Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors reported Microscopic PhotoSelection (MiPS), a closed-loop automated robotic platform designed to link time-resolved imaging with physical sample recovery in mother machine microfluidic devices. By pairing a standard mother machine layout with a custom DMD optical path, an LED array, and an optimized DeLTA deep-learning model, the system tracks dynamic single-cell phenotypes and isolates specific cells via automated, targeted phototoxicity, i.e. selection by elimination. This is a novel technical development that addresses a clear limitation of snapshot sorting methods like FACS or MACS when screening for time-resolved, lineage-dependent traits. However, several methodological limitations and presentation errors must be addressed before publication.

Major Comments:

(1) Definition of 'Optimal' Dose (Figure 2D): The authors identify 8.0 W*cm-2 UV light for 300s as the optimal condition. However, this data point lies at the absolute boundary of the tested parameter space. In classical dose-response characterization, an optimum is defined by a local peak or a plateau followed by a decline in performance (typically due to rising off-target toxicity or scatter). Because the performance curve has not rolled over, this represents a boundary condition rather than a demonstrated mathematical optimum. The authors should either extend the parameter sweep to locate the true peak or soften their language to reflect that this is simply the highest performing condition tested.

(2) UV Exposure Time Gap: The exposure time sweep skips directly from 60s to 300s. While the closely spaced early timepoints are appropriate for capturing initial cell-death kinetics, the large gap to 300s leaves a significant engineering blind spot. Figure 3D demonstrates that off-target scattering damage scales linearly with cumulative light energy. If complete target cell arrest can be achieved at an intermediate exposure (e.g., 120s, 180s or 240s), operating the system at 300s unnecessarily subjects neighboring "surviving" cells to secondary global UV stress via device-wide scattering. An intermediate temporal sweep is recommended to optimize the selection window and properly balance target lethality with background library viability.

(3) Baseline Chemical Toxicity of Methylene Blue (MB): The photosensitizer workflow shows a clear improvement in contrast at lower power densities and exposure times. However, lines 151-153 note that the addition of 2 uM MB alone, even without light activation, stunts the baseline bacterial growth rate by ~40%. This is a major biological confounder. For applications like directed evolution or dynamic physiological screening, introducing a chemical stressor that nearly halves fitness imposes an unintended selective pressure. This baseline stress may activate pathways that mask or alter the phenotypes of interest. The authors must expand their discussion on how this baseline toxicity impacts multi-round iterative selections, and should ideally evaluate lower concentrations (e.g., 0.5uM or 1uM) or alternative photosensitizers to identify a more viable operational window.

(4) Negative Selection Framework and Search Space Scale: The MiPS platform relies entirely on negative selection by destroying unwanted variants. While effective for the demonstrated 1:1 binary proof-of-concept mixture, negative selection scales poorly when screening for rare variants within large libraries. For instance, isolating a single high performer from a library of 105 cells requires the system to successfully target and kill 99,999 individual cells; any statistical leak or failure in killing efficiency directly leads to heavy contamination of the recovered sample. The Discussion section requires a quantitative evaluation of these search space constraints, outlining how they limit the system's utility compared to positive selection mechanisms (such as optical tweezers or droplet sorters) when scaling to rare mutations (<1 in 104).

Significance:

This study presents a significant methodological advance in single-cell analysis and microfluidics by integrating long-term live-cell imaging, automated image analysis, and phenotype-guided cell recovery into a closed-loop platform. Existing approaches such as FACS and MACS are largely limited to endpoint or snapshot measurements, whereas MiPS enables selection based on dynamic and lineage-dependent cellular behaviors, thereby addressing an important gap in current single-cell screening technologies.

A key strength is the effective integration of mother machine microfluidics, custom optics, and deep-learning-based tracking into an automated and functional system. While the individual components are established, their combination into a phenotype-driven selection platform is innovative and expands the utility of live-cell microscopy from passive observation to active cell selection. The advance is therefore primarily methodological and technological, with potential to enable future conceptual discoveries in cellular heterogeneity and lineage dynamics.

However, limitations remain regarding scalability, robustness, selection accuracy, and generalizability across biological systems. Additional benchmarking and validation would strengthen the work further.

Overall, the study will be of interest to researchers in microfluidics, single-cell biology, microbial systems biology, bioengineering, quantitative imaging, and synthetic biology.

My expertise is in microfluidics, cell sorting and disease mechanobiology.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors provide a comprehensive description of the neurosecretory network in the adult Drosophila brain. They assigned and verified the types of neurosecretory cells (NSCs) found in three publicly available drosophila brain connectomes. They then describe the organization of synaptic inputs and outputs for across NSC types. They show that NSCs are regulated by multiple sensory modalities, including enteric neurons. The authors then focus on a concise pathway from corazonin-expressing NSCs to a set of descending neurons, DNg27 and demonstrate that this pathway has the capacity to regulate egg-laying in female flies. Leveraging existing transcriptomic data, they also describe the hormone and receptor expressions in the NSCs and show putative paracrine signaling between NSCs. Taken together, this study provides a framework for future functional experiments, which may demonstrate whether and how NSCs, and the circuits to which they belong, shape physiological function and behavior.

Strengths:

This study uses three Drosophila brain connectomes to assign cell types to ten classes of neurosecretory cells (NSCs), based on clustering of synaptic connectivity and morphological features. The authors then verify type assignments for selected populations by matching cluster sizes to anatomical localization and cell counts using immunohistochemistry of neuropeptide expression and markers with known co-expression.

The authors compare their findings to previous work describing the synaptic connectivity of the neurosecretory network in larval Drosophila (Huckesfeld et al., 2021), finding that there are some differences between these developmental stages. Direct comparisons between adult and larvae are made possible through direct comparison in Table 1, as well as the authors' choice to adopt similar (or equivalent) analyses and data visualizations in the present paper's figures.

The authors extract core themes in NSC synaptic connectivity and generate predictions regarding sensory inputs and downstream physiological and behavioral functions. They test one newly identified NSC-premotor pathway, from corazonin-expressing NSCs to the descending neuron DNg27, with loss-of-function experiments and demonstrate that this pathway has the capacity to regulate female egg-laying.

The authors illustrate expression patterns of neuropeptides and receptors across NSC cell types from existing transcriptomic data and present a putative paracrine signaling network among NSCs. The authors also catalog hormone receptor expression across tissues.

Taken together, this study provides a comprehensive account of the neurosecretory system of the adult fly.

Weaknesses:

In Figure 6 authors use a linear dynamical modeling approach (described in Bates et al. 2026) to quantify the influence of different sensory source neuron types on the different NSC classes. The authors should discuss the two main assumptions baked into this approach: 1) all path segments (connections) from sources to targets are given the same sign and therefore result in activation, despite likely biological variation in their synaptic valences. 2) Each connection is given the same time constant for the response kinetics. Therefore, the model assumes uniform intrinsic "biophysical" properties.

Although the actual intrinsic properties (e.g. complements of voltage-gated ion channels) of the intermediate and target neurons are unknown, they are likely heterogenous. Such heterogeneity would have consequences on the steady-state responses. Thus, the response magnitudes measured in this model are unlikely to provide an accurate representation of feedforward "influences" in this circuit.

Although the intrinsic properties of all nodes in these paths will remain unknown in the absence of electrophysiological recordings, one could still consider the signs of connections using neurotransmitter predictions in the connectome (Eckstein et al. 2024). It would then be useful to compare the relative influences calculated with the Bates et al. approach to 1) simple weight propagation methods which are agnostic to time (as in Hoeller et al. 2026; doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.22.696097) and 2) this Bates et al. approach and weight propagation methods that conserve the signs of the connections.

In Figure 8 and associated supplements, the authors probe the function of CRZ-expressing NSCs > DNg27 pathways in female and male flies. Although the authors test the effects of silencing both CRZ-expressing cells and DNg27 on feeding, egg-laying, and flight behaviors in females. They recapitulate a previous finding that CRZ-expressing cells regulate feeding behavior and then identify potential regulatory roles for this pathway in egg-laying. However, the authors did not test this full palette of behaviors in males. The authors do not test feeding or flight behaviors in males. They do, however, confirm previously reported activation phenotypes (copulation-like behaviors), via optogenetic activation of CRZ-expressing cells in males. These experiments would be more ethological if executed in freely walking male flies, rather than males that were glued, on their backs. It is unclear why the authors did not also test for activation or loss-of-function phenotypes for DNg27 in males. Taken together: the authors show compelling loss-of-function phenotypes for feeding and egg-laying for the CRZ-expressing NSC > DNg27 pathway in females, but evaluation in males remains incomplete.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The results in Ke et al., build on 15 years of work focused on dissecting the pairing properties of the Drosophila Homie insulator. Here, the authors use similar methods to those shown in Fujioka et al., 2016, Ke et al., 2024, and Fujioka et al., 2025, but with a focus on nHomie pairing and the role of Su(Hw) in both Homie and nHomie long-range interactions. The main question the authors hope to address is what the mechanisms are behind the physical interactions involved in boundary:boundary pairing. They attempt to answer this question through mutating the Su(Hw) binding sites located within the nHomie and Homie transgenic sequences and observing how pairing is altered.

The work presented is thorough and thought out; however, some of the conclusions that the authors focus on are not what makes the work interesting and could be reprioritized. For example, the authors spend several paragraphs in the discussion (lines 531-595) addressing how the data presented does not support an argument for cohesion-mediated loop extrusion. While the interactions shown throughout the manuscript do not support cohesion-mediated loop extrusion occurring at the Homie locus, the authors have already made this point in both Bing et al., 2024 and Ke et al., 2024 and thus do not need to expound on this point.

Instead, the authors have a more compelling story in their specificity vs promiscuity arguments. Homie is a unique insulator in Drosophila and even when located 142kb away will still find its unique pairing partners (itself and nHomie). The authors have shown this several times prior, yet here they show that some level of this long-distance homing interaction is dependent upon the Su(Hw) binding site. Additionally, the authors show in this study that addition of gypsy sequence, in a less demanding assay, is sufficient for transvection pairing with Homie. This transvection result is a novel finding, as gypsy was previously shown to be insufficient for long-distance pairing with Homie based on the authors' prior studies. It is likely different architectural proteins that bind within the Homie sequence and allow it to pair specifically with itself, regardless of assay type, and these elements are likely absent from the gypsy sequence, leading to pairing that is more situational (see point 8 in recommendations).

Finally, to no fault of the authors, the art of visualizing complex 3D pairing configurations is difficult. Unfortunately, that can at times mask the ultimate points that the authors are trying to make about pairing early in the manuscript.

Overall, the work mainly supports the authors' claims, and the findings are a useful addition to the insulator and Drosophila 3D genome organization field.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors showed that the high susceptibility to CLP sepsis of Kit-mutant mice is not due to mast cell deficiency, but to dysbiosis.

Recommendations:

(1) The authors showed that E. coli increases in the cecum of Kit-mutant mice, which causes high CLP susceptibility. However, they did not provide any evidence E. coli is responsible for the high susceptibility. In the Figure 3 experiments, the authors administered the same number of cecal bacteria and did not show the number of E. coli after the administration. The authors should provide evidence showing that depletion of E. coli decreases susceptibility.

(2) The author should provide direct evidence of dysbiosis by, for example, shotgun sequencing of cecal and fecal contents.

(3) In case the authors find dysbiosis, they should analyze the mechanisms by which Kit mutation causes dysbiosis.

Comments on revised version.

The revised manuscript focuses on refuting the notion that mast cells play important roles in sepsis. The reviewer agrees with this claim.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Recently, the off-target activity of antibiotics on human mitoribosome has been paid more attention in the mitochondrial field. Hafner et al applied mitoribosome profiling to study the effect of antibiotics on protein translation in mitochondria as there are similarities between bacterial ribosome and mitoribosome. The authors conclude that some antibiotics act on mitochondrial translation initiation by the same mechanism as in bacteria. On the other hand, the authors showed that chloramphenicol, linezolid and telithromycin trap mitochondrial translation in a context-dependent manner. More interesting, during deep analysis of 5' end of ORF, the authors reported the alternative start codon for ND1 and ND5 proteins instead of previously known one. This is a novel finding in the field and it also provide another application of the technique to further study on mitochondrial translation.

Strengths:

This is the first study which applied mitoribosome profiling method to analyze multiple antibiotics treatment cells. The mitoribosome profiling method had been optimized carefully and has been suggested to be a novel method to study translation events in mitochondria. The manuscript is constructive and well-written.

Comments on revisions:

The authors added a discussion to the revised manuscript, and also carefully investigate structural data from others. I have no more comment. Congratulations to the team for a good manuscript!

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The mechanisms governing autophagic membrane expansion remain incompletely understood. ATG2 is known to function as a lipid transfer protein critical for this process; however, how ATG2 is coordinated with the broader autophagic machinery and endomembrane systems has remained elusive. In this study, the authors employ an elegant proximity labeling approach and identify two ER-Golgi intermediate compartment (ERGIC)-localized proteins-Rab1 and ARFGAP1-as novel regulators of ATG2 during autophagic membrane expansion.

Their findings support a model in which autophagosome formation occurs within a specialized subdomain of the ER that is enriched in both ER exit sites (ERES) and ERGIC, providing valuable mechanistic insight. The overall study is well executed and offers an important contribution to our understanding of autophagy. I support its publication in eLife and offer the following minor comments for clarification and improvement.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In the manuscript, "An IL-21R hypomorph circumvents functional redundancy to define STAT1 signaling in germinal center responses," Cecile King and colleagues identify a cytoplasmic site of the IL-21 receptor that differentially regulates STAT1 and STAT3 activation upon IL-21 stimulation. They further examine the immunological consequences of this site-specific alteration on Tfh differentiation and Tfh-dependent humoral immunity, raising important questions about how gene-knockout models may obscure nuanced functional roles of signaling molecules.

Strengths:

The study convincingly highlights a non-redundant role for STAT1 downstream of IL-21-IL-21R signaling in the Tfh differentiation pathway. This conclusion is supported by in vitro analyses of STAT1 and STAT3 activation in CD4 T cells stimulated with IL-21 or IL-6; by in vivo assessments of Tfh and germinal center B cell responses in WT and IL21R-EINS mutant mice, including bone-marrow chimera systems; and by investigating the expression of Tfh-related molecules in WT versus IL21R-EINS CD4 T cells.

Weaknesses:

Although the experiments were carefully executed with appropriate controls, a key question remains unresolved: whether the Tfh differentiation defect in IL21R-EINS mice is directly attributable to reduced STAT1 activation. Rescue experiments that restore STAT1 signaling in IL21R-EINS TCR-transgenic CD4 T cells would provide strong evidence linking the mutation to impaired STAT1 activation and, consequently, defective Tfh differentiation. Without such evidence, it remains formally possible that additional, uncharacterized mutations introduced during ENU mutagenesis contribute to the phenotypes observed, particularly given the discrepancies between IL21R knockout and IL21R-EINS mutant mice.

Comments on revised version.

The revised manuscript failed to address the key question, whether the Tfh differentiation defect in IL21R-EINS mice results from the reduced STAT1 activation in CD4 T cells.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This manuscript investigates the role of SOX17 in the formation and function of the Sertoli valve (SV) at the interface between seminiferous tubules and the rete testis (RT). Building on previous work showing that rete testis-specific deletion of Sox17 disrupts SV formation, leading to defective spermiogenesis and male infertility, the authors explore how SOX17 overexpression in Sertoli cells regulate SV of rodent testes.

Using transgenic mouse models with ectopic Sox17 expression in Sertoli cells, the study demonstrates that SOX17 is not only required but can also modulate SV formation. Ectopic expression in Sertoli cells induces expansion of the SV structure and partially rescues SV defects and spermatogenesis in RT-specific Sox17 conditional knockout animals. The data support a model in which SOX17 acts through paracrine signaling to regulate SV formation, although the precise mechanisms remain to be clarified.

Overall, this is a well-executed study with novel and significant findings. The ability to experimentally manipulate SV size is particularly compelling and provides a valuable framework to study fluid dynamics and epithelial interactions in the testis. This work will be of broad interest to the reproductive biology and developmental biology communities.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The study by Milton et al titled "Human CD1c-autoreactive T cells recognise Mycobacterium tuberculosis-infected antigen-presenting cells and display cytotoxic effector programmes" characterises CD1c-restricted autoreactive T cells and their potential role in controlling Mtb infection. The authors develop a well-controlled system to assay for the functioning/activation of autoreactive T cells. They report the presence of CD1c-restricted autoreactive T cells in the circulating blood of healthy donors. They show that these T cells respond to CD1c and get activated even in the absence of any exogenous antigen. They next show that CD1c, along with CD1a and b, are typically downregulated on APCs during Mtb infection. These autoreactive T cells are cytotoxic, indicating they respond to Mtb treatment and/or to changes in the T cell ratio. The autoreactive T cells could effectively lyse Mtb-infected or PAMP-stimulated CD1c+APCs. Next, using TCR sequencing, they show that T cell responses were mediated by specific TCR clones with common sequence features. They show that these autoreactive T cells could curtail Mtb growth as measured by luminescence. Finally, using scRNAseq, they selectively identify the CD1c-reactive T cell pool and detect enrichment of typical effector memory CD4 and CD8 cells expressing cytolytic markers such as Granzyme, granulolysin, etc. The lung biopsy staining, along with the other data presented here, suggests that while CD1c-restricted T cells could have potential anti-bacterial roles, Mtb downregulation effectively shuts down this mechanism for TB control.

Strengths:

The study is designed well and has developed many exciting tools to generate specific information.

Weaknesses:

The revised manuscript addresses many concerns, but one section remains weak. The efficiency of these CD1c-restricted T cells in controlling TB remains very limited. The only result that addresses the bacterial control through this mechanism is Fig. 6C, which shows a very modest impact. Even THP1-KO cells show a decline in CFU when cultured with autoreactive CD1c-autoreactive T cells, and the further dip in THP1 CD1c cells is very minimal.

Another issue left unaddressed is the cytolytic response on Mtb-infected cells. How efficient are lytic responses in controlling Mtb infection? Usually, bacteria can emerge from lysed cells and divide extracellularly. How would one show this mechanism in vivo?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Schwarze et al. investigated whether synaptic efficacy is brain-region specific. To this end, they compared synaptic connections established by layer 5 (L5) neocortical pyramidal cells and between L5 and L2/3 pyramidal cells. In order to identify the mechanism of this brain region specificity, the authors employed several experimental approaches, including paired electrophysiological recordings, extracellular stimulation, low- and high-affinity intracellular calcium chelators (EGTA and BAPTA), multiple probability fluctuation analysis (MPFA), and intracellular measurements of calcium transients as well as computational modelling. The findings of the present study indicate that synaptic connections in the primary somatosensory cortex (S1) are significantly stronger and more reliable than those in the prefrontal cortex (PFC).

The study is timely and the topic is of significant interest to the neuroscience community. Despite the extensive research that has been carried out on the neuroanatomy and receptor distribution of different brain regions, comparatively little attention has been paid to differences in synaptic physiology. The authors' approach is characterised by its elegance and comprehensive nature, and the conclusions drawn are compelling.

Comments on revised manuscript:

I have no further issues with the present version of the manuscript. All my concerns and/or recommendations were satisfactorily addressed.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This study uses comparative phylogenetic methods to examine the evolution of male and female antagonistic traits in a group of small water striders. Water striders have long been a model system for studies into the sexual conflict that arises through anisogamy, the differential investment in gametes by males and females. Here, the authors aimed to reveal the evolutionary rates and trajectories of male grasping and female anti-grasping traits across species of the minute water-strider subgenus Pseudovelia. This was done by combining multiple genomic techniques to generate phylogenies to test trait evolution, quantify rates of evolution, and identify instances of incomplete lineage sorting (a result of rapid diversification) and introgression (the result of interbreeding between genetically different populations/species).

Strengths:

The strengths of this study lie in its comparative macroevolutionary framework, in particular the generation of multiple phylogenetic hypotheses using different methods (mitochondrial genes, USCOs, and SNPs), and contrasting these to glean insights into evolutionary patterns across species.

Weaknesses:

The main weakness of the study is the lack of underlying experimental evidence to explicitly show the grasping and anti-grasping functions of the various male and female traits, relying instead on studies of similar structures in more distantly related taxa. Without explicitly showing the functional mechanisms and reproductive costs of these traits, the resulting interpretations are wholly speculative. However, I would argue that such macroevolutionary studies are still very useful, and provide the groundwork for future studies untangling the relative roles of sexual conflict, cryptic female choice, sperm competition and reproductive interference in trait evolution and ultimately in speciation.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Raghavan and his colleagues sought to identify cis-acting elements and/or protein factors that limit meiotic crossover at chromosome ends. This limitation is important for avoiding chromosome rearrangements and preventing chromosome mis-segregation.

By comparing protein axis recruitment in SK1 and S288C background, which differ in their number and distribution of Y' elements, the authors show that Y' element have a limited impact on axis protein enrichment. Genetic analyses coupled with ChIP experiments revealed that the differential binding of the Red1 protein in subtelomeric regions requires the methyltransferase Dot1. Interestingly, the lack of Red1 depletion in subtelomeric regions in this mutant does not impact DSB formation. Another surprising finding is that deleting DOT1 has no effect on Red1 loading in the absence of the silencing factor Sir3. Unlike Dot1, Sir3 directly impacts DSB formation, probably by limiting promoter access to Spo11. As now clearly stated in the abstract and the discussion, this explains only a small part of the low levels of DSBs forming in subtelomeric regions and the main mechanisms suppressing crossover close to the ends of chromosomes remain to be deciphered.

Strengths:

This work provides intriguing observations, such as the impact of Dot1 and Sir3 on Red1 loading and the uncoupling of Red1 loading and DSB induction in subtelomeric regions.

The separation of axis protein deposition and DSB induction observed in the absence of Dot1 is interesting because it rules out the possibility that the binding pattern of these proteins is sufficient to explain the low level of DSB in subtelomeric regions.

The demonstration that Sir3 suppresses the induction of DSBs by limiting the openness of promoters in subtelomeric regions is convincing.

Weaknesses:

Sir3's impact on DSB induction is compelling, yet it only accounts for a small proportion of DSB depletion in subtelomeric regions. Thus, the main mechanisms suppressing crossover close to the ends of chromosomes remain to be deciphered. [Update: these limitations have been added to the text.]

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary

This manuscript re-evaluates the mechanism of action of VBIT-4, a compound widely used as a putative inhibitor of VDAC1 oligomerization. The authors test whether VBIT-4 acts directly on VDAC1 assemblies or instead perturbs lipid membranes more generally. Using high-speed atomic force microscopy, electrophysiology, liposome leakage assays, Laurdan fluorescence, microscale thermophoresis, coarse-grained molecular dynamics simulations, and cell-based assays in wild-type and VDAC1-knockout HeLa cells, they show that VBIT-4 partitions into lipid bilayers, induces membrane defects and leakage, and causes VDAC1-independent cytotoxicity at concentrations commonly used in the literature to infer VDAC1-specific effects.

Strengths

The main strength of the study is the convergence of multiple independent approaches on the same central conclusion. Atomic force microscopy directly visualizes VBIT-4-induced defects in lipid regions while VDAC1 assemblies remain apparently intact. Electrophysiology separates VDAC1 channel behavior from background membrane conductance and shows that VBIT-4 does not measurably alter VDAC1 conductance or voltage gating, while increasing nonspecific membrane permeability. Lipid-only membranes, lipid nanodiscs lacking VDAC1, and VDAC1-knockout cells provide important controls supporting a VDAC1-independent mechanism.

The wild-type versus VDAC1-knockout cytotoxicity comparison is a particularly strong test of VDAC1 independence at concentrations above 10 µM. The manuscript also usefully emphasizes that VBIT-4 is poorly soluble, aggregation-prone, pH-dependent, membrane-partitioning, and storage-sensitive. These properties are important for interpreting variability across previous studies using this compound.

The manuscript is careful in defining the scope of its conclusions. It distinguishes AFM- and simulation-based measurements of VDAC1 cluster organization from cross-linking-defined proximity, which is important because these are related but non-equivalent readouts of VDAC1 organization. It also explicitly discusses how VBIT-4 solubility, aggregation, protonation, membrane partitioning, and storage sensitivity complicate comparisons based on nominal compound concentration. These points help readers interpret both the current data and the broader literature using VBIT-4.

Limitations

The cellular data strongly support VDAC1-independent cytotoxicity above 10 µM, but the lower-dose mitochondrial functional phenotypes, including effects on respiration, mitochondrial calcium, and mitochondrial membrane potential, were not directly compared between wild-type and VDAC1-knockout backgrounds. The manuscript appropriately avoids overinterpreting these mitochondrial effects as directly VDAC1-independent, but readers should note that VDAC1 independence is more firmly established for cytotoxicity than for the lower-dose mitochondrial phenotypes.

The coarse-grained simulations provide useful mechanistic support for membrane partitioning, aggregation, and defect formation. However, the partitioning validation relies on the neutral VBIT-4 species and comparison with empirical partition-coefficient predictors rather than a matched all-atom octanol-water transfer calculation using the same atomistic model. This is a reasonable modeling choice, but it does not eliminate the likely importance of atomistic-level details for accurately describing pore formation. This is especially relevant for a compound with pH-dependent protonation, aggregation, and interfacial membrane localization. The simulation-derived partitioning and pore-formation results should therefore be interpreted as strong qualitative and mechanistic support rather than as a definitive quantitative description of VBIT-4 behavior across all protonation states, concentrations, and membrane environments.

Overall assessment

Overall, this is an important and timely study that provides a strong reassessment of VBIT-4 as a tool compound. The evidence that VBIT-4 perturbs lipid membranes independently of VDAC1 is compelling and should be useful for researchers interpreting past and future studies that use VBIT-4 as a probe of VDAC1 function.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This manuscript by Sidwell and Rothenberg demonstrates that commitment of CD8 T cells to the virtual memory TVM cell lineage is fine-tuned in a dose-dependent manner by the transcription factor Bcl11b during intrathymic positive selection. Using multiple mouse models, the authors show that a subtle, less than two-fold reduction in Bcl11b expression or disruption of its corepressor-recruitment domain biases developing CD8 single-positive thymocytes toward a TVM cell fate without requiring peripheral activation, lymphopenia, or external cytokine signaling. Mechanistically, this modest decrease in Bcl11b does not alter global chromatin accessibility but instead enhances downstream T-cell receptor (TCR) signal responsiveness, effectively mimicking a high-affinity selection response to divert late-cycling CD8SP thymocytes into the TVM pathway. These data suggest that Bcl11b essentially serves to attenuate the interpretation of TCR (and cytokine) mediated signals to prevent the excessive differentiation characterised by virtual memory T cells and the CD44int naïve T cells. This is distinct from alternative pathways of Tvm development that are driven predominantly by exposure to cytokines, namely IL-4, in the thymus, and serves to reinforce our understanding that Tvm cells are an alternate lineage of T cells that arise during development, in part as a consequence of strong TCR signalling. There are some issues arising, not least of which is why the attenuated Bcl11b expression is insufficient to drive negative selection rather than Tvm formation.

This paper was an absolute pleasure to read given its engaging narrative style. However, in some parts it was a bit long-winded and took a while to get to the destination. Some effort should go into making the narrative more concise, while retaining the thoroughly clear explanation and interpretation of the data.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This well-written manuscript proposes to use attractors in space and time (STA) as a mechanistic explanation for planning in the prefrontal cortex. The main conceptual hypothesis is that planning is implemented as attractor dynamics in a representation that encodes states at each time step jointly. Depending on inputs the network relaxes to a trajectory that already contains future states that will be visited at each time step, rather than computing a scalar value at each point in time and space like other classical approaches from RL. The authors compare this approach to implementations such as TD learning and successor representation, and further show that trained recurrent neural networks on specific tasks involving planning develop structured subspaces resembling the ones postulated in STA.

The idea of treating attracting trajectories unfolding in time as the computational substrate for planning is very interesting and potentially important. The explicit construction of a state x time representational space and its implementation via recurrent dynamics are appealing and convincing in the idealized tasks considered. I found the ms to be refreshingly explicit regarding several of the assumptions and limitations of the models, for example the fact that certain advantages can be viewed as properties of the state space itself and not necessarily of a fundamentally new planning mechanism.

I thank the authors for their reply and their thorough rebuttal. It answered most of my previous questions and greatly enhanced the understanding of the paper.

I have just two remaining concerns:

(1) The ms shows attractor dynamics in the trained RNN during planning, but it is less clear how these relate to the execution phase. It would be helpful to clarify whether the network state during execution is expected to effectively be close to a FP or at a FP for each input, or whether the RNN implements transient dynamics shaped by the underlying attractor landscape.

(2) Regarding the previously raised point of calling their result a "Mechanistic theory of planning", I did not mean to suggest that a theory cannot be mechanistic, or that "mechanistic theory" is not a valid term, especially in the context of this paper (although I believe this topic would deserve an entire separate discussion in the neuroscience field).

