: 307-8).

1. Sanda et al., Core transcriptional regulatory circuit controlled by the TAL1 complex in human T cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Cancer Cell 22, 209-221 (2012).

   * Do TAL1 long and TAL1 short recognise the same DNA motif? *

This is indeed a very interesting question but a difficult one to answer since TAL1 does not bind to the DNA alone but in a complex. In this situation, the ChIP-seq de-novo binding results suggest motifs that could be recognized by TAL1 or any of its complex partners. Using previous data, TAL1’s binding motif is CAGNTG (Hsu et al., 1994), while this motif was not identified in our analysis of the TAL1-total or FLAG-TAL1-long ChIP-seq results, we did, however, identify this sequence in FLAG-TAL1-short ChIP-seq results (p value=1e-93). We predict that this discrepancy is due to the complex nature of transcription factors binding and the fact that the ChIP-seq results were not all done in the same way. We have now added this to the discussion (Lines: 419-25).

1. L. Hsu et al., Preferred sequences for DNA recognition by the TAL1 helix-loop-helix proteins. Mol Cell Biol 14, 1256-1265 (1994).

* Figure 6 In A and B, are the levels of flag-TAL1 long and flag-TAL1 short in transduced K562 comparable? In C and D, are the TAL1 levels reduced at the protein level?*

Thank you for your question. To answer your question, we added Western Blot analysis to show the comparable levels of flag-TAL1-long and flag-TAL1-short in transduced K562 cells (Supp. Fig. S6C). In Figure 6C and D, we also added Western Blot analysis to show the reduction in TAL1 protein levels upon shRNA-mediated knockdown(Supp. Fig. S6B).

* Minor points: Figure 1 A. Include a scale bar *

To address this, we included coordinates of the components of the gene marked in the figure.

* C. Loading control such as GAPDH is missing in the Western Blot. Are CUTLL cells the same as CUTTL-1? *

We added loading controls as requested now supplementary Fig. 1C, S2C, S3A, S4B, S6B&C. Yes, CUTLL is the same as CUTLL-1 we have now fixed this in the text (Line 120).

D. Adjust scale of the CHIP seq tracks in K562 cells in order to see the peak summit. *Include genome build *

Thank you for your comment. We have adjusted the scale of the ChIP-seq tracks in K562 cells as suggested to improve the visualization of the peak summit. However, one of the peaks still had a much higher signal and the summit is still missing from this particular peak. To address this, we have added a new figure in the supp. Fig. S1C materials where we adjusted the peak to show the summit. Please note that in this track, the chromatin structure at the enhancers is missing, and therefore, we did not include it in the main figure. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

We have added a genome build hg19 to the figure legend.

* In supplementary Figure 1B, the symbol scheme is not clear *

Thank you for this note, we have replaced the figure and added text to make it clearer.

* Figure 2 A & C. Remove 'amount' from the Y axis. Is the total mRNA amount calculated as % of the reference genes? It could be specified on the y axis or figure legend. *

We have removed the word "amount" from the Y axis as requested. Total mRNA amount is normalized relative to the reference genes (∆∆Cq) by Bio-Rad's CFX Maestro software (version 2.3) according to the formula:

where:

• RQ = Relative Quantity of a sample
• Ref = Reference target in a run that includes one or more reference targets in each sample
• GOI = Gene of interest (one target)

* In supplementary Figure 2C, a loading control is missing.*

We have added alpha-tubulin to this figure.

* Figures 4, 5 and 6 Size of the figures should be increased. *

We have increased the figure size as suggested. *

Reviewer #1 (Significance (Required)): The study from Sharma and colleagues is novel and it extends the knowledge on TAL1 regulation and the role of TAL1 in development and disease. Although the study suggests that there is a correlation between enhancers, chromatin mark deposition at exons and regulation of alternative splicing, the mechanistic link is not fully elucidated.*

To further elucidate the mechanistic link between the MuTE enhancer, broad H3K4me3 modification spanning 7.5 Kbp from TAL1 promoter 1 to promoter 5 (as shown in Fig. 1D), and alternative splicing, we conducted experiments where we manipulated KMT2B, a component of the SET1/COMPASS complexes responsible for methylating H3K4. Our findings indicate that silencing KMT2B in Jurkat cells led to a significant 30% increase in TAL1-∆Ex3 (Fig. 2H and Supp. Fig. S2I&J). These results contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying TAL1 alternative splicing regulation.

The findings on TAL1 short protein are interesting but the data on TAL1 long lacks some refinement so then robust conclusions can be drawn. * The experimental data lacks a few controls. The text is clear and prior studies could be better referenced. *

We have made an effort to better reference out manuscript.

* As TAL1 is a very crucial transcription factor oncogene in T-ALL, the study is important as it addresses a very relevant question in the field that is the regulation of the transcription of TAL1 and the functional relevance of both TAL1 short and TAL1 long isoforms. *

Reviewer 2: *

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

Summary: Sharma et al. thoroughly characterized the regulation of TAL1 by mapping the use of its five promoters and enhancers, which together transcribe five transcripts, coding for two protein isoforms. For that purpose the authors used few cell lines: Jurkat as a T-ALL cell line, chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) cell line K562 and HEK293T with low TAL1 expression, as well as CutLL and MOLT4. They profiled the chromatin marks H3K27ac and H3K4me3 at the TAL1 locus, and show that when a the -8 enhancer is compromised tha chromatin marks change, and not only the expression level of TAL1 is reduced, the level of exon 3 skipping is increased. When the -60 enhancr was activated, TAL1 expression increased, and exon 3 skipping was reduced. Those findings indicate that in tal1, transcription and alternative splicing are co-regulated, independent of RNAPII. The authors also show that as an autoregulator, TAL1-short has a preference to TSS1-3 of TAL1, which is not shared by TAL1-long, and that each of the 5' UTR affect Tal1 expression differently. TAL1-short binds E-proteins more strongly than TAL1-long, binds many more sites than TAL1-long and stronger, and each isoform has unique set of targets. Finally, the authors set to identify the different functions of the TAL1 isoforms, and showed that Tal1-short slows cell growth and leads to TAL1-short but not TAL1-long leads to exhaustion of hematopoietic stem cells and promotes differentiation into erythroids. This paper used for the first time TAL1 isoform specific ChIP-seq, which enable accurate definition of isoform-specific targets in Jurkat cells. They demonstrated an interaction between choice of TSS and alternative splicing, and isoform specific functions. Given the clinical importance of TAL1 and the meticulous work performed to characterize its isoform specific regulation and function, I find this manuscript of interest, and only have minor suggestions to improve readability. *

Thank you for taking the time to carefully review our manuscript on the regulation and function of TAL1 isoforms. We appreciate your positive feedback on our comprehensive characterization of TAL1 regulation using chromatin profiling and isoform-specific ChIP-seq. We are glad that you found our findings on the co-regulation of transcription and alternative splicing, as well as the isoform-specific functions of TAL1, to be of interest.

We also appreciate your suggestions to improve the readability of the manuscript and have made the necessary revisions accordingly. Your feedback has been invaluable in strengthening the quality of our work, and we are grateful for your contribution to the scientific community.

* Minor comments: Add explicitly the motivation for choosing the cell line in each part. *

We have added motivation (Lines: 157-8, 177-8, 192-194, 235-6 text that was on the previous version: 192-194, 379-80).

* Figure 1 - Consider marking the promoter numbers and the enhancers names in the same names as in text (-8,-60 etc.), to make it easier for the readers to understand which enhancers is being discussed. *

This in a very important point. We have added the numbering to Figure 1D and Supp. Fig. S2A, B & E.

*P5, P18 - ProtParam is only a prediction tool, and does not supply an experimental measurement, as may be assumed from text. Please rephrase accordingly. *

The words “prediction tool” were added in the indicated paragraphs (Lines 115 and 427).

* Figure 2B/D - y axis label unclear, not explained in text. In accordance, unclear if the change is in the amount of RNA, or the ratio between the long and short variants. *

Thank you for this comment. We greatly appreciate your feedback and suggestions. To make our calculations, which are the norm in the splicing field, clearer, we have now added text to Figure 4 and provided more detailed explanations in lines 670-73. We hope that these modifications will improve the clarity and comprehensiveness of our manuscript.

*Consider removing the bars and increasing the dots, to make the graphs cleaner. *

We removed the bars throughout the manuscript for a cleaner look.

* P8 - The term '5C' may require more explanation, depending on target audience. *

We have added text to explain the technique (Lines 179-81).

* Figure 3 - the trend is that TAL1-short promotes transcription from all five TSSs. However, only in TSS1-3 is the difference significant, but the difference between the long and short forms is not significant. It is unclear if "The mean of three independent experiments done with three replicates" means overall there are three replicates per condition or nine. Please rephrase to clarify. *

Thank you for your comment. To clarify, we want to state that each biological experiment was done in three technical replicates, resulting in a total of nine replicates for each condition. We apologize for any confusion and have now rephrased to: The mean was calculated from three independent biological experiments, each performed with three technical replicates (Lines: 696 and 699).

*Fig 4 A - it seems that many of the sites bound by Tal1 total are not bind by either Tal1-short or Tal1-long. Indeed very little overlap between Tal1-short and Tal-1-total is seen in Fig 4I as well. It seems Tal1-long has very few peaks. Consider adding a discussion of possible reasons. *

We agree that these findings are noteworthy and warrant further discussion. We added text to the discussion section to explore potential reasons for these observations (Lines 416-25).

* Fig 4c - it is hard to distinguish the different lines. Consider a more clear visualization. Also, some text is in a font size too small to read. *

We have changed the format of the figure and took out the input data from the main figure to help the visualization. The input data appear in the Supp. Fig. S4C.

* Fig 4 D-H - will be useful to see the numbers, not just the % divided by %. *

A table with the specific numbers can be found in Supp Figure 4F-J.

* Fig 4 legend - 'I&L' possibly means 'I-L'. P14 - refer to where the results of the 'validation using real-time PCR' are shown. P16 - symbol replaced by an empty rectangle 20 􀀀M *

Thank you for these valuable comments, we have fixed/added these in the manuscript.

* Figure 6D - Y axis value seem strange (fold change relative to day 0 should be 1 at day 0). Consider different Y axis label for C and D to clarify. *

Thank you for this comment, we have changed the y-axis to: Fold-change relative to day 1.

* P18 - It is unclear which "two isoforms with posttranslational modifications which affected the migration rate of the protein (Fig. 1C)" were shown. Only two isoforms are mentioned throughout the paper. *

We have added text to clarify we are referring to TAL1-short and long (Lines 409-10).

*

P18 - "Our ChIP-seq results suggest that the isoforms bind at the same location (Fig. 4B)." - in 4B it seems most of TAL1-short bound positions are not bound by TAL1 long. Please clarify. *

* Worth mentioning that the Total TAL1 is taken from Jurkat cells but from a different experiment. * We have changed the statement and added the text referring to the experiments done independently (Lines 422-3).

*

Reviewer #2 (Significance (Required)): This paper used for the first time TAL1 isoform specific ChIP-seq, which enable accurate definition of isoform-specific targets in Jurkat cells. They demonstrated an interaction between choice of TSS and alternative splicing, and isoform specific functions. Given the clinical importance of TAL1 and the meticulous work performed to characterize its isoform specific regulation and function, I find this manuscript of interest, and only have minor suggestions to improve readability. *

Author Response

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The idea of using fluorescently labeled tandem SH2 domains to target tagged RTKs is brilliant and could potentially provide a powerful new way to assess the activation of RTKs in situ and in multiple physiological contexts. Thus, it was disappointing that there was insufficient characterization of the system to be able to interpret the data it generates. Although the paper shows that tagging the EGFR appears to have minimal impact on its biological activity, the readout for receptor kinase activity is % clearance of the fluorescent reporter tag from the cytosol. Such clearance is likely to depend on a variety of different factors, including the ratio of tagged receptors to probe, the number of functional pools in which the probe exists, the exchange rate between these pools, and the affinity of the probes for the tagged receptor. Without determining how each of these factors impacts % clearance, it is difficult to interpret either the dose-response curves or response kinetics.

We appreciate the reviewer’s point that the paper would be improved by a thorough analysis of how membrane translocation depends on our biosensor’s expression levels. We have attempted to address this thoroughly in our response to the Editor’s summary comments above. Briefly, we have now added 3 new supplementary figures (Figures S2-S4) in which we quantify ZtSH2 translocation as a function of expression levels. We find that the ratio of EGFR/ZtSH2 expression predicts the extent of ZtSH2 translocation in both NIH3T3 and HEK293T cells, matching results from our computational model. We have also added a new section to the main text to clearly explain these results (Lines 190-235). We hope that these data clarify the design constraints for two-component biosensors of this type.

For example, the difference in activation kinetics between EGFR and ErbB2 is very interesting, but the almost instantaneous rise (Fig S4B) is very surprising. The kinetics of activation of the EGFR have been extensively studied by mass-spectrometry and are generally limited by ligand binding, which has a characteristic time of several minutes, not seconds (pmid: 26929352; pmid: 1975591). Thus, such a response is suggestive of a freely exchanging ZtSH2 reporter pool that is mostly depleted in seconds with the slow secondary kinetics reflecting a slowly exchanging ZtSH2 reporter pool. Alternately, the cells could be accumulating an intracellular pool of activated receptors over time. That the authors are using concentrations of EGF >100-fold physiological levels (pmid: 29268862) further complicates the interpretation of these experiments.

We thank the reviewer for bringing these papers to our attention. However, we strongly disagree with their interpretation of the results. In a paper cited by the reviewer (PMID:26929352), phosphotyrosine responses are extremely fast, with phosphorylation occurring within tens of seconds even in response to 20 nM EGF (see Figure 2 from Reddy et al PNAS 2016). Reddy et al further claim in their abstract “Significant changes were observed on proteins far downstream in the network as early as 10 s after stimulation.” While the timescale of EGFR phosphorylation may be of some debate, the response timescale we observe is consistent with previously published observations.

It is also important to point out that the secondary gradual rise of ZtSH2 recruitment is only observed upon treatment with EGF, not EREG or EPGN (Figure 3A). The gradual rise can also be observed upon treatment with EREG in the presence of a GBM-associated EGFR mutation that alters receptor dimerization (Figure 3E). These data indicate that the secondary rise is not an intrinsic feature of the ZtSH2 reporter, and instead represents a feature of ligand-receptor activation itself.

The reviewer suggests that perhaps there is some internal pool of ZtSH2 or EGF, but we find no evidence for such a pool in our microscopy imaging. To clarify this point to the reader, we have now added a new supplementary figure (Figure S6) showing representative cells for all stimulation conditions used in Figure 3A, showing consistent, high levels of EGFR and ZtSH2 enrichment at the plasma membrane and uniform cytosolic intensity for at least 30 min after stimulation across all ligands.

Finally, while the reviewer mentions the use of high EGF doses in our paper, we would like to point out that we performed extensive experiments at other doses in the manuscript, testing 14 total doses of three EGFR ligands in Figure 3, and present additional data at 20 ng/mL EGF throughout Figures 2, S2, and S7. It is also very important to test high input doses for our negative controls to ensure that the ZtSH2 biosensor retains specificity for ITAM sequences and fails to show recruitment to untagged EGFR even under saturating conditions. It is also quite customary in the field: for example, the Erk KTR paper that the reviewer mentions in a later comment (Regot et al, Cell 2014) exclusively tests their biosensors using saturating doses of 50 ng/mL anisomycin, 100 ng/mL FGF, and 10 μM forskolin to characterize p38, Erk and PKA biosensor responses.

There is also insufficient attention paid to either controlling or measuring important parameters, such as expression levels of tagged receptors or levels of endogenous receptors. 3T3 cells, contrary to the statement of the authors, do not have "negligible" numbers of EGFR: they have ~40K, which is typical for mouse fibroblasts. This is much higher than MCF7 cells, which are frequently used as a model system to study EGFR responses. Yet they do not see transactivation of their ErbB2 construct in 3T3 cells without expressing additional EGFR (Fig. 4C), suggesting low sensitivity of the assay. Conversely, they show a significant response mediated by endogenously tagged EGFR in HEK 293 cells, which are frequently used as an EGFR-negative cell line (PMID: 26368334). This indicates that their assay is extremely sensitive. Which is it? As mentioned above, it likely depends on the expression level and affinity of the different components of their system.

After extensive searching we have not found any publications with an estimate as high as 40K EGFR receptors/cell in NIH3T3 cells. Livneh et al 1986 report that NIH3T3 cells express as little as 500 EGFR receptors per cell and do not respond mitogenically to EGF, and subsequent Schlessinger lab papers use NIH3T3 cells as an EGFR-null background for introduction of receptor variants. Eierhoff et al PLOS Pathogens 2010 use NIH3T3s as an EGFR-null control, showing immunoblot data of undetectable pEGFR responses. The paper we found with the highest stated EGFR expression per cell in NIH3T3 cells is Verbeek et al, FEBS Lett 1998, which reports a value of 3,000 receptors per cell, but does so without any literature citation or measurement. These references are consistent with our experience: over nearly a decade of MAPK signaling experiments in the lab, we have only seen weak or undetectable EGF-stimulated responses in unmodified NIH3T3s, depending on the assay. We are quite confident that more potent responses are elicited in HEK293T cells, where we observe EGFR expression by fluorescence imaging of CRISPR-tagged cells, immunofluorescence staining, and immunoblotting, and where we observe robust signaling responses using biosensors. We also now cite some of these references to support our claim (Line 144).

The reviewer makes an excellent point in the last sentence of their comment: indeed, it is essential to match the expression level of our SH2-based biosensor to the expression level of EGFR in any system in order to observe potent membrane translocation! This was imperative for visualizing any translocation in our CRISPR-tagged HEK293Ts: we had to switch to an exceptionally bright fluorophore and select cells with very low ZtSH2 expression to observe translocation. The ZtSH2/EGFR ratio is a crucial design parameter, which we now present extensive data and modeling to support (Figure S2-S4; Lines 190-235). Our data suggests that quite sensitive biosensor responses are possible with appropriate balance between ZtSH2 and EGFR expression levels (Figure 6) and, in general, biosensor responses can be matched to a dynamic range of interest by scaling ZtSH2 expression with EGFR levels.

A great advantage of using the EGFR system as a test case for the new system is that thousands of investigations have been performed over the last four decades. This provides a strong foundation for determining whether the new technology is working correctly. For example, the dynamics of EGFR activation and trafficking at the single cell level have been documented in many studies, which show a remarkable consistency (e.g. see pmid: 24259669; pmid: 11408594; pmid: 25650738). Unfortunately, instead of using differences between the new results and previously reported data as a basis for refining their technique, the authors attempt to apply their raw data to address complex questions of EGFR dynamics, with less than satisfactory results.

For example, they attempt to use their technique to understand the basis of different signaling dynamics between EGFR ligands. Rather than being a relatively recent observation, differences in EGFR ligand signaling have been explored for over 30 years (pmcid: PMC361851), and are generally ascribed to differences in trafficking (pmid: 7876195). Based on these observations and resulting mathematical models, novel EGFR ligands have been designed with enhanced potency (pmid: 8195228 , pmid: 9634854 ). All this work was done over 20 years ago. Since then, new natural ligands for the EGFR have been discovered from sequence analysis and differences in their potency have similarly been ascribed to differences in their intracellular trafficking patterns (pmid: 19531065 - cited by the authors). An alternate hypothesis was proposed more recently by Freed et al (2017) as described by the authors, but that is what it is: an alternative hypothesis.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out many excellent, classic studies on EGFR endocytosis and trafficking. We agree that this is a well-established field and that EGFR is certainly internalized, recycled, and degraded in a manner that depends on ligand affinity on the cell surface and in endosomes. These seminal studies lead the reviewer to propose an alternative hypothesis to explain our kinetic data in Figure 3: that differences in trafficking and maintenance of EGFR levels at the plasma membrane are the source of the altered kinetics between high- and low-affinity ligands. To address this question, we have now included new supplementary data examining endocytosis and trafficking in multiple contexts.

First, we examine membrane EGFR levels in 3T3 cells overexpressing our EGFR-pYtag system (or ITAM-less EGFR as a control) after EGF stimulation (Figure S5A-C). We find that EGFR membrane intensity is virtually unchanged after 60 min of saturating EGF stimulation, a response that does not depend on whether ITAMs are appended to the receptor. We also now include still images of cells at every concentration examined in our dose-response experiments for all 3 ligands (Figure S6), which do not show clear differences in the subcellular distribution of EGFR before and after stimulation as a function of ligand identity. We also remind the reviewer that our interpretation is not simply an untested hypothesis – we experimentally tested a GBM-associated EGFR variant whose effect on receptor dimerization has been quantified, and observe EGF-like response kinetics even after EREG stimulation, a result predicted by our model (Figure 3D-E).

We believe that the sustained membrane-localized signaling we observe might be ascribed to two factors: our choice of cell line and its expression level of EGFR. This conjecture is supported by some data: in contrast to our EGFR-overexpressing NIH3T3 cells, HEK293Ts harboring endogenous or low EGFR levels exhibit a dramatic redistribution of EGFR after EGF stimulation (Figure S3, Figure 6). This is clearly a context where transient versus sustained signaling might depend on the choice of ligand and its consequences on internalization.

We also note that our data identify ligand-specific signaling differences that are distinct from prior studies, which focused on transient vs sustained signaling downstream of different EGFR ligands. In contrast, we identify a biphasic increase in EGFR activity after stimulation with EGF versus a rapid approach to steady state after stimulation with EREG or EPGN, despite the continued presence of high levels of membrane-localized EGFR in each case.

Unfortunately, the model that the authors use to test this hypothesis does not even include endocytosis or receptor trafficking but instead uses variable "scaling" factors to see if the data can fit the dimerization hypothesis. In the supplement, they state that "Since our simulations were run on relatively short time scales (~30 min post-stimulation), we did not consider trafficking and degradation of receptors." However, the half-life of EGFR internalization is generally ~3-4min (pmid: 1975591) and degradation ~1hr, so most of the signal shown in Figure 3 is likely to come from internalized rather than surface-associated ligand-EGFR complexes. A further complication is that internalization rates are strongly influenced by receptor expression levels (pmid: 3262110), which are not controlled for here. Thus, the omission of trafficking in their model is not appropriate. This does not mean that the authors are wrong, it simply means that without validation or calibration, their new technology is not ready to resolve current problems in the field.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out ways to improve our modeling (endocytosis) and discussion of its parameterization (scaling factors). We address both points below:

Scaling factors: We thank the reviewer for their comments & agree that our discussion of model parameterization was lacking. To clarify: our base-case model for EGF includes 9 parameters, 6 of which are obtained from literature and 3 which reflect lumped kinetic processes of EGFR dimerization and activation and which we set to match our data. We then used experimentally-determined values to change the base-case model to simulate low-affinity ligand stimulation: a fold-change in ligand affinity and a fold-change in receptor dimerization. This is why we simulate EREG with β=50 and γ=100, reflecting the 10-to-100-fold differences in binding affinity and receptor dimerization that have been experimentally measured for this low-affinity ligand. Similar experimentally defined values constrain β and γ in the case of GBM-associated mutations. A more thorough explanation of our model and these scaling parameters is now included in Lines 334-362.

Endocytosis: We wholeheartedly agree that our model is quite simplified, and a thorough treatment of endocytosis and trafficking would be essential for capturing nuances associated with these steps of the cascade. However, while we appreciate the 3-4 min rule of thumb for EGFR internalization that the reviewer mentions, it is simply not reflective of the membrane-associated EGFR levels we observe in our cells. Examples can be observed in Figure 1C, Figure 2A, Figure 5F, Figure S1B, Figure S2A-B, Figure S5A, and Figure S6, as well as in the quantification of membrane associated EGFR at 0 and 60 min in Figure S5B. It is quite likely that endocytosis and trafficking are operating throughout this time course, but are balanced to maintain similarly high level of EGFR at the cell surface. We wholeheartedly agree with the reviewer’s helpful note that EGFR expression levels heavily influence internalization, which our data also support, and may explain our results. For example, we also see rapid EGFR membrane clearance in HEK293T CRISPR cells (Figure 6) and in HEK293Ts that express low levels of EGFR but not high levels of EGFR (Figure S3A).

In sum, we argue that our inclusion of additional data showing sustained EGFR protein levels and ZtSH2 recruitment at the plasma membrane should help justify our assumption of membrane-associated signaling in our model. However, we happily concede that this is a highly simplified model, and that endocytosis is a very important process that should be accounted for in future studies (e.g., Line 344-346: “However, we expect that internalization and trafficking can play a crucial role in EGFR dynamics in many contexts, which would need to be included in future models to adequately assess those scenarios”).

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

Learn more at Review Commons

---

Reply to the reviewers

We thank all the reviewers for having raised constructive criticism to fortify the main message and improve the clarity of the manuscript. We appreciate that all reviewers found that our work addresses an important topic and is of interest to a broad audience. We believe that we have thoroughly addressed the concerns of the reviewers, especially with regard to 1) performing another SMC3 chromatin immunoprecipitation and sequencing (ChIP-seq) replicate and control, 2) including a later time point for the transcriptional data, and 3) performing additional characterization of the growth phenotype of the SMC3 conditional knockdown.

Reviewer #1

(Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):*

Summary The present work by Rosa et al., provides convincing data about the presence and functional relevance of the cohesin complex in Plasmodium falciparum blood stages. In accordance with other organisms, the composition of the cohesin complex containing SMC1, SMC3 RAD21 and putatively STAG could be confirmed via pulldown and mass spectrometry. Basic characterization of endogenous tagged SMC3 demonstrated the expression and nuclear localization during IDC, as well as the relatively stable accumulation at centromeric regions, consistent with the known cohesin function in chromatid separation. Furthermore, dynamic and stage-dependent binding to intergenic regions observed in ChIPseq and major transcriptome aberrations upon knockdown of SMC3 (__Response: __As we regularly perform ChIP-seq experiments in the lab, we have generated multiple negative control datasets. In our opinion, the most stringent negative control for an HA-tagged protein is performing ChIP with an HA antibody in a WT strain. We have recently published an in-depth analysis of this (and other) negative ChIP-seq controls (Baumgarten & Bryant, 2022, https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.14836.2). We show in this publication that non-specific ChIP-seq experiments (such as negative controls) result in an over-representation of HP1-heterochromatinized regions due to differences in sonication efficiency of heterochromatin and technical challenges with mapping regions with high levels of homology. In the anti-HA in WT ChIP negative control (performed at 12hpi), we do not see any enrichment at centromeric regions, but rather at heterochromatinized regions where clonally variant gene families are located. We performed peak calling analysis and found no significant overlap between the negative control ChIP-seq and the SMC3-3HA ChIP-seq data at 12hpi.

In addition, we have now performed a second biological replicate of the SMC3-3HA ChIP-seq with a different clone at all time points. We compared this data to that from the original clone and found significant overlap of the peaks called (see what is now Table 4 and Supp. Fig. 3A). We generated a stringent list of peaks that were shared between both clones at each time point and repeated all downstream analyses (see what are now Tables 5-8). We found that our conclusions were largely unchanged. Text describing these experiments and analyses have been added throughout the results section.

• Proposed mechanism of repressive effect of SMC3 early in IDC on genes, that get de-repressed in late stages: To claim this mode of function, it would be necessary to include a KD on late stage parasites. If there is an early repressive role of SMC3, upregulated genes should not be affected by late SMC3-KD. __Response: __To be clear, we are most interested in the transcriptional role of SMC3 during interphase, where results are not confounded by its potential role in mitosis. However, we did collect a 36hpi time point in the SMC3-3HA-glmS and WT strain, with and without glucosamine. We have added this last time point and the WT data from the other two time points to the manuscript (see Tables 11-13). Unfortunately, and for reasons unknown, the WT replicates treated with glucosamine showed a significantly advanced “transcriptional age” compared to the other replicates at 36hpi (see what is now Supp. Fig. 5B). Thus, we did not feel comfortable performing the RNA-seq analysis as we did with the other two time points (i.e. subtracting up- and down-regulated genes from the WT control from the SMC3-3HA-glmS data sets). We have added this information to the results section (Lines 256 and 261). As the WT parasites treated with glucosamine were approximately 8 hours in advance of the untreated WT parasites for the 36hpi time point, any up- and down-regulated genes might have been due to differences in the cell cycle rather than due to glucosamine treatment. The glmS system of inducible knockdown is widely used in P. falciparum; however, to our knowledge, no lab has investigated whether glucosamine treatment affects transcription in wildtype cells over the course of the IDC. Thus, for accurate phenotypic characterization of any protein with this system with regard to transcriptomics, we thought it was important to provide an RNA-seq dataset to define the cohort of genes affected by glucosamine treatment in WT parasites. We hope that our study will demonstrate the importance of using stringent controls when using inducible knockdown systems.

To address the question of whether genes that are upregulated upon depletion of SMC3 at early stages are affected at the 36hpi time point, we performed differential expression analysis of the SMC3-3HA-glmS parasites with and without glucosamine at 36hpi (we have added this data in Table 11). Again, significantly up- and down-regulated genes were not filtered using the WT dataset. With this analysis, we see only three genes from the list of invasion-related genes (Hu et al., 2010) that are up-regulated, but none of them have a significant q-value (Tab 5 of Table 18). Thus, depletion of SMC3 in late stage parasites does not lead to up-regulation of the same genes that are upregulated at 12 and 24hpi. We have added this information to the text (Line 273).

Furthermore, the hypothesized repressive effect of SMC3 does not explain the numerous genes downregulated in KD.

__Response: __As we state on line 350, we do not observe enrichment of SMC3 at downregulated genes, suggesting an indirect or secondary effect of SMC3 KD on these genes.

• Due to the fact, that the KD was induced at the exact same timepoint and analysed 12h and 24h after induction it is possible that identified, differentially expressed genes at 24h are not directly regulated by SMC3, but rather due to a general deregulation of gene expression. Did the authors attempt to analyse gene expression upon induction at ring, trophozoite and schizont stage? Response: __As we state on line 230, in order to achieve SMC3 KD at the protein level, we had to treat the parasite with glucosamine for two cell cycles (approximately 96 hours). After two cell cycles of glucosamine treatment, the parasites were tightly synchronized and sampled 12 and 24 hours later. Thus, SMC3 KD takes place over the course of multiple days, but parasites are collected after stringent synchronization. Giemsa staining and bioinformatic analysis (line 250) of the RNA-seq data from parasites (with or without glucosamine) harvested at 12 and 24 hpi show that these parasites were synchronous and that there were no gross differences in genome-wide transcript levels. It is certainly possible that differentially expressed genes at 12 or 24hpi are not directly regulated by SMC3, and this is precisely why we perform ChIP-seq of SMC3: to provide evidence of direct involvement via binding, as stated on line 281. __

• *Based on rapid parasite growth, the authors hypothesize a higher invasion rate due to upregulation of invasion genes. This hypothesis is not supported by quantitative invasion assays or quantification of invasion factors on the protein level. An alternative explanation could be a shorter cell cycle (__Response: __We have repeated the growth curve analysis with additional clones and no longer observe a growth phenotype in the SMC3 knockdown condition. We have added images of Giemsa-stained parasites from the knockdown time course we performed to what is now Supp. Fig. 5A. We see no obvious differences in cell morphology caused by glucosamine treatment in the WT or SMC3-3HA-glmS parasites.

• Correlation of SMC3-occupancy/ATAC/expression profile of the exemplary genes rap2 and gap45 (Figure 4C,D,E): is this representative for all upregulated genes? __Response: __SMC3 occupancy shown at rap2 and gap45 is representative for all upregulated genes (see Fig. 4A and B). It is difficult to provide a general representation of the average expression profiles of all up-regulated genes over the course of the IDC, but Fig. 3E shows that the vast majority of up-regulated genes normally reach their peak expression in late stage parasites. With regard to ATAC-seq profiles, we have performed a metagene analysis of chromatin accessibility (data taken from (Toenhake et al., 2018)) at all up-regulated genes at time points that closely correspond to the time points used in our study: 15, 25, and 35, and 40 hpi (new Fig. 4C). This metagene analysis confirms what we observe at individual genes: increasing chromatin accessibility over the course of the IDC at these genes’ promoters. While metagene analyses offer important information, we always try to show the raw data (as in new Figs. 4D-F) from individual examples as proof of principle.

• Given that SMC3 appears to be not essential for parasite growth, the authors could generate a null mutant for SMC3, which might allow for easier analysis of differences in gene regulation, cell cycle progression and/or invasion efficiency. __Response: __As we explain on line 327, very little cohesin is required for normal growth and/or mitosis in our study and two studies in S. cerevisiae and D. melanogaster. However, SMC3 is essential in S. cerevisiae. We were unable to knock out SMC3, and a recent mutagenesis study suggests that SMC3 and SMC1 are essential to the parasite during the intraerythrocytic developmental cycle (Zhang et al. Science, 2018). This is why we chose an inducible knockdown system.

*Reviewer #1 (Significance (Required)):

Own opinion The authors provide a basic characterization of the cohesin component SMC3 using NGS methods to investigate chromatin binding sites and its potential influence on gene expression. *

__Response: __We respectfully disagree that our study offers only a basic characterization of SMC3. We combine IFA, mass spectrometry, and both ChIP-seq and RNA-seq of SMC3 across the entire intraerythrocytic developmental cycle to provide the most detailed and comprehensive functional analysis of SMC3 in P. falciparum to date.

The localisation of SMC3 at centromers as described previously (Batugedara 2020) was confirmed. However, the dynamic binding to other regions in the genome, potentially mediated by other proteins, could not be resolved unequivocal with only one replicate of ChIPseq per time point.

__Response: __With regard to the replicates for ChIP-seq, please see our response to this same point above.

Similarly, the RNAseq data demonstrate the relevance of SMC3 for gene expression, but no clear picture of a regulatory mechanism can be drawn at his point. Lacking information about the mode of binding as well as the setup of transcriptome analysis (only two time-shifted sampling points after simultaneous glmS treatment for 96h resulting in incomplete knockdown) cannot definitely elucidate, if SMC3/cohesin is a chromatin factor that affects transcription of genes in general or a specific repressor of stage-specific genes. __Response: __We agree that we have not established a regulatory mechanism for how SMC3 achieves binding specificity. However, the combination of inducible knockdown (as SMC3 is essential to the cell cycle) and differential expression analysis with ChIP-seq from the same time points across the intraerythrocytic developmental cycle is the most stringent and standard approach in the field of epigenetics for determining the direct role of a chromatin-associated protein in gene expression. We provide a detailed explanation of how the transcriptome analysis was set up in the Results (lines 229-234) and Materials and Methods (lines 715-719) section. With regard to our sampling points being “time-shifted,” we provide bioinformatic analysis (line 246-251, what is now Supp. Fig. 5B) of the RNA-seq data from untreated and glucosamine-treated parasites showing highly similar “ages” with regard to progression through the intraerythrocytic developmental cycle. While we of course also monitor progression through the cell cycle with Giemsa staining (Supp. Fig. 5A), this bioinformatic analysis is the most stringent method of determining specific times in the cell cycle.

