Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Argunşah et al. describe and investigate the mechanisms underlying the differential response dynamics of barrel vs septa domains in the whisker-related primary somatosensory cortex (S1). Upon repeated stimulation, the authors report that the response ratio between multi- and single-whisker stimulation increases in layer (L) 4 neurons of the septal domain, while remaining constant in barrel L4 neurons. The authors attribute this divergence to differences in short-term synaptic plasticity, particularly within somatostatin-expressing (SST⁺) interneurons. This interpretation is supported by 1) the increased density of SST+ neurons in L4 of the septa compared to barrel domain, 2) the stronger response of (L2/3) SST+ neurons to repeated multi- vs single-whisker stimulation and 3) the reduced functional difference in single- versus multi-whisker response ratios across barrel and septal domains in Elfn1 KO mice, which lack a synaptic protein that confers characteristic short-term plasticity, notably in SST+ neurons. Consistently, a decoder trained on WT data fails to generalize to Elfn1 KO responses. Finally, the authors report a relative enrichment of S2- and M1-projecting cell densities in L4 of the septal domain compared to the barrel domain, suggesting that septal and barrel circuits may differentially route information about single vs multi-whisker stimulation downstream of S1.

Strengths:

This paper describes and aims to study a circuit underlying differential response between barrel columns and septal domains of the primary somatosensory cortex. This work supports the view these two domains contribute distinctly to the processing single versus multi-whisker inputs and highlight the role of SST+ neuron and their short-term plasticity. Together, this study suggests that the barrel cortex multiplexes whisker-derived sensory information across its domains, enabling parallel processing within S1.

Weaknesses:

Although the divergence in responses to repeated single- versus multi-whisker stimulation between barrel and septal domains is consistent with a role for SST⁺ neuron short-term plasticity, the evidence presented does not conclusively demonstrate that this mechanism is the critical driver of the difference. The lack of targeted recordings and manipulations limits the strength of this conclusion: SST⁺ neuron activity is not measured in L4, nor is it assessed in a domain-specific manner. The Elfn1 knockout manipulation does not appear to selectively affect either stimulus condition, domain or interneuron subtype. Finally, all experiments were performed under anesthesia, which raises concerns about how well the reported dynamics generalize to awake cortical processing.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Pereira de Castro and coworkers are studying potential competition between a more standard splicing factor SF1 and an alternative splicing factor called QK1. This is interesting because they bind to overlapping sequence motifs and could potentially have opposing effects on promoting the splicing reaction. To test this idea, the authors KD either SF1 or QK1 in mammalian cells and uncover several exons whose splicing regulation follows the predicted pattern of being promoted for splicing by SF1 and repressed by QK1. Importantly, these have introns enriched in SF1 and QK1 motifs. The authors then focus on one exon in particular with two tandem motifs to study the mechanism of this in greater detail and their results confirm the competition model. Mass spec analysis largely agrees with their proposal; however, it is complicated by apparently quick transition of SF1 bound complexes to later splicing intermediates. An inspired experiment in yeast shows how QK1 competition could potentially have a determinental impact on splicing in an orthogonal system. Overall these results show how splicing regulation can be achieved by competition between a "core" and alternative splicing factor and provide additional insight into the complex process of branch site recognition. The manuscript is exceptionally clear and the figures and data very logically presented. The work will be valuable to those in the splicing field who are interested in both mechanism and bioinformatics approaches to deconvolve any apparent "splicing code" being used by cells to regulate gene expression.

Strengths:

(1) The main discovery of the manuscript involving evidence for SF1/QK1 competition is quite interesting and important for this field. This evidence has been missing and may change how people think about branch site recognition.

(2) The experiments and the rationale behind them are clearly and logically presented.

(3) The experiments are carried out to a high standard and well-designed controls are included.

(4) The extrapolation of the result to yeast in order to show the potentially devastating consequences of QK1 competition was creative and informative.

Weaknesses:

Overall the weaknesses are relatively minor and involve cases where conclusions could potentially have been strengthened with additional experimentation. For example, pull-down of the U2 snRNP could be strengthened by detection of the snRNA whereas the proteins may themselves interact with these factors in the absence of the snRNA. In addition the discussion is a bit speculative given the data, but compelling nonetheless.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors investigate the nanoscopic distribution of glycine receptor subunits in the hippocampus, dorsal striatum, and ventral striatum of the mouse brain using single-molecule localization microscopy (SMLM). They demonstrate that only a small number of glycine receptors are localized at hippocampal inhibitory synapses. Using dual-color SMLM, they further show that clusters of glycine receptors are predominantly localized within gephyrin-positive synapses. A comparison between the dorsal and ventral striatum reveals that the ventral striatum contains approximately eight times more glycine receptors and this finding is consistent with electrophysiological data on postsynaptic inhibitory currents. Finally, using cultured hippocampal neurons, they examine the differential synaptic localization of glycine receptor subunits (α1, α2, and β). This study is significant as it provides insights into the nanoscopic localization patterns of glycine receptors in brain regions where this protein is expressed at low levels. Additionally, the study demonstrates the different localization patterns of GlyR in distinct striatal regions and its physiological relevance using SMLM and electrophysiological experiments. However, several concerns should be addressed.

Specific comments on the original version:

(1) Colocalization analysis in Figure 1A. The colocalization between Sylite and mEos-GlyRβ appears to be quite low. It is essential to assess whether the observed colocalization is not due to random overlap. The authors should consider quantifying colocalization using statistical methods, such as a pixel shift analysis, to determine whether colocalization frequencies remain similar after artificially displacing one of the channels.

(2) Inconsistency between Figure 3A and 3B. While Figure 3B indicates an ~8-fold difference in the number of mEos4b-GlyRβ detections per synapse between the dorsal and ventral striatum, Figure 3A does not appear to show a pronounced difference in the localization of mEos4b-GlyRβ on Sylite puncta between these two regions. If the images presented in Figure 3A are not representative, the authors should consider replacing them with more representative examples or providing an expanded images with multiple representative examples. Alternatively, if this inconsistency can be explained by differences in spot density within clusters, the authors should explain that.

(3) Quantification in Figure 5. It is recommended that the authors provide quantitative data on cluster formation and colocalization with Sylite puncta in Figure 5 to support their qualitative observations.

(4) Potential for pseudo replication. It's not clear whether they're performing stats tests across biological replica, images, or even synapses. They often quote mean +/- SEM with n = 1000s, and so does that mean they're doing tests on those 1000s? Need to clarify.

(5) Does mEoS effect expression levels or function of the protein? Can't see any experiments done to confirm this. Could suggest WB on homogenate, or mass spec?

(6) Quantification of protein numbers is challenging with SMLM. Issues include i) some of FP not correctly folded/mature, and ii) dependence of localisation rate on instrument, excitation/illumination intensities, and also the thresholds used in analysis. Can the authors compare with another protein that has known expression levels- e.g. PSD95? This is quite an ask, but if they could show copy number of something known to compare with, it would be useful.

(7) Rationale for doing nanobody dSTORM not clear at all. They don't explain the reason for doing the dSTORM experiments. Why not just rely on PALM for coincidence measurements, rather than tagging mEoS with a nanobody, and then doing dSTORM with that? Can they explain? Is it to get extra localisations- i.e. multiple per nanobody? If so, localising same FP multiple times wouldn't improve resolution. Also, no controls for nanobody dSTORM experiments- what about non-spec nb, or use on WT sections?

(8) What resolutions/precisions were obtained in SMLM experiments? Should perform Fourier Ring Correlation (FRC) on SR images to state resolutions obtained (particularly useful for when they're presenting distance histograms, as this will be dependent on resolution). Likewise for precision, what was mean precision? Can they show histograms of localisation precision.

(9) Why were DBSCAN parameters selected? How can they rule out multiple localisations per fluor? If low copy numbers (<10), then why bother with DBSCAN? Could just measure distance to each one.

(10) For microscopy experiment methods, state power densities, not % or "nominal power".

(11) In general, not much data presented. Any SI file with extra images etc.?

(12) Clarification of the discussion on GlyR expression and synaptic localization: The discussion on GlyR expression, complex formation, and synaptic localization is sometimes unclear, and needs terminological distinctions between "expression level", "complex formation" and "synaptic localization". For example, the authors state: "What then is the reason for the low protein expression of GlyRβ? One possibility is that the assembly of mature heteropentameric GlyR complexes depends critically on the expression of endogenous GlyR α subunits." Does this mean that GlyRβ proteins that fail to form complexes with GlyRα subunits are unstable and subject to rapid degradation? If so, the authors should clarify this point. The statement "This raises the interesting possibility that synaptic GlyRs may depend specifically on the concomitant expression of both α1 and β transcripts." suggests a dependency on α1 and β transcripts. However, is the authors' focus on synaptic localization or overall protein expression levels? If this means synaptic localization, it would be beneficial to state this explicitly to avoid confusion. To improve clarity, the authors should carefully distinguish between these different aspects of GlyR biology throughout the discussion. Additionally, a schematic diagram illustrating these processes would be highly beneficial for readers.

(13) Interpretation of GlyR localization in the context of nanodomains. The distribution of GlyR molecules on inhibitory synapses appears to be non-homogeneous, instead forming nanoclusters or nanodomains, similar to many other synaptic proteins. It is important to interpret GlyR localization in the context of nanodomain organization.

Significance:

The paper presents biological and technical advances. The biological insights revolve mostly on the documentation of Glycine receptors in particular synapses in forebrain, where they are typically expressed at very low levels. The authors provide compelling data indicating that the expression is of physiological significance. The authors have done a nice job of combining genetically tagged mice with advanced microscopy methods to tackle the question of distributions of synaptic proteins. Overall, these advances are more incremental than groundbreaking.

Comments on revised version:

The authors have addressed the majority of the significant issues raised in the review and revised the manuscript appropriately. One issue that can be further addressed relates to the issue of pseudo-replication. The authors state in their response that "All experiments were repeated at least twice to ensure reproducibility (N independent experiments). Statistical tests were performed on pooled data across the biological replicates; n denotes the number of data points used for testing (e.g., number of synaptic clusters, detections, cells, as specified in each case).". This suggests that they're not doing their stats on biological replicates, and instead are pseudo replicating. It's not clear how they have ensured reproducibility, when the stats seem to have been done on pooled data across repeats.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This very thorough anatomical study addresses the innervation of the Drosophila male reproductive tract. Two distinct glutamatergic neuron types were classified: serotonergic (SGNs) and octopaminergic (OGNs). By expansion microscopy, it was established that glutamate and serotonin /octopamine are co-released. The expression of different receptors for 5-HT and OA in muscles and epithelial cells of the innervation target organs was characterized. The pattern of neurotransmitter receptor expression in the target organs suggests that seminal fluid and sperm transport and emission are subjected to complex regulation. While silencing of abdominal SGNs leads to male infertility and prevents sperm from entering the ejaculatory duct, silencing of OGNs does not render males infertile.

Strengths:

The studied neurons were analysed with different transgenes and methods, as well as antibodies against neurotransmitter synthesis enzymes, building a consistent picture of their neurotransmitter identity. The careful anatomical description of innervation patterns together with receptor expression patterns if the target organs provides a solid basis for advancing the understanding how seminal fluid and sperm transport and emission are subjected to complex regulation. The functional data showing that SGNs are required for male fertility and for the release of sperm from the seminal vesicle into the ejaculatory duct is convincing.

Weaknesses:

The functional analysis of the characterized neurons is not as comprehensive as the anatomical description and phenotypic characterization was limited to simple fertility assays. It is understandable that a full functional dissection is beyond the scope of the present work. The paper contains experiments showing neuron-independent peristaltic waves in the reproductive tract muscles, which are thematically not very well integrated into the paper. Although very interesting, one wonders if these experiments would not fit better into a future work that also explores these peristaltic waves and their interrelation with neuromodulation mechanistically.

Comments on revisions:

The manuscript has improved after fixing many small issues/errors. The new sections in the discussion are likewise adding to the quality of the manuscript.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this paper, the authors developed a chemical labeling reagent for P2X7 receptors, called X7-uP. This labeling reagent selectively labels endogenous P2X7 receptors with biotin based on ligand-directed NASA chemistry. After labeling the endogenous P2X7 receptor with biotin, the receptor can be fluorescently labeled with streptavidin-AlexaFluor647. The authors carefully examined the binding properties and labeling selectivity of X7-uP to P2X7, characterized the labeling site of P2X7 receptors, and demonstrated fluorescence imaging of P2X7 receptors. The data obtained by SDS-PAGE, Western blot, and fluorescence microscopy clearly shows that X7-uP labels the P2X7 receptor. Finally, the authors fluorescently labeled the endogenous P2X7 in BV2 cells, which are a murine microglia model, and used dSTORM to reveal a nanoscale P2X7 redistribution mechanism under inflammatory conditions at high resolution.

Strengths:

X7-uP selectively labels endogenous P2X7 receptors with biotin. Streptavidin-AlexaFluor647 binds to the biotin labeled to the P2X7 receptor, allowing visualization of endogenous P2X7 receptors.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The co-localization of large conductance calcium- and voltage activated potassium (BK) channels with voltage-gated calcium channels (CaV) at the plasma membrane is important for the functional role of these channels in controlling cell excitability and physiology in a variety of systems. An important question in the field is where and how do BK and CaV channels assemble as 'ensembles' to allow this coordinated regulation - is this through preassembly early in the biosynthetic pathway, during trafficking to the cell surface or once channels are integrated into the plasma membrane. These questions also have broader implications for assembly of other ion channel complexes. Using an imaging based approach, this paper addresses the spatial distribution of BK-CaV ensembles using both overexpression strategies in tsa201 and INS-1 cells and analysis of endogenous channels in INS-1 cells using proximity ligation and superesolution approaches. In addition, the authors analyse the spatial distribution of mRNAs encoding BK and Cav1.3. The key conclusion of the paper that BK and CaV1.3 are co-localised as ensembles intracellularly in the ER and Golgi is well supported by the evidence. The experiments and analysis are carefully performed and the findings are very well presented.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Adult (4mo) rats were tasked to either press one lever for an immediate reward or another for a delayed reward. The task had an adjusting amount structure in which (1) the number of pellets provided on the immediate reward lever changed as a function of the decisions made, (2) rats were prevented from pressing the same lever three times in a row.

While the authors have been very responsive to the reviews, and I appreciate that, unfortunately, the new analyses reported in this revision actually lead me to deeper concerns about the adequacy of the data to support the conclusions. In this revision, it has become clear that the conclusions are forced and not supported by the data. Alternative theories are not considered or presented. This revision has revealed deep problems with the task, the analyses, and the modeling.

Data Weaknesses

Most importantly, the inclusion of the task behavior data has revealed a deep problem with the entire structure of the data. As is obvious in Figure 1D, there is a slow learning effect that is changing over the sessions as the animals learn to stop taking the delayed outcome. Unfortunately, the 8s delays came *after* the 4s. The first 20 sessions contain 19 4s delays and 1 8s delay, while the last 20 sessions contain 14 8s delays and 6 4s delays. Given the changes across sessions, it is likely that a large part of the difference is due to across-session learning (which is never addressed or considered).

These data are not shown by subject and I suspect that individual subjects did all 4s then all 8s and some subjects switched tasks at different times. If my suspicion is true, then any comparisons between the 4s and 8s conditions (which are a major part of the author's claims) may have nothing to do with the delays, but rather with increased experience on the task.

Furthermore, the four "groups", which are still poorly defined, seem to have been assessed at a session-by-session level. So when did each animal fall into a given group? Why is Figure 1D not showing which session fell into which group and why are we not seeing each animal's progression? They also admit that animals used a mixture of strategies, which implies that the "group" assignment is an invalid analysis, as the groups do not accommodate strategy mixing.

Figure 2 shows that none of the differences of the group behavior against random choice with a basic p(delay) are significant. The use a KS test to measure these differences. KS tests are notoriously sensitive as KS tests simply measure whether there are any statistical differences between two distributions. They do not report the full statistics for Figure 2, but only say that the 4HI group was not significant (KS p-value = 0.72) and the 8LO showed a p-value of 0.1 (which they interpret as significant). p=0.1 is not significant. They don't report the value of the 4LO or 8HI groups (why not?), but say they are in-between these two extremes. That means *none* of the differences are significant.

They then test a model with additional parameters, and say that the model includes more than the minimal p_D parameter, but never report BIC or AIC model comparisons. In order to claim that the model is better than the bare p_D assumption, they should be reporting model-comparison statistics. But given that the p_D parameters are enough (q.v. Figure 2), this entire model seems unnecessary

It took me a while to determine what was being shown in Figure 3, but I was eventually able to determine that 0 was the time after the animal made the choice to wait out the delay side, so the 4s in Figure 3A1 with high power in the low-frequency (<5 Hz) range is the waiting time. They don't show the full 8s time. Nor do they show the spectrograms separated by group (assuming that group is the analytical tool they are using). In B they show only show theta power, but it is unclear how to interpret these changes over time.

In Figure 4, panel A is mostly useless because it is just five sample sessions showing firing rate plotted on the same panels as the immediate reward amount. If they want to claim correlation, they should show and test it. But moreover, this is not how neural data should be presented - we need to know what the cells are doing, population-wise. We need to have an understanding of the neural ensemble. These data are clearly being picked and chosen, which is not OK.

Figure 4, panels B and C show that the activity trivially reflects the reward that has been delivered to the animal, if I am understanding the graphs correctly. (The authors do not interpret it this way, but the data is, to my eyes, clear.) The "immediate" signal shows up immediately at choice and reflects the size of the immediate reward (which is varying). The "delay" signal shows up after the delay and does not, which makes sense as the animals get 6 pellets on the delayed side no matter what. In fact, the max delayed side activity = the max immediate side activity, which is 6 pellets. This is just reward-related firing.

Figure 5 is poorly laid out, switching the order in 5C to be 2 1 3 in E and F. (Why?!) The statistics for Figure 5 on page 17 should be asking whether there are differences between neuron types, not whether there is a choice x time interaction in a given neuron type. When I look at Figure 5F1-3, all three types look effectively similar with different levels of noise. It is unclear why they are doing this complicated PC analysis or what we should be drawing from it.

Figure 6 mis-states pie charts as "total number" rather than proportions.

Interpretation Weaknesses

The separation of cognitive effort into "resource-based" and "resistance-based" seems artificial to me. I still do not understand why the ability to resist a choice does not also depend on resource or why using resources are not a form of resistance. Doesn't every action in the end depend on the resources one has available? And doesn't every use of a resource resist one option by taking another? Even if one buys these two separate cognitive control processes (which at this point in reading the revision, I do not), the paper starts from the assumption that a baseline probability of waiting out the delays is a "resistance-based cognitive control" (why?) and a probability of choice that takes into account the size of the immediate value (confusingly abbreviated as ival) is a "resource-based cognitive control" (again, why?)

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The paper from Hudait and Voth details a number of coarse-grained simulations as well as some experiments focused on the stability of HIV capsids in the presence of the drug lenacapavir. The authors find that LEN hyperstabilizes the capsid, making it fragile and prone to breaking inside the nuclear pore complex.

I found the paper interesting. I have a few suggestions for clarification and/or improvement.

(1) How directly comparable are the NPC-capsid and capsid-only simulations? A major result rests on the conclusion that the kinetics of rupture are faster inside the NPC, but are the numbers of LENs bound identical? Is the time really comparable, given that the simulations have different starting points? I'm not really doubting the result, but I think it could be made more rigorous/quantitative.

(2) Related to the above, it is stated on page 12 that, based on the estimated free-energy barrier, pentamer dissociation should occur in ~10 us of CG time. But certainly, the simulations cover at least this length of time?

(3) At first, I was surprised that even in a CG simulation, LEN would spontaneously bind to the correct site. But if I read the SI correctly, LEN was parameterized specifically to bind to hexamers and not pentamers. This is fine, but I think it's worth describing in the main text.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Spinal projection neurons in the anterolateral tract transmit diverse somatosensory signals to the brain, including touch, temperature, itch, and pain. This group of spinal projection neurons is heterogeneous in their molecular identities, projection targets in the brain, and response properties. While most anterolateral tract projection neurons are multimodal (responding to more than one somatosensory modality), it has been shown that cold-selective projection neurons exist in lamina I of the spinal cord dorsal horn. Using a combination of anatomical and physiological approaches, the authors discovered that the cold-selective lamina I projection neurons are heavily innervated by Trpm8+ sensory neuron axons, with calb1+ spinal projection neurons primarily capturing these cold-selective lamina I projection neurons. These neurons project to specific brain targets, including the PBNrel and cPAG. This study adds to the ongoing effort in the field to identify and characterize spinal projection neuron subtypes, their physiology, and functions.

Strengths:

(1) The combination of anatomical and physiological analyses is powerful and offers a comprehensive understanding of the cold-selective lamina I projection neurons in the spinal cord dorsal horn. For example, the authors used detailed anatomical methods, including EM imaging of Trpm8+ axon terminals contacting the Phox2a+ lamina I projection neurons. Additionally, they recorded stimulus-evoked activity in Trpm8-recipient neurons, carefully selected by visual confirmation of tdTomato and GFP juxtaposition, which is technically challenging.

(2) This study identifies, for the first time, a molecular marker (calb1) that labels cold-selective lamina I projection neurons. Although calb1+ projection neurons are not entirely specific to cold-selective neurons, using an intersectional strategy combined with other genes enriched in this ALS group or cold-induced FosTRAP may further enhance specificity in the future.

(3) This study shows that cold-selective lamina I projection neurons specifically innervate certain brain targets of the anterolateral tract, including the NTS, PBNrel, and cPAG. This connectivity provides insights into the role of these neurons in cold sensation, which will be an exciting area for future research.

Weaknesses:

(1) The sample size for the ex vivo electrophysiology is small. Given the difficulty and complexity of the preparation, this is understandable. However, a larger sample size would have strengthened the authors' conclusions.

(2) The authors used tdTomato expression to identify brain targets innervated by these cold-selective lamina I projection neurons. Since tdTomato is a soluble fluorescent protein that fills the entire cell, using synaptophysin reporters (e.g., synaptophysin-GFP) would have been more convincing in revealing the synaptic targets of these projection neurons.

(3) The summary cartoon shown in Figure 7 can be misleading because this study did not determine whether these cold-selective lamina I projection neurons have collateral branches to multiple brain targets or if there are anatomical subtypes that may project exclusively to specific targets. For example, a recent study (Ding et al., Neuron, 2025) demonstrated that there are PBN-projecting spinal neurons that do not project to other rostral brain areas. Furthermore, based on the authors' bulk labeling experiments, the three main brain targets are NTS, PBNrel, and cPAG. The VPL projection is very sparse and almost negligible.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This manuscript provides several important findings that advance our current knowledge about the function of the gustatory cortex (GC). The authors used high-density electrophysiology to record neural activity during a sucrose/NaCl mixture discrimination task. They observed population-based activity capable of representing different mixtures in a linear fashion during the initial stimulus sampling period, as well as representing the behavioral decision (i.e., lick left or right) at a later time point. Analyzing this data at the single neuron level, they observed functional subpopulations capable of encoding the specific mixture (e.g., 45/55), tastant (e.g., sucrose), and behavioral choice (e.g., lick left). To test the functional consequences of these subpopulations, they built a recurrent neural network model in order to "silence" specific functional subpopulations of GC neurons. The virtual ablation of these functional subpopulations altered virtual behavioral performance in a manner predicted by the subpopulation's presumed contribution.

Strengths:

Building a recurrent neural network model of the gustatory cortex allows the impact of the temporal sequence of functionally identifiable populations of neurons to be tested in a manner not otherwise possible. Specifically, the author's model links neural activity at the single neuron and population level with perceptual ability. The electrophysiology methods and analyses used to shape the network model are appropriate. Overall, the conclusions of the manuscript are well supported.

Weaknesses:

One potential concern is the apparent mismatch between the neural and behavioral data. Neural analyses indicate a clear separation of the activity associated with each mixture that is independent of the animal's ultimate choice. This would seemingly indicate that the animals are making errors despite correctly encoding the stimulus. Based solely on the neural data, one would expect the psychometric curve to be more "step-like" with a significantly steeper slope. One potential explanation for this observation is the concentration of the stimuli utilized in the mixture discrimination task. The authors utilize equivalent concentrations, rather than intensity-matched concentrations. In this case, a single stimulus can (theoretically) dominate the perception of a mixture, resulting in a biased behavioral response despite accurate concentration coding at the single neuron level. Given the difficulty of isointensity matching concentrations, this concern is not paramount. However, the apparent mismatch between the neural and behavioral data should be acknowledged/addressed in the text.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Green et al. attempt to use large-scale protein structure analysis to find signals of selection and clustering related to antibiotic resistance. This was applied to the whole proteome of Mycobacterium tuberculosis, with a specific focus on the smaller set of known antibiotic-resistance-related proteins.

Strengths:

The use of geospatial analysis to detect signals of selection and clustering on the structural level is really intriguing. This could have a wider use beyond the AMR-focussed work here and could be applied to a more general evolutionary analysis context. Much of the strength of this work lies in breaking ground into this structural evolution space, something rarely seen in such pathogen data. Additional further research can be done to build on this foundation, and the work presented here will be important for the field.

The size of the dataset and use of protein structure prediction via AlphaFold, giving such a consistent signal within the dataset, is also of great interest and shows the power of these approaches to allow us to integrate protein structure more confidently into evolution and selection analyses.