My point was about whether STA should primarily be interpreted as a mechanistic theory of planning, or as a candidate neural mechanism for implementing the planning as inference theory. I am aware that mechanistic theory and mechanistic models are often used interchangeably in neuroscience, and I certainly do not claim that my interpretation is the only valid one. My opinion is that the manuscript presents a convincing and interesting candidate neural mechanism for planning, which can be strongly related to planning as inference. The reason why I am not fully convinced about the framing as a mechanistic theory of planning is mainly that the adjacency-based connectivity isn't emerging or derived, but is instead introduced based on practical and empirical considerations. It's not a major issue, but I would personally frame it as a mechanistic account or model of planning (and/or planning-as-inference), rather than a theory, mechanistic or not.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Tran and colleagues investigate how inflammation alters the earliest stages of melanoma tumorigenesis in mice carrying LSL-BrafV600E, Ptenfl/fl, and Tyr-CreERT2 alleles. They compare transient regulatory T cell depletion, acute UVB irradiation, and DNFB-induced contact hypersensitivity. Each perturbation increases ear pigmentation and Tyrp1 expression after oncogene induction. The inflammatory settings also share recruitment of monocytes and macrophages, expression of inflammatory and tissue-remodeling programs, and increased vascular permeability. Dexamethasone attenuates the DNFB-associated phenotype. A secondary finding of particular interest is that regulatory T cell depletion accelerates the premalignant BPT phenotype but inhibits B16F10 tumor growth, suggesting that regulatory T cells can have different effects during tumor initiation and established transplantable disease.

The study addresses an important question that is difficult to approach using transplantable tumor models. The data convincingly show that each perturbation produces substantial inflammation in the skin and that vascular leakage accompanies the response. At present, though, the central biological endpoint is not sufficiently separated from melanogenesis. Darkening of the ear and increased Tyrp1 RNA can reflect more pigment or altered differentiation within the existing oncogene-carrying melanocytes rather than an increase in their number, particularly given that pigment content is itself variable in transformed melanocytes, which range from heavily pigmented to nearly amelanotic. This issue is especially important in the UVB and DNFB experiments, where inflammatory signals can alter pigmentation directly.

Strengths:

The autochthonous BPT model is a major strength. It preserves the native relationship between melanocytes and the surrounding stromal and immune compartments during lesion initiation. Including three distinct inflammatory perturbations makes the recurring association with melanocyte-associated readouts more persuasive than any single model would be. The paired-ear DNFB design is efficient and controls for inter-animal variability. The combination of flow cytometry, single-cell RNA sequencing, intravital imaging, and Evans Blue assays provides useful complementary evidence that the inflammatory interventions remodel the local tissue environment. The B16F10 experiments help establish that the unexpected effect of regulatory T cell depletion is specific to the early autochthonous setting rather than a general failure of the depletion model. The BT-Het experiment is also thoughtful in asking whether inflammation can enhance the phenotype of oncogene-carrying melanocytes in a nevus-stage context that does not proceed to full malignant progression after oncogene induction alone.

Weaknesses:

The strongest caveat concerns the central claim. The outgrowth readouts are ear darkening and bulk Tyrp1 expression, but both may report pigment or differentiation state rather than the number of oncogene-carrying melanocytes. Pigment content is not a reliable proxy for cell number here, since the same population can darken or lighten without any change in cell number. No direct count or lineage-reporter measurement is provided for the regulatory T cell, UVB, or DNFB comparisons. Until that gap is filled, the data support increased pigmentation of oncogene-carrying melanocytes more firmly than the premalignant expansion named in the title, and this concern is most pronounced in the UVB and DNFB settings, where inflammation can change pigmentation on its own.

Secondly, the proposed shared mechanism is largely associative. Dexamethasone appropriately shows that inflammation as a whole is required for the DNFB phenotype, but as a broad anti-inflammatory it cannot isolate any single component. The manuscript singles out blood vessel remodeling as particularly important, and that specific attribution exceeds what a non-selective drug can show, especially as no individual pathway is selectively blocked in a tumor-initiation experiment and Il6 is reduced only modestly. The authors acknowledge that the precise chain of causation is unresolved, so the vascular claim should be softened to match or tested directly.

Also, several of the mechanistic conclusions rest on thin or single cohorts and on single-cell data whose replication is not fully reported, making them less convincing than the inflammatory phenotypes themselves. The systemic regulatory T cell model shows the consequences of body-wide depletion rather than a skin-specific regulatory T cell function, and the inferred monocyte-to-macrophage trajectory reflects transcriptional similarity rather than a demonstrated lineage path. The interpretation of dendritic-cell TdTomato uptake as evidence of antigen presentation or T cell priming is not supported by a direct measure of reactivity.

Finally, the nevus-stage framing should be corrected. The manuscript frames the BT-Het experiment as testing non-oncogenic conditions, but those melanocytes carry BrafV600E, so it is better read as inflammation-enhanced behavior of oncogene-carrying melanocytes at the nevus stage.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript applies a culture-independent hybridization-capture metagenomic sequencing approach to characterize Klebsiella pneumoniae detected in post-mortem lung tissue from fatal pediatric pneumonia cases in Lusaka, Zambia. The study addresses an important challenge in retrospective genomic investigations where cultured isolates are unavailable and demonstrates the potential of targeted sequencing to recover clinically relevant genomic information directly from archived tissue specimens. The authors report sequence types, capsular loci, antimicrobial resistance determinants, virulence-associated genes, and evidence of closely related isolates in two cases. The work is valuable as a proof-of-concept application of targeted sequencing in challenging post-mortem specimens and provides useful descriptive genomic data from a setting where such information remains limited. However, several epidemiological and public health interpretations extend beyond what can be supported by the available data. The study includes only seven successfully sequenced children from a single setting and was not designed to determine the source of acquisition, transmission pathways, or population-level distributions of antimicrobial resistance or capsular types. The manuscript would therefore be strengthened by more consistently framing the findings as a descriptive genomic investigation of K. pneumoniae detected in children who died outside hospital settings, rather than as evidence of community-acquired infection or broader epidemiological shifts.

Strengths:

The principal strength of the manuscript is its methodological contribution. The authors demonstrate that hybridization-capture metagenomic sequencing can recover informative genomic data from post-mortem lung tissue in cases where conventional culture-based sequencing is not available. This is an important technical advance for retrospective studies, minimally invasive tissue sampling platforms, and settings where sample degradation, prior antibiotic exposure, or lack of routine culture limits genomic surveillance.

The study also addresses an important public health problem. K. pneumoniae is a major cause of severe infection and antimicrobial resistance globally, yet its role in fatal pediatric pneumonia outside hospital settings remains difficult to define. The generation of sequence type, capsular locus, antimicrobial resistance, and virulence-associated gene data from post-mortem specimens is therefore useful and may inform future study designs. The identification of closely related isolates in two infants is also potentially important and raises hypotheses about shared sources or transmission that could be explored in larger studies.

Another strength is that the authors appropriately acknowledge several technical challenges, including low numbers of K. pneumoniae-assigned reads in some specimens and unresolved or discordant capsular locus calls. These issues are important for readers considering the utility of this approach in low-input or mixed-specimen contexts.

Weaknesses:

The main weakness is that the epidemiological framing is stronger than the data allow. The manuscript repeatedly refers to community-acquired K. pneumoniae pneumonia and broader community epidemiology. However, the available data do not establish community acquisition, community transmission, or an epidemiological shift from nosocomial to community disease. Several children appear to have had prior healthcare contact or other potential healthcare-associated exposures, and the study design cannot determine where acquisition occurred. The findings would be more accurately framed as K. pneumoniae detected in post-mortem lung tissue from children who died outside hospital settings.

Causal attribution also requires more careful wording. Detection of K. pneumoniae in post-mortem lung tissue, together with histopathology and DeCoDe findings, provides important supportive evidence that the organism may have been in the causal chain leading to death. However, this does not necessarily establish that K. pneumoniae was the sole or direct cause of fatal pneumonia, particularly where multiple pathogens were detected.

The small sample size and case selection strategy limit the generalizability of the findings. Only seven children were successfully sequenced, and specimens appear to have been selected partly based on molecular signal. This is technically understandable, but it may introduce selection bias by enriching for cases with higher bacterial burden, better DNA preservation, or other specimen characteristics. As a result, the observed lineage diversity, resistance gene profiles, virulence-associated loci, and capsular locus distribution should not be interpreted as representative of community-acquired infections or broader population epidemiology.

The validation of the hybridization-capture approach also requires strengthening. Comparing outputs from different genomic analysis tools applied to the same sequencing data may assess bioinformatic concordance, but it does not independently validate the method. Ideally, the approach should be benchmarked against clinical K. pneumoniae isolates or matched specimens with conventional whole-genome sequencing data. Without this, it is difficult to assess the accuracy of sequence type, capsular locus, antimicrobial resistance determinant, virulence locus, and plasmid marker recovery, especially in low-read or mixed-specimen contexts.

Species-level attribution of antimicrobial resistance, virulence-associated genes, and plasmid replicons is another important limitation. In a culture-independent metagenomic study, these features cannot automatically be assigned to the identified K. pneumoniae lineage because many such elements are shared across Enterobacterales and may originate from co-detected organisms. This affects interpretation of antimicrobial resistance, hypervirulence, and MDR-hypervirulence convergence.

Overall, the authors achieved their methodological aim of demonstrating that targeted sequencing can recover useful genomic information from challenging post-mortem specimens. However, the epidemiological, transmission, antimicrobial resistance, and vaccine-related conclusions should be tempered.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

In this manuscript, the authors test growth, behavior, and gene expression in pairs of clownfish as they establish social dominance hierarchies, examining patterns of gene expression in these pairs after dominance has been established. The authors show solid evidence that emerging dominant clownfish show increased growth, aggression, and food consumption compared to their submissive or solitary counterparts, eventually adopting distinct gene expression profiles.

Major Comments:

(1) The Introduction is comprehensive, but it could be condensed. Likewise, the discussion could be condensed. There is considerable redundancy between the methods, the results, and the legend in Figure 1. The authors should consolidate and remove the redundancy.

(2) For Figure 3, the authors are showing PC2 and PC3; why is PC1 not shown? There is so much overlap between the three groups in PC2 vs PC3; it seems unlikely that researchers could conclusively identify any individual as belonging to a group based on the expression profile. The ovals shown do not capture all the points within each of the groups, and particularly the grey S oval seems misaligned with the datapoints shown.

(3) The authors indicate that the 15 replicates exhibiting the greatest size difference between P1 and P2 were selected for gene profiling. Does this mean that each of the P1 and P2 were pairs with each other? Have the authors tried examining the gene expression patterns in a paired manner? E.g., for the pairs that showed the greatest size differences, do they also show the greatest differences in gene expression? Do the P1s show the most extreme differences from P2s that also show the most extreme P2 differences? Perhaps lines on Figure 3A connecting datapoints from the P1 and P2 pairs would be informative.

(4) For the specific target pathways that are up- and downregulated in the different backgrounds, I recommend that the authors include boxplots (or heatmaps) showing the actual expression values for these targets. Figure 6 shows a heatmap for appetite-related genes, and it would be great to see a similar graph for the metabolism and glycolysis genes; it would also be informative to see similar graphs for hormonal and sexual maturation pathways as well.

(5) Particularly given that there is a relatively small number of genes enriched in the different rank conditions, I did not understand the need to do the WGCNA module analysis. I thought that an analysis of GO terms across the dataset would have been more meaningful than the GO term analysis shown in Figure 4, which considers only genes assigned to the "brown WGCNA module". This should be simplified or clarified.

(6) The authors say that they have identified coordinated changes in behaviors and the "underlying gene expression, leading to the emergence" of social roles. This is a little bit misleading, since the gene expression analysis occurred well after the behavioral and phenotypic differences emerged. Presumably, the hormonal and genetic shifts that actually caused the behavioral and phenotypic difference occurred during the weeks during which the experiment was underway, and earlier capture of the transcriptome would presumably reveal different patterns, and ones that would be considered more causative. The authors acknowledge this in 434-435, but it could be emphasized further.

(7) The authors have measured a number of differences between the different dominance classes of fish. All these differences were measured relative to the other classes, but in my view, the Solitary group was the closest to a baseline control. So, I'm not sure that it is fair to say that "P2 and S individuals showed consistent downregulation of these genes and pathways" (line 401). I encourage the authors to emphasize the differences in gene expression from the "perspective" of the P1 individuals compared to the baseline of P2 and S individuals. Line 474 says that "P2 fish showed significant upregulation" of a number of pathways. It should be very clear what that is compared to (compared to P1, presumably?)

(8) Along the same lines, the authors say in line 514 that subordinates and solitaries strategically downregulate their growth. I'm not convinced that this is the case: I would consider this growth trajectory to be the default and the baseline. I would interpret that under certain social conditions, a P1 dominant pattern of growth, behavior, and gene expression is allowed to emerge.

Comments on revised version:

The manuscript has been carefully revised. The authors have also responded adequately to all of my previous comments.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript contains interesting studies suggesting that pharmacological activation of TRPML1 could be useful to treat T2D by increasing glucose uptake via activation of AMPK. Preclinical studies suggest the inhibitor improved blood glucose in Db/Db mice. Ex vivo studies in cell lines examine both pharmacologic and genetic manipulations, both to activate and to inactivate TRPML1, and the results consistently suggest that TRPML1 activates AMPK and increases glucose uptake.

Strengths:

The manuscript is well written, and the studies are carefully performed.

Weaknesses:

All mechanistic studies were performed in transformed cell lines; conclusions would be stronger if performed in primary cells. The in vivo studies were only performed in male mice. Performing metabolic studies in both sexes is standard practice now. Whether the findings would extend to females was not tested and remains uncertain. Some controls are missing, such as plasma membrane loading controls for fractionation studies. The GLUT4 staining was performed after fixation and permeabilization, yet control cells appear to be devoid of intracellular (and all) staining, a confusing result that doesn't reflect the expected biology.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This manuscript examines how disease-associated hyperphosphorylation disrupts tau's role as a cooperative microtubule-binding regulator of intracellular transport. Using in vitro reconstitution assays and live-cell imaging in iPSC-derived neurons, the authors employ phosphomutant tau constructs (E14 to mimic hyperphosphorylation, AP to prevent phosphorylation) at 14 disease-associated residues to isolate phosphorylation effects independent of expression system-dependent PTM heterogeneity. The results show that hyperphosphorylated tau fails to form cooperative envelope-like structures on microtubules, instead binding diffusely and dissociating rapidly. In contrast, wild-type and phospho-resistant tau form cohesive envelopes that regulate motor protein access. At the single-molecule level, hyperphosphorylation reduces KIF5C inhibition while maintaining or enhancing KIF1A inhibition through altered processivity and detachment rates. In live neurons, hyperphosphorylated tau phenocopies tau knockout conditions, weakening tau-mediated inhibition of lysosome transport and increasing processive motility. The authors quantify tau binding using Gaussian mixture model-based image analysis and measure tau kinetics via FRAP, demonstrating that hyperphosphorylation-induced loss of cooperative binding correlates with dysregulated organelle transport. These findings establish a mechanism by which phosphorylation-driven disruption of tau's gatekeeper function on microtubules compromises axonal transport prior to aggregation in tauopathies.

Comments on revised version.

The authors did a good job responding to my comments and I support publication of the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary

Spike sorting, that is, assigning events detected in extracellular electrophysiology data to firing of individual neurons, is an inherently difficult computational problem involving multiple steps. The difficulty arises from low signal to noise, instability in signal due to relative motion of the tissue and recording sites, and large volumes of data. Experimental ground truth data - where the correct assignment of spikes in known - is not available in large enough quantities to test algorithms. This paper describes a tool for creating fully synthetic ground truth data and benchmarking the individual steps of spike sorting to dissect the impact of signal to noise, firing rate, and motion correction on each step. This information is used to construct an optimized algorithm for sorting these ground truth data. One result of particular interest is the dominant role of motion correction in degrading accuracy. Another important technical result is that motion correction via interpolation of the voltages traces yields similar accuracy to interpolation of the spike templates.

Strengths

The paper shows that useful insight can be gained through analyzing process step by step. While this analysis has also been done in papers presenting spike sorters (for example, Pachitariu (2024)) the tools presented here allow users and developers to do similar studies for their own work. This toolset will be useful to many labs, especially those working in less studied brain areas or model systems, cases where the tuning of standard spike sorting tools is not a good match to the data.

Weaknesses/Limitations:

The model ground truth data used in testing spike sorting and its components does not need to be a perfect match to experimental data to provide useful benchmarking. However, as with all measurements of spike sorting accuracy, extrapolation to experimental data can be complicated. Therefore, the insights gained concerning optimization of the individual steps should be interpreted as "correct for that model data. The comparison of the paper's new sorter to standard sorters on experimental recordings suggests that the benchmarking data is reasonable. Nevertheless, users of these tools will need to assess how well the simulated data matches their recordings.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, Lim et al. provide a comprehensive analysis of the metabolic and physiologic effects of different media compositions on iPSC-RPE. This analysis includes commonly used iPSC-RPE media bases (MEMα, DMEM-HG/F12 basal media) as well as human plasma-like medium (HPLM) in attempts to establish a more physiologically relevant culture environment.

Strengths:

The analyses in this study provide a very thorough survey of metabolic function as well as an RPE-relevant physiologic characterization. This will be a great resource for optimizing assay conditions for disease-based studies using iPSC-RPE.

Weaknesses:

In the Seahorse studies provided in Figure 3. basal readings for OCR are abnormally low compared to Oligomycin treatment and background, suggesting difficulties with the assay. Findings should be taken with caution.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The study by Robben et al., show 3D beta-cell spheroid platform, a valuable tool allowing high-throughput monitoring of cytoplasmic Ca concentrations and insulin secretion, with Ca signals comparable to those recorded in primary islets. The authors demonstrate a solid method to culturing MIN6 cells in a 3D culture system, recording Ca signals in a high-throughput format and characterizing these Ca signals using pharmacological tools, including TRPM3 channel and K-ATP channel modulators. This highlights the utility of the 3D beta-cell spheroid for screening new ion channel modulators in beta-cells of the pancreas.

Strengths:

- The study shows that the MIN-6-based 3D beta-cell model is better to study Ca-signaling and insulin secretion compared to 2D culture of single MIN-6 cells.<br /> - The method allows imaging of Ca signaling in many spheroids in parallel followed by collecting medium to measure insulin release and correlate both effects.<br /> - The authors demonstrate that this system is suitable for screening new pharmacological modulators and used as an agonist of the ATP-sensitive potassium channel (diazoxide) and the agonist and antagonist of the TRPM3 channel.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Short overview:

This study presents potentially important findings showing that DHAP-glycerol shunt involved in energy balance is regulated by food availability in a widely used C. elegans model. The genetic evidence supporting this conclusion is solid and is based on an extensive set of experiments; however, key metabolic measurements and comprehensive metabolic profiling are not provided, limiting the strength of the conclusions about the underlying metabolic and redox changes.

Comments:

Giorda and colleagues report interesting findings demonstrating that the DHAP-Gro3P shuttle is modulated by food availability in C. elegans. Although the authors provide multiple interesting observations in worms, supported by an extensive number of experiments, the metabolic aspect of the study requires additional development. It appears that targeted lipidomics and metabolomics analyses were performed, but the corresponding datasets are largely absent from the manuscript. Only a very limited subset of lipid species is presented in Fig. 2D. What about triglycerides? It would be highly informative to include comprehensive lipidomic profiles covering major lipid classes. A similar concern applies to the metabolomics data. Where are the measurements of Gro3P, DHAP, and glycerol? The authors state that their LC-MS method was unsuccessful and that glycerol levels were ultimately measured using a commercial kit. Given that glycerol production and excretion appear to be major output across many of the experiments presented, this approach is not entirely satisfactory. Reliable GC-MS based methods are available for the quantification of all major components of this pathway, including Gro3P, DHAP, and glycerol (derivatization helps to preserve these species, especially glycerol).

Furthermore, comprehensive LC-MS/GC-MS-based metabolic profiling should be included. Metabolites reported and organized by pathway (e.g., glycolysis, TCA cycle, pentose phosphate pathway) would provide a broader understanding of the metabolic consequences of DHAP-glycerol shunt activation.

Finally, because the DHAP-glycerol shunt is closely linked to cellular redox homeostasis, it would be important to determine how its activation affects intracellular pyridine nucleotide pools, and measurements of NAD+, NADH, NADPH, NADP+ would substantially strengthen the mechanistic conclusions and provide direct evidence for alterations in cellular redox state.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, Oka and colleagues recruited an online sample to complete a previously validated abstraction task (Cortese et al., 2021) alongside confidence ratings and a large psychiatric questionnaire battery, which included a variety of methods to screen out inattentive or otherwise biased responders. Questionnaire item scores were combined with factor weights from a large dataset to estimate transdiagnostic factor scores. A computational model was then fit in a hierarchical manner to the abstraction task data, with individuals' fit to an "Abstract RL" model used as a metric of individual-level abstraction ability, and metacognitive bias and sensitivity were estimated from the confidence ratings. Associations between these task-derived measures and both dimensional and symptom-level measures of psychopathology were then estimated using multiple regression. The key findings were that, while metacognitive sensitivity and abstraction ability were associated with symptom-level scores, the associations with transdiagnostic dimensions - higher compulsivity associated with lower abstraction ability and metacognitive sensitivity; higher social withdrawal was associated with higher metacognitive sensitivity - were interpreted by the authors as more coherent.

Strengths:

(1) Robust screening for inattentive responders through catch questions (Zorowitz et al., 2023), as well as incorporating recent recommendations regarding response bias (Sarna et al., 2026).

(2) Assessed the cross-cultural generalisability of the imported factor weights by comparing item loadings from a large external sample against a de novo exploratory factor analysis in their sample.

(3) Directly compares a theory-driven model-defined abstraction metric to metacognition in relation to dimensional and symptom-level measures of psychopathology.

(4) Pre-registered analyses, with deviations from pre-registration clearly stated.

Weaknesses:

(1) The abstraction metric (mean posterior responsibility of the Abstract RL model) differed from the pre-registered metric and has not been validated here for reliability (e.g., split-half across the blocks or similar).

(2) Model recovery is not shown, so it's not clear whether the Abstract RL and Feature RL models are fully dissociable in this task design.

(3) Metacognitive measures are behaviourally defined (AUROC2 for sensitivity and mean confidence for bias), but models do not correct for task accuracy, which may be related to both.

(4) Dimensional and symptom regressions differ: the dimensions are entered in one model, but the symptom measures are entered into separate regressions and the marginal effects corrected for multiple comparisons. If I've understood this correctly, this means that the dimensional coefficients are partial associations adjusting for the other two factors, whereas the symptom-level coefficients are marginal and FDR-corrected, making it difficult to directly compare them.

Additional questions and context:

(1) Could split-half reliability (e.g. odd vs even blocks) be reported for the abstraction measure? Relatedly, a model recovery/confusion analysis for the two abstraction models, and/or posterior predictive checks showing that the two models generate behaviour resembling that of participants would help establish that the responsibility metric is able to dissociate the different abstraction strategies.

(2) Supplementary Table 2 shows the results for the pre-registered discrete proportion metric - here, there is limited evidence (p=0.220) of an association between abstraction and compulsivity, so saying they are "almost consistent" is perhaps a little overstated. Though the argument for using the alternative continuous metric is justified in the text, it's not quite clear whether the difference is due to the inference method or the abstraction metric itself - the bootstrapped analysis of the pre-registered metric is not reported, nor is the analysis without bootstrapping of the continuous metric (I think this may have been what Supplementary Table 1 was meant to report, but currently it's identical to Supplementary Table 5). In addition, it might be helpful if the correlation between the two metrics were presented graphically.

(3) In the Methods and Supplement, the authors mention that they had pre-registered running a sensitivity analysis including excluded participants. This might be interesting given the high exclusion rate, and given that most exclusions were not based on task behaviour (chance-level choosing). If there is concern about shifting group-level parameter distributions, then this could be explicitly included in the model by including an offset on group-level parameters (i.e., interaction term) on excluded participants, which would allow them to systematically differ in model parameters. Alternatively, one could at least estimate the abstraction and metacognition metrics in the excluded sample (perhaps restricted to those excluded on questionnaire-based criteria rather than task performance) to see whether they do indeed differ.

(4) How do factor scores relate to task accuracy - do those with higher compulsivity perform worse, and is this plausibly related to less abstraction?

(5) How do the factors extracted here compare to those in other studies, such as those from Gillan et al. (2016, eLife)? In particular, it'd be interesting to know what questionnaires/symptoms in the "Compulsive hypersensitivity" factor in the present study overlap with the Compulsive behaviour/intrusive thoughts factor from that earlier work, as the latter has been strongly associated with metacognitive measures - higher metacognitive efficiency for anxious/depression, lower metacognitive efficiency for compulsive behaviour - in previous work (Rouault et al., 2018). That three-factor structure also included a factor they labelled "Social withdrawal" - is it similar to the one presented here, or is the one here (including distress) more like their anxious depressive factor?

(6) In the Discussion, the authors state "Our findings are also consistent with previous converging evidence linking compulsive tendencies to less efficient computation and a preference for familiar over goal-directed action". That the Feature RL model might fairly be called less efficient is reasonable, but I'm not sure how the reduction of features in the Abstract RL model relates to goal-directed action (they're both model-free RL algorithms).

(7) The Discussion also mentions "models that integrate abstract and metacognitive representations" - was there a reason these could not be applied in the present study?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This study investigates the cytotoxic activity of human NK-cell subsets against autologous HIV-1-infected CD4 T cells and identifies CD56dimCD16dim NK cells as the dominant effector population. The authors propose that this subset possesses superior cytotoxic activity compared with CD56dimCD16bright NK cells and could therefore represent an attractive target for HIV cure strategies. While the study addresses an important and clinically relevant question, several of its major conclusions rely on assumptions that are not adequately supported by the experimental design. In particular, CD16 is treated as a stable phenotypic marker throughout most of the study despite its well-established and rapid downregulation following NK cell activation.

Strengths:

(1) The study addresses an important and clinically relevant question regarding which NK cell subset is responsible for the elimination of autologous HIV-1-infected cells. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first study directly comparing the anti-HIV functional activities of CD56dimCD16dim vs CD56dimCD16bright NK cells.

(2) The experiments performed with purified NK cell subset (Figure 2) provide some evidence that CD56dimCD16dim NK cells possess enhanced cytotoxic activity relative to CD56dimCD16bright NK cells. This experimental approach is considerably more convincing than the analyses performed on mixed NK cell populations and should be expanded throughout the study.

Weaknesses:

(1) The central conclusion is weakened by the use of CD16 as a stable phenotypic marker. CD16 is well established to be rapidly downregulated following NK-cell activation and target cell (K562 or infected cells) engagement through ADAM17-mediated shedding. NK cell shedding regulates NK cell effector functions by promoting target cell detachment, boosting serial killing capacity, and preventing overstimulation. Therefore, NK cells displaying a CD56dimCD16dim phenotype after co-culture cannot be assumed to represent a pre-existing subset with intrinsically superior cytotoxic activity, but may instead correspond to activated CD56dimCD16bright NK cells that have downregulated CD16 during the assay. Because the vast majority of the functional experiments classified NK cell subsets based on post-assay CD16 expression, it is difficult to distinguish intrinsic functional differences between NK cell subsets from activation-induced phenotypic conversion. This limitation affects the interpretation of most of the study's principal findings.

(2) The "killing frequency" analysis presented in Figure 3 is based on a mathematical estimate rather than a direct experimental measurement. Since total target cell killing is measured in mixed NK cell populations, it cannot be attributed to individual NK cell subsets. This experiment must be repeated using purified NK cell subsets.

(3) The serial degranulation assay presented in Figure 4 does not directly measure serial target cell killing and therefore does not support the conclusion that CD56dimCD16dim NK cells possess superior serial killing capacity. Furthermore, the increased serial degranulation observed in the CD16dim population could simply reflect activation-induced CD16 downregulation rather than an intrinsic property of this subset. This experiment should therefore be repeated using purified NK cell subsets.

(4) The finding that CD56dimCD16dim NK cells exhibit greater ADCC activity is somewhat counterintuitive given the central role of CD16 in mediating ADCC. Moreover, these experiments are likely confounded by activation-induced CD16 downregulation, which is expected to be even more pronounced during ADCC. Thus, the apparent superiority of the CD56dimCD16dim subset may simply reflect the conversion of activated CD56dimCD16bright NK cells into the CD16dim gate rather than intrinsically greater ADCC activity. To directly compare the intrinsic ADCC capacity of each subset, these experiments should be repeated using purified NK cell populations prior to target-cell stimulation.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript submitted by Arico and co-workers describes the impact of two lectin-domain-containing proteins (LecRK-I.9* and LecTM) on the formation and persistence of Hechtian strands. Based on a survey of selected candidates, overexpression of these two proteins resulted in an increase in Hechtian strand formation. Removal of the lectin domains and expression of this variant did not alter HS formation compared to the WT. In addition, the existence of the lectin domain reduced protein mobility, probably due to interactions with the wall. Last but not least, overexpression of LecRK-I.9 increased the resistance of plants towards water loss conditions.

Strengths:

The study seems well conducted, but may require some small additions. While the results themselves seem not surprising, I think that this is a valuable demonstration of the cell wall binding ability of lectin proteins and its physiological and microscopical consequences.

Weaknesses:

At this stage, some of the study would benefit from some additional quantification.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

In the manuscript "Supervised domain adaptation mitigates cross-ethnicity prediction errors in neuroimaging-based cognitive prediction", the authors investigated the efficacy of data adaptation techniques to reduce ethnicity-related prediction bias in neuroimaging-based cognitive prediction. They found that data adaptation algorithms, particularly balanced weighting, contributed to mitigating ethnicity-related performance disparities. Furthermore, these bias mitigations could be achieved without requiring a large set of data from the underrepresented ethnic group. This study addressed an important concern in the field of neuroimaging-based behaviour prediction, providing many intriguing results. Nevertheless, the manuscript also suffers from a lack of coherent methods design, the unorganised presentation of information, and the lack of in-depth discussion of results.

The conclusions claimed by the authors are sometimes over-generalised and not fully supported by the study outcomes. Overall, this study demonstrated strong technical designs and convincing statistical analysis for the main outcomes, although clearer presentation would be needed to convey the messages in the manuscript.