*The work will be interesting to a general audience, interested in gene regulation and chromatin remodelling

The reviewers are experts in Plasmodium cell biology and epigenetic regulation.*

Reviewer #2

(Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

Rosa et al, Review Commons The manuscript by Rosa et al. addresses the function of the cohesion subunit Smc3 in gene regulation during the asexual life cycle of P. falciparum. Cohesin is a conserved protein complex involved in sister chromatin cohesion during mitosis and meiosis in eukaryotic cells. Cohesin also modulates transcription and DNA repair by mediating long range DNA interactions and regulating higher order chromatin structure in mammals and yeast. In P. falciparum, the Cohesin complex remains largely uncharacterized. In this manuscript, the authors present mass spectrometry data from co-IPs showing that Smc3 interacts with Smc1 and a putative Rad21 orthologue (Pf3D7_1440100, consistent with published data from Batugedara et al and Hilliers et al), as well as a putative STAG domain protein orthologue (PF3D7_1456500). Smc3 protein appears to be most abundant in schizonts, but ChIPseq indicates predominant enrichment of Smc3 in centromers in ring and trophozoite stages. In addition, Smc3 dynamically binds with low abundance to other loci across the genome; however, the enrichment is rather marginal and only a single replicate was conducted for each time point making the data interpretation difficult. Conditional knock-down using a GlmS ribozyme approach indicates that parasites with reduced levels of Smc3 have a mild growth advantage, which is only evident after five asexual replication cycles and which the authors attribute to the transcriptional upregulation of invasion-linked genes following Smc3 KD. Indeed, Smc3 seems to be more enriched upstream of genes that are upregulated after Smc3 KD in rings than in downregulated genes, indicating that Smc3/cohesin may have a function in supressing transcription of these schizont specific genes until they are needed. The manuscript is concise and very well written, however it suffers from the lack of experimental replicates for ChIP experiments and a better characterization of the phenotype of conditional KD parasites. * Major comments • In the mass spectrometry analysis, many seemingly irrelevant proteins are identified at similar abundance to the putative rad21 and ssc3 orthologues, and therefore the association with the cohesion complex seems to be based mostly on analogy to other species rather than statistical significance. Hence, it would be really nice to see a validation of the novel STAG domain and Rad21 proteins, for example by Co-IP using double transgenic parasites.*

__Response: __While our IP-MS data did not yield high numbers of peptides, the top most enriched proteins were SMC3 and SMC1. As we state on line 157, two previous studies have already shown a robust interaction between SMC1, SMC3, and RAD21 in Plasmodium, supporting the existence of a conserved cohesin complex. While the identification of the STAG domain-containing protein is interesting, the purpose of our IP-MS was less about redefining the cohesin complex in P. falciparum and more about confirming that the epitope-tagged SMC3 we generated was incorporated correctly into the cohesin complex and was specifically immunoprecipitated by the antibody we later use for western blot, immunofluorescence, and ChIP-seq analyses. However, to validate the results of ours and others’ mass spectrometry results, we generated two new parasite strains – SMC1-3HA-dd and STAG-3HA-dd – and an antibody against SMC3 (see what is now Supp. Fig. 1). We performed co-IP and western blot analysis with these strains and show an interaction between SMC1 and SMC3 and STAG and SMC3 (see what is now Supp. Fig. 2). This information has been added to the manuscript on lines 162-167.

• *The ChIPseq analysis presented here is based on single replicates for each of the three time points. The significance cutoffs for the peaks are rather high (q __Response: __In our experience, a significance cutoff of FDR As we regularly perform ChIP-seq experiments in the lab, we have generated multiple negative control datasets. In our opinion, the most stringent negative control for an HA-tagged protein is performing ChIP with an HA antibody in a WT strain. We have recently published an in-depth analysis of this (and other) negative ChIP-seq controls (Baumgarten & Bryant, 2022, https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.14836.2). We show in this publication that non-specific ChIP-seq experiments (such as negative controls) result in an over-representation of HP1-heterochromatinized regions due to differences in sonication efficiency of heterochromatin and technical challenges with mapping regions with high levels of homology. In the anti-HA in WT ChIP negative control (performed at 12hpi), we do not see any enrichment at centromeric regions, but rather at heterochromatinized regions where clonally variant gene families are located. We performed peak calling analysis and found no significant overlap between the negative control ChIP-seq and the SMC3-3HA ChIP-seq data at 12hpi.

In addition, we have now performed a second biological replicate of the SMC3-3HA ChIP-seq with a different clone at all time points. We compared this data to that from the original clone and found significant overlap of the peaks called (see what is now Table 4 and Supp. Fig. 3A). We generated a stringent list of peaks that were shared between both clones at each time point and repeated all downstream analyses (see what are now Tables 5-8). We found that our conclusions were largely unchanged. Text describing these experiments and analyses have been added throughout the results section.

The SMC3 ChIP from Batugedara et al., 2020 was performed with an in-house generated antibody (not a commercially available, widely validated antibody as we use) at a single time point in the IDC: trophozoites. Batugedara et al. performed one replicate and did not have an input sample for normalization. Rather, it seems that they incubated beads, which were not bound by antibody or IgG, with their chromatin and used any sequenced reads from this beads sample to subtract from their SMC3 ChIP signal as means of normalization. According to ENCODE ChIP-seq standards, this is not a standard nor stringent way of performing ChIP-seq and the subsequent analysis. Because they did not generate a dataset for their ChIP input, it is not possible to call peaks as we do in our study and compare those peaks with ours.

• The authors argue that during schizogony, cohesin may no longer be required at centromers, explaining the low ChIPsignal at this stage (Line 301). However, during schizogony parasites undergo repeated rounds of DNA replication (S-phase) and mitosis (M-phase) to generate multinucleated parasites; and concentrated spots of Smc3 are observed in each nucleus in schizonts by IFA. In turn, the strong presence of Smc3 at centromers in ring stage parasites is surprising, particularly since the Western Blot in Figure 1D shows most expression of Smc3 in schizonts and least in rings; and Smc3 is undetectable in rings by IFA. Yet, the ChIP signal shows very strong enrichment at centromers, long before S phase produces sister chromatids. What could be the reason for this discrepancy? Again, ChIP replicates and controls would be helpful in distinguishing technical problems with the ChIP from biologically relevant differences. __Response: __We discuss in lines 337-342 not that cohesin is no longer required at centromeres during schizogony, but that its removal from centromeres may be required specifically for separation of sister chromatids, as is seen in other eukaryotes. We also discuss that the unique asynchronous mitosis in Plasmodium may lead to a mixed population of parasites at the time point sampled where there may be some centromeres with SMC3 present and some where it is absent to promote sister chromatid separation. Even though SMC3 may be evicted from centromeres to promote sister chromatid separation, it is likely re-loaded onto centromeres once this process is complete. This is most likely why we see foci of SMC3 in each nucleus of mature schizonts by IFA. With regard to the discrepancy between SMC3 levels in rings seen in total nuclear extracts (by western blot) and at centromeres (by ChIP-seq): the total level of a protein in the nucleus does not necessarily dictate the genome-wide binding pattern or the level of enrichment of that protein at specific loci in the genome. Moreover, if one molecule of SMC3 binds to each centromere, 14 molecules would be needed in a ring stage parasite while over 500 would be needed in a schizont (assuming that there are ~36 merozoites present). SMC3 binds to centromeres in interphase cells in other eukaryotes as well, and we speculate that this binding may play a role in the nuclear organization of centromeres, as we discuss starting on line 333.

• It is surprising that a conserved protein like Smc3 shows such a subtle phenotype, given that it is predicted to be essential and its orthologues have a function in mitosis. Generally, only limited data are presented to characterize the Smc3 KD parasites, and more detail should be included. For example validation of the parasite line using a PCR screen for integration and absence of wt, parasite morphology after KD, and/or analysis of the KD parasites for cell cycle status. __Response: __First, we have repeated our growth curve analysis several times and with more clones and have concluded that there is not a significant growth phenotype in SMC3 KD parasites (see what is now Supp. Fig. 4B). As we discuss on line 342, very little intact cohesin complex seems to be required for normal growth and mitosis in S. cerevisiae and D. melanogaster, which is probably why we do not see an obvious growth or morphological phenotype. Because we could not generate SMC3 knockout parasites, there may be just enough SMC3 left to perform its vital function in our KD strain. We have added PCR data to demonstrate integration of the 3HA tag- and glmS ribozyme-encoding sequence in the clonal strains we are using for all experiments (see what is now Supp. Fig. 1A). Sanger sequencing was performed on these PCR products to confirm correct sequences. We also added images of Giemsa-stained parasites in untreated and glucosamine-treated parasites at all time points to demonstrate a lack of an obvious morphological phenotype in SMC3 KD parasites (see what is now Supp. Fig. 5A).

• Synchronization was performed at the beginning of the growth time course, which would be expected to result in a stepwise increase in parasitemia every 48 hours; however, the parasitemia according to Fig. 4F rises steadily, which would indicate that the parasites are actually not very synchronous. __Response: __We did indeed tightly synchronize these parasites and hope that the stepwise increase in parasitemia is seen better in our new growth curve analysis (see what is now Supp. Fig. 4B).

• The question of whether Smc3 causes a shorter parasite life cycle (quicker progression) or more invasion is important and could be experimentally addressed by purifying synchronous schizont stage parasites and determining their invasion rates as well as morphological examination of the Giemsa smears over the time course. __Response: __We have repeated our growth curve analysis several times and with more clones and have concluded that there is not a significant growth phenotype in SMC3 KD parasites (see what is now Supp. Fig. 4B).

• Please also compare Smc3 transcriptional levels in transgenic parasites to those in wt parasites to rule out that the genetic modification has lead to artificial upregulation of Smc3 transcription. __Response: __We have added this data to what is now Supp. Fig. 4C, showing that there is no significant difference in SMC3 transcript levels between WT and SMC3-3HA-glmS strains. We have added this information to the text of the manuscript (Line 243). As we also generated an SMC3 antibody, we could demonstrate that there is no appreciable difference in SMC3 protein levels between WT and SMC3-3HA-glmS strains (see what is now Supp. Fig. 1D).

• According to Figure S2, even more genes were deregulated at the 12 hpi time point in the WT parasites than in Smc3 parasites, and even to a much higher extent. What "transcriptional age" did the WT control parasites have at each time point? __Response: __We have now included the transcriptional age of all strains, replicates, and treatments in what is now Supp. Fig. 5B. At the 12 hpi time point in particular, regardless of glucosamine treatment, the SMC3-3HA-glmS and WT parasites were highly synchronous. The only large discrepancy we see in transcriptional age is between untreated and glucosamine-treated WT parasites at 36 hpi, which is why we did not include this time point in our transcriptional analysis. We were also surprised by the number of genes that were de-regulated with simple glucosamine treatment. The glmS system of inducible knockdown is widely used in P. falciparum; however, to our knowledge, no lab has investigated whether glucosamine treatment affects transcription in wildtype cells over the course of the IDC. Thus, for accurate phenotypic characterization of any protein with this system with regard to transcriptomics, we thought it was important to provide an RNA-seq dataset to define the cohort of genes affected by glucosamine treatment in WT parasites. We hope that our study will demonstrate the importance of using stringent controls when using inducible knockdown systems.

• A negative correlation with transcription is well established in S. cerevisiae, particularly at inducible genes. How does Smc3 enrichment generally look like for genes that show maximal expression at each of the time point? __Response: __We have performed a metagene analysis of SMC3 enrichment at all genes at each respective time point, which we divided into quartiles of expression based on their FPKM values in the RNA-seq data from the corresponding time point in untreated SMC3-3HA-glmS parasites. This quartile analysis considers all genes, including genes that are not transcribed at all and regardless of whether a gene has a significant SMC3 peak or is differentially expressed upon SMC3 knockdown. At the 12 hpi time point, we do see an inverse correlation between SMC3 enrichment and gene transcription level, but this enrichment is most pronounced across genes bodies. We see the highest SMC3 enrichment at genes in the 4th (lowest) quartile category. For the other two time points, we do not see any obvious pattern of SMC3 enrichment with regard to transcriptional status.

• Line 590: according to the methods, a 36 hpi KD time point was also harvested. Why are the data not shown/analysed? __Response: __To be clear, we are most interested in the transcriptional role of SMC3 during interphase, where results are not confounded by its potential role in mitosis. However, we did collect a 36hpi time point in the SMC3-3HA-glmS and WT strain, with and without glucosamine. We have added this last time point and the WT data from the other two time points to the manuscript (see Tables 11-13). Unfortunately, and for reasons unknown, the WT replicates treated with glucosamine showed a significantly advanced “transcriptional age” compared to the other replicates at 36hpi (see what is now Supp. Fig. 5B). Thus, we did not feel comfortable performing the RNA-seq analysis as we did with the other two time points (i.e. subtracting up- and down-regulated genes from the WT control from the SMC3-3HA-glmS data sets). We have added this information to the results section (Lines 256 and 261). As the WT parasites treated with glucosamine were approximately 8 hours in advance of the untreated WT parasites for the 36hpi time point, any up- and down-regulated genes might have been due to differences in the cell cycle rather than due to glucosamine treatment. The glmS system of inducible knockdown is widely used in P. falciparum; however, to our knowledge, no lab has investigated whether glucosamine treatment affects transcription in wildtype cells over the course of the IDC. Thus, for accurate phenotypic characterization of any protein with this system with regard to transcriptomics, we thought it was important to provide an RNA-seq dataset to define the cohort of genes affected by glucosamine treatment in WT parasites. We hope that our study will demonstrate the importance of using stringent controls when using inducible knockdown systems.

Minor Comments • Line 103/104: the hinge domain and ATPase head domain are mentioned, please annotate these in Figure 1A.

__Response: __We have annotated the hinge and ATPase domains.

• Figure 1D: the kDa scale is missing from the H3 WB. __Response: __We have added a kDa scale.

• What is the scale indicated by different colors in Fig. 2A? __Response: __The different colors (blue, coral, and green) only represent the 12, 24, and 36hpi time points, respectively. This color scheme is used throughout the manuscript. If the reviewer is referring to the color gradation within each circos plot, this does not indicate a specific scale. The maximum y-axis value for all circos plots is 24, as indicated in the figure legend.

• Line 189: it would also be interesting how many peaks are "conserved" between the different time points studied, so not only to compare the gene lists of closest genes but also the intersecting peaks and then the closest genes to the intersecting peaks. __Response: __We have added this information in Table 7 and in the manuscript starting on Line 203. Using the new dataset of consensus peaks between two replicates, there were 88 genes associated with an SMC3 peak across all three time points, most of which were close to a centromeric region.

• What is the distribution of the peaks over diverse genetic elements, such as gene bodies, introns, convergent/ divergent/ tandem intergenic regions? In yeast, cohesion is particularly enriched in convergent intergenic regions, so it would be interesting to see how this behaves in P. falciparum. __Response: __We would have liked to define how many peaks were in intergenic versus genic regions of the genome, but the dataset of “genes” from PlasmoDB includes UTRs. Thus, we would need a better annotation of the genome to perform this analysis. Regardless, we calculated the average SMC3 peak enrichment (shared between both replicates) in intergenic regions between convergent and divergent genes (see what is now Supp. Fig. 3B and Table 6). As we now state in the manuscript on line 198, we see a slight enrichment in regions between convergent genes at all time points, but the differences were not significant.

• Line 130 intra-chromosomal interactions (word missing) __Response: __Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected this.

• Contrary to Figure 1D, the WB in Figure 3A indicates strong expression of Smc3 in rings. Please comment on this discrepancy. __Response: __While extracts from all time points were run on the same western blot in Fig. 1D and thus developed for the same amount of time, this was not the case for Fig. 3A. In Fig. 3A, the samples were run on different blots and exposed for different times, so while we can compare SMC3-HA levels between – and + glucosamine for each time point, the levels at 12 hpi cannot be quantitatively compared to those at 24 or 36hpi.

• What time point after glucosamine addition represents the WB in Fig. 3A? __Response: __The “12hpi” parasites were sampled approximately 108 hours post glucosamine addition and the “24hpi” parasites sampled approximately 120 hours post glucosamine addition. Basically, the parasites were treated with glucosamine for 96 hours, synchronized, and then harvested 12 and 24 hours later.

• Line 233 / Suppl Figure 3: Isn't it a bit concerning that the untreated control parasites at 24 hpi statistically corresponded to 18-19 hpi? And to what timepoint did the wt parasites correspond? __Response: __We are not concerned by this, and we have included the WT parasites in what is now Supp. Fig. 5B for better comparison. In the analysis presented in Supp. Fig. 5B, regardless of glucosamine presence or absence, the differences among replicates and strains at 12 and 24hpi are, in our opinion, minimal, amounting to one or two hours of the 48-hour IDC. In our extensive experience with RNA-seq across the P. falciparum lDC, this synchronization is extremely tight. As we describe on line 430 of the Materials and Methods, there is a ±3 hour window in our synchronization method, meaning that parasites harvested at 24hpi could be anywhere from 21-27hpi. In addition, the dataset that was used for comparison (from Bozdech et al., 2003) was generated in 2003 in a different laboratory using different strains with microarray. While comparing more recent RNA-seq data to this classic study has become well-established practice and is useful for comparing transcriptional age between replicates and strains, it is inevitable that the calculated “hpi” from (Bozdech et al., 2003) will differ somewhat from our experimental “hpi”. We have indeed seen this small discrepancy in predicted transcriptional age in several of our RNA-seq datasets (unrelated to this study) from trophozoites harvested at 24hpi.

• Line 264: "whether naturally or via knockdown" - the meaning of this sentence is not entirely clear __Response: __We are referring to depletion of SMC3 at promoters, either naturally (i.e. lack of binding at the promoter at 36hpi that is not the result of SMC3 knockdown, as we show in Fig. 4B) or via SMC3 knockdown, which is not natural but artificial.

• Figure 4 Legend: A, B, C etc. are mixed up. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected this.

• Figure 4D: the differences seem to be marginally significant, even not significant at all (q=0.8) for gap45 at 12hpi. __Response: __If one defines a significance cutoff of q = 0.05 (as is common practice in differential expression analyses), then the differences are significant. For a small minority of invasion genes (such as gap45), we do observe significance at either 12 hpi or 24 hpi, but not both. Thus, we have removed the word “significant” from the descriptions of each dataset in Tab 1 of what is now Table 18. however, we do not believe that this rules out a role for SMC3 at such a gene during interphase. What is now Table 18 offers a longer list of invasion-related genes, most of which are more “significantly” affected than rap2 and gap45.

• Figure 4F shows FACS data using SYBR green as a DNA stain. The authors could exploit this data to look at the relative DNA content per cell as a measure of parasite stage, since more mature parasites will have more DNA (mean fluorescence intensity). How did the corresponding parasite cultures look in Giemsa smears? Response: We have repeated our growth curve analysis several times and with more clones and have concluded that there is not a significant growth phenotype in SMC3 KD parasites (see what is now Supp. Fig. 4B). We have added images of Giemsa-stained parasites in untreated and glucosamine-treated parasites at all time points to demonstrate a lack of an obvious morphological phenotype in SMC3 KD parasites (see what is now Supp. Fig. 5A).

• Are RNAseq replicates biological replicates from independent experiments or technical replicates? __Response: __RNA-seq replicates are technical replicates from the same parasite clone.

• Why does the number of genes analysed for differential gene expression differ between the comparisons? __Response: __If the reviewer is referring to the discrepancy between the total number of genes for different time points [for example, between what is now Table 9 (12hpi) and Table 10 (24hpi)], this is because in the RNA-seq/differential expression analysis, there have to be reads mapping back to a gene in order for that gene to be included in the analysis. Thus, if a gene is not transcribed at a given time point in the treated or untreated samples, it will not be included in the analysis. Gene transcription fluctuates significantly over the course of the IDC, so different time points will have different total numbers of transcribed genes.

• Line 372: Do you mean the proteins or the genes? AP2-I has a peak at 24 hpi and 36 hpi, and its interacting AP2 factor Pf3D7_0613800 at all time points. __Response: __We are referring to the genes. With the new ChIP-seq analysis including the second replicate, there are no consensus SMC3 peaks associated with ap2-I, bdp1, or Pf3D7_0613800 (see what is now Table 7).

• Line 480: no aldolase was shown. __Response: __We have removed this sentence.

• Line 838: include GO analysis in methods __Response: __We have added this.

Reviewer #2 (Significance (Required)): The paper addresses the function of the cohesin complex in gene regulation of malaria parasites for the first time. Due to the conserved nature of the complex, the data may be interesting for a broad audience of scientists interested in nuclear biology and cell division/ gene regulation.

Reviewer #3

(Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

*Summary:

In the presented manuscript by Rosa et al. the authors investigate the longstanding question of how P. falciparum achieves the tight transcriptional regulation of its genome despite the apparent absence of many canonical sequence specific transcription factor families found in other eukaryotes. To do this the authors investigate the role of the spatial organization of the genome in this context, by performing a functional characterization of the conserved cohesion subunit SMC3 and its putative role in transcriptional regulation in P. falciparum. Using Cas9 mediated genome editing the authors generated a SMC3-3xHA-glmS parasite line, which they subsequently used to show expression of the protein over the asexual replication cycle by western blot and IFA analysis. In addition, using co-IP experiments coupled with mass spectrometry they identified the additional components of the cohesion complex also found in other eukaryotes as interaction partners of SMC3 in the parasite, thereby confirming the presence of the conserved cohesin complex in P. falciparum. By using a combination of ChIP-seq and RNA-seq experiments in SMC3 knockdown parasites the authors furthermore show that a reduction of SMC3 resulted in the up-regulation of a specific set of genes involved in invasion and egress in the early stages of the asexual replication cycle and that this up-regulation in transcription is correlated with a loss of SMC3 enrichment at these genes. From these observations the authors conclude, that SMC3 binds dynamically to a subset of genes and works as a transcriptional repressor, ensuring the timely expression of the bound genes. Overall, the presented data is intriguing, of high quality and very well presented. However, there are some points, which should be addressed to bolster the conclusions drawn by the authors.

Major points: I was not able to find the deposited datasets in the BioProject database under the given accession number. This should obviously be addressed and would have been nice to be able to have a look at these datasets also for the review process. *__Response: __We apologize for not giving the reviewers access. As the manuscript has been made available as a pre-print (which includes data accession numbers), but has not yet been published, we have not activated access to the data on the database.

*SMC3-ChIP-seq experiments:

"168 were bound by SMC3 across all three time points (Fig. 2D). However, most SMC3-bound genes showed a dynamic binding pattern, with a peak present at only one or two time points (Fig. 2B,D)."

Here it would be interesting to actually have more than one replicate of each of these ChIP-seq time points. This could provide a better idea of how "dynamic" these binding patterns actually are. Furthermore, I was missing a list of these 168 genes, which are constantly bound by SMC3. Anything special about those? What actually happens to this subset of genes in the SMC3 knockdown parasites? Do they show similar transcriptional changes?*

__Response: __We have now performed a second biological replicate of the SMC3-3HA ChIP-seq with a different clone at all time points. We compared this data to that from the original clone and found significant overlap of the peaks called (see what is now Table 4 and Supp. Fig. 3A). We generated a stringent list of peaks that were shared between both clones at each time point and repeated all downstream analyses (see what are now Tables 5-8). We found that our conclusions were largely unchanged. Text describing these experiments and analyses have been added throughout the results section. Using the new dataset of consensus peaks between two replicates, there were 88 genes associated with an SMC3 peak across all three time points (see what is now Table 7). The genes that are associated with an SMC3 peak at all time points are, in general, those closest to centromeric/pericentromeric regions and show no obvious functional relationship to each other. Out of these 88 genes, four are significantly up- or downregulated at 12 hpi and 26 are significantly up- or downregulated at 24 hpi. The most significantly downregulated of these genes in both datasets is smc3 itself.

*SMC3-knockdown experiments:

In Sup. Fig. 1 there is a double band in the HA-western blot in the 2nd cycle -GlcN. sample. This second band is absent in all other HA-western shown. Have the authors any idea where that second band comes from?*

__Response: __As the reviewer says, we do not see this second band in most of our western blots. It is possible that it is just a small amount of degradation in the lysate.

In Figure 3A, the WB data shown is slightly contrasting the RNA-seq quantification (3B). The knock-down on protein level seems to be stronger in the 12 hpi samples here than in the 24 hpi samples. Although the band for HA-SMC3 is stronger at the 12 hpi TP there's no band visible in the + GlcN. sample. There's however in the 24 hpi samples. Could the authors comment on this?

Response: __With regard to the discrepancy of the knockdown and protein versus RNA level, it is quite common for transcript levels to not agree with protein levels. This is why we always confirm a transcriptional knockdown with western blot analysis using appropriate loading controls. We are not sure why there is a more dramatic knockdown of SMC3 at 12hpi than at 24hpi, as these samples came from the same culture, but were simply harvested 12 hours apart. __

*"Comparison of our RNA-seq data to the time course transcriptomics data from (Painter et al., 2018) revealed that SMC3 depletion at 12 hpi caused downregulation of genes that normally reach their peak expression in the trophozoite stage (18-30 hpi), with the majority of upregulated genes normally reaching their peak expression in the schizont and very early ring stages (40-2 hpi) (Fig. 3E). At 24 hpi, a similar trend is observed, with most downregulated genes normally peaking in expression in trophozoite stage (24-32 hpi) and the majority of upregulated genes peaking in expression at very early ring stage (2 hpi) (Fig. 3F)."

I'm not fully convinced by these presented results/conclusions. This dataset would greatly benefit from the inclusion of additional later time points.*

__Response: __To be clear, we are most interested in the transcriptional role of SMC3 during interphase, where results are not confounded by its potential role in mitosis. However, we did collect a 36hpi time point in the SMC3-3HA-glmS and WT strain, with and without glucosamine. We have added this last time point and the WT data from the other two time points to the manuscript (see Tables 11-13). Unfortunately, and for reasons unknown, the WT replicates treated with glucosamine showed a significantly advanced “transcriptional age” compared to the other replicates at 36hpi (see what is now Supp. Fig. 5B). Thus, we did not feel comfortable performing the RNA-seq analysis as we did with the other two time points (i.e. subtracting up- and down-regulated genes from the WT control from the SMC3-3HA-glmS data sets). We have added this information to the results section (Lines 256 and 261). As the WT parasites treated with glucosamine were approximately 8 hours in advance of the untreated WT parasites for the 36hpi time point, any up- and down-regulated genes might have been due to differences in the cell cycle rather than due to glucosamine treatment. The glmS system of inducible knockdown is widely used in P. falciparum; however, to our knowledge, no lab has investigated whether glucosamine treatment affects transcription in wildtype cells over the course of the IDC. Thus, for accurate phenotypic characterization of any protein with this system with regard to transcriptomics, we thought it was important to provide an RNA-seq dataset to define the cohort of genes affected by glucosamine treatment in WT parasites. We hope that our study will demonstrate the importance of using stringent controls when using inducible knockdown systems.

We performed differential expression analysis of the SMC3-3HA-glmS parasites with and without glucosamine at 36hpi (we have added this data in Table 11). Again, significantly up- and down-regulated genes were not filtered using the WT dataset. With this analysis, we see only three genes from the list of invasion-related genes (Hu et al., 2010) that are up-regulated, but none of them have a significant q-value (Tab 5 of Table 18). Thus, depletion of SMC3 in late stage parasites does not lead to up-regulation of the same genes that are upregulated at 12 and 24hpi. We have added this information to the text (Line 277).

*The presented upregulation of the egress and invasion related genes is hard to pinpoint to be a direct effect of transcriptional changes due to the SMC3 knockdown. While there's a slight upregulation of these genes they still seem to be regulated in their normal overall transcriptional program as shown in Figure 4D/E. *

__Response: __We provide evidence of a direct effect of SMC3 binding by combining differential expression analysis performed upon SMC3 knockdown with SMC3 ChIP-seq at corresponding time points. As we show in what is now Fig. 4C and D, promoter accessibility of these egress/invasion genes correlates with their transcriptional activity. However, SMC3 binding to the promoters of these same genes shows inverse correlation with their transcriptional activity (what is now Fig. 4B and D). While we believe that SMC3 does contribute to the repression of these genes at specific time points during the cell cycle, it is highly likely that SMC3 is just one protein of many that regulates these genes. Moreover, and especially since we do not see a growth phenotype in the SMC3 KD, it is possible that another protein or even SMC1 could compensate for loss of SMC3 at these promoter regions. We now state these possibilities on lines 346 383 of the Discussion.

*So the changes could in theory also be explained by the differences in cell cycle progression which are present between +/- GlcN. cultures (Sup. Fig. 3). The presented normalization to the microarray data is a well-established practice to correct for this but, as presented seems to have its limitation with these parasite lines (line 233, glucosamine treated parasites harvested at 24 hpi correspond statistically to approximately 18-19 hpi (Supp. Fig. 3).) *

__Response: __In the analysis presented in what is now Supp. Fig. 5B, regardless of glucosamine presence or absence, the differences among replicates and strains at 12 and 24hpi are, in our opinion, minimal, amounting to one or two hours of the 48-hour IDC. In our extensive experience with RNA-seq across the P. falciparum lDC, this synchronization is extremely tight. As we describe on lines 416-421 of the Materials and Methods, there is a ±3 hour window in our synchronization method, meaning that parasites harvested at 24hpi could be anywhere from 21-27hpi. In addition, the dataset that was used for comparison (from Bozdech et al., 2003) was generated in 2003 in a different laboratory using different strains with microarray. While comparing more recent RNA-seq data to this classic study has become well-established practice and is useful for comparing transcriptional age between replicates and strains, it is inevitable that the calculated “hpi” from (Bozdech et al., 2003) will differ somewhat from our experimental “hpi”. We have indeed seen this small discrepancy in predicted transcriptional age in several of our RNA-seq datasets from trophozoites harvested at 24hpi.

By including additional later time points, one could actually follow the expression profiles over the whole cycle and elucidate if there's an actual transcriptional up-regulation of the genes, or if the + GlcN. parasites show a faster cell cycle progression, with a shifted peak expression timing compared to the - GlcN. parasites. __Response: __We did collect a 36hpi time point in the SMC3-3HA-glmS and WT strain, with and without glucosamine. We have added this last time point and the WT data from the other two time points to what is now Supp. Fig. 5. Unfortunately, and for reasons unknown, the WT replicates treated with glucosamine showed a significantly advanced “transcriptional age” compared to the other replicates at 36hpi. Thus, we did not feel comfortable performing the RNA-seq analysis as we did with the other two time points (i.e. subtracting up- and down-regulated genes from the WT control from the SMC3-3HA-glmS data sets). We have added this information to the results section (Lines 256 and 261). As the WT parasites treated with glucosamine were approximately 8 hours in advance of the untreated WT parasites for the 36hpi time point, any up- and down-regulated genes might have been due to differences in the cell cycle rather than due to glucosamine treatment. The glmS system of inducible knockdown is widely used in P. falciparum; however, to our knowledge, no lab has investigated whether glucosamine treatment affects transcription in wildtype cells over the course of the IDC. Thus, for accurate phenotypic characterization of any protein with this system with regard to transcriptomics, we thought it was important to provide an RNA-seq dataset to define the cohort of genes affected by glucosamine treatment in WT parasites. We hope that our study will demonstrate the importance of using stringent controls when using inducible knockdown systems.

*"These genes show SMC3 enrichment at their promoter regions at 12 and 24 hpi, but not at 36 hpi (Fig. 4C), and depletion of SMC3 resulted in upregulation at both 12 and 24 hpi (Fig. 4D). Comparison of the SMC3 ChIP-seq data with published Assay for Transposase-Accessible Chromatin using sequencing (ATAC-seq) data (Toenhake et al., 2018) and mRNA dynamics data (Painter et al., 2018) from similar time points in the IDC revealed that SMC3 binding at the promoter regions of these genes inversely correlates with chromatin accessibility (Fig. 4C) and their mRNA levels (Fig. 4E), which both peak in schizont stages. These data are consistent with a role of SMC3 in repressing this gene subset until their appropriate time of expression in the IDC."

The presented correlations certainly make an intriguing point towards the authors conclusion that SMC3/cohesin depletion from the promoter regions of the genes results in a de-repression of these genes and their transcriptional activation. However, the SMC3 knockdown is not complete and only up to 69% as presented on RNA level in these parasites. Therefore a control experiment which needs to be done is to actually show the loss of SMC3 from the presented activated example genes in the knockdown parasites. This could easily be done by ChIP-qPCR or even ChIP-seq, to get a global picture of the actual changes in SMC3 occupation in the knockdown parasites in correlation with changes in transcript levels. *__Response: __While SMC3-3HA-glmS knockdown is not complete at the RNA level, it is fairly robust at the protein level, especially at 12hpi (Fig. 3A).

*"These data suggest that SMC3 knockdown results in a faster progression through the cell cycle or a higher rate of egress/invasion."

The authors could greatly strengthen their conclusions by investigating this thoroughly. Pinpointing the observed phenotype to an actual increase in invasion or egress would add to the authors main conclusion that the loss of SMC3 de-regulates the timing of gene expression for these invasion related genes thereby increasing their transcript levels and thus leading to a higher rate of egress/invasion. To determine cell cycle progression simple comparisons between DNA content using a flow cytometer at timepoints together with visual inspection of Giemsa stained blood smears would give a ggod indication towards changes in cell cycle progression. In addition invasion/egress assays by counting newly invaded rings per schizont could reveal, if there are changes in the rate of egress/invasion upon SMC3 knockdown.*

Response: __We have repeated our growth curve analysis several times and with more clones and have concluded that there is not a significant growth phenotype in SMC3 KD parasites (see what is now Supp. Fig. 4B). We have added images of Giemsa-stained parasites from the knockdown time course we performed to what is now Supp. Fig. 5A. We see no obvious differences in cell morphology caused by glucosamine treatment in the WT or SMC3-3HA-glmS parasites. As we discuss on line 327, very little intact cohesin complex seems to be required for normal growth and mitosis in S. cerevisiae and D. melanogaster, which is probably why we do not see an obvious growth or morphological phenotype. We believe that SMC3 is probably only a part of a complex controlling transcription of these invasion or egress genes. Thus, the up-regulation of these genes upon SMC3 KD might not be enough to lead to a significant growth or invasion phenotype. __

*Minor points:

In the MM section on the Cas9 experiments it says dCas9 where it should be Cas9 (line 425)*

__Response: __Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected this.

It would be great to add which HP1 antibody was used in which dilution in the IFAs to the MM section. __Response: __We have added this information to the Materials and Methods section.

In Figure 4C for the gap45 gene there's is some green peak floating around which should not be there. __Response: __Thank you for pointing this out, we have corrected it.

*Reviewer #3 (Significance (Required)):

Significance: The manuscript investigates a very timely topic by trying to uncover new molecular mechanisms of transcriptional regulation in P. falciparum. Investigating the role of the cohesin complex/SMC3 in this context provides valuable new insights to the field. While the first part with the description of the SMC3 cell line and the co-IP experiments largely confirms published data on the existence and composition of the cohesin complex in Plasmodium and its enrichment at the centromeres, the second part is especially intriguing since it investigates the molecular function of SMC3 in more detail. The results pointing to a role of SMC3/cohesin as a transcriptional repressor are of great interest to the field and will open up new concepts for future investigation.*

*Audience: The work is particularly interesting for people interested in gene regulatory processes in Plasmodium and Apicomplexan parasites in general. At the same time it also nicely points towards shared principles of gene regulation to other eukaryotes in relation to the spatial organization of the genome making the work also very interesting for a broader audience with interest in the general principles of gene regulatory processes in eukaryotic organisms.