Weaknesses:

There are several issues with the evolutionary analysis and assumptions made in the paper, which perhaps overstate the findings, or require refining to take into account other factors that may be at play.

(1) The focus on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) throughout the paper contains the findings within that lens. This results in a few different weaknesses:

(a) While the large size of the analysis is highlighted in the abstract and elsewhere, in reality, only a few proteins are studied in depth. These are proteins already associated with AMR by many other studies, somewhat retreading old ground and reducing the novelty.

(b) Beyond the AMR-associated proteins, the proteome work is of great interest, but only casually interrogated and only in the context of AMR. There appears to be an assumption that all signals of positive selection detected are related to AMR, whereas something like cas10 is part of the CRISPR machinery, a set of proteins often under positive selection, and thus unlikely to be AMR-related.

(2) The strength of the signal from the structural information and the novelty of the structural incorporation into prediction are perhaps overstated.

(a) A drop of 13% in F1 for a gain of 2% in PPV is quite the trade-off. This is not as indicative of a strong predictor that could be used as the abstract claims. While the approach is novel and this is a good finding for a first attempt at such complex analysis, this is perhaps not as significant as the authors claim

(b) In relation to this, there is a lack of situating these findings within the wider research landscape. For instance, the use of structure for predicting resistance has been done, for example, in PncA (https://academic.oup.com/jacamr/article/6/2/dlae037/7630603, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1476927125003664, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-58635-x) and in RpoB (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-74648-y). These, and other such works, should be acknowledged as the novelty of this work is perhaps not as stark as the authors present it to be.

(3) The authors postulate that neutral AA substitutions would be randomly distributed in the protein structure and thus use random mutations as a negative control to simulate this neutral evolution. However, I am unsure if this is a true negative control for neutral evolution. The vast majority of residues would be under purifying selection, not neutral selection, especially in core proteins like rpoB and gyrA. Therefore, most of these residues would never be mutated in a real-world dataset. Therefore, you are not testing positive selection against neutral selection; you are testing positive against purifying, which will have a much stronger signal. This is likely to, in turn, overestimate the signal of positive selection. This would be better accounted for using a model of neutral evolution, although this is complex and perhaps outside the scope. Still, it needs to be made clear that these negative controls are not representative of neutral evolution.

(4) In a similar vein, the use of 15 Å as a cut-off for stating co-localisation feels quite arbitrary. The average radius of a globular protein is about 20 Å, so this could be quite a large patch of a protein. I think it may be good to situate the cut-off for a 'single location' within a size estimator of the entire protein, as 15 Å could be a neighbourhood in a large protein, but be the whole protein for smaller ones.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript by Xie and colleagues presents an intriguing behavioral finding for the field of perceptual learning (PL): combining the reactivation-based training paradigm with anodal tDCS induces complete generalization of the learning effect. Notably, this generalization is achieved without compromising the magnitude of learning effects and with an 80% reduction in total training time. The experimental design is well-structured, and the observed complete generalization is robustly replicated across two stimulus dimensions (orientation and motion direction).

However, while the empirical results are methodologically valid and scientifically surprising, the theoretical framework proposed to explain them appears underdeveloped and, in some cases, difficult to reconcile with the existing literature. Several arguments are insufficiently justified. In addition, the introduction of a non-standard metric (NGI: normalized learning gain index) raises concerns about the interpretability and comparability with existing PL literature.

Strengths:

(1) Rigorous experimental design

In this study, Xie and colleagues employed a 2×2 factorial design (Training paradigm: Reactivation vs. Full-Practice × tDCS protocols: Anodal vs. Sham), which allowed clear dissociation of the main and interaction effects.

(2) High statistical credibility

Sample sizes were predetermined using G*Power, non-significant effects were evaluated using the Bayes factor, and the core behavioral findings were replicated in a second stimulus dimension. These strengthen the credibility of the findings.

(3) Strong translational potential

The observed complete generalization could have useful implications for sensory rehabilitation. The large reduction (80%) in total training time is particularly compelling.

Weaknesses:

(1) NGI (Normalized learning gain index) is a non-standard behavioral metric and may distort interpretability.

NGI (pre - post / ((pre + post) / 2)) is rarely used in PL studies to measure learning effects. Almost all PL studies rely on raw thresholds and percent improvements (pre - post / pre), making it difficult to contextualize the current NGI-based results within the broader field. The current manuscript provides no justification for adopting NGI.

A more critical issue is the NGI's nonlinearity: by normalizing to the mean of pre- and post-test thresholds, it disproportionately inflates learning effects for participants with lower post-test thresholds. Notably, the "complete generalization" claims are illustrated mainly with NGI plots. Although the authors also analyze thresholds directly and the results also support the core claim, the interpretation in the text relies heavily on NGI.

The authors may consider rerunning key analyses using the standard percent improvement metric. If retaining NGI, the authors should provide explicit justification for why NGI is superior to standard measures.

(2) The proposed theoretical framework is sometimes unclear and insufficiently supported.

The authors propose the following mechanistic chain:

(a) reactivation-based learning depends on offline consolidation mediated by GABA (page 4 line 73);

(b) online a-tDCS reduces GABA (page 4, line 76), thereby disrupting offline consolidation (page 11, line 225);

(c) disrupted offline consolidation reduces perceptual overfitting (page 4, line 77; page 11, line 225), thereby enabling generalization;

(d) under full-practice training, a-tDCS increases specificity via a different mechanism (page 11 line 235).

While this framework is plausible in broad terms, several components are speculative at best in the absence of neurochemical or neural measurements.

(3) Several reasoning steps require further clarification.

(a) Mechanisms of Reactivation-based Learning.

The manuscript focuses on the neurochemical basis of reactivation-based learning. However, reactivation-induced neurochemical changes differ across brain regions. In the motor cortex, Eisenstein et al. (2023) reported that after reactivation, increased GABA and decreased E/I ratio were associated with offline gains. In contrast, Bang et al. (2018) demonstrated that, in the visual cortex, reactivation decreased GABA and increased E/I ratio. While both studies are consistent with GABA involvement, the direction of GABA modulation differs. The authors should clarify this discrepancy.<br /> More importantly, Bang et al. (2018) demonstrated that reactivation-based (3 blocks) and full-practice (16 blocks) training produced similar time courses of E/I ratio changes in V1: an initial increase followed by a decrease. Given this similarity, the manuscript would benefit from a more thorough discussion of how the two paradigms diverge mechanistically. For example, behaviorally, Song et al. (2021) reported greater generalization with reactivation-based training than with full-practice training, aligning with Kondat et al. (2025). Neurally, Kondat et al. (2024) showed that reactivation-based training increased activity in higher-order brain regions (e.g., IPS), whereas full practice training reduced connectivity between temporal and parietal regions.

(b) tDCS Mechanisms and Protocols.

The effect of a-tDCS on GABA is not consistent across brain regions. While a-tDCS reliably reduces GABA in the motor cortex, recently, a more related work (Abuleli et al., 2025) reports no significant modulation of GABA or Glx in V1, challenging the authors' assumption of tDCS-induced GABA reduction in the visual cortex.

The manuscript proposes that online a-tDCS disrupts offline consolidation is somewhat difficult to interpret conceptually. Online tDCS typically modulates processes occurring during stimulation (e.g., encoding process, attentional state), whereas consolidation occurs afterward. Thus, stating that online tDCS protocols only disrupt offline consolidation without considering the possibility that they first modulate the encoding process is difficult to interpret. Even if tDCS has prolonged effects, the link between online stimulation and disruption of offline consolidation remains unelucidated.

(c) Missing links between GABA modulation and perceptual overfitting.

The proposed chain ("tDCS disrupts consolidation → reduced overfitting → improved generalization") skips a critical step: how GABA modulation translates to changes in neural representational properties (e.g., tuning width, representational overlap between trained/untrained stimuli) that define "perceptual overfitting." The PL literature has not established a link between GABA levels and these representational changes, leaving a key component of the mechanistic explanation underspecified.

(d) Insufficient explanation of the opposite effects.

The manuscript does not fully explain why the same a-tDCS promotes generalization in reactivation-based training but increases specificity in full-practice training. Both paradigms engage offline consolidations, and, as mentioned above, the time courses of E/I ratio changes are similar for 3-block reactivation-based or 16-block training. Thus, if offline consolidation mechanisms (and their associated E/I changes) are comparable across paradigms, it is unclear why identical a-tDCS would produce opposite outcomes in the two paradigms.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors generated mouse and zebrafish models for DeSanto-Shinawi Syndrome, caused by loss-of-function variants in the WAC gene. Using these vertebrate systems, they demonstrate conserved craniofacial and social-behavioral phenotypes that parallel human clinical features, along with deficits in GABAergic markers. They observe increased seizure susceptibility and male-biased brain volumetric changes in Wac mutant mice. Together, these findings begin to define the biological consequences of Wac haploinsufficiency and provide valuable resources for future mechanistic studies.

Strengths:

WAC is a high-confidence neurodevelopmental disorder gene and one of the genes identified by large-scale exome sequencing efforts, including the Satterstrom et al. (2020) autism spectrum disorder cohort. This study establishes the first vertebrate Wac models, addressing a major gap in the understanding of DeSanto-Shinawi Syndrome, and provides a framework for studying other syndromic forms of autism. The models generated will be impactful and useful to the community to study and understand DeSanto-Shinawi Syndrome.

The cross-species analysis is important and well executed, and reveals both conserved and divergent phenotypes. The behavioral and anatomical assays are rigorously executed and well-controlled, and the inclusion of RNA-sequencing analyses adds valuable insights into the mechanisms underlying brain function in Wac mutants. Notably, the RNA-seq data reveal upregulation of several clustered protocadherins, genes central to neuronal identity and cell-cell interactions, which are known to be regulated by dynamic developmental regulation of chromatin architecture. This observation provides an intriguing hint that could link Wac function to higher-order chromatin organization and neuronal connectivity.

Weaknesses:

The evidence is solid, but the study remains incomplete in its mechanistic depth and molecular interpretation. The authors compellingly describe behavioral, anatomical, and transcriptomic phenotypes associated with WAC loss, yet do not explore how WAC mechanistically regulates chromatin or transcription. Given prior evidence that WAC interacts with the RNF20/40 ubiquitin ligase complex and promotes histone H2B ubiquitination and transcriptional elongation, the paper would benefit from a discussion of these functions as a potential link between Wac haploinsufficiency and the observed changes in neuronal gene expression. Similarly, the authors mention WAC's WW and coiled-coil domains but do not consider how these domains could mediate nuclear interactions or recruitment of transcriptional cofactors that shape gene regulation and chromatin organization in neurons.

The transcriptomic analysis is rich but largely descriptive. Although the upregulation of clustered protocadherins is particularly intriguing, these findings are not validated or localized to specific neuronal populations. The study would be strengthened by independently validating the most significant RNA-seq changes, such as protocadherin gamma genes, using in situ hybridization methods to confirm the spatial and cellular specificity of expression changes.

Finally, while the behavioral and MRI results add valuable breadth, their interpretation would be improved by clearer reporting of sample sizes, statistical corrections, and effect sizes to support claims of sex-specific and regional brain volume differences.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript investigates whether newborns can use speaker identity to separate verbal memories, aiming to shed light on the earliest mechanisms of language learning and memory formation. The authors employ a well-designed experimental paradigm using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) to measure neural responses in newborns exposed to familiar and novel words, with careful counterbalancing and acoustic controls. Their main finding is that newborns show differential neural activation to novel versus familiar words, particularly when speaker identity changes, suggesting that even at birth, infants can use indexical cues to support memory.

Strengths:

Major strengths of the work include its innovative approach to a longstanding question in developmental science, the use of appropriate and state-of-the-art neuroimaging methods for this age group, and a thoughtful experimental design that attempts to control for order and acoustic confounds. The study addresses a significant gap in our understanding of how infants process and remember speech, and the data are presented transparently, with clear reporting of both significant and non-significant results.

Weaknesses:

However, there are notable weaknesses that limit the strength of the conclusions. The main recognition effect is restricted to a specific subgroup of participants and emerges only during a particular testing window, raising questions about the robustness and generalizability of the findings. The sample size, while typical for infant neuroimaging, is modest, and the statistical power is further reduced by missing data and group-dependent effects. Additionally, the claims regarding episodic memory and evolutionary implications are somewhat overstated, as the paradigm primarily demonstrates memory retention over a few minutes without evidence of the rich, contextually bound recall characteristic of fully developed episodic memory.

Overall, the authors have achieved their primary aim of demonstrating that speaker identity can facilitate memory separation in newborns, providing valuable preliminary evidence for early indexical processing in language learning. The results are intriguing and likely to stimulate further research, but the limitations in effect robustness and theoretical interpretation mean that the findings should be viewed as an important step forward rather than a definitive answer. The methods and data will be of interest to researchers studying infant cognition, memory, and language, and the study highlights both the promise and the challenges of probing complex cognitive processes in the earliest stages of life.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Working memory affects sensory processing. Observers make faster and more accurate perceptual decisions at remembered locations, and corresponding regions of retinotopic visual cortex display enhanced response gain and modulations in oscillatory activity and spike-phase coupling.

Roshanaei et al investigate the relationship between working memory, oscillatory activity, and response gain by reanalyzing extracellular laminar probe recordings from area MT of rhesus monkeys performing a spatial working memory task. During the memory period, visual probes were flashed in the receptive field of the recorded neurons, allowing a comparison of visual responses when memory overlapped with this receptive field (IN) or a location in the opposite hemifield (OUT). They first replicate a range of findings, including increased power in lower frequency bands (theta and alpha/beta) and increased visually-evoked responses in the IN condition. The authors next deployed a spectral technique (MODWT) to decompose the local field potential on single trials into 6 non-arbitrary component frequency bands. This approach allows the authors to observe shifts in peak spectral frequencies across IN and OUT trials. Finally, these single-trial spectral decompositions allowed the authors to relate frequency band power and response gain. This analysis revealed that response gain tended to increase with power in lower (alpha, beta, and theta) frequency bands, and this effect minimally interacted with the remembered location.

Together, these interesting results provide correlational evidence that the effect of working memory on response gain may be mediated by oscillatory power. As the authors note, these results are also consistent with theories positing that lower frequency oscillatory activity primarily reflects working-memory related feedback signals from prefrontal and parietal cortex.

These findings also suggest opportunities for further exploration. From a methodological perspective, it's not clear if the particular spectral decomposition highlighted here is necessary for obtaining these results, or if applying more standard approaches to single trials (as in Lundqvist et al., 2016) would have provided similar sensitivity. Additionally, although the relationship among working memory, oscillatory power, and response gain explored here is necessarily correlational, it could be of interest to subject these factors to a mediation analysis in this or future studies. Finally, the careful analysis of oscillatory phenomena reported here can ideally be used to inform large-scale circuit models and constrain the underlying mechanism.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this paper, the authors develop a biologically plausible recurrent neural network model to explain how the hippocampus generates and uses barcode-like activity to support episodic memory. They address key questions raised by recent experimental findings: how barcodes are generated, how they interact with memory content (such as place and seed-related activity), and how the hippocampus balances memory specificity with flexible recall. The authors demonstrate that chaotic dynamics in a recurrent neural network can produce barcodes that reduce memory interference, complement place tuning, and enable context-dependent memory retrieval, while aligning their model with observed hippocampal activity during caching and retrieval in chickadees.

Strengths:

(1) The manuscript is well-written and structured.

(2) The paper provides a detailed and biologically plausible mechanism for generating and utilizing barcode activity through chaotic dynamics in a recurrent neural network. This mechanism effectively explains how barcodes reduce memory interference, complement place tuning, and enable flexible, context-dependent recall.

(3) The authors successfully reproduce key experimental findings on hippocampal barcode activity from chickadee studies, including the distinct correlations observed during caching, retrieval, and visits.

(4) Overall, the study addresses a somewhat puzzling question about how memory indices and content signals coexist and interact in the same hippocampal population. By proposing a unified model, it provides significant conceptual clarity.

Weaknesses:

The recurrent neural network model incorporates assumptions and mechanisms, such as the modulation of recurrent input strength, whose biological underpinnings remain unclear. The authors acknowledge some of these limitations thoughtfully, offering plausible mechanisms and discussing their implications in depth. It may be worth exploring the robustness of the results to certain modeling assumptions. For instance, the choice to run the network for a fixed amount of time and then use the activity at the end for plasticity could be relaxed.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The authors did a good job addressing my concerns. This is an important paper on the basis of appetitive associative learning.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors presented a simplified E. coli cell-free protein synthesis (eCFPS) system that reduces core reaction components from 35 to 7, improving protein expression levels. They also presented a "fast lysate" protocol that simplifies extract preparation, enhancing accessibility and robustness for diverse applications.

Strengths:

The authors present a valuable new protocol for eCFPS, which simplifies its application.

Weaknesses:

The authors only provided the data for optimization, leaving the underlying mechanism that explains the phenomena unexplained.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors have created a new model of KCNC1-related DEE in which a pathogenic patient variant (A421V) is knocked into mouse in order to better understand the mechanisms through which KCNC1 variants lead to DEE.

Strengths:

(1) The creation of a new DEE model of KCNC1 dysfunction.

(2) InVivo phenotyping demonstrates key features of the model such as early lethality and several types of electrographic seizures.

(3) The ex vivo cellular electrophysiology is very strong and comprehensive including isolated patches to accurately measure K+ currents, paired recording to measure evoked synaptic transmission, and the measurement of membrane excitability at different timepoint and in two cell types.

(4) 2P imaging relates the cellular dysfunction in PV neurons to epilepsy.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Sandkuhler et al. re-evaluated the biological functions of TANGO2 homologs in C. elegans, yeast, and zebrafish. Compared to the previously reported role of TANGO2 homologs in transporting heme, Sandkuhler et al. expressed a different opinion on the biological functions of TANGO2 homologs. With the support of some results from their tests, they conclude that 'there is insufficient evidence to support heme transport as the primary function of TANGO2', in addition to the evidence that C. elegans TANGO2 helps counteract oxidative stress.. While the differences are reported in this study, more work is needed to elucidate the intuitive biological function of TANGO2.

Strengths:

(1) This work revisits a set of key experiments, including the toxic heme analog GaPP survival assay, the fluorescent ZnMP accumulation assay, and the multi-organismal investigations documented by Sun et al. in Nature (2022), which are critical for comparing the two works. Meanwhile, the authors also highlight the differences in reagents and methods between the two studies, demonstrating significant academic merit.

(2) This work reported additional phenotypes for the C. elegans mutant of the TANGO2 homologs, including lawn avoidance, reduced pharyngeal pumping, smaller brood size, faster exhaustion under swimming test, and a shorter lifespan. These phenotypes are important for understanding the biological function of TANGO2 homologs, while they were missing from the report by Sun et al.

(3) Investigating the 'reduced GaPP consumption' as a cause of increased resistance against the toxic GaPP for the TANGO2 homologs, hrg-9 hrg-10 double null mutant provides a valuable perspective for studying the biological function of TANGO2 homologs.

(4) The induction of hrg-9 gene expression by paraquat indicates a strong link between TANGO2 and mitochondrial function.

(5) This work thoroughly evaluated the role of TANGO2 homologs in supporting yeast growth using multiple yeast strains and also pointed out the mitochondrial genome instability feature of the yeast strain used by Sun et al.

Weakness:

It is always a challenge to replicate someone else's work, but it is worthwhile to take on the challenge, provide evidence, and raise concerns about it. These authors attempted to replicate the experiment using the same biological material as that used by Sun et al. in Nature (2022), despite some experimental differences between the two studies. This study does not have many technical weaknesses, but it can become a much better project by focusing on the new phenotypes discovered here.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Carloni et al. comprehensively analyze which proteins bind repetitive genomic elements in Trypanosoma brucei. For this, they perform mass spectrometry on custom-designed, tagged programmable DNA-binding proteins. After extensively verifying their programmable DNA-binding proteins (using bioinformatic analysis to infer target sites, microscopy to measure localization, ChIP-seq to identify binding sites), they present, among others, two major findings: 1) 14 of the 25 known T. brucei kinetochore proteins are enriched at 177bp repeats. As T. brucei's 177bp repeat-containing intermediate-sized and mini-chromosomes lack centromere repeats but are stable over mitosis, Carloni et al. use their data to hypothesize that a 'rudimentary' kinetochore assembles at the 177bp repeats of these chromosomes to segregate them. 2) 70bp repeats are enriched with the Replication Protein A complex, which, notably, is required for homologous recombination. Homologous recombination is the pathway used for recombination-based antigenic variation of the 70bp-repeat-adjacent variant surface glycoproteins.

Strengths and Weaknesses:

The manuscript was previously reviewed through Review Commons. As noted there, the experiments are well controlled, the claims are well supported, and the methods are clearly described. The conclusions are convincing. All concerns I raised have been addressed except one (minor point #8):

"The way the authors mapped the ChIP-seq data is potentially problematic when analyzing the same repeat type in different genomic regions. Reads with multiple equally good mapping positions were assigned randomly. This is fine when analyzing repeats by type, independent of genomic position, which is what the authors do to reach their main conclusions. However, several figures (Fig. 3B, Fig. 4B, Fig. 5B, Fig. 7) show the same repeat type at specific genomic locations." Due to the random assignment, all of these regions merely show the average signal for the given repeat. I find it misleading that this average is plotted out at "specific" genomic regions.<br /> Initially, I suggested a workaround, but the authors clarified why the workaround was not feasible, and their explanation is reasonable to me. That said, the figures still show a signal at positions where they can't be sure it actually exists. If this cannot be corrected analytically, it should at least be noted in the figure legends, Results, or Discussion.

Importantly, the authors' conclusions do not hinge on this point; they are appropriately cautious, and their interpretations remain valid regardless.

Significance:

This work is of high significance for chromosome/centromere biology, parasitology, and the study of antigenic variation. For chromosome/centromere biology, the conceptual advancement of different types of kinetochores for different chromosomes is a novelty, as far as I know. It would certainly be interesting to apply this study as a technical blueprint for other organisms with mini-chromosomes or chromosomes without known centromeric repeats. I can imagine a broad range of labs studying other organisms with comparable chromosomes to take note of and build on this study. For parasitology and the study of antigenic variation, it is crucial to know how intermediate- and mini-chromosomes are stable through cell division, as these chromosomes harbor a large portion of the antigenic repertoire. Moreover, this study also found a novel link between the homologous repair pathway and variant surface glycoproteins, via the 70bp repeats. How and at which stages during the process, 70bp repeats are involved in antigenic variation is an unresolved, and very actively studied, question in the field. Of course, apart from the basic biological research audience, insights into antigenic variation always have the potential for clinical implications, as T. brucei causes sleeping sickness in humans and nagana in cattle. Due to antigenic variation, T. brucei infections can be chronic.

Comments on revised version:

All my recommendations have been addressed.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors set out on the ambitious task of establishing the reproducibility of claims from the Drosophila immunity literature. Starting out from a corpus of 400 articles from 1959 and 2011, the authors sought to determine whether their claims were confirmed or contradicted by previous or subsequent publications. Additionally, they actively sought to replicate a subset of the claims for which no previous replications were available (although this set was not representative of the whole sample, as the authors focused on suspicious and/or easily testable claims). The focus of the article is on inferential reproducibility; thus, methods don't necessarily map exactly to the original ones.

The authors present a large-scale analysis of the individual replication findings, which are presented in a companion article (Westlake et al., 2025. DOI 10.1101/2025.07.07.663442). In their retrospective analysis of reproducibility, the authors find that 61% of the original claims were verified by the literature, 7.5% were partialy verified, and only 6.8% were challenged, with 23.8% having no replication available. This is in stark contrast with the result of their prospective replications, in which only 16% of claims were successfully reproduced.

The authors proceed to investigate correlates of replicability, with the most consistent finding being that findings stemming from higher-ranked universities (and possibly from very high impact journals) were more likely to be challenged.

Strengths:

(1) The work presents a large-scale, in-depth analysis of a particular field of science that includes authors with deep domain expertise of the field. This is a rare endeavour to establish the reproducibility of a particular subfield of science, and I'd argue that we need many more of these in different areas.

(2) The project was built on a collaborative basis (https://ReproSci.epfl.ch/), using an online database (https://ReproSci.epfl.ch/), which was used to organize the annotations and comments of the community about the claims. The website remains online and can be a valuable resource to the Drosophila immunity community.

(3) Data and code are shared in the authors' GitHub repository, with a Jupyter notebook available to reproduce the results.

Main concerns:

(1) Although the authors claim that "Drosophila immunity claims are mostly replicable", this conclusion is strictly based on the retrospective analysis - in which around 84% of the claims for which a published verification attempt was found. This is in very stark contrast with the findings that the authors replicate prospectively, of which only 16% are verified.

Although this large discrepancy may be explained by the fact that the authors focused on unchallenged and suspicious claims (which seems to be their preferred explanation), an alternative hypothesis is that there is a large amount of confirmation bias in the Drosophila immunity literature, either because attempts to replicate previous findings tend to reach similar results due to researcher bias, or because results that validate previous findings are more likely to be published.

Both explanations are plausible (and, not being an expert in the field, I'd have a hard time estimating their relative probability), and in the absence of prospective replication of a systematic sample of claims - which could determine whether the replication rate for a random sample of claims is as high as that observed in the literature -, both should be considered in the manuscript.