The central investigation of this study is whether domain adaptation techniques improve ethnicity-related performance disparities. However, these improvements were only measured against a very weak baseline model, where a small set of African American (AA) subjects were added to the training sample consisting purely of White American (WA) subjects. While the authors recognised that balancing the training sample could already mitigate the ethnicity-related disparities, they considered that such approaches are unfeasible in their experimental scenario, where only a small amount of AA data were available. However, as Li et al. (2022) showed, a balanced sample of around 90-150 AA subjects could already reduce the ethnicity-related bias. Even from a practical standpoint, this balanced sample approach would be a more valid baseline for domain adaptation models to compare against.

The authors made two main conclusions: that domain adaptation methods reduced ethnicity-related bias, and that balanced weighting performed the best and the most stably. Both claims were over-generalised to some extent. First, the adaptation benefit claimed in the first conclusion is not seen in the functional connectivity (FC) modality, which is the most popular modality for neuroimaging-based prediction of behaviour. This difference in adaptation benefit across modalities is an important finding that is meaningful for future studies, the omission of which also removes interesting insights that the audience could take away from this article.

Second, the judgement of prediction performance is based on the area under the improvement curve (AUIC) metric, which summarises a model's performance across different availability of labelled AA data. As a result, the analysis of prediction performance naturally favours algorithms that could perform well with a small amount of added AA data. On the one hand, this provides an easy decision point for users to pick an algorithm to use without being concerned about data availability. On the other hand, important insights could be overlooked with the oversimplified recommendation of balanced weighting. As the authors have also observed, in some cases, domain adaptation strategies do not improve ethnicity-related bias more than the non-adaptation baseline. If the message is to recommend simple, low-cost strategies to reduce ethnicity-related prediction bias, it would be misleading not to note that the simplest and lowest-cost strategy could also be non-adaptation methods sometimes.

Regardless, for the general audience, the underlying assumptions when interpreting the AUIC metric are not immediately clear, which could cause the conclusions to be misleading. Apart from aggregating over different amounts of available AA data, the statistical comparison of AUIC gain across data adaptation algorithms also did not account for the impact of brain phenotype modalities. Even though the upstream analyses have confirmed that adaptation benefits vary greatly across brain modalities, this major observation was not followed in the final analysis where conclusions were made about which algorithm performed the best. Based on visual inspection of Figure 3b, it may be suspected that PRED performed better than or comparably to balanced weighting when task contrasts based on the Destrieux atlas were used.

Finally, the findings from this study align with the common hypothesis that ethnicity-related prediction bias originates from disparities already manifested during data collection and preprocessing. As the authors have noted, the modalities with the most tendency for ethnicity-related bias are the anatomical ones, including all three volume-based modalities (cortical volume, T1 and T2 subcortical volume) in the top ten phenotypes with the largest performance gap. Most prominently, brain features in the occipital pole, frontal pole, and a range of subcortical areas were found to contribute highly to adaptation gain. Subcortical areas are often reported to show noisier measurements compared to cortical areas, whereas the poles of the brain are likely more strongly warped/distorted during alignment to a standard template. From a data quality perspective, these results support the interpretation that ethnicity-related prediction bias may stem from loss of data quality during data collection or preprocessing. In the prediction models based on anatomical brain features, data adaptation methods may have helped to address these disparities in the data, without the more resource-intensive need to improve the bias in preprocessing pipelines.

Li, J., Bzdok, D., Chen, J., ... Genon, S. (2022). Cross-ethnicity/race generalization failure of behavioral prediction from resting-state functional connectivity. Science Advances, 8(11), eabj1812.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The study analyzes stool metagenomes from 98 SCD patients and 46 controls, with SCD and control groups matched on age, race, sex, and ethnicity. The authors report lower Shannon diversity, lower Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio, loss of health-associated taxa, increased disease-associated indicators, altered butyrate/fatty-acid metabolism pathways, and enrichment of provirus/prophage fractions in SCD. They further correlate aged-like neutrophils and prophage fractions with inflammatory cytokines. The main strength is that this is not just another 16S comparison. The use of whole-community metagenomics, immune profiling, neutrophil assays, and clinical metadata makes the study more biologically interesting than prior small SCD microbiome papers. The main weakness is that the causal and mechanistic interpretation is too strong. The data support an association between SCD status and microbiome/virome features, but they do not yet establish a clear "axis of pathophysiology." The provirus findings are intriguing, but require stronger statistical control, better validation, and more cautious interpretation.

Strengths:

The major strengths of the study include the clinically relevant disease setting, the use of whole-community sequencing, the integration of microbial, immune-cell, cytokine, and clinical measurements, and the novel attention to bacterial virus-related features. A particularly interesting aspect of the work is the analysis of virus-like elements integrated into bacterial genomes. The authors report that these elements are enriched in the gut microbial communities of patients with sickle cell disease and are associated with several inflammatory signals in blood. This observation is potentially important because it suggests that the microbial contribution to inflammation in sickle cell disease may involve not only bacteria but also bacterial virus-related genetic elements.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The authors have utilised two main models to assess the function of S1PR1 in neutrophils in mice. The knockout of this receptor shows no conclusive effect on neutrophil numbers or functions; it was only the overexpression that resulted in significant alterations. Therefore, often the conclusions do not describe normal or disease physiology but could be useful in a bioengineering context.

Strengths:

From a bioengineering standpoint, this seems like an important study - showing enforced expression of S1PR1 in neutrophils has improved outcomes for influenza infection (Figures 6 and 7).

Weaknesses:

Although the strength is the influenza model, genetic modification of human neutrophils cannot be a strategy, and therefore, is there any way to increase this receptor for mouse, or more importantly, human neutrophils? This study only looks at mice with a non-physiological model of overexpression. It does not offer a real therapeutic option, which drastically hinders the importance of the study. I have other concerns with the data analysis and interpretation, which I detail on a figure-by-figure basis (and how it relates to conclusions) below:

Main specific issues:

(1) Figure 2A+B: This is unconvincing; in the surface staining there seem to be real cells positive for the receptor (high staining in the histogram), but none of the transgenic protein is getting there? This undermines the idea that the effects of the transgene are related to S1P signalling. In the 'Total S1PR1' this is both underwhelming and misleading, as an isotype control (or better S1PR1 knockout) is missing, which would give a better representation of actual expression (flow cytometry autofluorescence famously increases in the red laser channels with fix/perm). The Imagestream chosen images are showing best-case scenarios - and aren't representative. What does the isotype/ KO look like here? All in all, the conclusion on receptor internalization is not well supported, especially when theoretically the TG overexpression should overload S1P availability. This also highlights the lack of another control - does overexpression of another random/non-functional protein have the same effect? To play devil's advocate, perhaps overloading of the ubiquitin-proteasome system is responsible?

(2) Figures 2E-H: In the text, the authors should fix the statement 'Additionally, surface CXCR2 was downregulated and CXCR4 upregulated in LysM-S1pr1 TG neutrophils across bone marrow, spleen, and blood (Fig. 2, E and F)' to better reflect that there is no significant difference in the bone marrow regarding CXCR4. Of note, the total MFI from this data would also be informative, another noticeable absence being the gating strategies for much of the data. Also, alter the statement: 'CD62L expression was largely preserved across compartments, with only a modest reduction in bone marrow neutrophils (Fig. 2G)'. A 50% reduction in CD62L is not modest.

(3) Supplemental Figure 3. A common theme: the wrong statistics have been used here, which has led to a false conclusion. Megakaryocyte/erythrocyte progenitors (MEPs) were only elevated in 2/3 TG mice, and the numbers are so small that this is not significant by any measure of the word. This is certainly not statistically significant if the correct test of (log-normalized) two-way ANOVA is performed (with Sidak's post hoc test). Another acceptable test would be Kruskal-Wallis with Dunn's post-test just for MEPs.

(4) Starting at Figure 3, the authors refer to 'S1PR1hi neutrophil accumulation'. Crucially, the authors must here and throughout be explicitly clear in which cells they are referring to, as this can be misleading - particularly as there are real S1PR1-high cells identified in Figure 2A surface staining. It is my understanding that the authors here mean the transgenic artificially high mice - a very large distinction.

(5) Figure 3A: It is difficult to interpret the figure with the necessary details about the experiment. For instance, there is no mention that this is sterile inflammation or what caused it.

(6) Figure 3B and C: It should be made clear whether these splenic neutrophils are related to the time course of peritoneal inflammation in 3A. Why are there so many apoptotic neutrophils in the spleen? The low numbers here suggest a processing issue rather than real death in vivo (which usually is absent).

(7) Figure 3D: This can also be misleading - the wrong statistics are again used. This should be a log-transformed two-way ANOVA. Regardless of this, the data is not strong enough to be conclusive, a minor effect at best that could also just be related to the type of cell tracker used.

(8) Figure 5E: It is stated that 'LysM-S1pr1 TG mice exhibited a higher bacterial burden in the lungs than controls (Fig. 5E).' Again, misleading results, first the wrong statistical test was used (correct = log norm one-way ANOVA with Tukey's or Kruskal Wallis with Dunn's), secondly the only significance is between S1PR1(fsf) and the Mrp8-S1PR1, not with the LysM TG. 5F is also not strong, with only 2/7 values appearing outside the range of the control - P values can be misleading when poor statistics are used.

(9) Figure 6G: Some discussion should be given for why Neutrophils are lower in BALF in the IAV model - even though higher in the lung in the non-IAC mice in Figure 1. In general, rather than focusing on the non-physiological differences, the discussion could better reflect the inconsistencies and more fully address the difference between the TG and KO and what this means going forward.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Based on observations of localisation of MreBEc at the poles within an aggregate-like structure, upon heterologous expression of MreBMx, the authors set out to investigate how this non-canonical localisation of MreBs leads to a reprogramming of peptidoglycan synthesis to the poles. This is analogous to the polar growth observed in phyla which are not dependent on dispersed growth of PG, but only at the poles, and are MreB independent.

The authors proceed to establish that PG synthesis is MreB-dependent, Rod enzyme-dependent, and requires the prior establishment of a pole.

Strengths:

(1) It is a very interesting idea to design experiments to demonstrate reprogramming of non-polar to polar growth based on the observation of localisation of a heterologously expressed MreB.

(2) The experiments to demonstrate the factors that determine polar growth and the observation of the PG in each of these experimental situations are convincing.

(3) I find the observation of an extra layer of PG in the heterologously expressed system very intriguing. It will be interesting to see if this layer merges with the other PG layer at some stage or branches from the non-polar growth near the poles.

Weaknesses:

(1) It is not clear what exactly the identity of the polar aggregates is and how much of this activity is an artefact of partially functional MreBs.

(2) I find it intriguing that the localisation and growth are predominantly at one pole only. It is unclear to me how this can be reconciled with growth and shape maintenance, and an increase in length and width. Is the increase in length and width a consequence of misshapen cells that are bulged in the absence of a normal PG layer?

(3) The authors do not follow up on the observations in the first figure on the length and width changes and the extra peptidoglycan layer (which I feel are the most interesting aspects), and how this can be connected to the polar growth observed in the later sections of the manuscript.

(4) The claim that this could be a precursor of an MreB-independent polar growth mechanism appears to be a bit far-fetched, because the system is still dependent on having an established pole for PG synthesis to occur in the new place.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors describe a computational model for the acquisition of sensorimotor skills and explore these dynamics using vocal learning in the zebra finch, a system rich in experimental data, to describe the developmental trajectory of vocal imitation by trial and error. They set up their model as a dual-pathway system, with a cortical pathway that drives the vocal effector and a basal ganglia (BG) pathway that uses dopamine-mediated reinforcement learning (RL) by gradient descent to optimize the vocal imitation process.

Strengths:

A key strength of the model, due in part to the fact that his model was generated by a computational laboratory that has also contributed significantly to the collection of experiment-driven empirical data, is that the model is biologically constrained and incorporates a considerable amount of experimental data, including some of the latest findings in the field. In addition to providing a compelling model for the acquisition of vocal learning, this biologically based RL model outperforms many current models. A key feature of this model, which makes it unique, is the implementation of a synaptic volatility variable within the BG pathway that aims to mimic published work showing that juvenile birds exhibit post-sleep deterioration. The model uses a motor output to drive a biophysical model of the avian vocal organ (syrinx) and explores not only the ability to copy song acoustic units (syllables) but also the underlying neural dynamics in both the cortical and BG pathways, showing that each converges onto the types of neural activity patterns that are observed experimentally. Because of the richness of experimental data in this system, the authors can perform "computational experiments" where they can block sleep-driven synaptic volatility or lesion various pathways to replicate experimental observations.

In addition to providing important computational insights to our understanding of vocal learning in the songbird, this study provides key insights into the general architectures that are optimal for RL by gradient descent. These include the conclusion that effective RL requires adaptive regulation of exploration and exploitation, that cortical consolidation must occur at a slower timescale than BG-driven exploration, and intriguingly that the introduction of synaptic volatility prevents RL models of incomplete learning by getting "stuck" in local minima.

Weaknesses:

In the methods section, the authors state "... HVC and RA layers are fully connected, as are the HVC and BG layers. Synaptic weights in these pathways are plastic, reflecting activity-dependent plasticity at RA and BG synapses." Unless I missed it, it is unclear how much the authors consider the synaptic differences between HVC and BG inputs to RA. This seems like an important feature to highlight, especially given that HVC-RA connections are primarily AMPA-mediated whereas those from LMAN are predominantly NMDA. The authors should be clearer about how they model these synapses and better highlight (and describe) the importance of these synaptic differences in their modeling efforts. Ideally, they should evaluate whether the differences in synapse type influence the outcome of their model. It would be interesting, for example, to test the effect on learning of synaptic conductance substitution (i.e., replacing NMADA with AMPA) on the LMAN-RA synapse.

The model focuses exclusively on the interaction of two converging pathways, and learning is based purely on acoustic feature properties of what seem like four independent syllables of similar or identical duration. For this model, this is fine. But it would be helpful for the authors to state more clearly that they are not modeling respiratory influences on syllable production, which include amplitude modulation of the syllables and expiratory pulse duration. It should be noted that the authors do not (unless I missed it) mention the existence or role of recurrent loops in song initiation (and possibly syllable sequencing). They should at least mention this in the discussion, perhaps as a limitation and item for future versions of the model.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary

The authors examine how dominance hierarchy modulates defensive strategies in mice exposed to two naturalistic threats: a transient visual looming stimulus and a sustained live rat. By comparing single versus paired testing conditions, they demonstrate that social presence attenuates fear responses, and that dominant and subordinate mice display distinct behavioral and social patterns depending on threat type. The study offers a rich behavioral dataset and a potentially valuable framework for investigating hierarchical influences on innate fear.

Strengths

(1) The use of two ecologically relevant threat paradigms allows for meaningful comparisons across transient and sustained contexts.

(2) Behavioral quantification is thorough, incorporating manual annotation of multiple behavior types and transition‑matrix analyses.

(3) The comparison between dominant and subordinate pairs is novel within the innate‑fear literature.

(5) The manuscript is well structured and clearly written, with figures that are visually informative and effectively support the main conclusions.

Weaknesses

The investigation of neural mechanisms underlying the observed behavioral effects remains limited.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Silva and co-workers exploit their previously established methods of analyzing release events at single parallel fiber to molecular layer interneuron synapses. They observed synaptic depression at low transmission frequencies (< 5 Hz) which rapidly recovers during high-frequency transmission. Analysis of the time course of low-frequency depression revealed an initial rapid and a slow linearly increasing time course. Strikingly, the initial depression occurred even in the absence of proceeding release arguing against vesicle depletion as the underlying mechanism.

Strengths:

The main strength of the study is the careful demonstration of an interesting synaptic phenomenon challenging the classical vesicle-centered interpretation of synaptic depression.

Weaknesses:

There are no weaknesses.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This article reports measurements of iEEG signals on the rat auditory cortex during cochlear implant or sound stimulation in separate groups of rats. The observations indicate some spatial organization of cochlear implant stimuli, but that is very different from cochlear implants.

Strengths:

The study includes some interesting analyses of the sound and cochlear implant representation structure based on decoders.

Weaknesses:

The observation that responses to cochlear implant stimulation (stimulation) is spatially organized but not exactly as sound-driven responses is not new.

The analyses in Fig. 8 supporting the claim that there is a mismatch between cochlear implant and normal sound representations remain hard to evaluate. The shuffle control now provided by the authors indicates that the information transfers between normal hearing representations is at chance level and between cochlear implant and normal hearing is below chance (Fig 8H). This clearly indicates, unlike the authors suggest in their response, that the analysis used to make this claim is not sensitive enough. Therefore, the claim does not seem to be supported.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary

Schubert et al. recorded MEG and eye tracking activity while participants were listening to stories in single-speaker or multi-speaker speech. In a separate task, MEG was recorded while the same participants were listening to four types of pure tones in either structured (75% predictable) or random (25%) sequences. The MEG data from this task was used to quantify individual 'prediction tendency': the amount by which the neural signal is modulated by whether or not a repeated tone was (un)predictable, given the context. In a replication of earlier work, this prediction tendency was found to correlate with 'neural speech tracking' during the main task. Neural speech tracking is quantified as the multivariate relationship between MEG activity and speech amplitude envelope. Prediction tendency did not correlate with 'ocular speech tracking' during the main task. Neural speech tracking was further modulated by local semantic violations in the speech material and by whether or not a distracting speaker was present. The authors suggest that part of the neural speech tracking is mediated by ocular speech tracking. Story comprehension was negatively related with ocular speech tracking.

Strengths

This is an ambitious study, and the authors' attempt to integrate the many reported findings related to prediction and attention in one framework is laudable. The data acquisition and analyses appear to be done with great attention to methodological detail. Furthermore, the experimental paradigm used is more naturalistic than was previously done in similar setups (i.e.: stories instead of sentences).

Weaknesses

While the analysis pipeline is outlined in much detail, some analysis choices appear ad-hoc and could have been more uniform and/or better motivated (other than this is what was done before).

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Delacruz et al. describe a new method, called "MARBL" (Methionine Analogues for Ratiometric Bioenergetics in Live cells) to measure metabolic activity in single cells. The concept is similar to the SCENITH (anti-puromycin flow cytometry) assay to measure energy metabolism by measuring protein translation activity, yet offers, in theory, two advantages: 1) it keeps cells alive for downstream biological assays and 2) it is a ratiometric measurement, measuring both baseline translation and translation in the presence of metabolic inhibitors to correct for inherent cell-to-cell translation differences.

Specifically, this method takes advantage of two click-chemistry-active methionine analogs, and then clicks fluorophores onto newly-synthesized surface proteins that have incorporated these analogs to measure translational activity. One methionine analog is given to cells for 2-4 hours to measure baseline translational activity, then metabolism is blocked using 2-deoxyglucose and oligomycin and the second methionine analog given to measure "metabolically-linked" translation activity. The authors establish this technique and show that mouse T cells polarized as pathogenic Th17 cells are more translationally active ("resilient") compared to non-pathogenic Th17 cells, and when sorted, the resilient cells produce more interferon-gamma. This latter finding requires live cells after the metabolic measurement assay, showcasing findings that are inaccessible to the SCENITH assay.

Strengths:

The approach used is conceptually clever. It is appealing to measure metabolic/translational activity and to then be able to carry out further assays on sorted cell populations with different degrees of metabolic activity. This would indeed represent a useful advance.

Weaknesses:

In principle, one key benefit of this technique is that cells can be used for biological assays after the metabolic measurement. Indeed, this would represent a valuable tool in the field.

However, in this technique, cells are subjected to methionine deprivation, addition of non-natural methionine analogs, click chemistry, and high doses of toxic metabolic inhibitors 2-deoxyglucose and oligomycin. Indeed, the authors show in Figure S5F that 1/3 more of the post-MARBL cells die relative to cells not subject to this technique (60% viability in unclicked control, 40% in MARBL-measured cells). This data suggests that cells after this technique may be stressed and not reflective of the biological function of unmanipulated cells. More controls on viability and cell function (e.g. cytokine production) at more time points after the MARBL assay would have been valuable to address this issue.

Another weakness of the paper is limited benchmarking against established metabolic assays in the field. The main assays used currently in the field are SCENITH and Seahorse. The authors do not compare their findings to SCENITH. They do compare their results to Seahorse, but the data shown don't address the key question: how does energy production measured by Seahorse, say in unmanipulated vs 2dg+oligomycin-treated cells, compare to the MARBL measurement? (Instead, they show a calculated "glucose dependence" metric in cells subjected to low vs high inhibitor dose, not showing the underlying data or cells that didn't receive an inhibitor).

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This work provides empirical data on how GABA and NMDA agonists globally affect timescales as measured through MEG. The authors reproduce the previously observed gradient of intrinsic timescales in the placebo condition, as well as its relationship to cortical hierarchy in T1/T2w maps. Timescales were not fixed, but dynamic, as revealed by large-scale network analysis separating into discrete network states. Pharmacologically, GABA agonist Lorazepam produced a brain-wide increase in timescales while NMDA agonist D-cycloserine did not. Furthermore, the GABA-mediated increase in timescale was area- and state-dependent, and more detailed analyses show changes in state occupancy mainly for DMN and DAN.

Overall, the paper contributes valuable data on a relevant topic of research in understanding the timescales of network dynamics at the local and global level. The question is well-motivated, and the analyses are technically sound and described in a straightforward manner. The network-level analysis in TDE-HMM is interesting and provides a complementary and more fine-grained perspective to the global timescale gradient, both in terms of space and time. The hypotheses were straightforward since both GABA and NMDA have relatively long timescales (of the dominant synaptic currents), though the lack of effect from NMDA-agonist is quite surprising but reasonably explained by the voltage-dependence of NMDA receptors in such a task-free setting. The paper overall is clearly written, and the figures are of high-quality, though some things could be presented in slightly more informative ways (see below). I have some questions and minor suggestions, but don't have too much to criticize as a whole.

My biggest question is the following: the mixed effects model shows that lorazepam additionally mediates timescale over and above the hierarchy (myelination map). This leaves a very clear gap. What the authors also probably want to show is that greater GABA_A receptor expression (of any or all the subunits) results in greater change under lorazepam, not against the myelination map only, or that the residue can be explained by the GABA_A maps. This, of course, would not explain the non-stationary nature of the dynamics (and state-dependent timescale maps), but would give a more direct explanation of the spatial effect. Since you already compared to the prior MEG map in Shafiei et al., 2023, I guess it's not a huge technical effort to grab the gene maps from neuromaps (https://github.com/netneurolab/neuromaps). I think this could strengthen the current manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors investigate whether inhibition of the WNK-SPAK/OSR1 pathway using the allosteric inhibitor WNK463 improves neuronal chloride homeostasis and suppresses epileptiform activity in organotypic hippocampal slice cultures. Using Super Clomeleon imaging combined with extracellular field recordings, they demonstrate that WNK463 accelerates recovery of intracellular chloride following chloride loading, reduces interictal chloride accumulation, and progressively suppresses recurrent ictal-like discharges. Pharmacological inhibition and siRNA-mediated knockdown of NKCC1 and KCC2 are then used to investigate the contribution of these transporters to the anti-ictal effects of WNK463.

Strengths:

The study addresses an important question in the field of chloride homeostasis and epilepsy and combines complementary experimental approaches. In particular, the distinction between baseline chloride measured in the presence of TTX and activity-dependent interictal chloride accumulation provides a useful conceptual framework for interpreting previous studies of WNK-SPAK inhibition. The imaging, electrophysiological, and pharmacological data are internally consistent and support the conclusion that WNK463 alters chloride dynamics and substantially suppresses ictal-like activity in this model.

Weaknesses:

The principal limitation of the manuscript is that several mechanistic conclusions extend beyond the experimental observations. Throughout the results and discussion, the authors interpret the observed changes in intracellular chloride dynamics as evidence of enhanced CCC-mediated chloride extrusion, while the pharmacological and siRNA-mediated experiments are interpreted as supporting coordinated NKCC1 inhibition and KCC2 activation, ultimately leading to restoration of GABAergic inhibition and negative shifts in EGABA. While these interpretations are plausible and consistent with the data, they remain inferential because transporter phosphorylation or activity, EGABA, and inhibitory synaptic function were not directly assessed in the current study. Moreover, although the pharmacological and knockdown experiments support a contribution of NKCC1 and KCC2 to the actions of WNK463, they do not definitively establish coordinated modulation of both transporters as the primary mechanism underlying seizure suppression. These mechanistic conclusions should therefore be presented more cautiously.

The manuscript would also benefit from broader contextualization within the current literature. The introduction largely focuses on previous work from the authors' group and provides a relatively narrow overview of chloride homeostasis in epilepsy. In particular, the discussion would benefit from broader consideration of studies examining KCC2 dysfunction in human epilepsy and experimental models, alternative mechanisms regulating KCC2 activity following seizures, and recent therapeutic strategies targeting KCC2.

Finally, although the authors appropriately acknowledge that the experiments were performed exclusively in vitro, the discussion could more explicitly address the limitations of the organotypic hippocampal slice model, including how culture-induced network reorganization and spontaneous epileptiform activity may influence chloride homeostasis and the extent to which these findings generalize to traumatic brain injury and chronic epilepsy in vivo. In addition, the statistical analysis would benefit from clarification regarding the experimental unit and the treatment of repeated measurements.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript investigates the kinematics, aerodynamics, and neural control of free-flight roll perturbation in fruit flies.

Strengths:

The paper employs a variety of appropriate methods, including magnetically sourced in-flight perturbations, free-flight wing kinematic measurement, and optogenetic silencing of specific motor units (and thus steering muscles). The results are generally consistent with prior work, showing that 5 different bilateral pairs of steering muscles contribute to the roll response, affecting the wing stroke amplitude and wing pitch. Furthermore, the roll response - both the overall animal performance and the details of the wing motion - is not detectably altered by knocking out any one of the five muscle pairs.

The reverse approach, optogenetic activation of specific phasic muscle pairs or silencing of tonic pairs, confirms that the selected muscles produce changes to wing kinematics appropriate for a roll response (confirmed by quasi-steady aerodynamic modeling). This set of results corroborates the main conclusions.

Weaknesses:

The authors refer to this as robust control of roll, though exactly what is meant by this is not clearly defined, and the word "detectably" may be important to understanding the limitations of the findings, since the large amount of variability in many of the experimental measurements would make it challenging to detect differences among treatments. As with the silencing experiments, the wing kinematics after optogenetic activation were highly varied, making it challenging to identify differences between the effects of individual muscles.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This study explores risk factors for neural atrophy following alpha-synuclein injection from two complementary perspectives. First, it evaluates the effect of biological and experimental factors (genotype, alpha-synuclein species, biological sex, seeded brain region and time since injection) on the extent of neural atrophy. Second, it assesses whether regional biological features (gene expression and structural connectivity) can predict the spatial distribution of that atrophy. Using longitudinal in vivo MRI, the authors map brain volume changes over time. They relate the brain changes from striatum seeding to behavioral outcome, identifying factors associated with more severe pathology. Finally, the authors validate a previously developed in silico model for predicting brain atrophy from alpha-synuclein seeding. The model is based on the alpha-synuclein prion-like spreading hypothesis and uses local gene expression and structural connectivity to predict atrophy following the injection. They conclude that the model accurately predicts atrophy following striatal seeding but performs poorly for hippocampal seeding. They further show that structural connectivity alone is insufficient to explain the observed atrophy after striatal seeding, and that incorporating regional gene expression substantially improves model performance.

Strengths:

The authors have expanded on their previous work by systematically evaluating how multiple biological and experimental variables influence the development of brain atrophy. The use of MRI to map structural changes and the subsequent analysis is well validated by this group and enables comprehensive whole-brain quantification across a large number of experimental conditions. The evaluation of the in silico model linking regional gene expression and structural connectivity to patterns of atrophy under different experimental conditions is important for expanding our understanding of how atrophy develops in synucleinopathies.

Weaknesses:

My principal concern is that the manuscript is framed as an investigation of alpha-synuclein propagation, whereas the primary outcome measured throughout the study is a change in regional brain volume. Although atrophy is likely related to the underlying spread of pathological alpha-synuclein, the spatial distribution of alpha-synuclein pathology is not directly quantified. Conclusions regarding propagation of alpha-synuclein and the relationship with tissue loss are inferred from the performance of the in silico model in predicting atrophy. I think the manuscript could be revised to make this distinction clearer.

A second concern relates to the comparison between striatal and hippocampal seeding. A key conclusion of the manuscript is that the in silico model accurately predicts atrophy following striatal seeding but not hippocampal seeding. However, the two analyses use different experimental group comparisons (striatum: M83 Ms-PFF versus WT PBS; hippocampus: M83 Hu-PFF versus M83 PBS). It would be helpful to demonstrate that the observed difference in model performance is not attributable to these differing experimental/ control groups.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors use FANS of rapidly obtained postmortem brain tissue from DPWH, seven aviremic, four viremic and three HIV-negative controls to characterize the CNS HIV reservoir and cell-type-specific transcriptional changes.

Strengths:

The study addresses a genuinely important and understudied question: the effect of viral suppression specifically on the CNS reservoir and transcriptome using a rare and well-characterized specimen set.

Weaknesses:

I have some reservations about the conclusions, because of the confounders, mechanistic narrative, and the data itself.

(1) With n = 3 negative, n = 4 viremic, and n = 6 aviremic (post-H5 exclusion), every DEG and enrichment result rests on very few individuals. Rather than HCA reporting effect-size distributions and per-gene sample support, the authors should consider sensitivity/leave-one-out analyses to show that results are not driven by single donors. To me, it is as in Figure 3: major changes in the DGE are between the viremic vs aviremic, interestingly not with the negative control.