Expertise: P. falciparum epignetics and chromatin biology / gene regulation / Cas9 gene editing*

CROSS-CONSULTATION COMMENTS

All reviewers agree that the paper addresses an important topic and provides convincing evidence for enrichment of the cohesin component Smc3 at P. falciparum centromers. In contrast, evidence for a function of Smc3 as a transcriptional repressor of genes in the first part of the parasite life cycle is less well supported. All reviewers agree that the statistical significance of the ChIP experiments needs to be impoved by including biological replicates. In addition, the phenotype of the conditional knock-down should be analysed in more detail by clarifying whether faster cell cycle progression or higher invasion rate are responsible for the observed growth adavantage. Inclusion of transcriptional data from a later time point in addition to the presented data for 12 hpi and 24 hpi was also requested by all reviewers. Finally, several inconsistencies require clarification.

Author Response

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this work, the authors investigate a means of cell communication through physical connections they call membrane tubules (similar or identical to the previously reported nanotubes, which they reference extensively). They show that Cas9 transfer between cells is facilitated by these structures rather than exosomes. A novel contribution is that this transfer is dependent on the pair of particular cell types and that the protein syncytin is required to establish a complete syncytial connection, which they show are open ended using electron microscopy.

The data is convincing because of the multiple readouts for transfer and the ultrastructural verification of the connection. The results support their conclusions. The implications are obvious, since it represents an avenue of cellular communication and modifications. It would be exciting if they could show this occurring in vivo, such as in tissue. The implication of this would be that neighboring cells in a tissue could be entrained over time through transfer of material.

Thank the reviewer for his/her comments and suggestion. It’s possible that the thick tubular connections found in this study also exist in vivo. A previous study reported that TNT-like structures were found in mouse or human primary tumor cells (PMID: 34494703; PMID: 34795441). Our transfer assays could be adopted to evaluate such transfer in primary cultures and in vivo. We anticipate this for future work.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

There is a lot of interest in how cells transfer materials (proteins, RNA, organelles) by extracellular vesicles (EV) and tunneling nanotubes (TNTs). Here, Zhang and Schekman developed quantitative assays, based on two different reporters, to measure EV and direct contact-dependent mediated transfer. The first assay is based on transfer of Cas9, which then edits a luciferase gene, whose enzymatic activity is then measured. The second assay is based on a split-GFP system. The experiments on EV trafficking convincingly show that purified exosomes, or any other diffusible agent, are unable to transfer functional Cas9 (either EV-tethered or untethered) and induce significant luciferase activity in acceptor cells. The authors suggest a plausible model by which Cas9 (with the gRNA?) gets "stuck" in such vesicles and is thus unable to enter the nucleus to edit the gene.

To test alternative pathways of transfer, e.g. by direct cell-cell contact, the authors co-cultured donor and acceptor cells and detect significant luciferase activity. The split GFP assay also showed successful transfer. The authors further characterize this process by biochemical, genetic and imaging approaches. They conclude that a small percentage of cells in the population produce open-ended membrane tubules (which are wider and distinct from TNTs) that can transfer material between cells. This process depends on actin polymerization but not endocytosis or trogocytosis. The process also seems to depend on endogenously expressed Syncytin proteins - fusogens which could be responsible for the membrane fusion leading to the open ends of the tubules.

The paper provides additional solid evidence to what is already known about the inefficiency of EV-mediated protein transport. Importantly, it provides an interesting new mechanism for contact-dependent transport of cellular material and assigns valuable new information about the possible function of Syncytins. However, the evidence that the proteins and vesicles transfer through the tubules is incomplete and a few more experiments are required. In addition, certain inconsistencies within the paper and with previous literature need to be resolved. Finally, some parts of the text, methods and the figures require re-writing or additional information for clarity.

Major comments

1) In Figure 1F, the authors compare the function of exosome-transported SBP-Cas9-GFP vs. transient transfection of SBP-Cas9-GFP. It is not clear if the cells in the transiently transfected culture also express the myc-str-CD63 and were treated with biotin. It is important to determine if CD63-tethering itself affects Cas9 function.

Thank the reviewer for his comments and suggestions. We now show in Figure 1- figure supplement 1D that CD63-tethering itself does not affect Cas9 function.

2) The authors do not rule out that TNTs are a mode of transfer in any of their experiments. Their actin polymerization inhibition experiments are also in-line with a TNT role in transfer. This possibility is not discussed in the discussion section.

Yes, the results in this study do not rule out a role for TNTs in the transfer. At present, we are not aware of conditions that would functionally distinguish transfer mediated by TNTs and thick tubules. We have now included this in the Discussion section.

3) Issues with the Split GFP assay:

a) On page 4, line 176, the authors claim that "A mixture of cells before co-culture should not exhibit a GFP signal". However, this result is not presented.

The results of mixture experiment are included in Figure 2-figure supplement 1D, E.

b) The authors show in Figure 2C and F that in MBA/HEK co-culture or only HEK293T co-culture, there are dual-labeled, CFP-mCherry, cells. First - what is the % of this sub-population? Second, the authors dismiss this population as cell adhesion (Page 5, line 192) - but in the methods section they claim they gated for single particles (page 17, line 642), supposedly excluding such events. There is a simple way to resolve this - sort these dual labeled cells and visualize under the microscope. Finally - why do the authors think that the GFP halves can transfer but not the mature CFP or mCherry?

The plot in the Figure 2C and F are displayed in an all-cell mode, not in singlet mode. The percentage of dual-labeled CFP-mCherry in singlet was 0-0.2%. Thus, most of the signal was from doublet, or cell adhesion. We did not claim that the mature CFP or mCherry cannot be transferred. We suggested that the GFP signal of split-GFP recombination may be a more accurate reflection of cytoplasmic transfer between cells. In contrast, mature CFP or mCherry may simply attach to the cell surface but not enter into the other cells.

c) In the Cas9 experiments - the authors detect an increase in Nluc activity similar in order of magnitude that that of transient transfection with the Cas9 plasmid - suggesting most acceptor cells now express Nluc. However, only 6% of the cells are GFP positive in the split-GFP assay. Can the authors explain why the rate is so low in the split-GFP assay? One possibility (related to item #2 above) is that the split-GFP is transferred by TNTs.

The Cas9-based Nluc activity assay is more sensitive as it measures an enzyme with a very high turnover number. The split-GFP assay requires a transfer of GFP fragments to produce intact GFP molecules where the signal is not amplified. We think this explains the dramatic increase in a signal once Cas9 is transferred. Our cell sorting results suggest that at least 6% of the receptor cells are transferred in the co-cultures. Of course, nothing in either analysis rules out a role for TNTs in this transfer.

4) The membrane tubules, the membrane fusion and the transfer process are not well characterized:

a) The suggested tubules are distinct from TNTs by diameter and (I presume, based on the images) that they are still attached to the surface - whereas TNTs are detached. However, how are these structures different from filopodia except that they (rarely) fuse?

We used TIRF microscopy and found that the thick tubules are not attached to the surface (not shown). Filopodia are much closer in diameter to TNTs (0.1-0.4 micron). The thick tubules we observe are much thicker (2-4 micron in diameter).

b) Figure 5E shows that the acceptor cells send out a tubule of its own to meet and fuse. Is this the case in all 8 open-ended tubules that were imaged? Is this structure absent in the closed-ended tubules (e.g. as seen in Figures 6 & 8)?

Around half of open-ended tubules appeared to emanate from acceptor cells. Likewise, for closed-ended tubules, for example, in Figure 6E where a recipient HEK293T cell projected a short tubule.

c) The authors suggest a model for transport of the proteins tethered to vesicles (via CD63 tethering). However, the data is incomplete.

i) They show only a single example of this type of transport, without quantification. How frequent is this event?

The transport of the proteins tethered to vesicles (via CD63 tethering) were found in all 8 open-ended tubules that we detected in this study.

ii) Furthermore, the labeling does not conclusively show that these are vesicles and not protein aggregates. Labeling of the vesicle - by dye or protein marker will be useful to determine if these are indeed vesicles, and which type.

In Figure 4B, the moving punctum in a tubular connection appears to contain SBP-Cas9-GFP, Streptavidin-CD63-mCherry, and the cell surface WGA conjugate that may have been internalized into a donor cell endosome, which indicates that the moving punctum is vesicle type. Nonetheless, in general we cannot distinguish the forms of Cas9 that are transferred and become localized to the nucleus of target cells and we make no claim other than to suggest this possibility that Cas9 may be transferred as an aggregate.

iii) The data from Figure 2 suggest (if I understand correctly) transfer of the CD63-tethered half-GFP, further strengthening the idea of vesicular transfer. However, the authors also show efficient transfer of untethered Cas9 protein (Figure 2A and other figures). Does this mean that free protein can diffuse through these tubules? The Cas9 has an NLS so the un-tethered versions should be concentrated in the nucleus of donor cells. How, then, do they transfer? The authors do not provide visual evidence for this and I think it is important they would.

Based on the results using the Cas9-based luciferase assay (His- or SBP-tagged Cas9) (Figure 2A) and split-GFP assay (free GFP1-10) (Figure 2G), we suggest that free protein could be transferred between cells. Our current imaging approach is not designed to quantify protein diffusion. However, we are able to detect from images that Cas9-GFP does not colocalize exclusively with CD63 or concentrate in the nucleus, but also appears in the cytoplasm. These data indicate that both vesicle association and free diffusion may mediate the transfer through tubules. We thank the referee for emphasizing this issue which we will consider for future work to distinguish the transfer types through tubules.

iv) In Figures 6 & 8, where transfer is diminished, there are still red granules in acceptors cells (representing CD63-mcherry). Does this mean that vesicles do transfer, just not those with Cas9-GFP? Is this background of the imaging? The latter case would suggest that the red granule moving from donor to acceptor cells in figure 4 could also be "background". This matter needs to be resolved.

There are a few red puncta in the acceptor cell in Figure 6B. Since the acceptor cell is close to and overlapped with other donor cells containing CD63-mCherry, the red signal may, as the reviewer suggests, be from donor cells and not as a result of transfer through tubular connections. However, donor-acceptor cultures of HEK293T where transfer is not observed, little CD63-mCherry signal, for example, in Figure 6a, was seen in acceptor cells, even during several hours of observation (Figure 6- figure supplement video). A minor red signal could arise from exosomes secreted by donor cells that are internalized by acceptor cells. Images of single-culture receptor cells were added in Figure 4- figure supplement 1.

For Figure 8, we used MDA-MB-231 syncytin-2 knock-down cells containing Fluc:Nluc:mCherry as the receptor cell, thus in these experiments the red signal most likely represents mCherry expressed in the acceptor cells.

In Figure 4, we observed moving punctum in a tubular connection which contained co-localized green, red, and purple signals, corresponding to SBP-Cas9-GFP, streptavidin-CD63-mCherry, and the WGA conjugate, respectively. The video of punctum transport (Figure 4-figure supplement video) suggests that the red signal is not “background”.

5) Why do HEK293T do not transfer to HEK293T?

a) A major inexplicable result is that HEK293T express high levels of both Syncytin proteins (Figure 7 - supp figure 1A) yet ectopic expression of mouse Syncytin increases transfer (Figure 7E). Why would that be? In addition, Fig 3A shows high transfer rates to A549 cells - which express the least amount of Syncytin. The authors suggest in the discussion that Syncytin in HEK293T might not be functional without real evidence.

We cannot yet explain why the basal level of syncytin expressed in HEK293 cells is insufficient to promote open-ended tubular connections between these cells. It could be that the proteins are not well represented in a processed form at the cell surface. Nonetheless, ectopic expression of mouse syncytin-A in HEK293T produced some increased transfer but less than when syncytin-A is ectopically expressed in MDA-MB-231 cells (up to 4-fold vs. 30-fold change of Nluc/Fluc signal) (Figure 7E). Furthermore, we have added new results which show that apparent furin-processed forms of syncytin-A, -1 and -2 can be detected by cell surface biotinylation in transfected MDA-MB-231 cells (Figure 8-figure supplement 1D). All we demonstrate is that syncytin in the acceptor cell is required for fusion and we make no claim that it is the only protein or lipid at the cell surface in the acceptor cell required for fusion. Clearly, more work is essential to establish the complexity of this fusion reaction.

For A549 cells, syncytin-1 is highly expressed in A549 cells, thus it is possible that syncytin-1 in A549 plays crucial roles in the process.

b) In addition - previous publications (e.g. PMID: 35596004; 31735710) show that over expression of syncytin-1 or -2 in HEK293T cells causes massive cell-cell fusion. The authors do not provide images of the cells, to rule out cell-cell fusion in this particular case.

Overexpression of syncytin-1 or -2 in cells indeed causes massive cell-cell fusion, while overexpression of syncytin-A induced much less cell fusion than syncytin-1, or -2. We have now added new images shown in Figure 8-figure supplement 1A-C to document these observations. It may be that overexpressed human syncytins are better represented in a furin-processed form in both cell types. In contrast, we did not observe donor-acceptor cell fusion at basal levels of expression of syncytin in HEK293T and MDA-MB-231. For example, the Figure 4-figure supplement video shows that tubular structures were seen to form and break during the course of visualization with a tubule fusion event but no cell fusion to form heterokaryons.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, Zhang and Schekman investigated the mechanisms underlying intercellular cargo transfer. It has been proposed that cargo transfer between cells could be mediated by exosomes, tunneling nanotubes or thicker tubules. To determine which process is efficient in delivering cargos, the authors developed two quantitative approaches to study cargo transfer between cells. Their reporter assays showed clearly that the transfer of Cas9/gRNA is mediated by cell-cell contact, but not by exosome internalization and fusion. They showed that actin polymerization is required for the intercellular transfer of Cas9/gRNA, the latter of which is observed in the projected membrane tubule connections. The authors visualized the fine structure of the tubular connections by electron microscopy and observed organelles and vesicles in the open-ended tubular structure. The formation of the open-ended tubule connections depends on a plasma membrane fusion process. Moreover, they found that the endogenous trophoblast fusogens, syncytins, are required for the formation of open-ended tubular connections, and that syncytin depletion significantly reduced cargo Cas9 protein transfer.

Overall, this is a very nice study providing much clarity on the modes of intercellular cargo transfer. Using two quantitative approaches, the authors demonstrated convincingly that exosomes do not mediate efficient transfer via endocytosis, but that the open-ended membrane tubular connections are required for efficient cargo transfer. Furthermore, the authors pinpointed syncytins as the plasma membrane fusogenic proteins involved in this process. Experiments were well designed and conducted, and the conclusions are mostly supported by the data. My specific comments are as follows.

1) The authors showed that knocking down actin (which isoform?) in both donor and acceptor cells blocked transfer, and more so in the acceptor cells perhaps due to the greater knockdown efficiency in these cells. However, Arp2/3 complex knockdown in donor cells, but not recipient cell, reduced Cas9 transfer. It would be good to clarify whether the latter result suggests that the recipient cells use other actin nucleators rather than Arp2/3 to promote actin polymerization in the cargo transfer process. Are formins involved in the formation of these tubular connections?

We thank the reviewer for his/her comments and suggestions. Beta-actin was knocked down in this study. We tried a formin inhibitor, SMIFH2 which resulted in a decrease the Cas9 transfer between cells (Figure 3F).

2) The authors provided convincing evidence to show that the tubular connections are involved in cargo transfer. Intriguingly, in Figure 4-figure supplement video (upper right), protein transfer appeared to occur along a broad cell-cell contact region instead of a single tubular connection. How often does the former scenario occur? Is it possible that transfer can happen as long as cells are contacting each other and making protrusions that can fuse with the target cell?

In the Figure 4-figure supplement video (upper right), it may be that several membrane tubes from several different donor cells contact at sites close to one another on the recipient cell resulting in the appearance a broad cell-cell contact. This was a rare observation. In our quantification, only 8 connections were open-ended in 120 cell-cell contact junctions. Once open-ended, or plasma membrane fused, cargo transfer is observed.

3) The requirement of MFSD2A in both donor (HEK293T) and recipient (MDA-MB-231) cells is consistent with a role for syncytin-1 or 2 in both types of cells. Since HEK293T cells contain both syncytins and MFSD2A but cargo transfer does not occur among these cells, does this suggest that syncytins and/or MFSD2A are only trafficked to the HEK293T cell membrane in the presence of MDA-MB-231 cells?

A proper answer to this question requires the visualization of syncytins and MFSD2A. The commercial syncytin antibodies were inadequate for immunofluorescence. In advance of the more detailed effort required to tag the genes for endogenous syncytin 1 and 2, we performed live cell imaging and surface biotin labeling of cells transiently transfected to express fluorescently-tagged forms of syncytin-1, -2 and -A. We now show that syncytin-A, -1, and -2 partially localize to the plasma membrane or the cell surface of MDA-MB-231 and at points of cell-cell contact. In fact, overexpression of codon-optimized human syncytin-1, and -2 induced dramatic HEK293T cell-cell fusion. However, at basal levels of syncytin expression, HEK293T could not form open-ended tubular connections, which may be because the basal level of syncytins are not well represented in a processed form at the cell surface or their activity is limited by unknown factors.

As an independent test of cell surface localization, we used surface biotinylation to show that a fraction of the syncytins can be labeled externally (Figure 8-figure supplement 1D). This fraction shows evidence of proteolytic processing consistent with furin cleavage whereas the overwhelming majority of transfected syncytins detected in a blot of lysates suggests that most remain in the unprocessed precursor form, consistent with the punctate and reticular fluorescence images (Figure 8-figure supplement 1A-C).

We used IF and GFP-tagged MFSD2A and found this protein partially localized to the plasma membrane of HEK293T cells (Figure 9E, F). Given the results reveal that cargos could be transferred among MDA-MB-231 cells (Figure 2G), syncytin and its receptor appear to function in transfer among these cells.

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

Learn more at Review Commons

---

Reply to the reviewers

Reviewer 1

Although this is an interesting, and generally well-performed study, it is primarily observational and there are few mechanistic insights provided into how MUC13 modulates barrier function. The authors propose a presumably direct interaction between MUC13 and PKC, which apparently sequesters PKC, preventing this kinase from triggering PKC-dependent increases in TJ barrier function; however, there is no evidence that a MUC13-PKC interaction occurs, that MUC13 is phosphorylated by PKC, or that phosphorylation of MUC13 has any impact on its function or overall barrier function. Thus, the hypothesis is not directly tested and all observations in this manuscript are generally correlative in nature.

While the MUC13 cytoplasmic tail contains a putative PKC-binding motif, we indeed do not show a direct interaction between MUC13 and a member of the PKC family in this manuscript. Unfortunately, we have so far not been able to successfully perform (co-)immunoprecipitation of MUC13 with our current anti-MUC13 antibodies.

To provide more insights into the possible MUC13-PKC interaction, we plan to perform several experiments.

• First, we will determine the expression levels of the different PKC isotypes (PKC alpha, beta, gamma, delta, epsilon, and zeta) in the HRT18 cell lines by western blot.
• Next, we will determine the localization of the relevant PKC isoforms and MUC13 by immunofluorescence microscopy. We are curious to see if we can find a colocalization between MUC13 and a PKC member on the lateral or apical membrane. If we can demonstrate a colocalization, we could follow up with a proximity ligation assay, but this would require the MUC13 antibody directed against the cytoplasmic tail (which only detects the lateral population) and might therefore be challenging.
• Furthermore, since PKC delta protein levels were upregulated in the total lysate of ∆MUC13 cells, we will test a PKC delta-specific inhibitor in the TEER assay.

  Consider quantifying all blots (Fig. 5C, Fig. 6B).

As suggested, we will quantify both blots.

Consider using dot-plots for all quantified data.

The graphs will be altered to include individual measurement points.

Reviewer 2

Fig2E showed two bands with different size in the two MUC13 WT control cell lines. They hypothesized that this could be the consequences of glycosylation different patterns. A sample with untransfected HRT18 might be included in the western blot panel. Additionally, what is the 100kDa band?

Mucin blots are notoriously difficult and these MUC13 blots are the result of a lot of trial and error. We repeated the Western Blot with original HRT18 cells, HRT18 original cell line, as well as the two CRISPR control cells used in the study (WT 1 and WT 2) and one of the full-length MUC13 knockout cells. The higher band was absent from the MUC13 knockout cells, but a small shift in the MUC13 band size can be noted in the WT 1 cells compared to the original and the WT 2 cell lines, possibly indicating a change in the glycosylation pattern. The 100 kDa band remains detectable in all cell lines including the ∆MUC13 cell line, therefore we consider this to be an aspecific background band of the MUC13 antibody. We will add a more extensive Western Blot analysis to the manuscript.

Did the transfection of the inducible GFP-MUC13 plasmid induce any decrease of Claudin1/3/4 in HRT18 or Caco2 cells? Same question regarding PKCdelta.

These are indeed interesting questions. We will perform these experiments with our MUC13-overexpression HRT18 cells.

Reviewer 3

Moreover, the authors should determine if MUC13∆CT localize to TJs, as suggested by the working model in Figure 7C. The subcellular localization of MUC3∆CT could give critical clues for its function, but Figure 2G fails to provide any information and the authors do not present any additional data concerning the localization of MUC13∆CT. Detection of MUC13 in membrane fractions of WT, MUC13∆CT and cells lacking the mucin domain could be a feasible strategy forward.

We will perform additional immunofluorescence experiments to determine the subcellular localization of MUC13-∆CT more accurately. However, detection of the extracellular domain by western blot, as suggested, is not possible due to the incompatibility of the extracellular MUC13-directed hybridoma antibody with the western blot technique. We currently do not have a suitable antibody that recognizes the ED and can be used for western blot.

The authors introduce an inducible MUC13-GFP fusion protein into WT and ∆MUC13 cells and show that it reverses the enhanced TEER upon MUC13 deletion. Unfortunately, the "Materials and Methods" section lacks adequate information on how this fusion protein was designed. Critical questions are the position of the GFP tag within MUC13, whether the fusion protein is correctly processed in HRT18 cells, and if it localizes to the apical or apico-lateral membrane domains? Figure 2H is of low magnification and fails to provide information on the subcellular localization of the MUC13-GFP fusion protein.

The materials and methods section will be adjusted to describe all the design details of the fusion protein. The GFP tag was added to the MUC13 C-terminus with a GGGS linker sequence in between. Processing of the fusion protein seems correct as we observed MUC13-GFP localization to both lateral and apical membranes and no access intracellular build up. As suggested by the reviewer, we will add more detailed immunofluorescence pictures to the manuscript.

Figures 6B-C suggest that PKCdelta levels increase in ∆MUC13 cells, which correlates with higher enrichment of Claudins in membrane fractions. The authors then inhibited PKCdelta and observed reduced recruitment of Claudins to membrane fractions. Since the family of Claudins are differentially regulated by phosphorylation (PMID: 29186552), the authors should investigate the TEER phenotype of WT, ∆MUC13 and MUC13∆CT upon PKC inhibition.

We must clarify that figures 6C-D are done using the PKC inhibitor targeting all conventional PKCs (alpha, beta, gamma) as well as delta (https://www.tocris.com/products/gf-109203x_0741). We recently obtained a PKCdelta-specific inhibitor which we will test in the TEER build-up experiments.

Moreover, the authors predict phosphorylation sites in MUC13CT and suggest a link between PKC and MUC13 (Figure. 6A), however no evidence is presented to support this hypothesis. The authors should either determine if PKC phosphorylates MUC13 and if this modification has implication on MUC13 localization and TJ function, or remove statements regarding MUC13 phosphorylation. The data provided suggest that PKC regulates TJ proteins independent of MUC13.

We will adjust the manuscript to put less emphasis on the putative PKC motifs in the MUC13 cytoplasmic tail. For further details on how we will proceed regarding the possible MUC13-PKC interaction see question 1 from reviewer #1.

Figure 5C. Quantification of at least 3 independent experiments is required.

These data will be added to the manuscript.

Figure 6B. Quantification of at least 3 independent experiments is required.

These data will be added to the manuscript.

Reviewer 4

OPTIONAL: MUC13 is expressed both, in the basolateral membranes and in the apical membrane of intestinal epithelial cells (IECs). Does the authors check the relevance of MUC13 in the formation of microvilli in IECs? Are microvilli different (microvilli staining, number of positive cells to microvilli, length, width or distribution of microvilli) in ΔMUC13 and in MUC13-ΔCT? How the glycocalyx looks like in these cells genetically modified for MUC13?

HRT18 cells do not seem to develop microvilli. However, we plan to stain these cells with a microvilli-specific antibody (ACTUB). The HRT18 cells express mostly MUC13 and relatively low levels of the larger TM mucin MUC1. To study changes in the glycocalyx, we will stain using a MAL-II antibody which targets α-2,3 sialic acids, which are abundantly present in mucins. In this way, we will determine any big changes in the total glycocalyx that may occur in response to the removal of MUC13.

In the figure 1D would be nice to represent the co-localization of MUC13 together with occluding in a graph in each Z-stack so you can visualize in which part of the cell is maximum colocalization of these both components.

These data will be provided.

In the figure 1E, would be great to compare between the two different MUC13 antibodies the apical fraction stained in HRT18 and Caco-2. Specially in the HRT18 cell line since the first antibody did not label apical MUC13 expression meanwhile the second antibody detects the apical expression in these cells. How much lateral lateral stain the C terminal antibody compare with the extracellular antibody for MUC13 and how much stain apically the C terminal antibody compare with the extracellular antibody? Would be nice to see some comparative results using the intensity by Z-stack and plotting in a graph.

This is a good suggestion as it is quite intriguing that both MUC13 antibodies seem to target (partially) different MUC13 populations. We will perform co-staining with both MUC13 antibodies to provide information on which MUC13 populations are detected by each antibody (apical vs lateral membrane).

Manuscript would be improved if in the figure 2H to compare within the same cell line the number of MUC13 positive cells in the WT, number of MUC13 positive cells in WT+pMUC13 and the number of MUC13 positive cells in the ΔMUC13+pMUC13

We will quantify the percentage of MUC13-GFP positive cells in both the WT and ΔMUC13 backgrounds by either microscopy or flow cytometry.

In figure 5C would be helpful to plot in a graph the normalized expression of each TJ protein and compare between the different cells used (WT, ΔMUC13 and MUC13-ΔCT) as you did in figure 5A

We will provide the quantification data of three independent experiments.

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

Reviewer 1

In addition, this model does not explain why all kinase inhibitors tested reverse the increase in TER observed in deltaMUC13 cell lines. Does this reflect the lack of inhibitor specificity or the likelihood that many kinases are involved?

As stated in the manuscript, we think that MLCK, ROCK, and PKC are all essential for TER buildup in the ∆MUC13 cells. Because the roles of MLCK and ROCK are well established, we choose to follow up on the PKC results. We adjusted the text to clarify this point.

The authors do observe that there is an increase in expression of several tight junction-associated proteins, including the claudins, in deltaMUC13 cells. Affected CLDNs include 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 12. (1) While it appears the authors are arguing that this increased claudin expression results in increased barrier function, they do not sufficiently highlight the well-known role that CLDN2 has in cation transport, and both CLDN-4 and -7 have also been implicated in paracellular ion flux (although this is apparently cell-type specific). These observations would seem to argue against a simple correlation between claudin expression and tight junction barrier function.

The reviewer is right about the different functions of claudins. Claudin-2, -4 and -7 have (potentially) pore-forming properties, while the other claudins restrict paracellular passage. It has been previously demonstrated that the magnitude of paracellular ion and water flux is reflected by the specific repertoire of claudin family members (Shashikanth et al., 2022). In this paper, overexpression of claudin-4 was shown to mobilize and affect polymeric strands of claudin-2, thus blocking its channel activity. Our mass spectrometry data demonstrated a striking increase in claudin-1, -2, -3, -4, -7, and -12 in the MUC13 knockout membranes compared to WT. We hypothesize that the claudin repertoire in the MUC13 knockout cells leads to a more restricted paracellular route (as observed in the TEER and tracer experiments). The pore-forming claudins may be subject to “interclaudin interference” therefore leading to restriction of the total paracellular ion and water flux. We have adjusted the text of the manuscript to clarify this point.

We attempted to investigate claudin-2 expression levels in isolated membranes by Western Blot but were unsuccessful as the antibody did not detect any protein while claudins-1 and -4 could be detected with the same method.

Furthermore, the authors should note the disconnect between paracellular ion flux mediated by claudins and the flux of markers such as dextrans and lucifer yellow, which can be dissociated from claudin function.

We acknowledge that the flux of larger particles (the leak pathway) is not regulated by claudins (which regulates the pore pathway). We aimed to assess both the pore and the leak paracellular pathways, by using different techniques including TEER, small solutes (Lucifer Yellow CH), and larger molecules (4 and 70 kDa FITC-Dextrans). HRT18 wild type cells are already very restrictive to the pass of larger molecules (FITC-Dextrans) but are more permeable to smaller solutes such as Lucifer Yellow (400 Da). We observed that removal of the MUC13 cytoplasmic tail did not affect the TEER, but reduced the paracellular passage of Lucifer Yellow, demonstrating that manipulation of MUC13 can affect both the pore and leak pathways. We adjusted to text to include this point.

The increased expression of claudins in the nominally tail-minus MUC13 without a corresponding change in TER would again seem to argue against a simple correlation;

MUC13-dCT cells showed consistently increased levels of claudins-1 and -2, but not the other claudins. This claudin repertoire (with high claudins-1 and -2, but lower claudin-3, -4, -7, and -12) is apparently not enough to increase TEER. We think that this again reflects the importance of the total claudin composition for the control of the paracellular pathway.

Watch the use of decimal points instead of commas (lines 253 and 256).

Corrected.

Line 543: MilliQ is not a washing agent (or is it?). (Line 535) We use MilliQ as a final step before mounting the glass slides to remove any possible salt deposition that would affect the visualization by microscopy.

We have specified this in the text.

Line 553: TER is the product of total resistance times the area. The units are ohms times area.

Indeed, we have changed this mistake (line 545).

Line 630: Please provide the transfer conditions (voltage, amp, watts?) and transfer buffer when describing the Western blot protocol.

For immunoblotting of MUC13, protein lysates were transferred to 0.2 µm PVDF membranes using the Trans-Blot Turbo Transfer system (Biorad). The transfer was run using the protocol (High MW) which consisted in running for 10 min at 25 volts (V) and 1,3 amperes (A). These experimental data were added to the manuscript.

Reviewer 2

My main concern about this manuscript is that the authors analyzed MUC13 role in intestinal homeostasis and function using colorectal cancer cells. As helpful as cancer cells are, we should always be cautious about extrapolating roles in normal intestinal epithelium or IBD pathology. Obviously, these finding are also interesting in a cancer context. Using GEPIA (http://gepia.cancer-pku.cn/), I observed that MUC13 is overexpressed in colorectal cancer COAD-TCGA dataset (compared to normal colon from GTEX). Similar results were obtained previously by Gupta et al. (ref #10). I am aware that this would be difficult to confirm the main findings in a non-cancerous intestinal cell line but this limit (normal intestine using cancer cells) should be at least discussed in the manuscript.

We appreciate the reviewers’ comments and are aware of the downsides of using cancer-derived cell lines. We have performed the GEPIA analysis ourselves and have an ongoing project about the possible role of MUC13 in colorectal cancer progression. In a separate project, we are collaborating with the Gaultier Laboratory at the University of Virginia which has generated a MUC13 knockout mouse. This model will allow us to study the role of MUC13 in non-cancerous tissue. We recently received intestinal biopsies from these mice which will be stained with MUC13 and claudin antibodies to determine localization in healthy tissue. These experiments will reveal if MUC13 colocalizes with claudin on the lateral membrane in the healthy mouse intestinal tract. In future experiments, we will also address MUC13 localization and function in human intestinal organoids. We have adjusted the discussion to refer to the limitations of using cancer cell lines.

Massey et al (Micro 2021, PMC7014956) previously showed that MUC13 overexpression increased rigidity in PDAC cells and discussed involvement MUC13 link with EMT. MUC13-Her2 interaction was also associated with decrease of E-cadherin suggesting an EMT phenotype. This should be included in the discussion section.

The discussion has been adjusted to include the link with EMT.

The authors performed mass spectrometry analysis. Results are deposited on ProteomeXchange but are not yet publicly released. Among the 1189 membrane protein identified. Did the authors observed alteration of EMT proteins? (decrease of vimentin for example). In the discussion section (lane 347), the authors mentioned the relationship between other membrane bound mucins such as MUC1, MUC4, MUC16 or MUC17 and AJ/TJproteins. Did the authors observed any alteration of these mucin in the mass spectrometry data?

The mass spec analysis was performed on membrane fractions, therefore our dataset will not contain true cytosolic proteins. One of the key EMT proteins, Vimentin, is a cytosolic protein, and indeed it was not found in our dataset. Other EMT-related proteins are shown in the following table. TGF beta 1 was slightly decreased, while E-cadherin and Integrin beta 6 were slightly increased in the ∆MUC13 cells compared to WT cells.

Gene Name

Mean WT

Mean ∆MUC13

Mean MUC13-∆CT

TGFBI (TGB beta 1)

20,54

16,48

18,83

CDH1 (E-cadherin)

22,69

24,57

24,24

ITGB6 (Integrin beta 6)

18,86

21,74

19,19

Vimentin - Cytosolic

-

-

-

CDH2 (Cadherin-2, N-cadherin)

-

-

-

Mucins are large proteins comprised of densely O-glycosylated mucin domains, which makes them extremely challenging to study by mass spectrometry (MS) (Rangel-Angarita et al., 2021). We did not specifically employ mucin-directed technologies in this dataset, thus making the detection of mucins hard. No mucins other than MUC13 were detected. For MUC13, two peptides corresponding to the EGF-like domains in the extracellular domain, a region that is less densely glycosylated. We added a sentence to the description of the mass spec results to include the EMT proteins and other mucins.

Minor points:

Lane 126: HRT18 and Caco2 colon cancer cells instead of intestinal epithelial cells

Corrected.

Lane 181 and lane 514: add "full length" MUC13 DNA sequence

Corrected.

Lane 234: TEER was measured every 12h. How the authors did observed the largest increase at 42h? Was it 48h? Please clarify.

We aimed at measuring every 12 h, however the exact measurements were done at 18h, 24h, and 42 h post-infection. We have corrected this in the manuscript.

Reviewer 3

Line 43 and 46. "Enterocytes" should be replaced with "intestinal epithelial cells", since enterocytes are themselves a distinct subpopulation of IECs.

We have changed it in the manuscript.

Lines 58-60. References in support of the statements should be added.

We added a reference to this sentence.

Lines 188-190. Authors comment on "roundness" of different cell lines. If the parameter is critical for the manuscript, the authors should quantify this phenotype.

The parameter is not critical for the manuscript. We removed the sentence.

Figure 3A. Staining of cell lines should include panels showing localization of MUC13.

Co-staining of MUC13 with occludin in HRT18 cell lines can be found in figure 1D, and MUC13 with E-cadherin in supplementary figure 1.