(2) The fact that the analysis of factors correlating with reproducibility includes both prospective and retrospective replications also leads to the possibility of confusion bias in this analysis. If most of the challenged claims come from the authors' prospective replications, while most of the verified ones come from those that were replicated by the literature, it becomes unclear whether the identified factors are correlated with actual reproducibility of the claims or with the likelihood that a given claim will be tested by other authors and that this replication will be published.

(3) The methods are very brief for a project of this size, and many of the aspects in determining whether claims were conceptually replicated and how replications were set up are missing.

Some of these - such as the PubMed search string for the publications and a better description of the annotation process - are described in the companion article, but this could be more explicitly stated. Others, however, remain obscure. Statements such as "Claims were cross-checked with evidence from previous, contemporary and subsequent publications and assigned a verification category" summarize a very complex process for which more detail should be given - in particular because what constitutes inferential reproducibility is not a self-evident concept. And although I appreciate that what constitutes a replication is ultimately a case-by-case decision, a general description of the guidelines used by the authors to determine this should be provided. As these processes were done by one author and reviewed by another, it would also be useful to know the agreement rates between them to have a general sense of how reproducible the annotation process might be.

The same gap in methods descriptions holds for the prospective replications. How were labs selected, how were experimental protocols developed, and how was the validity of the experiments as a conceptual replication assessed? I understand that providing the methods for each individual replication is beyond the scope of the article, but a general description of how they were developed would be important.

(4) As far as I could tell, the large-scale analysis of the replication results was not preregistered, and many decisions seem somewhat ad hoc. In particular, the categorization of journals (e.g. low impact, high impact, "trophy") and universities (e.g. top 50, 51-100, 101+) relies on arbitrary thresholds, and it is unclear how much the results are dependent on these decisions, as no sensitivity analyses are provided.

Particularly, for analyses that correlate reproducibility with continuous variable (such as year of publication, impact factor or university ranking, I'd strongly favor using these variables as continuous variables in the analysis (e.g. using logistic regression) rather than performing pairwise comparisons between categories determined by arbitrary cutoffs. This would not only reduce the impact of arbitrary thresholds in the analysis, but would also increase statistical power in the univariate analyses (as the whole sample can be used in at once) and reduce the number of parameters in the multivariate model (as they will be included as a single variable rather than multiple dummy variables when there are more than two categories).

(5) The multivariate model used to investigate predictors of replicability includes unchallenged claims along with verified ones in the outcome, which seems like an odd decision. If the intention is to analyze which factors are correlated with reproducibility, it would make more sense to remove the unchallenged findings, as these are likely uninformative in this sense. In fact, based on the authors' own replications of unchallenged findings, they may be more likely to belong the "challenged" category than to the "unchallenged" one if they were to be verified.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

One of the roadblocks in PfEMP1 research has been the challenges in manipulating var genes to incorporate markers to allow the transport of this protein to be tracked and to investigate the interactions taking place within the infected erythrocyte. In addition, the ability of Plasmodium falciparum to switch to different PfEMP1 variants during in vitro culture has complicated studies due to parasite populations drifting from the original (manipulated) var gene expression. Cronshagen et al have provided a useful system with which they demonstrate the ability to integrate a selectable drug marker into several different var genes that allows the PfEMP1 variant expression to be 'fixed'. This on its own represents a useful addition to the molecular toolbox and the range of var genes that have been modified suggests that the system will have broad application. As well as incorporating a selectable marker, the authors have also used selective linked integration (SLI) to introduce markers to track the transport of PfEMP1, investigate the route of transport and probe interactions with PfEMP1 proteins in the infected host cell.

One of the major strengths of this paper is that the authors have not only put together a robust system for further functional studies, but they have used it to produce a range of interesting findings including:

Co-activation of rif and var genes when in a head-to-head orientation.

The reduced control of expression of var genes in the 3D7-MEED parasite line.

More support for the PTEX transport route for PfEMP1.<br /> Identification of new proteins involved in PfEMP1 interactions in the infected erythrocyte, including some required for cytoadherence.

In most cases the experimental evidence is straightforward, and the data support the conclusions strongly. The authors have been very careful in the depth of their investigation, and where unexpected results have been obtained, they have looked carefully at why these have occurred.

A weakness of the paper is, as mentioned above, that the results are sometimes not as clear as might have been expected, for example, in the requirement for panning modified parasites to produce binding to EPCR. Where this has happened, the authors take a robust and thoughtful approach, and acknowledge that (as in most research) there are more questions to address. Being able to select specific var gene switches using drug markers will provide some useful starting points to understand how switching happens in P. falciparum. However, our trypanosome colleagues might remind us that forcing switches may show us some mechanisms, but perhaps not all.

Despite these sometimes complicated findings, the authors have achieved their aim as stated in the title of the paper, and in doing so have provided an excellent resource to themselves and other researchers in the field to answer some important questions.

Overall, the authors have produced a useful and robust system to support functional studies on PfEMP1, which provides a platform for future studies manipulating the domain content in var genes. They have used this system to produce a range of interesting findings and to support its use by the research community.

Comments on revisions:

I have no further recommendations for changes by the authors. They have addressed my concerns, and the paper reads very well.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study resolves a cryo-EM structure of the GPCR, GPR30, in the presence of bicarbonate, which the author's lab recently identified as the physiological ligand. Understanding the ligand and the mechanism of activation is of fundamental importance to the field of receptor signaling. This solid study provides important insight into the overall structure and suggests a possible bicarbonate binding site.

Strengths:

The overall structure, and proposed mechanism of G-protein coupling are solid. Based on the structure, the authors identify a binding pocket that might accommodate bicarbonate. Although assignment of the binding pocket is speculative, extensive mutagenesis of residues in this pocket identifies several that are important to G-protein signaling. The structure shows some conformational differences with a previous structure of this protein determined in the absence of bicarbonate (PMC11217264). To my knowledge, bicarbonate is the only physiological ligand that has been identified for GPR30, making this study an important contribution to the field. However, the current study provides novel and important circumstantial evidence for the bicarbonate binding site based on mutagenesis and functional assays.

Weaknesses:

Bicarbonate is a challenging ligand for structural and biochemical studies, and because of experimental limitations, this study does not elucidate the exact binding site. Higher resolution structures would be required for structural identification of bicarbonate. The functional assay monitors activation of GPR30, and thus reports on not only bicarbonate binding, but also the integrity of the allosteric network that transduces the binding signal across the membrane. However, biochemical binding assays are challenging because the binding constant is weak, in the mM range.

The authors appropriately acknowledge the limitations of these experimental approaches, and they build a solid circumstantial case for the bicarbonate binding pocket based on extensive mutagenesis and functional analysis. However, the study does fall short of establishing the bicarbonate binding site.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study presents a new Bayesian approach to estimate importation probabilities of malaria combining epidemiological data, travel history, and genetic data through pairwise IBD estimates. Importation is an important factor challenging malaria elimination, especially in low transmission settings. This paper focus on Magude and Matutuine, two districts in south Mozambique with very low malaria transmission. The results show isolation-by-distance in Mozambique, with genetic relatedness decreasing with distances larger than 100 km, and no spatial correlation for distances between 10 and 100 km. But again strong spatial correlation in distances smaller than 10 km. They report high genetic relatedness between Matutuine and Inhambane, higher than between Matutuine and Magude. Inhambane is the main source of importation in Matutuine, accounting for 63.5% of imported cases. Magude, on the other hand, shows smaller importation and travel rates than Matutuine, as it is a rural area with less mobility. Additionally, they report higher levels of importation and travel in the dry season, when transmission is lower. Also, no association with importation was found for occupation, sex and other factors. These data have practical implications for public health strategies aiming malaria elimination, for example, testing and treating travelers from Matutuine in the dry season.

Strengths:

The strength of this study relies in the combination of different sources of data - epidemiological, travel and genetic data - to estimate importation probabilities, the statistical analyses.

Weaknesses:

The authors recognize the limitations related to sample size and the biases of travel reports.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer globally and the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths. Colonoscopy and fecal immunohistochemical testing are among the early diagnostic tools that have significantly enhanced patient survival rates in CRC. Methylation dysregulation has been identified in the earliest stages of CRC, offering a promising avenue for screening, prediction, and diagnosis. The manuscript entitled "Early Diagnosis and Prognostic Prediction of Colorectal Cancer through Plasma Methylation Regions" by Zhu et al. presents that a panel of genes with methylation pattern derived from cfDNA (27 DMRs), serving as a noninvasive detection method for CRC early diagnosis and prognosis.

Strengths:

The authors provided evidence that the 27 DMRs pattern worked well in predicting CRC distant metastasis, and the methylation score remarkably increased in stages III-IV. Additionally, compared with the traditional tumor marker CEA, 27 DMRs prediction showed a superior sensitivity, highlighting the potential clinical application.

Weaknesses:

The major concerns are the design of DMRs screening, the relatively low sensitivity of this DMRs' pattern in detecting early-stage of CRC, the limited size of the cohorts, and the lack of comparison with the traditional diagnosis test.

Comments on revisions:

All my concerns have been cleared, and I have no further questions.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study the authors use a Drosophila model to demonstrate that Tachykinin (Tk) expression is regulated by the microbiota. In Drosophila conventionally reared (CR) flies are typically shorter lived than those raised without a microbiota (axenic). Here, knockdown of Tk expression is found to prevent lifespan shortening by the microbiota and the reduction of lipid stores typically seen in CR flies when compared to axenic counterparts. It does so without reducing food intake or fecundity which are often seen as necessary trade-offs for lifespan extension. Further, the strength of the interaction between Tk and the microbiota is found to be bacteria specific and is stronger in Acetobacter pomorum (Ap) mono-associated flies compared to Levilactobacillus brevis (Lb) mono-association. The impact on lipid storage was also only apparent in Ap-flies.

Building on these findings the authors show that gut specific knockdown is largely sufficient to explain these phenotypes. Knockdown of the Tk receptor, TkR99D, in neurons recapitulates the lifespan phenotype of intestinal Tk knockdown supporting a model whereby Tk from the gut signals to TkR99D expressing neurons to regulate lifespan. In addition, the authors show that FOXO may have a role in lifespan regulation by the Tk-microbiota interaction. However, they rule out a role for insulin producing cells or Akh-producing cells suggesting the microbiota-Tk interaction regulates lifespan through other, yet unidentified, mechanisms.

Major comments:

Overall, I find the key conclusions of the paper convincing. The authors present an extensive amount of experimental work, and their conclusions are well founded in the data. In particular, the impact of TkRNAi on lifespan and lipid levels, the central finding in this study, has been demonstrated multiple times in different experiments and using different genetic tools. As a result, I don't feel that additional experimental work is necessary to support the current conclusions.

However, I find it hard to assess the robustness of the lifespan data from the other manipulations used (TkR99DRNAi, TkRNAi in dFoxo mutants etc.) because information on the population size and whether these experiments have been replicated is lacking. Can the authors state in the figure legends the numbers of flies used for each lifespan and whether replicates have been done? For all other data it is clear how many replicates have been done, and the methods give enough detail for all experiments to be reproduced.

Significance:

Overall, I find the key conclusions of the paper convincing. The authors present an extensive amount of experimental work, and their conclusions are well founded in the data. We have known that the microbiota influence lifespan for some time but the mechanisms by which they do so have remained elusive. This study identifies one such mechanism and as a result opens several avenues for further research. The Tk-microbiota interaction is shown to be important for both lifespan and lipid homeostasis, although it's clear these are independent phenotypes. The fact that the outcome of the Tk-microbiota interaction depends on the bacterial species is of particular interest because it supports the idea that manipulation of the microbiota, or specific aspects of the host-microbiota interaction, may have therapeutic potential.

These findings will be of interest to a broad readership spanning host-microbiota interactions and their influence on host health. They move forward the study of microbial regulation of host longevity and have relevance to our understanding of microbial regulation of host lipid homeostasis. They will also be of significant interest to those studying the mechanisms of action and physiological roles of Tachykinins.

Field of expertise: Drosophila, gut, ageing, microbiota, innate immunity

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Taylar Hammond and colleagues identified new regulators of the G1/S transition of the cell cycle. They did so by screening publicly available data from the Cancer Dependency Map and identified FAM53C as a positive regulator of the G1/S transition. Using biochemical assays they then show that FAM53 interacts with the DYRK1A kinase to inhibit its function. They show in RPE1 cells that loss of FAMC53 leads to a DYRK1A + P53-dependent cell cycle arrest. Combined inactivation of FAM53C and DYRK1A in a TP53-null background caused S-phase entry with subsequent apoptosis. Finally the authors assess the effect of FAM53C deletion in a cortical organoid model, and in Fam53c knockout mice. Whereas proliferation of the organoids is indeed inhibited, mice show virtually no phenotype.

The authors have revised the manuscript, and I respond here point-by-point to indicate which parts of the revision I found compelling, and which parts were less convincing. So the numbering is consistent with the numbering in my first review report.

(1) The p21 knockdowns are a valuable addition, and the claim that other p53 targets than p21 are involved in the FAMC53 RNAi-mediated arrest is now much more solid. Minor detail: if S4D is a quantification of S4C, it is hard to believe that the quantification was done properly (at least the DYRK1Ai conditions). Perhaps S4C is not the best representative example, or some error was made?

(2a) I appreciate the decision to remove the cyclin D1 phosphorylation data. A more nuanced model now emerges. It is not clear to me however why the Protein Simple immunoassay was used for experiments with RPE cells, and not the cortical organoids. Even though no direct claims are made based on the phospho-cyclin D data in Figure 5E+G, showing these data suggests that FAM53C deletion increases DYRK1A-mediated cyclin D1 phosphorylation. I find it tricky to show these data, while knowing now that this effect could not be shown in the RPE1 cells.<br /> (2b) The quantifications of the immunoassays are not convincing. In multiple experiments, the HSP90 levels vary wildly, which indicates big differences in protein loading if HSP90 is a proper loading control. This is for example problematic for the interpretation of figure 3F and S3I. The cyclin D1 "bands" look extremely similar between siCtrl and siFAM53C (Fig S3I), in fact the two series of 6 samples with different dosages of DYRK1Ai look seem an identical repetition of each other. I did not have to option to overlay them, but it would be important to check if a mistake was made here. The cyclin D1 signals aside, the change in cycD1/HSP90 ratios seems to be entirely caused by differences in HSP90 levels. Careful re-analysis of the raw data and more equal loading seem necessary. The same goes (to a lesser extent) for S3J+K.<br /> (2c) the new model in Fig S4L: what do the arrows at the right FAM53C and p53 that merge a point straight towards S-phase mean? They suggest that p53 (and FAM53C) directly promote S-phase progression, but most likely this is not what the authors intended with it.

(3) Clear; nicely addressed.

(4) Thank you for correcting.

(5) I appreciate that the authors are now more careful to call the IMPC analysis data preliminary. This is acceptable to me, but nevertheless, I suggest the authors to seriously consider taking this part entirely out. The risk of chance finding and the extremely skewed group sizes (as reviewer #2 had pointed out) hamper the credibility of this statistical analysis.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Cotton et al. investigated the role of tusB in antibiotic tolerance in Yersinia pseudotuberculosis. They used the IP2226 strain and introduced appropriate mutations and complementation constructs. Assays were performed to measure growth rates, antibiotic tolerance, tRNA modification, gene expression and proteomic profiles. In addition, experiments to measure ribosome pausing and bioinformatic analysis of codon usage in ribosomal proteins provided in-depth mechanistic support for the conclusions.

Strengths:

The findings are consistent with the authors having uncovered new mechanistic insights into bacterial antibiotic tolerance mediated by reducing ribosomal protein abundance.

Weaknesses:

Since the WT strain grows faster than the tusB mutant, there is a question of how growth rate, per se, impacts some of the analysis done. The authors should address this issue. In addition, it may not be essential, but would analysis of another slow-growing mutant (in some other antibiotic tolerance pathway if available) serve as a good control in this context?

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This unique study reports original and extensive behavioral data collected by the authors on 21 living mammal taxa in zoo conditions (primates, tree shrew, rodents, carnivorans, and marsupials) on how descent along a vertical substrate can be done effectively and securely using gait variables. Ten morphological variables reflecting head size and limb proportions are examined in relationship to vertical descent strategies and then applied to reconstruct modes of vertical descent in fossil mammals.

Strengths:

This is a broad and data-rich comparative study, which requires a good understanding of the mammal groups being compared and how they are interrelated, the kinematic variables that underlie the locomotion used by the animals during vertical descent, and the morphological variables that are associated with vertical descent styles. Thankfully, the study presents data in a cogent way with clear hypotheses at the beginning, followed by results and a discussion that addresses each of those hypotheses using the relevant behavioral and morphological variables, always keeping in mind the relationships of the mammal groups under investigation. As pointed out in the study, there is a clear phylogenetic signal associated with vertical descent style. Strepsirrhine primates much prefer descending tail first, platyrrhine primates descend sideways when given a choice, whereas all other mammals (with the exception of the raccoon) descend head first. Not surprisingly, all mammals descending a vertical substrate do so in a more deliberate way, by reducing speed, and by keeping the limbs in contact for a longer period (i.e., higher duty factors).

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The Revision title and abstract are not updated enough to distinguish the special niche piRNA clusters from the more prominent major dual strand piRNA clusters that are widely known in the field for Drosophila, like 42AB and 38C. This revision mainly adds the term "piRNA source loci (piSL)" that is too vague and not a well-accepted name that would distinguish just these particularly niche piRNA clusters from major dual strand piRNA clusters like 42AB and 38C. This piSL term is problematic because it seems to imply these piSL's are connected to or would eventually become major dual strand piRNA clusters, but there is zero evidence in this study for any genetic or evolutionary connection between these two distinct types of piRNA sources. This revision still lacks the necessary changes needed to point out like in the abstract that major dual strand piRNA clusters like 42AB, 38C, 80F, and 102F in Drosophila that make up the bulk of piRNAs cannot be shown to be impacted by changes aimed at depleting ADMA-histones from these loci, and the authors' current evidence is still only limited to showing in these few 'niche' piRNA clusters that ADMA-histones may exhibit a direct interaction with Rhino as supported only by the knockdown of Drosophila Art4.

The author's rebuttal letter argues that 42AB and 38C are just conserved piRNA clusters that may no longer be regulated by ADMA. This is still a weak claim for dismissing the potential genetic redundancy problem when this study can only report strong knockdown of Art4. First, the dual strand 42AB piRNA cluster's conservation as a Drosophilid piRNA cluster is actually still a relatively recent evolutionary innovation in just D.simulans and D.melanogaster that are less than 3MYA diverged. This 42AB cluster is no longer conserved in D.sechelia and is also younger than the uni-strand Flamenco piRNA cluster that is conserve to 7MYA. The evolutionary arguments by the authors are not well-grounded. Second, the 42AB and 38C are the largest major dual strand piRNA clusters with very significant localization of Rhino and impact from Rhino loss of function, and if this paper's central thesis is that ADMA-histones directed by Art1 or Art4 is critical for the expression of dual-strand piRNA cluster loci by impacting Rhino, the current data still remain weak with no new experiments to help bolster their claims.

The author's rebuttal letter argues that the challenges they faced in trying to knock down Art1 in the fly was thwarted by reagent issues, and the explanations are unsatisfactory. They claim they only tested two RNAi cross lines to try to knock down Art1: the strain BDSC #36891, y[1] sc[*] v[1] sev[21]; P{y[+t7.7], v[+t1.8]=TRiP.GL01072}attP2/TM3, Sb[1] that they said they could not obtain this strain to be alive from the stock center? And then testing an alternative line VDRC #v110391P{KK101196}VIE-260B that displayed mediocre knockdown, the authors seemed to suggest they have given up trying to make this very important experiment work? They should have tried to figure out with the BDSC, a venerable stock center for Drosophila genetic tools, why they could not receive that fly strain alive (shipping flies at the economy rate internationally may be cheaper but often is too strenuous for flies to survive), and the authors have not acknowledged testing two other available knockdown lines for Art1: BDSC #31348, y[1] v[1]; P{y[+t7.7] v[+t1.8]=TRiP.JF01306}attP2 dsRNA and VDRC #w1118 P{GD11959}v40388. Trying to get good knockdown of Art1 would be a critical must-have experiment to address whether this arginine methyltransferase has an in vivo impact on ADMA-histones in the Drosophila ovary and showing an impact on 42AB and 38C. The revision does not address this major deficiency in impact on these two major dual strand piRNA clusters, only the very few niche piRNA clusters that are responsive to Art4 knockdown.

The rebuttal letter argues that "Therefore, conserved clusters such as 42AB and 38C may no longer be regulated by ADMA." but then the revision discussion is still speculating much too wildly that the piRNA source loci are then precursors for the eventual large piRNA clusters of 42AB and 38C. This renaming of the term piRNA source loci and the model in Fig. 7C is still misleading because 42AB and 38C are the main largest dual-strand piRNA clusters, and the pictures depict the ADMA-histones as recruiting Rhino and then Kipferl at a piRNA cluster. The term "piRNA source loci" does not sound distinct enough to separate it from the main piRNA clusters of 42AB and 38C, and I had suggested calling them 'niche piRNA clusters' to denote they are very special and distinct to only be responsive to Drosophila Art4 knockdown.

In regards to the revision's changing of gene names, the convention for gene names is to use the previous name designation. Rather than calling the gene DART1, the conventional name of this gene in Flybase is Art1 (CG6554). There is the same problem with using the new name DART4 when in Flybase the gene is called Art4 (CG5358). Alternatively, the authors should clarify the re-naming up front and make it consistent with Drosophila genetics nomenclature, perhaps dArt1 or dArt4 would be more appropriate.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Even though mutations in LRRK2 and GBA1 (which encodes the protein GCase) increase the risk of developing Parkinson's disease (PD), the specific mechanisms driving neurodegeneration remain unclear. Given their known roles in lysosomal function, the authors investigate how LRRK2 and GCase activity influence the exocytosis of the lysosomal lipid BMP via extracellular vesicles (EVs). They use fibroblasts carrying the PD-associated LRRK2-R1441G mutation and pharmacologically modulate LRRK2 and GCase activity.

Strengths:

The authors examine both proteins at endogenous levels, using MEFs instead of cancer cells. The study's scope is potentially interesting and could yield relevant insights into PD disease mechanisms.

Weaknesses:

Many of the authors' conclusions are overstated and not sufficiently supported by the data. Several statistical errors undermine their claims. Pharmacological treatment is very long, leading to potential off target effects. Additionally, the authors should be more rigorous when using EV markers.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have not addressed most of my concerns. For example, instead of trying with a 1-2 hour MLi2 treatment, they cited all the papers that use extremely long time points for LRRK2 inhibition; the fact that other groups do it does not mean it is biologically correct. They also refused to quantify their western blots in a proper manner, without the "hyper-normalization" claiming that it is an accepted way to quantify western blots. Again, it is statistically incorrect and biologically impossible. They also do not have a satisfactory explanation as to why the R1441G cells (which increase LRRK2 kinase activity) have no effect on EV release, but they still claim it is LRRK2 kinase activity dependent.

Overall, I am very confused by the model proposed by the authors. They only see increased EV release in the G2019S expressing cells, but not the R1441G cells, yet they claim that the increase of EV release is LRRK2 kinase activity dependent. Then, they claim that the presence of BMP (unchanged in R1441G vs CTL) in EVs is also LRRK2 kinase activity dependent. Finally, they perform TIRF with pHluorin-CD63 construct and observed an increase in G2019S cells vs CTL "further confirming that BMP release is associated with EV secretion". First, I could not see the increase in BMP release in G2019S cells (if I missed it, I apologize). And second, why didn't they do this experiment in R1441G cells? As, the R1441G cells have not displayed an increase in EV release compared to CTL cells, it could also be possible that the BMP release might be more abundant through lysosomal exocytosis (which could explain the pHluorin results) than EVs. Overall, the authors nicely demonstrate that the R1441G cells have more BMP species, likely due to increase CLN5 expression, but the release of the BMP is still not clear to this reviewer.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Marchand et al. seek to understand how basement membrane (BM) is initially assembled around developing vasculature (and by extension basement membrane assembly generally progresses). To do this, they use an established cell culture system that is amenable to advanced microscopy techniques, including high-resolution fluorescence imaging and atomic force microscopy. This allows them to produce very high-quality imaging data that includes both protein localization and matrix topography in 3D. They show that fibronectin (FN) is remodeled as collagen IV (Col IV) assembles. Lysyl oxidase-like-2 (LOXL2) is needed for this process, and without it, BM does not form correctly, cells cannot adhere to BM, and cells also don't correctly form junctions with other cells.

Detailed Review:

The authors provide quantitative measures of BM fibril assembly at the earliest timepoints. They show two phases of growth - initial deposition, elongation, and interconnection of short fibers; the second is a significant thickening. As the BM forms, FN is immediately associated with filaments, but laminin and Col IV are not associated with fibers as detected by AFM. LOXL2 is associated with fibers, similar to FN. At a later time point, Col IV becomes associated with fibers, but laminin never does. Likely FN templates LOXL2, which crosslink Col IV into fibrils over time. Could the authors comment on how this data fits with in vivo data from model organisms? Also, I would like to know if they can uncouple LOXL2 from the FN matrix? Could you express a mutated form of LOXL2 that cannot interact with FN but still is able to crosslink Col IV?)