(2) HIV-negative controls were significantly older (74,76 & 83, inflammaging) and entirely male (sex-based immune differences). Both bias the immune comparisons that anchor the paper. PCA reassurance with n = 3 is weak. The authors should address this quantitatively, e.g., age/sex as model covariates, or explicit discussion of directionality of bias for each key pathway.

(3) HIV DNA was detectable in only 5/11 DPWH, and the microglial reservoir signal comes from ~3 individuals. The 10³-10⁴ copies/million figure and "dominant reservoir" claim should be framed against this limited detection and the focal distribution of infection.

(4) Only two participants had documented cognitive symptoms, and histopathology showed no neuropathology in anyone. The transcriptome-to-HAND link is currently asserted rather than demonstrated. The authors should state this limitation prominently and avoid implying an established relationship.

(5) A large fraction of DPWH had TB (one TBM), and controls had SARS-CoV-2. TBM alone causes microglial activation. Excluding H5 does not remove the broader TB signal. The authors should analyze/discuss TB status as a potential driver of the microglial immune signature in the retained cohort.

(6) Sorting on IRF5 cannot distinguish microglia from perivascular macrophages, as correctly stated by the authors in the discussion, so the "microglial" reservoir may include other myeloid populations. The authors should change the cell-type attribution accordingly.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This study investigates the population structure and ancestry of Helicobacter pylori in Cabo Verde, where the human population has mixed West African and European ancestry. The authors combine a population survey, serum markers, bacterial genome analysis, and paired human-bacterial ancestry data. They report high H. pylori seropositivity, several distinct bacterial groups, and limited correlation between human ancestry and bacterial ancestry. They also identify one European-derived bacterial group that appears to have undergone a recent expansion and carries fewer well-known virulence-related genes.

The study is interesting, and the dataset is valuable, especially because population-based H. pylori genomic data from Cabo Verde and West Africa are limited. The results provide useful information on bacterial diversity, historical migration, and host-bacterial ancestry. However, some of the main conclusions are stronger than the evidence currently supports, particularly the claims of host adaptation, increased transmission, and reduced virulence.

Strengths:

(1) A major strength is the study population. Participants were recruited from the general population and not only from patients with gastrointestinal disease. This gives a broader view of H. pylori diversity in Cabo Verde than studies based only on hospital patients.

(2) The number of participants tested for H. pylori antibodies is substantial, and the authors also obtained a relatively large number of bacterial genomes. The combination of human and bacterial genomic information is another important strength. This allows the authors to directly examine whether human ancestry is related to the ancestry of the colonising bacteria.

(3) The population genetic analyses are extensive. The authors use several different approaches, and these generally support the existence of African-derived and European-derived bacterial groups in Cabo Verde. The identification of two low-diversity European-derived groups is also interesting and suggests a relatively recent expansion.

(4) The addition of new strains from Ghana and Portugal improves the reference dataset. The results may help future studies of H. pylori population structure in Africa, Europe, Cabo Verde, and populations affected by historical Atlantic migration.

(5) The finding that human ancestry and bacterial ancestry are only weakly related in this population is potentially important. It suggests that the long-term relationship between human and bacterial ancestry may be less stable in recently admixed populations.

Weaknesses:

The main weakness is that several biological conclusions are based on indirect evidence. The genomic results support recent expansion of one bacterial group, but they do not directly show that this expansion was caused by adaptation to local hosts or by increased transmission. Founder effects, population history, geographic clustering, household transmission, or random expansion may also explain the pattern. The wording should therefore be more cautious.

The conclusion of reduced virulence is also not fully supported. The expanded lineage often lacks the cag pathogenicity island and carries less virulent forms of vacA, which suggests lower virulence potential. However, this does not prove that the strains cause less gastric damage or lower disease risk. There are no endoscopic or histological data, and serum pepsinogen values are only indirect markers.

The description of the study population as having limited gastric inflammation is too strong. Serum pepsinogen measurements are useful for estimating gastric atrophy, but they do not directly measure the degree of histological gastritis. In addition, participants were recruited independently of symptoms, but this does not mean that they were all asymptomatic.

The epidemiological estimate is based on antibody testing. This measures seropositivity and cannot clearly distinguish current from previous infection. Therefore, terms such as active infection or colonisation should be used carefully.

The proposed new West-Central African bacterial group is based on a small number of reference strains from Ghana and Nigeria. The result is interesting, but broader sampling from African countries is needed before this group can be considered firmly established.

The interpretation related to the trans-Atlantic slave trade is plausible, but the data mainly show patterns consistent with known historical migration. They do not directly demonstrate when or how the bacterial lineages moved.

The gastric cancer comparison may also be affected by bacterial population structure. Differences between the Cabo Verdean lineage and gastric cancer strains may reflect ancestry or lineage differences rather than disease association alone.

Overall, the study achieves its main aim of describing H. pylori diversity and ancestry in Cabo Verde. The evidence is strong for the population structure and ancestry findings, but less strong for the proposed mechanisms of adaptation, transmission, and reduced disease-causing potential. The work will be useful to the field, but the main conclusions should be stated more carefully.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Continuing their work distinguishing sensory latencies of "cognitive" processes, the authors turn their attention to "response inhibition". The "square quotes" are being used to highlight how this manuscript aims to challenge previous descriptions of performance data and inferred computational processes. The authors assert that previous descriptions of the measure known as "stop signal reaction time" (SSRT) are flawed because they did not account for sensory latencies empirically or theoretically.

Enthusiasm for the manuscript cannot be high in light of many weaknesses countering the possible strengths. Strengths include offering an opportunity to more carefully characterize the quantity SSRT and a specific empirical approach offered to the research community. However, these strengths are countered by the following structural, theoretical, and empirical weaknesses:

As announced by the elephant in the title, the writing could be described as excessively polemical. However, the characterization and interpretation of previous empirical and theoretical work is disputable.

The major theoretical claim regarding sensory delays inherent in SSRT is not novel. The authors assert, "...this corpus of work may have been misinterpreted because the SSRT is systematically influenced by low level sensory and motor transmission times, arguably more so than by inhibition or cognitive processes." This was certainly recognized by Logan and Cowan in their original work. They wrote, "An act of control, like any other act, must take time. The theory provides methods for measuring the latency of control even when the act of control is not directly observable." (page 298) Also, "... the estimate of stop-signal reaction time includes the latency of the internal response to the stop signal and the duration of the ballistic process." (page 316-317). Moreover, subsequent computational and empirical work, some noted by the authors, has distinguished the sensory encoding interval from the interval during which the STOP process interrupts the GO process.

The theoretical suggestion that an accounting for sensory delays undermines the functional interpretation of SSRT mischaracterizes the original literature. For example, in the Abstract the authors write "Sensory and motor contributions must be ruled out before linking SSRT results to inhibition or cognition". The original Logan and Cowan theory was about what happens at the end of SSRT, and that was described only as an "act of control", in perfectly positivist fashion. For example, Logan and Cowan wrote, "Estimates of stop-signal reaction time provide a measure of the latency of control." (page 315). Thus, the authors are misstating what was meant originally by SSRT. In addition, the authors offer no specific or formal definition to specify what they mean by "inhibition or cognitive processes".

Confidence in the new empirical conclusions of the manuscript must be low because the new performance data are of questionable quality. The first issue is that the stopping accuracy (or inhibition functions in original terminology) shown in Figure S3 is very problematic for the interpretation of the authors' empirical work in this manuscript. There are two problems. First, these plots should span from nearly 0% to nearly 100%. It is not possible to resolve the span of each individual in the figure, but it is clear that many, if not most, in both the Manual and Saccadic data span just 20-30%. Second, the plots should span the 50% success value. It is clear that the maximum or minimum values for many participants do not reach the 50% value. These two problems indicate that many (most?) participants were not really sensitive to the stop signal.

The second issue concerns the pattern of response times (RTs) on "ignore" trials. The authors portray performance as exemplifying a "pause-then-go" strategy. This is not uncommon, but it is not the only way participants perform. Many participants across multiple studies of selective stimulus stopping produce RTs on "Ignore" trials essentially indistinguishable from RTs on no-stop trials. The authors must acknowledge and account for such individual variability. In fact, the "T_s" value is measured by the difference in distributions of RT on no-signal and ignore trials. If these distributions are not different, then the measurement and interpretation of this quantity is questionable.

Related, the distributions of RT on stop trials, particularly for saccade responses, are portrayed with a second mode in the schematic illustrations and clearly peaking at SSRT in Figure S1. This second mode is not observed in other saccade stop signal studies. This indicates that the participants in this study were in a peculiar mode of performance.

Finally, given the pivotal role of measures of differences of RT distributions and the pronounced variation of stopping accuracy (Figure S3), the authors must show the distributions for all of their new participants. The authors' claim to higher resolution obliges them to reveal every step of analysis.

In its current form, this manuscript is unlikely to change the thinking of modelers or practitioners of the stop signal task.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In humans, short photoperiods are associated with hypersomnolence. The mechanisms underlying these effects is, however, unknown. Chen et al. use the fly Drosophila to determine the mechanisms regulating sleep under short photoperiods. They find that mutations in the circadian photoreceptor cryptochrome (cry) increase sleep specifically under short photoperiods (e.g. 4h light : 20 h dark). They go on to show that cry is required in GABAergic neurons and that the effects of the cry mutation on sleep are mediated by alterations in GABA signalling. Further, they suggest that the relevant subset of GABAergic neurons are the well-studied small ventral lateral neurons that they suggest inhibit the arousal promoting large ventral neurons via GABA signalling.

Strengths:

Genetic analysis to show that cryptochrome (but not other core clock genes) mediates the increase in sleep in short photoperiods, and circuit analysis to localise cry function to GABAergic neurons.

Weaknesses:

The authors' have substantially revised their manuscript, and the manuscript is much better for the revisions. However, the idea that the sLNvs are GABAergic is unfortunately still not well supported by the data. The authors have acknowledged the limitations of their methods though which is very welcome, and a substantial improvement.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The study "Resetting of H3K4me2 during mammalian parental-to-zygote transition" provides valuable insights into the dynamic changes in H3K4me2 during early embryonic development.

Strengths:

The findings provide valuable insights into the temporal and spatial dynamics of H3K4me2 and its potential role in zygotic genome activation (ZGA).

Weaknesses:

Key areas for improvement include enhancing the innovation and novelty of the study, providing robust functional validation, establishing a clear model for H3K4me2's role, and addressing technical and presentation issues. While the findings are significant, the current manuscript falls short in several critical areas. Addressing these major and minor issues will significantly strengthen the study's contribution to the field of epigenetic reprogramming and embryonic development.

Comment on revised version:

It would be better for the author to directly provide some experimental or analytical data rather than discussing and defending.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Rajagopalan et al. shows how extracellular domain features regulate KIR2DL4 internalization. The trafficking phenotypes of cysteine mutants are logically organized and well summarized in Table. The disulfide mapping and differential alkylation strategy is appropriate and provides strong support for alternative disulfide configurations in D0. The higher accessibility or more selective reduction of Cys10-Cys28 as compared to Cys28-Cys74 by PDI is a key mechanistic anchor.

Strengths:

The identification of a conformational switch in KIR2DL4 is conceptually novel. Experimental elegance, detailed and well written.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors measured whether a phylogenetically wide sample of marine species was experiencing declining genetic diversity, as one might expect from widespread habitat threat, over a recent 2-decade time span. They next identified key environmental variables that are impacting genetic diversity within and between reefs. A key insight was to apply k-mer-based genetic distances to massively speed up the reanalysis of genetic data into a common pipeline, which is otherwise onerous. The manuscript ends by highlighting key seascape variables that were associated with increases or decreases with genetic diversity through time. The authors achieved their overall aims, though I remain unsure of how well the identified seascape variable-genetic diversity predictions can be generalized, as implied in the abstract.

Strengths:

A key strength of the study was its rigor in vetting the k-mer based distance metrics, checking whether they give population structure patterns (Figure S2) and correlated with nucleotide diversity. This surpasses previous studies that used a similar method. The modeling procedure of genetic diversity predictions from environmental variables is also rigorous and presented with some appropriate nuance.

Weaknesses:

I noted five weaknesses, listed below in order of potentially more severe at the top to more minor at the bottom.

First, only one k-mer distance metric was tested. There are many k-mer distance metrics that will potentially give different weight to different frequencies of polymorphism, like how Watterson's theta and nucleotide diversity weight polymorphisms, depending on their frequency. It would be interesting to see if the seascape variable predictions hold with a Jaccard or cosine distance metric, or if the observed results are purely restricted to the choice of Bray-Curtis distance. Another option would be to use mash, skmer, or (very recent development) re-skmer distances, which attempt to more directly approximate the average nucleotide identity between two sequence sets based on the k-mer sets of their reads while also being faster than traditional alignment. This would potentially give cleaner trends, seeing as the goal is to have a proxy for nucleotide diversity, with the downside of not including the impacts of non-SNP variation.

Second, it is unclear to me whether the number of species analyzed, 18, can accurately identify important environmental variables in early warning systems, as claimed in the abstract. While this likely represents the best available balance of evidence, it is worth highlighting the manuscript's note that the environment-diversity predictions did not scale across marine realms. This is likely a limitation of data availability, rather than a study design flaw, but is nonetheless important for readers to keep in mind. Would recommend that the abstract acknowledge this limitation.

Third, it is unclear to me how the included datasets compare in terms of genome-wide coverage. Figure S1 gives sequencing depths in terms of read number, but what is the range normalized for genome size - are the datasets 1x, 5x, 10x, on average, etc? This is probably most key to how the k-mer distance metrics will perform, because low coverage will make two samples appear artificially distant due to rarity of sampling the same k-mer multiple times. However, the correlation between k-mer distance and regular alignment-based SNP distance (Figure 2C) gives some confidence that this effect could be small.

Fourth, though k-mer distances may in some sense better capture the breadth of DNA sequence diversity, they lack a concrete interpretation of what loci may/may not be under selection as marine environments are increasingly threatened over time. This is a different question than what the manuscript tries to address, but is of interest to the field and is something that would be seemingly difficult to do with k-mers.

Finally, I had a more minor concern: the k-mer-based distances use only k-mers that are mapped to a reference genome. This is done to thoroughly remove contaminant sequences, which is important, but is a double-edged sword because there is potentially additional pangenomic variation that is real but does not map to a single reference. The authors state in the first paragraph of the discussion that this choice did not affect the results, but I did not find an associated analysis in the supplement or main text. It would be interesting to compare distance metrics based on screening against all known microbial+human genomes vs screening against the reference genomes.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This study used publicly available Tara Oceans and Tara Oceans Polar Circle metagenomic and metatranscriptomic datasets, including viromes, to construct sample-specific, gene-scale metabolic models. This reviewer understood that, for each sample, genes or transcripts associated with metabolic pathways were integrated into a single virtual "superorganism" or "community cell." These sample-level models were then compared across global ocean regions to investigate spatial patterns in heterotrophic prokaryotic metabolism, metabolic synergy, and the potential effects of virus-encoded auxiliary metabolic genes. However, it was not clear whether archaeal genes were also included in the heterotrophic prokaryotic fraction.

The study represents an ambitious and potentially valuable attempt to connect large-scale environmental omics data with constraint-based metabolic modeling. The authors handled a very large dataset and introduced quantitative approaches based on flux sampling, Reaction Cumulative Correlation, and synergy scores to describe community-level metabolic phenotypes using several mathematical formulations. The recovery of previously defined oceanic ecological zones from reaction-based models may provide preliminary support for the ecological relevance of the framework, although only approximately 26% of prokaryotic genes and 7% of viral genes were mapped to known metabolic reactions.

However, the framework should be understood as gene- or reaction-resolved, sample-level metabolic modeling rather than genome-resolved community modeling. By combining all detected genes within a sample into a single superorganism, the approach likely loses taxon-specific metabolic information and cannot directly distinguish intracellular metabolism from interspecies metabolic exchange. Consequently, several ecological interpretations, including cooperation, stability, reaction essentiality, and viral impacts, remain strongly dependent on the underlying model assumptions.

Overall, the manuscript presents a novel and scalable framework with considerable potential. However, greater methodological clarification and more cautious interpretation are needed before the ecological and biogeochemical conclusions can be fully supported.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors extend their previous population-based Ct-value framework for inferring community epidemic trajectories from human infections to vector infections, using mosquitoes as vectors for West Nile virus. They use agent-based modelling to distinguish virus-positive detections arising from non-active infection states from those reflecting active infections, and then apply this framework to mosquito surveillance data from Colorado and Texas.

Overall, this is a well-designed and carefully evaluated study. The manuscript proposes a feasible and potentially valuable framework for vector infection surveillance. The findings are supported by both mechanistic agent-based simulations and applications to real-world mosquito surveillance data, which strengthens the biological plausibility and practical relevance of the proposed approach.

Strengths:

A major strength of the study is its clear methodological extension from human infection surveillance to vector infection surveillance. The agent-based modelling framework provides a useful basis for distinguishing active infections from virus-positive detections that may reflect non-active infection states. The application to surveillance data from two different geographic settings further supports the feasibility of the framework. Overall, the study is carefully designed, and the model schematic and main analyses are generally clear.

Weaknesses:

(1) It would be helpful if the authors could provide plots showing variation across locations and over time. This would further support the claim made in the paragraph at lines 101-107.

(2) Figure 2: The model schematic is clear in terms of workflow, but it would benefit from more information on model parameterization. In particular, it would be helpful to clarify which parameters or migration rates were estimated from the data and which were assumed based on prior literature.

(3) Figure 4: I wonder whether the authors examined how changes in the proportion of mosquitoes with static viral-kinetics trajectories would affect the observed bimodal distribution. Relatedly, it would be useful to know whether there is a threshold proportion at which the method becomes less able to distinguish active from static viral-kinetics patterns.

Conclusion:

Overall, the evidence is reasonably strong for demonstrating the feasibility and biological plausibility of the proposed framework. Some conclusions would be further strengthened by additional sensitivity analyses on key assumptions, especially the proportion of static viral-kinetics trajectories and spatial-temporal heterogeneity across surveillance sites.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Using electrophysiological recordings in a well-characterized animal model of acute pain, and analytical and modeling methods, the authors show that descending pain-modulatory neurons in the rostral ventromedial medulla (RVM) operate across various timescales. They have both rapid multi-phase responses to noxious stimuli that unfold over tens of seconds, with distinct fast and slow recovery dynamics. Additionally, they generate slow quasi-periodic oscillations with approximately 5-minute periods during ongoing activity. These oscillations are statistically predictable and cell-type specific, demonstrating that descending pain control is organized through structured temporal dynamics that encompass immediate stimulus-evoked responses and slower fluctuations associated with physiological state.

A novel discovery is a ~5-minute quasi-periodic oscillation in ongoing ON- and OFF-cell activity. This oscillation, along with its coherence with heart rate, forms the basis for the claim that descending pain circuits exhibit intrinsic multi-timescale organization. However, it's crucial to demonstrate that this periodicity is independent of external experimental cycles such as methohexital infusion pharmacokinetics, servo-controlled temperature regulation, or slow autonomic feedback loops, all of which operate on similar timescales. For instance, the 300-second period closely matches typical drug infusion cycling and thermoregulatory feedback intervals. Therefore, heart-rate coherence peaks at multiples of this period could equally reflect a shared external driver rather than intrinsic RVM organization. Although the absence of this cyclic structure in Neutral cells argues against this possibility, the authors might want to explicitly discuss this potential confound.

The findings are important and novel in that they characterize an intriguing structure in the activity of ON and OFF neurons in the RVM. However, in the absence of a causal manipulation causality can only be inferred. That there is no phase-dependence of withdrawal latency argues against a causal role. The author are encouraged to qualify their conclusions (and their title) accordingly.

Because anesthesia can affect global dynamics, this might affect the oscillations reported. Without awake validation, it remains uncertain whether these rhythms reflect an intrinsic property or an anesthesia-induced regime. Again, the absence of oscillations in Neutral cells argues against this possibility, but it is still possible that ON/OFF cells are embedded in different circuits that are affected differently by anesthesia.

Analyses of many of the ON-cells had longer training windows (>1 sec) compared to those for the NEUTRAL cells. Could this have reduced the ability to fit and validate periodicity for the latter cell type?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This is an innovative and technically strong study that integrates dual-gas respirometry with LC-MS metabolomics to examine how sleep and circadian disruption shape metabolism in Drosophila. The combination of continuous O₂/CO₂ measurements with high-temporal-resolution metabolite profiling is novel and provides fresh insight into how wild-type flies maintain anticipatory fuel alignment, while mutants shift to reactive or misaligned metabolism. The use of lag-shift correlation analysis is particularly clever, as it highlights temporal coordination rather than static associations. Together, the findings advance our understanding of how circadian clocks and sleep contribute to metabolic efficiency and redox balance.

However, there are several areas where the manuscript could be strengthened. The authors should acknowledge that their findings may be gene-specific. Because sleep deprivation was not performed, it remains uncertain whether the observed metabolic shifts generalize to sleep loss broadly or are restricted to the fmn and sss mutants. This concern also connects to the finding of metabolic misalignment under constant darkness despite an intact clock. The conclusion that external entrainment is essential for maintaining energy homeostasis in flies may not translate to mammals. It would help to reference supporting data for the finding and discuss differences across species. Ideally, complementary circadian (light-dark cycle disruption) or sleep deprivation (for several hours) experiments, or citation of comparable studies, would strengthen the generality of the findings. Figures 1-4 are straightforward and clear, but when the manuscript transitions to the metabolite-respiration correlations, there is little description of the metabolomics methods or datasets, which should be clarified. The Discussion is at times repetitive and could be tightened, with the main message (i.e., wild-type flies align metabolism in advance, while mutants do not) kept front and center. Terms such as "anticipatory" and "reactive" should be defined early and used consistently throughout.

Overall, this is a strong and novel contribution. With clarification of scope, refinement of presentation, and a more focused Discussion, the paper will make a significant impact.

Comments on revised version.

The authors have satisfactorily addressed my concerns in the revised manuscript

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The study presents novel results on the presence of the Entner Doudoroff pathway in Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803. In contrast to an earlier study, compelling evidence is given that this strain lacks both an ED pathway and a glucose dehydrogenase/glucokinase bypass but contains a promiscuous aldolase, which also decarboxylates oxaloacetate and cleaves 2-keto-4-hydroxyglutarate (as it occurs in proline degradation). The study concludes with successfully reconciling data of different studies and with lessons learned from the previous misconception.

Strengths:

Solid biochemical data is presented to reconcile contradicting data of earlier studies and to serve as basis for disclosing possible functions of a promiscuous aldolase. Earlier misconceptions and lessons to be learned are well discussed.

Weaknesses:

The materials and methods section is rather lengthy, suffering from a lack of conciseness and repetitions, and nevertheless misses some specifications.

Comments on revised version.

The materials and methods section has been significantly improved. The revised manuscript is now recommended for publication as it is.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The article describes an interesting methodology to test hypotheses about the impact of anthropogenic noise on a small arboreal primate, the pygmy marmoset. The authors used a motion-triggered combination of camera traps and speakers to play back control sounds, avian predator calls, and anthropogenic noise to test the risk-disturbance hypothesis and the distracted prey hypothesis. In addition, the authors implemented a technique that is usually used for larger mammals and has not been used before for smaller arboreal animals. The authors are careful in their interpretation of the results and do not favor one hypothesis over the other. The authors also elaborate extensively in their discussion on how to improve this kind of data collection in the future.

Strengths:

This study provides a method for rapid data collection while minimizing observer impact. The sample size is comparatively large for a wild animal in a reserve, given the overall observation time. The article also benefits from a solid analysis of the data.

Weaknesses:

Though the authors tested two contrasting hypotheses, the discussion would benefit from more detail on the ecological relevance of the observed behaviors.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Previous work established that FZF1 is both necessary and sufficient for activation of FZF1 target genes through the CS2 sequence motif, which is present upstream of FZF1-responsive targets. This study extends that model by demonstrating that, in addition to direct binding of FZF1 to CS2 elements, FZF1 can also promote reduced nucleosome-mediated repression, thereby contributing an additional layer of transcriptional regulation.

The authors investigate why FZF1-dependent transcriptional responses exhibit different magnitudes despite FZF1 binding to CS2 elements with similar affinity. Using promoter constructs derived from the DDI2-3 gene, the authors identify a region upstream of the CS2 element that functions as a repressive regulatory element. Based on this observation and publicly available datasets, the authors propose that this repression may be mediated through nucleosome occupancy.

Strengths:

The authors demonstrate that the DDI2-3 promoter contains positioned nucleosomes and show that chemical stress results in decreased histone protein levels and reduced histone-associated transcripts. They further examine whether histone depletion alone is sufficient to activate the DDI2-3 response and find that reduced histone levels increase expression, although chemical treatment produces an additional increase that remains dependent on FZF1. These findings suggest that FZF1 contributes to reductions in nucleosome occupancy at DDI2-3 and SSU1, revealing a second, potentially independent mechanism by which FZF1 regulates transcriptional responses to chemical stress.

Overall, the authors provide strong evidence that nucleosome occupancy influences the magnitude of FZF1-mediated DDI2-3 responses to chemical stress. This work has important implications for understanding how transcriptional networks evolve to generate highly tuned responses by combining multiple regulatory mechanisms acting on shared molecular components.

Weaknesses:

However, several additional considerations should be addressed. While histone depletion may contribute to differential FZF1-mediated responses, alternative mechanisms may also influence the observed transcriptional differences. For example, YHB1 exhibits basal expression that is independent of FZF1, and SSU1 contains the CS1 regulatory element, which can promote increased expression independently of FZF1 responsiveness. Therefore, differences in promoter architecture and the presence of alternative regulatory sequences may also contribute to differential FZF1 responses and should be discussed.

Additionally, the authors should clarify whether nucleosome depletion is directly mediated by the FZF1 ZF5 domain or occurs indirectly as a consequence of RNA polymerase II (Pol II) recruitment. Although the data presented in Figure 9 are consistent with a direct interaction model, the current evidence does not fully exclude the possibility that Pol II recruitment contributes to subsequent nucleosome/histone depletion. Unless there is direct experimental evidence demonstrating that FZF1 ZF5 independently promotes nucleosome remodeling, this alternative mechanism should be acknowledged and considered in the discussion.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript systematically evaluates the impact of experimental workflows on plasma cell-free transcriptome sequencing (cfRNA-seq) data. The authors integrate a large number of cfRNA sequencing datasets from multiple publicly available studies and establish a unified bioinformatics framework to systematically assess the effects of experimental workflows, genomic DNA contamination, library diversity, and preanalytical factors on cfRNA transcriptomic profiles.

Strengths:

This study addresses the technical heterogeneity that may hinder cfRNA biomarker discovery and clinical translation and is of substantial value.

Weaknesses:

The effects of disease phenotype, technical confounding, criteria for library quality, and conclusions regarding DNase treatment require further clarification and validation.

Major Points:

(1) The conclusion that donor phenotype explains only a small fraction of transcriptomic variation requires further support from within-study analyses.

The authors conclude from variance partitioning across all studies that phenotype explains only a small fraction of cfRNA transcriptomic variation. However, the included studies encompass different diseases, while phenotype is simplified into healthy, cancer, and non-cancer disease categories, and the overall transcriptomic variation is strongly influenced by study-specific and experimental workflow batch effects. Therefore, the cross-study pooled analysis may underestimate genuine disease-associated cfRNA differences within individual studies conducted under the same experimental workflow.

Recommendation: The authors are encouraged to perform within-study phenotype analyses in datasets that include both healthy controls and disease samples and have sufficient sample size, and to quantitatively estimate the proportion of transcriptomic variance explained by phenotype. For example, the Zhu dataset includes healthy controls and liver cancer samples, and the authors have already observed relatively clear phenotype-associated clustering between the two groups. The contribution of healthy-versus-liver-cancer phenotype to transcriptomic variation could therefore be quantified within this dataset. If similar results are obtained across multiple independent cohorts, the findings could then be summarized across studies. The authors should also note that a low contribution of phenotype to global transcriptomic variance does not necessarily imply that disease-associated cfRNA signals lack biological or clinical relevance.

(2) Comparison of the relative contributions of technical factors and disease phenotype may be affected by confounding.

Figure 1C shows that phenotype is strongly or even completely confounded with technical variables such as collection center and centrifugation protocol in some cohorts. Nevertheless, the variance partitioning analysis across all samples is used to conclude that technical factors are the primary sources of variation, whereas phenotype contributes little. In the presence of such confounding, technical effects and disease-associated biological effects may not be reliably estimated independently, and this conclusion therefore requires more direct validation.

Recommendation: The authors are encouraged to perform an independent within-study variance analysis in cohorts in which technical variables and phenotype are relatively balanced. For example, in the Moufarrej cohort, phenotype is essentially unconfounded with collection center/centrifugation protocol (Cramer's V = 0). Phenotype and relevant technical variables could be included simultaneously in a within-cohort model to quantify their respective contributions to cfRNA transcriptomic variation. If technical factors still explain a larger fraction of variance in such relatively unconfounded cohorts, this would provide stronger support for the central conclusion of the manuscript.

(3) The use of NG80 as a criterion for defining "high-quality libraries" requires further validation.

The authors use NG80 as a metric of library diversity and further apply NG80 > 1,000 as one criterion for defining high-quality libraries in Figure 6. However, because NG80 is based on gene counts, it may be affected by sequencing depth. In addition, gDNA contamination can artificially increase NG80, whereas genuinely abundant non-coding RNAs in WRR libraries can lower NG80. Therefore, a higher NG80 does not necessarily indicate better overall library quality, and the metric may reflect both technical quality and genuine RNA composition.