Lines 323-327 and 390-392. Sentences on these lines contradict each other. The sentences should describe/discuss quantified data presented in Figure 6D.

The reviewer is right that we should be discussing the quantified data in 6D. We adjusted the sentence in line 323-327.

Proteomic data sets should be made publicly available on data depositories.

All proteomics raw data were deposited to the ProteomeXchange Consortium with the dataset identifier PXD029606.

Reviewer 4

OPTIONAL: In the figure 2E, is the extracellular antibody still detecting the MUC13-ΔCT?

No, unfortunately the antibody directed against the MUC13 ED is not compatible with western blot.

In the figure 2G, would be nice to comment possible reasons why the deletion in the first cell line of the MUC13-CT you can still detect with the extracellular antibody some lateral expression of MUC13 meanwhile in the second cell line, the same deletion (MUC13-CT) you cannot see any lateral MUC13 staining with the extracellular antibody.

Yes, this is indeed a puzzling finding, especially because the CRISPR deletion is the same in both cell lines. We will add a sentence about possible reduced stability of the MUC13 without CT domain that leads to a different outcome in both cell lines.

It would be nice that the results from Figure 3H are better explained since it is difficult to follow.

We adjusted the text to explain the experiment in more detail.

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

Reviewer 1

The authors may be overly reliant on TER measurements. Epithelial cells have two parallel resistive pathways: transcellular and paracellular. TER measure the contribution of both. Thus, an increase in TER could result from a decrease in transcellular ion transport. The authors need to measure transcellular ion flow or selectively measure the junctional resistance in a select set of experiments to rule this possibility out.

The reviewer is right that TEER is a sum of the resistance of the transcellular and paracellular pathways. However, due to the high resistance of cell membranes, the current predominantly travels via the paracellular route (Elbrecht et al., 2016). For this reason, TEER measurements are widely accepted techniques for the assessment of ions passage through the paracellular pathway (Shen et al., 2011).

Reviewer 3

Figure 1C. Caco2 and HRT18 cells exhibit distinct MUC13 expression patterns when probed with an antibody against the MUC13 CT; MUC13 localizes almost exclusively to lateral cell junction in HRT18 cells, while a higher portion of MUC13 is present on the apical surface of Caco2 cells. This observation has two possible explanations: 1) the two cell lines express distinct forms of MUC13, or 2) the two cell lines carry distinct machineries for anchoring MUC13 to apical versus apico-lateral membranes. Thus, The authors should take the opportunity to determine the impact of MUC13 deletion on TEER and TJ function in Caco2 cells. Proteomic analysis and functional assays in Caco2 cells may provide more a general mechanism for how MUC13 regulates TJ proteins.

Yes, this would be a great line of investigation. However, we aimed to knockout MUC13 in Caco-2 cell lines (with the same CRISPR/Cas9 protocol as the HRT18 cells) but were unable to obtain Caco-2 knockout clones. We think this might be a consequence of the poor capability of Caco-2 cells to grow as single colonies (a required step in the protocol). Another option is Caco-2 MUC13 knockout cells have reduced viability.

The authors generate cell lines that either lack MUC13 or express MUC13 lacking the cytoplasmic domain. Loss of MUC13 cells resulted in enhanced TEER and increased recruitment of TJ proteins to membrane fractions. MUC13∆CT cells show moderate recruitment of TJ proteins to membranes and no increase in TEER but inhibit paracellular diffusion of Luciferase Yellow across monolayers. Figure 3A suggests that Occludin redistributes to tricellular junctions in ∆MUC13 cells, whereas it is found more laterally in WT and MUC13∆CT cells. These finding suggest that full-length MUC13 interferes with TJ protein complexes. However the impact of the extracellular and intracellular (CT) domains is not fully elucidated. Does the O-glycosylated mucin domain interfere with the extracellular domains Occludin and Claudins? The authors should clarify the contribution of the mucin domain to the observed phenotype, for example by performing the described experiments in a cell line expressing MUC13 lacking the mucin domain.

Mucins are type I membrane proteins with the N-terminal part of the protein on the extracellular site. Therefore, a CRISPR method to specifically remove the glycosylated domain but leave the remainder of the protein in frame is challenging. An additional difficulty is that the ED contains a lot of repeats, complicating the design of specific guide RNAs. To specifically address the contribution of the glycosylated domain, we could complement the MUC13 knockout cell with a construct lacking the ED. However, this would not be comparable to the endogenous MUC13∆CT cell line presented in this manuscript. In future studies, we will strive to address the functions of the different MUC13 domains in more detail.

Figure 5A. Turnover of TJ proteins in membrane fractions occurs faster than over a period of 1-3 days (PMID: 18474622). The authors should determine TJ protein turnover over a period of minutes and hours.

We acknowledge the findings in this interesting paper concerning the continuous remodeling of tight junctions. However, the readout of our biotinylation assay is degradation and the timeframe of degradation turns out to be days and not hours. Within this timeframe remodeling is taking place but it cannot be captured in the total lysate.

Reviewer 4

OPTIONAL: The authors show that the probiotic Lactobacillus plantarum increase epithelial barrier independently of MUC13. Have the authors considered to use other probiotics as Lactobacillus paracasei (10.3389/fcimb.2015.00026), Akkermansia muciniphila (10.1038/emm.2017.282) or some metabolic products from intestinal microbiota as short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) (10.3389/fphys.2021.650313) to check what is the role of MUC13 and if it is related with other microbe or microbiota metabolite?

Thank you for the suggestion. We have an ongoing project in which we investigate the impact of different probiotic bacteria and plan to investigate whether they have an impact on the epithelial barrier function in a MUC13-dependent manner. This study will lead to a separate publication.

OPTIONAL: The authors successfully delete MUC13 in IECs, both, full length and the cytosolic tail. Have the authors considered targeting the deletion of the PTS domain in MUC13? Could affect that something different from paracellular trafficking as the extracellular detection of microbes and microbial products?

Removal of a domain in the extracellular domain of MUC13 with CRISPR is challenging because mucins are type I membrane proteins, the repeats and possible frameshift, as described above.

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

Learn more at Review Commons

---

Reply to the reviewers

Reviewer 1.

Major point:

(1) The authors rely upon the redistribution of RNA to measure the inheritance of extant RNAs following cell cycle release. Blocking transcription nicely shows new synthesis is not required for this inheritance. This is also consistent with the idea any newly synthesized RNA would be 'dark,' or not EU labeled, but the transcription inhibitor experiments are critical controls and nicely done. As hinted at the end of their discussion, however, a lack of RNA localizing to G1 chromosomes could be formally attributable to differential RNA stability. Might altered RNA stability of NEAT1, MALAT1, or U2 also contribute to the observed altered localizations upon interphase reentry? The authors could use qPCR or measure RNA half-life to test this possibility. These data would nicely compliment the authors' existing FISH experiments and allow them to specifically argue for differential RNA localization.

We have addressed this point by measuring the stability of MALAT1, U2, and NEAT1 in G2 cells after transcription inhibition using RNA FISH. We find that U2 and MALAT1 exhibit very little RNA degradation after 2.5 hours of transcription inhibition, which is consistent with the reported half-lives for each of these transcripts (10 hours for MALAT1 and >24hrs for U2; PMC3337439). We conclude that differential RNA stability cannot account for differential RNA import observed for these two transcripts. In contrast, NEAT1 transcript is almost undetectable after 1.5 hours of transcription inhibition, which is also consistent with the reported half-life of this transcript (22406755, 3337439). Therefore, RNA degradation during mitosis could contribute to a lack of NEAT1 nuclear import in G1. We have included this new data in a modified Figure 2E (text p5 lines 154-166).

Minor Points:

(1) The authors examine published datasets identifying RNA associated with chromatin and state the reason why these data show little overlap is "primarily attributable to purification methodology." This statement seems speculative, and its basis seems unclear.

We have changed the wording of this section to remove unwarranted speculation (p4-5 lines 116-129).

(2) The SAF-A-AA experiments failed to reveal insight into mechanisms of RNA sorting, although they do suggest the AA construct functions as a gain-of-function due to a) increased RNA reincorporated into chromosomes b) dramatic increase of chromosome targeting of SAF-A. These effects make it difficult to interpret the SAF-A-AA data. Related to this point, the analysis of altered RNA distributions relative to SAF-A is underdeveloped. Because the authors only examined one lncRNA (MALAT1), the conclusion that “forced retention of SAF-A on mitotic chromatin does not lead to an increase in the nuclear inheritance of specific transcripts” seems like an overstatement.

We have reworded this conclusion about the role of SAF-A-AA on mitotic chromatin retention to more accurately reflect our findings (p6 line 197). (3) The authors find the U2 spliceosomal RNA is preferentially inherited. Might they speculate why this would be advantageous?

We have added a sentence to the discussion speculating about the importance of U2 inheritance (p8 line 269-271). (4) Optional: it would be exciting to test the significance of U2 RNA inheritance

We agree with the reviewer that this would be an exciting future direction to test. We envision that testing this idea rigorously would require the development of several new degron cell lines and is outside the scope of this study. (5) For Figure 1, please add statistics to figures and legend; add N=cells examined.

We have added a new supplemental Excel spreadsheet that contains the N of cells measured for each experiment and added statistics to figure legends and figures where tests were significant. (6) For Figure 2, single channel panel of U2 RNA should be added. Figure 2E seems to reproduce the same data shown in Figure 2D (right-most columns) shown with different axes.

We have added a single channel image of U2 to Figure 2 and replaced panel 2E with analysis of MALAT1, NEAT1, and U2 stability after transcription inhibition. (7) Figure 3, it is unclear why the authors selected MALAT1 for analysis, but not NEAT1 (or the single (unlabeled) antisense RNA also enriched in the SAF-A IP (figure 2C).

We examined MALAT1 in greater detail because it is the most abundant lncRNA bound by SAF-A and most robust RNA FISH probe. The unlabeled antisense transcript is hnRNPUas1 and was not detectable in DLD1 cells by RNA FISH. (8) Figure 4B, please add statistics to figure and legend.

For this experiment we prefer not to add statistics to the figure. This experiment was performed on a limited number of cells (21 and 8 respectively) and we do not believe that it is statistically appropriate to treat each cell as an independent N. The data confirms results in our previously published work (Sharp et al 2020) using live cell imaging. (9) Methods: in their description of the published lists of chromatin-bound RNAs, the authors should cite those works and provide a data availability statement with the associated GEO

We have cited these works in the text and methods sections and added GEO accession numbers associated with these studies. (p21 line 442).

Reviewer 2

Major comments:

The authors pose an interesting question -- how does nuclear RNA segregate following mitosis. In many ways, the results presented in this manuscript are rather preliminary. Key controls and validation are missing. Because of this, it is difficult to assess the validity of the main conclusions of the study. More specifically:

1. The main conclusion of the manuscript ("about half of nuclear RNA is inherited by G1 cells following division") is primarily dependent on the experiment described in Fig 1A-B. The authors labeled synchronized cells with EU and quantified nuclear signal after release from synchronization. However, key controls are missing. What is the synchronization efficiency of the RO3306 treatment? How many cells in their acquired fields of cells are in G2 vs in other cell cycle stages? Following their drug release, what percentage of the synchronized cells have undergone telophase? What is the potential error rate in identifying the cell cycle stage using their visual imaging analysis? Without these key controls, it is unclear how to interpret the data presented in Fig 1B.

One reason that nuclear inheritance has not been properly addressed in the literature is the difficulty in obtaining pure populations of cells synchronized in telophase or recently divided cells in early G1. There are no drugs available which can uniquely target these cell stages. In addition, the ability of human cells to all release perfectly synchronously from a drug-induced arrest can vary with cell type. For this reason we used a strategy employing synchronization methods designed to enrich cell populations for telophase or early G1 events, combined with single cell analysis of events with the distinct cytological features of each stage. Cells that have recently divided are extremely distinctive and easily identified using a combination of DAPI morphology to assess nuclear size and condensation state and the presence of Aurora-B/Midbody staining to indicate a recent cytokinesis. Our approach of using single cell analysis coupled with quantitative imaging therefore does not require a high efficiency of synchronization in cell populations. To gain confidence that our observations were reproducible we analyzed a large number of cells, performed multiple experimental replicates, and applied statistical tests to the data.

To clarify these important points we have added text to the descriptions of how these experiments were performed (p3 line 72) and added information about the number of biological replicates to all figure legends and number of cell analyzed in each experiment to Supplementary Table 1.

1. The use of transcriptional inhibitors in Fig 1 is really nice and is important for showing that it's not due to new transcription following mitosis. Well done!

2. One potential mechanism that could explain the observed 25% relocalized nuclear RNA is through passive diffusion. That is, a proportion of molecules that are randomly diffusing during mitosis get trapped inside the newly formed nuclear membrane in early G1. This would be considered noise, and not a specific process that actively relocalizes nuclear RNA back into the nucleus. However, the authors' assay does not have a measure of the noise in their system. One potential experiment that may help quantify this noise is to express GFP in their cells, perform the experiment described in Fig 1A, and quantify the nuclear signal after telophase. This quantification would be the lower bound of the random process. A similar experiment with GFP-NLS could be performed to assess the upper bound of the 'inherited' molecules after mitosis. Without this type of control to quantify noise/random diffusion levels, it is unclear how much of the 25% EU signal that the authors detect is specific to the process they are testing.

We appreciate the point that the reviewer has raised. To address this concern we examined the localization of the abundant mRNA b-actin. We examined the fraction of all b-actin FISH signal that is present in the nucleus in G2 and G1 cells following division. If a significant fraction of RNA is trapped in the reforming nucleus then we would have expected the fraction of b-actin in the G1 nucleus to increase. We observed that less b-actin RNA was present in the G1 nucleus, suggesting that passive entrapment of RNA is unlikely to be a mechanism of RNA inheritance. This is consistent with a lack of inheritance of MALAT1 and NEAT1 lncRNAs following mitosis. We have added these results to a new Supplemental Figure 2 and added text describing the results to the Results section of the manuscript (p4 lines 101-113). Additionally, this result is consistent with recent work showing that mitotic chromosomes condense through histone deacetylation and exclude negatively charged macromolecules (PMID: 35922507) and that chromosome clustering by Ki67 in early G1 phase excludes the cytoplasm from the new nucleus (PMID: 32879492). These references and ideas are now included in the results section of the manuscript.

Related to the comment 1 and 2, EU labeling for 3 hrs in G2 cells would label ALL transcribed RNA, which would include mature mRNAs that will be translated in the cytoplasm. That is, this method is not specific to labeling nuclear RNAs only. How much of their signal is from mRNAs that got trapped inside the newly formed nuclear membrane? One way to test this is to measure the nuclear EU signal at later time points following telophase. Presumably, the nuclear transport mechanism would lead to export of non-nuclear RNAs and only the retained nuclear RNAs would contribute to the signal.

Please see our response to point 3 with regard to entrapment. The laboratory that originally described EU RNA labeling demonstrated a 3 hour EU labeling period results in labeling nuclear RNA, and that longer labeling periods are required to visualize EU labeling of cytoplasmic RNAs after export (18840688). We have also observed in our previously published work that the 3 hour period labels nuclear RNA during interphase (33053167, 32035037). The nuclear EU signal reflects RNAs undergoing transcription, nuclear retained RNAs, and mature mRNAs prior to nuclear export.

To identify nuclear RNAs that could be relocalized following mitosis, the authors analyzed data from "two different studies using different methodologies and a total of three different cell lines". From this analysis, the authors "found very little overlap in the chromatin-bound RNAs identified in these studies (Fig 2A)". This analysis seems fraught with problems. What is the rationale for using these studies? How valid is it to compare results from different methodologies and from different cell lines from the DLD-1 cells used in this study?

We analyzed the data from these two studies because they were the only published studies that identified RNAs that were tightly linked to chromatin. We chose to compare the results from three different human cell lines because we sought to identify nuclear RNAs that were cell type-independent, so that we could analyze the transcripts behavior in DLD1 cells. In support of using these two studies all the RNAs that we analyzed were nuclear in our RNA FISH assays.

A known problem of assessing chromatin-bound RNAs is that the level of contamination from cytoplasmic RNAs is highly variable and highly dependent on the assay. Indeed some of the most common contaminants of nuclear RNA assays are sn-, and sno-RNAs, and these are the main classes of RNA that the authors identified as common among the three data sets. What validation was used to assess whether these are the common noise/contaminants in the data?

Our goal in using the two previously published studies was to identify cell type-independent nuclear RNAs that could be studied in detail using FISH. For validation in our study we performed RNA FISH on MALAT1, NEAT1, and U2. We found that each of these RNAs are highly enriched in the nucleus, consistent with previous publications. Since snRNAs function in splicing and snoRNA primarily function in the modification of tRNA and rRNA in the nucleolus it seems unlikely that these are contaminants of nuclear preparations. Each of the published studies performed their own validations of their purification and sequencing methodology. For the purpose of our work nuclear enrichment of a transcript by RNA FISH satisfied our requirements.

One experimental validation that can be performed is biochemical fractionation of EU labeled cells, which would allow for fractionating nuclear from cytoplasmic RNA. The same problems arise with the analysis shown in Fig 3C when comparing SAF-A RIP-seq with this merged list of chromatin bound RNAs.

In support of the nuclear enrichment of each of the transcripts that we examined RNA-FISH analysis demonstrated significant nuclear enrichment. Additionally, many previous studies have shown that each of these transcripts are enriched in the nucleus (U2: 11489914, 10021385, 7597053; NEAT1: 17270048; MALAT1: 12970751, 17270048). New text describing our use of these studies is present in the results section (p4-5 lines 117-129).

Throughout the manuscript, the authors pose their findings as "RNA inheritance" following mitosis. However, this terminology is misleading. In fact, unless RNAs are lost/kicked out of the cell as they divide, aren't all RNAs inherited following cell division since they are present in the new daughter cells? Instead, what the authors mean is that some nuclear RNAs retain their function following cell division by relocalizing back into the nucleus in the new G1 cells, whereas other nuclear RNAs are unable to relocalize into the nucleus, and then presumably turned over by degradation process. The authors should take better care of their terminology throughout the manuscript.

Thank you for pointing this out to us. As the reviewer stated most nuclear RNAs are removed from chromatin during mitosis. Only a subset are reimported into the nucleus. We have modified our wording to clearly state that we are discussing nuclear RNA inheritance by daughter cell nuclei rather than inheritance into daughter cells in general. These text changes can be found throughout the manuscript.

Minor comments: 1. In all of the figures showing quantification of nuclear EU/FISH signal, the colors (red v blue) are not described (not found in the legend or methods). Presumably they are biological replicates, but this should be clearly stated.

We have modified the plots and figure legends to more clearly explain what is plotted (See text in Figure Legends). 2. Is figure 2E the same data presented in Fig 2D but in different y-axis? If so, state clearly

We have removed the data in the previous version of Figure 2E and replaced it with new data examining stability of MALAT1, NEAT1, and U2 in response to Reviewer 1 (p5 lines 154-166).

Figure 3A. This experiment is using the SAF-A-AID-mCherry system. Therefore the label in Fig 3A should be SAF-A-KD (Knockdown) instead of KO (knockout)

We have corrected this in Figure 3. 4. Typo in Fig 4B y-axis. It should be "Chromatin-localized SAF-A" instead of "Chromain-localized SAF-A"

Thank you for pointing this out, we have corrected it. 5. The methods section indicate the "precise N or replicates in indicated figure legends" but none of the figure legends have the N values listed.

We have listed number of biological replicates in all figure legends and included a new Supplemental Table 1 that contains the number of cells measured for each experiment.

Reviewer 3

The authors investigate an interesting question focussed on whether nuclear RNA from the previous cell cycle is present in the subsequent G1. It turns out that this is more complex than expected with some classes of RNA being inherited whilst others are not. SAF-A or HNRNPU had been implicated in this process but the authors suggest that its role is limited.

Figure 1 In panel A the authors write on image SAF-A-mCh. What does this refer to?

We have added information to the Figure legends indicating that this refers to SAF-A-AID-mCherry knocked-in to the endogenous SAF-A locus (see Figure Legends).

Panel B and other panels can the authors present this data as a boxplot or distribution plot to get a better feel of the data distribution spread.

We have modified all the plots in the manuscript to the Superviolin form to provide a clearer depiction of experimental replicates, mean, and standard deviation.

Presumably labelled RNAs are naturally turned over. Have the authors considered that some loss of signal could be because of this?

We have addressed the stability of specific RNAs using RNA FISH. We find that U2 and MALAT1 show essentially no degradation during the time course of our experiments. This data has now been included in an updated Figure 2. We have also modified our text to address this point more clearly (Figure 2E and p5 lines 154-166).

Panel E, have the authors considered labelling RNA before RO3306 treatment? What effect would this have?

We have performed this experiment in RPE1 cells and the presence of RO3306 did not affect cytological detection of transcript labeling. We have not included this experiment in the manuscript because it is performed in a different cell line than we use for the remainder of these studies.

Shouls TI be added before RO3306 washout?

We added transcription inhibitors after RO washout and entry into mitosis because transcription is naturally suppressed during mitosis. We were concerned that transcriptional inhibition in late G2 could lead to failure to properly enter into M phase.

Also, it is unclear what the arrows are pointing at. In panel F there is a difference between the red and blue experiments. In the methods the authors say that inhibition was for either 1.5 or 2 h. Is this the source of the difference?

We have modified the figure legends to state clearly that different colors indicate biological replicate experiments (See Figure Legends). Figure 2 In panel A there are clear differences between the cell lines. Is it right to compare them? Particularly the GRID-seq vs diMARGI? B, how relevant is it focussing on the "42" overlapping RNAs? In my mind this is not very informative.

Our goal with this analysis was to identify cell type-independent chromatin bound RNAs to analyze in greater detail. Therefore, we analyzed three different cell lines because we planned to analyze transcript behavior in DLD1 cells, which were not included in either study. We have explained this rationale in greater detail in a revised version of the text (p4-5 lines 116-129).

D-E, at a glance it is not clear that E is an expanded view of D. It might be easier if the panels were at same height.

We have removed Panel E and replaced it with a new experiment examining the stability of NEAT1, MALAT1, and U2 after transcription inhibition (p5 lines 154-166). Figure 3 Is it correct to describe IAA treated degron cells as a KO? I also could not see a WB showing how complete SAF-A KD was.

We previously characterized these cell lines in great detail (Sharp et al. JCB 2020). We have now provided quantitative measurement of SAF-A-mCherry fluorescence after different times of auxin addition to provide a quantitative estimate of SAF-A depletion (Supplemental Figure 3C).

2 h treatment seems quite short, is this enough time to obtain sufficient knock down? How heterogenous is SAF-A KD in the cell population?

We examined SAF-A depletion by auxin addition at 2 hours and 24 hours and achieve comparable depletion levels. This data in now included in Supplementary Figure 3C. There is some heterogeneity in the KD as is evident in Figure S3C, but these cells are easily identifiable by the presence of SAF-A-AID-mCherry fluorescence.

Previous studies have shown that SAF-A does not like being tagged. How certain are the authors that these cells behave typically?

We have generated two different cell lines (DLD1 and RPE1) where a C-terminal tag is inserted into the both copies of the endogenous SAF-A gene. SAF-A is one of the common essential genes (https://depmap.org/portal/gene/HNRNPU?tab=overview), however each of our cell lines exhibits no growth defects. We have recently shown that C-terminally tagged SAF-A fully rescues SAF-A knockout phenotypes (Sharp et al. JCB. 2020). Additionally, we have also performed RNA-seq (not published) on RPE1, RPE1 with endogenously tagged SAF-A and RPE-1 depleted of SAF-A and rescued with WT SAF-A-GFP and observed no changes in gene expression or mRNA splicing. Based on these assays we are confident that C-terminally tagged SAF-A expressed at endogenous levels functions normally. Figure 4 I'm struggling with the heading, and wonder if this is not supported by the data. Similarly the final sentence "The highly dynamic exchange of SAF-A:RNA complex" does not really provide an explanation.

We have expanded the text in this section to explain this phenotype in greater detail (p7 lines 216-218).

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

Learn more at Review Commons

---

Reply to the reviewers

Reviewer #1 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)): ____ *A significant criticism of the paper is an assumption that readers will be familiar with all of the findings in the author's previous 2016 paper and the PGL-1 papers by Aoki et al. Minimal context is given for each approach. *

To address this concern, we have added a paragraph in the Introduction section of the revised manuscript.

*Some conclusions are not well supported and require further analysis, proper controls, and more extensive descriptions of the experiments performed. *

We have addressed the reviewer’s concerns as detailed below.

Most importantly, the central conclusion and title of the paper is that composition can buffer the dynamics of individual proteins within liquid-like condensates. In other words, in vitro condensation assays often do not recapitulate LLPS behavior in vivo. That said, the findings in this study would be significantly strengthened and complemented by observing endogenously tagged PGL-3 and PGL-3 mutants in living worms, considering the efficiency of using CRISPR in C. elegans to insert tags and make precise mutations.

The original manuscript already contained data where we microinjected wild-type PGL-3 and mutant PGL-3 proteins (recombinantly purified) into adult C. elegans gonads to assay how the P granule phase supports diffusion of these proteins.

In the revised version, we now include additional data which shows “dynamics buffering” in transgenic worms generated using CRISPR/Cas9 technology. Briefly, we used CRISPR/Cas9 to generate transgenic C. elegans which expresses PGL-3-mEGFP or PGL-3(D425-452)-mEGFP from the native pgl-3 locus. In vitro, wild-type PGL-3-mEGFP protein generates liquid-like condensates. On the other hand, the recombinantly purified PGL-3(D425-452)-mEGFP protein generates condensates that are non-dynamic. In contrast to these observations in vitro, both wild-type PGL-3-mEGFP and PGL-3(D425-452)-mEGFP show similar dynamics (half-time of FRAP recovery) within P granules in vivo.

*To improve readability, the introduction to P granules should be expanded, and include the reasons for looking at the nematode-specific PGL-3 protein among all the other known P granule proteins. A recap of previous findings on PGL-3 phase separation, in vivo and in vitro, is warranted, starting with the significant results of Saha et al 2016. Setting up the investigative questions in the context of recent work on PGL-1 (Aoki, et al) is also necessary. *

To address this concern, we have added a paragraph in the Introduction section of the revised manuscript.

The physiological concentration of PGL-3 should be more transparent, including why some experiments in this study are done at physiological concentrations while others are not. Describing why salt concentrations, crowding agents, and protein abundance are similar or different for each experiment is necessary and relevant. For example, after showing in Figure 1 that PGL-3 protein phase separates, the paragraph starting on line 161 says that it was previously shown that PGL-3 doesn't phase separate at physiological concentrations without RNA. One has to go back to Figure 1 to realize it was done differently than Figure 2 and Saha 2016.

The concentrations of PGL-3 protein and use of crowding agents (if any) have already been specified within figures or figure legends. Salt concentrations used are specified within figure legends or materials and methods section.

We have added the following paragraph to the materials and methods section of the revised manuscript.

“Saha et al. 2016 showed that at physiological concentrations (approx. 1 mM), the PGL-3 protein is unable to phase separate into condensates. At these concentrations, mRNA promotes phase separation of PGL-3. To assay for mRNA-dependence of condensate assembly, it is therefore essential to use physiological concentrations of the PGL-3 protein or mutants (e.g. Figure 2). However, these condensates are generally too small to assay rate of internal rearrangement of PGL-3 molecules within condensates using fluorescence recovery after photobleaching experiments. Therefore, to generate large condensates for measuring internal rearrangement of PGL-3 or mutant molecules, we primarily used higher concentrations of these proteins where binding to RNA is not essential for phase separation. However, to mimic the in vivo P granule phase as closely as possible, we generally added constituent proteins in proportion to their in vivo abundance estimated in Saha et al. 2016.”

The added paragraph in the Introduction section of the revised manuscript may be helpful to the readers. * *

*Statements in the same paragraph like "in contrast to full-length PGL-3, mRNA does not support phase separation..." should be qualified by stating the concentration observed, with or without salts or other crowding agents. Similarly, line 230 "suggests that interactions involving the disordered C-terminal region of PGL-3 are not essential for the fast dynamics" and should be qualified with "at non-physiological concentrations and with XX crowding agents or salt concentration." It would be more consistent if physiological concentrations were consistent from figure to figure, as extra variables weaken some of the stated conclusions. *

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. However, we feel the statements (without full experimental details within main text) help convey the conceptual essence of the findings better. Of course, all these statements contain reference to figures or prior publications which provide relevant details about experimental conditions.

*The 2010 review reference stating that there are 40 P granule enriched proteins is outdated. More recent reviews put the number much higher. This is relevant because the approach to put PGL-3 in a more physiological environment by including just PGL-1, GLH-1 and mRNA with the condensate assays, out of ~100 P granule enriched proteins, may not be sufficient to conclude "that the influence of complex composition on dynamics is modest" (line 223), or imply that the multicomponent nature of the P granule is reconstituted by adding these components (line 355). *

We revised the text to indicate that P granules contain approx. 70 proteins and added appropriate references.

• *

Based on current information of constitutive P granule components (PGL-1, PGL-3, GLH-1, GLH-2, GLH-3, GLH-4, DEPS-1, MIP-1 and mRNA), (Kawasaki et al, 1998, 2004; Spike et al, 2008a, 2008b; Price et al, 2021; Cipriani et al, 2021; Phillips & Updike, 2022) we reconstituted P granule-like phase in vitro with mRNA, PGL- and GLH- proteins that likely constitute the most abundant components within P granules in vivo (based on concentration estimates in Saha et al. 2016).

We do appreciate the reviewer’s comment that more components can be added to our in vitro reconstitution in addition to the limited set of components used in our study. However, we feel it is interesting to observe that a limited set of components can support dynamics buffering (the main message of the paper). Further, the complementary in vivo experiments show that the P granule phase can also support dynamics buffering.

*Figure 1C needs to include PGL-3(370-693) in the analysis. Figure 1E is also incomplete without a comparison of FRAP recovery between PGL-3(1-452) and full PGL-3 as the control.

*

Fig. 1c already includes data with PGL-3 (370-693) [top row, central panel]. FRAP recovery data with full-length PGL-3 is already available in Supplementary Fig. 2c, g.

*Figure 4C is missing an essential control where PGL-3 and S1 FRAP is performed without PGL-1, GLH-1, and mRNA. *

In the revised version, we have added Supplementary Fig. 5f, where FRAP recovery of the following condensates are plotted together: 1) PGL-3 alone, 2) S1 alone, 3) PGL-3 + PGL-1, GLH-1 and mRNA, 4) S1 + PGL-1, GLH-1 and mRNA.

*It would also help show sup Fig4A in the main figure to show concentration dependence. *

We revised Fig. 4 to address the reviewer’s suggestion.

Consider adding subtitles to supplementary figures.

We considered the suggestion but felt it may not be essential.

*M&M should include an explanation for statistical analysis *

We added a paragraph describing statistical analysis within the Materials and Methods section.

*CROSS-CONSULTATION COMMENTS I am also in agreement with the comments and critiques of reviewers 2 and 3.

* Reviewer #1 (Significance (Required)): The paper by Saha and colleagues investigate the in vitro liquid-liquid phase separation propensity of a P granule protein PGL-3 and its structural domains. The findings largely replicate and support the phase-separation properties of a paralogous protein called PGL-1, as recently described by Aoki et al. 2021. Furthermore, they show that the dynamics demonstrated by recombinant PGL-3 may be maintained or buffered by the complex composition of P granules.

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

*Jelenic et al. describe the effect of partner proteins on the FRAP dynamics of recombinant PGL-3 protein and variants in in vitro condensates and C elegans p-granules. The study shows that the N terminal a-helical dimerization domains is required for condensate formation and modulate of it alters aggregation and the FRAP dynamics of its condensates. Interestingly, a construct including the entire IDR region (370-693) by itself does not phase separate on its own at these conditions. The K126E K129E mutant (known previously to disrupt dimerization) and the deletion mutant abrogate llps. A mutant construct that shuffles the sequence in the region 423-453 called S1 here reduces the helicity and the condensate FRAP dynamics but recovered in the presence of a few P granule components. Also, the reduced dynamics of partially unfolded PGL-3 condensates are also rescued by the p-granule components to a certain degree of the unfolded PGL3 concentrations. This threshold concentration for recovering the condensate dynamics is further reduced in the helix reducing S1 mutant, which is also dependent on the number and the nature of P granule components.

Overall, the study aims to probe how "composition can buffer protein dynamics within liquid-like condensates" - yet several underlying aspects of the study do not fully support that conclusion. The introduction does not sufficiently introduce the known structural information of the two dimerization domains in C elegans PGL proteins for which structures are known. The region is discussed as "alpha helical" but really there are two evolutionarily conserved independently folding dimerization domains (referring to the mutants as "reduced alpha helicity" is not helpful - these are mutations that destabilize a folded domain).*

To address this concern, we have added a paragraph in the Introduction section of the revised manuscript.

*Additionally, the abstract and introduction ignore the aspects of aggregation (touched on in discussion) - this is likely what the disruption to the helical region in residue 450 region is doing (the helix is not on the dimer interface based on homology / sequence identity to the crystal structure of PGL-1 central dimerization domain. *

We think elucidating the molecular mechanism of apparent aggregation of PGL-3 (D425-452) could be an interesting direction for future investigation. Here, we focused our analysis predominantly on the mutant S1 since it generates liquid-like condensates with ~20- fold slower dynamics (compared to wild-type) in contrast to non-dynamic condensates/aggregates. Therefore, influence of other P granule components on the dynamics of PGL-3 in liquid-like condensates is easier to address using the mutant S1 rather than PGL-3 (D425-452). We didn’t find evidence that S1 aggregates as we did not detect aggregates of S1 molecules using fluorescence confocal microscopy and the slow dynamics in condensates of S1 does not change significantly over 24 h (Supplementary Fig. 3f).

However, in the revised version, we now include additional in vivo data with C. elegans expressing the aggregation-prone PGL-3 (D425-452)-mEGFP. Briefly, we used CRISPR/Cas9 to generate transgenic C. elegans which expresses PGL-3-mEGFP or PGL-3(D425-452)-mEGFP from the native pgl-3 locus. In vitro, wild-type PGL-3-mEGFP protein generates liquid-like condensates. On the other hand, the recombinantly purified PGL-3(D425-452)-mEGFP protein generates condensates that are non-dynamic. In contrast to these observations in vitro, both wild-type PGL-3-mEGFP and PGL-3(D425-452)-mEGFP show similar dynamics (half-time of FRAP recovery) within P granules in vivo.

Finally, the "dynamics buffering" is not really clearly established and could also be explained as small concentrations of aggregated proteins act like clients while increasing the concentration results in aggregation and "cross linking" in the entire droplet - and this concentration is never achieved in the in worm experiments so it is not clear. In other words, the change in FRAP dynamics not observed in worms is perhaps not surprising if small amount of recombinant proteins are incorporated into the granules. *

*

Data with the S1 mutant establishes that dynamics buffering can be observed in condensates with different sets of additives both in vitro (Fig. 5a, b) and in vivo (Fig. 4a, b). Further, data with condensates of S1 containing the additives PGL-3 (K126E K129E) or S1 (K126E K129E) demonstrate that dynamics (half-time of FRAP recovery) within S1 condensates, and in turn “dynamics buffering” depend on inter-molecular interactions. With respect to the hypothesis proposed by the reviewer, we did not detect aggregates within S1 condensates using confocal fluorescence microscopy.