Depletion of LOXL2 supports this mechanism. Without it, Col IV and FN are uncoupled and accumulate as large aggregates rather than a complex fibrous network. Further, long-term thickening/growth of the fibronectin network is inhibited, indicating LOXL2 and/or the Col IV network positively reinforces fibronectin assembly. (Does LOXL2 directly act on FN, or is this effect dependent on Col IV? The nature of the molecular interactions between COL IV, LOXL2, and FN will be an important future research area.)

Next, Marchand et al. ask if failure to produce mature BM (induced by LOXL2 depletion) has consequences for underlying cells. They demonstrate a clear shift in the orientation of actin towards a linear alignment, and similarly, cells change shape from round to very elongated. Cell junctions also shifted to a linear arrangement in LOXL2 depletion. This fits with the known balance between cell-ECM and cell-cell adhesion. The changes in actin network and cell shape/adhesion correlate with a change in B1 integrin localization upon LOXL2 depletion. B1 integrin colocalized with sparse early FN fibers, but was absent from large FN aggregates that occur if LOXL2 is depleted. Similar reorganization of integrin adhesion components (FAK, Vinc, Pax). Clearly, there is feedback between BM assembly and cell junction organization. But I think the authors might emphasize to the reader that this normally reinforces the epithelial fate of these cells. It's less a balance and more like a tipping point. (Related to this section, I could not read Figure 4C graphs unless I enlarged them to 300%.)

Finally, they culture cells on micro groove plates, with or without LOXL2. The grooved substrate can orient the cells, and they show this is superseded by BM once it assembles. Without LOXL2 cells on micro-grooved substrates become disorganized, similar to their observation on flat surfaces (elongated cells, linear actin, etc.). This demonstrates a switch from external topographical cues to self-generated BM. This is consistent with the idea of reorganizing junctions to produce a stable epithelial tube. I was very interested in their 3D culture. The effect of BM assembly on tube diameter makes sense. But how does BM assembly support complex capillary functions like branching? (Can they force branching with targeted mutations that decouple integrin from the BM?) Is this a question of change to cell fate? (Are other remodeling enzymes activated after initial BM assembly that could support growth and/or branching?)

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors utilize genetic code expansion to tag TDP-43 and G3BP1, and evaluate this protein tagging system (ANAP) compared to antibodies, and evaluate protein trafficking and stress granule formation in response to stress with sodium arsenite treatment. They find similar staining to antibodies in HeLa cells, mouse embryonic stem cells, and primary mouse cortical neurons. This is a useful study that demonstrates the utility of ANAP tagging to evaluate ALS proteins.

Strengths:

Rescue of cell survival by ANAP-tagged TDP-43 is compelling

Weaknesses:

While the ANAP-tagged proteins had similar distributions to antibody staining, there were some discrepancies that may be more explained by the technique than by novel findings, as the authors suggested. The inclusion of additional controls to evaluate this would be helpful.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This paper proposes two changes to classic RSA, a popular method to probe neural representation in neuroimaging experiments: computing RSA at row/column level of RDM, and using linear mixed modeling to compute second level statistics, using the individual row/columns to estimate a random effect of stimulus. The benefit of the new method is demonstrated using simulations and a re-analysis of a prior fMRI dataset on object perception and memory encoding.

The author's claim that tRSA is a promising approach to perform more complete modeling of cogneuro data, and to conceptualize representation at the single trial/event level (cf Discussion section on P42), is appealing.

In their revised manuscript, the authors have addressed some previous concerns, now referencing more literature aiming to improve RSA and its associated statistical inferences, and providing more guidance on methodological considerations in the Discussion. However, I wish the authors had more extensively edited the Introduction to better contextualize the work and clarify the specific settings in which they see the method as being beneficial over classic RSA. For example, some of the limitations of cRSA mentioned on page 6, e.g. related to presenting the same stimuli to multiple subjects, seem to be quite specific to settings where the researcher expects differential responses across subjects to fundamentally alter the interpretation, rather than something that will just average out by repeatedly offering the same stimulus, or combining data across subjects. It's not clear to me how the switch from 'matrix-level' to 'row-level' analysis in tRSA necessarily addresses this problem. I would be very helpful if the authors would more explicitly outline what problem the row-level aspect of tRSA is solving; what problem statistical inference via LMM is solving; and walk the reader through a very specific use case (perhaps a toy version of the real-data experiment which is now at the end of the paper). Explaining the utility of tRSA for experimental settings in which assessing representational strength for a single-events is crucial would clarify the contribution of this new method better.

A few weaknesses mentioned in my previous review were not adequately addressed. To demonstrate the utility of the method on real neural recordings, only a single dataset is used with a quite complicated experimental design; it's not clear if there is any benefit of using tRSA on a simpler real dataset. Moreover, the cells of an RDM/RSM reflect pairwise comparisons between response patterns. Because the response patterns are repeatedly compared, the cells of this matrix are not independent of one another. While the authors show examples that failure to meet independence assumptions do not affect results in their specific dataset, it does not get acknowledged as a problem at a more fundamental level. Finally, while the paper now states that 'simulations and example tRSA code' are publicly available, the link points to the lab's general github page containing many lab repositories, in which I could not identify a specific repository related to this paper. This is disappointing given that the main goal of this manuscript is to provide a new method that they encourage others to use; a clear pointer to available code is only a minimal requirement to achieve that goal. A dedicated repository, including documentation, READMEs and tutorials/demo's to run simulations, compare methods, etc. would greatly enhance the paper's contribution.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Egawa et al describe the developmental timeline of the assembly of nodes of Ranvier in the chick brainstem auditory circuit. In this unique system, the spacing between nodes varies significantly in different regions of the same axon from early stages, which the authors suggest is critical for accurate sound localization. Egawa et al set out to determine which factors regulate this differential node spacing. They do this by using immunohistological analyses to test the correlation of node spacing with morphological properties of the axons, and properties of oligodendrocytes, glial cells that wrap axons with the myelin sheaths that flank the nodes of Ranvier. They find that axonal structure does not vary significantly, but that oligodendrocyte density and morphology varies in the different regions traversed by these axons, which suggests this is a key determinant of the region-specific differences in node density and myelin sheath length. They also find that differential oligodendrocyte density is partly determined by secreted neuronal signals, as (presumed) blockage of vesicle fusion with tetanus toxin reduced oligodendrocyte density in the region where it is normally higher. Based on these findings, the authors propose that oligodendrocyte morphology, myelin sheath length, and consequently nodal distribution are primarily determined by intrinsic oligodendrocyte properties rather than neuronal factors such as activity.

Significance:

In our view the study tackles a fundamental question likely to be of interest to a specialized audience of cellular neuroscientists. This descriptive study is suggestive that in the studied system, oligodendrocyte density determines the spacing between nodes of Ranvier, but further manipulations of oligodendrocyte density per se are needed to test this convincingly.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors attempted to clarify the impact of N protein mutations on ribonucleoprotein (RNP) assembly and stability using analytical ultracentrifugation (AUC) and mass photometry (MP). These complementary approaches provide a more comprehensive understanding of the underlying processes. Both SV-AUC and MP results consistently showed enhanced RNP assembly and stability due to N protein mutations.<br /> The overall research design appears well planned, and the experiments were carefully executed.

Strengths:

SV-AUC, performed at higher concentrations (3 µM), captured the hydrodynamic properties of bulk assembled complexes, while MP provided crucial information on dissociation rates and complex lifetimes at nanomolar concentrations. Together, the methods offered detailed insights into association states and dissociation kinetics across a broad concentration range. This represents a thorough application of solution physicochemistry.

Weaknesses:

Unlike AUC, MP observes only a part of solution. In MP, bound molecules are accumulated on the glass surface (not dissociated) thus concentration in solution should change as time develops. How does such concentration change impact the result shown here?

Comments on revisions:

The response from the authors is appropriate and reasonable.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Cai et al have investigated the role of msiCAT-tailed mitochondrial proteins that frequently exist in glioblastoma stem cells. Overexpression of msiCAT-tailed mitochondrial ATP synthase F1 subunit alpha (ATP5) protein increases the mitochondrial membrane potential and blocks mitochondrial permeability transition pore formation/opening. These changes in mitochondrial properties provide resistance to staurosporine (STS)-induced apoptosis in GBM cells. Therefore, msiCAT-tailing can promote cell survival and migration, while genetic and pharmacological inhibition of msiCAT-tailing can prevent the overgrowth of GBM cells.

Strengths:

The CATailing concept has not been explored in cancer settings. Therefore, the present provides new insights for widening the therapeutic avenue.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This study uses a new 'hidden multivariate pattern method' to parse in time and space the neural events intervening between stimulus and response in an immediately-reported perceptual decision, and use the resultant neural event timing information to show quite convincingly that Pieron's and Fechner's laws can apply in concert at distinct processing levels.

They designed a clever contrast comparison paradigm in which the contrast difference is kept constant while widely manipulating mean contrast, so that sensory encoding of the overall stimulus would be boosted with increasing mean contrast, whereas decision difficulty and hence duration would increase. With this, they found that the time intervening between early sensory-evoked components, up to an 'N200'-type component associated with launching the decision process, varies inversely with contrast according to Pieron's law. Meanwhile, the time intervals running up to neural events peaking near the time of response, consistent with decision termination, increases with contrast, fitting Fechner's law. Further, a diffusion model whose drift rates are scaled by Fechner's law, fit to RT, predicts the observed proportion of correct responses very well.

In the process of review and revision it was highlighted that presumably the full sequence of neural events intervening between stimulus and response is massively task dependent, but;

(1) The method is intended to capture all key components that specifically covary with RT, as opposed to each and every component in general, and

(2) The main conclusions of the study mentioned above do not change whether the method is set up to track three neural events, or five, as was done in the final analysis.

The propensity for topographic parsing algorithms to potentially lump-together distinct processes that partially co-evolve was acknowledged, but a key clarification in review was that even though the method entails a specification of neural event duration - which was changed from 50 to 25 ms - the success of the method is not strongly contingent on the actual underlying neural events in question having that very duration - indeed, the components extracted using that short template duration can be observed to evolve over a longer time frame associated with the Fechner diffusion process.

Notably, standard average event-related potential analysis was able to show expected amplitude effects - where sensory signals increased with contrast but decision signals decreased - but assessment of the by-trial distribution of their timings was grealy aided by the HMP method.

One of the stages of processing implicated in the parsing analysis was linked to attention orientation, and the authors speculate on whether this might reflect a spatially-selective deployment of attention or a resource allocation, but sensibly refrain from speculating too far since the focus here was on the sensory and decision process durations and their respective adherence to Pieron and Fechner's laws.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors report the results of a tDCS brain stimulation study (verum vs sham stimulation of left DLPFC; between-subjects) in 46 participants, using an intense stimulation protocol over 2 weeks, combined with an experience-sampling approach, plus follow-up measures after 6 months.

Strengths:

The authors are studying a relevant and interesting research question using an intriguing design, following participants quite intensely over time and even at a follow-up time point. The use of an experience-sampling approach is another strength of the work.

Weaknesses:

There are quite a few weaknesses, some related to the actual study and some more strongly related to the reporting about the study in the manuscript. The concerns are listed roughly in the order in which they appear in the manuscript.

(1) In the introduction, the authors present procrastination nearly as if it were the most relevant and problematic issue there is in psychology. Surely, procrastination is a relevant and study-worthy topic, but that is also true if it is presented in more modest (and appropriate) terms. The manuscript mentions that procrastination is a main cause of psychopathology and bodily disease. These claims could possibly be described as 'sensationalized'. Also, the studies to support these claims seem to report associations, not causal mechanisms, as is implied in the manuscript.

(2) It is laudable that the study was pre-registered; however, the cited OSF repository cannot be accessed and therefore, the OSF materials cannot be used to (a) check the preregistration or to (b) fill in the gaps and uncertainties about the exact analyses the authors conducted (this is important because the description of the analyses is insufficiently detailed and it is often unclear how they analyzed the data).

(3) Related to the previous point: I find it impossible to check the analyses with respect to their appropriateness because too little detail and/or explanation is given. Therefore, I find it impossible to evaluate whether the conclusions are valid and warranted.

(4) Why is a medium effect size chosen for the a priori power analysis? Is it reasonable to assume a medium effect size? This should be discussed/motivated. Related: 18 participants for a medium effect size in a between-subjects design strikes me as implausibly low; even for a within-subjects design, it would appear low (but perhaps I am just not fully understanding the details of the power analysis).

(5) It remains somewhat ambiguous whether the sham group had the same number of stimulation sessions as the verum stimulation group; please clarify: Did both groups come in the same number of times into the lab? I.e., were all procedures identical except whether the stimulation was verum or sham?

(6) The TDM analysis and hyperbolic discounting approach were unclear to me; this needs to be described in more detail, otherwise it cannot be evaluated.

(7) Coming back to the point about the statistical analyses not being described in enough detail: One important example of this is the inclusion of random slopes in their mixed-effects model which is unclear. This is highly relevant as omission of random slopes has been repeatedly shown that it can lead to extremely inflated Type 1 errors (e.g., inflating Type 1 errors by a factor of then, e.g., a significant p value of .05 might be obtained when the true p value is .5). Thus, if indeed random slopes have been omitted, then it is possible that significant effects are significant only due to inflated Type 1 error. Without more information about the models, this cannot be ruled out.

(8) Related to the previous point: The authors report, for example, on the first results page, line 420, an F-test as F(1, 269). This means the test has 269 residual degrees of freedom despite a sample size of about 50 participants. This likely suggests that relevant random slopes for this test were omitted, meaning that this statistical test likely suffers from inflated Type 1 error, and the reported p-value < .001 might be severely inflated. If that is the case, each observation was treated as independent instead of accounting for the nestedness of data within participants. The authors should check this carefully for this and all other statistical tests using mixed-effects models.

(9) Many of the statistical procedures seem quite complex and hard to follow. If the results are indeed so robust as they are presented to be, would it make sense to use simpler analysis approaches (perhaps in addition to the complex ones) that are easier for the average reader to understand and comprehend?

(10) As was noted by an earlier reviewer, the paper reports nearly exclusively about the role of the left DLPFC, while there is also work that demonstrates the role of the right DLPFC in self-control. A more balanced presentation of the relevant scientific literature would be desirable.

(11) Active stimulation reduced procrastination, reduced task aversiveness, and increased the outcome value. If I am not mistaken, the authors claim based on these results that the brain stimulation effect operates via self-control, but - unless I missed it - the authors do not have any direct evidence (such as measures or specific task measures) that actually capture self-control. Thus, that self-control is involved seems speculation, but there is no empirical evidence for this; or am I mistaken about this? If that is indeed correct, I think it needs to be made explicit that it is an untested assumption (which might be very plausible, but it is still in the current study not empirically tested) that self-control plays any role in the reported results.

(12) Figures 3F and 3H show that procrastination rates in the active modulation group go to 0 in all participants by sessions 6 and 7. This seems surprising and, to be honest, rather unlikely that there is absolutely no individual variation in this group anymore. In any case, this is quite extraordinary and should be explicitly discussed, if this is indeed correct: What might be the reasons that this is such an extreme pattern? Just a random fluctuation? Are the results robust if these extreme cells are ignored? The authors remove other cells in their design due to unusual patterns, so perhaps the same should be done here, at least as a robustness check.

(13) The supplemental materials, unfortunately, do not give more information, which would be needed to understand the analyses the authors actually conducted. I had hoped I would find the missing information there, but it's not there.

In sum, the reported/cited/discussed literature gives the impression of being incomplete/selectively reported; the analyses are not reported sufficiently transparently/fully to evaluate whether they are appropriate and thus whether the results are trustworthy or not. At least some of the patterns in the results seem highly unlikely (0 procrastination in the verum group in the last 2 observation periods), and the sample size seems very small for a between-subjects design.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper is a comprehensive review of perturbation studies and the state-dependence of the brain's response to perturbation at the circuit, mesoscale, and macroscale levels.

Strengths:

The strengths of the paper are the thorough description of many perturbation studies at different levels of organization, and the integration of both experimental and modeling studies. The review clearly communicates the need to consider (1) brain or local-population state, and (2) multiple levels of organization, in order to understand perturbation responses. Another major strength is the ability for the reader to reproduce figures using the EBRAINS platform.

Weaknesses:

Two major points of improvement should be resolved with the review, in order to make it useful for a broad audience.

The first is that the review does not include a significant integration across scales, and as a result, reads like three separate (though comprehensive) reviews. Currently, the only integration across the scales is in the brief conclusion paragraph. I would recommend adding an additional section, in which the overarching picture is discussed. (i.e. a unifying view of state dependence, and what is learned by considering across scales). This need not be too long, but it should be longer than a single conclusion paragraph.

The second major weakness is that there is a lack of clarity on many points throughout, which is needed for the reader to fully understand the results described.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In the paper, the authors review literature on synchronous activity, its relationship to brain state, and the multi-scale mechanisms underlying it.

Strengths:

The overall strength of the paper is the wide range of information reviewed, and the diversity of perspectives/approaches it brings together.

Weaknesses:

However, this strength is also the source of its major weaknesses - namely, that the overall structure lacks clarity, and there are inconsistencies throughout. Overall, in the opinion of this reviewer, the manuscript reads as disorganized and incomplete. Major and minor points are delineated below.

Major points:

(1) Most of the text in many figures was too small to read.

(2) Terminology is inconsistent throughout the manuscript. What is the difference between slow oscillations and delta waves? Sometimes the term slow waves is used instead. For sleep state, sometimes the term SWS is used, sometimes non-REM. Similarly, "spindle activity" is not defined, but simply stated as if the reader knows. This brings up two issues: (a) the manuscript should be clearer and more consistent about its terminology, and (b) it's unclear who is the intended readership of the review - is it a pedagogical review for people outside the field of sleep and slow oscillations, or is it meant to be a consensus statement for readers who are already in the field in which a pressing concern has been addressed? It seems part way between these two, and as a result, is ineffective at either goal.

(3) I suggest the authors look again at the overall structure and flow of the review... many sections feel redundant, and it's unclear how they fit together into a single review.

(4) There are many speculative statements in the review that are not justified or explained sufficiently for the reader. For example: "While highly regular slow waves in vivo suggest a single mechanism of generation, namely local cortical circuits, irregular cycles are compatible with a larger role of subcortical nuclei, ..."; "The involvement of different cortical areas and subcortical nuclei can form the basis of these different roles in memory.". For these statements, I assume the relationship between slow wave statistics, subcortical nuclei, and memory either has been written about before, and then should be cited and summarized, or is a novel claim of the authors, which then should be explained and defended rather than stated. There are other similar examples, and I suggest the authors go through the manuscript and make sure that it's clear what is a novel claim of the authors vs a cited claim, and make sure that both are sufficiently justified for the reader.

(5) An especially notable example can be found in the section on the role of the thalamus, where the authors state that they "hold that slow oscillations are fundamentally cortical". However, this section is far too short, and very little evidence is provided to back up this claim. Please review the ways in which the thalamus modulates, and, e.g., ways in which up-down is similar/different without the thalamus.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This report demonstrates that the gene expression output of the Wnt pathway, when controlled precisely by a synthetic light-based input, depends substantially on the frequency of stimulation. The particular frequency-dependent trend that is observed - anti-resonance, a suppression of target gene expression at intermediate frequencies given a constant duty cycle - is a novel aspect that has not been clearly shown before for this or other signaling pathways. The paper provides both clear experimental evidence of the phenomenon with engineered cellular systems and a model-based analysis of how the pairing of rate constants in pathway activation/deactivation could result in such a trend.

Strengths:

This report couples in vitro experimental data with an abstracted mathematical model. Both of these approaches appear to be technically sound and to provide consistent and strong support for the main conclusion. The experimental data are particularly clear, and the demonstration that Brachyury expression is subject to anti-resonance in ESCs is particularly compelling. The modeling approach is reasonably scaled for the system at the level of detail that is needed in this case, and the hidden variable analysis provides some insight into how the anti-resonance works.

In this revised manuscript, the authors have addressed issues in presentation and in discussing the broader relevance of their study to other pathways. Other limitations of the paper, including the fact that the anti-resonance phenomenon has not yet been demonstrated using physiological Wnt ligands and that the model has not been validated using experimental manipulations to establish that the mechanisms of the cell system and the model are the same, were deemed out of the scope of this initial demonstration by both the reviewers and authors. These questions will provide an interesting basis for further studies.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study presents a valuable contribution of NO signaling in zebrafish retinal regeneration in larval animals. The data on NO signaling are solid. There are multiple limitations to the study, but these are largely acknowledged by the authors in the revised text.

Strengths:

New data on NO signaling is valuable to the field but may be limited to larval "regeneration".

Weaknesses:

A weakness of the approach is testing cone ablation and regeneration in early larval animals. A near identical study was already done by Hoang et al 2020 in the adult zebrafish, a more relevant biological timepoint.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Lai and Doe address the integration of spatial information with temporal patterning and genes that specify cell fate. They identify the Forkhead transcription factor Fd4 as a lineage-restricted cell fate regulator that bridges transient spatial transcription factors to terminal selector genes in the developing Drosophila ventral nerve cord. The experimental evidence convincingly demonstrates that Fd4 is both necessary for late-born NB7-1 neurons, but also sufficient to transform other neural stem cell lineages toward the NB7-1 identity. This work addresses an important question that will be of interest to developmental neurobiologists: How can cell identities defined by initial transient developmental cues be maintained in the progeny cells, even if the molecular mechanism remains to be investigated? In addition, the study proposes a broader concept of lineage identity genes that could be utilized in other lineages and regions in the Drosophila nervous system and in other species.

Strengths:

While the spatial factors patterning the neuroepithelium to define the neuroblast lineages in the Drosophila ventral nerve cord are known, these factors are sometimes absent or not required during neurogenesis. In the current work, Lai and Doe identified Fd4 in the NB7-1 lineage that bridges this gap and explains how NB7-1 neurons are specified after Engrailed (En) and Vnd cease their expression. They show that Fd4 is transiently co-expressed with En and Vnd and is present in all nascent NB7-1 progenies. They further demonstrate that Fd4 is required for later-born NB7-1 progenies and sufficient for the induction of NB7-1 markers (Eve and Dbx) while repressing markers of other lineages when force-expressed in neural progenitors, e.g., in the NB5-6 lineage and in the NB7-3 lineage. They also demonstrate that, when Fd4 is ectopically expressed in NB7-3 and NB5-6 lineages, this leads to the ectopic generation of dorsal muscle-innervating neurons. The inclusion of functional validation using axon projections demonstrates that the transformed neurons acquire appropriate NB7-1 characteristics beyond just molecular markers. Quantitative analyses are thorough and well-presented for all experiments.

Weaknesses:

(1) While Fd4 is required and sufficient for several later-born NB7-1 progeny features, a comparison between early-born (Hb/Eve) and later-born (Run/Eve) appears missing for pan-progenitor gain of Fd4 (with sca-Gal4; Figure 4) and for the NB7-3 lineage (Figure 6). Having a quantification for both could make it clearer whether Fd4 preferentially induces later-born neurons or is sufficient for NB7-1 features without temporal restriction.

(2) Fd4 and Fd5 are shown to be partially redundant, as Fd4 loss of function alone does not alter the number of Eve+ and Dbx+ neurons. This information is critical and should be included in Figure 3.

(3) Several observations suggest that lineage identity maintenance involves both Fd4-dependent and Fd4-independent mechanisms. In particular, the fact that fd4-Gal4 reporter remains active in fd4/fd5 mutants even after Vnd and En disappear indicates that Fd4's own expression, a key feature of NB7-1 identity, is maintained independently of Fd4 protein. This raises questions about what proportion of lineage identity features require Fd4 versus other maintenance mechanisms, which deserves discussion.

(4) Similarly, while gain of Fd4 induces NB7-1 lineage markers and dorsal muscle innervation in NB5-6 and NB7-3 lineages, drivers for the two lineages remain active despite the loss of molecular markers, indicating some regulatory elements retain activity consistent with their original lineage identity. It is therefore important to understand the degree of functional conversion in the gain-of-function experiments. Sparse labeling of Fd4 overexpressing NB5-6 and NB7-3 progenies, as was done in Seroka and Doe (2019), would be an option.

(5) The less-penetrant induction of Dbx+ neurons in NB5-6 with Fd4-overexpression is interesting. It might be worth the authors discussing whether it is an Fd4 feature or an NB5-6 feature by examining Dbx+ neuron number in NB7-3 with Fd4-overexpression.

(6) It is logical to hypothesize that spatial factors specify early-born neurons directly, so only late-born neurons require Fd4, but it was not tested. The model would be strengthened by examining whether Fd4-Gal4-driven Vnd rescues the generation of later-born neurons in fd4/fd5 mutants.

(7) It is mentioned that Fd5 is not sufficient for the NB7-1 lineage identity. The observation is intriguing in how similar regulators serve distinct roles, but the data are not shown. The analysis in Figure 4 should be performed for Fd5 as supplemental information.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The study introduces an open-source, cost-effective method for automating the quantification of male social behaviors in Drosophila melanogaster. It combines machine-learning based behavioral classifiers developed using JAABA (Janelia Automatic Animal Behavior Annotator) with inexpensive hardware constructed from off-the-shelf components. This approach addresses the limitations of existing methods, which often require expensive hardware and specialized setups. The authors demonstrate that their new "DANCE" classifiers accurately identify aggression (lunges) and courtship behaviors (wing extension, following, circling, attempted copulation, and copulation), closely matching manually annotated ground-truth data. Furthermore, DANCE classifiers outperform existing rule-based methods in accuracy. Finally, the study shows that DANCE classifiers perform as well when used with low-cost experimental hardware as with standard experimental setups across multiple paradigms, including RNAi knockdown of the neuropeptide Dsk and optogenetic silencing of dopaminergic neurons.