Recommendation: The authors are encouraged to re-evaluate NG80 after downsampling samples to a common number of mapped fragments and to examine the relationship between NG80 and sequencing depth. The rationale for the NG80 > 1,000 threshold should also be further justified, and the impact of alternative NG80 thresholds on high-quality library classification and the main conclusions should be assessed. Unless there is evidence that this threshold reliably predicts library reproducibility or biomarker-related information content, library diversity and overall library quality should be clearly distinguished, and NG80 should not be presented as a universal criterion for high-quality libraries.

(4) Conclusions regarding DNase treatment should be interpreted more cautiously.

The Toden study did not explicitly report DNase treatment. The manuscript infers that DNase digestion was performed based on the fact that this study originated from the same laboratory as other studies and used a similar workflow; this inference should not be treated as an established experimental fact. In addition, the authors state that double DNase treatment is the most effective approach among non-EB workflows, but this conclusion is mainly based on cross-study comparisons, in which DNase strategy varies together with laboratory, sample handling, and cohort-specific factors. The current evidence is therefore insufficient to establish that double DNase treatment itself is superior.

Recommendation: The authors are encouraged to label the DNase status of the Toden study as "not reported" or "inferred", unless confirmation can be obtained from the original authors. The conclusion that double DNase treatment is the most effective approach should also be tempered, with explicit acknowledgment that it requires direct parallel validation using the same samples under different DNase treatment strategies.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors conducted a functional high-throughput drug screening using hiPSC-CMs derived from patients with LMNA-DCM. Cyproheptadine emerged as a therapeutic candidate.

Strengths:

The screen appears well designed.

Weaknesses:

The single candidate that emerged from the screen, cyproheptadine, raises issues with potency. In addition, validation studies that are both expected and necessary for a drug proposed as a novel therapeutic for human cardiomyopathy have not yet been performed. Rigor could be improved once the basic mechanistic and validation studies discussed below have been performed.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, the impact of prenatal alcohol (PAE) on amyloid precursor protein (APP) C-terminal fragments and notch intracellular domain (NICD) levels in adulthood is measured in 3xTg-AD mice.

Prenatal alcohol alters gamma secretase activity with development and aging. This could have implications for Alzheimer's disease risk in populations without inherited Alzheimer's risk genetics.

Strengths:

Strengths include the model, the use of orthogonal approaches, and the rigorous, high-quality data.

Weaknesses:

Some figures lack prenatal alcohol treatment in the 3xTg-AD mice.

Some overstatements should be tempered. For instance, one cannot conclude that the changes in CTFs are driving the changes in learning and memory (as suggested in the last line of the abstract) without a direct intervention testing this. For instance, though PAE caused a more robust learning deficit at 6 mo in WT, the impact on CTFs was less than it was at 3 mo. PAE did not significantly change CTFs or learning/memory in 3xTg-AD mice at 4 months, suggesting the genotype effect takes over at this point. The text should be adjusted to reflect this.

Conclusion:

In summary, this is a rigorous assessment of the long-term impacts of PAE on CTFs and learning/memory in adult WT and 3xTg-AD mice.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This manuscript reveals functional connectivity of two different classed of cortical neurons that respond in opposite ways to mismatches between sensory and top-down inputs. These data are very valuable because different theories of information processing in the cortex make different predictions on the patterns of connectivity of these neurons. Therefore, these data strongly constrain possible theories of cortical processing.

Comments on revised version.

I thank the Authors for answering my questions and updating the manuscript.

Congratulations on this important work!

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Toxoplasma gondii is an obligate intracellular parasite and the causative agent of toxoplasmosis. Parasite invasion of host cells, intracellular replication, and subsequent egress, which results in destruction of the infected cell, are central to pathogenicity. This manuscript focuses on understanding how maternal resources, specifically cellular organelles, are shared between daughter parasites during cell division. Many organelles are present as a single copy, making their division and inheritance essential for successful replication. In T. gondii, our understanding of how organelles are divided during cell division remains limited, and this study helps address this important knowledge gap.

Strengths:

The major strength of this study is the use of a Halo-based pulse-chase assay to characterize patterns of organelle inheritance and to monitor protein synthesis, turnover, and movement. This approach will be of considerable interest to the field. Using this method, the authors identify three major modes of organelle inheritance:

(1) Organelles present in multiple copies (such as micronemes and rhoptries) are partitioned between daughter parasites, with additional contributions from newly formed vesicles. Newly synthesized and pre-existing material remain as distinct populations within the cell.

(2) Single-copy organelles, such as the Golgi and apicoplast, are expanded through the incorporation of newly synthesized material before division.

(3) Cytoskeletal structures are synthesized de novo during each round of cell division.

These findings provide a more refined understanding of organelle inheritance and demonstrate that secretory organelles are not generated entirely de novo during each round of division, as was previously thought.

The paper places particular emphasis on the fate of maternal micronemes and rhoptries during division. The data show that (1) during division in wild-type cells, maternal micronemes and rhoptries are detectable in the residual body (RB); however, the majority of these organelles are localized within the parasite body, either at the apical or basal ends of the daughter parasites (Fig. 6). (2) In the absence of the myosin motor MyoF, micronemes and rhoptries accumulate in the residual body and are not properly trafficked to the daughter cells. Upon restoration of MyoF protein levels, these organelles redistribute to the daughter cells, although in an uneven manner.

Weaknesses:

The second half of the paper focuses on a more detailed characterization of microneme and rhoptry recycling. The authors strongly argue that the RB is a central hub for recycling micronemes and rhoptries; however, this conclusion is not fully supported by the data. For example, the authors state:

Line 227:<br /> "Notably, after endodyogeny was completed, M-MIC2 was redistributed from the RB to the apical tip of the daughter cells (Figure 6A, 11:30, 16:00 h), confirming that the RB serves as a temporary reservoir during microneme recycling (Periz et al., 2019)."

Line 231:<br /> "In approximately 90% of parasites undergoing replication, M-RON2 was integrated into daughter rhoptries prior to mother cell collapse and formation of the RB (Figure 6B, 4:15-4:30 h and 10:30-10:45 h). Like M-MIC2, M-RON2 was occasionally detected in the RB, though less prominently, suggesting more rapid, tightly regulated, or more efficient recycling due to their lower number."

Line 326:<br /> "However, we show that the RB temporarily stores maternal secretory organelles, such as micronemes and rhoptries, which are later redistributed to daughter cells in a MyoF-dependent manner (Figure 9B)."

Thus, the model that all microneme and rhoptry trafficking is RB-dependent is based primarily on the MyoF depletion phenotype (which results in RB accumulation) together with the observation that a relatively small amount of maternal microneme and rhoptry material is detectable in the RB of wild-type parasites. Although the authors' interpretation-that recycling is RB-dependent-is one possible explanation, alternative models are not discussed.<br /> For example, an alternative possibility is that the majority of micronemes and rhoptries are trafficked directly from the apical end of the mother parasite to the daughter cells without passing through the RB. In this scenario, only a subset of the organelles would enter the residual body, perhaps reflecting imperfect trafficking efficiency rather than an obligatory recycling step. Loss of MyoF would impair this trafficking pathway, resulting in the accumulation of secretory organelles within the RB. In other words, RB accumulation could be a consequence of MyoF depletion rather than evidence that all trafficking in wild-type parasites normally proceeds through the RB.

This alternative interpretation seems particularly relevant for the rhoptries, given that the authors themselves state that "M-RON2 was integrated into daughter rhoptries prior to mother cell collapse and formation of the RB."

Other comments:

Figure S10C<br /> To determine whether microneme degradation occurs in the RB, the authors quantified the fluorescence intensity of individual micronemes in control parasites and following auxin washout, showing that after redistribution the fluorescence intensity of individual vesicles is unchanged. However, this is not the appropriate analysis to address the question being asked. To conclude that micronemes are not degraded, the authors would need to quantify the total fluorescence intensity within the entire vacuole. For example, if half of the micronemes were degraded, the remaining micronemes would be expected to retain the same fluorescence intensity as those in the control parasites. Thus, unchanged fluorescence intensity of individual vesicles does not exclude the possibility that degradation has occurred.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This excellent manuscript by Pinto, Sharp, and colleagues examines bovine tissue tropism for influenza viruses. They find that bovine flu, as well as other strains, have strong replication in mammary tissue. They also map the genetic changes to influenza that improve replication in bovine cells. Overall, the study is well designed and executed and the results are very timely.

Strengths:

(1) The experiments are well-controlled.

(2) The figures are well-constructed and easy to follow.

(3) The Methods and legends are detailed, with sufficient information.

Comment on revised version.

The authors have strengthened the manuscript by addressing comments from the three reviewers and I have no additional concerns/suggestions.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper studies the interplay of evolutionary and in-lifetime learning. The authors develop a neural network model in which initial weight configurations evolve under selective pressure, while fitness is determined by the network's performance after a learning period. They show that such a network displays very distinct learning dynamics from those trained by either gradient descent or genetic algorithms alone: in particular, they do not learn the task, but they show evidence of learning-to-learn and unusual representational structure.

Strengths:

(1) The writing, figures, and presentation of ideas were clear.

(2) The question of how evolution on initial weights combines with learning from within-lifetime experience to structure a learning trajectory seems interesting.

(3) The analysis of existing experiments was well-done, highlighting that though these networks did not really learn, they show latent learning structure that makes the network perform better from less data.

(4) The interplay between Baldwin & learning dynamics seemed novel and interesting, presenting many attractive puzzles.

Weaknesses:

First, the authors point to an important distinction between performing evolutionary selection on the weights pre- or post- lifetime training, the latter of which is Lamarckian. They argue, correctly, that their model is interesting because it selects on the weight initialisation, unlike, for example, Shuvaev et al. However, my understanding is that a long line of papers beginning perhaps with Hinton & Nowlan also do non-Lamarckian evolution: Hinton & Nowlan have unspecified weights (denoted '?' in the paper) that can be inherited and then learnt. Is this not exactly inheritance of initial conditions (in this case, whether learnable or not)? This novelty is a primary motivation of the paper, whereas to me it seems it was already apparent in Hinton & Nowlan, and developed further in what seems to be a long line of uncited literature (see next paragraph). As such, this paper's conclusions seem poorly positioned within the existing state of knowledge/literature.

Second, the algorithm is framed as novel, but I think it is a rediscovery. This framework is very close to MAML, in which an initial weight configuration is optimised by gradient descent to be good after a few steps of fine-tuning (Finn et al., 2017). The authors' approach differs in using a genetic algorithm to perform the training of the initial weights, avoiding some of the computational complexities of MAML, especially after long fine-tuning. In this, the authors have, I think, rediscovered ES-MAML, MAML where the inner optimisation loop is gradient descent, while the outer is genetic (Song et al., 2020). Other similar work is "Meta-Learning by the Baldwin Effect" (Fernando et al., 2018).

Further, within Fernando et al. there is a rich literature review, almost none of which are cited by the authors. I point especially to Keesing & Stork, 1990, which appears to show a strong dependence of Baldwin-like improvements on the amount of data, something this paper also shows but explores less thoroughly.

To summarise my critique thus far: I think the literature already answers the main concern of the motivation (i.e. non-Lamarckian neural network evolution and learning), I think it has already discovered this particular algorithm, and I think past work has more thoroughly analysed behaviours similar to those presented in this paper. Without positioning correctly within this literature, the more general contribution of the paper is hard to establish. The true novelty of the authors' analysis seems to be the emphasis on Saxe et al.-like learning dynamics and its interplay with the Baldwin effect, but I am not certain of this without knowing the literature better.

Regarding experiments, there was an interesting effect where the EC networks didn't learn but did show latent learning (Figure 2, Figure 3), which sped up later learning (Figure 4). There were a few details I was surprised by on which I would appreciate clarity:

(1) The main result has basically no headline learning under EC. This will clearly be very dependent on parameters (e.g. if you add or remove enough training steps, the algorithm becomes SGD/GA, which both show learning). It seems like a natural analysis would examine this (e.g. a plot of final performance of EC after 4000 generations with different per-generation learning budgets).

(2) It is then shown that after 4000 generations EC can learn very quickly to perform the semantic task perfectly, at least within 200 generations (Figure 4C, and perhaps much sooner, Figure 4D, Figure 4F last panel; it was hard to say. This and the previous point seem somewhat inconsistent; was it just that Figure 3 used only 100 fine-tuning steps while the perfect-task-performing networks in Figure 4 required somewhere between 100 and 200? This seems to point to extreme parameter dependence. More broadly, how should I square this inconsistency/near-inconsistency?

(3) Figure 3k, and especially Figure 4f bottom right panel, seem to show networks that correctly separate all stimuli but cannot classify them. Should I understand this as networks learning to just push apart all pairs of datapoints without structure?

(4) If I understood the genetic algorithm correctly, only three individuals from each population seeded the next generation. This seems another important parameter to tune, since I think it is far lower than standard evolutionary work, but I am not sure.

Finally, the paper most interested me as a neural network learning puzzle: how can the network perform so badly, yet lead to such different post-fine-tuning results? The paper pointed to these as 'distinct' learning phenomena without explaining what was causing those differences. The only way I could square these results in my head was as above: that the 4000 generations pushed the initial representation to represent all datapoints differntly, effectively changing the learning problem gradient descent faces from one with a lot of structure (the semantic task) that leads to stepwise learning, to one in which it was basically linear regression on a set of well separated stimuli without the structure necessary for stepwise learning. Since the paper focuses so much on learning dynamics, and studies a task where such things can be precisely probed, it would have been nice to pin down exactly what was happening slightly more.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors use simulations and empirical data fitting in order to demonstrate that informing a decision model using noisy single-trial estimates of an underlying fixed non-decision time can guide the model to more reliable parameter estimates, especially when the model has collapsing bounds.

Strengths:

The paper is well written and motivated, with clear depth of knowledge in the areas of neurophysiology of decision-making, sequential sampling models, and in particular, the phenomenon of collapsing decision bounds.

Two large-scale simulations are run to test parameter recovery, and two empirical datasets are fit and assessed; the fitting procedures themselves are state-of-the-art, and the study makes use of a very new and well-designed ERP decomposition algorithm that provides single-trial estimates of the duration of diffusion; the results provide inferences about the operation of decision bound collapse - all of this is impressive.

Weaknesses:

This is an interesting and promising idea, but a very important issue is not clear: it is an intuitive principle that information from an external empirical source can enhance the reliability of parameter estimates for a given model, but how can the overall BIC improve, unless it is in fact a different model?

Comment on revised version.

Thanks to the authors for their responses and inclusion of additional analyses and simulations. Thanks, in particular for clarifying a crucial detail, that the ndt-informed model actually assumes, like the uninformed model, that there is no variability in the non-decision time, and the idea is that the variable single-trial measurements of non-decision time are noisy estimates of an underlying, constant ndt. The revised paper itself has not made this clear - for example, throughout the Intro, there is no statement that the behavioural model assumes a trial-invariant ndt, and line 231 still calls tau the 'mean' non decision time, implying there is a distribution rather than an invariant single value in the behavioural model.

One implication of the above is that if the lognormal sigma is purely measurement noise that does not relate to actual variation in the underlying decision process generating behaviour, then the HMP latencies should not relate to behaviour, e.g. shorter latencies predicting shorter RT. I assume that even if the authors did find such a relationship, the principle still stands that a model with fixed ndt is more accurately fit when there are single-trial ndt estimates whose mean provides a constraint on that ndt value, than without such measurements. Still, given ndt variability is a core feature of many decision models, the authors could comment on whether the strategy would work in theory for a model with ndt variability (in the behavioural part), where the single trial estimates would then presumably reflect a mix of measurement noise and genuine ndt variability.

Another more important implication is that since it is in fact the same model being compared with and without the HMP data guiding the fixed ndt estimate, the reason the fit quality improves with HMP-information is not because it is a better model per se (it is the same model) but because without the HMP guidance, the search algorithm somehow gets lost and fails to find the 'optimal' parameter vector. That is, the parameter vector (just the parameters that relate to the behavioural model itself, not the HMP lognormally-distributed noise associated with VEP measurements) identified as optimal in the HMP-informed version of the model exists in the parameter space of the model without HMP information, but it is just not found? I raised this implication before, and it is still not clear whether it applies. I'm sorry to press on it, but it is critical for readers to understand why it is that neural information can improve overall model fit. Again, the enhancement of parameter recovery (like in Nunez 2025) makes sense, but the enhancement of the "model's fit to behavioural data" does not, without pointing to a deficiency in the search algorithm / fitting procedure.

The authors state in their replies that the onset of bound collapse is set at accumulation onset and imply that setting it instead at stimulus onset could "mathematically resolve the issue" but they don't do it because it is implausible. It is in fact not only plausible but clearly evidenced in empirical data - collapsing bounds are implemented neurally through urgency signals, and these can begin to dynamically build toward threshold well before, let alone at, stimulus onset. There is nothing bizarre about this - we can prepare movements without sensory input, and indeed even if choosing actions based on a sensory discrimination, motor preparation can launch well before the sensory evidence (e.g. Stanford, Salinas et al 2010) and this in effect collapses the bound on cumulative evidence for triggering action before any evidence actually arrives. So, Urgency/bound-collapse does not need to be triggered by a stimulus; it can start in anticipation of the stimulus. It seems critical, therefore, for the authors to clarify this point - does re-defining the onset of the collapse at stimulus onset remove the trade-off and render unnecessary the neurally-informed ndt estimation?

Related to this, it is still not clear how bias in the estimation of nondecision time would not be a problem. What if, for example, it is the end of the N2 rather than the peak of the N2 that marks accumulation onset, and/or there is an additional fixed motor time that adds to the N2-based marker to make the full nondecision time that applies in the underlying decision process. By definition (and I think this is essentially what the authors' new simulations verify), because of the trade-offs, this bias would simply be absorbed in shifted estimates of theta and lambda describing the bound collapse function. But wasn't the whole point of the exercise to more accurately estimate those parameters? The obvious implication is that the parameter-estimation accuracy of the ERP-informed model is determined by the accuracy with which the proposed ERP marker directly pinpoints the full nondecision time without bias, but this is not at all obvious in the paper as written. Importantly, in the example scenario I describe above where accumulation onsets when N2 ends, there may still be a perfect correlation of N2 peak latency with underlying ndt across trials - they could still be very strongly "linked" statistically, but we can't know what size offset might be involved.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The study presents an in-depth analysis of the peptide repertoire bound by a promiscuous chicken MHC molecule using mass spectrometry, x-ray crystallography and modelling. While the MHC can bind a very diverse set of peptides, the authors have found some new rules that govern peptide binding to this MHC that could help to build a predictive model to study the repertoire of pathogen-derived peptides.

Strengths:

The study uses a range of well performed experiment across multiple techniques and provides an in-depth analysis of the peptide repertoire, including peptide sequences, length, preferred residues, stability and MHC presentation.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The primary objective of this study was to establish a practical and functional framework for propagation of stable transgenic cell lines of Blastocystis, a common animal gut microeukaryote. Although the work focused on Blastocystis ST7-B, a subtype with relatively low prevalence in humans, this choice is justified by its association with more frequent negative health effects. Beyond their relevance to the medical field, the methodological advances described here have the potential to also expand cell biology studies of this anaerobic organism, including its unusual mitochondria and redox metabolism.

Strengths:

Prior to this work, genetic tools for Blastocystis were very limited, relying on a single strong promoter-terminator combination. The authors successfully expanded the available promoter set across a range of expression strengths by testing two dozen variants in luciferase-based assays. Critically, they developed an integrated workflow from a modular transgenic construct design to an expanded inventory of molecular components (promoters, reporters), optimized DNA delivery, stepwise antibiotic resistance-mediated clonal selection and propagation, and to reporter validation. The evaluation of several anaerobiosis-compatible labeling strategies for live (and fixed) cell optical imaging will be particularly useful, with the SNAP-tag system appearing especially promising for Blastocystis.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Cerebrospinal fluid contacting neurons (CSF-cNs) are GABAergic cells surrounding the spinal cord central canal (CC). In mammals, their soma lies sub-ependymally, with a dendritic-like apical extension (AP) terminating as a bulb inside the CC.

How this anatomy-soma and AP in distinct extracellular environments-relates to their multimodal CSF-sensing function remains unclear.

The authors confirm in the GATA3:GFP mice where these cells are labeled that CSFcNs exhibit prominent spontaneous electrical activity mediated by PKD2L1 (TRPP2) channels, non-selective cation channels with ~200 pS conductance modulated by protons and mechanical forces.

They investigated PKD2L1 pH sensitivity and its effects on CSFcN excitability. They uncovered that PKD2L1 generates both phasic and tonic currents, bidirectionally modulated by pH with high sensitivity near physiological values.

Combining electrophysiology (intact and isolated AP recordings) with elegant laser-photolysis, they show functional PKD2L1 channels localize specifically to the apical extension (AP).

This spatial segregation, coupled with PKD2L1's biophysical properties (high conductance, pH sensitivity) and the AP's unique features (very high input resistance), renders CSFcN excitability highly sensitive to PKD2L1 modulation. Their findings reveal how the AP's properties are optimised for its sensory role.

Strengths:

This is a very convincing demonstration using elegant and challenging approaches (uncaging, outside out patch of the AP) together to form a complete understanding on how these sensory cells can detect so finely the changes of pH in the CSF.

Weaknesses:

Not weaknesses, there are only minor requests to complete the beautiful study.

(1) The apical extension's response to removal of acidification is nicely illustrated in Figure 4C,G. There's something puzzling there: while the response to Glutamate is immediate, the channel responses to H+ is extremely delayed by 100ms - 2s, and even sometimes came in bursts separated by few hundreds of ms. H+ diffuse even faster than glutamate. Why is that?

I don't quite understand how the response is so delayed & how to explain the recurring bursts of channel opening in the figure panel ?

- The authors should show in Fig 4C,G the traces for 1-2 s before uncaging occurs so we can appreciate whether such events occur as well in baseline and discuss this further in revisions.

- Could the authors use a fluorescent pH sensor to monitor pH in the extracellular space and in the cell ?

- Could the authors investigate whether in the apical extension, PKD2L1 channels are mainly at the outer membrane in the apical extension OR whether many channels are located in inner membranes ?

(2) Suppl Fig 4 is very cool and should be moved to main figure. The coupling of Soma and AP is very tight, yet there is a clear difference in targeting of channels that respond to cues in the CSF. In the context of an intact spinal cord, we can wonder how and when the contribution from ASIC in the some would be relevant to physiology. Can the authors think of experiments with an intact central canal to test the sensitivity and condition of recruitment of pH sensing in the soma (ASIC) versus the apical extension (PKD2L1)?

(3) The Reissner fiber is missing after slicing the spinal cord. From our observations in fish, the fiber being under tension triggers lots of activity in CSF-cNs (Bellegarda et al Elife 2023) that also relies on PKD2L1 (Bohm et al NC 2016; Sternberg et al NC 2019). Could the authors discuss the contribution of the Reissner fiber to the PKD2L1 mediated modulation of CSFcN excitability ? Could the authors conceive a way to slice along the anteroposterior axis (sagitally) the spinal cord to keep the Reissner fiber in the central canal when recording CSF-cN apical extension ?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Prior work identified TMEM30B (knockout mice) as well as ATP8B1 (human genetics and mouse model), ATP8A2 (knockout mice), and ATP811A (human genetics) as relevant for hearing. The authors also reasoned that given the recent discovery of TMC1 and TMC2's dual function as mechanotransduction channels of the inner ear and as lipid scramblases, a counterpart flippase should be in the sensory hair-cell stereocilia bundle where mechanotransduction happens. They use CRISPR/CAS to modify the endogenous mouse genes and add an HA tag at the N-terminus of the ATP8B1, ATP8A1, ATP8A2, and ATP11A proteins. Their experiments with these mice unambiguously localized ATP8B1 at the base of outer hair cell stereocilia bundles. Knockout of ATP8B1 results in loss of outer hair cells, deficient auditory function (ABR), and degeneration of outer hair cell stereocilia bundles. Similarly, hair cells from genetically modified mice with endogenous HA-tagged TMEM30B proteins show localization of this protein to outer hair cell stereocilia bundles. TMEM30B knock out mice phenocopy the ATP8B1 knock out model. Interestingly, the authors show that annexing V staining precedes hair cell loss in ATP8B1 and TMEM30B knockout mice and that proper localization of these proteins is lost in mice that lack CIB2, a protein essential for hair cell mechanotransduction.

Strengths:

(1) Use of knock-in HA-tagged proteins to unambiguously localize ATP8B1 and TMEM30B

(2) Systematic characterization of auditory function (ABR), hair cell loss, and hair-cell stereocilia bundle morphology.

(3) Advances our understanding of the role played by lipid homeostasis in auditory function.

(4) Reports on mouse models that will be helpful to further understand the mechanistic role played by ATP8B1 and TMEM30B in normal hearing and hereditary deafness.

Weaknesses:

(1) Are the HA tags causing any functional issues? Function and localization of tagged proteins can sometimes be compromised. This is checked for TMEM30B and ATP8B1, but not for ATP8A1, ATP8A2, and ATP11A.

(2) Following on the point above, is it possible that ATP8B1-HA is well localized, but localization for the other three flippases (ATP8A1-HA, ATP8A2-HA, and ATP11A-HA) is compromised by the tag? Is this potential miss-localization causing any functional phenotypes? I find surprising that there are flippases only in outer hair cells and only formed by ATP8B1. A possible explanation is that the tag is interfering with trafficking. If so, there should be a phenotype (ABRs), although this might be masked by redundancy among these flippases or caused by systemic issues (admittedly difficult to sort out).

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript introduces HSSM, a Python-based toolbox for fitting cognitive models, with a specific focus on sequential sampling models. The toolbox brings together several components: a model construction interface, surrogate likelihoods, sampling tools, an inference backend, formula-based regressions, and tools for validation and visualization.

One of the key advantages is that HSSM relies on well-established open-source packages. This ensures both a robust foundation and also opens a potential for future (community-driven) development. While HSSM is not the first publicly available toolbox for fitting sequential sampling models, it introduces several novel features that will be very valuable to researchers in the field.

Strengths:

The biggest strength of HSSM is its flexibility and ease of use for hierarchical modeling. Many existing toolboxes work as closed systems that are hard to modify. In contrast, HSSM's modular design allows it to be used either as a stand-alone tool or to pick out specific components to integrate into existing pipelines. In addition, the toolbox combines simulation-based inference, surrogate likelihoods, and formula-based regression. This opens up a lot of new modeling possibilities and makes it easy to incorporate trial-by-trial neural or physiological covariates alongside standard RT and choice data.

Weaknesses:

The paper provides a high-level overview of the toolbox, rather than a didactic walk-through that shows how to use it in practice. Additionally, despite being framed as a broad toolbox for "neurocognitive modeling", HSSM currently focuses on sequential sampling models. While these models are widely used, they represent only a small slice of neurocognitive modeling as a whole. Additionally, the toolbox is currently in beta phase, and lots of planned extensions are not implemented yet. Finally, there is currently no information on general performance benchmarks.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The generation of alternate stages in the life cycle of a single species requires vast remodeling of the cellular complement of the individual during metamorphosis from one stage to another. In this paper, the authors provide a detailed description of single-cell RNA-seq data derived from the planula stage of the hydrozoan model Clytia hemispherica and compare this to an expanded dataset from the medusa stage to assess changes in transcriptomic identity of cell types between these two phases of the life cycle. The paper further includes valuable TEM data illustrating fine anatomy of cell types present at both stages investigated, and documentation of the retention of epithelial polarity from the planula through to the polyp stage, using a reporter line.

Strengths:

The study provides a solid and convincing transcriptomic characterization of planula cell types (including in situ validations and a planula-to-polyp mapping of epithelial polarity), and introduces a potentially valuable method for evaluating cluster similarity.

Weaknesses:

The work suffers from insufficient documentation of methodological approaches and missing code, lack of clarity regarding clustering resolution and nomenclature (thereby hindering cross-referencing with prior papers), and unclear plans for public, fully annotated data release.

Full Review:

The single-cell transcriptomic data analyzed include both previously published and newly generated data: two additional medusa libraries and two additional planula libraries were generated and integrated with the data from https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abh1683, and https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adv1159. The original release of the planula dataset in their 2025 Science Advances paper did not include analyses of all cell types. Here the authors provide this analysis for the planula stage. However, as both the number of clusters and the nomenclature of the clusters changed, this leads to some confusion and inability to cross-reference the two papers. There is no explanation given for the re-processing of the planula dataset in the current paper, and the fact that only some of the data is new is buried in the supplement, which is not referenced in the main document, while the text within the main article suggests that the entire dataset is new. The fact that the dataset in the current analyses contains fewer cells than presented in their Science Advances paper further adds to this confusion. The current paper would benefit from greater transparency in the origin of the data analyzed.

The authors do try to apply the same nomenclature for the updated medusa dataset that is present in their 2021 Science paper. For example, the previously identified 'bioluminescent cells' are identified as 'gas-m8'. A look-up table that has all of the cluster id's cross-referenced would be useful (i.e. new: 8 = gas-m8 = previous: 28 = BC = "Tentacle GFP cells"). The inability to easily cross-compare with the published data is a major weakness of the current work and would benefit greatly from consistency between the three papers. Indeed, the clustering resolution is quite different across all three papers, and the current work does not adequately address how the clustering resolution was selected here. As an updated atlas, one would expect the entire transcriptomic diversity to be included here, so that the previous work can be transferred to the updated genomic mapping resource used in the current work. Nonetheless, presenting a unified nomenclature for moving forward would benefit the community as a whole and would increase the impact of the current work substantially.