In contrast to S1 condensates, condensates containing partially unfolded PGL-3-mEGFP together with PGL-1, GLH-1 and mRNA showed spatial inhomogeneities in fluorescence signal throughout the condensate (Fig. 4g). We have not tested if areas with higher fluorescence signal represent aggregates. It is a possibility that the partially unfolded PGL-3-mEGFP fluorescence signal becomes more homogeneous if higher concentrations of additives (PGL-1, GLH-1 and mRNA) are used. However, the presented data demonstrate the significant effect of the P granule components (PGL-1, GLH-1 and mRNA) on the FRAP recovery rate of partially unfolded PGL-3-mEGFP in condensates (compare figures Fig. 3e and Fig. 4g).

However, consistent with dynamics buffering, the P granule phase in vivo supports wild-type dynamics of different PGL-3 constructs over a range of concentrations - PGL-3(D425-452)-mEGFP at physiological concentration (CRISPR transgenic strain, Fig. 4e) or at higher concentrations (microinjected S1 and partially unfolded PGL-3-mEGFP, Fig. 4b).

• *

*It is also not clear what the mechanism of the changes is - is the protein driven to fold more properly (despite S1 disruption of its conserved sequence) inside the condensate? Does it still self interact and act as a dimerization domain? Does this change disrupt interactions? *

We agree with the reviewer that identifying the precise structural changes of the S1 protein within the condensate vs. dilute phase could be an interesting direction for future investigation. However, we have already discussed the issues raised by the reviewer in the original manuscript.

“Our data is consistent with the model that other regions of S1 molecules cooperate with residues 425-452 (shuffled) to generate stronger inter-molecular interactions. For instance, addition of the mutant S1 (K126E K129E) enhances dynamics of S1 within condensates in contrast to maintaining the slower dynamics observed within condensates of S1 alone. This suggests that the interactions disrupted by the mutations K126E and K129E also contribute to slow S1 dynamics. One possibility is that interactions involving the residues K126 and K129 favor S1 conformations that enhance 425-452 (shuffled)-dependent interactions. Indeed, the mutations K126E K129E have been reported to interfere with interactions among N-termini of PGL-3 molecules (Aoki et al, 2021). While two self-association domains within the α-helical N-terminus of PGL-3 have been mapped (Aoki et al, 2021, 2016), structural insights into those associations are limited. However, PGL-3 shares significant sequence similarity with another protein PGL-1. Crystal structures are available for fragments of the PGL-1 protein that show the two self-association domains at the N-terminus are predominantly α-helical and globular in nature (Aoki et al, 2016, 2021). Therefore, one possibility is that shuffling the sequence 425-452 of PGL-3 or heat-induced unfolding of PGL-3 exposes hydrophobic residues that become available to participate in inter-molecular interactions.”

What is the real mechanism by which PGL-3 phase separates if not via the disordered domains? *

*

We agree with the reviewer that elucidating the detailed mechanism of phase separation of PGL-3 is an interesting direction for future investigation. However, we feel this is not required to support the main message of this manuscript.

Throughout the manuscript, the term "dynamics" is used to indicate FRAP, but it would be better to define what is meant (diffusion of PGL-3 in condensates) instead of using dynamics a term that could mean many things. Secondly, FRAP cannot directly measure liquidity etc (see recent critiques by McSwiggen elife 2019, etc) so it is better to be cautious in the claims. Finally, discussing "dyanmics buffering" adds more terminology where it is not needed - perhaps say "changes to diffusion of PGL-3 in condensates".

We feel it is useful to introduce a term that describes our observation. To our knowledge, our observation is novel and therefore requires a new term to describe it.

However, we do appreciate the concern raised by the reviewer. We used a more generic term “dynamics buffering” in contrast to the more specific “diffusion buffering” since we did not directly estimate diffusion behavior at the ‘single-molecule’ level. However, we already described what we mean by “dynamics buffering” in the text as follows.

“We used condensates of similar size for our analysis (average ± 1 SD of diameter of condensates are 6.4 ± 1.7 mm (Fig. 5a) and 5.9 ± 0.4 mm (Fig. 5b)). Therefore, dynamics buffering here is likely to represent similar diffusion rates of S1 within condensates.”

• *

*The "N-terminus" is not 65% of the protein. One could define this as the N-terminal domain, but again there are two clear folded domains in the first 65% of the protein and this needs to be described better. *

We revised the text to replace the terms “N-terminus” and “N-terminal domain” to “N-terminal fragment”.

*The description of "stickers" and the references to tau and hnRNPA1 are confusing as this is a predominantly ordered domain while those are IDRs. *

• *

We feel this is important as it aids discussing our work in the context of current literature describing the mechanisms of macromolecular phase separation.

The suggestion in the discussion that "P granule components support dynamics by participating in intermolecular interactions wth PGL-3-mEGFP molecules" is not well supported because no interaction assays are performed and no mutaitons are made that disrupt these interactions to test this.

Indeed, we have not conducted interaction assays or mutational analysis to directly test this. However, our detailed analysis with the S1 mutant supports this suggestion.

While partially unfolded PGL-3-mEGFP molecules lose 30% of a-helicity, the a-helicity of the S1 mutant is reduced by 15% compared to wild-type PGL-3. Data with S1 and partially unfolded PGL-3-mEGFP molecules show that loss of a-helicity correlates with slower diffusion of protein molecules within condensates. Using the mutants PGL-3 (K126E K129E) and S1 (K126E K129E), we show that diffusion rate of S1 molecules within condensates depend on inter-molecular interactions, and presence of other P granule components support faster diffusion rate of S1 molecules within condensates. Therefore, we feel it is safe to speculate that intermolecular interactions with P granule components can support dynamics of a “more unfolded” (compared to S1) version of PGL-3 molecule. * *

*More detailed analysis of some of the claims: Claim 1: An a-helical region mediates the phase separation of PGL-3, and the C-terminal disordered region by itself does not phase separate. The N-terminal dimerization is essential for LLPS. The C-terminal IDR interactions with mRNA facilitate the LLPS. Comments: The authors show sufficient experimental data using microscopy and FRAP on truncated constructs with the N-terminal and C-terminal regions - but see above regarding how these are described - a proper domain structure with the folded domains shown and the RGG motifs highlighted should be added and integrated throughout the discussion. *

In the revised version of the manuscript, we described the predicted PGL-3 domains within a paragraph in the introduction: “The interactions that support phase separation of the PGL-3 protein remains unclear. Structural studies on the orthologous PGL-1 protein revealed two dimerization domains. This raises the possibility that PGL-3 also contains similar dimerization domains, and phase separation depends on interactions involving these domains.”

Our Fig. 1a already includes the schematic representation of PGL-3 with predicted N-terminal and Central Dimerization domains and RGG repeats.

*They show that the N-terminus is necessary and adequate for LLPS, and the C-terminus by itself does not phase separate. But, how does the N-terminal domains phase separate? This is not explained - what are the interactions? *

• *

Also, a di-mutant (K126E K129E) that is known, and also authors use SEC-MALS to show their N-terminal construct is consistent with the published results. Disrupting the n-terminal dimerization prevents phase separation, suggesting the importance of these residues in the N-terminus for self-assembly and LLPS. The Microscopy data backs the claim that the mRNA-mediated LLPS is facilitated by binding with C-terminus. However, the m-RNA binding to IDR is not sufficient for LLPS. Yet, the authors do not explain how higher salt prevents phase separation - again the mechanism of phase separation is unclear. Is it multivalent interaction of the two dimerization domains? A basic model (that is tested) would be important.

We agree with the reviewer that elucidating the detailed mechanism of phase separation of PGL-3 is an interesting direction for future investigation. However, we feel this is not required to support the main message of this manuscript.

However, our manuscript already provides some relevant insights as follows.

“To investigate the underlying mechanism further, we began by testing if the N-terminal α-helical region of PGL-3 can self-associate. Our analysis using size exclusion chromatography followed by multi-angle light scattering (SEC-MALS) showed that this PGL-3 fragment 1-452 forms a dimer (Supplementary Fig. 2f). Mutation of two residues (K126E K129E) have been shown to interfere with interactions among the N-termini of PGL-3 molecules (Aoki et al, 2021). We mutated these two residues within the full-length PGL-3 protein (K126E K129E) (Fig. 1a) and found that this mutant PGL-3 (K126E K129E) protein cannot phase separate even at high protein concentrations up to ~130 µM (Fig. 1b, c). Addition of mRNA does not trigger phase separation of this protein at physiological concentrations either (Fig. 2a, b). Taken together, our data is consistent with a model where association among folded N-termini of PGL-3 molecules is essential for phase separation.”

A likely possibility is that phase separation of PGL-3 depends on electrostatic inter-molecular interactions among the folded N-terminal fragment of PGL-3 molecules. Therefore, high salt prevents phase separation.

Are the tags removed to ensure that phase separation is not caused by tags or remaining linker regions? Is the protein purified to be without nucleic acid contamination or other purity metrics?

Most of the experiments were done with only 5% of total protein tagged with 6x-His-mEGFP. No additional tags were present on the constructs. For recombinant expression and purification, proteins were cloned such that it is possible to remove the 6xHis-mEGFP tag following treatment with TEV protease. Following removal of the 6xHis-mEGFP tag, the residual linker is just two amino acid residues long. We used 100% tagged-protein for our experiments only in very few cases (indicated in the figure legends).

To demonstrate purity of recombinant proteins, SDS-PAGE gels with all protein constructs used in this study are shown in Supplementary Fig. 1.

To minimize contamination of nucleic acids, we treated samples with Benzonase during the course of purification.

To assess the extent of nucleic acid contamination, the ratio of absorbance at 260 nm and 280 nm (A260/A280) was monitored. In exceptional cases with high A260/A280 values, we analyzed samples further by purifying RNA from the sample using RNA purification kit (Qiagen) and found that RNA represented 1% or less of the sample mass.* *

Claim2: The N-terminal a-helical region modulates the dynamics within condensates. The IDR region has minimal effect on the fast dynamics of PGL-3. Comments: The authors show that the full-length PGL-3 condensates have modest influence of components by comparing the FRAP half times with or without the P granule components, including mRNA. However, have the authors tried this in the presence of mRNAs for the constructs lacking the IDRs as they have several RGG domains and bind with mRNA and are likely to change the dynamics.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. However, this experiment is not essential to support the claim made in the context of homotypic condensates of PGL-3 : “The N-terminal a-helical region modulates the dynamics within condensates. The IDR region has minimal effect on the fast dynamics of PGL-3.”

*The authors report the importance of the N-terminal a-helical region by making a construct that lacks/disrupts a part of the helices lowers the thermal stability and significantly lowers the dynamics of the condensates. Also unfolding of helices is shown to reduce the dynamics. One primary concern is whether these "rescued" protein dynamics imply protein functionality. *

An assay of “functionality” e.g. an enzymatic activity of the PGL-3 protein is not available.

However, we compared the fecundity of C. elegans worms expressing from the native pgl-3 locus, PGL-3-mEGFP or the mutant protein PGL-3(D425-452)-mEGFP, to assay the functionality of P granules in these strains. We found that worms of both genotypes produced similar number of offspring (Fig. 4d). This suggests that deletion of residues 425-452 of PGL-3 does not result in significant loss of function of P granules.

Are these semi denatured proteins refolded in the presence of P-granule components?

We feel that identifying the precise structural changes of the semi-denatured PGL-3 proteins within the condensate vs. dilute phase could be an interesting direction for future investigation.

Finally, it is not clear why the authors chose to disrupt folding of the central dimerization domain?

The manuscript included a paragraph to describe the rationale.

“This suggests that interactions involving the disordered C-terminal region of PGL-3 are not essential for the fast dynamics within condensates. Therefore, we addressed the role of the N-terminal α-helical region (1-452) in driving dynamics. In order to avoid engineering mutations that result in significant misfolding of PGL-3 and concomitant loss of its ability to phase separate, we focused our mutational analysis close to the junction of the folded N-terminus and the disordered C-terminus of PGL-3. Surprisingly, we found that a full-length PGL-3 construct (D425-452) that lacks only 27 residues phase separates into condensates that are non-dynamic (Fig. 3a, c). Sequence analysis of the PGL-3 protein predicts that this region 425-452 spans two α-helices (one complete helix and fraction of a second helix) (Supplementary Fig. 3d). We generated a PGL-3 construct (hereafter called ‘S1’) (Fig. 3a) in which the sequence in the region, 425-452, is shuffled while keeping the overall amino acid composition unchanged. We found that S1 phase separates into condensates that are 20- fold less dynamic than with wild-type PGL-3 (Fig. 3d, Supplementary Fig. 3c).”

Saying that "reduced alpha-helicity of PGL-3 correlates with slower dynamics in condensates" may be factual in these assays but "correlation" should be expanded upon to include mechanism and to me it seems that the statement should read "aggregation of PGL-3 causes slower dynamics in condensates" (both the partially destabilized mutant and the fully unfolded WT show similar effects perhaps to different degrees).

We feel that identifying the precise structural changes of the semi-denatured PGL-3 proteins within the condensate vs. dilute phase could be an interesting direction for future investigation.

We did not use the term "aggregation" since we did not detect aggregates of S1 molecules using fluorescence confocal microscopy.

*CROSS-CONSULTATION COMMENTS I agree with the other reviewer's comments and critiques, I have concerns about the biological relevance and also the biophysical mechanisms. Reflecting on the other reviewers' comments, the papers could provide more depth in one or both of these areas to come to firm conclusions that are either revealing about PGL biology or elucidate a (possible) general biophysical mechanism. *

In the revised version, we now include additional data which shows “dynamics buffering” in transgenic worms generated using CRISPR/Cas9 technology. Briefly, we used CRISPR/Cas9 to generate transgenic C. elegans which expresses PGL-3-mEGFP or PGL-3(D425-452)-mEGFP from the native pgl-3 locus. In vitro, wild-type PGL-3-mEGFP protein generates liquid-like condensates. On the other hand, the recombinantly purified PGL-3(D425-452)-mEGFP protein generates condensates that are non-dynamic. In contrast to these observations in vitro, both wild-type PGL-3-mEGFP and PGL-3(D425-452)-mEGFP show similar dynamics (half-time of FRAP recovery) within P granules in vivo.

Reviewer #2 (Significance (Required)): *Hence, although the authors shows how inclusion of other components can alter the one protein component phase separation, this is done with entirely artificial means of destabilizing the fold of one of the domains which likely leads to aggregation. So the true impact of the work is hard to understand because the mutations impact on the basic biophysical properties of the domain (stability, interaction) are not completely characterized and the reason for disrupting this folding is not clear. *

A major impact of our work is elucidation of a novel “dynamics buffering” property within biomolecular condensates in vitro. Our in vivo data is consistent with this finding.

• *

We have chosen two orthogonal ways of perturbing the PGL-3 protein (i.e. mutations and temperature-dependent unfolding) to assay the effect on diffusion rate against different levels of perturbation (e.g. 30% loss of a-helicity in heat-denatured PGL-3-mEGFP vs. 15% loss of a-helicity in the S1 mutant, compared to wild-type PGL-3). Studying the phase separation behavior of these “artificially-generated” constructs provided the understanding that dynamics of PGL-3 in condensates depends on inter-molecular interactions, and slower dynamics generally correlate with stronger inter-molecular interactions. Further, interactions among two or more P granule components can buffer against large change in dynamics / aggregation within the P granule phase. These insights may lay the groundwork for addressing how more “natural” modifications (e.g., post-translational modifications, high local concentration of “sticky” molecules) may influence dynamics within biomolecular condensates in vivo.

Based on current knowledge of P granule composition, chaperone proteins (e.g. heat-shock family proteins) do not show abundant concentration within P granules. However, it is unclear if chaperone proteins are completely excluded from the P granule phase. Therefore, we speculate that weak interactions among two or more non-chaperone proteins contribute significantly to “dynamics buffering” within the P granule phase in vivo.

In the discussion section of the manuscript, we had speculated that “dynamics buffering” may potentially explain observations reported in the nucleolus: “Similarly, interactions among components could be a potential mechanism of storage of misfolding-prone proteins in non-aggregated state within the liquid-like nucleolus under stress in vivo (Frottin et al, 2019).”

Our finding is also relevant in the context of synthetic biology with applications that require steady diffusion rate of macromolecules during biochemical reactions within biomolecular condensates.

• *

My field of expertise is protein phase separation and protein structure. * *

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

Summary: P granules are liquid condensates found in the developing germlines and embryos of C. elegans. Prior work by the authors and others have established P granules as a tractable model to investigate the basic biophysical properties of liquid condensates. Much of the prior published work focused on specific P granule scaffold proteins, PGL-1 and PGL-3. How attributes of these PGL proteins and the effect of other P granule components affect condensate properties is not fully understood. Here, Jelenic, et al. probe the biophysical properties of PGL-3. Using recombinant protein, they show that an N-terminal, alpha-helical region of PGL-3 is sufficient for liquid condensate formation and that N-terminal assembly is required for this formation. Creation of a scrambled alpha-helical region in PGL-3 and heat treatment affects PGL-3 fluidity. This fluidity can be "rescued" in vivo and in vitro with the inclusion of other P granule factors, including wildtype PGL-3, PGL-1, GLH-1 and mRNA. The authors note an inverse correlation between fluidity and mutant PGL-3 fluorescent intensity. They propose a model that heterotypic compositions of condensates can buffer their fluidity against components with stronger multivalent interactions. *

MAJOR: 1. PGL-3 is a fantastic model to study the biophysical properties of a liquid condensate. But as the authors address in their discussion, the S1 mutant will likely affect the central domain folding, at its minimum causing exposure of a hydrophobic surface not typically exposed in biology. These helices are found at the terminal portion of the domain determined in the crystal structure and as depicted in the authors' Figure 1A. While the cause of S1's enhanced molecular interactions does not affect the in vitro work presented in this manuscript, it does affect how the conclusions connect to the biological nature of P granules and liquid condensates more generally. *

We have chosen two orthogonal ways of perturbing the PGL-3 protein (i.e. mutations and temperature-dependent unfolding) to assay the effect on diffusion rate against different levels of perturbation (e.g. 30% loss of a-helicity in heat-denatured PGL-3-mEGFP vs. 15% loss of a-helicity in the S1 mutant, compared to wild-type PGL-3). Studying the phase separation behavior of these “artificial” constructs provided the understanding that dynamics of PGL-3 in condensates depends on inter-molecular interactions, and slower dynamics generally correlate with stronger inter-molecular interactions. Further, interactions among two or more P granule components can buffer against large change in dynamics / aggregation within the P granule phase. These insights may lay the groundwork for addressing how more “natural” modifications (e.g., post-translational modifications, high local concentration of “sticky” molecules) may influence dynamics within biomolecular condensates in vivo.

Based on current knowledge of P granule composition, chaperone proteins (e.g. heat-shock family proteins) do not show abundant concentration within P granules. However, it is unclear if chaperone proteins are completely excluded from the P granule phase. Therefore, we speculate that weak interactions among two or more non-chaperone proteins contribute significantly to “dynamics buffering” within the P granule phase in vivo.

In the discussion section of the manuscript, we had speculated that “dynamics buffering” may potentially explain observations reported in the nucleolus: “Similarly, interactions among components could be a potential mechanism of storage of misfolding-prone proteins in non-aggregated state within the liquid-like nucleolus under stress in vivo (Frottin et al, 2019).”

Our finding is also relevant in the context of synthetic biology with applications that require steady diffusion rate of macromolecules during biochemical reactions within biomolecular condensates.

• Recombinant PGL-3 experiments added PGL-1, GLH-1 and mRNA simultaneously and measured fluidity. It will be interesting to know which components contribute to fluidity and whether fluidity enhancement of each component is dependent on one another. Addition experiments with each component should be included and/or at least discussed in the main text. *

Our data with S1-mEGFP or PGL-3-mEGFP (pre-heated at 50°C) proteins microinjected into C. elegans gonads, and the transgenic strain expressing PGL-3(D425-452)-mEGFP from the pgl-3 locus showed that the P granule phase can support fast dynamics of these mutant PGL-3 constructs. Since P granules have a complex composition, one possibility is that fast dynamics of these constructs is supported by interactions involving many P granule components. We found that using only a limited set of P granule components (PGL-1, GLH-1 and mRNA) can buffer dynamics of S1 in condensates in vitro.

In absence of a systematic analysis investigating the individual role of approx. 70 P granule proteins in buffering S1 dynamics in condensates in vitro, we have claimed in the text that dynamics-buffering of S1 in condensates is supported by interactions among two or more components. However, we do appreciate the reviewer’s comment and feel it would be interesting to investigate the contribution of individual P granule components towards fluidity in future studies. We have discussed this in the ‘Discussion’ section of the manuscript.

• The biological relevance of PGL-1, GLH-1, and mRNA were not discussed in the main text. How these factors contribute to P granule assembly and function should be mentioned in the Introduction or Results. *

To address this concern, we have added a paragraph in the Introduction section of the revised manuscript.

*MINOR: 1. Line 20, "most non-membrane-bound compartments...have complex composition": Are there examples of condensates that do not have complex composition? *

Not all non-membrane-bound compartments may have been characterized. To accommodate this possibility, we refrained from making a more general statement, but stated “most non-membrane-bound compartments…”.

• Lines 40-43, RNA interactions driving LLPS: Please include citations from the Parker Lab (e.g. Van Treeck and Parker, Cell. 2018 doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.07.023) *

We added the reference suggested by the reviewer.

• *

• Line 60, condensates contain hundreds of different proteins and RNA: Please cite at least a few examples of condensates with their components identified. *

We added some references following suggestion by the reviewer.

• Lines 82-84, PGL-3 drives assembly: Please cite Kawasaki, et al. Genetics 2004 for the discovery of PGL-3. *

We added the reference suggested by the reviewer.

• Lines 88-89, PGL-3 N-terminal fragment predominantly alpha-helical: The PGL domain structures should be cited here as supporting evidence that these regions are composed primarily of alpha helices (Aoki, et al 2016, 2021) *

• *

To address this concern, we have added a paragraph in the Introduction section of the revised manuscript.

• Lines 158-159, driving forces for phase separation: This statement should be removed or expanded. The authors point regarding the protein concentrations is not clear here but clarified in the Discussion (Lines 691-693). Recommend removing due to its speculative nature. *

We retained the speculative comment in the results section. We feel that this prepares the readers for the discussion later in the manuscript.

• Lines 210: Add commas before and after "PGL-1 and GLH-1"*

We addressed the reviewer’s suggestion.

• Lines 218-219: add "and" instead of comma between PGL-1 and GLH-1 *

We addressed the reviewer’s suggestion.

• Lines 238-239, alpha-helices: The PGL CDD structure should also be referenced here (Aoki, et al 2016). *

To address this concern, we have added a paragraph in the Introduction section of the revised manuscript.

• Lines 680-682, MEG proteins: Please cite accordingly. *

We added the reference suggested by the reviewer.

• Lines 694-695, heterotypic interactions: Please cite Saha, et al. 2016. *

We added the reference suggested by the reviewer.

• Figure 1: Add space between 1 and mM DTT *

We addressed the reviewer’s suggestion.

• Figure 2b: Please provide statistics between condensate numbers. *

We provide statistics between condensate numbers in Fig. 2b.

• Figure 4A: The region of the germline imaged and analyzed should be mentioned in the caption or the main text. *

We revised the Figure legend of Fig. 4a to address this issue.

• Figure 4B,C: Please include statistics between the FRAP curves. *

We have included statistics comparing FRAP curves in Supplementary Fig. 4a-c.

• Figure 4D: It will be helpful to compare this curve to Figure S4A in the same graph. Please also include graph statistics. *

We have revised Fig. 4 to address the reviewer’s suggestion.

• Figure 5: The data points are difficult to resolve. Recommend use of color.*

We considered the suggestion, but felt it works better in the original form.

• Figure 6: This is a very general model that does not highlight the extensive experimental work performed by the authors. Recommend incorporating PGL-3, mutants and P granule factors into this model. *

We thank the reviewer for appreciating our extensive work. However, we retained the original Fig. 6 for the sake of simplicity.

• Methods, Line 939, C. elegans section: What worms were used? TH623? Please describe the genotype. *

We have included a table listing the strains used in the study and their genotype. * CROSS-CONSULTATION COMMENTS While my review was arguably the more favorable of the three, I agree with the other reviewers' comments and evaluation, particularly with Reviewer #1. As written in my review, my primary concern was the biological relevance of the work.*

Reviewer #3 (Significance (Required)):

Overall, the in vitro work presented investigating the biophysical properties of this minimal P granule system was thorough and well-analyzed, and the manuscript was clearly written. Additional citations and statistics will improve the manuscript and the strength of the conclusions, respectively. The biological relevance of this study to P granule form and function in vivo, and to condensates in vivo, is debatable. This work will interest those who study condensate biology, the biophysics of protein-protein and protein-RNA interactions, and RNA biochemists more generally.

A major impact of our work is elucidation of a novel “dynamics buffering” property within biomolecular condensates in vitro. Our in vivo data is consistent with this finding.

We have chosen two orthogonal ways of perturbing the PGL-3 protein (i.e. mutations and temperature-dependent unfolding) to assay the effect on diffusion rate against different levels of perturbation (e.g. 30% loss of a-helicity in heat-denatured PGL-3-mEGFP vs. 15% loss of a-helicity in the S1 mutant, compared to wild-type PGL-3). Studying the phase separation behavior of these “artificially-generated” constructs provided the understanding that dynamics of PGL-3 in condensates depends on inter-molecular interactions, and slower dynamics generally correlate with stronger inter-molecular interactions. Further, interactions among two or more P granule components can buffer against large change in dynamics / aggregation within the P granule phase. These insights may lay the groundwork for addressing how more “natural” modifications (e.g., post-translational modifications, high local concentration of “sticky” molecules) may influence dynamics within biomolecular condensates in vivo.

• *

Based on current knowledge of P granule composition, chaperone proteins (e.g. heat-shock family proteins) do not show abundant concentration within P granules. However, it is unclear if chaperone proteins are completely excluded from the P granule phase. Therefore, we speculate that weak interactions among two or more non-chaperone proteins contribute significantly to “dynamics buffering” within the P granule phase in vivo.

In the discussion section of the manuscript, we had speculated that “dynamics buffering” may potentially explain observations reported in the nucleolus: “Similarly, interactions among components could be a potential mechanism of storage of misfolding-prone proteins in non-aggregated state within the liquid-like nucleolus under stress in vivo (Frottin et al, 2019).”

Our finding is also relevant in the context of synthetic biology with applications that require steady diffusion rate of macromolecules during biochemical reactions within biomolecular condensates.

*I have expertise in P granules, protein/RNA biochemistry, condensate assembly, and C. elegans. *

References

Aoki ST, Kershner AM, Bingman CA, Wickens M & Kimble J (2016) PGL germ granule assembly protein is a base-specific, single-stranded RNase. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Aoki ST, Lynch TR, Crittenden SL, Bingman CA, Wickens M & Kimble J (2021) C. elegans germ granules require both assembly and localized regulators for mRNA repression. Nat Commun 12: 996

Cipriani PG, Bay O, Zinno J, Gutwein M, Gan HH, Mayya VK, Chung G, Chen J-X, Fahs H, Guan Y, et al (2021) Novel LOTUS-domain proteins are organizational hubs that recruit C. elegans Vasa to germ granules. Elife 10: e60833

Frottin F, Schueder F, Tiwary S, Gupta R, Körner R, Schlichthaerle T, Cox J, Jungmann R, Hartl FU & Hipp MS (2019) The nucleolus functions as a phase-separated protein quality control compartment. Science 365: 342–347

Kawasaki I, Amiri A, Fan Y, Meyer N, Dunkelbarger S, Motohashi T, Karashima T, Bossinger O & Strome S (2004) The PGL family proteins associate with germ granules and function redundantly in Caenorhabditis elegans germline development. Genetics 167: 645–661

Kawasaki I, Shim YH, Kirchner J, Kaminker J, Wood WB & Strome S (1998) PGL-1, a predicted RNA-binding component of germ granules, is essential for fertility in C. elegans. Cell 94: 635–645

Phillips CM & Updike DL (2022) Germ granules and gene regulation in the Caenorhabditis elegans germline. Genetics 220: iyab195

Price IF, Hertz HL, Pastore B, Wagner J & Tang W (2021) Proximity labeling identifies LOTUS domain proteins that promote the formation of perinuclear germ granules in C. elegans. Elife 10: e72276

Saha S, Weber CA, Nousch M, Adame-Arana O, Hoege C, Hein MY, Osborne Nishimura E, Mahamid J, Jahnel M, Jawerth L, et al (2016) Polar Positioning of Phase-Separated Liquid Compartments in Cells Regulated by an mRNA Competition Mechanism. Cell 166: 1572-1584.e16

Spike C, Meyer N, Racen E, Orsborn A, Kirchner J, Kuznicki K, Yee C, Bennett K & Strome S (2008a) Genetic analysis of the Caenorhabditis elegans GLH family of P-granule proteins. Genetics 178: 1973–1987

Spike CA, Bader J, Reinke V & Strome S (2008b) DEPS-1 promotes P-granule assembly and RNA interference in C. elegans germ cells. Development (Cambridge, England) 135: 983–993

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

Learn more at Review Commons

---

Reply to the reviewers

Manuscript number: RC-2022-01481R

Corresponding author(s): Sebastian Voigt. Mirko Trilling, David Schwefel

1. General Statements [optional]

-

2. Description of the planned revisions

Reviewer #1: Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

Using proteome profiling of rat CMV infected cells, the authors of this study identify the E27 protein of rat cytomegalovirus as being crucial for proteasomal degradation of STAT2. Since E27 shares 56% sequence identity to the previously characterized STAT2 antagonist M27 of murine CMV the authors investigated association of E27 with the Cullin4-RING UbL CRL4. Using gel filtration chromatography they provide evidence that E27 forms a stable ternary complex with DDB1 and STAT2 suggesting that E27 bridges STAT2 to DDB1 which is further corroborated by data from cross-linking mass spectrometry. A cross-linked DDB1/DDA1/E27/STAT2 complex was then used for cryo-EM imaging experiments. The subsequent single particle analysis yielded a density map at 3.8 A resolution that was further used to generate an E27 molecular model. At this point it should be noted that resolution was not very high and data form AlphaFold2 prediction and CLMS experiments were necessary to build a model which was described as having "sufficient quality", however, no quality parameters are included for this model. In this model, a cryptic zinc-binding motif was identified that turned out to be well conserved in M27. At this point the study switches to a mutational analysis of M27: MCMV mutants either lacking M27 or bearing an AxAxxAA triple mutation were investigated both in cell culture and in animal models. Surprisingly, the M27-AxAxxA mutant while exhibiting attenuated IFN inhibition was still more active than an M27 deletion mutant. Later during the study it is postulated that this may be due to the fact that E27 binding to STAT2 abrogates the interaction with IRF9, however, this is only predicted from modeling and no experimental data are provided for this hypothesis. Furthermore, modeling approaches were used to predict how E27 replaces endogenous CRL4 substrate receptors and how E27 recruits STAT2 to mediate CRL4-catalysed ubiquitin transfer.

Reviewer #1: Significance

__Reviewer #1: __This is an interesting and well written paper describing for the first time in molecular detail how a cytomegalovirus-encoded interferon antagonist degrades STAT2 by mimicking the molecular surface properties of cellular CRL4 substrate receptors.

This study should be of broad interest for both virologists and structural biologists.

Authors Response: We thank the reviewer for the insightful and constructive evaluation. We are very grateful for highlighting the significance of our work.

Reviewer #1: Major points

__Reviewer #1: __To my opinion the authors should perform mutational analysis in the context of E27 and RCMV. I accept that switching to M27 may be easier due to established procedures for MCMV mutagenesis and analysis, however, since all structural work is primarily done on E27 it would be consequent to confirm these structural predictions in the context of E27 before switching to a related protein.

Authors Response: As the Reviewer appreciated, there were multiple reasons for the switch from RCMV-E E27 to MCMV M27. Most importantly, the MCMV in vivo infection model in mice is very well-established. Please also note that MCMV is applied far more often by virologists and immunologist as a standard model. Thus, the extension of our findings from RCMV to MCMV increases the relevance and outreach of the study. By performing the experiments in the MCMV context, we also aimed to emphasise that the function of the zinc-binding motif, which structurally organises the DDB1-binding domain, is functionally conserved among E27/M27-like proteins. Obviously, Reviewer #1 could ask why we do not solve the structure of M27 parallel to E27. With the sole exception of E27, none of the rodent M27 homologues could be produced recombinantly in a soluble form, preventing the purification and structure analysis of M27.

Since we agree with Reviewer #1 that the extension from E27 to M27 may read “a bit rough” without a mutational analysis in the E27 context, we will construct RCMV-E E27 mutants leading to Cys=>Ala exchanges in the Zn-binding motif. An analysis of the interaction between DDB1 and these E27 mutants will be included in the revised manuscript.

__Reviewer #1: __Moreover, data on the replication of the generated E27 deletion RCMV should be included in the manuscript (i.e. growth curves).

Authors Response: RCMV mutants lacking the E27 gene exhibit an impaired replication. According to the suggestion, the growth curves will be part of the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #1: The hypothesis that STAT2/E27 interaction is sterically incompatible with IRF9 binding is only based on structural prediction. It would help if the authors could present experimental evidence for such a mechanism.

Authors Response: The hypothesis is based on three lines of argumentation: (i) structural data regarding the binding interface between STAT2 and E27 covering the known STAT2-IRF9 interface (Fig. 7F) (Rengachari et al., 2018). (ii) The finding that M27 mutants incapable to bind DDB1 and induce STAT2 degradation along the ubiquitin proteasome pathway retain a residual capacity to inhibit ISRE signaling, suggesting that the binding of M27 to STAT2 suffices to elicit some signaling inhibitory functions (Fig. 7G). (iii) To elicit their function, CRL4 substrate receptors such as E27 interact with two partners. As we discussed elsewhere (Le-Trilling and Trilling, 2020), a simultaneous development of two independent traits violates evolutionary and probability theories. Thus, these receptors must acquire their binding interfaces sequentially, and the first interaction must provide an evolutionary advantage allowing the fixation of the allele in the population. Afterwards, the second binding interface evolves. Thus, a hypothesis in which E27/M27 precursors evolved the capacity to bind STAT2, preventing its association with IRF9 thereby establishing relevant but incomplete IFN inhibition (before the DDB1 interface was invented leading to STAT2 degradation by the proteasome), provides a parsimonious explanation for all these findings without violating evolutionary constraints. To corroborate our argumentation, we will analyse if E27 indeed displaces IRF9 from STAT2 by analytical gel filtration and/or co-immunoprecipitation experiments.