The authors make creative use of existing resources and technology to develop an inexpensive, flexible, and robust experimental tool for the quantitative analysis of Drosophila behavior. A key strength of this work is the thorough benchmarking of both the behavioral classifiers and the experimental hardware against existing methods. In particular, the direct comparison of their low-cost experimental system with established systems across different experimental paradigms is compelling. A weakness of the study is that the use of JAABA-based classifiers to analyze aggression and courtship is not novel (Tao et al., J. Neurosci., 2024; Sten et al., Cell, 2023; Chiu et al., Cell, 2021; Isshi et al., eLife, 2020; Duistermars et al., Neuron, 2018). However, the demonstration the JAABA classifiers they developed work as well without expensive experimental hardware opens the door to more low-cost systems for quantitative behavior analysis.

In summary, this work provides a practical and accessible approach to quantifying Drosophila behavior, reducing the economic barriers to the study of the neural and molecular mechanisms underlying social behavior.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Biomolecular condensates are essential part of cellular homeostatic regulation. In this manuscript, authors develop a theoretical framework for phase separation of membrane bound proteins. They show the effect of non-dilute surface binding and phase separation on tight junction protein organization.

Strengths:

It is an important study considering the phase separation of membrane bound molecules are taking the center stage of signaling, spanning from immune signaling to cell-cell adhesion. A theoretical framework will help biologists to quantitatively interpret their findings.

Weaknesses:

Understandably, authors used one system to test their theory (ZO-1). However, to establish a theoretical framework, this is sufficient.

Comments on revisions:

I do not recommend new experiments. The manuscript is clear and establishes a new step in understanding the physical chemistry of biomolecular condensates.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This useful study provides incomplete evidence of an association between atovaquone-proguanil use (as well as toxoplasmosis seropositivity) and reduced Alzheimer's dementia risk. The study reinforces findings that VZ vaccine lowers AD risk and suggests that this vaccine may be an effect modifier of A-P's protective effect. Strengths of the study include two extremely large cohorts, including a massive validation cohort in the US. Statistical analyses are sound, and the effect sizes are significant and meaningful. The CI curves are certainly impressive.

Weaknesses include the inability to control for potentially important confounding variables. In my view, the findings are intriguing but remain correlative / hypothesis generating rather than causative. Significant mechanistic work needs to be done to link interventions which limit the impact of Toxoplasmosis and VZV reactivation on AD.

Weaknesses:

Major:

(1) Most of the individuals in the study received A-P for malaria prophylaxis as it is not first line for Toxo treatment. Many (probably most) of these individuals were likely to be Toxo negative (~15% seropositive in the US), thereby eliminating a potential benefit of the drug in most people in the cohort. Finally, A-P is not a first line treatment for Toxo because of lower efficacy.

(2) A-P exposure may be a marker of subtle demographic features not captured in the dataset such as wealth allowing for global travel and/or genetic predisposition to AD. This raises my suspicion of correlative rather than casual relationships between A-P exposure and AD reduction. The size of the cohort does not eliminate this issue, but rather narrows confidence intervals around potentially misleading odds ratios which have not been adjusted for the multitude of other variables driving incident AD.

(3) The relationship between herpes virus reactivation and Toxo reactivation seems speculative.

(4) A direct effect on A-P on AD lesions independent on infection is not considered as a hypothesis. Given the limitations above and effects on metabolic pathways, it probably should be. The Toxo hypothesis would be more convincing if the authors could demonstrate an enhanced effect of the drug in Toxo positive individuals without no effect in Toxo negative individuals.

Minor:

(5) "Clinically meaningful" should be eliminated from the discussion given that this is correlative evidence.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Disclaimer: While I am familiar with the CFS method and the CFS literature, I am not familiar with primate research or two-photon calcium imaging. Additionally, I may be biased regarding unconscious processing under CFS, as I have extensively investigated this area but have found no compelling evidence in favor of unconscious processing under CFS.

This manuscript reports the results of a nonhuman-primate study (N=2 behaving macaque monkeys) investigating V1 responses under continuous flash suppression (CFS). The results show that CFS substantially suppressed V1 orientation responses, albeit slightly differently in the two monkeys. The authors conclude that CFS-suppressed orientation information "may not suffice for high-level visual and cognitive processing" (abstract).

The manuscript is clearly written and well-organized. The conclusions are supported by the data and analyses presented (but see disclaimer). However, I believe that the manuscript would benefit from a more detailed discussion of the different results observed for monkeys A and B (i.e., inter-individual differences), and how exactly the observed results are related to findings of higher-order cognitive processing under CFS, on the one hand, and the "dorsal-ventral CFS hypothesis", on the other hand.

Major Comments:

(1) Some references are imprecise. For example, l.53: "Nevertheless, two fMRI studies reported that V1 activity is either unaffected or only weakly affected (Watanabe et al., 2011; Yuval-Greenberg & Heeger, 2013)". "To the best of my understanding, the second study reaches a conclusion that is entirely opposite to that of the first, specifically that for low-contrast, invisible stimuli, stimulus-evoked fMRI BOLD activity in the early visual cortex (V1-V3) is statistically indistinguishable from activity observed during stimulus-absent (mask-only) trials. Therefore, high-level unconscious processing under CFS should not be possible if Yuval-Greenberg & Heeger are correct. The two studies contradict each other; they do not imply the same thing.

(2) Line 354: "The flashing masker was a circular white noise pattern with a diameter of 1.89{degree sign}{degree sign}, a contrast of 0.5, and a flickering rate of 10 Hz. The white noise consisted of randomly generated black and white blocks (0.07 × 0.07 each)." Why did the authors choose a white noise stimulus as the CFS mask? It has previously been shown that the depth of suppression engendered by CFS depends jointly on the spatiotemporal composition of the CFS and the stimulus it is competing with (Yang & Blake, 2012). For example, Hesselmann et al. (2016) compared Mondrian versus random dot masks using the probe detection technique (see Supplementary Figure S4 in the reference below) and found only a poor masking performance of the random dot masks.

Yang, E., & Blake, R. (2012). Deconstructing continuous flash suppression. Journal of Vision, 12(3), 8. https://doi.org/10.1167/12.3.8

Hesselmann, G., Darcy, N., Ludwig, K., & Sterzer, P. (2016). Priming in a shape task but not in a category task under continuous flash suppression. Journal of Vision, 16, 1-17.

(3) Related to my previous point: I guess we do not know whether the monkeys saw the CF-suppressed grating stimuli or not? Therefore, could it be that the differences between monkey A and B are due to a different individual visibility of the suppressed stimuli? Interocular suppression has been shown to be extremely variable between participants (see reference below). This inter-individual variability may, in fact, be one of the reasons why the CFS literature is so heterogeneous in terms of unconscious cognitive processing: due to the variability in interocular suppression, a significant amount of data is often excluded prior to analysis, leading to statistical inconsistencies. Moreover, the authors' main conclusion (lines 305-307) builds on the assumption that the stimuli were rendered invisible, but isn't this speculation without a measure of awareness?

Yamashiro, H., Yamamoto, H., Mano, H., Umeda, M., Higuchi, T., & Saiki, J. (2014). Activity in early visual areas predicts interindividual differences in binocular rivalry dynamics. Journal of Neurophysiology, 111(6), 1190-1202. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00509.2013

(4) The authors refer to the "tool priming" CFS studies by Almeida et al. (l.33, l.280, and elsewhere) and Sakuraba et al. (l.284). A thorough critique of this line of research can be found here:

Hesselmann, G., Darcy, N., Rothkirch, M., & Sterzer, P. (2018). Investigating Masked Priming Along the "Vision-for-Perception" and "Vision-for-Action" Dimensions of Unconscious Processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000420

This line of research ("dorsal-ventral CFS hypothesis") has inspired a significant body of behavioral and fMRI/EEG studies (see reference for a review below). The manuscript would benefit from a brief paragraph in the discussion section that addresses how the observed results contribute to this area of research.

Ludwig, K., & Hesselmann, G. (2015). Weighing the evidence for a dorsal processing bias under continuous flash suppression. Consciousness and Cognition, 35, 251-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2014.12.010

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, participants completed two different tasks. A perceptual choice task in which they compared the sizes of pairs of items and a value-different task in which they identified the higher value option among pairs of items with the two tasks involving the same stimuli. Based on previous fMRI research, the authors sought to determine whether the superior frontal sulcus (SFS) is involved in both perceptual and value-based decisions or just one or the other. Initial fMRI analyses were devised to isolate brain regions that were activated for both types of choices and also regions that were unique to each. Transcranial magnetic stimulation was applied to the SFS in between fMRI sessions and it was found to lead to a significant decrease in accuracy and RT on the perceptual choice task but only a decrease in RT on the value-different task. Hierarchical drift diffusion modelling of the data indicated that the TMS had led to a lowering of decision boundaries in the perceptual task and a lowering of non-decision times on the value-based task. Additional analyses show that SFS covaries with model derived estimates of cumulative evidence, that this relationship is weakened by TMS.

The paper has many strengths including the rigorous multi-pronged approach of causal manipulation, fMRI and computational modelling which offers a fresh perspective on the neural drivers of decision making. Some additional strengths include the careful paradigm design which ensured that the two types of tasks were matched for their perceptual content while orthogonalizing trial-to-trial variations in choice difficulty. The paper also lays out a number of specific hypotheses at the outset regarding the behavioural outcomes that are tied to decision model parameters and well justified.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Age-related synaptic dysfunction can have detrimental effects on cognitive and locomotor function. Additionally, aging makes the nervous system vulnerable to late-onset neurodegenerative diseases. This manuscript by Marques et al. seeks to profile the cell surface proteomes of glia to uncover signaling pathways that are implicated in age-related neurodegeneration. They compared the glial cell-surface proteomes in the central brain of young (day 5) and old (day 50) flies, and identified the most up- and down-regulated proteins during the aging process. 48 genes were selected for analysis in a lifespan screen, and interestingly, most sex-specific phenotypes. Among these, adult-specific pan-glial DIP-β overexpression (OE) significantly increased the lifespan of both males and females and improved their motor control ability. To investigate the effect of DIP-β in the aging brain, Marques et al. performed snRNA-seq on 50-day-old Drosophila brains with or without DIP-β OE in glia. Cortex and ensheathing glia showed the most differentially expressed genes. Computational analysis revealed that glial DIP-β OE increased cell-cell communication, particularly with neurons and fat cells.

Strengths:

(1) State-of-the-art methodology to reveal the cell surface proteomes of glia in young and old flies.

(2) Rigorous analyses to identify differentially expressed proteins.

(3) Examination of up- and down-regulated candidates and identification of glial-expressed mediators that impact fly lifespan.

(4) Intriguing sex-specific glial genes that regulate life span.

(5) Follow-up RNA-seq analysis to examine cellular transcriptomes upon overexpression of an identified candidate (DIP-β).

(6) A compelling dataset for the community that should generate extensive interest and spawn many projects.

Weaknesses:

(1) DIP-β OE using flySAM:

a) These flies showed a larger increase in lifespan compared to using UAS-DIP-β (Figure 2 C, D). Do the authors think that flySAM is a more efficient way of OE than UAS? Also, the UAS construct would be specific to one DIP-β isoform, while flySAM would likely express all isoforms. Could this also contribute to the phenotypes observed?

b) The Glial-GS>DIP-β flySAM flies without RU-486 have significantly shorter lifespans (Figure 2C) than their UAS-DIP-β counterparts. flySAM is lethal when expressed under the control of tubulin-GAL4 (Jia et al. 2018), likely due tothe toxicity of such high levels of overexpression. Is it possible that a larger increase in lifespan is due to the already reduced viability of these flies?

c) Statistics: It is stated in the Methods that "statistical methods used are described in the figure legend of each relevant panel." However, there is no description of the statistics or sample sizes used in Figure 2.

(2) Figure 3: The authors use a glial GeneSwitch (GS) to knock down and overexpress candidate genes. In Figure 3A, they look at glial-GS>UAS-GFP with and without RU. Without RU, there is no GFP expression, as expected. With RU, there is GFP expression. It is expected that all cell body GFP signal should colocalize with a glial nuclear marker (Repo). However, there is some signal that does not appear to be glia. Also, many glia do not express GFP, suggesting the glial GS driver does not label all glia. This could impact which glia are being targeted in several experiments.

(3) It is interesting that sex-specific lifespan effects were observed in the candidate screen.

a) The authors should provide a discussion about these sex-specific differences and their thoughts about why these were observed.

b) The authors should also provide information regarding the sex of the flies used in the glial cell surface proteome study.

c) Also, beyond the scope of this study, examining sex-specific glial proteomes could reveal additional insights into age-related pathways affecting males and females differentially.

(4) The behavioral assay used in this study (climbing) tests locomotion driven by motor neurons. The proteomic analysis was performed with the central adult brain, which does not include the nerve cord, where motor neurons reside. While likely beyond the scope of this study, it would be informative to test other behaviors, including learning, circadian rhythms, etc.

(5) It is surprising that overexpressing a CAM in glia has such a broad impact on the transcriptomes of so many different cell types. Could this be due to DIP-β OE maintaining the brain in a "younger" state and indirectly influencing the transcriptomes? Instead of DIP-β OE in glia directly influencing cell-cell interactions? Can the authors comment on this?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The current article adapts standard rhythmic measures to describe the temporal organisation of whale song units.

Strengths:

The detailed description of the internal temporal structure of whale songs is something that has thus far been lacking.

Weaknesses:

Conceptual and terminological bases of the paper are problematical and hamper comparison with other taxa, including humans. According to signal theory, codas are indexical rather than symbolic. They signal an individual's group identity. Borrowing from humans and linguistics, coda inter-group variation represents a case of accents -- phonologically different varieties of the same call -- not dialects, confirming they are an index. Moreover, symbolism is not a feature detectable or confirmed through rhythmic analyses or temporal characterisation. This raises serious doubt whether alleged "dialects," "symbolism" and similarity between whales and humans is factual. The comparative scope and relevance of this paper for the broader field is limited and evolutionary claims are potentially misleading and perilous.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In the manuscript entitled "Ω-Loop mutations control dynamics 2 of the active site by modulating the 3 hydrogen-bonding network in PDC-3 4 β-lactamase", Chen and coworkers provide a computational investigation of the dynamics of the enzyme Pseudomonas-derived chephalosporinase 3 (PDC3) and some mutants associated with increased antibiotic resistance. After an initial analysis of the enzyme dynamics provided by RMSD/RMSF, the author conclude that the mutations alter the local dynamics within the omega loop and the R2 loop. The authors show that the network of hydrogen bonds in disrupted in the mutants. Constant pH calculations showed that the mutations also change the pKa of the catalytic lysine 67 and pocket volume calculations showed that the mutations expand the catalytic pocket. Finally, time-independent componente analysis (tiCA) showed different profiles for the mutant enzyme as compared to the wild type.

Strengths:

The scope of the manuscript is definitely relevant. Antibiotic resistance is an important problem and, in particular, Pseudomonas aeruginosa resistance is associated with an increasing number of deaths. The choice of the computational methods is also something to highlight here. Although I am not familiar with Adaptive Bandit Molecular Dynamics (ABMD), the description provided in the manuscript that this simulation strategy is well suited for the problem under evaluation.

Weaknesses:

In the revised version, the authors addressed my concerns regarding their use of the MSM, and in my view, their conclusions are now much more robust and well-supported by the data. While it would be very interesting to see a quantitative correlation between the effects of the mutations observed in the MD data and relevant experimental findings, I understand that this may be beyond the scope of the manuscript.

for - stats - psychopathy - 1% of male population

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this descriptive study, Tateishi et al. report a Tn-seq based analysis of genetic requirements for growth and fitness in 8 clinical strains of Mycobacterium intracellulare Mi), and compare the findings with a type strain ATCC13950. The study finds a core set of 131 genes that are essential in all nine strains, and therefore are reasonably argued as potential drug targets. Multiple other genes required for fitness in clinical isolates have been found to be important for hypoxic growth in the type strain.

Strengths:

The study has generated a large volume of Tn-seq datasets of multiple clinical strains of Mi from multiple growth conditions, including from mouse lungs. The dataset can serve as an important resource for future studies on Mi, which despite being clinically significant, remains a relatively understudied species of mycobacteria.

Weaknesses:

The primary claim of the study that the clinical strains are better adapted for hypoxic growth is yet to be comprehensively investigated. However, this reviewer thinks such an investigation would require a complex experimental design and perhaps form an independent study.

Comments on revisions:

The revised paper has satisfactorily addressed my previous concerns, and I have no further issues with this paper.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript addresses the important problem of the uncoupling of oxidative phosphorylation due to hypoxia-ischemia injury in the neonatal brain and provides insight into the neuroprotective mechanisms of hypothermia treatment.

Strengths:

The authors used a combination of in vivo imaging of awake P10 mice and experiments on isolated mitochondria to assess various key parameters of brain metabolism during hypoxia-ischemia with and without hypothermia treatment. This unique approach resulted in a comprehensive data set that provides solid evidence to support the derived conclusions.

Weaknesses:

Several potential weaknesses were identified in the original submission, which the authors subsequently addressed in the revised manuscript. Here is the brief list of the questions:

(1) Is it possible that the observed relatively low baseline OEF and trends of increased OEF and CBF over several hours after the imaging start were partially due to slow recovery from anesthesia?

(2) What was the pain management, and is there a possibility that some of the observations were influenced by the pain-reducing drugs or their absence?

(3) Were P10 mice significantly stressed during imaging in the awake state because they didn't have head-restraint habituation training?

(4) Considering high metabolism and blood flow in the cortex, it could be potentially challenging to predict cortical temperature based on the skull temperature, particularly in the deeper part of the cortex.

(5) The map of estimated CMRO2 looks quite heterogeneous across the brain surface. Could this be partially resulting from the measurement artefact?

(6) It would be beneficial to provide more detailed justification for using P10 mice in the experiments.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

There is increasing evidence that viruses manipulate vectors and hosts to facilitate transmission. For arthropods, saliva plays an essential role for successful feeding on a host and consequently for arthropod-borne viruses that are transmitted during arthropod feeding on new hosts. This is so because saliva constitutes the interaction interface between arthropod and host and contains many enzymes and effectors that allow feeding on a compatible host by neutralizing host defenses. Therefore, it is not surprising that viruses change saliva composition or use saliva proteins to provoke altered vector-host interactions that are favorable for virus transmission. However, detailed mechanistic analyses are scarce. Here, Zhao and coworkers study transmission of rice stripe virus (RSV) by the planthopper Laodelphax striatellus. RSV infects plants as well as the vector, accumulates in salivary glands and is injected together with saliva into a new host during vector feeding.

The authors present evidence that a saliva-contained enzyme - carbonic anhydrase (CA) - might facilitate virus infection of rice by interfering with callose deposition, a plant defense response. In vitro pull-down experiments, yeast two hybrid assay and binding affinity assays show convincingly interaction between CA and a plant thaumatin-like protein (TLP) that degrades callose. Similar experiments show that CA and TLP interact with the RSV nuclear capsid protein NT to form a complex. Formation of the CA-TLP complex increases TLP activity by roughly 30% and integration of NT increases TLP activity further. This correlates with lower callose content in RSV-infected plants and higher virus titer. Further, silencing CA in vectors decreases virus titers in infected plants. Interestingly, aphid CA was found to play a role in plant infection with two non-persistent non-circulative viruses, turnip mosaic virus and cucumber mosaic virus (Guo et al. 2023 doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2222040120), but the proposed mode of action is entirely different.

Editors' note: this version was assessed by the editors, without further input from the reviewers.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The medicinal leech preparation is an amenable system in which to understand how the underlying cellular networks for locomotion function. A previously identified non-spiking neuron (NS) was studied and found to alter the mean firing frequency of a crawl-related motoneuron (DE-3), which fires during the contraction phase of crawling. The data are solid. Identifying upstream neurons responsible for crawl motor patterning is essential for understanding how rhythmic behavior is controlled.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study advances the lab's growing body of evidence exploring higher-order learning and its neural mechanisms. They recently found that NMDA receptor activity in the perirhinal cortex was necessary for integrating stimulus-stimulus associations with stimulus-shock associations (mediated learning) to produce preconditioned fear, but it was not necessary for forming stimulus-shock associations. On the other hand, basolateral amygdala NMDA receptor activity is required for forming stimulus-shock memories. Based on these facts, the authors assessed: 1. why the perirhinal cortex is necessary for mediated learning but not direct fear learning and 2. the determinants of perirhinal cortex versus basolateral amygdala necessity for forming direct versus indirect fear memories. The authors used standard sensory preconditioning and variants designed to manipulate the novelty and temporal relationship between stimuli and shock and, therefore, the attentional state under which associative information might be processed. Under experimental conditions where information would presumably be processed primarily in the periphery of attention (temporal distance between stimulus/shock or stimulus pre-exposure), perirhinal cortex NMDA receptor activation was required for learning indirect associations. On the other hand, when information would likely be processed in focal attention (novel stimulus contiguous with shock), basolateral amygdala NMDA activity was required for learning direct associations. Together, the findings indicate that the perirhinal cortex and basolateral amygdala subserve peripheral and focal attention, respectively. The authors provide support for their conclusions using careful, hypothesis-driven experimental design, rigorous methods, and integrating their findings with the relevant literature on learning theory, information processing, and neurobiology. Therefore, this work will be highly interesting to several fields.

Strengths:

(1) The experiments were carefully constructed and designed to test hypotheses that were rooted in the lab's previous work, in addition to established learning theory and information processing background literature.

(2) There are clear predictions and alternative outcomes. The provided table does an excellent job of condensing and enhancing the readability of a large amount of data.

(3) In a broad sense, attention states are a component of nearly every behavioral experiment. Therefore, identifying their engagement by dissociable brain areas and under different learning conditions is an important area of research.

(4) The authors clearly note where they replicated their own findings, report full statistical measures, effect sizes, and confidence intervals, indicating the level of scientific rigor.

(5) The findings raise questions for future experiments that will further test the authors' hypotheses; this is well discussed.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

I have to preface my evaluation with a disclosure that I lack the mathematical expertise to fully assess what seems to be the authors' main theoretical contribution. I am providing this assessment to the best of my ability, but I cannot substitute for a reviewer with more advanced mathematical/physical training.

Summary:

This paper describes a new theoretical framework for measuring parsimony preferences in human judgments. The authors derive four metrics that they associate with parsimony (dimensionality, boundary, volume, and robustness) and measure whether human adults are sensitive to these metrics. In two tasks, adults had to choose one of two flower beds which a statistical sample was generated from, with or without explicit instruction to choose the flower bed perceptually closest to the sample. The authors conduct extensive statistical analyses showing that humans are sensitive to most of the derived quantities, even when the instructions encouraged participants to choose only based on perceptual distance. The authors complement their study with a computational neural network model that learns to make judgments about the same stimuli with feedback. They show that the computational model is sensitive to the tasks communicated by feedback and only uses the parsimony-associated metrics when feedback trains it to do so.

Strengths:

(1) The paper derives and applies new mathematical quantities associated with parsimony. The mathematical rigor is very impressive and is much more extensive than in most other work in the field, where studies often adopt only one metric (such as the number of causes or parameters). These formal metrics can be very useful for the field.

(2) The studies are preregistered, and the statistical analyses are strong.

(3) The computational model complements the behavioral findings, showing that the derived quantities are not simply equivalent to maximum-likelihood inference in the task.

(4) The speculations in the discussion section (e.g., the idea that human sensitivity is driven by the computational demands each metric requires) are intriguing and could usefully guide future work.

Weaknesses:

(1) The paper is very hard to understand. Many of the key details of the derived metrics are in the appendix, with very little accessible explanation in the main text. The figures helped me understand the metrics somewhat, although I am still not sure how some of them (such as boundary or robustness as measured here) are linked to parsimony. I understand that this is addressed by the derivations in the appendix, but as a computational cognitive scientist, I would have benefited from more accessible explanations. Important aspects of the human studies are also missing from the main text, such as the sample size for Experiment 2.

(2) It is not fully clear whether the sensitivity of human participants to some of the quantities convincingly reported here actually means that participants preferred shapes according to the corresponding aspect of parsimony. The title and framing suggest that parsimony "guides" human decision-making, which may lead readers to conclude that humans prefer more parsimonious shapes. I am not sure the sensitivity findings alone support this framing, but it might just be my misunderstanding of the analyses.

(3) The stimulus set included only four combinations of shapes, each designed to diagnostically target one of the theoretical quantities. It is unclear whether the results are robust or specific to these particular 4 stimuli.