The paper also includes new TEM data of the planula cell types. The authors attempt to correlate transcriptomic profiles with these anatomical data through in situ hybridizations that provide spatial distribution of the profiles. While the TEM data are valuable to catalog the presence of cells with different morphologies within the planula, the association with the transcriptomic profiles is somewhat speculative. These valuable anatomical data should be provided at a high enough resolution to zoom in and see the details, and further description could be provided. For example, the paper states that vacuolated cells are characteristic of the basal gastrodermal cells adjacent to the mesoglea; please identify the vacuoles in Figure 4f/h for the reader.

A novel method for reconstructing cluster similarity relationships is applied to grouping clusters into cell categories within the same life cycle stage, and also for matching cell types between stages. This is a valuable contribution to the field that is worthy of further evaluation. This is, however, difficult, as the methods for which DESeq2 was applied ("see code for details") are not present in the provided code, nor is it adequately described how the "binary matrix of marker gene presence/absence" was constructed. Similarly, there are additional details of other parts of the data analysis that are missing from the provided code, and the provided supplementary material is not referenced in the main document. More rigorous documentation of the methods is warranted.

The description of the transcriptomic profiles present in the planula is solid, and the attempt to associate these profiles with anatomic locations and putative morphology provides a foundation onto which further studies can be developed. Mapping of the planula ectoderm through to the polyp stage is also an important step forward in characterizing the life cycle, and the evidence for the retention of the oral/aboral ectodermal axis is convincing. The paper falls short in describing the updated medusa dataset and could benefit from a minor restructuring of the paper. Introducing the new medusa data only after the planula dataset is fully described would mediate the shallower treatment of the updated medusa dataset, where only 22 of the original 36 transcriptomic states are recovered. In this way, the focus will shift onto the cross-life cycle stage comparisons, and it could be argued that the lower resolution of the medusa dataset is justified in order to simplify the comparisons.

It will be essential that the datasets that are presented in this work be made available for public exploration in a fully annotated format. It is currently unclear how the authors intend to do this; however, there are many repositories available for this. The UCSC Cell Browser hosted at cells.ucsc.edu is one very good option if the authors do not wish to develop an interactive tool themselves. It is imperative that the gene annotations which correspond to the dataset, and the cluster annotations that are presented in this paper, are available and easily connected to the released dataset.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper presents a large structural survey of extracellular vesicles (EVs) and non-vesicular extracellular particles (NVEPs) in the olfactory sensilla of Drosophila melanogaster. Using high-pressure freezing and serial block-face SEM, the authors avoid many of the artifacts associated with conventional fixation and analyze more than 7,800 particles across 352 sensilla. The manuscript maps the distribution of these particles, describes their morphological heterogeneity, and examines their likely origins across different sensillum classes in both normal and degenerating tissue.

Strengths:

The strongest aspect of the paper is the imaging. Preservation is painstakingly controlled. The cryofixation appears to preserve the sensillum lymph in a more convincing native state than standard preparation methods, giving this work gravitas. Further, the authors characterized thousands of particles, further making this data strong.

The figures are strong. They are clear, easy to read, and generally well designed; I think people will use this paper as a model for how to present complex data in a concise and straightforward manner. The manuscript is careful in how it presents the dataset and does not overinterpret the descriptive observations. As an ultrastructural resource, this paper will be useful to the field. The identification of auxiliary support cells as major secretory sites, together with the striking accumulation of EVs in degenerating tissue, will provide a useful starting point for future work.

Weaknesses:

The main point that could use more clarification is the vesicle categorization. In particular, the distinction between "dense," "cargo-filled," and "double EVs" is not always easy to follow from a biological perspective. Some additional discussion of how the authors think these categories relate to one another, and whether they are intended as purely morphological groupings or as distinct biological classes, would strengthen the manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The authors investigate the mechanism by which a gasdermin pore-forming effector of the cartilaginous fish Callorhinchus milii, GSDMA/B (CmiGSDMA/B), is activated. This potentially provides information on the ancestral function of gasdermins, a class of proteins broadly important in human health and disease. By reconstituting components of this system in vitro using transfection models, they show that GSDMA/B is activated by cleavage by the caspase-1 homolog CmiCASP1, which directly senses lipopolysaccharide. This mechanism is broadly similar to the non-canonical pathway in mammals, wherein caspase-4/5/11 cleaves GSDMD upon cytosolic LPS sensing. The conclusions of these interactions are mostly well supported by data, but some aspects need clarification, and based on the experimental approaches, some of the broader interpretations have limitations that should be considered and further discussed.

A more detailed analysis and discussion on the differences between caspases with regard to their LPS-binding capacity would be valuable for comparison. The analysis of Figure 4A and 4B effectively shows that there are similarities between CmiCASP1 and some of the studied mammalian caspases. However, part of this analysis is to make the point that some caspases do not bind LPS, and it would benefit from the inclusion of additional relevant LPS-insensitive caspases to show the connection between the chondrichthyan caspase residues highlighted and LPS-binding dependence. Modeling the LPS binding site (such as in Figure 1F) would further help clarify whether these are appropriately positioned for coordination, or for non-conserved residues, if there are alternate binding modes thought to have biological relevance.

The authors note that two different cleavage products are formed, with variable function, which is of interest. The results of Figure 2b suggest that the 241A mutation (blocking the 30 kDa product) increases processing to the larger 35 kDa product, while the 288A mutation decreases processing of the 30 kDa product (also blocking the 35 kDa form). Paired with the lysis data (Figures 2C-2E), its not clear that the 35 kDa product is anything but inactive, but this is quite different from the observations in the experiments with each form (Figure 3N-3Q). A more detailed kinetic and stoichiometric analysis between full-length, N241, and N288 would be important for clarifying the potentially interesting observation of N288 inhibition of N241.

The mechanism of bacteriocidal activity proposed in the final model and by the experiments of Figure 5 would benefit from further development to support the claim. The experiments do not adequately address whether, during pyroptosis, there is release of N241-like fragments that can kill bacteria. Figure 3G would indicate that it stays in the cell, either in the membrane or mitochondria, and it's not clear there would be circumstances where it could be extracted from it to then target bacteria. Figure 5B might require additional explanation and analysis, but the appearance of similar colonies between conditions would appear to support that there is not measurable antibacterial activity. More rigorous support would come from differences in bacterial killing by knockout Callorhinchus cells, but a minimal step to demonstrating the relevance would be MIC assays, and connecting the effective concentration with one that could naturally occur in Callorhinchus.

Broadly, the methods of reconstitution of components of this system demonstrate the sufficiency of LPS for activating Casp1, and Casp1 for activating GSMDA/B. However, in more established models, it is clear that there are inhibitors, feedback mechanisms, alternative pathways, and regulation that could render these interactions irrelevant in Callorhinchus. For example, it's not clear where Casp1 and GSMDA/B are ever expressed in the same cell, at quantities sufficient for this mechanism, or that Casp1 doesn't induce more rapid death by acting on something other than GSDMA/B, or that Casp1 is irrelevant because GSDMA/B can be activated more readily by another mechanism. Therefore, while the insights into the evolution of the individual factors of GSDMA/B and Casp1 are interesting and of potential value to the field, reconstituting choice components by transfection of human HeLa and HEK293 cells introduces limitations to how far these experiments can be interpreted as a system. The abstract, for example, states this is a "pyroptosis pathway in cartilaginous fish". However, for all the interest of these data in the evolution of these proteins, the evidence falls short of this. It establishes a biological potential, but it's not clear this is an active pathway in fish.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper presents theoretical and empirical insights into the use of multi-task batteries for precision functional brain mapping and offers practical guidelines for optimal task design. Specifically, the authors evaluate differences between single-contrast and multi-task localizers, explore data-driven strategies for battery selection, such as minimizing collinearity, and compare grouped and interspersed stimulus-presentation designs. Through a combination of simulations and analyses of empirical fMRI data, the study provides a systematic set of recommendations for improving the reliability and specificity of individualized functional mapping.

Strengths:

Traditional functional mapping has long relied on single-contrast localizers or resting-state fMRI. However, there is growing recognition that diverse batteries of general tasks can yield more detailed functional maps with higher signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs). This manuscript systematically evaluates these advantages using both simulations and empirical data. The contribution is timely and provides the community with not only a theoretical justification for multi-task designs but also practical tools, in the form of the MultiTaskBattery toolbox, for implementing them.

Weaknesses:

Although the results are robust, they are largely consistent with existing expectations in the field, and the conceptual novelty or "surprise" factor is therefore somewhat limited. Nevertheless, synthesizing these findings into a coherent set of design recommendations provides significant value to researchers.

Additionally, there appears to be a slight mismatch between the content of the manuscript and its designated article type. Although the manuscript was submitted as a "Tools and Resources" article, its extensive empirical analyses and theoretical evaluation make it read more like a "Research Article." I defer this categorization to the Editor's judgment.

Finally, the authors use inter-subject overlap as a primary metric for validating the accuracy of functional mapping (Figure 3). However, given that genuine inter-individual variability in brain organization is a central premise of precision mapping, greater overlap across subjects may not necessarily indicate more accurate individual-level localization. A more detailed analysis or discussion of how to distinguish measurement noise from genuine individual differences would make the paper more comprehensive and strengthen its overall contribution.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Two types of Schwann cells (SCs) ensheath motor axons - myelinating SCs along the axonal length and terminal SCs (tSCs) that cover nerve terminals at the neuromuscular junction (NMJ). Therefore, the NMJ is, like other synapses, tripartite, with specialized presynaptic, postsynaptic, and glial cells. Many studies have shown that tSCs play roles in the development and function of the NMJ, but for some of these, interpretation is difficult because it is hard to manipulate tSCs without also manipulating myelinating SCs. To circumvent this problem, Kong et al. make use of a gene selectively expressed in tSCs, Col20a1 (Figure 1), to generate a knock-in mouse line, Col20a1-CreER, that gives them genetic access to tSCs. They cross this to Cre-dependent lines that mark tSCs with a red fluorescent protein (Figures 2 and 3) or ablate them by expression of diphtheria toxin along with the fluorescent protein (Figure 4). They show that ablation at postnatal day (P) 10 does not affect the overall structure or function of the NMJ (Figures 4 and 5). It does, however, affect some aspects of neuromuscular transmission over the following few weeks (Figures 6 and 7). Long-term effects cannot be studied by this method, however, because terminal SCs are replaced, presumably from the preterminal population (Figure 8).

Strengths:

The work is done to a high technical standard, including detailed characterization of the knock-in model. Results are presented clearly and illustrated beautifully. The finding that some early reports of synaptic alterations may result from concurrent loss of axonal SCs is important in rethinking the role of tSCs.

Weaknesses:

(1) The authors claim that tSCs are dispensable for some aspects of NMJ maturation, including synapse elimination (called pruning here), formation of "pretzel-like" postsynaptic topology, and generation of junctional folds in the postsynaptic membrane (lines 223 and 363). However, this conclusion is based on injection of tamoxifen to initiate tSC ablation at P10, which is necessary because Col20a1 is expressed in some preterminal SCs at earlier times. It presumably takes a few days for CreER to translocate to the nucleus and activate the toxin transgene, and some more time for the toxin to be generated and act. This is problematic because synapse elimination and other aspects of maturation mentioned occur during the first two postnatal weeks and are largely complete by P14. Therefore, one cannot conclude that these aspects "proceeded normally despite the loss of tSCs....".

(2) Effects on synaptic transmission are modest at best, being significant at a level of p<0.05 but not p<0.01 (Figure 6E, G, H and most of L). Effects on vesicle density are more robust (Figure 7).

(3) The authors use red fluorescent protein from the Col20a1 to label tSCs, and antibodies to S100b to label all SCs. This is appropriate in normal muscle and soon after tSC ablation. At later times, however, the NMJ is repopulated by S100+ Col20a1- SCs (Figure 8B). It is therefore important to show when this repopulation begins, because a modest recovery of SC coverage could have a big effect. For example, Figure 4C quantifies loss of NMJs with residual RFP+ cells but not S110+ cells; both should be quantified at this and slightly later stages.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Genes associated with risk for a specific disease commonly have widespread expression and functions across the body. Surveying patterns in these effects may reveal novel mechanisms, organs, and systems implicated in a disease, amongst other associations that are truly independent. In this work, Husen and coauthors use the Human Protein Atlas to explore such associations in Alzheimer's disease (AD), Lewy body dementia (DLB), and Frontotemporal dementia (FTD). Focusing on human non-disease tissue expression may avoid the effects of disease progression obscuring initial vulnerabilities. However, associations in non-diseased tissues do not necessarily reflect mechanisms causally related to the diseases themselves.

The work describes patterns of enrichment of genes across tissue types, brain regions, and cell types. A relatively small set of classes of each show enrichment for disease. While neural signatures are unsurprisingly prevalent, these classes are largely distinct across the three diseases. Alzheimer's disease is linked to liver and central and peripheral immune cells, while DLB shows interesting enrichments associated with cilia, which are linked to an existing literature. Results from the drug repurposing approach are then presented, with 1777 drugs linked to protein products of any of the modules enriched by the risk genes using DrugBank, categorised according to key signatures.

The authors developed R code (the HPA GeneSet Explorer) to automate the production of multi-system summaries of the organs, brain regions, cells and gene modules associated with traits and diseases and associated gene sets, within the HPA. Risk gene sets for the three dementia types were derived from the GWAS Catalog.

Strengths:

While many studies of how risk genes contribute to disease take a narrow approach focusing on organs, cell types, and processes already associated with a disease, it is a sensible approach to start with a system-agnostic approach that assesses tissues that are not ostensibly affected by disease. Here, this approach reveals a range of associations for 3 neurodegenerative diseases, identifying disease-associated modules and drug candidates that might be prioritized for subsequent confirmatory inference across biological scales. Results highlight key organs and cell types, most of which have established associations with the disease. Perhaps the most intriguing results are the links of DLB to cilia-related processes, which can be linked to some prior reports of DLB/PD but are not a core element of current theories of pathogenesis.

Weaknesses:

A difficulty with broad, multi-dataset surveys of disease associations is the need to distinguish novel and robust patterns - even if they lack causal evidence - from those that are unsurprising or do not stand out statistically. The work is exploratory in nature, but it is often hard to know how strong the evidence is for particular observations reported.

The work combines nominal, FDR<0.1, and Monte Carlo-based inference (with no apparent multiple assessment control across all tested modules) p-values throughout the paper, with patterns of effects of nominal significance. In some places, modules appear to be retained if they meet any of these criteria, muddying inference. This makes it difficult to weigh the different reported associations. Results report numbers of risk genes showing nominal p<0.05 enrichment across gene modules and biological scales - it is difficult for the reader to determine null expectations for false positives here. Similarly, it is unsurprising that thousands of drugs can be linked to the risk genes and their signatures using nominal significance.

The results have limited mechanistic specificity. The modules identified often reflect biological processes implicated in the diseases. This provides some validation of the approach, but the modules are often broadly defined, providing little mechanistic insight. For example, many aspects of ciliary biology may overlap with DLB, but can the HPA provide more specific insight? More generally, it is difficult to determine how much relevance that enrichment in non-disease tissue has for disease processes. Similarly, it is hard to determine whether overlap of drug targets from DrugBank with these modules realistically increases their prioritization.

Methodologically, there could be more detail. The paper - in particular the methods - is partially presented as a tool/pipeline paper, but thorough descriptions of the HPA models that are employed and modules reported for the analyses should still be presented in detail. The drug repurposing approach is described in a couple of sentences without a precise reference to the tool or statistical methods.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Thapliyal, Gopinath, and Glauser show that starvation alters how C. elegans respond to noxious thermal stimuli. Using targeted neural ablation, mutant analysis, and live-cell functional imaging the authors demonstrate that hunger changes the properties of AWC sensory neurons, which sense noxious heat. The authors further show that effects of hunger on nociception require ASI neurons, which are known to respond to hunger and mediate effects of food deprivation on behavior. Finally, the study uses mutant analysis to implicate glutamate and specific neuropeptides in thermal nociception and in modulation of nociceptors by hunger-responsive neurons.

The study clearly shows a strong effect of hunger on nociception and documents a striking effect of hunger on the intrinsic properties of AWC sensory neurons, which respond to noxious heat. The study also clearly and compellingly demonstrates that ablation of hunger-responsive ASI neurons blocks effects of hunger on nociceptive AWCs. These data, which constitute the kernel of the manuscript, are striking and exciting. This revised manuscript analyzes effects of starvation on AWC physiology and clearly shows that starvation alters the way AWCs respond to thermal stimuli by decreases the probability that AWCs will be activated and increases the probability that they will be inhibited. New data also identify ASI-derived neuropeptides that are required for modulation of AWCs by starvation. This study reveals a mechanistic link between an animal's metabolic state and sensory processing and establishes modulation of AWC function as a powerful model to study the molecular basis of this link.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors used whole-network imaging to identify sensory neurons that responded to the repellant 1-octanol. While several olfactory neurons responded to the initial onset of odor pulses, two neurons consistently responded to all the pulses, ASH and AWC. ASH typically activates in response to repellants, and AWC typically activates in response to the removal of attractants. However, in this case, AWC activated in response to the removal of 1-octanol, which was unexpected because 1-octanol is a harmful repellant to the worm. The authors further investigated this phenomenon by testing different concentrations of 1-octanol in a chemotaxis assay and found that at lower (less harmful) concentrations the odor is actually an attractant, but becomes repulsive at higher concentrations. The amplitude of the ASH response appeared to be modulated by concentration, but this was not true for AWC. The authors propose a model where the behavioral response of the worm is the result of integrating these two opposing drives, where repulsion is a result of the increased ASH activity over-riding the positive drive from AWC. The authors further tested this theory by testing mutants that ablated the AWC response (tax-4 or AWC::HisCl) or ASH response (osm-9 or ASH::HisCl). The chemo-silencing (HisCl) and tax-4 experiments were consistent with their hypothesis, while the osm-9 mutation had a limited impact on chemotaxis behavior, highlighting the potential role of osm-9-independent signaling in ASH in response to 1-octanol. While the interneuron(s) that integrate these signals to influence behavior were not identified, the authors did find that increasing concentrations of 1-octanol did increase the likelihood of AVA activity, a neuron which drives reversals (and hence, behavioral repulsion).

Strengths:

This was simple and elegant work that identified specific neurons of interest which generated a hypothesis, which was further tested with mutants that altered neuronal activity. The authors performed both neuronal imaging and behavioral experiments to verify their claims.

Weaknesses:

The authors note that other sensory neurons likely contribute to 1-octanol chemotaxis. Given the NeuroPAL data, it would have been nice to identify these other neurons as well. However, the reviewer is aware that this is tangential to the primary focus of this study.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In the manuscript by Greter, et al., entitled "Targeted induction of gut-microbial metabolism acutely affects feeding patterns and clock gene expression in the host" the authors investigate whether acute exposure to a non-nutritive disaccharide (lactulose) promotes microbial metabolism that feeds back onto the host to impact circadian networks. The premise of the study is interesting, and the experiments are thoughtfully designed to dissect these relationships. The evidence presented generally supports the authors' conclusions regarding the impact of lactulose administration during the fasting period, which is intended to mimic a feeding-associated perturbation of the gut microbiota, and its comparison with lactulose administration during the fed state. The studies employ complementary model systems, including germ-free mice, mice colonized with a simplified three-member microbial community, and conventionally colonized animals. These approaches support the authors' conclusions regarding the relationship between diurnal rhythms of microbial fermentation and host circadian clock gene networks. Overall, the work provides a useful experimental framework for developing a deeper mechanistic understanding of how microbial fermentation products contribute to diurnal host-microbe interactions.

Strengths:

Attempting to disentangle nutrient acquisition from microbial fermentation and its impact on diurnal dynamics of gut microbes on host circadian rhythms is an important step for providing insights into these host-microbe interactions.

The authors utilize a novel approach in leveraging lactulose coupled with germ-free animals and metabolic cages fitted with detectors that can measure microbial byproducts of fermentation, particularly hydrogen, in real time.

The authors consider several interesting aspects of lactulose delivery, including how it shifts osmotic balance as well as providing calculations that attempt to explain the caloric contribution of fermentation to the animal in the context of reduced food intake. This provides interesting fundamental insights into the role of microbial outputs on host metabolism.

The authors employ complementary systems, including a simplified three-member microbial community, providing insight into the minimal set of functionally distinct community members necessary to promote the rhythmic production of fermentation products that can affect host physiology.

Residual limitations:<br /> Hypothesis and study framing: The manuscript still does not clearly articulate a specific, testable hypothesis. While the Introduction provides motivation and objectives (e.g., line 53 onward), it remains unclear what precise hypothesis was being evaluated. A more explicit statement would strengthen the conceptual framework of the study.

Interpretation of circadian gene expression changes: The authors have not fully reconciled the differing effects of lactulose treatment on circadian gene expression in the 3MM and SPF settings. In particular, it remains unclear how the increased expression of certain circadian genes observed in lactulose-treated 3MM mice, particularly Cry1, relates to the decreased expression seen in SPF mice, and how the reduction in Arntl expression observed in lactulose-treated SPF mice fits within the proposed model. The authors acknowledge that resolving these mechanistic differences is beyond the scope of the current study, but the limitation should be discussed more explicitly.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Koh and colleagues describe ADePT (Axially Decoupled Photo-stimulation and Two-photon Readout), a modular approach for combining patterned one-photon optogenetic stimulation with two-photon calcium imaging in independently controlled axial planes. The method relies on a digital micromirror device together with a motorized holographic diffuser to generate spatially confined stimulation patterns while imaging deeper neuronal populations. As proof-of-principle applications, the authors use the system to map excitatory and inhibitory functional connectivity in the mouse olfactory bulb by stimulating superficial glomerular circuits and recording responses from mitral and tufted cells in deeper layers.

This is a well-executed Tools and Resources manuscript. The technical implementation is described in considerable detail, the optical performance is systematically characterized, and the biological experiments provide convincing demonstrations of the types of circuit questions that can be addressed using the method.

Strengths:

The greatest strength of the manuscript is the comprehensive technical characterization of the optical system. The authors carefully benchmark the spatial resolution, axial confinement, registration accuracy, calibration procedure, and practical operating limits of the setup. I found the extensive optical benchmarking particularly helpful, as it gives readers a realistic sense of the operating regime and practical limitations of the approach.

Another strength is the high level of methodological transparency. The optical design, calibration procedures, stimulation strategies, and analysis pipeline are described in sufficient detail that an experienced laboratory could realistically evaluate whether the system is suitable for its own applications. This level of documentation is particularly appropriate for a Tools and Resources article.

A further strength is the clear positioning of ADePT relative to existing approaches. The authors are transparent about the trade-off between spatial resolution and implementation complexity: ADePT does not provide single-cell photostimulation, but offers flexible axial separation, a large stimulation field, and cellular-resolution two-photon readout in deeper planes without requiring a full holographic stimulation system. This defines a credible and potentially useful experimental niche.

The biological applications convincingly demonstrate the utility of ADePT. The experiments identifying sister mitral/tufted cells through selective glomerular stimulation and the mapping of heterogeneous inhibitory influences from DAT-positive interneurons illustrate the types of functional connectivity questions that become experimentally accessible with this approach. Importantly, the authors generally avoid overstating these biological findings and appropriately present them as proof-of-principle demonstrations of the technology.

Weaknesses:

The primary limitation is inherent to the method itself rather than the execution of the study. Because ADePT relies on one-photon patterned illumination, photo-stimulation remains restricted to relatively superficial structures and does not achieve single-cell spatial resolution. The authors appropriately acknowledge these constraints and clearly position the method within this operating regime. Consequently, ADePT occupies a useful niche for interrogating spatially organized functional units such as olfactory glomeruli or cortical barrels, rather than applications requiring single-cell precision or deeper tissue penetration.

Although the manuscript describes the approach as relatively simple and cost-effective, implementation still requires careful optical alignment, registration, calibration, and optimization. This does not diminish the value of the approach, but terms such as modular or accessible may better reflect the practical implementation than simple. Likewise, a brief bill of materials, approximate add-on cost, and indication of which components are essential versus substitutable would help prospective users assess the accessibility of the system.

Finally, the manuscript provides an impressive level of technical characterization, but much of the practical guidance for adopting the system is distributed across the Results and Discussion. Bringing together the principal limitations, recommended operating regime, expected calibration workflow, evidence for long-term alignment stability, and the circumstances in which ADePT is preferable to alternative approaches would further strengthen the manuscript as a community resource.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The main contribution of this study is that brain activations related to linguistic context varied as a result of presentation speed, with the main finding that increased activity for coherent stories relative to other conditions was reduced in fast presentation relative to slow. The results thus challenge certain assumptions about the nature of the brain dynamics of language processing, with certain effects even disappearing under faster presentations, which may be related to the processing mode of the participant. The results continue to establish the viability of a parallel presentation design, which generally produces results congruent with those of the literature.

Strengths:

The study contains a somewhat novel presentation method, illustrating its viability. The results are bolstered by a strong sample size (N=33) and robust analytic techniques. The conclusions are measured and appropriate to the results, and the manuscript is exceedingly clearly written and accessible to readers.

Weaknesses:

The spatial specificity of the effects is hampered by the use of MEG, particularly with minimal structural MRIs for participants. Thus, the conclusions of the study in the spatial domain are tentative and more general than might result from other studies.

In addition, the general finding that faster presentation speed reduced activity overall (and eliminated it in the frontal cortex) appears to be somewhat contradictory to existing literature, which finds that sentences which are complex or difficult to process generally produce greater activation, particularly in the frontal cortex. These studies might be reviewed, and this (seeming) contradiction could be addressed.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Chen et al. consider the activity of retrosplenial cortex (RS) neurons during performance of an open-field navigation task in mice. Using a Ca-++ transient imaging approach to examine activity, the authors claim to find tuning to distance of the animal to a hidden reward location. The question of tuning to distance in RS is of much interest of late, with other works making claims. In this respect, the present work is interesting in that it utilizes an actual navigational task that does not explicitly demand encoding of distance and does consider an open-field environment. I do have reservations concerning the robustness of distance tuning.

Strengths:

Testing of distance coding in open fields during performance of an actual navigational task.

Weaknesses:

Lack of robust evidence for distance coding and head direction coding.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The vertebrate spinal cord receives inputs from many supraspinal regions. The authors used optical backfilling to trace neurons in the zebrafish larval brain sending axons to the spinal cord. With two-photon microscopy, they managed to render a comprehensive 3D map of these neurons and drew homologs with mammalian brain structures.

Strengths:

The main strength lies in the precise 3D mapping. The fact that most of the previously reported neuron groups have been confirmed by their approach is a solid endorsement of their methodology.

This study provides a comprehensive alternative anatomical reference framework for studying individual groups of supraspinal neurons with projections to the zebrafish spinal cord.

Weaknesses:

The whole approach could be enhanced by counter-staining their preparation to profile brain structures, including many nuclei more precisely.

Also, the backfilling approach does not reveal the full trajectories of axons, which is already available to some degree by ZExplorer Atlas.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

In this work, Alamdari et al. present EvoDiff, which provides the capability to generate protein sequences directly in sequence space, using a discrete diffusion model. There are several versions. EvoDiff-seq is trained on UniRef50 sequences (~42 million), and EvoDiff-MSDA operates instead by using sequence alignment methods to generate new members of protein families. The authors demonstrate many modes of sequence generation, including unconditional and conditional, inpainting of disordered regions, and also generating scaffolding of functional motifs. Their evaluation is also multifaceted, covering foldability, folding self-consistency, language embeddings, secondary structure distributions, and experiments for a set of different scenarios.

The paper has many notable strengths. It is comprehensive in breadth, and the experimental component is distinctive, although I am not personally suited to review the rigor of that element.

I would suggest that the paper's results certainly support the conclusion that order-agnostic sequence generation can yield useful candidates for multiple conditional design tasks. I am not totally convinced that it necessarily establishes diffusion as a generally superior approach to other competitors, like the conventional protein language models- EvoDiff is certainly competitive, and I think that the demonstration of diffusion is nice. I also am not sure that it is fair to say that sequence alone is sufficient for the broad design capabilities claimed (other than the "in principle" statement).

I am overall quite supportive of the work and its demonstration, but I have a few comments for consideration in any revision.

(1) I did not work through all dates of everything, but it appears to me that there are several recent conceptual and methodological competitors. These include DPLM and ProtBFN - both of these seem to be after the first preprint of EvoDiff, but given the time gap, there probably deserves to be some additional discussion or comparison. I would say, ideally, they should offer direct benchmarking. If the authors are disinclined, then I would think they should just temper their claims of contemporary SOTA performance or general superiority. Instead, the paper would still remain valuable as an early and experimentally demonstrated sequence diffusion framework. I don't think it needs to be more than that.

(2) Related to the above, the manuscript should more carefully distinguish the demonstrated advantage of order-agnostic generation from the quality of unconditional generation. Regarding Figure 3, the authors argue that Evodiff's diffusion objective is necessary, but this does not seem to account for or address the LRAR baselines in Tables S1 and S3. Unless I am misunderstanding, the 640M LRAR model exhibits several better scores. The authors later suggest that EvoDiff's principal advantage is conditioning on arbitrary positions, which is valid, but that's a little different that what is being claimed. I suggest that the LRAR results should be shown or discussed alongside Figure 3, and then the authors revise to say that they have flexible conditional generation as the principal empirical benefit.