Reviewer #2: Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

__Reviewer #2: __The manuscript entitled "Structure and mechanism of a novel cytomegaloviral DCAF mediating interferon antagonism" by Dr. Schwefel and colleagues cleverly combines biochemistry, mass-spectrometry, Cryo-EM and cell biology to dissect how RCMV-E hijacks its hosts ubiquitylation machinery to mediate proteasomal degradation of STAT2, a key player driving the antiviral IFN response. They identify E27 as DDB1-binding element, which is able promote CRL4-dependent ubiquitylation of STAT2, and demonstrate its effect on STAT2 levels by knockout RCMV-E strains. These findings are supported by in vitro reconstitution of the DDB1/E27/STAT2 complex and analyses via XL-MS and Cryo-EM. The obtained data are then powerfully validated and analysed in mutational strains via infection of homologue in vivo models. The results collectively explain how E27 mimics endogenous CRL4 substrate receptors, thereby recruiting STAT2 to be targeted by CLR4 for ubiquitylation in a NEDD8-dependent manner.

Overall this is an important study that provides convincing insights on how rodent CMVs antagonize their host interferon response by exploiting its ubiquitin-proteasome system.

The manuscript is well written and its introduction is extraordinarily comprehensive. There are a few minor points for the authors to consider below.

Authors Response: We thank the reviewer for this very positive assessment.

Reviewer #2: Significance

Reviewer #2: The work of Schwefel and colleagues combines several powerful state-of-the art techniques to dissect the mechanism of the viral protein E27 and, for the first time, provides a rational for its ability to act as STAT2 antagonist. They performed outstanding structure-function analyses of the ubiquitin system, including the first global proteomic profiling of RCMV-infected cells, setting the standard for its human counterpart as rodent CMVs are commonly used as infection models. The manuscript is highly suitable for publication in any of the journals associated with the review commons platform.

Authors Response: Again, we thank the reviewer for these kind words and the appreciation of our work.

Reviewer #2: CROSS-CONSULTATION COMMENTS

Reviewer #2: This reviewer agrees that at least testing mutants in the E27 in some assays would be appropriate.

Authors Response: As detailed in the response to Reviewer #1, we will generate RCMV-E E27 mutants targeting the Zn-binding motif by site-directed mutagenesis. An analysis of the interaction between DDB1 and these E27 mutants will be included in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #3: Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

__Reviewer #3: __Le-Trilling et al. present the first proteomic analysis of RCMV-infected cells, where they identified STAT2 as one of the most heavily downregulated (and degraded) proteins. This analysis showed that RCMV mediated degradation of STAT2 is conserved in closely related species used as animal models (rat and mouse) and human, despite the intra-host adaptation of each CMV. They also identify E27 as the RCMV factor that targets STAT2 for degradation, that exhibits ~50% homology with MCMV pM27. This study also identifies a Zinc binding motif in E27 using Cryo-EM which is conserved in other CMV species and is potentially involved in antagonising Type I and III responses.

Reviewer #3: Significance

__Reviewer #3: __The present work provides the first proteomics analysis of RCMV infection in rat cells, comparing infected vs non-infected rat fibroblasts to access potential RCMV targets. Then, it focuses on the characterisation of RCMV E27 and its role targeting and interacting with STAT2 (plus recruiting the Cul4 complex for STAT2 degradation). Finally, it provides the Cryo-EM structure of E27 and its CMV homologues, and the structure of the complex of E27 with elements of the CUL4 complex and STAT2. This is the first time that E27 function and structure are characterised. These are all novel findings - although the mouse homologue M27 has previously been found to interact with and degrade STAT2 (published by some of the same authors in Plos pathogens in 2011, (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1002069). Therefore the chief novel information is the structural studies.

The manuscript will be of interest to researchers working with human and animal herpesviruses.

My field of expertise is in Virology, Innate Immunity and host-virus interactions from an evolutionary perspective. I do not have expertise in Cryo-EM, so I could not evaluate the methods used in the section.

__Authors Response: __We thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of our work and its significance.

Reviewer #3: Major points

__Reviewer #3: __1. The authors claim the identification of a Zinc-binding motif in the protein E27 (RCMV) using Cryo-EM, then validation of the phenotype with MCMV WT, delM27 and M27 AxAxxA. To justify the change to MCMV to perform the functional validation, they stated "MCMV M27, the closest E27 homologue, exhibits 56% and 76% amino acid sequence identity and similarity, respectively (Fig. S4B). E27 and M27 AlphaFold2 structure predictions are almost indistinguishable (RMSD of 1.195 Å, 6652 aligned atoms) (Figs. 3B, S4A), and structural alignment of these predictions demonstrated conservation of side chain positions involved in zinc-binding (Fig. 3C). Thus, M27 represents a valid model to study functional consequences of interference with the zinc coordination motif through site-directed mutagenesis, and to test the predictive power of our E27/M27 model". Although they rationalise the change to MCMV to validate the functional outcomes of the newly identified zinc binding motif with alignments and Cryo-EM data, it falls within the DDB1 binding region that is less conserved (Fig S4B). The addition of a mouse model here provides a solid result but given the aim of the paper is to provide a proper characterisation of RCMV and elucidate some inter-species adaptations, I strongly recommend the validation with E27 here given the potential impact of this motif. Rather than having to repeat this in a rat model (which would clearly be a large amount of work), this could simply be achieved by constructing the relevant deletion / mutant viruses and assessing in vitro in a relevant cell line (readout - either virus titre or luciferase assay as shown in Figure 3G/H).

__Authors Response: __Please also see our responses to the other reviewers. Briefly, we will apply side-directed mutagenesis to alter the CxCxxC motif in E27 that binds the zinc ion, and analyse the interaction of these E27 mutants with DDB1. In this context, we would like to add that almost two thirds of E27 residues in direct contact with DDB1 are at least type-conserved in M27, and the zinc-coordinating side chains are totally conserved (Fig. 3C). Together with a predicted similar structural organization of the respective binding regions (Fig. S11), and in light of our MCMV mutagenesis results (Fig. 7), it is highly likely that the DDB1-binding mode is conserved between E27 and M27. As mentioned above, we will put this assumption to the test in the revision process.

__Reviewer #3: __Furthermore, in Figure 2, the GF assay was performed using full-length DDB1, however CLMS was performed using DDB1 delBPB (interchange between these two proteins continues in the remainder of the paper). This should be at least justified, and preferably one or other of wt DDB1 and DDB1 delBPB used in the GF or CLMS assay where this has not yet been performed. Later on in the results section (Fig 5E), the authors use wt DDB1 while in fig 4 they used the delBPB to describe the interaction with E27 - would be relevant to have consistency across the paper and some supplementary data that could support using one or the other in each assay.

__Authors Response: __Protein complex preparations including full length DDB1 did not yield cryo-EM reconstructions at appropriate resolution for model building, almost certainly due to the known flexibility of the DDB1 BPB, impeding proper alignment of the cryo-EM particle images. This is why we switched to DDB1ΔBPB. Importantly, the structure model including full length DDB1 (Fig. S12B) clearly demonstrates that the BPB is located on the opposite side of the E27 binding interface on DDB1 (where it is situated to flexibly connect to the CUL4 scaffold to create the ubiquitination zone around immobilised substrates [Fig. 6]). This rules out an involvement of DDB1 BPB in E27- and/or STAT2-binding processes. Several previous studies have employed DDB1ΔBPB to facilitate structure determination, and have successfully applied the resulting structural models for functional follow-up experiments in the context of complete CRL4 assemblies (Bussiere et al., 2020; Petzold et al., 2016; Slabicki et al., 2020). Nevertheless, we will repeat GF experiments with DDB1ΔBPB for consistency and include these data in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #3: Minor points

__Reviewer #3: __2. Although they present sufficient detail in the methods, further details in the text should be given as to the number of repeats performed in each case, and whether the data shown is representative or based on an average of repeats (preferably the latter; if representative, the data for other repeats should be shown in supplementary information).

Authors Response: We will add this information in the revised version of the manuscript.

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

Reviewer #1: Major points

__Reviewer #1: __Resolution of the cryoEM structure is rather low and many predictions of the manuscript are based on modeling using AlphaFold2 prediction. The authors describe their model as of "sufficient quality", however, no quality measures are included in the manuscript. At least the discussion should address limitations of the used approach.

Authors Response: While we apologize for not sufficiently describing our quality measures, we respectfully disagree regarding the conclusion. Our resolution (3.8 Å, map 1) lies well within the 3–4 Å resolution range of the vast majority of structures deposited to the Electron Microscopy Data Bank during the last five years (https://www.emdataresource.org/statistics.html). Nevertheless, de novo modelling in this resolution regime is challenging. This is why we sought additional guidance through cross-linking mass spectrometry (XL-MS) restraints and AlphaFold2. Please also note that modelling of E27 was not based solely on the AlphaFold2 prediction. Instead, a partial model corresponding to the α-domain was manually built in map 1, guided by XL-MS information (see Methods - “Model building and refinement” and Fig. S5B, grey cartoon). This partial model proved to be in very good agreement with AlphaFold2 predictions (RMSD of 1.489 Å, 2764 aligned atoms). Only after this initial sanity check, the computational prediction was used for model completion, adjustment, and refinement.

We now added graphical overviews of model fits in Figs. S5 and S10. Furthermore, we included detailed views of the fit of relevant side chains involved in intermolecular interaction to the experimental density (Fig. S7, S9). We also calculated and listed quality indicators of the model-to-map fit in Table S1 (correlation coefficients and model resolution based upon model-map FSC). To ensure the validity of our atomic model using an alternative method besides cryo-EM and XL-MS, we have performed site-directed mutagenesis of critical binding regions in E27, followed by in vitro reconstitution and analytical GF (Fig. S7B, C, S9B, C). The text was revised accordingly (see p10 [ll22] and p14 [ll26]).

---

__Reviewer #1: __The authors identify a cryptic zinc-binding motif in E27 that is conserved in homologous proteins. For this reviewer it is not clear: is there experimental evidence for zinc binding of E27 or can the presence of zinc reliably be detected in their structural data? If not, it would be worth to confirm zinc binding.

Authors Response: Our structural data show a tetragonal metal coordination geometry, involving three cysteine side chains and one histidine side chain, with coordination bond lengths of 2.2 Å between the histidine nitrogen and the metal ion, and of 2.4 Å between the cysteine sulfurs and the metal ion. The density feature cannot be explained by another type of side chain interaction, e.g. a disulfide bond, because this would lead to a steric clash with the remaining adjacent side chains. Based on the knowledge on metal-binding sites in proteins and metal-coordination chemistry, these characteristics indicate the presence of a structural zinc-binding site for the following reasons: (i) after magnesium, zinc is the second most prevalent metal in the Protein Data Bank (https://metalpdb.cerm.unifi.it/getSummary), however, magnesium is coordinated octahedrally by oxygen ligands (Tang and Yang, 2013); (ii) the most abundant zinc ligands are cysteine and histidine; (iii) the most abundant zinc coordination number is four ligands; (iv) the average coordination bond lengths are 2.12±0.19 Å and 2.33±0.12Å for nitrogen-zinc and sulfur-zinc interactions, respectively (Ireland and Martin, 2019; Laitaoja et al., 2013), which is in very good agreement with our structural observations. We included this argumentation in the revised manuscript (see p9 [ll21]), and added Fig. S5C for visualization.

---

Reviewer #2: Minor points

---

Reviewer #2: Page 2, line 3. "Here," should be inserted before "Global proteome profiling..." to highlight the work of this manuscript.

Authors Response: We changed the text accordingly.

Reviewer #2: Page 3, line 21. "IFNs" instead of "IFN"

Authors Response: We changed the text accordingly.

Reviewer #2: Page 4, lines 9,15,27. "Ubiquitin Ligases (UbL)" is not a common abbreviation and could be mistaken for Ubl (Ubiquitin-like proteins). Possible abbreviation is "E3s" for Ubiquitin E3 ligases

Authors Response: We have amended the respective abbreviations accordingly.

Reviewer #2: Page 4 line 25. "RBX1" is the more common term for "ROC1"

Authors Response: This has been corrected throughout the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: Page 5 lines 1-9. Citing of the first structure of DDB1 in complex with a viral protein is recommended. (Ti Li et al. Cell 2006)

Authors Response: We thank the reviewer for this important suggestions and cited this landmark publication.

Reviewer #2: Figure 1 a) STAT2 dot is cut off in second panel. I recommend highlighting STAT2 in both panels.

We amended the figure accordingly. We furthermore additionally highlighted the “STAT2” text in both panels by increasing the font size and putting it in bold type.

Reviewer #2: Page 7 line 17. "Cross-linking MS (CLMS)" is commonly abbreviated as (XL-MS)

Authors Response: We changed the text accordingly.

Reviewer #2: Figure 2 a-c) These panels could benefit from thinner lines in order to increase visibility of chromatograms and cross-links.

Authors Response: The panels were changed accordingly.

Reviewer #2: Figure 2 a-b) Could the authors elaborate on why STAT2 is stoichiometrically

underrepresented in the SDS-PAGE of the E27/DDB1/STAT2 complex?

Authors Response: We applaud Reviewer #2 for their in-depth examination. Honestly, we were also puzzled by this. Based on the cryo-EM single particle analysis, we found an explanation: We separated a major contamination in silico during 2D classification (~12% of all particles). Out of curiosity, we reconstructed a density map from these particles (now shown in Fig. S3). The map was identical to a previous cryo-EM structure of the E. coli protein ArnA (Yang et al., 2019), a notorious contaminant in E. coli Ni-NTA protein purifications (Andersen et al., 2013). ArnA migrates similar to E27 on the SDS-PAGE, the band runs just a little bit faster (compare fraction 6 [ArnA] and fractions 8/9 [E27] from the SDS-PAGE of the analytical GF run of E27 in isolation, Fig. 2A, green trace). However, in analytical GF, ArnA elutes at higher molecular weight fractions, since it forms a hexamers (Ve~10.2 ml). Incidentally, this elution volume of the ArnA hexamer almost equals the one of DDB1 or DDB1ΔBPB/DDA1/E27/STAT2 complexes. This leads to a superposition of ArnA and E27 bands in the respective SDS-PAGE lanes corresponding to GF fraction 6. Accordingly, we conclude that it is actually not STAT2 that is underrepresented, but rather E27 seems overrepresented due to SDS-PAGE band overlap with the ArnA contaminant. We have now indicated the contaminant in Fig. 2A, amended the legend, and extended Fig. S3 to indicate at which point of the cryo-EM analysis the contaminating ArnA particles were separated, and to show the ArnA model to map fit.

In addition to this, it might be that potential STAT2 degradation products (marked by ** in Fig. 2), which seem to co-migrate with STAT2/E27 complexes, occupy FL STAT2 binding sites on E27.

Reviewer #2: Paragraph "The E27 structure.." page 9. Placing this paragraph after the overall

structure is recommended.

Authors Response: Accordingly, we have now moved this section to the end of the results section.

Reviewer #2: Figure 3 a) The grey mesh being laid over the ribbon structures is not contributing to the overall visibility. Adding a panel of the cryo-EM structure alone in cost of alphafold models is recommended.

Figure 4a) same issue with grey mesh

Authors Response: Thank you very much for the very good suggestions. We have removed the mesh representation, and included panels just showing the segmented cryo-EM map in the new Fig. 3A.

Reviewer #2: c) panels could benefit from fewer amino acids being labeled/shown

Authors Response: We understand the motives of the Reviewer. However, we would prefer to depict all relevant side chain interactions in these panels. The rearrangement of the figure, i.e. showing the overview of the interacting regions before the detailed panels, should make them more accessible (new Fig. 3B).

__Reviewer #2: __d) may want to avoid red-green coloring to improve for colorblindness

Authors Response: We are deeply sorry for our ignorance in this regard. We changed the colors accordingly (see new Fig. 3B, C).

__Reviewer #2: __Figure 6a) s.a grey mesh

Authors Response: We removed the mesh representations and included panels just showing the segmented cryo-EM density in the new Fig. 5C.

---

Reviewer #2: CROSS-CONSULTATION COMMENTS

__Reviewer #2: __A 3.8 A overall resolution map and the approach to fitting may be suitable, but it is unclear from the authors' figures whether the side-chains shown in the figures are clearly visible in the map or if they are modeled by some other approach. Side chains should ideally be visible in the maps if shown in figures, and if not, close-ups of the corresponding regions of the maps should be shown with sufficient depthcue to allow the reader to gauge how the map corresponds to the model.

Authors Response: This is a crucial point. As mentioned in the response to Reviewer #1, major point 2, we have now included very detailed views of the fit of relevant side chains involved in intermolecular interaction to the experimental density (Fig. S7, S9).

__Reviewer #2: __Along these lines, the figures with the mesh maps do not clearly show how well the model fits the map. This needs to be clearly visible in figures, and ideally maps and models provided to reviewers in order for the reviewers to gauge the level of accuracy of the fit.

Authors Response: Please see our response to Reviewer #1, major point 2. Briefly, we have now included graphical overviews of model fits in Figs. S5 and S10. We also calculated and listed quality indicators of the model-to-map fit in Table S1 (correlation coefficients and model resolution based upon model-map FSC). To ensure the validity of our atomic model using an alternative method besides cryo-EM and XL-MS, we have performed site-directed mutagenesis of critical binding regions in E27, followed by in vitro reconstitution and analytical GF (Fig. S7B, C, S9B, C). The text was extended accordingly (see p10 [ll22] and p14 [ll26]).

__Reviewer #2: __At minimum, the authors have nicely assembled proteomics and cell biological data indicating that E27 hijacks CRL4 to turn over Stat2 in rat cells in a manner paralagous to M27 hijacking in mouse cells, biophysical/structural data for a model of a CUL4-DDB1-E27-Stat2 complex, and mutagenesis of a putative zinc binding site in M27.

I feel most of the issues raised by all 3 reviewers could be addressed in the text, with more clarity about the structural models, and better explanation for why the construct with proteins from various organisms were used for structural studies (the authors had made human DDB1 before, and it expressed well, and perhaps didn't consider to make from rat? Or this mixture expressed, purified best? Gave best quality EM data?).

Authors Response: We thank Reviewer #2 for her/his overall assessment. As mentioned in the two cross-consultation comments before, and in the response to Reviewer #1, major point 2, we strived to provide adequate measures allowing to judge the quality of our structural models in the present updated version of the manuscript. In addition, as indicated in the response to reviewer #3, major point 2, we have now added Fig. S12 and extended the Discussion to explain and justify the use of different protein constructs.

__Reviewer #2: __Also, the presentation of the zinc binding site should come after the overall structure. As for the use of MCMV to assess the role of the zinc binding site, placing this last in the text might allow this to flow better.

Authors Response: Thank you very much for this suggestion. The manuscript has been restructured as recommended: details of the zinc-binding motif and the MCMV assays are now shown in Fig. 7 and described in the text just before the Discussion.

---

---

Reviewer #3: Major points

__Reviewer #3: __2. Given that previous data in mice showed that the E27 homologue pM27 binds a component of host Cullin4-RING UbLs (CRL4), to induce the poly-ubiquitination of STAT2, the current study also addressed if this mechanism was preserved in RCMV. Yet, they seemed to do this with E27, rnSTAT2 and hsDDB1 - Page 7 lines 1 to 3: "These results prompted us to explore the association of E27 with Rattus norvegicus (rn) STAT2 and Homo sapiens (hs) DDB1 in vitro. Importantly, 1128 of 1140 amino acids are identical between hsDDB1 and rnDDB1 (...)". They identify the residues and regions where the DDB1 is different between both species, but should provide a structure/alignment with this highlighted. In addition, DDB1 is a DNA damage protein that is annotated in the Rattus norvegicus genome. The authors should justify the assays between rnSTAT2-hsDDB1 instead of using the both proteins from rn, and present the equivalent data for rnDDB1 in the paper.

Authors Response: Among the 12 alterations between human and rat DDB1, 4 are type-conserved (Fig. S12A). Thus, >99% of amino acids are identical or similar. We mapped all exchanges on a model of full length human DDB1 bound to E27 and the rat STAT2 CCD. None are involved in intermolecular interactions (Fig. S12B, C). Please note that due to the high conservation of DDB1 across eukaryotes, this inter-species approach has been used by us and others to study DDB1-containing complexes (e.g., the SV5V, WHX, SIV Vpx and Vpr, zebrafish DDB2, and chicken CRBN proteins have been in vitro reconstituted with human DDB1 for structural characterisation) and valid biological conclusions have been drawn from these studies (Angers et al., 2006; Banchenko et al., 2021; Fischer et al., 2014; Fischer et al., 2011; Li et al., 2006; Li et al., 2010; Schwefel et al., 2015; Schwefel et al., 2014; Wu et al., 2015).

---

Reviewer #3: Minor points

__Reviewer #3: __1. In fig 5D, the authors present the H-box alignment, where it is clear that this motif is not conserved. The lack of H-box conservation should be discussed in the results and discussion, to provide an explanation for the competition/binding observed.

Authors Response: We respectfully disagree. There is conservation of amino acid side chains, regarding their physicochemical properties, observable in the H-box motif. Furthermore, the secondary structure is conserved. Please note, that the H-box is not our invention but rather represented a well-accepted motif known in the field, see e.g., (Li et al., 2010). We extended the discussion to cover this point (p21 [ll15]).

---

__Reviewer #3: __3. The authors commence their abstract justifying the study on the grounds of the usefulness of rodent HCMV counterparts as common infection models for HCMV. They should return to this theme in the discussion - what is the usefulness of their findings with regards to HCMV (particularly given the relatively low homology between E27 and HCMV pUL27, and the alternative mechanism for STAT2 antagonism encoded by HCMV UL145)?

Authors Response: We extended the discussion in this regard. Briefly, our data, to our knowledge for the first time, reveal that RCMV (like MCMV) exploits CRL4 to induce proteasomal degradation of STAT2. With pUL145, HCMV relies on an analogous protein. In clear contrast to HCMV, RMCV and MCMV are both amenable to in vivo experiments in small animal models. Over 40 years ago, HCMV has been called the troll of transplantation due to its grim impact on immunosuppressed individuals after transplantation surgery (Balfour, 1979). Despite tremendous efforts, HCMV still harms and kills graft recipients. While MCMV allows various experiments regarding general principles of cytomegaloviral pathogenesis and antiviral immunity, one shortcoming is that the mouse obviously is a rather small animal, preventing various chirurgical and solid organ transplantation (SOT) procedures. In clear contrast, SOT procedures that are indispensable for human medicine can be recapitulated in rat models. Thus, according to our opinion, our work lays the molecular foundation for future studies addressing the relevance of STAT2 and CMV-induced STAT2 degradation in rat SOT models.

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

-

• *

References

Andersen, K.R., Leksa, N.C., and Schwartz, T.U. (2013). Optimized E. coli expression strain LOBSTR eliminates common contaminants from His-tag purification. Proteins 81, 1857-1861.

Angers, S., Li, T., Yi, X., MacCoss, M.J., Moon, R.T., and Zheng, N. (2006). Molecular architecture and assembly of the DDB1-CUL4A ubiquitin ligase machinery. Nature 443, 590-593.

Balfour, H.H., Jr. (1979). Cytomegalovirus: the troll of transplantation. Arch Intern Med 139, 279-280.

Banchenko, S., Krupp, F., Gotthold, C., Burger, J., Graziadei, A., O'Reilly, F.J., Sinn, L., Ruda, O., Rappsilber, J., Spahn, C.M.T., et al. (2021). Structural insights into Cullin4-RING ubiquitin ligase remodelling by Vpr from simian immunodeficiency viruses. PLoS pathogens 17, e1009775.

Bussiere, D.E., Xie, L., Srinivas, H., Shu, W., Burke, A., Be, C., Zhao, J., Godbole, A., King, D., Karki, R.G., et al. (2020). Structural basis of indisulam-mediated RBM39 recruitment to DCAF15 E3 ligase complex. Nat Chem Biol 16, 15-23.

Fischer, E.S., Bohm, K., Lydeard, J.R., Yang, H., Stadler, M.B., Cavadini, S., Nagel, J., Serluca, F., Acker, V., Lingaraju, G.M., et al. (2014). Structure of the DDB1-CRBN E3 ubiquitin ligase in complex with thalidomide. Nature 512, 49-53.

Fischer, E.S., Scrima, A., Bohm, K., Matsumoto, S., Lingaraju, G.M., Faty, M., Yasuda, T., Cavadini, S., Wakasugi, M., Hanaoka, F., et al. (2011). The molecular basis of CRL4DDB2/CSA ubiquitin ligase architecture, targeting, and activation. Cell 147, 1024-1039.

Ireland, S.M., and Martin, A.C.R. (2019). ZincBind-the database of zinc binding sites. Database (Oxford) 2019.

Laitaoja, M., Valjakka, J., and Janis, J. (2013). Zinc coordination spheres in protein structures. Inorg Chem 52, 10983-10991.

Le-Trilling, V.T.K., and Trilling, M. (2020). Ub to no good: How cytomegaloviruses exploit the ubiquitin proteasome system. Virus Res 281, 197938.

Li, T., Chen, X., Garbutt, K.C., Zhou, P., and Zheng, N. (2006). Structure of DDB1 in complex with a paramyxovirus V protein: viral hijack of a propeller cluster in ubiquitin ligase. Cell 124, 105-117.

Li, T., Robert, E.I., van Breugel, P.C., Strubin, M., and Zheng, N. (2010). A promiscuous alpha-helical motif anchors viral hijackers and substrate receptors to the CUL4-DDB1 ubiquitin ligase machinery. Nature structural & molecular biology 17, 105-111.

Petzold, G., Fischer, E.S., and Thoma, N.H. (2016). Structural basis of lenalidomide-induced CK1alpha degradation by the CRL4(CRBN) ubiquitin ligase. Nature 532, 127-130.

Rengachari, S., Groiss, S., Devos, J.M., Caron, E., Grandvaux, N., and Panne, D. (2018). Structural basis of STAT2 recognition by IRF9 reveals molecular insights into ISGF3 function. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115, E601-E609.

Schwefel, D., Boucherit, V.C., Christodoulou, E., Walker, P.A., Stoye, J.P., Bishop, K.N., and Taylor, I.A. (2015). Molecular Determinants for Recognition of Divergent SAMHD1 Proteins by the Lentiviral Accessory Protein Vpx. Cell host & microbe 17, 489-499.

Schwefel, D., Groom, H.C., Boucherit, V.C., Christodoulou, E., Walker, P.A., Stoye, J.P., Bishop, K.N., and Taylor, I.A. (2014). Structural basis of lentiviral subversion of a cellular protein degradation pathway. Nature 505, 234-238.

Slabicki, M., Kozicka, Z., Petzold, G., Li, Y.D., Manojkumar, M., Bunker, R.D., Donovan, K.A., Sievers, Q.L., Koeppel, J., Suchyta, D., et al. (2020). The CDK inhibitor CR8 acts as a molecular glue degrader that depletes cyclin K. Nature 585, 293-297.

Tang, S., and Yang, J.J. (2013). Magnesium Binding Sites in Proteins. In Encyclopedia of Metalloproteins, R.H. Kretsinger, V.N. Uversky, and E.A. Permyakov, eds. (New York, NY: Springer New York), pp. 1243-1250.

Wu, Y., Koharudin, L.M., Mehrens, J., DeLucia, M., Byeon, C.H., Byeon, I.J., Calero, G., Ahn, J., and Gronenborn, A.M. (2015). Structural Basis of Clade-specific Engagement of SAMHD1 (Sterile alpha Motif and Histidine/Aspartate-containing Protein 1) Restriction Factors by Lentiviral Viral Protein X (Vpx) Virulence Factors. The Journal of biological chemistry 290, 17935-17945.

Yang, M., Chen, Y.S., Ichikawa, M., Calles-Garcia, D., Basu, K., Fakih, R., Bui, K.H., and Gehring, K. (2019). Cryo-electron microscopy structures of ArnA, a key enzyme for polymyxin resistance, revealed unexpected oligomerizations and domain movements. J Struct Biol 208, 43-50.

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

Learn more at Review Commons

---

Reply to the reviewers

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

In recent years, the field has investigated crosstalk between cGMP and cAMP signaling (PMID: 29030485), lipid and cGMP signaling (PMID: 30742070), and calcium and cGMP signaling (PMID: 26933036, 26933037). In contrast to the Plasmodium field, which has benefited from proteomic experiments (ex: PMID 24594931, 26149123, 31075098, 30794532), second messenger crosstalk in T. gondii has been probed predominantly through genetic and pharmacological perturbations. The present manuscript compares the features of A23187- and BIPPO-stimulated phosphoproteomes at a snapshot in time. This is similar to a dataset generated by two of the authors in 2014 (PMID: 24945436), except that it now includes one BIPPO timepoint. The sub-min​​ute phosphoproteomic timecourse following A23187 treatment in WT and ∆cdpk3 parasites is novel and would seem like a useful resource.

CDPK3-dependent sites were detected on adenylate cyclase, PI-PLC, guanylate cyclase, PDE1, and DGK1. This motivated study of lipid and cNMP levels following A23187 treatment. The four PDEs determined to have A23187-dependent phosphosites were characterized, including the two PDEs with CDPK3-dependent phosphorylation, which were found to be cGMP-specific. However, cGMP levels do not seem to differ in a CDPK3- or A23187-dependent manner. Instead, cAMP levels are elevated in ∆cdpk3 parasites. This would seem to implicate a feedback loop between CDPK3, the adenylyl cyclase, and PKA/PKG: CDPK3 activity reduces adenylyl cyclase activity, which reduces PKA activity, which increases PKG activity. The authors don't pursue this direction, and instead characterize PDE2, which does not have CDPK3-dependent phosphosites, and seems out of place in the study

Response:

We agree with reviewer 1 that a feedback loop between CDPK3, the adenylyl cyclase and PKA/PKG is certainly one of several possibilities (and we acknowledge this in the manuscript).

We felt, however, that given the observation that A23187 and BIPPO treatment leads to phosphorylation of numerous PDEs (hinting at the presence of an Ca2+-regulated feedback loop), it was entirely relevant to study these in greater detail. Coupled with the A23187 egress assay on ΔPDE2 parasites - our findings suggest that PDE2 plays an important role in this signalling loop (an entirely novel finding). While PDE2 appears to exert its effects in a CDPK3-independent manner (indeed suggesting that CDPK3 might exert its effects on cAMP levels in a different fashion), this does not detract from the important finding that PDE2 is one of the (likely numerous) components that is regulated in a Ca2+-dependent feedback loop to regulate egress.

We have modified our writing to better reflect the fact that our decision to pursue study of the PDEs was not solely CDPK3-centric.

While we feel that our reasoning for studying the PDEs is solid, we appreciate that further clarification on the putative CDPK3-Adenylate cyclase link would make it easier for the reader to follow the rationale.

We have not studied the direct link between CDPK3 and the Adenylate Cyclase β in more detail, as ACβ alone was shown to not play a major role in regulating lytic growth (Jia et al., 2017).

**MAJOR COMMENTS**

1.Some of the key conclusions are not convincing.

The data presented in Figure 6E, F, and G and discussed in lines 647-679 are incongruent. In Figure 6E, the plaques in the PDE2+RAP image are hardly visible; how can it be that the plaques were accurately counted and determined not to differ from vehicle-treated parasites?

Are the images in 6E truly representative? Was the order of PDE1 and PDE2 switched? The cited publication by Moss et al. 2021 (preprint) is not in agreement with this study, as stated. That preprint determined that parasites depleted of PDE2 had significantly reduced plaque number and plaque size (>95% reduction); and parasites depleted of PDE1 had a substantially reduced plaque size but a less substantial reduction in plaque number.

Response:

The plaques for PDE2+RAP were counted using a microscope since they are difficult to see by eye. We thank the reviewer for detecting our incorrect reference to Moss et al. (2021). This has been corrected in the text. We confirm, however, that the images in 6E are representative of what we observed and do indeed differ from what was seen by Moss et al.. We have acknowledged this clearly in the text.

The differences cannot easily be explained other than by the different genetic systems used. Further studies of the individual PDEs will likely illuminate their role in invasion/ growth, but we feel this would be beyond the scope of this study.

Unfortunately, the length of time required for PDE depletion (72h) is incompatible with most T. gondii cellular assays (typically performed within one lytic cycle, 40-48h). Although the authors performed the assays 3 days after initial RAP treatment, is there evidence that non-excised parasites don't grow out of the population. This should be straightforward to test: treat, wait 3 days, infect onto monolayers, wait 24-48h fix, and stain with anti-YFP and an anti-Toxoplasma counterstain. The proportion of the parasite population that had excised the PDE at the time of the cellular assays will then be known, and the reader will have a sense of how complete the observed phenotypes are. As a reader, I will regard the phenotypes with some level of skepticism due to the long depletion time, especially since a panel of PDE rapid knockdown strains (depletion in __Response:

1. Cellular assays using KO parasites are commonly performed at the point at which protein depletion is detected. Both our western blots and plaque assay results demonstrate that, at the point of assay, there is no substantial outgrowth of non-excised parasites. The original manuscript also includes PCRs performed at the 72 hr time point (See Fig. 6B) to support this.
2. We appreciate the reviewer’s comment re the panel of PDE KD strains. The reviewer notes that there are substantial limitations to conditional KO systems, which similarly applies to KD systems - there are notable pros and cons to each approach. When designing our strategy (pre-publication of the Moss et al., 2022), we made a deliberate decision to use conditional KO strains in light of the fact that residual protein levels in KD systems can cause significant problems, particularly for membrane proteins (all of the investigated PDEs have a transmembrane domain). Tagging of proteins with the degradation domain can have further issues, leading to protein mis-localisation, which we have experienced with several unrelated proteins in the lab.

   The authors should qualify some of their claims as preliminary or speculative, or remove them altogether.

The claims in lines 240-260 are confusing. It seems likely that the two drug treatments have at least topological distinctions in the signaling modules, given that cGMP-triggered calcium release is thought to occur at internal stores, whereas A23187-mediated calcium influx likely occurs first at the parasite plasma membrane.The authors' proposed alternative, that treatment-specific phosphosite behavior arises from experimental limitations and "mis-alignment", is unsatisfying for the following reasons: (1) From the outset, the authors chose different time frames to compare the two treatments (15s for BIPPO vs. 50s for A23187); (2) the experiment comprises a single time point, so it does not seem appropriate to compare the kinetics of phosphoregulation. There is still value in pointing out which phosphosites appear treatment-specific under the chosen thresholds, but further claims on the basis of this single-timepoint experiment are too speculative. Lines 264-267 and 281-284 should also be tempered.