(4) The study is framed as measuring "decision-making," but the task resembles statistical inference (e.g., which shape generated the data) or perceptual judgment. This is a minor point since "decision-making" is not well defined in the literature, yet the current framing in the title gave me the initial impression that humans would be making preference choices and learning about them over time with feedback.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The study by Klotzsche et al. examines whether emotional facial expressions can be decoded from EEG while participants view 3D faces in immersive VR and whether stereoscopic depth cues affect these neural representations. Participants viewed computer-generated faces (three identities, four emotions) rendered either stereoscopically or monoscopically, while performing an emotion recognition task. Time-resolved multivariate decoding revealed above-chance decodability of facial expressions from EEG. Importantly, decoding accuracy did not differ between monoscopic and stereoscopic viewing. This indicates that the neural representation of expressions is robust against stereoscopic disparity for the relevant features. However, a separate classifier could distinguish the depth condition (mono vs. stereo) from EEG, i.e., the pattern of neuronal activity differs between conditions, but not in ways relevant for the decoding of emotions. It had an early peak and a temporal profile similar to identity decoding, suggesting that early, task-irrelevant visual differences are captured neurally. Cross-decoding further demonstrated that expression decoders trained in one depth condition could generalize to the other, supporting the idea of representational invariance. Eye-tracking analyses showed that expressions and identities could be decoded from gaze patterns, but not the depth condition, and EEG- and gaze-based decoding performances were not correlated across participants. Overall, this work shows that EEG decoding in VR is feasible and sensitive, and suggests that stereoscopic cues are represented in the brain but do not influence the neural processing of facial expressions. This study addresses a relevant question with state-of-the-art experimental and data analysis techniques.

Strengths:

(1) It combines EEG, virtual reality stereoscoptic and monoscopic presentation of visual stimuli, and advanced data analysis methods to address a timely question.

(2) The figures are of very high quality.

(3) The reference list is appropriate and up to date.

Weaknesses:

(1) The introduction-results-discussion-methods order makes it hard to follow the Results without repeatedly consulting the Methods. Please introduce minimal, critical methodological context at the start of each Results subsection; reserve technical details for Methods/Supplement.

(2) Many Results subsections begin with a crisp question and present rich analyses, but end without a short synthesis. Please add 1-2 sentences that explicitly answer the opening question and state what the analyses demonstrate.

(3) The Results compellingly show that (a) expressions are decodable from EEG and (b) mono vs stereo trials are decodable from EEG; yet expression decoding is comparable across mono and stereo. It would help if you articulate why depth is neurally distinguishable while leaving expression representations unchanged. Maybe improve the discussion of the results of source localization and give a more detailed connection to what we already know about the processing of disparity.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In the present manuscript, de Bos and Kutay investigate the functional implications of persistent microtubule-ER contacts as cells go through mitosis. To do so, they resorted to investigating phosphorylation mutants of the ER-Microtubule crosslinker Climp63. They found that phosphodeficient Climp63 mutants induce a severe SAC-dependent mitotic delay after normal chromosome alignment, with an impressive mitotic index of approximately 75%. Strikingly, this was often associated with massive nuclear fragmentation into up to 30 micronuclei that are able to recruit both core and non-core nuclear envelope components. One particular residue (S17) that is phosphorylated by Cdk1 seems to account for most, if not all, these phenotypes. Furthermore, the authors use the impact on mitosis as an indirect way to map the microtubule binding domain of Climp63, which has remained controversial, and found that it is mostly restricted to the N-terminal 28 residues of Climp63. Of note, despite the strong impact on mitosis, persistent microtubule-ER contacts did not affect the distribution of other organelles during mitosis, such as mitochondria or lysosomes.

Strengths:

Overall, this work provides important mechanistic insight into the functional implications of ER-microtubule network remodelling during mitosis and should be of great interest to a vast readership of cell biologists.

Weaknesses:

Some of the key findings appear somewhat preliminary and would be worth exploring further to substantiate some of the claims and clarify the respective impact on mitosis and nuclear envelope reassembly on the resulting micronuclei.

The following suggestions would significantly clarify some key points:

(1) The striking increase in mitotic index in cells expressing the Climp63 phosphodefective mutant, together with their live cell imaging data indicating extensive mitotic delays that can be relieved by SAC inhibition, suggests that SAC silencing is significantly delayed or even impossible to achieve. The fact that most chromosomes align in 12 min, irrespective of the expression of the Climp63 phosphodefective mutant, suggests that initial microtubule-kinetochore interactions are not compromised, but maybe cannot be stably maintained. Alternatively, the stripping of SAC proteins from kinetochores by dynein along attached microtubules might be compromised, despite normal microtubule-kinetochore attachments. The authors allude to both these possibilities, but unfortunately, they never really test them. This could easily be done by immunofluorescence with a Mad1 or c-Mad2 antibody to inspect which fraction of kinetochores (co-stained with a constitutive kinetochore marker, such as CENP-A or CENP-C) are positive for these SAC proteins. If just a small fraction, then the stability of some attachments is likely the cause. If most/all kinetochores retain Mad1/c-Mad2, then it is probably an issue of silencing the SAC.

(2) The authors use the increase in mitotic index (H3 S10 phosphorylation levels) as a readout for the MT binding efficiency of Climp63 and respective mutants. Although suggestive, this is fairly indirect and requires additional confirmation. For example, the authors could perform basic immunofluorescence in fixed cells to inspect co-localization of Climp63 (and its mutants) with microtubules.

(3) The authors refer in the discussion that the striking nuclear fragmentation seen upon mitotic exit of cells expressing Climp63 phosphodefective mutant has not been reported before, and yet it is strikingly similar to what has been previously observed in cells treated with taxol (they cite Samwer et al. 2017, but they might elect to cite also Mitchison et al., Open Biol, 2017 and most relevantly Jordan et al., Cancer Res, 1996). This striking similarity and given the extensive mitotic delay observed in the Climp63 phosphodefective mutant, it is tempting to speculate that these cells are undergoing mitotic slippage (i.e., cells exit mitosis without ever satisfying the SAC) because they are unable to silence/satisfy the SAC. Indeed, the scattered micronuclei morphology has also been observed in cells undergoing mitotic slippage (e.g., Brito and Rieder, Curr Biol., 2006). The experiment suggested in point #1 should also shed light on this problem. The authors might want to consider discussing this possible explanation to interpret the observed phenotypes.

(4) One of the most significant implications of the findings reported in this paper is that microtubule proximity does not seem to impact the assembly of either core or non-core nuclear envelope proteins on micronuclei (that possibly form due to mitotic slippage, rather than normal anaphase). These results challenge some models explaining nuclear envelope defects in micronuclei derived from lagging chromosomes due to the proximity of microtubules, and, as the authors point out at the very end, other reasons might underlie these defects. Along this line, the authors might elect to cite Afonso et al. Science, 2014, and Orr et al., Cell Reports, 2022, who provide evidence that a spindle midzone-based Aurora B gradient, rather than microtubules per se, underlie the nuclear envelope defects commonly seen in micronuclei derived from lagging chromosomes during anaphase.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The goal of this paper was to determine whether the T cell receptor (TCR) repertoire differs between a male and a female human. To address this, this group sequenced TCRs from double-positive and single-positive thymocytes in male and female humans of various ages. Such an analysis on sorted thymocyte subsets has not been performed in the past. The only comparable dataset is a pediatric thymocyte dataset where total thymocytes were sorted.

They report on participant ages and sexes, but not on ethnicity, race, nor provide information about HLA typing of individuals. Though the experiments themselves are heroic, they do represent a relatively small sampling of diverse humans. They observed no differences in TCRbeta or TCRalpha usage, combinational diversity, or differences in the length of the CDR3 region, or amino acid usage in the CD3aa region between males or females. Though they observed some TCRbeta CD3aa sequence motifs that differed between males and females, these findings could not be replicated using an external dataset and therefore were not generalizable to the human population.

They also compared TCRbeta sequences against those identified in the past using computational approaches to recognize cancer-, bacterial-, viral-, or autoimmune-antigens. They found very little overlap of their sequences with these annotated sequences (depending on the individual, ranging from 0.82-3.58% of sequences). Within the sequences that were in overlap, they found that certain sequences against autoimmune or bacterial antigens were significantly over-represented in female versus male CD8 SP cells. Since no other comparable dataset is available, they could not conclude whether this is a finding that is generalizable to the human population.

Strengths:

This is a novel dataset. Overall, the methodologies appear to be sound. There was an attempt to replicate their findings in cases where an appropriate dataset was available. I agree that there are no gross differences in TCR diversity between males and females.

Weaknesses:

Overall, the sample size is small given that it is an outbred population. The cleaner experiment would have been to study the impact of sex in a number of inbred MHC I/II identical mouse strains or in humans with HLA-identical backgrounds.

It is unclear whether there was consensus between the three databases they used regarding the antigens recognized by the TCR sequences. Given the very low overlap between the TCR sequences identified in these databases and their dataset, and the lack of replication, they should tone down their excitement about the CD8 T cell sequences recognizing autoimmune and bacterial antigens being over-represented in females.

The dataset could be valuable to the community.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This is a careful, well-powered treatment of age effects in resting-state MEG. Rather than extracting (say) complex connectivity measures, the authors look at the 'simplest possible thing': changes in the overall power spectrum across age.

Strengths:

They find significant age-related changes at different frequency bands: broadly, attenuation at low-frequency (alpha) and increased beta. These patterns are identified in a large dataset (CamCAN) and then verified in other public data.

Weaknesses:

Some secondary interpretations (what is "unique" to age vs global anatomy) may go beyond what the statistics strictly warrant in the current form, but these can be tightened with (I think, fairly quick) additions already foreshadowed by the authors' own analyses.

Aims:

The authors set out to replace piecemeal, band-by-band ageing claims with t-maps, and Cohen's f2 over sensors×frequency ("GLM-Spectrum").

On CamCAN, six spatio-spectral peaks survive relatively strict statistical controls. The larger effects are in low-frequency and upper-alpha/beta ranges (f2 approx 0.2-0.3), while lower-alpha and gamma reach significance but with small practical impact (f2 < 0.075). A nice finding is that the same qualitative profile appears in three additional independent datasets.

Two analyses are especially interesting. First, the authors show a difference between absolute and relative spectral magnitude (basically, within-subject normalization). Relative scaling sharpens the spectral specificity of the spatial maps, while absolute magnitude is dominated by a broad spatial mode that correlates positively across frequencies, likely reflecting head-position/field-spread factors. The replication of the main age profile is robust to preprocessing decisions (e.g., SSS movement compensation choices) - the bigger determinant of the effect is whether they apply sensor normalization (relative vs absolute).

Second, lots of brain-related things might be related to age, and the authors spend some time trying to back out confounds/covariates. This section is handled transparently (in general, I found the writing style very clear throughout) - they examine single covariates (sex, BP, GGMV, etc.) and compare simple vs partial age effects. For example, aging is correlated with reductions in global grey-matter volume (GGMV), but it would be nice to find a measure that is independent of this: controlling for GGMV (via a linear model) reduces age-related effect sizes heterogeneously across space/frequency but does not eliminate them, a nuance the authors treat carefully.

This is a nice paper, and I have only a few concrete suggestions:

(1) High-gamma:

There can be a lot of EMG / eye movement contamination (I know these were RS eyes closed data, but still..) above 30-40 Hz, and these effects are the weakest anyway. Could you add an analysis (e.g., ICA/label-based muscle component removal) and show the gamma band's sensitivity to that step? Or just note this point more clearly?

(2) GGMV confound control:

Controlling for GGMV reduces, but does not eliminate, age effects. I have a few questions about this: a) Could we see the residuals as a function of age? I wonder if there are non-linear effects or something else that the regression is not accounting for. Also, b) GGMV and age are highly colinear - is this an issue? Can regression really split them apart robustly? I think by some cunning orthogonalisation, you can compute the effect of age independent of GGVM. I don't think this is the same as the effect 'adjusted' for GGMV (which is what is shown here if I'm reading it correctly). Finally, of course, GGMV might actually be the thing you want to look at (because it might more accurately reflect clinical issues) - so strong correlations are not really a problem: I think really the focus might even be on using MEG to predict GGMV and controlling for age.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript investigates how exogenous attention modulates spatial frequency sensitivity within the foveola. Using high-precision eye-tracking and gaze-contingent stimulus control, the authors show that exogenous attention selectively improves contrast sensitivity for low- to mid-range spatial frequencies (4-8 cycles/degree), but not for higher frequencies (12-20 CPD). In contrast, improvements in asymptotic performance at the highest contrast levels occur across all spatial frequencies. These results suggest that, even within the foveola, exogenous attention operates through a mechanism similar to that observed in peripheral vision, preferentially enhancing lower spatial frequencies.

Strengths:

The study shows strong methodological rigor. Eye position was carefully controlled, and the stimulus generation and calibration were highly precise. The authors also situate their work well within the existing literature, providing a clear rationale for examining the fine-grained effects of exogenous attention within the foveola. The combination of high spatial precision, gaze-contingent presentation, and detailed modeling makes this a valuable technical contribution.

Weaknesses:

The manipulation of attention raises some interpretive concerns. Clarifying this issue, together with additional detail about statistics, participant profiles, other methodological elements, and further discussion in relation to oculomotor control in general, could broaden the impact of the findings.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The study from Wu and Turrigiano investigates how disruption of taste coding in a mouse model of autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) affects aversive learning in the context of a conditioned taste aversion (CTA) paradigm. The experiments combine 2-photon calcium imaging of neurons in the gustatory portion of the anterior insular cortex (i.e., gustatory cortex) with behavioral training and testing. The authors rely on Shank3 knockout mice as a model for ASDs. The authors found that Shank3 mice learn CTA more slowly and extinguish the memory more rapidly than control subjects. Calcium imaging identified impairments in taste-evoked activity associated with memory encoding and extinction. During memory encoding, the authors found less suppressed neuronal activity and increased correlated variability in Shank3 mice compared to controls. During extinction, they observed a faster loss of taste selectivity and degradation of taste discriminability in mutants compared to controls.

Strengths:

This is a well-written manuscript that presents interesting findings. The results on the learning and extinction deficits in Shank3 mice are of particular interest. Analyses of neural activity are well conducted and provide important information on the type of impaired cortical activity that may correlate with behavioral deficits.

Weaknesses:

(1) The experiments rely on three groups: CS-only WT, CTA WT, and CTA KO. Can the authors provide a rationale for not having a CS-only KO group?

(2) The authors design an effective behavioral paradigm comparing consumption of water and saccharin and tracking extinction (Figure 3). This paradigm shows differences in licking across distinct behavioral conditions. For instance, during T1, licking to water strongly differs from licking to saccharin for both WT and KO. During T2, licking to water strongly differs from licking to saccharin only for WT (much less for KO), and licking to saccharin in WT differs from that in KO. These differences in taste sampling across conditions could contribute to some of the effects on neural activity and discriminability reported in Figures 5 and 6. That is sucrose and water trials may be highly discriminable because in one case the mouse licks and in the other it does not (or licks much less). The author may want to address this issue.

(3) Are there any omission trials following CTA? If so, they should be quantified and reported. How are the omission trials treated with regard to the analyses?

(4) The authors describe the extinction paradigm as "alternative choice". In decision-making, alternative choice paradigms typically require 2 lateral spouts to report decisions following the sampling from a central spout. To avoid confusion, the authors may want to define their paradigm as alternative sampling.

(5) Figure 4 reports that CTA increases the proportion of neurons that consistently respond to saccharin and water across days. While the saccharin result could be an effect of aversive learning, it is less clear why the phenomenon would generalize to water as well. Can the authors provide an explanation?

(6) The recordings are performed in the part of the anterior insular cortex that is typically defined as "gustatory cortex" (GC). Given the functional heterogeneity of the anterior insular cortex (AIC) and given that the authors do not sample all of the anteroposterior extent of AIC, I would suggest being more explicit about their positioning in GC. Also, some citations (e.g., Gogolla et al, 2014) refer to the posterior insular cortex, which is considered more inherently multimodal than GC. GC multimodality is typically associative in nature, as only a few neurons respond to sound and light in naïve animals.

(7) It would be useful to add summary figures showing the extent of viral spread as well as GRIN lens placement.

(8) I encourage the authors to add Ns every time percentages are reported. How many neurons have been recorded in each condition? Can the authors provide the average number of neurons recorded per session and per animal?

(9) It looks like some animals learned more than others (Figure 1E or Figure 3C). Is it possible to compare neural activity across animals that showed different degrees of learning?

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In the ecological interactions between wild plants and specialized herbivorous insects, structural innovation-based diversification of secondary metabolites often occurs. In this study, Agrawal et al. utilized two milkweed species (Asclepias curassavica and Asclepias incarnata) and the specialist Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) as a model system to investigate the effects of two N,S-cardenolides - formed through structural diversification and innovation in A. curassavica-on the growth, feeding, and chemical sequestration of D. plexippus, compared to other conventional cardenolides. Additionally, the study examined how cardenolide diversification resulting from the formation of N,S-cardenolides influences the growth and sequestration of D. plexippus. On this basis, the research elucidates the ecophysiological impact of toxin diversity in wild plants on the detoxification and transport mechanisms of highly adapted herbivores.

Strengths:

The study is characterized by the use of milkweed plants and the specialist Monarch butterfly, which represent a well-established model in chemical ecology research. On one hand, these two organisms have undergone extensive co-evolutionary interactions; on the other hand, the butterfly has developed a remarkable capacity for toxin sequestration. The authors, building upon their substantial prior research in this field and earlier observations of structural evolutionary innovation in cardenolides in A. curassavica, proposed two novel ecological hypotheses. While experimentally validating these hypotheses, they introduced the intriguing concept of a "non-additive diversity effect" of trace plant secondary metabolites when mixed, contrasting with traditional synergistic perspectives, in their impact on herbivores.

Weaknesses:

The manuscript has two main weaknesses. First, as a study reliant on the control of compound concentrations, the authors did not provide sufficient or persuasive justification for their selection of the natural proportions (and concentrations) of cardenolides. The ratios of these compounds likely vary significantly across different environmental conditions, developmental stages, pre- and post-herbivory, and different plant tissues. The ecological relevance of the "natural proportions" emphasized by the authors remains questionable. Furthermore, the same compound may even exert different effects on herbivorous insects at different concentrations. The authors should address this issue in detail within the Introduction, Methods, or Discussion sections.

Second, the study was conducted using leaf discs in an in vitro setting, which may not accurately reflect the responses of Monarch butterflies on living plants. This limitation undermines the foundation for the novel ecological theory proposed by the authors. If the observed phenomena could be validated using specifically engineered plant lines-such as those created through gene editing, knockdown, or overexpression of key enzymes involved in the synthesis of specific N,S-cardenolides - the findings would be substantially more compelling.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Bajohr and colleagues propose a transcription factor-driven approach to generating bonafide oligodendrocyte lineage cells (OLCs) from primary mouse astrocytes. Ectopic expression of Olig2, Sox10, or Nkx6.2 in isolated astrocytes produced a range of OLC-like cell states, with Sox10 emerging from lineage tracing and single cell RNA sequencing experiments as the most successful transcription factor in driving direct lineage reprogramming. The authors strengthened their claims with an unbiased, deep learning perturbation model to predict genetic drivers of the astrocyte cluster to OLC cluster transition observed in their scRNA seq dataset. Here, Sox10 surfaced in the top ten correlated genes, and the top transcription factor, mediating this fate shift. Altogether, this paper presents an interesting approach to generate OLCs, a cell type historically difficult to procure, from primary mouse astrocytes to study this lineage in development and disease and perhaps repopulate it in dysmyelinating conditions. While this certainly addresses a technical gap in the field, authors defined iOLCs as ones with lineage-specific gene expression and morphological characteristics, lacking any functional analysis to assess the reprogrammed cells' capacity to myelinate. This comment and other critiques are discussed below.

While Sox10 and Mbp expression in iOLCs, as confirmed by IHC, is a promising result suggesting that ectopic Sox10 instructs transduced cells to develop into cells of myelinating potential, functional confirmation is essential. As mentioned in the discussion, the absence of a substrate for myelination may have also contributed to the low DLR efficiency. Co-culturing Sox10 iOLCs with primary neurons and examining the cells' potential to engage and enwrap axons would greatly strengthen the authors' claim that this could be an effective therapeutic approach to myelin regeneration in vivo, or even a technical approach to studying myelin dynamics in vitro.

In Figure 1B, it appears that Mbp expression in tdTomato+ cells decreases in Sox10 transduced iOLs during the observed time period. Can the authors elaborate on this result, given that MBP expression is crucial for myelination and should, if anything, increase with time?

The authors acknowledge that there is a conversion of tdTomato- zsGreen+ cells with an astrocyte-like morphology to OLC cells expressing Mbp following Sox10 induction (Supplementary figure 5C,D). While they note the diversity of the astrocyte lineage in the discussion, further analysis should be applied to this subset of cells to confirm the subset of astrocyte or progenitor-like cell type that gives rise to their cell endpoint of interest (Sox10-driven Mbp+ iOLs).

Finally, ectopic expression of Olig2 and Sox10 in primary astrocytes resulted in very different OLC subtypes, as evidenced by OLC marker expression seen in IHC and the subclustering of these cell types in scRNA seq. Although this diversity in OLC type and generation efficiency follows with previous reports showing that these two transcription factors vary in effect, might the authors further discuss this discrepancy given that the two transcription factors regulate one another (as mentioned in the introduction) and should theoretically give rise to more similar cells? Perhaps due to the lower specificity of Olig2 in marking a pure OLC population relative to Sox10?

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This study explores the connectivity patterns that could lead to fast and slow undulating swim patterns in larval zebrafish using a simplified theoretical framework. The authors show that a pattern of connectivity based only on inhibition is sufficient to produce realistic patterns with a single frequency. Two such networks couple with inhibition but with distinct time constants can produce a range of frequencies. Adding excitatory connections further increases the range of obtainable frequencies, albeit at the expense of sudden transitions in mid-frequency range.

Strengths:

(1) This is an eloquent approach to answering the question of how spinal locomotor circuits generate coordinated activity using a theoretical approach based on moving bump models of brain activity.

(2) The models make specific predictions on patterns of connectivity while discounting the role of connectivity strength or neuronal intrinsic properties in shaping the pattern.

(3) The models also propose that there is an important association between cell-type-specific intersegmental patterns and the recruitment of speed-selective subpopulations of interneurons.

(4) Having a hierarchy of models creates a compelling argument for explaining rhythmicity at the network level. Each model builds on the last and reveals a new perspective on how network dynamics can control rhythmicity. I liked that each model can be used to probe questions in the next/previous model.

Comments on revisions:

I am very happy to see the simplified biophysical model supporting the original findings. The authors have done an excellent job addressing my comments.

Just a small note, please change C. Elegans to C. elegans.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The authors aim to predict ecological suitability for transmission of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) using ecological niche models. This class of models identify correlations between the locations of species or disease detections and the environment. These correlations are then used to predict habitat suitability (in this work, ecological suitability for disease transmission) in locations where surveillance of the species or disease has not been conducted. The authors fit separate models for HPAI detections in wild birds and farmed birds, for two strains of HPAI (H5N1 and H5Nx) and for two time periods, pre- and post-2020. The authors also validate models fitted to disease occurrence data from pre-2020 using post-2020 occurrence data.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Davis and co-authors used many mouse models to investigate mechanisms that regulate the contractility of mouse popliteal collecting vessels, primarily chronotropy. Many of the mechanisms studied were previously shown to regulate pressure-induced constriction in small arteries. The authors use prior literature from the vasculature as a framework to test similar concepts in lymphatic vessels. The mouse models used provide evidence for and against the involvement of multiple proteins in regulating chronotropy and other contractile properties in lymphatic vessels. They propose that mechano-activation of GNAQ/GNA11-coupled GPCRs generates IP3, which induces Ca2+ release through IP3R1 and drives depolarization through the activation of ANO1 Cl- channels. Major concerns include the author's major conclusion that GNAQ/GNA11-coupled GPCRs contribute to chronotropy. This conclusion is not supported by the data presented.

Strengths:

One major strength of the study lies in the vast number of mouse knockout models that were used to test the importance of ion channels and G protein signaling pathways in the regulation of lymphatic vessel contractility. In this regard, the study is a valiant effort. The authors achieved several objectives to find that ANO1 and IP3R1 regulate chronotropy, and many other potential proteins do not regulate chronotropy. This study will have a major impact on the field if additional support for G proteins is provided.

Weaknesses:

Major conclusions concerning the involvement of G proteins are drawn from the global Gna11 knockout mouse models. This conclusion is weak. Global Gna11 knockout mice are highly likely to have a multifactorial phenotype that could create significant differences in the data. Control experiments need to be performed on vessels from the global knockout mice if these major conclusions are to be made. Similarly, pharmacological tools or alternative approaches to manipulate G proteins should be used to support the data from these mouse models to draw these major conclusions.

The Gnaq smKO mice are the most specific G protein model studied here. However, there is no phenotype. Do not discuss trends in the data. If the data are not significant, conclude so. If more experiments are required to reach significance, provide more data in the manuscript.

The conclusions repeatedly refer to a signaling pathway wherein the upstream component is GPCRs, which activate G proteins. While this may be the case, no GPCRs were identified here, and the involvement of G proteins is questionable, as the authors outline in lines 693-695 and noted above. The conclusions should be tempered, including in the abstract, unless additional experiments are performed to support the involvement of G proteins. Perhaps then the authors may be able to infer that GPCRs are involved.

Line 318. The point regarding the choice to use popliteal vessels versus IALVs will be unclear to the uninitiated, particularly as the authors previously used IALVs. Including additional justification in the text and/or data from IALVs in Figure 1, which compares IALVs to popliteal vessels, would better explain the logic.

The conclusions drawn for TRPC6 and TRPC3 are less convincing. Germline global knockout mice, which are known to undergo compensation, were used, and high data variability is apparent. Using TRPC3 and TRPC6 blockers in the mouse models studied in Figure 4 would strengthen the arguments made regarding these proteins.