(3) I really like the IDR experiment, but I'm not sure it demonstrates that Evodiff can design functional IDRS generally. Cox15 is a favorable target because its mature sequence strongly identifies a conserved mitochondrial protein, and EvoDiff-MSA is supplied directly with its orthologous family. The eight tested sequences were also selected from hundreds of candidates using both DR-BERT and MitoFates, making the experiment a test of the full generation-and-prediction pipeline rather than of EvoDiff alone. Moreover, mitochondrial targeting is tested, but the disordered character of the generated sequences is not experimentally established. In any case, I think it would certainly be more convincing if there were other examples, with unrelated proteins or IDR functions. I would appreciate that this is again a step beyond what the authors might be compelled to do, but their claim could be simply more calibrated.

(4) The authors might benefit from explaining the advantages or complementarity of EvoDiff to other property-directed approaches for exploring sequence space. This has been done, for example, by using Bayesian optimization and genetic algorithms to tune properties of IDP condensates (DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.8b03822). In my understanding, these are addressing a different problem from EvoDiff by optimizing sequences explicitly towards physical targets, while EvoDiff is a generative framework that can be used for sampling/inpainting/ etc. Is it clear how these strategies might be plausibly integrated? If so, that would be a relevant point of discussion and a potential advantage for EvoDiff.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Studies in rodents have demonstrated that early life adversity (ELA) impacts many aspects of the exposed offspring's brain and behavior. Work in this field has traditionally focused on how<br /> stress in very early life can impact cognitive and emotion-related behaviors in the ELA-exposed offspring. By contrast, this manuscript focuses on how stress in a slightly later adolescent period can produce latent and intergenerational effects by impacting maternal caregiving from female offspring, as well as social outcomes of the next generation of animals born to ELA-exposed females. Specifically, the manuscript describes that female mice exposed to ELA in the form of social isolation in late adolescence show reduced pup-directed maternal behaviors, while self-directed behaviors remain intact. Offspring reared by these dams in turn show deficits in social behavior, which are linked to reduced activity in an excitatory connection between the medial cingulate cortex (mCg) and prelimbic cortex (PrL). Further, the authors find that social behavior can be rescued by chemogenetic activation of the mCg-PrL pathway in the offspring of ELA-exposed/stressed mice or recapitulated in control mice by chemogenetic inhibition of this connection. Importantly, co-housing ELA-exposed/stressed dams with experienced parous females during the early postpartum period restores pup-directed maternal behaviors in these mice and normalizes offspring social outcomes as well as mCg-PrL activity.

Strengths:

Strengths of the manuscript include the focus on an important and novel question about intergenerational effects of adolescent ELA transmitted via subsequent maternal care, and the use of multiple techniques to link circuit function to behavior, including slice electrophysiology and chemogenetics. While the findings that maternal care can influence offspring behavior and that experienced females can instruct and improve maternal care of less experienced mice are not novel, they add support to this important area of literature.

Weaknesses:

Weaknesses of the paper include the lack of validation that the viral chemogenetic paradigm was appropriately targeted in the brain and impacted the excitability of mCg to PrL projections as anticipated, the use of inappropriate statistical tests that do not account for non-independence of pups from the same litter or cells measured from the same pup or categorical versus continuous data, and the lack of important descriptions of methods or experimental paradigms in several places that altogether make it difficult to judge the rigor of the findings in its current state.

If these weaknesses are addressed, these findings will provide important information about circuit mechanisms underlying intergenerational effects of adolescent stress on social behavior in next-generation offspring.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, Nollet and colleagues sought to determine whether selective amyloid pathology confined to medial septal (MS) cholinergic neurons is sufficient to recapitulate the prodromal Alzheimer's disease-like phenotypes observed in global AppNL-G-F knock-in mice. To this end, the authors employed a cell-type-specific AAV-mediated approach to selectively express the familial AppNL-G-F allele in MS-ChAT neurons, and subsequently characterized sleep-wake architecture, EEG spectral features, cognitive function, emotional behavior, and histological changes over 13-14 months. By comparing these mice with global AppNL-G-F knock-in mice and with mice in which MS-ChAT neurons were selectively ablated via caspase expression, the authors found that cholinergic cell lesioning recapitulated most disease phenotypes, suggesting that cholinergic loss, rather than amyloid deposition, is a likely driver of these phenotypes.

Strengths:

The study has several notable strengths. First, the experimental design is rigorous and well-controlled, employing three complementary mouse models that enable elegant causal inference. The use of cell-type-specific APP expression is a powerful approach for distinguishing the contributions of MS-ChAT neurons and amyloid deposition. Second, the combination of multiple behavioral assessments, EEG spectral analysis using FOOOF parameterization, and detailed histological quantification strengthens the validity of the conclusions. Third, the finding that caspase-induced cholinergic lesions largely recapitulate the cognitive and REM sleep phenotypes, while amyloid pathology contributes additional features such as epileptiform spikes and astrogliosis, represents an important mechanistic dissection.

Weaknesses:

Despite the overall strength of the study, several limitations warrant consideration. First, the mechanism by which amyloid is "broadcast" from MS-ChAT terminals to distant brain regions remains unclear. The authors do not definitively determine whether the amyloid detected in hippocampal and cortical regions represents released soluble Aβ, transported APP fragments, or amyloid derived from degenerating axons. Second, while the authors demonstrate that MS-ChAT cell loss correlates with cognitive, emotional, and REMS deficits, the causal relationship among these phenomena and the specific circuits involved remains unresolved.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

To address how the CHIKV macrodomain contributes to replication dynamics in mammalian and insect hosts, the authors initially created two separate mutations in the highly conserved N24 residue, which is known to be critical for the CHIKV macrodomain's ability to erase ADP-ribose from target proteins. Interestingly, they could not produce a virus with a mutation in this residue without second-site mutations in an aspartic acid residue nearby (D31). However, when tested biochemically, these second-site mutations did not enhance the enzymatic activity of the protein, indicating that other enzyme dynamics, such as substrate binding, may be impacting these mutations. Mutations at this residue allowed the CHIKV to replicate in Vero cells and in mosquito cells, but they replicated poorly in IFN-competent human cells, indicating clear IFN-specific impacts on these viruses. Interestingly, they found unique impacts on virus dissemination and replication in live mosquitoes. While the N24A/D31N virus did poorly in vivo in all accounts, the N24D/D31H/N virus tended to infect both the bodies and heads of the mosquitoes better than the WT virus, though titers were reduced. The authors claimed, based on a DSF assay, that there were no real differences in ADP-ribose binding and thus suggested that these differences could be due to changes in substrate specificity, as the D31 residue resides in the substrate exit path, potentially tuning the virus to unique substrates in different species. The authors also produced crystal structures of the mutants to demonstrate the changes in the binding pocket caused by these mutations.

Strengths:

The authors have done a rigorous job of evaluating CHIKV macrodomain mutant viruses and the proteins' biochemical activities. The use of live mosquitoes is highly unique and provides important insights into the importance of the macrodomain in different species.

Weaknesses:

It is not clear if the interpretation of the ADP-ribose binding data is correct. It appears there are notable differences that could explain the results, though the authors chose to minimize the impact that these differences had on the results. The N24D-D31H/N proteins had at least a 1C degree difference in the thermal shift assay when compared to the N24A/D31N, single D31 mutants, and WT proteins, which is likely significant and could explain the dichotomous results between the two viruses in mosquito cells. Even the single N24D mutant had enhanced binding compared to the WT protein. Furthermore, as this virus has no enzymatic activity, one could hypothesize that enhanced binding to a substrate that is normally cleaved by the protein could certainly lead to alterations in phenotypic effects, whether good or bad. The authors should test the binding activity in a separate assay, such as an ITC assay, to determine if there are, in fact, binding differences or not. Having said this, it is likely that the impacts of these mutations on replication and transmission in human and mosquito cells are multi-factorial and could include both enhanced binding with altered substrate specificity amongst other activities.

Additionally, as both mutants had no detectable enzymatic activity but had quite different phenotypes in mosquitoes, I don't agree with the title stating that catalytic activity modulates dissemination and transmission potential in mosquitoes. It seems more likely that alterations in binding activity or substrate recognition (even suggested by the authors) impact these phenotypes in mosquitoes.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript presents an interesting and conceptually valuable analysis of compensatory evolution using a large combinatorial deep-mutational-scanning dataset for yeast His3p.

Strengths:

I particularly like the identification of "super compensatory" substitutions that improve fitness across diverse genetic backgrounds and apparently reduce the sensitivity of the local fitness landscape to subsequent mutations. The work connects epistasis, protein stability, mutational robustness, and evolvability in a clear and potentially broadly relevant manner.<br /> The authors provide several complementary lines of evidence in support of this central conclusion. In particular, the new experimental validation of S189A is an important strength because it directly demonstrates that a predicted super compensator can buffer the effects of diverse deleterious substitutions, while analyses of additional DMS datasets from other proteins and assay systems suggest that the phenomenon is not restricted to the original His3p landscape.

Weaknesses:

The structural analysis currently relies primarily on correlations with RSA, weighted contact number, conservation, and Rosetta-predicted changes in folding or binding energy. For super compensators, the mechanistic evidence is largely limited to predicted stabilization and individual examples, such as the proposed salt bridge between 110D and R112. I believe that the newly developed structure-aware deep-learning approaches could provide useful information on the mechanism of super compensators. For example, an inverse-folding model such as ESM-IF1 could score complete multi-mutant sequences conditioned on the His3p backbone and test whether adding a super compensator restores sequence-structure compatibility across backgrounds. More recent multimodal mutation-effect or stability models could similarly be used to cross-check the Rosetta results, including models that explicitly support combinatorial mutations. I would not recommend simply comparing AlphaFold confidence scores between mutants, because current structure predictors are not necessarily sensitive to subtle mutation-induced energetic or conformational changes.

The manuscript states that the pipeline was applied to 217 ProteinGym datasets and concludes that super compensators are broadly distributed across proteins and assays. However, this central generalization is described in only a few sentences and is largely relegated to Figure S7. The Methods do not explain which datasets contained sufficient combinatorial mutants to calculate compensatory ability or buffering, how many genotype pairs or quadruplets were available per substitution, or how differences in assay scale and library design were handled. This point requires clarification because supercompensation is inherently a background-dependent property and cannot be established from single-mutant measurements alone. ProteinGym is widely used as a substitution-effect benchmark, and many of its constituent assays primarily contain single substitutions; for example, an analysis of an earlier ProteinGym collection reported that 76 of 87 assays contained only single substitutions. It is therefore unclear how the same compensatory-interaction pipeline could be applied uniformly to all 217 datasets.

The analysis of 335 His3p orthologs in Discussion is potentially very interesting, but co-occurrence between super compensators and putatively deleterious amino-acid states does not by itself demonstrate evolutionary compensation. Closely related species share substitutions through common ancestry, and both states could be associated with a particular lineage or ecological context. A tree-aware analysis would considerably strengthen this result. The authors could reconstruct ancestral states and ask whether acquisition of a super compensator tends to precede or accompany otherwise deleterious substitutions. Alternatively, they could use phylogenetically informed permutations that preserve substitution frequencies and shared ancestry.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This study addresses an important question in motor learning: whether algorithmic versus retrieval-based explicit strategies differentially shape implicit recalibration. The progressive experimental logic across three experiments is commendable, and the plan-based generalization account is a plausible and interesting interpretation. However, several methodological concerns limit the strength of the conclusions. I recommend the authors temper their claims accordingly, in the results/discussion section.

Concerns

(1) The retrieval group received 5 pre-exposure trials before main training began, which the algorithmic group did not. Faster RTs in the retrieval group could therefore reflect task familiarity from extra practice rather than efficient memory retrieval per se. I might have missed this, but I did not see performance data from these pre-exposure trials. The early training advantage in the retrieval group might be confounded with the 5 pre-exposure trials they received. Unless there is a direct comparison between the pre-exposure trials for the caching group and the first 5 trials of the algorithmic group, the claim that "storing and retrieving a memory from a short-term memory cache confers more rapid performance improvements than executing an algorithmic strategy" seems somewhat unwarranted.

The algorithmic group also visited the critical target approximately 40% of trials across 356 trials (about 140 trials?). McDougle & Taylor (2019) showed that 300 trials of practice with 2 targets is enough transition from algorithmic to caching strategies. It seems likely that the number of visits to the critical target here was sufficient for caching to develop in the algorithmic condition. This concern about caching in the algorithmic group has implications for the implicit recalibration measurements. As I understand it, the 7 exclusion blocks were distributed throughout training, and so, implicit recalibration was measured across both early and late practice. If caching emerged in the algorithmic group during late practice, then the generalization functions - averaged across all 7 exclusion blocks - conflate early algorithmic strategy and later caching. The broader generalization function observed in the algorithmic group may therefore be driven primarily by early exclusion blocks, while later exclusion blocks may increasingly resemble the retrieval group as caching develops. This is testable in the data: if generalization breadth in the algorithmic group narrows across the 7 exclusion blocks while remaining stable in the retrieval group, that would be consistent with a strategy transition occurring during training. The authors should either report exclusion block-by-block generalization functions separately for each group, or acknowledge that the averaged generalization functions may obscure a strategy transition in the algorithmic group.

(2) The error-clamp paradigm in Experiment 3 introduces two problems. First, it breaks the relationship between planned movement direction and feedback of movement direction, likely reducing the sense of agency over movement feedback (indeed, typical error clamp study instructions tell participants to ignore the movement feedback).

Reduced agency may itself suppress differences between algorithmic and caching conditions. First, if strategy type exerts its influence on implicit recalibration via the explicit plan - as the plan-based generalization account predicts - then severing the link between intended movement and feedback might close off the channel through which strategy could shape the implicit system, regardless of which strategy is used. Second, reduced agency could modify the explicit strategies themselves. For caching, the stimulus-response association might be reinforced by a consistent relationship between intended movement and observed outcome; the clamped feedback may make it more difficult to reinforce the cached response, weakening the stimulus-response association. For the algorithmic strategy, effortful mental rotation may depend on the perception that the computation meaningfully determines the outcome; as participants understand that clamped feedback does not depend on their behavior (although yes, the text-based "Excellent/Good Move feedback) does depend on their behavior, they may engage in somewhat less complete mental rotation. Both possibilities could contribute to convergence between groups in generalization. It is noted that the preserved RT difference between groups in Experiment 3 partially argues against a loss of effort under the algorithmic condition, but it does not rule out weakened formation of stimulation-response associations during caching.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

In this study, the authors investigate the mechanisms underlying phosphatidylserine (PS) exposure during efferocytosis in Drosophila. They first show that Xkr promotes PS exposure and apoptotic cell clearance in both S2 cells and Drosophila embryos. As Drosophila Xkr lacks the canonical caspase cleavage site found in mammalian XKR proteins, the authors further explore the underlying mechanism by which Xkr regulates PS externalization. Through protein interaction studies, they identify TM9SF4 as an interacting partner of Xkr that regulates PS distribution and show that non-vesicular PS transport contributes to apoptotic PS exposure and efferocytosis. Using protein interaction studies, they further demonstrate that Xkr interacts with the lipid transfer protein dORP9 at ER-PM contact sites to facilitate non-vesicular PS transport to the plasma membrane. Loss of these proteins affects PS externalization and efferocytosis in Drosophila. Finally, using human cells, they demonstrate that human OSBPL8 interacts with XKR8 to regulate apoptotic PS exposure. Overall, the study supports a model in which Xkr promotes efferocytosis by facilitating lipid transport in addition to its role as a phospholipid scramblase.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, the authors investigate high-frequency oscillations (HFOs) in the prefrontal cortex during REM sleep. They identify a specific pattern where these HFOs occur in "chains" that are phase-locked to theta oscillations, primarily during the "phasic" periods of REM. The study contrasts these events with isolated HFOs and NREM ripples, suggesting a unique role for these chains in coordinating activity between the prefrontal cortex and the hippocampus. Most notably, the authors report that a specific subset of hippocampal cells-those that co-fire with the prefrontal cortex during these HFOs-increase their firing rates over the course of sleep, suggesting a potential mechanism for selective memory consolidation.

Strengths:

The study addresses an under-explored area of sleep physiology: the fine-grained temporal coordination between the cortex and hippocampus during REM sleep. The identification of HFO "chains" and their association with higher theta power provides an interesting framework for understanding how the brain might organize information transfer outside of NREM sleep. The observation that specific hippocampal populations show differential firing rate changes based on their participation in these HFO events is a striking finding that warrants further investigation.

Comments on revised version.

I do have one remaining concern, which is about their continued use of the term "reactivation" during REM sleep, whereas it still seems "activation" is more appropriate. The only place they show more Post vs. Pre activation is in Figure 6F/6G which includes NREM sleep where indeed reactivation is robust (but not the main focus of this paper). There is no evidence offered that the REM ensembles are not already "pre-configured" and active at similar levels (with similar activation patterns) during Pre sleep. Notably Louie and Wilson 2001 found greater "replay" during Pre than Post during REM. Also, the first half vs. second half comparisons (e.g. Fig 6C) could be more effectively performed in Figure 6A, showing that the same ordering persists across the periods. If this point were addressed, the significance of the findings could potentially increase.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Qin and colleagues entitled "Pupil and Neural Dynamics Reveal Belief-Dependent Decision Making Under Ambiguity" examines decision-making under risk and ambiguity using pupillometry and EEG. The study employs a lottery choice task with three levels of ambiguity (zero, low, high). Participants were classified into three groups based on their choice behavior in a condition with risk and no ambiguity: ideal (choosing in line with objective expected values), aggressive (preference for investments), and conservative (preference against investments). The authors then compared behavior, pupil, and EEG results across these groups. The study concludes that individual beliefs about ambiguity are reflected in different behavioral strategies and neural correlates.

Strengths:

The combination of behavior, computational modeling, pupillometry, and EEG.

Weaknesses:

(1) It is unclear whether group definition is theoretically justified.

One general concern is that the strategy to form three distinct groups is not clearly motivated. The authors created the three groups, "aggressive", "ideal", and "conservative", based on the zero-ambiguity trials. However, as the authors state: "Ambiguity differs fundamentally from risk at both the physiological level (34; 6) and the behavioral level" (page 4). Under this assumption, it is questionable whether forming groups based on risk preferences is a useful strategy for studying ambiguity. What do we learn about ambiguity processing when group differences are primarily based on risk preferences? Might the present results partly be driven by risk preferences rather than ambiguity preferences? I recommend the following two points: (a) Clearly justify the reasoning behind the group approach; (b) Add an additional continuous analysis approach indicating whether the key results hold independent of the group definition based on risky decision-making.

(2) k-parameter.

The authors use the k-parameter that infers the expected high-payoff probability (e.g., page 11). On page 22, this is explained as: "the subjective value term K was assigned according to each participant's internal belief of the high-payoff rate under ambiguity, yielding a participant-specific estimate of expected value under uncertainty." I hope I have not missed anything, but I neither understood the role of this parameter nor how it was computed.

(3) How were individual beliefs and models computed?

A related but more general point is that it remained unclear how the authors computed internal beliefs and internal models in the study. The study contains many statements suggesting that the authors measured internal beliefs. For example:

a) Abstract: "We show that individuals adopt distinct decision strategies that reflect different internal beliefs about unknown outcomes."<br /> b) Page 3: "We then inferred subjective belief parameters that captured how individuals internally interpreted the ambiguous probability mass and examined how these beliefs related to choice behavior, arousal dynamics, and neural activity."<br /> c) Page 16: "Together, these findings show that ambiguity does not evoke a uniform behavioral or physiological response across participants with different decision-making styles; instead, individuals rely on distinct internal models and computational strategies when forming decisions under ambiguity."<br /> d) Page 16: "Taken together, these results show that ambiguity aversion is not a uniform psychological bias, but a set of heterogeneous belief-driven strategies that shape how ambiguity is represented and acted upon."<br /> e) Page 18: "Ambiguity processing, therefore, reflects distinct belief-driven pathways rather than a single canonical mechanism."

Based on the present data, analyses, and results, I don't think that the authors can draw these conclusions. Which analyses in the manuscript identify these internal beliefs, models, or strategies? How can we dissociate a unified strategy from a heterogeneous set of strategies based on the present results? My feeling is that the k-parameter might be related to this, but as explained above, I did not understand how it was computed and what it is supposed to reflect. The DDM analyses might also be targeted at this. However, it remains elusive how the DDM captures internal beliefs about ambiguity itself. My recommendation is that the authors more clearly explain (a) why the DDM is a useful model to study ambiguity, (b) what the different parameters exactly reflect about ambiguity processing, and (c) how the DDM captures internal beliefs and distinct belief-driven strategies in this context.

(4) Statistical tests.

4.1. Figure 2B: The authors summarize the number of participants with significant effects of ambiguity on choice behavior for each group. I recommend a statistical test at the second level that properly assesses the effects of ambiguity and group within a common statistical model. In my opinion, it is not enough to simply count the number of significant tests (from the first level) for each group.

4.2. Figure 2C: For the analysis of response times, the authors might want to consider reporting the main effects of group and ambiguity.

4.3. Figure 2D: The text on page 8 states that Figure 2D indicates that "aggressive investors showed no significant pupil modulation by ambiguity...". However, the figure and its caption indicate significant differences between ambiguous and non-ambiguous trials across all groups. Moreover, if the authors want to compare the groups, it is necessary to compare the groups to each other; a test against zero within each group would not be enough to demonstrate any group differences. In my mind, this would also be important for analyses in Figure 3C and D.

4.4. Strictly speaking, for the statistical tests, it would be necessary to take into account that participants completed multiple sessions (within-subject variance is different from between-subject variance). Currently, each session is treated independently (page 19: "Each individual completed one to three experimental sessions. For data analysis, each session was treated as an independent participant, yielding a total of 108 sessions.")

(5) Necessary quality control for pupillometry and EEG data.

The task was performed in a virtual reality environment with a head-mounted display. The task was not isoluminant, and, to the best of my knowledge, participants were not instructed to avoid eye movements. The authors applied a GLM to control for luminance effects in the pupil data. For EEG, they used ICA to remove ocular and muscular artifacts. While these methods are established, they are usually applied to more controlled paradigms optimized for EEG and pupillometry. To demonstrate high data quality despite these issues, it is necessary to present quality-control analyses. Can the authors please indicate how many blinks had to be removed from the data? Could the authors please indicate how many blinks were removed from the data? Can the authors please show trial-level data (after preprocessing) for a few subjects?

(6) Quality control for the DDM.

The manuscript lacks systematic posterior predictive checks and parameter recovery for the DDM results. It is important to validate that the model accurately captures the data. Currently, we only see the model parameters, but it remains unclear whether the model performs well on the current data set. Moreover, if the authors aimed to test different strategies using the DDM, it might be useful to perform systematic model comparison.

(7) Implications of the second experiment with collaborative task remain unclear.

To me, the link between the main study and the second experiment on leadership and team performance is not obvious. In my opinion, this topic is beyond the scope of the present paper. Linking the two studies more comprehensively based on deeper theoretical grounds would likely be better suited for an independent manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Price et al. present new work providing insight into the function and mechanisms of mitochondrial-derived compartments (MDCs) in yeast. The Hughes lab previously established that these large ~micron-sized structures are formed under a variety of conditions including amino acid stress (rapamycin, conA, cycloheximide), alterations in mitochondrial metabolites and lipids, or acute expression of specific outer membrane proteins. These stressors lead to the sequestration of outer membrane proteins (that can include mistargeted inner membrane proteins) that extend or tubulate into large multilamellar structures that ultimately target the vacuole in an ATG5/Dnm1 dependent autophagy related pathway for degradation. Initially reported in aging yeast a decade ago, it has now been accepted as a mechanism to remove excess mitochondrial proteins as a pathway distinct from mitophagy or the extraction of stalled precursors from the import translocon.

In this study, the authors examined additional metabolic transitions they suspected would drive increased mitochondrial protein expression and promote MDC formation. Indeed, they show that glucose-restricted conditions (or a switch to galactose or incubation with 2DG) induced MDCs within 2 hours. This correlated with increased transcription/translation of mitochondrial precursors porin and OM45. Similar results were seen with osmotic shock, a process previously shown to induce mitochondrial gene expression. The metabolic or osmotic shift was shown to activate a yeast AMPK-type kinase called Snf1, which phosphorylates a key substrate Mig1 - an established repressor of mitochondrial gene expression. Loss of these pathways abolished the generation of MDCs under these conditions. As the key novel finding in the study, the authors explored the relationship/requirement for Snf1 and Mig1 using multiple approaches in different backgrounds and employing auxin-inducible degron tools for acute depletion. These data further support the hypothesis that excess mitochondrial outer membrane proteins result in MDC formation to facilitate their removal, at least transiently until the import machinery can adapt to the increased import demand. To test this more directly, they generated an inducible yeast strain to express a canonical transcription factor Hap4 that induces mitochondrial gene expression. In this system, induction of Hap4 expression also resulted in MDC formation. While not all previously reported MDC inducers act through Snf1/Mig1, the common feature is the transcriptional induction of mitochondrial protein expression.

Strengths:

The important aspect of this work is that the authors dissected the transcriptional signaling pathway that induces MDCs in a much more physiological metabolic transition, which complements the more common use of chemical compounds. They had previously shown that overexpression of individual outer membrane proteins could lead to MDCs, but here the Hap4 expression offers a new condition to show that the canonical induction of mitochondrial biogenesis leads to MDC shedding. Overall, the data are of high quality, the findings are clear, and the work provides important new insights into the regulation of MDC formation.

Weaknesses:

There are a few points that should be addressed.

(1) MDCs are almost exclusively monitored through GFP-tagged TOM70, and the authors do not show the inclusion of any endogenous cargo. The evidence for their fate in the vacuole is through the appearance of cleaved, free GFP after 6 hours that is dependent on ATG5, Dnm1, Pep4, etc. Can the authors demonstrate the appearance of MDCs without expressing any GFP tags and instead monitor known outer membrane cargoes? In the case of Hap4 expression, the proteomics identifies some very highly induced mitochondrial proteins, and there surely must be some with antibodies that can detect the protein by IF and Western blot.

(2) There is a very unexpected ~10X increased in a sporulation factor SPO21 upon induction of Hap4. I see no evidence of sporulation, and it's not long enough for stationary phase. Is the increased mitochondrial biogenesis driving a specific metabolic state of these cells that is signaling to other biology?

(3) It is important to understand the kinetics and stoichiometry of outer membrane loading that drives MDCs, and their transit to the vacuole. This is why it would be highly informative to monitor some endogenous cargoes (previous point). In the review the authors cite (NRMBC, Pfanner lab 2019), it was stated that the import machinery is not generally increased upon metabolic induction of mitochondrial gene expression. Therefore, (pre-MDCs) the field concluded that the import machinery has a very high capacity for the rapid biogenesis of newly synthesized proteins, along with regulation through the phosphorylation of import receptors (ie; the work of Meisenger). Consistent with this, the Hap1 proteomics did not show any increases in the core import machinery, while ETC subunits and a large swath of mitochondrial proteins were elevated over 2-fold (I looked carefully through the Excel sheet). Since MDCs are induced transiently about 2 hours after glucose deprivation, and fully dependent on de-repression of Mig1, the authors are right to imply that this is coupled to the import of newly synthesized proteins.

However, it seems to me that MDCs are being formed at very early stages of mitochondrial protein expression, not after they have necessarily "overloaded" the outer membrane. The Hap4 proteomics after 3.5hr of induction would suggest that the bulk of the mitochondrial proteins have been successfully inserted (no import failure) and are likely already functional (metabolizing). I'm trying to understand the percentage of the proteins that would be incorporated within MDCs, as the mitochondria appear to handle the bulk of their newly inserted proteins without issue. How can the authors adapt their "free GFP" assay to understand the stoichiometry of the transport of endogenous, newly imported outer membrane proteins to the vacuole?

(4) As a last theoretical point for discussion: Can the authors exclude that MDCs are not functional or play a signaling role? Given the emerging work on SPOTs (Lena Pernas), and from the new evidence from Craig Thompson's lab that there can be very specific functional mitochondria (oxidizing vs reducing), it is possible that MDCs are not simply there to be degraded. They last at least 3 hours, which is a long time for yeast (budding cycle 90 min, 3 hours in glucose deprivation). Taking the data presented here very objectively, there is no direct evidence that the cargoes within MDVs reflect any failure to import, or that they are damaged in any way. The deletions of Tom70/71 have way too many pleotropic effects and essentially demonstrate only that the MDC cargoes came from the mitochondria. It could be helpful if the discussion also positioned these MDC mechanisms within the context of other aspects of selective mitochondrial-related compartments that have been emerging in the literature.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The manuscript describes a numerical analysis of the domains of the T. cruzi cell surface containing different proteins. It has the potential to be of great interest.

I do not have the expertise necessary to comment on the image collection or analysis.

I have one concern: the amount of manipulation of the cells prior to fixation; these were clearly stated in the methods, which is good.

My concern is whether these manipulations prior to fixation alter the observations. The 'Labelling sialic acid acceptors' involves >6 centrifugations and >90 minutes incubation in PBS prior to fixation, and the 'immunostaining' protocol involves cells 'extensively washed with PBS' prior to fixation. I would like to suggest that the authors do controls in which they compare the pattern of anti-SAPA staining under four conditions.

(1) Cells fixed in culture by the addition of paraformaldehyde to 4%, followed by blocking and PBS washes.

(2) Cells fixed in culture by the addition of paraformaldehyde to 4% and glutaraldehyde to 0.2% followed by blocking and PBS washes.

(3) Cells fixed by the 'labelling sialic acid acceptors' protocol.