Relatedly, graphing of the data in Figure 1G (accompanying the main text mentioned above) was confusing. Why is one axis a ratio, and the other log10 intensity? What does log10 intensity tell you without reference to the DMSO intensity? Wouldn't you want the L2FC(A23187) vs. L2FC(BIPPO) comparisons? Could you use different point colors to highlight these cases on plot 1E? Additionally, could you use a pseudocount to include peptides only identified in one treatment condition on the plot in 1E? (Especially since these sites are mentioned in lines 272-278 but are not on the plot)

Response:

1. The kinetics of the responses to A23187 and BIPPO are very different. This is why treatment timings are purposely different as they were selected to align pathways to a point where calcium levels peak just prior to calcium re-uptake. We make no mention of kinetic comparisons, and merely demonstrate that at the chosen timepoints, overall signalling correlation is very high. The observation that most of the sites that behave differently between conditions sit remarkably close to the threshold for differential regulation (in the treatment condition where they are not DR - see Fig. 1G) led us to speculate that many of these sites are likely on the cusp of differential regulation. While it is entirely possible that some of these differences are, in fact, treatment specific (and we clearly acknowledge this in the text), we simply state that we cannot confidently discern clear signalling features that allow us to distinguish between the two treatments. We feel that this is an entirely relevant observation given the observed preponderance of both A23187 and BIPPO-dependent DR phosphosites on proteins in the PKG signalling pathway (as current models place this upstream of Ca2+release).
2. Log10 intensity only serves to spread the data for easier visualisation. The only comparison being made relates to the LFCs. Fig. 1Gi shows the LFC scores (x axis) for all sites regulated following A23187 treatment (for which peptides were also identified in BIPPO treatment). On this plot we have highlighted the sites that are differentially regulated following BIPPO but not A23187 treatment (with red showing the DRup and blue showing the DRdown sites). This demonstrates that many of the sites that are regulated following BIPPO but not A23187 treatment cluster close to the threshold for differential regulation in the A23187 dataset - suggesting that many of these sites are likely on the cusp of differential regulation. Fig. 1Gii shows the reverse. While we could highlight the above-mentioned sites on the plot in Fig. 1E, we do not feel that it would demonstrate our point as clearly.

We feel that including a pseudocount on Fig. 1E for peptides lacking quantification in one treatment condition would be visually misleading as the direct correlation being made in Fig. 1E is BIPPO vs A23187 treatment. The sites mentioned in lines 272-278 in the original manuscript (now lines 268-276) are available in the supplement tables.

3.Additional experiments would be essential to support the main claims of the paper.

Genetic validation is necessary for the experiments performed with the PKA inhibitor H89. H89 is nonspecific even in mammalian systems (PMID: 18523239) and in this manuscript it was used at a high concentration (50 µM) The heterodimeric architecture of PKA in apicomplexans dramatically differs from the heterotetrameric enzymes characterized in metazoans (PMID: 29263246), so we don't know what the IC50 of the inhibitor is, or whether it inhibits competitively. Two inducible knockdown strains exist for PKA C1 (PMID: 29030485, 30208022). The authors could request one of these strains and construct a ∆cdpk3 in that genetic background, as was done for the PDE2 cKO strain. Estimated time: 3-4 weeks to generate strain, 2 weeks to repeat assays.

Response:

1. While we appreciate that H89 is not 100% specific for PKA, this is not our only line of evidence that cAMP levels are altered. We demonstrate that cAMP levels are elevated in CDPK3 KO parasites – further substantiating our finding.

The H89 concentration used in our experiment is in keeping with/lower than the concentrations used in other Toxoplasma publications (Jia et al., 2017), and both the Toxoplasma and Plasmodium fields have shown convincingly that H89 treatment phenocopies cKD/cKO of PKA (see Jia et al., 2017; Flueck et al., 2019).

While we agree that the genetic validation suggested by reviewer 1 would serve to further support our findings (though it would not provide further novel insights), the suggested time frame for experimental execution was not realistic. Line shipment, strain generation, subcloning and genetic validation would take substantially longer than 3-4 weeks.

cGMP levels are found to not increase with A23187 treatment, which is at odds with a previous study (lines 524-560). The text proposes that the differences could arise from the choice of buffer: this study used an intracellular-like Endo buffer (no added calcium, high potassium), whereas Stewart et al. 2017 used an extracellular-like buffer (DMEM, which also contains mM calcium and low potassium). An alternative explanation is that 60 s of A23187 treatment does not achieve a comparable amount of calcium flux as 15 s of BIPPO treatment, and a calcium-dependent effect on cGMP levels, were it to exist, could not be observed at the final timepoint in the assay. The experiments used to determine the kinetics of calcium flux following BIPPO and A23187 treatments (Fig. 1B, C) were calibrated using Ringer's buffer, which is more similar to an extracellular buffer (mM calcium, low potassium). In this buffer, A23187 treatment would likely stimulate calcium entry from across the parasite plasma membrane, as well as across the membranes of parasite intracellular calcium stores. By contrast, A23187 treatment in Endo buffer (low calcium) would likely only stimulate calcium release from intracellular stores, not calcium entry, since the calcium concentration outside of the parasite is low. Because calcium entry no longer contributes to calcium flux arising from A23187 treatment, it is possible that the calcium fluxes of A23187-treated parasites at 60 s are "behind" BIPPO-treated parasites at 15 s. The researchers could control these experiments by *either* (i) performing the cNMP measurements on parasites resuspended in the same buffer used in Figure 1B, C (Ringer's) or (ii) measuring calcium flux of extracellular parasites in Endo buffer with BIPPO and A23187 to determine the "alignment" of calcium levels, as was done with intracellular parasites in Figure 1C. No new strains would have to be generated and the assays have already been established in the manuscript. Estimated time to perform control experiments with replicates: 2 weeks. This seems like an important control, because the interpretation of this experiment shifts the focus of the paper from feedback between calcium and cGMP signaling, which had motivated the initial phosphoproteomics comparisons, to calcium and cAMP signaling. Further, the lipidomics experiments were performed in an extracellular-like buffer, DMEM, so it's unclear why dramatically different buffers were used for the lipidomics and cNMP measurements.

Response:

While the initial calibration experiments to measure calcium flux were indeed performed in Ringer’s buffer, the parasites were intracellular. We therefore chose to measure cNMP concentrations of extracellular parasites syringe lysed in Endo buffer, which is better at mimicking intracellular conditions than any other described buffer.

As the reviewer suggested, we measured the calcium flux of extracellular parasites in Endo buffer upon stimulation with either A23187 or BIPPO.

We found that peak calcium response to BIPPO in Endo buffer was similar to that of intracellular parasites (~15 seconds post treatment) (See Supp Fig. 6A). Upon treatment with A23187, extracellular parasites in Endo buffer had a much faster response compared to their intracellular counterparts, with peak flux measured at ~25 seconds post treatment (see Supp Fig. 6B). This indeed does suggest that extracellular parasites in Endo buffer behave differently to A23187 compared to their intracellular counterparts. However, peak calcium response is still occuring within the experimental time course and is not being missed, as the reviewer worries. Moreover, since we are able to detect increased cAMP levels in A23187 treated parasites, Ca2+ flux appears sufficient to alter cNMP signalling.

We did notice however that the intensity of the calcium flux was much weaker in Endo buffer compared to intracellular parasites (see Supp Fig. 6B). We found that this was due to the lack of host-derived Ca2+, since supplementation of Endo buffer with 1 uM CaCl2 restored the intensity of the calcium response to match that of intracellular parasites (see Supp Fig. 6C). We therefore decided to repeat our cGMP measurements, this time using extracellular parasites in Endo buffer supplemented with 1 uM CaCl2. However, we found no differences in cGMP levels in the response to ionophore under these conditions (now Supp Fig. 6D) compared to the previous experiments, so the conclusions from the previous data do not change.

As for the lipidomics experiments, we chose to use DMEM so that our dataset could be compared with other published lipidomic datasets (Katris et al., 2020; Dass et al., 2021) where DMEM was also used as a buffer when measuring global lipid profiles of parasites.

We now acknowledge in the paper that Endo buffer has its shortcomings, and that this could be the reason why we do not detect changes in cGMP concentrations. We do, however, believe that Endo buffer is the best alternative to intracellular parasites and is supported by its consistent use in numerous publications studying Toxoplasma signalling (McCoy et al., 2012; Stewart et al., 2017).

Additional information is required to support the claim that PDE2 has a moderate egress defect (lines 681-687). T. gondii egress is MOI-dependent (PMID: 29030485). Although the parasite strains were used at the same MOI, there is no guarantee that the parasites successfully invaded and replicated. If parasites lacking PDE2 are defective in invasion or replication, the MOI is effectively decreased, which could explain the egress delay. Could the authors compare the MOIs (number of vacuoles per host cell nuclei) of the vehicle and RAP-treated parasites at t = 0 treatment duration to give the reader a sense of whether the MOIs are comparable?

Response:

Since PDE2 KO parasites have a substantial growth defect, we did notice that starting MOIs were consistently lower for the RAP-treated samples compared to the DMSO-treated samples. However, this was also the case for PDE1 KO parasites where we did not see an egress delay. We also found that the egress delay was still evident for ∆CDPK3 parasites, despite having higher starting MOIs than WT parasites in our experiments. Therefore there does not appear to be a link between starting MOIs and the egress delay.

To be sure of our results, we also performed egress assays where we co-infected HFFs with mCherry-expressing WT parasites (WT ∆UPRT) and GFP-expressing PDE2 cKO parasites that were treated with either DMSO or RAP or ∆CDPK3 parasites. This recapitulated our previous findings, confirming the deletion of PDE2 leads to delay in A23187-mediated egress.

4.A few references are missing to ensure reproducibility.

The manuscript states that the kinetic lipidomics experiments were performed with established methods, but the cited publication (line 497) is a preprint. These are therefore not peer reviewed and should be described in greater detail in this manuscript, including any relevant validation.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have included a greater description of the methods used in the materials and methods section such that the experiment is reproducible, as per the reviewer’s suggestion. We decided to still make mention of the BioRxiv preprint since we thought it was appropriate for the reader to be informed of ongoing developments in the field.

Please cite the release of the T. gondii proteomes used for spectrum matching (lines 972-973).

Response:

We have included this as per the reviewer’s suggestion.

Please include the TMT labeling scheme so the analysis may be reproduced from the raw files.

Response:

We have included this as per the reviewer’s suggestion in Supp Fig. 3A.

5.Statistical analyses should be reviewed as follows:

Have the authors examined the possibility that some changes in phosphopeptide abundance reflect changes in protein abundance? This may be particularly relevant for comparisons involving the ∆cdpk3 strain. Did the authors collect paired unenriched proteomes from the experiments performed? Alternatively, there may be enriched peptides that did not change in abundance for many of the proteins that appear dynamically phosphorylated.

Response:

We did not collect unenriched proteomes from the experiments performed (although we did perform unenriched mixing checks to ensure equal loading between samples), and believe that this wasn’t a necessity for the following reasons:

1. For within-line treatment analyses, treatment timings are so short (a maximum of 15-50s in the single timepoint experiment) that it would be unlikely to detect substantial changes in protein abundance. Moreover, these unlikely events would affect all phosphosites across a protein, and therefore be detectable.

In our CDPK3 dependency timecourse experiments, we normalise both the WT and ∆CDPK3 strain to 0s, and measure signalling progression over time. Therefore, any difference at timepoints that are not “0” are not originating from basal differences. We also see a consistent increase/decrease in phosphosite detection across the sub-minute timecourse, further confirming that the observed changes are truly down to dynamic changes in phosphorylation and not protein levels.

In the single timepoint CDPK3 dependency analyses (44 regulated sites identified, Data S2), we acknowledge that there could be some risk of altered starting protein abundance between lines. However, if protein abundance were responsible for the changes in phosphosite detection, we would expect all phosphosites across the protein to shift, and we do not observe this. Moreover, when we look at these CDPK3 dependent proteins and compare their phosphosite abundance in untreated WT and ∆CDPK3 lines, we find that for each protein, either all or the majority of phosphosites detected are unchanged (highlighting that there is no substantial difference in this protein’s abundance between lines). Where there are phosphosite differences between lines, these are only ever on single sites on a protein while most other sites are unchanged - implying that these are changes to basal phosphorylation states and not protein levels.

It seems like for Figs. 3B and S5 the maximum number of clusters modeled was selected. Could the authors provide a rationale for the number of clusters selected, since it appears many of the clusters have similar profiles.

The number of clusters is chosen automatically by the Mclust algorithm as the value that maximizes the Bayes Information Criterion (BIC). BIC in effect balances gains in model fit (increasing log-likelihood) against increasing the number of parameters (i.e. number of clusters).

Please include figure panel(s) relating to gene ontology. Relevant information for readers to make conclusions includes p-value, fold-enrichment or gene ratio, and some sort of metric of the frequency of the GO term in the surveyed data set. See PMID: 33053376 Fig. 7 and PMID: 29724925 Fig. 6 for examples or enrichment summaries. Additionally, in the methods, specify (i) the background set, (ii) the method used for multiple test correction, (iii) the criteria constituting "enrichment", (iv) how the T. gondii genome was integrated into the analysis, (v) the class of GO terms (molecular function, biological process, or cellular component), (vi) any additional information required to reproduce the results (for example, settings modified from default).

Response:

We have included the additional information requested in the materials and methods.

We purposely did not include GO figure panels as our analyses are being done across many clusters, making it very difficult to display this information cohesively. We have included all data in Tables S2-S5. These tables included all the relevant information on p-value, enrichment status, ratio in study/ratio in population, class of GO terms etc.

The presentation of the lipidomics experiments in Figure 4A-C is confusing. First, the ∆cdpk3/WT ratio removes information about the process in WT parasites, and it's unclear why the scale centers on 100 and not 1. Second, the data in Figure S6 suggests a more modest effect than that represented in Fig. 4; is this due to day to day variability? How do the authors justify pairing WT and mutant samples as they did to generate the ratios?

Response:

This is a common strategy used by many metabolomics experts (Bailey et al., 2015; Dass et al., 2021; Lunghi et al., 2022). We had originally chosen to represent the data as a ratio since this form of representation helps get rid of the variability that arises between experiments and allows us to see very clear patterns which would otherwise go unnoticed. This variability arises from the amount of lipids in each sample which varies between parasites in a dish, the batch of FBS and DMEM used, and the solutions and even room temperature used to extract lipids on a given day.

However, we agree with the reviewer that depicting the data in Figure 4A-C as a ratio of ∆CDPK3/WT parasites can be confusing, so we have now changed the graphs, plotting WT and ∆CDPK3 levels instead, and have moved the ratio of ∆CDPK3/WT to the Supplementary Figure 5.

The significance test seems to be performed on the difference between the WT and ∆cdpk3 strains, but not relative to the DMSO treatment? Wouldn't you want to perform a repeated measures ANOVA to determine (i) if lipid levels change over time and (ii) if this trend differs in WT vs. mutant strain?

Response:

The reviewer correctly points out that ANOVA is often used for time courses, but we must point out that it is not always strictly appropriate since it can overlook the purpose of the individual experiment design, which in this case is, 1) to investigate the role of CDPK3 compared to the WT parental strain, and 2) specifically to find the exact point at which the DAG begins to change after stimulus to match the proteomics time course.

Our data is clearly biassed towards earlier time points where we have 0, 5, 10, 30, 45 seconds where DAG levels are mostly unchanged compared to the single timepoint 60 seconds which shows a significant difference in DAG using our method of statistical comparison by paired two tailed t-test. Therefore, it would be unwise to use ANOVA when we really want to see when the A23187 stimulus takes effect, which appears to be after the 45 second mark. Therefore, analysing the data by ANOVA would likely provide a false negative result, where the result is non-significant but there is clearly more DAG in WT than CDPK3 after 60 seconds. T-tests are commonly used when comparing the same cell lines grown in the same conditions with a test/treatment, and in this case the test/treatment is CPDK3 present or absent (Lentini et al., 2020).

In the main text, it would be preferable to see the data presented as the proteomics experiments were in Figure 4B and 4C, with fold changes relative to the DMSO (t = 0) treatment, separately for WT and ∆cdpk3 parasites.

Response:

We have now changed the way that we represent the data, plotting %mol instead of the ratio.

Signaling lipids constitute small percentages of the overall pool (e.g. PMID: 26962945), so one might not necessarily expect to observe large changes in lipid abundance when signaling pathways are modulated. Is there any positive control that the authors could include to give readers a sense of the dynamic range? Maybe the DGK1 mutant (PMID: 26962945)?

Response:

DGK1 is maybe not a good example because the DGK1 KO parasites effectively “melt” from a lack of plasma membrane integrity ((Bullen et al., 2016), so this would likely be technically challenging. We don’t see the added value in including an additional mutant control since we can already see the dynamic change over time from no difference (0 seconds) to significant difference (60 seconds) between WT and CDPK3 for DAG and most other lipids. We already see a significant difference between WT and CDPK3 after 60 seconds for DAG, and we can clearly see in sub-minute timecourses the changes or not at the specific points where the A23187 is added (0-5 seconds), the parasites acclimatise, for the A23187 to take effect (10-30 seconds) and for the parasite lipid response to be visible by lipidomics (45-60 +seconds).

Figure 4E: are the differences in [cAMP] with DMSO treatment and A23187 treatment different at any of the timepoints in the WT strain? The comparison seems to be WT/∆cdpk3 at each timepoint. Does the text (lines 562-568) need to be modified accordingly?

Response:

In WT (and ∆CDPK3) parasites, [cAMP] is significantly changed at 5s of A23187 treatment (relative to DMSO). We have modified our figures to include this analysis. The existing text accurately reflects this.

Figure 6I: is the difference between PDE2 cKO/∆cdpk3 + DMSO or RAP significant?

Response

In our original manuscript, there was no statistical difference in [cAMP] between PDE2cKO/∆CDPK3+DMSO and PDE2cKO/∆CDPK3+DMSO+RAP, likely due to the variation between biological replicates. To overcome the issues in variability between replicates, we have now included more biological replicates (n=7). This has led to a significant difference in [cAMP] between PDE2cKO/∆CDPK3 DMSO- and RAP-treated parasites and between PDE2cKO DMSO- and RAP-treated parasites (now Fig. 6I).

**MINOR COMMENTS**

1.The following references should be added or amended:

Lines 83-85: in the cited publication, relative phosphopeptide abundances of an overexpressed dominant-negative, constitutively inactive PKA mutant were compared to an overexpressed wild-type mutant. In this experimental setup, one would hypothesize that targets of PKA should be down-regulated (inactive/WT ratios). However, the mentioned phosphopeptide of PDE2 was found to be up-regulated, suggesting that it is not a direct target of PKA.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for spotting this error, we have now modified our wording.

Cite TGGT1_305050, referenced as calmodulin in line 458, as TgELC2 (PMID: 26374117).

Response:

We have included this as per the reviewer’s suggestion.

Cite TGGT1_295850 as apical annuli protein 2 (AAP2, PMID: 31470470).

Response:

We have included this as per the reviewer’s suggestion.

Cite TGGT1_270865 (adenylyl cyclase beta, Acβ) as PMID: 29030485, 30449726.

Response:

We have included this as per the reviewer’s suggestion.

Cite TGGT1_254370 (guanylyl cyclase, GC) as PMID: 30449726, 30742070.

Response:

We have included this as per the reviewer’s suggestion.

Note that Lourido, Tang and David Sibley, 2012 observed that treatment with zaprinast (a PDE inhibitor) could overcome CDPK3 inhibition. The target(s) of zaprinast have not been determined and may differ from those of BIPPO (in identity and IC50). The cited study also used modified CDPK3 and CDPK1 alleles, rather than ∆cdpk3 and intact cdpk1 as used in this manuscript. That is to say, the signaling backgrounds of the parasite strains deviate in ways that are not controlled.

Response:

While it is true that zaprinast targets have not been unequivocally identified, zaprinast-induced egress is widely thought to be the result of PKG activation, a conclusion that is further supported by the finding that Compound 1 completely blocks zaprinast-induced egress (Lourido, Tang and David Sibley, 2012). Similarly, BIPPO-induced egress is inhibited by chemical inhibition of PKG by Compound 1 and Compound 2 (Jia et al., 2017). Moreover, like zaprinast, BIPPO has been clearly shown to partially overcome the ∆CDPK3 egress delay (Stewart et al., 2017).

2.The following comments refer to the figures and legends:

Part of the legend text for 1G is included under 1H.

Response:

This has been corrected

Figure 1H: The legend mentions that some dots are blue, but they appear green. Please ensure that color choices conform to journal accessibility guidelines. See the following article about visualization for colorblind readers: https://www.ascb.org/science-news/how-to-make-scientific-figures-accessible-to-readers-with-color-blindness____/ . Avoid using red and green false-colored images; replace red with a magenta lookup table. Multi-colored images are only helpful for the merged image; otherwise, we discern grayscale better. Applies to Figures 1B, 5C, 6D. (Aside: anti-CAP seems an odd choice of counterstain; the variation in the staining, esp. at the apical cap, is distracting.)

Response:

We thank reviewer #1 for bringing this to our attention, and have modified our colour usage for all IFAs and Figures 1H and 3E.

We chose CAP staining as the antibody is available in the laboratory and stains both the apical end (which has been shown to contain several proteins important for signalling as well as PDE9) and the parasite periphery, the location of CDPK3.

Figure 1B: When showing a single fluorophore, please use grayscale and include an intensity scale bar, since relative values are being compared.

Response:

We have modified this as per the reviewer’s suggestion

Figure 1C: it is difficult to compare the kinetics of the calcium response when the curves are plotted separately. Since the scales are the same, could the two treatments be plotted on the same axes, with different colors? Additionally, according to the legend, a red line seems to be missing in this panel.

Response:

Fig1C is not intended to compare kinetics, merely to show peak calcium release in each separate treatment condition. We have removed mention of a red line in the figure legend.

Figure 2A: Either Figure S4 can be moved to accompany Figure 2A, or Figure 2A could be moved to the supplemental.

Figure S4 has now been incorporated into Figure 2.

Reviewer #1 (Significance (Required)):

This manuscript would interest researchers studying signaling pathways in protozoan parasites, especially apicomplexans, as CDPK3 and PKG orthologs exist across the phylum. To my knowledge, it is the first study that has proposed a mechanism by which a calcium effector regulates cAMP levels in T. gondii. Unfortunately, the experiments fall short of testing this mechanism.

Response:

We thank reviewer #1 for their comments, but disagree with their assessment that the key points of the manuscript “fall short of experimental testing”.

1. We demonstrate that, following both BIPPO and A23187 treatment, there is differential phosphorylation of numerous components traditionally believed to sit upstream of PKG activation (as well as several components within the PKG signalling pathway itself).
2. We show that some of these sites are CDPK3 dependent, and that deletion of CDPK3 leads to changes in lipid signalling and an elevation in levels of cAMP (dysregulation of which is known to alter PKG signalling).
3. We show that pre-treatment with a PKA inhibitor is able to largely rescue this phenotype.
4. We demonstrate that a cAMP-specific PDE is phosphorylated following A23187 treatment (i.e. Ca2+ flux)
5. We show that this cAMP specific PDE plays a role in A23187-mediated egress.
6. While the latter PDE may not be directly regulated by CDPK3, these findings suggest that there are likely several Ca2+-dependent kinases that contribute to this feedback loop.

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

**Summary:**

Provide a short summary of the findings and key conclusions (including methodology and model system(s) where appropriate).

In this manuscript, Dominicus et al investigate the elusive role of calcium-dependent kinase 3 during the egress of Toxoplasma gondii. Multiple functions have already been proposed for this kinase by this group including the regulation of basal calcium levels (24945436) or of a tyrosine transporter (30402958). However, one of the most puzzling phenotypes of CDPK3 deficient tachyzoites is a marked delay in egress when parasites are stimulated with a calcium ionophore that is rescued with phosphodiesterase (PDE) inhibitors. Crosstalk between, cAMP, cGMP, lipid and calcium signalling has been previously described to be important in regulating egress (26933036, 23149386, 29030485) but the role of CDPK3 in Toxoplasma is still poorly understood.

Here the authors first take an elegant phosphoproteomic approach to identify pathways differentially regulated upon treatment with either a PDE inhibitor (BIPPO) and a calcium ionophore (A23187) in WT and CDPK3-KO parasites. Not much difference is observed between BIPPO or A23187 stimulation which is interpreted by the authors as a regulation through a feed-back loop.

The authors then investigate the effect of CDPK3 deletion on lipid, cGMP and cAMP levels. The identify major changes in DAG, phospholipid, FFAs, and TAG levels as well as differences in cAMP levels but not for cGMP. Chemical inhibition of PKA leads to a similar egress timing in CDPK3-KO and WT parasites upon A23187 stimulation.

As four PDEs appeared differentially regulated in the CDPK3-KO line upon A23187, the authors investigate the requirement of the 4 PDEs in cAMP levels. They show diverse localisation of the PDEs with specificities of PDE1, 7 and 9 for cGMP and of PDE2 for cAMP. They further show that PDE1, 7 and 9 are sensitive to BIPPO. Finally, using a conditional deletion system, they show that PDE1 and 2 are important for the lytic cycle of Toxoplasma and that PDE2 shows a slightly delayed egress following A23187 stimulation.

**Major comments:**

-Are the key conclusions convincing?

The title is supported by the findings presented in this study. However I am not sure to understand why the authors imply a positive feed back loop. This should be clarified in the discussion of the results.

Response:

We believe in a positive feedback loop as, upon A23187 treatment (resulting in a calcium flux), ΔCDPK3 parasites are able to egress, albeit in a delayed manner. This egress delay is substantially, but not completely, alleviated upon treatment with BIPPO (a PDE inhibitor known to activate the PKG signalling pathway). In conjunction with our phosphoproteomic data (where we see phosphorylation of numerous pathway components upstream of PKG upon BIPPO and A23187 treatment - both in a CDPK3 dependent and independent manner), these observations suggest that calcium-regulated proteins (CDPK3 among them) feed into the PKG pathway. As deletion of CDPK3 delays egress, it is reasonable to postulate that this feedback is one that amplifies egress signalling (i.e. is positive).

The phosphoproteome analysis seems very strong and will be of interest for many groups working on egress. However, the key conclusion, i.e. that a substrate overlaps between PKG and CDPK3 is unlikely to explain the CDPK3 phenotype, seems premature to me in the absence of robustly identified substrates for both kinases.

Response:

We certainly do not fully exclude the possibility of a substrate overlap but do lean more heavily towards a feedback loop given (a) the inability to clearly detect treatment-specific signalling profiles and (b) the phospho targets observed in the A23187 and BIPPO phosphoproteomes. We have further clarified our reasoning, and overall tempered our language in the manuscript as per the reviewer’s suggestion.

I am not sure there is a clear key conclusion from the lipidomic analysis and how it is used by the authors to build their model up. Major changes are observed but how could this be linked with CDPK3, particularly if cGMP levels are not affected?

Response:

Our phosphoproteomic analyses identify several CDPK3-dependent phospho sites on phospholipid signalling components (DGK1 & PI-PLC), suggesting that there is indeed altered signalling downstream of PKG. To test whether these lead to a measurable phenotype, we performed the lipidomics analysis. We did not pursue this arm of the signalling pathway any further as we postulated that the changes in the lipid signalling pathway were less likely to play a role in the feedback loop. Nevertheless, we felt that it was worthwhile to include these findings in our manuscript as they support the conclusions drawn from the phosphoproteomics - namely that lipid signalling is perturbed in CDPK3 mutants. We, or others, may follow up on this in future.

We agree with the reviewer that it is surprising that cGMP levels remain unchanged in our experiments when we treat with A23187. Given the measurable difference in cAMP levels between WT and ΔCDPK3 parasites, we postulate that CDPK3 directly or indirectly downregulates levels of cAMP. This would, in turn, alter activity of the cAMP-dependent protein kinase PKAc. Jia et al. (2017) have shown a clear dependency on PKG for parasites to egress upon PKAc depletion, but were also unable to reliably demonstrate cGMP accumulation in intracellular parasites. Similarly, their hypothesis that dysregulated cGMP-specific PDE activity results in altered cGMP levels has not been proven (the PDE hypothesised to be involved has since been shown to be cAMP-specific).

While it is possible that our collective inability to observe elevated cGMP levels is explained by the sensitivity limits of the assay, it is similarly possible that cAMP-mediated signalling is exerting its effects on the PKG signalling pathway in a cGMP-independent manner.

The evidence that CDPK3 is involved in cAMP homeostasis seems strong. However, the analysis of PKA inhibition is a bit less clear. The way the data is presented makes it difficult to see whether the treatment is accelerating egress of CDPK3-KO parasites or affecting both WT and CDPK3-KO lines, including both the speed and extent of egress. This is important for the interpretation of the experiment.

Response:

Fig. 4F shows that there is a significant amount of premature egress in both WT and ∆CDPK3 parasites following 2 hrs of H89 pre-treatment (consistent with previous reports that downregulation of cAMP signalling stimulates premature egress). When we subsequently investigated A23187-induced egress rates of the remaining intracellular H89 pre-treated parasites (Fig. 4Gi-ii) we found that the ∆CDPK3 egress delay was largely rescued. We have moved Fig. 4F to the supplement (now Supp Fig. 5E) in order to avoid confusion between the distinct analyses shown in 4F (pre-treatment analyses) and 4G (egress experiment). These experiments provided a hint that cAMP signalling is affected, which we then validate by measuring elevated cAMP levels in CDPK3 mutant parasites.

The biochemical characterisation of the four PDE is interesting and seems well performed. However, PDE1 was previously shown to hydrolyse both cAMP and cGMP (____https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.21.461320____) which raises some questions about the experimental set up. Could the authors possibly discuss why they do not observe similar selectivity? Could other PDEs in the immunoprecipitate mask PDE activity? In line with this question, it is not clear what % of "hydrolytic activity (%)" means and how it was calculated.

The experiments describing the selectivity of BIPPO for PDE1, 7 and 9 as well as the biological requirement of the four tested PDEs are convincing.

Response:

We believe that the disagreement between our findings and those published by Moss and colleagues are due to the differences in experimental conditions. We performed our assays at room temperature for 1 hour with higher starting cAMP concentrations (1 uM) compared to them. They performed their assays at 37ºC for 2 hours with 10-fold lower starting cAMP concentrations (0.1 uM). We have now repeated this set of experiments using the Moss et al. conditions, and find that PDEs 1, 7 and 9 can be dual specific, while PDE2 is cAMP-specific, thereby recapitulating their findings (Now included in the revised manuscript under Supp Fig. 7B). However, we also now performed a timecourse PDE assay using our original conditions and show that the cAMP hydrolytic activity for PDE1 can only be detected following 4 hours of incubation, compared to cGMP activity that can be detected as early as 30 minutes, suggesting that it possesses predominantly cGMP activity (See Supp Fig. 7C). We therefore believe that our experimental setup is more stringent, because if one starts with a lower level of substrate and incubates for longer and at a higher temperature, even minor dual activity could make a substantial difference in cAMP levels. Our data suggests that the cAMP hydrolytic activity of PDEs 1, 7 and 9 is substantially lower than the cGMP hydrolytic activity that they display.

We have also included a clear description of how % hydrolytic activity was calculated in the methods section.

-Should the authors qualify some of their claims as preliminary or speculative, or remove them altogether?

The claim that CDPK3 affects cAMP levels seems strong however the exact links between CDPK3 activity, lipid, cGMP and cAMP signalling remain unclear and it may be important to clearly state this.

Response:

We have modified our wording in the text to more clearly describe our current hypothesis and reasoning.

-Would additional experiments be essential to support the claims of the paper? Request additional experiments only where necessary for the paper as it is, and do not ask authors to open new lines of experimentation.

I think that the manuscript contains a significant amount of experiments that are of interest to scientists working on Toxoplasma egress. Requesting experiments to identify the functional link between above-mentioned pathways would be out of the scope for this work although it would considerably increase the impact of this manuscript. For example, would it be possible to test whether the CDPK3-KO line is more or less sensitive to PKG specific inhibition upon A23187 induced?

-Are the suggested experiments realistic in terms of time and resources? It would help if you could add an estimated cost and time investment for substantial experiments.

The above-mentioned experiment is not trivial as no specific inhibitors of PKG are available. Ensuring for specificity of the investigated phenotype would require the generation of a resistant line which would require significant work.

__Response: __We agree that this would be an interesting experiment to further substantiate our findings. As indicated by the reviewer, however, the lack of specific inhibitors of PKG means a resistant line would likely be required to ensure specificity.

-Are the data and the methods presented in such a way that they can be reproduced?

It is not clear how the % of hydrolytic activity of the PDE has been calculated.

Response: We have included a clearer description of how % hydrolytic activity was calculated in the methods section.

-Are the experiments adequately replicated and statistical analysis adequate?

This seems to be performed to high standards.

**Minor comments:**

-Specific experimental issues that are easily addressable.

I do not have any comments related to minor experimental issues.

-Are prior studies referenced appropriately?

Most of the studies relevant for this work are cited. It is however not clear to me why some important players of the "PKG pathway" are not indicated in Fig 1H and Fig 3E, including for example UGO or SPARK.

Response:

We have modified Fig 1H and 3E to include all key players involved in the PKG pathway.

-Are the text and figures clear and accurate?

While all the data shown here is impressive and well analysed, I find it difficult to read the manuscript and establish links between sections of the papers. The phosphoproteome analysis is interesting and is used to orientate the reader towards a feedback mechanism rather than a substrate overlap. But why do the authors later focus on PDEs and not on AC or CNBD, as in the end, if I understand well, there is no evidence showing a link between CDPK3-dependent phosphorylation and PDE activity upon A23187 stimulation?

Response:

We thank reviewer#2 and appreciate their constructive feedback re the flow of the manuscript.

Our key findings from the phosphoproteomics study were that 1) BIPPO and A23187 treatment trigger near identical signalling pathways, 2) that both A23187 and BIPPO treatment leads to phosphorylation of numerous components both upstream and downstream of PKG signalling (hinting at the presence of an Ca2+-regulated feedback loop) and 3) several of the abovementioned components are phosphorylated in a CDPK3 dependent manner.

While several avenues of study could have been pursued from this point onwards, we chose to focus on the feedback loop in a broader sense as its existence has important implications for our general understanding of the signalling pathways that govern egress.

We reasoned that, given the differential phosphorylation of 4 PDEs following A23187 and BIPPO treatment (none of which had been studied in detail previously), it was relevant to study these in greater detail.

Coupled with the A23187 egress assay on PDE2 knockout parasites - our findings suggest that PDE2 plays a role in the abovementioned Ca2+ signalling loop. While PDE2 may not exert its effects in a CDPK3-dependent manner (and CDPK3 may, therefore, alter cAMP levels in a different fashion), this does not detract from the important finding that PDE2 is one of the (likely numerous) components that is regulated in a Ca2+-dependent feedback loop to facilitate rapid egress.

We have modified our wording to better reflect our rationale for studying the PDEs irrespective of their CDPK3 phosphorylation status.

While we feel that our reasoning for studying the PDEs is solid, we do appreciate that further clarification on the putative CDPK3-Adenylate cyclase link would elevate the manuscript substantially. However, given the data that the ACb is not playing a sole role in the control of egress, this is likely a non-trivial task and requires substantial work.

It is also unclear how the authors link CDPK3-dependent elevated cAMP levels with the elevated basal calcium levels they previously described. This is particularly difficult to reconcile particularly in a PKG independent manner.

Response:

We previously postulated that elevated Ca2+ levels allowed ΔCDPK3 mutants to overcome a complete egress defect, potentially by activating other CDPKs (e.g. CDPK1). It is similarly plausible that elevated Ca2+ levels in ΔCDPK3 parasites may lead to elevated cAMP levels in order to prevent premature egress.

As noted in our previous responses, we acknowledge that our inability to detect cGMP is surprising. However, given the clarity of our cAMP findings, and the phosphoproteomic evidence to suggest that various components in the PKG signalling pathway are affected, we postulate that we are either unable to reliably detect cGMP due to sensitivity issues, or that cAMP is exerting its regulation on the PKG pathway in a cGMP-independent manner. As noted previously, while the link between cAMP and PKG signalling has been demonstrated by Jia et al., it is not entirely clear how this is mediated.