Did you perform power analysis to ensure that experimental numbers were sufficient to conclude that no statistical difference exists between datasets? If not, this needs to be done. For example, data shown in Figure 5C for tone and 6C for frequency and tone appear to be significantly different, but are concluded not to be so.

At the end of each result section, a concluding statement is made regarding the effects on pressure-induced chronotrophy. In many cases, there are additional effects of manipulating protein expression on other contractile properties. One example is for TRPC3 and TRPC6 (lines 414-416), but others are TRPV4, TRPV3, ENaC, Kir, Cav3.1/3.2, etc. Some interpretation is in the Discussion, but the concluding statements at the end of each result section should be expanded to summarize what the authors think the other significant differences in the data represent.

Kv7.4 channels. You state you have data (not shown) with linopiridine and XE991. Why not show those results here to support the experiments with the Kcnq4 smKO mice? Otherwise, I suggest you remove the statement from the unpublished data.

Figure 13A. Kcnj2 is modestly expressed in LECs, but very little is present in LMCs. This likely underlies the effect of barium. If you remove the endothelium, does the effect of barium disappear? While this is not the major focus of the study, the effects of barium are dramatic, and it should be made clear whether this is due to inhibition of Kir channels in smooth muscle or endothelial cells.

Figure 18C tone. Several values for losartan look different but are not labelled as such. Please clarify and discuss if different.

The manuscript should include raw data traces in figures that show the major pathways that you conclude regulate chronotropy.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The work of Bechara Rahme and colleagues provides an explanation as to how bacterially infected flies eventually die. While widespread tissue and multiorgan damage are to be expected in the latest stages of a systemic infection, the mechanisms leading to the host's death remain unresolved. To this end, this work illustrates the role of PrtA, a metalloproteinase found within Outer Membrane Vesicles (OMVs) secreted by Serratia marcescens, in inducing neuronal apoptosis and paralysis before death. Another interesting aspect of the work is the compromise of blood blood-brain barrier (BBB) by OMVs. BBB is different between mammals and flies; however, it merits scientific attention.

Strengths:

The strength of evidence lies in a wealth of experiments involving disparate innate immune mechanisms that either contribute (Imd, PPO1/2, Nox, Duox, SOD2) or oppose (hemocytes and Hayan protease) host defense. Moreover, the role of neuronal JNK and apoptic signaling is shown to contribute to host death.

Genetics is supported by experiments using chemical treatments (Vitamin C and mito-TEMPO) as host-protecting antioxidants, and the biochemical purification and quantification of OMVs and the PrtA protease.

Weaknesses:

However, the reliance on non-isogenised flies to provide quantitative data is unsafe, and at this point, the strength of the evidenceis apparently incomplete. The mutant flies used for the genes Key, Myd88, Hayan, and Nos are doubtfully comparable to the control fly strains used in terms of the general genetic background. The latter is of utmost importance in assessing quantitative traits.

The general background difference between control and test flies is also an issue when using tissue-specific expression via GAL4/UAS, because the UAS lines used are only apparently but not truly isogenic to the w flies used as controls.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The investigators elegantly utilized a single-cell co-assay of RNA and ATAC seq to unveil the heterogeneous gene regulatory networks in Ewing sarcoma. The authors should be commended on their ability to identify multiple unique modules of gene regulation of Ewing sarcoma utilizing complex computational methods between numerous Ewing sarcoma cell lines. Additionally, they complemented their single-cell findings with xenografts as well as primary Ewing sarcoma patient tumors - validating the intratumoral heterogeneous gene regulatory networks of Ewing sarcoma. More importantly, they have revealed that exogenous TGF-β may modify these distinct epigenetic and transcriptional signatures within Ewing sarcoma tumors. Overall, the manuscript highlights an important discovery of the heterogenous gene regulatory programming of Ewing sarcoma and further highlights the role that TGFB plays within the tumor microenvironment of Ewing sarcoma. There are some areas of ambiguity that require clarification to increase the impact of the manuscript.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors investigate the effects of aging on auditory system performance in understanding temporal fine structure (TFS), using both behavioral assessments and physiological recordings from the auditory periphery, specifically at the level of the auditory nerve. This dual approach aims to enhance understanding of the mechanisms underlying observed behavioral outcomes. The results indicate that aged animals exhibit deficits in behavioral tasks for distinguishing between harmonic and inharmonic sounds, which is a standard test for TFS coding. However, neural responses at the auditory nerve level do not show significant differences when compared to those in young, normal-hearing animals. The authors suggest that these behavioral deficits in aged animals are likely attributable to dysfunctions in the central auditory system, potentially as a consequence of aging.To further investigate this hypothesis, the study includes an animal group with selective synaptic loss between inner hair cells and auditory nerve fibers, a condition known as cochlear synaptopathy (CS). CS is a pathology associated with aging and is thought to be an early indicator of hearing impairment. Interestingly, animals with selective CS showed physiological and behavioral TFS coding similar to that of the young normal-hearing group, contrasting with the aged group's deficits. Despite histological evidence of significant synaptic loss in the CS group, the study concludes that CS does not appear to affect TFS coding, either behaviorally or physiologically.

Strengths:

This study addresses a critical health concern, enhancing our understanding of mechanisms underlying age-related difficulties in speech intelligibility, even when audiometric thresholds are within normal limits. A major strength of this work is the comprehensive approach, integrating behavioral assessments, auditory nerve (AN) physiology, and histology within the same animal subjects. This approach enhances understanding of the mechanisms underlying the behavioral outcomes and provides confidence in the actual occurrence of synapse loss and its effects.The study carefully manages controlled conditions by including five distinct groups: young normal-hearing animals, aged animals, animals with CS induced through low and high doses, and a sham surgery group. This careful setup strengthens the study's reliability and allows for meaningful comparisons across conditions. Overall, the manuscript is well-structured, with clear and accessible writing that facilitates comprehension of complex concepts.

Weakness:

The stimulus and task employed in this study are very helpful for behavioral research, and using the same stimulus setup for physiology is advantageous for mechanistic comparisons. However, I have some concerns about the limitations in auditory nerve (AN) physiology. Due to practical constraints, it is not feasible to record from a large enough population of fibers that covers a full range of best frequencies (BFs) and spontaneous rates (SRs) within each animal. This raises questions about how representative the physiological data are for understanding the mechanism in behavioral data. I am curious about the authors' interpretation of how this stimulus setup might influence results compared to methods used by Kale and Heinz (2010), who adjusted harmonic frequencies based on the characteristic frequency (CF) of recorded units. While, the harmonic frequencies in this study are fixed across all CFs, meaning that many AN fibers may not be tuned closely to the stimulus frequencies. If units are not responsive to the stimulus further clarification on detecting mistuning and phase locking to TFS effects within this setup would be valuable. Given the limited number of units per condition-sometimes as few as three for certain conditions-I wonder if CF-dependent variability might impact the results of the AN data in this study and discussing this factor can help with better understanding the results. While the use of the same stimuli for both behavioral and physiological recordings is understandable, a discussion on how this choice affects interpretation would be beneficial. In addition a 60 dB stimulus could saturate high spontaneous rate (HSR) AN fibers, influencing neural coding and phase-locking to TFS. Potentially separating SR groups, could help address these issues and improve interpretive clarity.

A deeper discussion on the role of fiber spontaneous rate could also enhance the study. How might considering SR groups affect AN results related to TFS coding? While some statistical measures are included in the supplement, a more detailed discussion in the main text could help in interpretation.

Although Figure S2 indicates no change in median SR, the high-dose treatment group lacks LSR fibers, suggesting a different distribution based on SR for different animal groups, as seen in similar studies on other species. A histogram of these results would be informative, as LSR fiber loss with CS-whether induced by ouabain in gerbils or noise in other animals-is well documented (e.g., Furman et al., 2013).

Although ouabain effects on gerbils have been explored in previous studies, since these data is already seems to be recorded for the animal in this study, a brief description of changes in auditory brainstem response (ABR) thresholds, wave 1 amplitudes, and tuning curves for animals with cochlear synaptopathy (CS) in this study would be beneficial. This would confirm that ouabain selectively affects synapses without impacting outer hair cells (OHCs). For aged animals, since ABR measurements were taken, comparing hearing differences between normal and aged groups could provide insights into the pathologies besides CS in aged animals. Additionally, examining subject variability in treatment effects on hearing and how this correlates with behavior and physiology would yield valuable insights. If limited space maybe a brief clarification or inclusion in supplementary could be good enough.

Another suggestion is to discuss the potential role of MOC efferent system and effect of anesthesia in reducing efferent effects in AN recordings. This is particularly relevant for aged animals, as CS might affect LSR fibers, potentially disrupting the medial olivocochlear (MOC) efferent pathway. Anesthesia could lessen MOC activity in both young and aged animals, potentially masking efferent effects that might be present in behavioral tasks. Young gerbils with functional efferent systems might perform better behaviorally, while aged gerbils with impaired MOC function due to CS might lack this advantage. A brief discussion on this aspect could potentially enhance mechanistic insights.

Lastly, although synapse counts did not differ between the low-dose treatment and NH I sham groups, separating these groups rather than combining them with the sham might reveal differences in behavior or AN results, particularly regarding the significance of differences between aged/treatment groups and the young normal-hearing group.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Grasper et al. present a combined analysis of the role of temporal mutagenesis in cancer, which includes both theoretical investigation and empirical analysis of point mutations in TCGA cancer patient cohorts. They find that temporal elevated mutation rates contribute to cancer fitness by allowing fast adaptation when the fitness drops (due to previous deleterious mutations). This may be relevant in the case of tumor suppressor genes (TSG), which follow the 2-hit hypothesis (i.e., biallelic 2 mutations are necessary to deactivate TS), and in cases where temporal mutagenesis occurs (e.g. high APOBEC, ROS). They provide evidence that this scenario is likely to occur in patients, in some cancer types. This is an interesting and potentially important result that merits the attention of the target audience. Nonetheless, I have some questions (detailed below) regarding the design of the study, the tools and parametrization of the theoretical analysis and the empirical analysis - that I think if addressed would make the paper more solid and the conclusion more substantiated.

Strengths:

Combined theoretical investigation with empirical analysis of cancer patients

Weaknesses:

Parametrization and systematic investigation of theoretical tools and their relevant to tumor evolution

Comments on revisions:

The authors have adequately addressed my suggestions. I think some of the details provided in some of the replies to my comments (specifically with regard to my points 1, 4, 6ii; minor point 6) could be integrated into relevant text in the introduction , discussion and methods, to help the readers follow better the model and its interpretation - but this is up to the authors to decide what to emphasize.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, Jeong and Choi examine neural correlates of behavior during a naturalistic foraging task in which rats must dynamically balance resource acquisition (foraging) with the risk of threat. Rats first learn to forage for sucrose reward from a spout, and when a threat is introduced (an attack-like movement from a "LobsterBot"), they adjust their behavior to continue foraging while balancing exposure to the threat, adopting anticipatory withdraw behaviors to avoid encounter with the LobsterBot. Using electrode recordings targeting the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), they identify heterogenous encoding of task variables across prelimbic and infralimbic cortex neurons, including correlates of distance to the reward/threat zone and correlates of both anticipatory and reactionary avoidance behavior. Based on analysis of population responses, they show that prefrontal cortex switches between different regimes of population activity to process spatial information or behavioral responses to threat in a context-dependent manner. Characterization of the heterogenous coding scheme by which frontal cortex represents information in different goal states is an important contribution to our understanding of brain mechanisms underlying flexible behavior in ecological settings.

Strengths:

As many behavioral neuroscience studies employ highly controlled task designs, relatively less is generally known about how the brain organizes navigation and behavioral selection in naturalistic settings, where environment states and goals are more fluid. Here, the authors take advantage of a natural challenge faced by many animals - how to forage for resources in an unpredictable environment - to investigate neural correlates of behavior when goal states are dynamic. They investigate how prefrontal cortex (mPFC) activity is structured to support different functional "modes" (here, between a navigational mode and a threat-sensitive foraging mode) for flexible behavior. Overall, an important strength and real value of this study is the design of the behavioral experiment, which is trial-structured, permitting strong statistical methods for neural data analysis, yet still rich enough for unconstrained, natural behavior structured by the animal's volitional goals. The experiment is also phased to measure behavioral changes as animals first encounter a threat, and then learn to adapt their foraging strategy to its presence. Characterization of this adaptation process is itself quite interesting and sets a foundation for further study of threat learning and risk management in the foraging context. Finally, the characterization of single-neuron and population dynamics in mPFC in this naturalistic setting with fluid goal states is an important contribution to the field. Previous studies have identified neural correlates of spatial and behavioral variables in frontal cortex, but how these representations are structured, or how they are dynamically adjusted when animals shift their goals, has been less clear. The authors synthesize their main conclusions into a conceptual model for how mPFC could encode task variables in a context-dependent manner, and provide a useful framework for thinking about circuit-level mechanisms that may support mode switching.

Weaknesses:

The task design in this study is intentionally stimulus-rich and places minimal constraint on the animal to preserve naturalistic behavior, and this introduces some confounds that place some limits on the interpretability of neural responses. For example, some variables which are the target of neural correlation analysis, such as spatial/proximity coding and coding of threat and threat-related behaviors, are naturally entwined. In their revisions, the authors have included extensive analyses and control conditions to disambiguate these confounds. Within the limits of their task design, this provides compelling evidence that mPFC neurons encode threat, decision, and spatial information in a context-dependent manner. Future experiment designs, which intentionally separate task contexts (e.g. navigation vs. foraging), could serve to further clarify the structure of coding across contexts and/or goal states.

While the study provides an important advance in our understanding of mPFC coding structure under naturalistic conditions, the study still lacks functional manipulations to establish any form of causality. This limitation is acknowledged in the text, and the report is careful not to over interpret suggestions of causal contribution, instead setting a foundation for future investigations.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In this manuscript, Chen et al. investigate the role of the membrane estrogen receptor GPR30 in spinal mechanisms of neuropathic pain. Using a wide variety of techniques, they first provide convincing evidence that GPR30 expression is restricted to neurons within the spinal cord, and that GPR30 neurons are well-positioned to receive descending input from the primary sensory cortex (S1). In addition, the authors put their findings in the context the previous knowledge in the field, presenting evidence demonstrating that GRP30 is expressed in the majority of CCK-expressing spinal neurons. Overall, this manuscript furthers our understanding of neural circuity that underlies neuropathic pain and will be of broad interest to neuroscientists, especially those interested in somatosensation. Nevertheless, the manuscript would be strengthened by additional analyses and clarification of data that is currently presented.

Strengths:

The authors present convincing evidence for expression of GPR30 in the spinal cord that is specific to spinal neurons. Similarly, complementary approaches including pharmacological inhibition and knockdown of GPR30 are used to demonstrate a role for the receptor in driving nerve injury-induced pain in rodent models.

Weaknesses:

Although steps were taken to put their data into the broader context of what is already known about the spinal circuitry of pain, more considerations and analyses would help the authors better achieve their goal. For instance, to determine whether GPR30 is expressed in excitatory or inhibitory neurons, more selective markers for these subtypes should be used over CamK2. Moreover, quantitative analysis of the extent of overlap between GPR30+ and CCK+ spinal neurons is needed to understand the potential heterogeneity of the GPR30 spinal neuron population, and to interpret experiments characterizing descending SI inputs onto GPR30 and CCK spinal neurons. Filling these gaps in knowledge would make their findings more solid.

Revised Manuscript Update:

In their revised manuscript, Chen et al. have added additional data that establishes GPR30 spinal neurons as a population of excitatory neurons, half of which express CCK. These data help to position GPR30 neurons in the existing framework of spinal neuron populations that contribute to neuropathic pain, strengthening the author's findings.

I have no new recommendations to the author's following this round of revisions.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In the Late Triassic (around 230 Ma ago), southern Wales and adjacent parts of England were a karst landscape. The caves and crevices accumulated remains of small vertebrates. These fossil-rich fissure fills are being exposed in limestone quarrying. In 2022 (reference 13 of the article), a partial articulated skeleton and numerous isolated bones from one fissure fill were named Cryptovaranoides microlanius and described as the oldest known squamate - the oldest known animal, by some 50 Ma, that is more closely related to snakes and some extant lizards than to other extant lizards. This would have considerable consequences for our understanding of the evolution of squamates and their closest relatives, especially for its speed and absolute timing, and was supported in the same paper by phylogenetic analyses based on different datasets.

In 2023, the present authors published a rebuttal (ref. 18) to the 2022 paper, challenging anatomical interpretations and the irreproducible referral of some of the isolated bones to Cryptovaranoides. Modifying the datasets accordingly, they found Cryptovaranoides outside Squamata and presented evidence that it is far outside. In 2024 (ref. 19), the original authors defended most of their original interpretation and presented some new data, some of it from newly referred isolated bones. The present article discusses anatomical features and the referral of isolated bones in more detail, documents some clear misinterpretations, argues against the widespread but not justifiable practice of referring isolated bones to the same species as long as there is merely no known evidence to the contrary, further argues against comparing newly recognized fossils to lists of diagnostic characters from the literature as opposed to performing phylogenetic analyses and interpreting the results, and finds Cryptovaranoides outside Squamata again.

Although a few of the character discussions can probably still be improved, I see no sign that the discussion is going in circles or otherwise becoming unproductive. I can even imagine that the present contribution will end it.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary and Strengths:

The very well-written manuscript by Lövestam et al. from the Scheres/Goedert groups entitled "Twelve phosphomimetic mutations induce the assembly of recombinant full-length human tau into paired helical filaments" demonstrates the in vitro production of the so-called paired helical filament Alzheimer's disease (AD) polymorph fold of tau amyloids through the introduction of 12 point mutations that attempt to mimic the disease-associated hyper-phosphorylation of tau. The presented work is very important because it enables disease-related scientific work, including seeded amyloid replication in cells, to be performed in vitro using recombinant-expressed tau protein.

Comments on revised version:

The manuscript is significantly improved, as also indicated by Reviewer 2, with the 100% formation of the PHF and the additional experiments to elucidate on the potential mechanism by the PTMs. This is a great work.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Activation of thermogenesis by cold exposure and dietary protein restriction are two lifestyle changes that impact health in humans and lead to weight loss in model organisms, here the mouse. How these affect liver and adipose tissues has not been thoroughly investigated side by side. In mice, the authors show that the responses to methionine restriction and cold exposure are tissue-specific while the effects on beige adipose are somewhat similar.

Strengths:

The strength of the work is the comparative approach, using transcriptomics and bioinformatic analyses to investigate the tissue-specific impact. The work was performed in mouse models and is state-of-the-art. This represents an important resource for researchers in the field of protein restriction and thermogenesis.

Weaknesses:

The findings are descriptive and the conclusions remain associative. The work is limited to mouse physiology and the human implications have not been investigated yet.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript describes a study examining the relationship between microsaccades and covert attention. This question has been widely investigated, with numerous studies showing that during sustained fixation, when subjects covertly attend to a peripheral stimulus, microsaccades tend to be biased toward the attended location. Here, the authors ask whether this microsaccade bias reflects a shift of covert attention or the maintenance of covert attention. They conclude that the bias is primarily driven by attention shifts, a finding that also helps reconcile the seemingly conflicting results of prior research, where the bias was questioned in paradigms that largely involved attention maintenance rather than shifting.

Strengths:

The paradigm and conclusions appear sound and supported by the results. A large sample size was used.

Weaknesses:

Weaknesses are mostly related to how the authors enforced fixation in the task, and clarifications are needed regarding some methodological details. A more direct comparison of the effect in the two experimental conditions is missing.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors report intracranial EEG findings from 12 epilepsy patients performing an associative recognition memory task under the influence of scopolamine. They show that scopolamine administered before encoding disrupts hippocampal theta phenomena and reduces memory performance, and that scopolamine administered after encoding but before retrieval impairs hippocampal theta phenomena (theta power, theta phase reset) and neural reinstatement but does not impair memory performance. This is an important study with exciting, novel results and translational implications. The manuscript is well-written, the analyses are thorough and comprehensive, and the results seem robust.

Strengths:

(1) Very rare experimental design (intracranial neural recordings in humans coupled with pharmacological intervention).

(2) Extensive analysis of different theta phenomena.

(3) Well-established task with different conditions for familiarity versus recollection.

(4) Clear presentation of findings and excellent figures.

(5) Translational implications for diseases with cholinergic dysfunction (e.g., AD).

(6) Findings challenge existing memory models, and the discussion presents interesting novel ideas.

Weaknesses:

(1) One of the most important results is the lack of memory impairment when scopolamine is administered after encoding but before retrieval (scopolamine block 2). The effect goes in the same direction as for scopolamine during encoding (p = 0.15). Could it be that this null effect is simply due to reduced statistical power (12 subjects with only one block per subject, while there are two blocks per subject for the condition with scopolamine during encoding), which may become significant with more patients? Is there actually an interaction effect indicating that memory impairment is significantly stronger when scopolamine is applied before encoding (Figure 1d)? Similar questions apply to familiarity versus recollection (lines 78-80). This is a very critical point that could alter major conclusions from this study, so more discussion/analysis of these aspects is needed. If there are no interaction effects, then the statements in lines 84-86 (and elsewhere) should be toned down.

(2) Further, could it simply be that scopolamine hadn't reached its major impact during retrieval after administration in block 2? Figure 2e speaks in favor of this possibility. I believe this is a critical limitation of the experimental design that should be discussed.

(3) It is not totally clear to me why slow theta was excluded from the reinstatement analysis. For example, despite an overall reduction in theta power, relative patterns may have been retained between encoding and recall. What are the results when using 1-128 Hz as input frequencies?

(4) In what way are the results affected by epileptic artifacts occurring during the task (in particular, IEDs)?

Joint Public Review:

Summary

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a widespread metabolic disease associated with obesity. Endoplasmic reticulum and calcium dysregulation are hallmarks of NAFLD. Here, the authors explore whether the secreted liver protein transthyretin (TTR), which has been previously shown to modulate calcium signaling in the context of insulin resistance, could also impact NAFLD. The study is motivated by a small cohort of NASH patients who show elevated TTR levels. The authors then overexpress TTR in two mouse obesogenic models, which leads to elevated liver lipid deposition. In contrast, liver-specific TTR knockdown improves some liver lipid levels, reduces inflammation markers, and improves glucose tolerance, overall improving the NAFLD markers. These phenotypic findings are overall convincing and largely consistent in two different diet models.

Because of TTR's connection to calcium regulation, the authors then assess whether the knockdown affects ER stress and impacts SERCA2 expression. However, the direct mechanistic evidence supporting the central claim that TTR physically interacts with and inhibits the SERCA2 calcium pump is preliminary and requires further validation. Whether the broader effects on lipid accumulation, inflammation markers, and glucose tolerance are mechanistically connected remains to be determined.

Strengths

The premise of the study is built on prior work from the authors identifying a link between increased transthyretin secretion and the development of insulin resistance, a related obesity condition. The in vivo studies are comprehensive, using human NASH samples, two distinct diet-induced mouse models (HFD and GAN), and in vitro hepatocyte models. The phenotypic data showing that TTR knockdown alleviates steatosis, inflammation, and insulin resistance are robust and convincing across these systems.

Weaknesses

The mechanistic studies in Figures 6-9 are incomplete. There are several issues encompassing experimental design, rigor, and interpretation that, if properly addressed, would make the study much stronger.

(1) Exogenous TTR that is endocytosed by cells is unlikely to ever find itself inside the lumen of the ER. Conversely, endogenous TTR that is produced in cells and that has not yet been secreted is almost certain to have an ER lumenal localization (as in Figures 7B and 9A, and where an apparent colocalization with SERCA is likely to be incidental). In a model where TTR, acting as a hepatokine, has inhibitory effects on SERCA, these would almost certainly be realized from the cytosolic side of the ER membrane-a region inaccessible to lumenal endogenous TTR. It is possible that the overexpression and knockdown of endogenous TTR have the effects seen due to its secretion and uptake (that is, cell-non-autonomous effects), but this possibility was not directly tested through Transwell or similar assays. Given the identity of TTR as a secretory pathway client protein, the only localization data for TTR that are unexpected are those suggesting an ER localization of exogenously added TTR (Figure 7A), but this localization seems to involve only a minor population of TTR, is hindered by a technical issue with cell permeabilization (see below), and lacks orthogonal approaches to convincingly demonstrate meaningful localization of exogenous TTR at the ER membrane.

(2) The experimental logic in Figure 8 is problematic. The authors use Thapsigargin (Tg), a potent and specific SERCA inhibitor, to probe SERCA function. However, since both Tg and TTR are proposed to inhibit SERCA2, the design lacks a critical control to demonstrate that TTR's effects are indeed mediated through SERCA2. SERCA2 activity should, in principle, be fully and irreversibly inhibited by Tg treatment, especially using such a high concentration (5 µM). If TTR's effect on calcium flux is exclusively through SERCA2, then SERCA2 impairment by TTR should have no additional effect in the presence of Tg, as Tg would already be maximally inhibiting the pump. The current data (Figures 8G-H) showing an effect of TTR-KD even with Tg present is difficult to interpret and may suggest off-target or compensatory mechanisms.

(3) The coIP data in Figure 9 need to be better controlled, including by overexpression of FLAG- and MYC-tagged irrelevant proteins, ideally also localized to the ER. The coIP of overexpressed TTR with endogenous SERCA in Figure 9D, in addition to requiring a more rigorous control, is itself of relatively low quality, with the appearance of a possible gel/blotting artifact.