(4) Cells fixed by the 'immunostaining protocol'.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In the submitted manuscript, Akter et al use a series of ferroptosis inhibitors in mesenchymal-like ovarian cancer cells and discover that the ferroptosis inducers induce cell death that is inhibited by pyroptosis inhibitors, namely YVAD-fmk and disulfiram, which inhibit pore formation by gasdermin D (GSDMD). Remarkably, the authors also saw the release of IL-1β in response to ferroptosis inducers. Unexpectedly, they did not observe the involvement of caspase-1 but rather observed that caspase-5 was activated in response to the ferroptosis inducers. Moreover, they found that caspase-5 directly cleaves GSDME in response to the ferroptosis inducers, establishing CASP5/GSDME as downstream executors of ferroptosis.

Strengths:

These findings are interesting because only CASP1 is known to induce IL-1β maturation, and their data suggest that CASP5 rather than CASP1, is responsible for IL-1β activation in the context of ferroptosis inducers. Notably, CASP3 is the only caspase reported to be able to cleave GSDME, so the identification of CASP5 as a driver of ferroptosis in this context is a significant finding. They genetically show that loss of CASP5 and GSDME knockdown inhibits cell death in response to the ferroptosis inducers ML162 and Erastin, which is evidence that they play a role in this context.

Weaknesses:

The major findings in this paper are interesting, but the data presented do not robustly support the claims made in this paper. For example, they claim that CASP5 is responsible for the activation of GSDME by cleaving it directly to induce cell death. They try to rule out the involvement of CASP1, ASC, and CASP4 using siRNA targeting these genes, but the knockdowns are incomplete, and the loading controls are inconsistent. They also claim they do not see GSDMD or CASP3 cleavage and activation but use negative data to make that claim. It is unclear if the antibodies used can detect cleaved GSDMD or CASP3 as they do not include a positive control to show that they can indeed detect these activation events if they were occurring. This needs to happen in the same experiment - they need to show in the same experiment with the same lysates that they can detect CASP5, GSDME and IL-1β activation but not CASP1, GSDMD, CASP4, or CASP3 activation. Of course, they should include agonists for positive controls of CASP1, CASP4 and GSDMD activation, which are lacking in the current manuscript.

Notably, the major evidence supporting a direct role for CASP5 cleavage of GSDME is one Coomassie gel using recombinant CASP5 and GSDME, but there were too many non-specific bands, and the full-length uncleaved protein could not be detected even in the untreated lanes. The authors need to show a gel where the protein can easily be identified and should also include a positive control protein like GSDMD to show the relative cleavage efficiency of GSDME compared to a known substrate. It would also be great to compare this to CASP3-mediated cleavage of GSDME. With recombinant proteins, calculating the catalytic efficiencies would be the best way to ascertain if this is biologically similar to other known substrates.

The way that ferroptosis is defined, it is caspase-independent, and pyroptosis is defined as gasdermin-mediated cell death. Given that these agents lead to activation of CASP5/GSDME, it would be more accurate to say that these ferroptosis inducers also induce CASP5/GSDME-dependent pyroptosis, as opposed to them being the executors of ferroptosis. This can be a distinct mechanism/pathway from the ferroptosis pathway, as multiple cell death pathways can be initiated in cells. Consistent with this, ferrostatin-1 also inhibited cell death, likely due to inhibition of the ferroptosis signaling cascade. It is unclear if this pathway is upstream of the caspases. How these ferroptosis triggers selectively activate CASP5 and not CASP4 to induce GSDME cleavage is a major unresolved question. Notably, it is also unclear if this biology is specific to the mesenchymal-like cells used in this study or if it expands to other cells.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This study examines the evolutionary context of the emergence of human speech. The authors address the widely held hypothesis that the expansion of the human vocal space, resulting from modifications of the vocal tract, was a key prerequisite for the evolution of spoken language.

To test this hypothesis, the authors quantified the acoustic space of human speech, non-linguistic vocalizations, and musical vocalizations and compared it with that of nonhuman primates, chimpanzees, bonobos, and chacma baboons.

The authors found that speech and song occupied significantly less volume in the acoustic space than human non-linguistic vocalizations. In addition, the acoustic-feature volume of speech and song was not statistically distinct from that of non-human primates. Accordingly, the authors conclude that the evolution of human speech did not depend on an expansion of the human vocal acoustic space.

I find the analysis presented in this manuscript highly convincing. It is conducted at a contemporary scientific standard, and the results provide strong support for the authors' conclusions. I particularly appreciate that the authors explicitly discuss the limitations of their approach. For example, they acknowledge that MFCCs cannot capture all aspects of acoustic structure.

I have only three minor comments:

First, the authors may wish to briefly summarize the main findings of the study by Anikin et al., as it represents the central reference for the present work. A concise summary in two or three sentences would help readers who are not familiar with that study.

Second, I would appreciate a brief explanation of why the authors chose this particular statistical approach.

Third, the authors could briefly mention that the Chacma baboon dataset provides a very comprehensive representation of the vocal repertoire of this species, although a small number of rare vocalizations are not included. I am not sure whether a similar limitation also applies to the chimpanzee and bonobo datasets, but if so, it would be useful to mention this as well.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The aim of the authors was to measure starvation-induced and basal autophagy in vivo across several tissues and developmental stages. For this, they developed a novel mouse model expressing the GFP-LC3-RFP reporter. They also aimed to provide a more high-throughput method for autophagy flux measurements than assessment by imaging and developed an assay based on a microplate reader.

Strengths:

(1) Good validation of the mouse model. The knock-in strategy is well explained and illustrated.

(2) The model has potential to be applied to a wide range of research questions. The Cre-dependent expression allows for customization of KO timing, which will be beneficial in developmental studies.

(3) The authors presented consistent findings using two different methods to quantify autophagy, strengthening the robustness of their results.

(4) The authors demonstrated the validity of the high-throughput method (microplate reader).

Weaknesses:

(1) The comparison of neuronal populations in different areas of the brain is not ideal. In the cerebellum, Purkinje cells were chosen, which are rare and not representative of this tissue, as well as functionally very different from the neurons in the hippocampus and cortex that they were compared to.

(2) The explanation of the GFP-LC3-RFP construct and specifically if/how autophagosome formation can be measured and distinguished from flux could be clearer.

Conclusion:

The work presented is thorough, and the authors achieved their goals for this study. The effort used to further investigate unexpectedly high basal levels of autophagy in the brain is well appreciated and adds value to this paper. The conclusions of the authors are mostly very well supported by the data provided. The well-structured description of the results, along with clear figures, allows the reader to comprehend the authors' reasoning in reaching their conclusions.

The presented mouse model has great potential for a lasting positive impact on the research field of in vivo study of autophagy. The method of utilizing a microplate reader will also benefit future research where semi-high throughput is an advantage. Together, the information provided in this study not only presents new methodology that will allow the investigation of new research questions, but also provides novel information about in vivo autophagy flux at the selected developmental stages that opens up new follow-up research questions.

EP.99 故事线A: 预计 2026 年底达到 1000-1200 亿年化收入，对应的 IPO 估值预期超过 2 万亿美元——这将是历史上规模最大的 IPO。AI 公司的财务规模正在超越大多数传统行业巨头，速度令人咋舌。

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

In this study, Serrano et al. employed a combination of cell biological and molecular approaches to investigate the localization and regulation of Casein Kinase CK1 during the cell cycle using U20S cells. They show that CK1 dynamically localizes between the centrosomes and the nucleus but can be sequestered away from the centrosomes upon overexpression of its binding partner PER2. They provide evidence that CK1 WT but not a phospho-null mutant strongly accumulates in a hyperphosphorylated form upon inhibition of phosphatases (using Calyculin and Okadaic Acid) and thus conclude that CK1 tail phosphorylation protects the kinase from degradation. Using synchronized cells, they show that CK1 accumulates unphosphorylated in S-phase (APC/Cdh1 inactive) but phosphorylated at the G2-M transition. Immunostaining shows that CK1 localizes to the centrosomes during mitosis.

The manuscript has improved overall, but some sections are still inconclusive and require clarification.

Major comments:

Figure 1 is inconclusive. CK1 nuclear staining is highly similar in untreated cells and in cells treated with CHX + PF670462. The reduction in centrosomal staining in these cells is barely significant. However, the authors draw very strong conclusions from these data sets. In panel B, the cells appear to have been fixed incorrectly, and the anti-PCNT shows a strong background signal. Not convinced that immunofluorescence is the best approach to look at protein dynamics in vivo.

In Figure 2, panel B, the authors should co-stain the centrosomes of cells that co-express CRY1 and CK1, as some of these dots may represent the centrosomes.

Figures 3B, please provide information on the non-phosphorylable CK1a mutant (it is mentioned as a variant in which all serine and threonine residues in the C-terminal tail were replaced by alanine). Specify the number of sites mutated and their exact position. Is this non-phosphorylable CK1a version catalytically active? Treatment of samples with inactivated PPase should be used as a control.

Strengths:

The authors reveal that the activity and abundance of dephosphorylated and phosphorylated CK1δ are regulated in a cell cycle-dependent manner. This suggests that these different pools are associated with distinct physiological functions.

Weaknesses:

Unfortunately, some of the data are inconclusive, and there is no data/information linking the cell cycle regulation of CK1δ to its function during the cell cycle.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This study focuses on revealing the essential divergent function of the Acyl Carrier protein (ACP) in the deadliest human malaria parasite, Plasmodium falciparum. More precisely, using inducible KO, cellular and biochemical approaches, the authors determined that instead of a canonical role for ACP allowing the de novo synthesis of fatty acids in the apicoplast (essential relict plastid) of the parasite, the enzyme couples with pyruvate kinase II to generate nucleoside triphosphate to maintain parasite survival during blood stages. The study is novel, well-designed, providing interesting new data on Plasmodium and apicomplexa biology. The results convincingly support the major claim of the study. However, it is currently incomplete to support some claims on the essentiality of some apicoplast pathways.

In this study, Geher et al. focused on deciphering the role of the Acyl Carrier Protein (ACP) present in the relict non-photosynthetic plastid, i.e. the apicoplast of the most lethal human malaria parasite, Plasmodium falciparum. More particularly, they determined an essential function of ACP independent of its usual/typical function as the central protein for the normal function of the apicoplast Type II fatty acid synthesis (FASII) pathway. Rather, the protein seems to associate with the apicoplast Pyruvate Kinase II, together generating an essential nucleoside triphosphate (NTPs) source to fuel the apicoplast and parasite survival instead.

By generating a TetR-DOZY-based inducible KD line for ACP, they confirmed that the protein is indeed essential to maintain apicoplast integrity and parasite survival during asexual blood stages, as previously predicted and experimentally shown. They showed that ACP requires a biochemical modification, typically activating the protein for its function in the FASII pathway, i.e. binding of the 4-PP group by holoACP synthase. Then, they showed that the other enzymes of the FASII pathway are likely dispensable during the blood stage, as they were able to generate a KO line of the first enzyme of the pathway, FabD (which was predicted to be essential in P. falciparum). Based on a cell culture approach in a controlled culture medium, they further claimed that, unlike current evidence-based hypotheses, the FASII pathway (and thus a potentially FASII-linked ACP) has no role/activity during blood stages. Using a proximity biotinylation approach, they determined that ACP associates with the apicoplast pyruvate Kinase II (PKII), previously shown to generate NTPs in the apicoplast for energy and DNA/RNA maintenance (Xia et al. 2019), and not to fuel the FASII pathway as its main function in blood stages. Finally, they showed that the disruption of ACP induces the reduction of the presence/content in PKII in the parasite, as well as the drastic reduction of the apicoplast DNA and RNA content. Together, they concluded that the main function of ACP is indeed the NTP formation via its association with PKII, rather than its canonical role for the generation of fatty acids in the apicoplast.

This study is novel and focuses on a topic of particular interest in malaria biology, but also for most of the apicomplexa-related diseases, and beyond for plastid bearing orgnaisms and this unusual role for ACP. The study is well thought out with proper biochemical approaches that convincingly point to this association of ACP with PKII for NTP synthesis as a major function during P. falciparum blood stages.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In the manuscript "Primordial Cardiomyocytes orchestrate myocardial morphogenesis and vascularization but are dispensable for regeneration", Sun et al. identify a novel marker of primordial cardiomyocytes and use it to visualize and ablate the population during development and regeneration. The role of the primordial layer has not been investigated because the tools to manipulate this population have not existed. The manuscript is straightforward, easy to understand, and addresses an important question that has not been explored.

While the manuscript provides important insights into the role of primordial CMs, backed by a convincing methodology, the authors should clarify their requirements for heart development and maturation. Specifically, is the primordial layer required for the fish to survive? Do primordial CMs regenerate when ablated during development, and do the defects observed (in trabecular and compact CMs and coronary vessels) resolve after 10 days post-treatment when they were detected?

Strengths:

The major strengths are the identification of a marker that enables manipulation of primordial cardiomyocytes and the tools generated by the team.

Weaknesses:

The major weakness is not considering the longer-term consequences of primordial layer ablation during development, as it is unclear whether the animals succumb to the acute cardiac defects observed or fully recover.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

As a member of DspB subfamily, PRRT2 is predominantly expressed in CNS and has been associated with various paroxysmal neurological disorders. Previous studies have shown that PRRT2 interacts with Nav and Cav channels, modulating channel properties and neuronal excitability.

In this manuscript, Lu et al. demonstrate that PRRT2 is a potent regulator of Nav channel slow inactivation, promoting the development of Nav slow inactivation and impeding the recovery from slow inactivation. This effect is highly conserved in PRRT2s across species as well as among DspB family members (TRARG1 and TMEM233). The authors further confirmed the interaction between Nav channels and PRRT2 in heterologous expression systems as well as in Prrt2-V5 knock-in mice. Prrt2-mutant mice, which lack PRRT2 expression, require lower stimulation thresholds for evoking after-discharges when compared with WT mice.

Overall, this is a well-executed and methodologically comprehensive study. This work offers valuable insight into the physiological functions of PRRT2 and reveals a potential pathogenic mechanism underlying PRRT2-associated neurological disorders.

The revised manuscript has addressed most of the concerns raised by the reviewers and has been substantially strengthened, although I still have several concerns regarding the discussion section.

Strengths:

(1) Overall, this is a well-executed and methodologically comprehensive study. The electrophysiological data strongly support the conclusion that PRRT2 is a potent regulator of Nav channel slow inactivation. The observation that this regulation is conserved in PRRT2 across species and among DspB family members raises the possibility that altered regulation of Nav channels may also contribute to the pathogenesis of TRARG1- or TMEM233-associated disorders.

(2) Co-immunoprecipitation assay performed using brain tissue from genetically modified Prrt2-V5 knock-in mice provides convincing in vivo evidence for the interaction between PRRT2 and Nav1.2 channels.

(3) Prrt2-V5 KI mice show markedly reduced PRRT2 protein expression and display phenotypes similar to those observed in Prrt2-mutant mice, supporting an important role of PRRT2 in regulating neuronal and network excitability.

Weaknesses:

(1) Nav1.6 is also highly expressed in cortical neurons and is widely regarded as a major contributor to action potential initiation and sustained high-frequency firing. Given that PRRT2 similarly regulates the fast and slow inactivation of Nav1.6 and Nav1.2 channels, the potential contribution of Nav1.6 regulation to neuronal and network excitability should be discussed.

(2) Slow inactivation is generally considered to develop over timescales ranging from hundreds of milliseconds to seconds or longer. Therefore, the statement in Discussion (Page 13, line 381-382) that "slow inactivation develops on a timescale of tens of milliseconds to seconds" may not accurately reflect the conventional kinetic definition of slow inactivation and should be clarified.

(3) Page 14, line 417-430: "question about how Nav channel slow inactivation is regulated in cells that do not express PRRT2".<br /> PRRT2 is unlikely to be the sole regulator of Nav channel slow inactivation. Other molecules and signaling pathways may regulate Nav channel and contribute to neuronal excitability. In addition, neuronal excitability can also be regulated through modulating other Nav properties, such as long-term inactivation or slow recovery from inactivation, as well as through modulating the activity of other ion channels, for example, Kv7.2 and Kv7.3 channels. Therefore, PRRT2-negative cells may utilize alternative mechanisms to fine-tune neuronal excitability. In its current form, this paragraph somewhat overstates the role of PRRT2 and would benefit from a more balanced discussion.

(4) Page 50, Figure 7-figure supplement 2: It would be helpful to include representative traces of the 1st and the last (20th) compound APs in panels B and C.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this paper, the authors describe the results of a longitudinal study of pertussis infection in mother/infant dyads in Lusaka, Zambia. Unlike many past studies, the authors assessed the infection status of individuals independently of whether they were symptomatic for a respiratory infection. As a result, this work represents one of the first studies specifically designed to assess asymptomatic transmission of pertussis. Using qPCR, the authors find strong evidence for the role of asymptomatic transmission from mothers to infants and also evidence for long-term bacterial carriage. This work represents an important contribution to our understanding of the global burden of pertussis. Also, it highlights the still under-appreciated role of asymptomatic transmission across many infectious diseases (including vaccine-preventable ones).

Strengths:

Unlike many past studies, the authors assessed the infection status of individuals independently of whether they were symptomatic for a respiratory infection. As a result, this work represents one of the first studies specifically designed to assess asymptomatic transmission of pertussis. Using qPCR, the authors find strong evidence for the role of asymptomatic transmission from mothers to infants and also evidence for long-term bacterial carriage.

Comments on revised version:

I appreciate the authors' attention to my comments during the revision process and still believe that their work represents an important contribution to our understanding of pertussis epidemiology. In most cases, the authors have done a thorough job of either addressing or responding to my comments. However, I do not believe the authors engaged sufficiently with two of the queries raised in my previous round of comments. The two queries were about the vaccination status of the mothers and engagement with literature on asymptomatic transmission. I still think they matter and ask the authors to consider them again.

I do not think the authors can rule out two alternative explanations: (1) recent introduction of pertussis and low vaccination coverage amongst study mothers, or (2) recent introduction of a breakthrough strain (either w.r.t. the vaccine or prior infection) and higher vaccination coverage/infection-derived immunity amongst study mothers. Depending on which mechanism was mostly driving the observed patterns in Zambia, i.e.,

a. long-running, widespread, unreported transmission;<br /> b. transmission started recently, and vaccination was low amongst study mothers;<br /> c. a breakthrough strain is causing the current rise (here we'd still want to know about vaccination status); and<br /> d. something else that I have not considered

would have implications for how the results are interpreted, and potentially far-reaching implications for the broader pertussis community. All of that is to say, I think the authors were too quick to dismiss these concerns (even if they disagree with my assertions).

In their reply, the authors largely dismissed concerns about not knowing the mother's vaccination status, stating in their reply that, "our findings strongly suggest ongoing pertussis transmission in this population. Based on this, we expect that mothers in our study who were not vaccinated would likely have some degree of infection-derived immunity."

However, they also stated that, "Zambia offers an evocative example of pertussis surveillance, where no cases have appeared in official WHO reports since 2009" and "As we noted above (and now address in our Discussion), widespread genomic surveillance and microbiological characterization of pertussis are sorely lacking across Africa."

I don't disagree with the authors' conclusion that pertussis is clearly spreading in Zambia. I also don't disagree that there's clearly evidence for minimally symptomatic, infectious mothers spreading infections to children. Both of these findings matter for Zambia and for our broader understanding of pertussis. However, I don't see how the authors can so confidently conclude that low vaccination rates, coupled with a recent introduction, high vaccination rates, coupled with a breakthrough strain, or high infection-derived immunity, coupled with a breakthrough strain, couldn't be what's driving the increase. The authors do hedge in places and also state in the discussion that their findings don't line up with expectations related to WP/infection-derived immunity, "This corresponds to a mean return frequency of one infection per 14.8 years, which is much shorter than the presumed duration of immunity from natural infection or the whole-cell pertussis vaccination used in Zambia (70, 71)." But, my read of the paper is that the authors are pushing way to ward for a preferred hypothesis that is not more favored than other alternatives.

Secondly, I asked about placing this work in the context of other studies on asymptomatic transmission, but realize that I did not list any specific papers. Two worth considering are Warfel et al. 2014 and Althouse and Scarpino 2015. Restating for the editor, the Warfel study found that WP facilitated rapid clearance in a non-human primate experimental infection study (admittedly with small sample sizes and many other caveats). Many took that as evidence that WP would also block transmission (admittedly experiments Warfel did not run). If the mechanism underlying the results in Zambia is that either WP or natural infection does not block transmission (in the absence of a breakthrough strain), that would upend many of the assumptions in pertussis research. While not incompatible with the Warfel et al. results, it would negate most of the importance of their finding that WP blocked transmission. From what I can see, the authors do not even cite Warfel et al. 2014, which is a serious gap regardless of whether the authors agree or disagree with the findings. A quick sidebar, the authors seem to duplicate Craig et al. 2020 10.1093/cid/ciz531, listing it as both citation 9 and 38.

In Althouse and Scarpino, they found evidence of a rise in asymptomatic/underreported/subclinical transmission following the switch from WP to AP. While not as directly relevant to the current study as the Warfel paper (so I leave it to the authors to decide whether citing this paper is important), Althouse and Scarpino discuss asymptomatic transmission at length and also assume that WP conferred strong protection against transmission, so their results (along with dozens and dozens of other studies assuming similar WP/infection-induced immunity protection and durability) would also need to be reinterpreted in the context of this study. The authors should engage with the implication of their results in the context of past modeling studies and what we think we know about vaccine-/infection-derived immunity.

Going back to my earlier points, unvaccinated mothers and the recent introduction of pertussis, or vaccinated/infection-induced immune mothers with a breakthrough strain, would both explain the current results and be compatible with Warfel et al., Althouse and Scarpino, and a sizable number of other studies. Instead, if transmission from WP- or naturally infected mothers is common (in the absence of a breakthrough strain), that would really change the landscape of pertussis epidemiology. The authors have not convinced me that they can make this conclusion. Hence, why I think it's important that the authors engage more actively with those hypotheses and with relevant debates in the pertussis literature on asymptomatic transmission. I think it's appropriate for the authors to present their preferred hypothesis, but, absent other data, they should also present plausible alternatives that are consistent with past publications.

References:

Althouse, B. M., & Scarpino, S. V. (2015). Asymptomatic transmission and the resurgence of Bordetella pertussis. BMC medicine, 13, 1-12.

Warfel, J. M., Zimmerman, L. I., & Merkel, T. J. (2014). Acellular pertussis vaccines protect against disease but fail to prevent infection and transmission in a nonhuman primate model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(2), 787-792.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors use an Evolve-and-Resequence approach in Drosophila to study the genomic basis of adaptation to long-term starvation. Replicated selection lines and control populations are sequenced and analyzed to identify signals of selection, which are then related to starvation-related phenotypes. The general experimental design is appropriate, and the combination of genomic and phenotypic data is a clear strength of the study.

Strengths:

The strongest aspect of the work is the experimental evolution framework combined with population genomic inference across replicate populations. The observed parallelism across replicates supports the robustness of at least a subset of the detected selection signals. However, several key methodological details are either unclear or insufficiently justified. In particular, both the maintenance of control populations and demographic assumptions are not fully described, and the treatment of structural variation (e.g., segregating inversions) is not sufficiently addressed. The phenotypic analyses are broadly appropriate and replicated but would benefit from access to raw data.

Weaknesses:

The human ortholog enrichment analysis is an interesting component of the study, but it should be interpreted more cautiously. As currently presented, it is based on correlational signals of differentiation and is therefore sensitive to potential confounding factors. While the analysis may point to intriguing patterns consistent with conserved genetic architecture, the evidence is not sufficient to support strong claims of conserved starvation/malnutrition-related polygenic adaptation in humans. Framing this component more explicitly as exploratory would strengthen the manuscript. In its current form, this analysis is somewhat less conclusive than the experimental evolution results in flies.

Overall, the study provides a useful dataset and a reasonably solid analysis of starvation adaptation in experimental Drosophila populations, but several methodological clarifications and a more balanced framing of the cross-species comparisons would strengthen the manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Lee et al. is a comprehensive conservation genomics study that combines a chromosome-level genome assembly (sex-specific, too), population resequencing, coalescent species delimitation, and simulations to reassess the evolutionary status and conservation outlook of the Formosan landlocked salmon, Oncorhynchus formosanus. The authors showed a distinctive genome structure, replete with chromosome fusions and an unusual placement of the sex-determining gene sdY. Across sampling sites, they observed variable levels of genetic diversity, but in a way that was surprising given previous census numbers and conservation history. In particular, the authors report a previously unrecognised native population in Hehuan Creek, and conclude that Hehuan is more resilient to typhoon disturbance than the long-protected Qijiawan population - motivating stream-specific rather than range-wide conservation.

Overall, this is a well-written paper that combines a number of elements that are timely and relevant. It uses state-of-the-art techniques to reach its conclusions and is generally performed to a high standard. It describes a critically endangered species that poses its unique conservation challenges. There are a number of things to like, as well as some substantial shortcomings in this paper.

Strengths:

The genomic resource is excellent. The assembly is well validated (97.3% anchored to 25 scaffolds, 95.7% BUSCO), and the authors generated a separate male assembly specifically to resolve the sex-determining region, allowing XY-shared and Y-specific contigs to be distinguished on coverage rather than inference. This is truly well done, and at a high standard. The synteny evidence for telomere-to-telomere fusions involving at least 14 ancestral chromosomes, against two in O. m. masou, is convincing.

The Hehuan Creek result is the paper's most valuable contribution. Elevated heterozygosity, short and infrequent runs of homozygosity, and private alleles absent from the Qijiawan broodstock are difficult to reconcile with a purely reintroduced origin. The contrast with Luoyewei is a clean and useful cautionary case for hatchery supplementation.

Weaknesses:

(1) The species-rank claim is featured in the abstract, but it is made with any level of rigour in the paper. "New species" appears once, in the abstract (l. 32). The Results conclude only that O. formosanus is a distinct evolutionarily significant unit (ll. 188-191), which itself can be well-justified, but it's far from a taxonomic rank (see author's own ref 10). No species concept is explicitly named anywhere, and the taxon is referred to across the manuscript as a subspecies (l. 68), a "new species" (l. 32), and an ESU (l. 189) in turn.

(2) Gene flow is asserted, not tested, and two divergence estimates disagree twentyfold. The abstract reports "no detectable gene flow for ~50,000 years." That figure is a divergence time from BPP under the A00 model, which contains no migration parameter; a model that cannot fit gene flow cannot report its absence. Separately, Figure 1b shows a split at 1.15-5.09 Mya (Figure 1b), while the ddRAD coalescent places the same split at ~50 kya (Figure 1d). The explanation offered (ll. 417-421, "differing temporal sensitivity of genomic markers") is not a mechanism.

(3) The placement of sdY is unresolved, and the paper's own figures conflict with its text. Figure S10 and Table S6 both make O. formosanus chr13 homologous to O. m. masou chr32, whereas reference 28 - on which the authors rely - places the sdY contig on O. m. masou chr7, whose O. formosanus homologue is chr5 (Table S6). These cannot both be correct, and Figure S10's caption compounds the confusion by attributing chr13 to masou and omitting the chr32 track entirely.

(4) The population-viability model's stated mechanisms are contradicted by the authors' own supplementary tables. The Discussion attributes Qijiawan's vulnerability to "lower juvenile survival, decreased fecundity, and narrower terminal age class representation" (ll. 522-525). Table S10 gives Qijiawan higher age-0 survival (0.202/0.616 vs 0.184/0.615); Table S11 gives it higher fecundity at every reproductive age (7.68/19.27/7.86 vs 6.10/8.95/4.14); Table S9 gives it a broader terminal age class (5.0% vs 0.8% age-3 in November). The only parameter favouring Hehuan is age-1 survival - 0.087 (95% CI 0.000-0.180) versus 0.131 (0.093-0.187) under typhoon, and 0.054 (0.000-0.167) versus 0.087 (0.047-0.149) at baseline. Both Qijiawan intervals include zero and overlap Hehuan's, yet a reported extinction odds ratio of 4.48 rests on this difference.

(5) The two streams were not measured equivalently, and every asymmetry favours the conclusion.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

In this manuscript, the authors dissect how Gβγ potentiates PLCβ3 signaling in cells. Using engineered crosslinking to stabilize a Gβγ-PLCβ3 complex, single particle cryo-EM, and cell-based functional assays, they identify map multiple putative Gβγ interaction surfaces on PLCβ3, including a previously unrecognized binding mode. Structure-guided mutagenesis supports the functional relevance of these interactions and suggests that Gβγ potentiation is not primarily mediated by PLCβ3 membrane recruitment, but instead enhances PLCβ3 activity after the lipase is already at the membrane.

Previous reconstitution work on membrane surface (Falzone & MacKinnon, 2023) proposed a recruitment/partitioning-centric model in which Gβγ increases PLCβ3 output largely by elevating its membrane surface concentration, whereas Gαq primarily increases catalytic turnover; under those reconstitution conditions, the two inputs can combine approximately multiplicatively. In receptor-driven cellular signaling, however, PLCβ3 is robustly recruited to the plasma membrane upon Gαq activation, which raises the question of whether Gβγ contributes mainly through additional recruitment or through a post-recruitment mechanism once PLCβ3 is already at the membrane.

This manuscript helps address that gap by using membrane-anchored PLCβ3 and complementary cellular readouts to separate "getting PLCβ3 to the membrane" from "boosting activity once PLCβ3 is already there." Their results argue that, in cells, membrane recruitment is largely dominated by Gαq·GTP, while Gβγ can further potentiate PIP2 hydrolysis after membrane association, consistent with a modulatory role at the membrane rather than primary recruitment.

Overall, the work provides a structural and mechanistic framework for Gβγ-PLCβ3 cooperation and helps clarify the basis of Gq pathway amplification.

Comments on revised version.

The authors have reasonably addressed my comments.