The presentation of the lipidomic analysis is also not really clear to me. Why do the authors show the global changes in phospholipids and not a more detailed analysis?

Response:

We performed a detailed phospholipid profile of WT and ∆CDPK3 parasites under normal culture conditions. However, due to the sheer quantity of parasites required for this detailed analysis, we were unable to measure individual phospholipid species in our A23187 timecourse. We therefore opted to measure global changes following A23187 stimulation.

As the authors focus on the PI-PLC pathway, could they detail the dynamics of phosphoinositides? I understand that lipid levels are affected in the mutant but I am not sure to understand how the authors interpret these massive changes in relationship with the function of CDPK3 and the observed phenotypes.

Response:

Our phosphoproteomic analyses identified several CDPK3-dependent phospho sites on phospholipid signalling components (DGK1 & PI-PLC), suggesting that (in keeping with all of our other data), there is altered signalling downstream of PKG. To test whether these changes lead to a measurable phenotype, we performed the lipidomics analysis. Following stimulation with A23187, we found a delayed production of DAG in ∆CDPK3 parasites compared to WT parasites. Since DAG is required for the production of PA, which in turn is required for microneme secretion, our finding can explain why microneme secretion is delayed in ∆CDPK3 parasites, as previously reported (Lourido, Tang and David Sibley, 2012; McCoy et al., 2012).

We did not follow this arm of the signalling pathway any further as we postulated that the changes in the lipid signalling pathway were less likely to play a role in the feedback loop. Nevertheless, we felt that it was worthwhile to include these findings in our manuscript as they support the conclusions drawn from the phosphoproteomics - namely that lipid signalling is perturbed in CDPK3 mutants. We, or others, may follow up on this in future.

Finally, the characterisation of the PDEs is an impressive piece of work but the functional link with CDPK3 is relatively unclear. It would also be important to clearly discuss the differences with previous results presented in this this preprint: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.21.461320____.

My understanding is while the authors aim at investigating the role of CDPK3 in A23187 induced egress, the main finding related to CDPK3 is a defect in cAMP homeostasis that is not linked to A23187. Similarly, the requirements of PDE2 in cAMP homeostasis and egress is indirectly linked to CDPK3. Altogether I think that important results are presented here but divided into three main and distinct sections: the phosphoproteomic survey, the lipidomic and cAMP level investigation, and the characterisation of the four PDEs. However, the link between each section is relatively weak and the way the results are presented is somehow misleading or confusing.

Response:

As mentioned in a previous response, we chose to study PDEs in greater detail because of our observation that both A23187 and BIPPO treatments lead to their phosphorylation (hinting at the presence of a Ca2+regulated feedback loop). We were particularly intrigued to study the cAMP specific PDE, as CDPK3 KO parasites suggested that cAMP may play a role in the Ca2+ feedback mechanism. As PDE2 may not be directly regulated by CDPK3, Ca2+ appears to exert its feedback effects in numerous ways. We have modified our wording to better reflect our rationale for studying the PDEs irrespective of their CDPK3 phosphorylation status.

-Do you have suggestions that would help the authors improve the presentation of their data and conclusions?

This is a very long manuscript written for specialists of this signalling pathway and I would suggest the authors to emphasise more the important results and also clearly state where links are still missing. This is obviously a complex pathway and one cannot elucidate it easily in a single manuscript.

Response:

We have included an additional summary in our conclusions to better illustrate our findings and clarify any missing links.

Reviewer #2 (Significance (Required)):

-Describe the nature and significance of the advance (e.g. conceptual, technical, clinical) for the field.

This is a technically remarkable paper using a broad range of analyses performed to a high standard.

-Place the work in the context of the existing literature (provide references, where appropriate).

The cross-talk between cAMP, cGMP and calcium signalling is well described in Toxoplasma and related parasites. Here the authors show that, in Toxoplasma, CDPK3 is part of this complex signalling network. One of the most important finding within this context is the role of CDPK3 in cAMP homeostasis. With this in mind, I would change the last sentence of the abstract to "In summary we uncover a feedback loop that enhances signalling during egress and links CDPK3 with several signalling pathways together."

Response:

In light of feedback received from several reviewers, we have made our wording less CDPK3 centric - as our findings relate in part to CDPK3 and, in a broader sense, to a Ca2+ driven feedback loop.

The genetic and biochemical analyses of the four PDEs are remarkable and highlight consistencies and inconsistencies with recently published work that would be important to discuss and will be of interest for the field.

__Response: __We thank reviewer#2 and agree that the PDE findings are of significant importance to the field.

While I understand the studied signalling pathway is complex, I think it would be important to better describe the current model of the authors. In the discussion, the authors indicate that "the published data is not currently supported by a model that fits most experimental results." I would suggest to clarify this statement and discuss whether their work helps to reunite, correct or improve previous models.

__Response: __We have expanded on the abovementioned statement to clarify that the presence of a feedback loop is a major pillar of knowledge required for the complete interpretation of existing signalling data.

Could the authors also speculate about a potential role of PDE/CDPK3 in host cell invasion as cAMP signalling has be shown to be important for this process (30208022 and 29030485)?

__Response: __Existing literature (Jia et al., 2017) suggests that perturbations to cAMP signalling play a very minor role in invasion since parasites where either ACα or ACβ are deleted show no impairment in invasion levels. We currently do not have substantial data on invasion, and are not sure that pursuing this is valuable given the minor phenotypes observed in other studies.

-State what audience might be interested in and influenced by the reported findings.

This paper is of great interest to groups working on the regulation of egress in Toxoplasma gondii and other related apicomplexan pathogens.

-Define your field of expertise with a few keywords to help the authors contextualize your point of view. Indicate if there are any parts of the paper that you do not have sufficient expertise to evaluate.

I am working on the cell biology of apicomplexan parasites.

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

**Summary:**

Dominicus et al aimed to identify the intersecting components of calcium, cyclic nucleotides (cAMP, cGMP) and lipid signaling through phosphoproteomic, knockout and biochemical assays in an intracellular parasite, Toxoplasma gondii, particularly when its acutely-infectious tachyzoite stage exits the host cells. A series of experimental strategies were applied to identify potential substrates of calcium-dependent protein kinase 3 (CDPK3), which has previously been reported to control the tachyzoite egress. According to earlier studies (PMID: 23226109, 24945436, 5418062, 26544049, 30402958), CDPK3 regulated the parasite exit through multiple phosphorylation events. Here, authors identified differentially-regulated (DR) phosphorylation sites by comparing the parasite samples after treatment with a calcium ionophore (A23178) and a PDE inhibitor (BIPPO), both of which are known to induce artificial egress (induced egress as opposed to natural egress). When the DCDPK3 mutant was treated with A23187, its delayed egress phenotype did not change, whereas BIPPO restored the egress to the level of the parental (termed as WT) strain, probably by activating PKG.

The gene ontology enrichment of the up-regulated clusters revealed many probable CDPK3-dependent DR sites involved in cyclic nucleotide signaling (PDE1, PDE2, PDE7, PDE9, guanylate and adenylate cyclases, cyclic nucleotide-binding protein or CNBP) as well as lipid signaling (PI-PLC, DGK1). Authors suggest lipid signaling as one of the factors altered in the CDPK3 mutant, albeit lipidomics (PC, PI, PS, PT, PA, PE, SM) showed no significant change in phospholipids. To reveal how the four PDEs indicated above contribute to the cAMP and cGMP-mediated egress, they examined their biological significance by knockout/knockdown and enzyme activity assays. Authors claim that PDE1,7,9 proteins are cGMP-specific while PDE2 is cAMP-specific, and BIPPO treatment can inhibit PDE1-cGMP and PDE7-cGMP, but not PDE9-cGMP. Given the complexity, the manuscript is well structured, and most experiments were carefully designed. Undoubtedly, there is a significant amount of work that underlies this manuscript; however, from a conceptual viewpoint, the manuscript does not offer significant advancement over the current knowledge without functional validation of phosphoproteomics data (see below). A large body of work preceding this manuscript has indicated the crosstalk of cAMP, cGMP, calcium and lipid signaling cascades. This work provides a further refinement of the existing model In a methodical sense, the work uses established assays, some of which require revisiting to reach robust conclusions and avoid misinterpretation. The article is quite interesting from a throughput screening point of view, but it clearly lacks the appropriate endorsement of the hits.The authors accept that identifying the phosphorylation of a protein does not imply a functional role, which is a major drawback as there is no experimental support for any phosphorylation site of the protein identified through phosphoproteomics. In terms of the mechanism, it is not clear whether and how lipid turnover and cAMP-PKA signaling control the egress phenotype (lack of a validated model at the end of this study).

Response:

We thank reviewer #3 for their comments, but respectfully disagree with their assessment that the work presented does not advance current knowledge.

1. We demonstrate that, following both BIPPO and A23187 treatment, there is differential phosphorylation of numerous components traditionally believed to sit upstream of PKG activation (as well as numerous components within the PKG signalling pathway itself). While it may have been inferred from previous studies that A23187 and BIPPO signalling intersect, this has never been unequivocally demonstrated - nor has a feedback loop ever been shown.

We provide a novel A23187-driven phosphoproteome timecourse that further bolsters the model of a Ca2+-driven feedback loop.

We show that deletion of CDPK3 leads to a delay in DAG production upon stimulation with A23187.

We show that some of the abovementioned sites are CDPK3 dependent, and that deletion of CDPK3 leads to elevated levels of cAMP (dysregulation of which is known to alter PKG signalling).

We show that pre-treatment with a PKA inhibitor is able to largely rescue this phenotype.

We demonstrate that a cAMP-specific PDE is phosphorylated following A23187 treatment (i.e. Ca2+ flux)

We show that this cAMP specific PDE plays a role in egress.

While the latter PDE may not be directly regulated by CDPK3, these findings suggest that there are likely several Ca2+-dependent kinases that contribute to this feedback loop.

We also firmly disagree with the reviewer’s assertion that without phosphosite characterisation, we have no support for our model. Following treatment with A23187 (and BIPPO), we clearly show broad, systemic changes (both CDPK3 dependent and independent) across signalling pathways previously deemed to sit upstream of calcium flux. Given the vast number of proteins involved in these signalling pathways, and the multitude of differentially regulated phosphosites identified on each of them, it is highly likely that the signalling effects we observe are combinatorial. Accordingly, we believe that mutating individual sites on individual proteins would be a very costly endeavour which is unlikely to substantially advance our understanding of signalling during egress. Moreover, introducing multiple point mutations in a given protein to ablate phosphorylation may lead to protein misfolding and would therefore not be informative. One of the key aims of this study was to assess how egress signalling pathways are interconnected, and we believe we have been able to show strong support for a Ca2+-driven feedback mechanism in which both CDPK3 and PDE2 play a role through the regulation of cAMP.

While we agree with the reviewer’s statement that a large body of work preceding this manuscript has indicated the crosstalk of cAMP, cGMP, calcium and lipid signalling cascades, a feedback loop has not previously been shown. We believe that this finding is absolutely central to facilitate the complete interpretation of existing signalling data. Furthermore, no previous studies have gone to this level of detail in either proteomics or lipidomics to analyse the calcium signal pathway in any apicomplexan parasite. We argue that the novelty in our manuscript is that it is a carefully orchestrated study that advances our understanding of the signalling network over time with subcellular precision. The kinetics of signalling is not well understood and we believe that our study is likely the first to include both proteomic and lipidomic analyses over a timecourse during the acute lytic cycle stage of the disease. In doing so, we found evidence for a feedback loop that controls the signalling network spatiotemporally, and we characterise elements of this feedback in the same study.

**Major Comments:**

Based on the findings reported here there is little doubt that BIPPO and A23187-induced signaling intersect with each other, as very much expected from previous studies. The authors selected the 50s and 15s post-treatment timing of A23187 and BIPPO, respectively for collecting phosphoproteomics samples. At these time points, which were shown to peak cytosolic Ca2+, parasites were still intracellular (Line #171). How did authors make sure to stimulate the entire signaling cascade adequately, particularly when parasites do not egress within the selected time window? There is significant variability between phosphosite intensities of replicates (Line #186), which may also be attributed to insufficient triggers for the egress across independent experiments. This work must be supported by in vitro egress assays with the chosen incubation periods of BIPPO and ionophore treatment (show the induced % egress of tachyzoites in the 50s and 15s).

Response:

1. We appreciate that the reviewer acknowledges that our data clearly shows that BIPPO and A23187-induced signalling intersect. While this may have been expected from previous studies, this has not previously been shown - and is therefore valuable to the field. Specifically, the fact that A23187-treatment leads to phosphorylation of targets normally deemed to sit upstream of calcium release is entirely novel and adds a substantial layer of information to our understanding of how these signalling pathways work together.

Treatments were purposely selected to align pathways to a point where calcium levels peak just prior to calcium reuptake. At these chosen timepoints, we clearly show that overall signalling correlation is very high. We know from our egress assays using identical treatment concentrations (Fig. 2C), that the stimulations used are sufficient to result in complete egress. We are simply comparing signalling pathways at points prior to egress.

As mentioned in point 2, we show convincingly that the treatments used are sufficient to trigger complete egress. As detailed clearly in the text, we believe that these variations in intensities between replicates are due to slight differences in timing between experiments (this is inevitable given the very rapid progression of signalling, and the difficulty of replicating exact sub-minute treatment timings). We demonstrate that the reporter intensities associated with DR sites correlate well across replicates (Supp Fig. 3C), suggesting that despite some replicate variability, the overall trends across replicates is very much consistent. This allows us to confidently average scores to provide values that are representative of a site’s phosphorylation state at the timepoint of interest.

The reviewer’s suggestion that we should demonstrate % egress at the 50s and 15s treatment timepoints is obsolete - we state clearly in the text that parasites have not egressed at these timepoints. Our egress assays (Fig. 2C) further support this.

The authors discuss that CDPK3 controls the cAMP level and PKA through activation of one or more yet-to-be-identified PDEs(s). cAMP could probably also be regulated by an adenylate cyclase, ACbeta that was found to have CDPK3-dependent phosphorylation sites. If CDPK3 is indeed a regulator of cAMP through the activation of PDEs or ACbeta, it would be expected that the deletion of CDPK3 would perturb the cAMP level, resulting in dysregulation of PKAc1 subunit, which in turn would dysregulate cGMP-specific PDEs (PMID: 29030485) and thereby PKG. All these connections need to explain in a more clear manner with experimental support (what is positive and what is negatively regulated by C____DPK3).

Response:

1. We do not firmly state that CDPK3 regulates cAMP by phosphorylation of a PDE - this is one of the possibilities addressed. We acknowledge the possibility that this could also be via the adenylate cyclase (see line 792).

PMID: 29030485 demonstrates clearly a link between cAMP signalling and PKG signalling, but does not demonstrate how this is mediated. The authors postulate that a cGMP-specific PDE is dysregulated given their observation that PDE2 is differentially phosphorylated in a constitutively inactive PKA mutant, however this was not validated experimentally. We and others (Moss et al., 2022), however, demonstrate that PDE2 is cAMP-specific. This suggests that the model built by PMID: 29030485 requires revisiting. We acknowledge clearly in the text that Jia et al. have shown a link between cAMP and PKG signalling, and hypothesise that CDPK3’s modulation of cAMP levels may affect this (this is in keeping with our phosphoproteomic data).

Moreover, the egress defect is not due to a low influx of calcium in the cytosol because when the ionophore A23187 was added to the CDPK3 mutant, its phenotype was not recovered. Rather, the defect may be due to the low or null activity of PKG that would activate PI4K to generate IP3 and DAG. The latter would be used as a substrate by DGK to generate PA that is involved in the secretion of micronemes and Toxoplasma egress. In this context, authors should evaluate the role of CDPK3 in the secretion of micronemes that is directly related to the egress of the parasite.

1. We agree with the reviewer on their point about calcium influx, and have already acknowledged in the text that the feedback loop does not control release of Ca2+ from internal stores as disruption of CDPK3 does not lead to a delay in Ca2+

We agree, and clearly address in the text, that the egress defect could be due to altered PKG/phospholipid pathway signalling.

(Lourido, Tang and David Sibley, 2012; McCoy et al., 2012) have both previously shown that microneme secretion is regulated by CDPK3. We therefore do not deem it necessary to repeat this experiment, but have made clearer mention of their findings in our writing.

When the Dcdpk3 mutant with BIPPO treatment was evaluated, it was observed that the parasite recovered the egress phenotype. It is concluded that CDPK3 could probably regulate the activity of cGMP-specific PDEs. CDPK3 could (in)activate them, or it could act on other proteins indirectly regulating the activity of these PDEs. Upon inactivation of PDEs, an increase in the cGMP level would activate PKG, which will, in turn, promote egress. From the data, it is not clear whether any phosphorylation by CDPK3 would activate or inactivate PDEs, and if so, then how (directly or indirectly). To reach unambiguous interpretation, authors should perform additional assays.

Response:

As mentioned previously, given the abundance of differentially regulated phosphosites, we do not believe that mutating individual sites on individual proteins is a worthwhile or realistic pursuit.

We clearly show systematic A23187-mediated phosphorylation of key signalling components in the PKA/PKG/PI-PLC/phospholipid signalling cascade, and demonstrate that several of these are CDPK3-dependent. We demonstrate that CDPK3 alters cAMP levels (and that the ∆CDPK3 egress delay in A23187 treated parasites is largely rescued following pre-treatment with a PKA inhibitor). We similarly demonstrate that A23187 treatment leads to phosphorylation of numerous PDEs, including the cAMP specific PDE2, and show that PDE2 knockout parasites show an egress delay following A23187 treatment. While PDE2 may not be directly regulated by CDPK3 (suggesting other Ca2+ kinases are also involved), these findings collectively demonstrate the existence of a calcium-regulated feedback loop, in which CDPK3 and PDE2 play a role (by regulating cAMP).

We acknowledge that we have not untangled every element of this feedback loop, and do not believe that it would be realistic to do so in a single study given the number of sites phosphorylated and pathways involved. We do believe, however, that we have shown clearly that the feedback loop exists - this in itself is entirely novel, and of significant importance to the field.

On a similar note, a possible experiment that can be done to improve the work would be to treat the CDPK3 mutant with BIPPO in conjunction with a calcium chelator (BAPTA-AM) to reveal, which proteins are phosphorylated prior to activation of the calcium-mediated cascades?

Response:

We agree that this would be an interesting experiment to carry out but would involve significant work. This could be pursued in another paper or project but is beyond the scope of this work.

The manuscript claims that PDE1, PDE7, PDE9 are cGMP specific, and BIPPO inhibits only cGMP-specific PDEs. All assays are performed with 1-10 micromolar cAMP and cGMP for 1h. There is no data showing the time, protein and substrate dependence. Given the suboptimal enzyme assays, authors should re-do them as suggested here. (1) Repeat the pulldown assay with a higher number of parasites (50-100 million) and measure the protein concentration. (2) Set up the PDE assay with saturating amount of cAMP and cGMP, which is critical if the PDE1,7,9 have a higher Km Value for cAMP (means lower affinity) compared to cGMP. An adequate amount of substrate and protein allows the reaction to reach the Vmax. Once you have re-determined the substrate specificity (revise Fig 5D), you should retest BIPPO (Fig 5E) in the presence of cAMP and cGMP. It is very likely that you would find the same result as PDE9 and PfPDEβ (BIPPO can inhibit both cAMP and cGMP-specific PDE), as described previously

We have repeated our assay using the exact same conditions outlined by Moss et al. This involved using a similar number of parasites, a longer incubation time of 2 hours at a higher temperature (37ºC) and with a lower starting concentration of cAMP (0.1 uM). We demonstrate that we are able to recapitulate both the Moss et al. and Vo et al. (see Supp Fig. 7B). However, we noticed that these reactions were not carried out with saturating cAMP/cGMP concentrations, since all reactions had reached 100% completion at the end of the assay whereby all substrate was hydrolysed. We therefore believe that based on our original assay, as well as the new PDE1 timecourse that we have performed (Supp Fig. 7C), that PDEs 1, 7 and 9 display predominantly cGMP hydrolysing activity, with moderate cAMP hydrolysing activity.

We also repeated the BIPPO inhibition assay using the Moss et al. conditions, and still observe that the cGMP activity of PDE1 is the most potently inhibited of all 4 PDEs. We also see moderate inhibition of the cAMP activities of PDE1 and PDE9, suggesting that cAMP hydrolytic activity can also be inhibited. Interestingly, the cGMP hydrolytic activities of PDEs 7 & 9, which were previously inhibited using our original assay conditions, no longer appear to be inhibited. This is likely due to the longer incubation time, which masks the reduced activities of these two PDEs following treatment with BIPPO.

The authors did not identify any PKG substrate, which is quite surprising as cAMP signaling itself could impact cGMP. Authors should show if they were able to observe enhanced cGMP levels in BIPPO-treated sample (which is expected to stimulate cGMP-specific PDEs). The author mention their inability to measure cGMP level but have they analyzed cGMP in the positive control (BIPPO-treated parasite line)? Why have they focused only on CDPK3 mutant, whereas in their phosphoproteomic data they could see other CDPKs too? It could be that other CDPK-mediated signaling differs and need PKA/PKG for activation.

In the title, the authors have mentioned that there is a positive feedback loop between calcium release, cyclic nucleotide and lipid signaling, which is quite an extrapolation as there is no clear experimental data supporting such a positive feedback loop so the author should change the title of the paper.

Response:

1. As addressed in our previous response to the reviewer, PMID: 29030485 demonstrates clearly a link between cAMP signalling and PKG signalling, but does not confirm how this is mediated. The authors surmise that a cGMP-specific PDE is dysregulated (although the PDE hypothesised to be involved has since been shown to be cAMP-specific), but are similarly unable to detect changes in cGMP levels. This suggests that their model may be incomplete.

The BIPPO treatment experiment suggested by the reviewer was already included in the original manuscript (see Fig. 4D in original manuscript, now Fig. 4E). With BIPPO treatment we are able to detect changes in cGMP levels.

We did not deem it to be within the scope of this study to study every single other CDPK. We chose to study CDPK3, as its egress phenotype was of particular interest given its partial rescue following BIPPO treatment. We reasoned that its study may lead us to identify the signalling pathway that links BIPPO and A23187 induced signalling.

As addressed in greater detail in our response to reviewer #2, the fact that the feedback loop appears to stimulate egress implies that it is positive.

**Minor Comments:**

Materials & Methods

Explanation of parameters is not clear (Line #360-367). Phosphoproteomics with A23187 (8 micromolar) treatment in CDPK3-KO and WT, for 15, 30 and 60s at 37{degree sign}C incubation with DMSO control. Simultaneously passing the DR and CDPK3 dependency thresholds: CDPK3-dependent phosphorylation

__Response: __We have modified the wording to make this clearer as per the reviewer’s suggestion.

Line #368: At which WT-A23187 timepoint did the authors identify 2408 DR-up phosphosites (15s, 30s or 60s)? Or consistently in all? It should be clarified?

__Response: __As already stated in the manuscript (see line 366 in original manuscript, now line 1047), phosphorylation sites were considered differentially regulated if at any given timepoint their log2FC surpassed the DR threshold.

A23187 treatment of the CDPK3-KO mutant significantly increased the cAMP levels at 5 sec post-treatment, but BIPPO did not show any change. The authors concluded that BIPPO presumably does not inhibit cAMP-specific PDEs. However, the dual-specific PDEs are known to be inhibited by BIPPO, as shown recently (____https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.21.461320v1____). Authors do confirm that BIPPO-treatment can inhibit hydrolytic activity of PfPDEbeta for cAMP as well as cGMP (Line #612). Besides, it was shown in Fig 5E that BIPPO can partially though not significantly block cAMP-specific PDE2. The statements and data conflict each other under different subtitles and need to be reconciled. Elevation of basal cAMP level in the CDPK3 mutant indicates the perturbation of cAMP signaling, however BIPPO data requires additional supportive experiments to conclude its relation with cAMP or dual-specific PDE.

Response:

1. The manuscript to which the reviewer refers does not use BIPPO in any of their experiments. They show that continuous treatment with zaprinast blocks parasite growth in a plaque assay, but do not test whether zaprinast specifically blocks the activity of any of the PDEs.

Having repeated the PDE assay using the Moss et al. conditions (as outlined above), we are now able to recapitulate their findings, showing that PDEs 1, 7 and 9 can display dual hydrolytic activity while PDE2 is cAMP specific. As explained further above, we believe that our original set of experiments are more stringent than the Moss *et al. * To confirm this, we also performed an additional experiment, incubating PDE1 for varying amounts of time using our original conditions (1 uM cAMP or 10 uM cGMP, at room temperature). This revealed that PDE1 is much more efficient at hydrolysing cGMP, and only begins to display cAMP hydrolysing capacity after 4 hours of incubation.

We also measured the inhibitory capacity of BIPPO on the PDEs using the Moss *et al. * During the longer incubation time, it seems that BIPPO is unable to inhibit PDEs 7 and 9, while with the more stringent conditions it was able to inhibit both PDEs. We reasoned that since BIPPO is unable to inhibit these PDEs fully, the residual activity over the longer incubation period would compensate for the inhibition, eventually leading to 100% hydrolysis of the cNMPs. We also see that while the cGMP hydrolysing capacity of PDE1 is completely inhibited, its cAMP hydrolysing capacity is only partially inhibited. These findings and the fact that PDE2 is not inhibited by BIPPO are in line with our experiments where we measured [cAMP] and showed that treatment with BIPPO did not lead to alterations in [cAMP].

The method used to determine the substrate specificity of PDE 1,2,7 and 9 resulted in the hydrolytic activity of PDE2 towards cAMP, while the remaining 3 were determined as cGMP-specific. However, PDE1 and PDE9 have been reported as being dual-specific (Moss et al, 2021; Vo et al, 2020), which questions the reliability of the preferred method to characterize substrate specificity by the authors. It is also suggested to use another ELISA-based kit to double check the results.

Response:

As outlined above, we have repeated the assay using the conditions described by Moss et al. (lower starting concentrations of cAMP, 2 hour incubation period at 37ºC) and find that we are able to recapitulate the results of both Moss et al. and Vo et al.. However, using the Moss et al. conditions, the PDEs have hydrolysed 100% of the cyclic nucleotide, suggesting that these conditions are less stringent than the ones we used originally using higher starting concentrations of cAMP and incubating for 1 hour only at room temperature. With enzymatic assays it is always important to perform them at saturating conditions (as already suggested by the reviewer) and therefore we believe that our original conditions are more stringent than the results using the Moss et al. conditions.

Line #607-608: Authors found PDE9 less sensitive to BIPPO-treatment and concluded PDE2 as refractory to BIPPO inhibition; however, the reduction level of activity seems similar as seen in PDE9-BIPPO treated sample? This strong statement should be replaced with a mild explanation.

__Response: __We have tempered our wording as per the reviewer’s suggestion

Figures and legends:

The introductory model in Fig S1 is difficult to understand and ambiguous despite having it discussed in the text. For example, CDPK1 is placed, but only mentioned at the beginning, and the role of other CDPKs is not clear. In addition, the arrows in IP3 and PKG are confusing. The location of guanylate and adenylate cyclase is wrong, and so on... The figure should include only the egress-related signaling components to curate it. The illustration of host cell in orange color must be at the right side of the figure in connection with the apical pole of the parasite (not on the top). Figure legend should also be rearranged accordingly and citations of the underlying components should be included (see below).

__Response: __We have modified Supp Fig. 1 as per the suggestions of reviewer#2 and #3. We have now modified the localisations of the proteins and have also removed the lines showing the cross talk between pathways. We have also highlighted to the reader that this is only a model and may not represent the true localisations of the proteins, despite our best efforts.

In Figure 5D, would you please provide the western blot analysis of samples before and after pulling down to demonstrate the success of your immunoprecipitation assay. Mention the protein concentration in your PDE enzyme assay. Please refer to the M&M comments above to re-do the enzyme assays.

Response:

We have now included western blots for the pull downs of PDEs 1, 2, 7 and 9 (Supp Fig. 7A). We chose not to measure protein concentrations of samples since all experiments were performed using the same starting parasite numbers, and we do not see large differences in activities between biological replicates of the PDEs.

Figure legend 1C: Line #194: There is no red-dotted line shown in graph! Correct it!

__Response: __We have modified this.

Figure 4Gi-ii: Shouldn't it be labelled i: H89-treatment and ii: A23178, respectively instead of DMSO and H89? (based on the text Line #579).

__Response: __Our labelling of Fig. 4Gi-ii is correct as panel i parasites were pre-treated with DMSO, while panel ii parasites were pre-treated with H89. Subsequent egress assays on both parasites were then performed using A23187.

We have modified the figures to include mention of A23187 on the X axis, and modified the figure legend to clarify pre-treatment was performed with DMSO and H89 respectively.

Bibliography:

Line #57 and 58: Citations must be selected properly! Carruthers and Sibley 1999 revealed the impact of Ca2+ on the microneme secretion within the context of host cell attachment and invasion, not egress as indicated in the manuscript! Similar case is also valid for the reference Wiersma et al 2004; since the roles of cyclic nucleotides were suggested for motility and invasion. Also notable in the fact that several citations describing the localization, regulation and physiological importance of cAMP and cGMP signaling mediators (PMID: 30449726 , 31235476 , 30992368 , 32191852 , 25555060 , 29030485 ) are either completely omitted or not appropriately cited in the introduction and discussion sections.

Response:

We have modified the citations as per the reviewer’s suggestions. We now cite Endo et al., 1987 for the first use of A23187 as an egress trigger, and Lourido, Tang and David Sibley, 2012 for the role of cGMP signalling in egress. We also cite all the GC papers when we make first mention of the GC. We have also removed the Howard et al., 2015 citation (PMID: 25555060) when referring to the fact that BIPPO/zaprinast can rescue the egress delay of ∆CDPK3 parasites.

Grammar/Language

Line #31: After "cAMP levels" use comma

Response:

We have modified this.

36: Sentence is not clear. Does conditional deletion of all four PDEs support their important roles? If so, the role in egress of the parasite?

Response:

We have clarified our wording as per the reviewer’s suggestion. We state that PDEs 1 and 2 display an important role in growth since deletion of either these PDEs leads to reduced plaque growth. We have not investigated exactly what stage of the lytic cycle this is.

40: "is a group involving" instead of "are"

Response:

We found no mention of “a group involving” in our original manuscript at line 40 or anywhere else in the manuscript, so we are unsure what the reviewer is referring to.

108: isn't it "discharge of Ca++ from organelle stores to cytosol"?

__Response: __We thank the reviewer for spotting this error. We have now modified this sentence.

120: "was" instead of "were"

__Response: __Since the situation we are referencing is hypothetical, then ‘were’ is the correct tense.

Reviewer #3 (Significance (Required)):

There is a significant amount of work that underlies this manuscript; however, from a conceptual viewpoint, the manuscript does not offer significant advancement over the current knowledge without functional validation of phosphoproteomics data. In terms of the mechanism, it is not clear whether and how lipid turnover and cAMP-PKA signaling control the egress phenotype (lack of a validated model at the end of this study).In a methodical sense, the work uses established assays, some of which require revisiting to reach robust conclusions and avoid misinterpretation.

Compare to existing published knowledge

A large body of work preceding this manuscript has indicated the crosstalk of cAMP, cGMP, calcium and lipid signaling cascades. This work provides a further refinement of the existing model. The article is quite interesting from a throughput screening point of view, but it clearly lacks the appropriate endorsement of the hits.

Response:

Please refer to our first response to reviewer #3 for our full rebuttal to these points. We respectfully disagree with the assessment that the work presented does not advance current knowledge.

Audience

Field specific (Apicomplexan Parasitology)

Expertise

Molecular Parasitology

References

Bailey, A. P. et al. (2015) ‘Antioxidant Role for Lipid Droplets in a Stem Cell Niche of Drosophila’, Cell. The Authors, 163(2), pp. 340–353. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.09.020.

Bullen, H. E. et al. (2016) ‘Phosphatidic Acid-Mediated Signaling Regulates Microneme Secretion in Toxoplasma Article Phosphatidic Acid-Mediated Signaling Regulates Microneme Secretion in Toxoplasma’, Cell Host & Microbe, pp. 349–360. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2016.02.006.

Dass, S. et al. (2021) ‘Toxoplasma LIPIN is essential in channeling host lipid fluxes through membrane biogenesis and lipid storage’, Nature Communications. Springer US, 12(1). doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-22956-w.

Endo, T. et al. (1987) ‘Effects of Extracellular Potassium on Acid Release and Motility Initiation in Toxoplasma gondii’, The Journal of Protozoology, 34(3), pp. 291–295. doi: 10.1111/j.1550-7408.1987.tb03177.x.

Flueck, C. et al. (2019) Phosphodiesterase beta is the master regulator of camp signalling during malaria parasite invasion, PLoS Biology. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000154.

Howard, B. L. et al. (2015) ‘Identification of potent phosphodiesterase inhibitors that demonstrate cyclic nucleotide-dependent functions in apicomplexan parasites’, ACS Chemical Biology, 10(4), pp. 1145–1154. doi: 10.1021/cb501004q.

Jia, Y. et al. (2017) ‘ Crosstalk between PKA and PKG controls pH ‐dependent host cell egress of Toxoplasma gondii ’, The EMBO Journal, 36(21), pp. 3250–3267. doi: 10.15252/embj.201796794.

Katris, N. J. et al. (2020) ‘Rapid kinetics of lipid second messengers controlled by a cGMP signalling network coordinates apical complex functions in Toxoplasma tachyzoites’, bioRxiv. doi: 10.1101/2020.06.19.160341.

Lentini, J. M. et al. (2020) ‘DALRD3 encodes a protein mutated in epileptic encephalopathy that targets arginine tRNAs for 3-methylcytosine modification’, Nature Communications. Springer US, 11(1). doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-16321-6.

Lourido, S., Tang, K. and David Sibley, L. (2012) ‘Distinct signalling pathways control Toxoplasma egress and host-cell invasion’, EMBO Journal. Nature Publishing Group, 31(24), pp. 4524–4534. doi: 10.1038/emboj.2012.299.

Lunghi, M. et al. (2022) ‘Pantothenate biosynthesis is critical for chronic infection by the neurotropic parasite Toxoplasma gondii’, Nature Communications. Springer US, 13(1). doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-27996-4.

McCoy, J. M. et al. (2012) ‘TgCDPK3 Regulates Calcium-Dependent Egress of Toxoplasma gondii from Host Cells’, PLoS Pathogens, 8(12). doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1003066.

Moss, W. J. et al. (2022) ‘Functional Analysis of the Expanded Phosphodiesterase Gene Family in Toxoplasma gondii Tachyzoites’, mSphere. American Society for Microbiology, 7(1). doi: 10.1128/msphere.00793-21.

Stewart, R. J. et al. (2017) ‘Analysis of Ca2+ mediated signaling regulating Toxoplasma infectivity reveals complex relationships between key molecules’, Cellular Microbiology, 19(4). doi: 10.1111/cmi.12685.

Vo, K. C. et al. (2020) ‘The protozoan parasite Toxoplasma gondii encodes a gamut of phosphodiesterases during its lytic cycle in human cells’, Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal. The Author(s), 18, pp. 3861–3876. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2020.11.024.