(4) The ER stress markers in Figure 6 are not convincing. Molecular weight markers and positive controls (for example, livers from animals injected with tunicamycin) are missing. In addition, the species of ATF6 that is purportedly being detected (cleaved or full-length) is not indicated, and this protein is also notoriously difficult to detect with convincing specificity in mouse tissues. As well, CHOP protein is usually not detectable in control normal diet mouse livers, raising questions of whether the band identified as CHOP is, in fact, CHOP. These issues, along with the observation that ER stress-regulated RNAs are not altered (Figure S5), raise the question of whether ER stress is involved at all. Likewise, the quantification of SERCA2 levels from Figure 6 requires more rigor. For all blots, it isn't clear that analyzing only 3 or 4 of the animals provides adequate and unbiased power to detect differences; in addition, in Figure 6C, at least the SERCA2 exposure (assuming SERCA2 is being specifically detected; see above) is well beyond the linear range of quantification.

In addition, the following important issues were raised:

(5) n=4 for overexpression might not provide adequate statistical power.

(6) The error for human NASH samples and controls in Figure 1A is surprisingly small. Larger gene expression data sets from NASH cohorts exist and should be used to test the finding in a larger population.

(7) For experiments involving two independent variables (e.g., diet and TTR manipulation, as in Figures 2, 3, 4, 5), a Two-way ANOVA must be used instead of One-way ANOVA or t-tests. Also, the ND-TTR-KD group is missing - these data are an essential control to show the specificity of the knockdown and its effects in a non-diseased state.

(8) Figure 7A: The co-localization signal between TTR-Alexa488 and the ER marker is not strong or convincing, which could be due to the inappropriate immunofluorescence protocol used, of permeabilization prior to fixation. The standard and recommended order is fixation first (to preserve cellular architecture), followed by permeabilization.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In this paper, Stanojcic and colleagues attempt to map sites of DNA replication initiation in the genome of the African trypanosome, Trypanosoma brucei. Their approach to this mapping is to isolate 'short-nascent strands' (SNSs), a strategy adopted previously in other eukaryotes (including in the related parasite Leishmania major), which involves isolation of DNA molecules whose termini contain replication-priming RNA. By mapping the isolated and sequenced SNSs to the genome (SNS-seq), the authors suggest that they have identified origins, which they localise to intergenic (strictly, inter-CDS) regions within polycistronic transcription units and suggest display very extensive overlap with previously mapped R-loops in the same loci. Finally, having defined locations of SNS-seq mapping, they suggest they have identified G4 and nucleosome features of origins, again using previously generated data. Though there is merit in applying a new approach to understand DNA replication initiation in T. brucei, where previous work has used MFA-seq and ChIP of a subunit of the Origin Replication Complex (ORC), there are two significant deficiencies in the study that must be addressed to ensure rigour and accuracy.

(1) The suggestion that the SNS-seq data is mapping DNA replication origins that are present in inter-CDS regions of the polycistronic transcription units of T. brucei is novel and does not agree with existing data on the localisation of ORC1/CDC6, and it is very unclear if it agrees with previous mapping of DNA replication by MFA-seq due to the way the authors have presented this correlation. For these reasons, the findings essentially rely on a single experimental approach, which must be further tested to ensure SNS-seq is truly detecting origins. Indeed, in this regard, the very extensive overlap of SNS-seq signal with RNA-DNA hybrids should be tested further to rule out the possibility that the approach is mapping these structures and not origins.

(2) The authors' presentation of their SNS-seq data is too limited and therefore potentially provides a misleading view of DNA replication in the genome of T. brucei. The work is presented through a narrow focus on SNS-seq signal in the inter-CDS regions within polycistronic transcription units, which constitute only part of the genome, ignoring both the transcription start and stop sites at the ends of the units and the large subtelomeres, which are mainly transcriptionally silent. The authors must present a fuller and more balanced view of SNS-seq mapping across the whole genome to ensure full understanding and clarity.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The novel advance by Wang et al is in the demonstration that, relative to a standard extinction procedure, the retrieval-extinction procedure more effectively suppresses responses to a conditioned threat stimulus when testing occurs just minutes after extinction. The authors provide solid evidence to show that this "short-term" suppression of responding involves engagement of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.

Strengths:

Overall, the study is well-designed and the results are valuable. There are, however, a few issues in the way that it is introduced and discussed. It would have been useful if the authors could have more explicitly related the results to a theory - it would help the reader understand why the results should have come out the way that they did. More specific comments are presented below.

Please note: The authors appear to have responded to my original review twice. It is not clear that they observed the public review that I edited after the first round of revisions. As part of these edits, I removed the entire section titled Clarifications, Elaborations and Edits

Theory and Interpretation of Results

(1) It is difficult to appreciate why the first trial of extinction in a standard protocol does NOT produce the retrieval-extinction effect. This applies to the present study as well as others that have purported to show a retrieval-extinction effect. The importance of this point comes through at several places in the paper. E.g., the two groups in study 1 experienced a different interval between the first and second CS extinction trials; and the results varied with this interval: a longer interval (10 min) ultimately resulted in less reinstatement of fear than a shorter interval. Even if the different pattern of results in these two groups was shown/known to imply two different processes, there is nothing in the present study that addresses what those processes might be. That is, while the authors talk about mechanisms of memory updating, there is little in the present study that permits any clear statement about mechanisms of memory. The references to a "short-term memory update" process do not help the reader to understand what is happening in the protocol.

In reply to this point, the authors cite evidence to suggest that "an isolated presentation of the CS+ seems to be important in preventing the return of fear expression." They then note the following: "It has also been suggested that only when the old memory and new experience (through extinction) can be inferred to have been generated from the same underlying latent cause, the old memory can be successfully modified (Gershman et al., 2017). On the other hand, if the new experiences are believed to be generated by a different latent cause, then the old memory is less likely to be subject to modification. Therefore, the way the 1st and 2nd CS are temporally organized (retrieval-extinction or standard extinction) might affect how the latent cause is inferred and lead to different levels of fear expression from a theoretical perspective." This merely begs the question: why might an isolated presentation of the CS+ result in the subsequent extinction experiences being allocated to the same memory state as the initial conditioning experiences?<br /> This is not addressed in the paper. The study was not designed to address this question; and that the question did not need to be addressed for the set of results to be interesting. However, understanding how and why the retrieval-extinction protocol produces the effects that it does in the long-term test of fear expression would greatly inform our understanding of how and why the retrieval-extinction protocol has the effects that it does in the short-term tests of fear expression. To be clear; the results of the present study are very interesting - there is no denying that. I am not asking the authors to change anything in response to this point. It simply stands as a comment on the work that has been done in this paper and the area of research more generally.

(2) The discussion of memory suppression is potentially interesting but raises many questions. That is, memory suppression is invoked to explain a particular pattern of results but I, as the reader, have no sense of why a fear memory would be better suppressed shortly after the retrieval-extinction protocol compared to the standard extinction protocol; and why this suppression is NOT specific to the cue that had been subjected to the retrieval-extinction protocol. I accept that the present study was not intended to examine aspects of memory suppression, and that it is a hypothesis proposed to explain the results collected in this study. I am not asking the authors to change anything in response to this point. Again, it simply stands as a comment on the work that has been done in this paper.

(3) The authors have inserted the following text in the revised manuscript: "It should be noted that while our long-term amnesia results were consistent with the fear memory reconsolidation literatures, there were also studies that failed to observe fear prevention (Chalkia, Schroyens, et al., 2020; Chalkia, Van Oudenhove, et al., 2020; Schroyens et al., 2023). Although the memory reconsolidation framework provides a viable explanation for the long-term amnesia, more evidence is required to validate the presence of reconsolidation, especially at the neurobiological level (Elsey et al., 2018). While it is beyond the scope of the current study to discuss the discrepancies between these studies, one possibility to reconcile these results concerns the procedure for the retrieval-extinction training. It has been shown that the eligibility for old memory to be updated is contingent on whether the old memory and new observations can be inferred to have been generated by the same latent cause (Gershman et al., 2017; Gershman and Niv, 2012). For example, prevention of the return of fear memory can be achieved through gradual extinction paradigm, which is thought to reduce the size of prediction errors to inhibit the formation of new latent causes (Gershman, Jones, et al., 2013). Therefore, the effectiveness of the retrieval-extinction paradigm might depend on the reliability of such paradigm in inferring the same underlying latent cause." ***It is perfectly fine to state that "the effectiveness of the retrieval-extinction paradigm might depend on the reliability of such paradigm in inferring the same underlying latent cause..." This is not uninteresting; but it also isn't saying much. Ideally, the authors would have included some statement about factors that are likely to determine whether one is or isn't likely to see a retrieval-extinction effect, grounded in terms of the latent state theories that have been invoked here. Presumably, the retrieval-extinction protocol has variable effects because of procedural differences that affect whether subjects infer the same underlying latent cause when shifted into extinction. Surely, the clinical implications of any findings are seriously curtailed unless one understands when a protocol is likely to produce an effect; and why the effect occurs at all? This question is rhetorical. I am not asking the authors to change anything in response to this point. Again, it stands as a comment on the work that has been done in this paper; and remains a comment after insertion of the new text, which is acknowledged and appreciated.

(4) The authors find different patterns of responses to CS1 and CS2 when they were tested 30 min after extinction versus 24 h after extinction. On this basis, they infer distinct memory update mechanisms. However, I still can't quite see why the different patterns of responses at these two time points after extinction need to be taken to infer different memory update mechanisms. That is, the different patterns of responses at the two time points could be indicative of the same "memory update mechanism" in the sense that the retrieval-extinction procedure induces a short-term memory suppression that serves as the basis for the longer-term memory suppression (i.e., the reconsolidation effect). My pushback on this point is based on the notion of what constitutes a memory update mechanism; and is motivated by what I take to be a rather loose use of language/terminology in the reconsolidation literature and this paper specifically (for examples, see the title of the paper and line 2 of the abstract).

To be clear: I accept the authors' reply that "The focus of the current manuscript is to demonstrate that the retrieval-extinction paradigm can also facilitate a short-term fear memory deficit measured by SCR". However, I disagree with the claim that any short-term fear memory deficit must be indicative of "update mechanisms other than reconsolidation", which appears on Line 27 in the abstract and very much indicates the spirit of the paper. To make the point: the present study has examined the effectiveness of a retrieval-extinction procedure in suppressing fear responses 30 min, 6 hours and 24 hours after extinction. There are differences across the time points in terms of the level of suppression, its cue specificity, and its sensitivity to manipulation of activity in the dlPFC. This is perfectly interesting when not loaded with additional baggage re separable mechanisms of memory updating at the short and long time points: there is simply no evidence in this study or anywhere else that the short-term deficit in suppression of fear responses has anything whatsoever to do with memory updating. It can be exactly what is implied by the description: a short-term deficit in the suppression of fear responses. Again, this stands as a comment on the work that has been done; and remains a comment for the revised paper.

(5) It is not clear why thought control ability ought to relate to any aspect of the suppression that was evident in the 30 min tests - that is, I accept the correlation between thought control ability and performance in the 30 min tests but would have liked to know why this was looked at in the first place and what, if anything, it means. The issue at hand is that, as best as I can tell, there is no theory to which the result from the short- and long-term tests can be related. The attempts to fill this gap with reference to phenomena like retrieval-induced forgetting are appreciated but raise more questions than answers. This is especially clear in the discussion, where it is acknowledged/stated: "Inspired by the similarities between our results and suppression-induced declarative memory amnesia (Gagnepain et al., 2017), we speculate that the retrieval-extinction procedure might facilitate a spontaneous memory suppression process and thus yield a short-term amnesia effect. Accordingly, the activated fear memory induced by the retrieval cue would be subjected to an automatic fear memory suppression through the extinction training (Anderson and Floresco, 2022)." There is nothing in the subsequent discussion to say why this should have been the case other than the similarity between results obtained in the present study and those in the literature on retrieval induced forgetting, where the nature of the testing is quite different. Again, this is simply a comment on the work that has been done - no change is required for the revised paper.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The study examines human biases in a regime-change task, in which participants have to report the probability of a regime change in the face of noisy data. The behavioral results indicate that humans display systematic biases, in particular, overreaction in stable but noisy environments and underreaction in volatile settings with more certain signals. fMRI results suggest that a frontoparietal brain network is selectively involved in representing subjective sensitivity to noise, while the vmPFC selectively represents sensitivity to the rate of change.

Strengths:

- The study relies on a task that measures regime-change detection primarily based on descriptive information about the noisiness and rate of change. This distinguishes the study from prior work using reversal-learning or change-point tasks in which participants are required to learn these parameters from experiences. The authors discuss these differences comprehensively.

- The study uses a simple Bayes-optimal model combined with model fitting, which seems to describe the data well. The model is comprehensively validated.

- The authors apply model-based fMRI analyses that provide a close link to behavioral results, offering an elegant way to examine individual biases.

Weaknesses:

The authors have adequately addressed most of my prior concerns.

My only remaining comment concerns the z-test of the correlations. I agree with the non-parametric test based on bootstrapping at the subject level, providing evidence for significant differences in correlations within the left IFG and IPS.

However, the parametric test seems inadequate to me. The equation presented is described as the Fisher z-test, but the numerator uses the raw correlation coefficients (r) rather than the Fisher-transformed values (z). To my understanding, the subtraction should involve the Fisher z-scores, not the raw correlations.

More importantly, the Fisher z-test in its standard form assumes that the correlations come from independent samples, as reflected in the denominator (which uses the n of each independent sample). However, in my opinion, the two correlations are not independent but computed within-subject. In such cases, parametric tests should take into account the dependency. I believe one appropriate method for the current case (correlated correlation coefficients sharing a variable [behavioral slope]) is explained here:

Meng, X.-l., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Comparing correlated correlation coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 111(1), 172-175. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.111.1.172

It should be implemented here:

Diedenhofen B, Musch J (2015) cocor: A Comprehensive Solution for the Statistical Comparison of Correlations. PLoS ONE 10(4): e0121945. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121945

My recommendation is to verify whether my assumptions hold, and if so, perform a test that takes correlated correlations into account. Or, to focus exclusively on the non-parametric test.

In any case, I recommend a short discussion of these findings and how the authors interpret that some of the differences in correlations are not significant.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Silbaugh, Koster and Hansel investigated how the cerebellar climbing fiber (CF) signals influence neuronal activity and plasticity in mouse primary somatosensory (S1) cortex. They found that optogenetic activation of CFs in the cerebellum modulates responses of cortical neurons to whisker stimulation in a cell-type-specific manner and suppresses potentiation of layer 2/3 pyramidal neurons induced by repeated whisker stimulation. This suppression of plasticity by CF activation is mediated through modulation of VIP- and SST-positive interneurons. Using transsynaptic tracing and chemogenetic approaches, the authors identified a pathway from the cerebellum through the zona incerta and the thalamic posterior medial (POm) nucleus to the S1 cortex, which underlies this functional modulation.

The authors have addressed all the necessary points.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The study aims to determine the role of Slit-Robo signaling in the development and patterning of cardiac innervation, a key process in heart development. Despite the well-studied roles of Slit axon guidance molecules in the development of the central nervous system, their roles in the peripheral nervous system are less clear. Thus, the present study addresses an important question. The study uses genetic knockout models to investigate how Slit2, Slit3, Robo1, and Robo2 contribute to cardiac innervation

Using constitutive and cell type-specific knockout mouse models, they show that the loss of endothelial-derived Slit2 reduces cardiac innervation. Additionally, Robo1 knockout, but not Robo2 knockout, recapitulated the Slit2 knockout effect on cardiac innervation, leading to the conclusion that Slit2-Robo1 signaling drives sympathetic innervation in the heart. Finally, the authors also show a reduction in isoproterenol-stimulated heart rate but not basal heart rate in the absence of endothelial Slit2.

The conclusions of this paper are mostly well supported by the data, but there are several limitations:

(1) It is well established that Slit ligands undergo proteolytic cleavage, generating N- and C-terminal fragments with distinct biological functions. Full-length Slit proteins and their fragments differ in cell association, with the N-terminal fragment typically remaining membrane-bound, while the C-terminal fragment is more diffusible. This distinction is crucial when evaluating the role of Slit proteins secreted by different cell types in the heart. However, this study does not examine or discuss the specific contributions of different Slit2 fragments, limiting its mechanistic insight into how Slit2 regulates cardiac innervation. While these points are mentioned in the discussion, they are not incorporated into the interpretation of the data or the presented model.

(2) The endothelial-specific deletion of Slit2 leads to its loss in endothelial cells across various organs and tissues in the developing embryo. Therefore, the phenotypes observed in the heart may be influenced by defects in other parts of the embryo, such as the CNS or sympathetic ganglia, and this possibility cannot be ruled out. The data presented in the manuscript does not dissect the relative contributions of endothelial Slit2 loss in the heart versus secondary effects arising from other organ systems. Without tissue-specific rescue or complementary conditional models, it remains unclear whether the observed cardiac phenotypes are a direct consequence of local endothelial Slit2 deficiency or an indirect outcome of broader developmental perturbations.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This work presents a modality-agnostic decoder trained on a large fMRI dataset (SemReps-8K), in which subjects viewed natural images and corresponding captions. The decoder predicts stimulus content from brain activity irrespective of the input modality and performs on par with-or even outperforms-modality-specific decoders. Its success depends more on the diversity of brain data (multimodal vs. unimodal) than on whether the feature-extraction models are visual, linguistic, or multimodal. Particularly, the decoder shows strong performance in decoding imagery content. These results suggest that the modality-agnostic decoder effectively leverages shared brain information across image and caption tasks.

Strengths:

(1) The modality-agnostic decoder compellingly leverages multimodal brain information, improving decoding accuracy-particularly for non-sensory input such as captions-showing high methodological and application value.

(2) The dataset is a substantial and well-controlled contribution, with >8,000 image-caption trials per subject and careful matching of stimuli across modalities-an essential resource for testing theories about different representational modalities.

Weakness:

In the searchlight analysis aimed at identifying modality-invariant representations, although the combined use of four decoding conditions represents a relatively strict approach, the underlying logic remains unclear. The modality-agnostic decoder has demonstrated strong sensitivity in decoding brain activity, as shown earlier in the paper, whereas the cross-decoding with modality-specific decoders is inherently more conservative. If, as the authors note, the modality-agnostic decoder might have learned to leverage different features to project stimuli from different modalities, then taking the union of conditions would seem more appropriate. Conversely, if the goal is to obtain a more conservative result, why not focus solely on the cross-decoding conditions? The relationships among the four decoding conditions are not clearly delineated, and the contrasts between them might themselves yield valuable insights. As it stands, however, the logic of the current approach is not straightforward.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This work compiles a comprehensive atlas of ncORFs across mammalian tissues and cell types, derived from reanalysis of ~400 public ribosome profiling datasets. The authors then evaluate cross-species conservation and functional signatures, proposing that evolutionarily ancient ncORFs tend to have higher translation potential, stronger expression, and closer relationships with canonical coding sequences.

Strengths:

In general, the study provides a large-scale and timely resource of annotated ncORFs, which could be broadly useful for the community. The authors collected ~400 public ribosome profiling datasets for annotations of ncORFs, which, to my best knowledge, is the largest collection of data for such a purpose. The catalog could facilitate future investigations into ncORF biology and broaden understanding of the coding potential of the "non-coding" genome.

Weaknesses:

Based on the ncORF catalog, some of the analyses were not properly done. Some of the results are descriptive.

(1) Bias and representations of the data source. Public ribo-seq datasets are unevenly distributed across tissues and cell lines, raising concerns about heterogeneity and underrepresentation of certain contexts. This may limit the generalizability of the catalog.

(2) The discussion on modular domains of ncORFs is unclear, and the claim that they may originate via TE-related mechanisms is not well supported. Stronger evidence or clearer reasoning is needed.

(3) The conservation comparisons are not fully convincing. Figure S7 shows only mild differences between ncORFs and CDS, and statistical significance is not clearly demonstrated.<br /> Comparisons with other non-coding RNAs should be added, and overlapping sequences between ncORFs and CDS should be excluded to avoid bias.

(4) Figure 3 indicates that some ncORFs are subject to evolutionary constraints. This is not surprising. The authors should provide further analyses on more detailed features of these "conserved" ncORFs vs. the "non-conserved" ones. Some pretty informative works have been done in Drosophila, worms, mice, and humans. Figure 3 suggests some ncORFs are under evolutionary constraint, but this is not unexpected. More granular analyses contrasting "conserved" versus "non-conserved" ncORFs would be informative. In fact, small ORFs, especially uORFs, have been extensively studied for their functions and cross-species conservation. The authors should explicitly show what is new here in their analyses.

(5) Translation levels are reported using RPF counts. However, translation efficiency (normalized by RNA expression) is a more appropriate measure to account for expression heterogeneity.

(6) The correlation analyses between ncORF translation levels and PhyloCSF are confusing and largely descriptive. These sections need sharper framing and clearer conclusions.

(7) Public ribo-seq datasets, generated by different research labs, are known for their strong batch effects. Representations of tissues and cells are also very unbalanced. Therefore, the co-translation analysis between ncORFs and canonical CDS is not well controlled. This should be done by referring to a recent large-scale ribo-seq meta-analysis (Nat Biotechnol. 2025. doi: 10.1038/s41587-025-02718-5).

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

RNA modification has emerged as an important modulator of protein synthesis. Recent studies found that mRNA can be acetylated (ac4c), which can alter mRNA stability and translation efficiency. The role of ac4c mRNA in the brain has not been studied. In this paper, the authors convincingly show that ac4c occurs selectively on mRNAs localized at synapses, but not cell-wide. The ac4c "writer" NAT10 is highly expressed in hippocampal excitatory neurons. Using NAT10 conditional KO mice, decreasing levels of NAT10 resulted in decreases in ac4c of mRNAs and also showed deficits in LTP and spatial memory. These results reveal a potential role for ac4c mRNA in memory consolidation.

This is a new type of mRNA regulation that seems to act specifically at synapses, which may help elucidate the mechanisms of local protein synthesis in memory consolidation. Overall, the studies are well carried out and presented. There is some confusion over training/learning vs memory, and the precise mRNAs that require ac4c to carry out memory consolidation are not clear. The specificity of changes occurring only at the end of training, rather than after each day of training, is interesting and warrants some investigation. This timeframe is puzzling because the authors show that ac4c can dynamically increase within 1 hour after cLTP.

Strengths:

(1) The studies show that mRNA acetylation (ac4c) occurs selectively at mRNAs localized to synaptic compartments (using synaptoneurosome preps).

(2) The authors identify a few key mRNAs acetylated and involved in plasticity and memory - e.g., Arc.

(3) The authors show that Ac4c is induced by learning and neuronal activity (cLTP).

(4) The studies show that the ac4c "writer" NAT10 is expressed in hippocampal excitatory neurons and may be relocated to synapses after cLTP/learning induction.

(5) The authors used floxed NAT10 mice injected with AAV-Cre in the hippocampus (NAT10 cKO) to show that NAT10 may play a role in LTP maintenance and memory consolidation (using the Morris Water Maze).

Weaknesses:

(1) The authors use a confusing timeline for their behavioral experiments, i.e, day 1 is the first day of training in the MWM, and day 6 is the probe trial, but in reality, day 6 is the first day after the last training day. So this is really day 1 post-training, and day 20 is 14 days post-training.

(2) The authors inaccurately use memory as a term. During the training period in the MWM, the animals are learning, while memory is only probed on day 6 (after learning). Thus, day 6 reflects memory consolidation processes after learning has taken place.

(3) The NAT10 cKO mice are useful to test the causal role of NAT10 in ac4a and plasticity/memory, but all the experiments used AAV-CRE injections in the dorsal hippocampus that showed somewhat modest decreases in total NAT10 protein levels. For these experiments, it would be better to cross the NAT10 floxed animals to CRE lines where a better knockdown of NAT10 can be achieved, with less variability.

(4) Because knockdown is only modest (~50%), it is not clear if the remaining ac4c on mRNAs is due to remaining NAT10 protein or due to an alternative writer (as the authors pose).

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In their manuscript, Richter and colleagues comprehensively investigate the cell wall recycling pathway in the model alphaproteobacterium Caulobacter crescentus using biochemical, imaging, and genetic approaches. They clearly demonstrate that this organism encodes a functional peptidoglycan recycling pathway and demonstrate the activities of many enzymes and transporters within this pathway. They leverage imaging and growth assays to demonstrate that mutants in peptidoglycan recycling have varying degrees of beta-lactam sensitivity as well as morphological and cell division defects. They propose that, rather than impacting the levels or activity of the major beta-lactamase, BlaA, defects in PG recycling lead to beta-lactam sensitivity by limiting the availability of new cell wall precursors. The findings will be of interest to those in the field of bacterial cell wall biochemistry, antibiotics and antibiotic resistance, and bacterial morphogenesis.

Strengths:

Overall, the manuscript is laid out logically, and the data are comprehensive, quantitative, and rigorous. The mutants and their phenotypes will be a valuable resource for Caulobacter researchers.

Weaknesses:

The only major missing piece is the complementation of mutants to demonstrate that loss of the targeted gene is responsible for the observed phenotypes.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The paper by Chen et al describes the role of neuronal themo-TRPV3 channels in the firing of cortical neurons at fever temperature range. The authors began by demonstrating that exposure to infrared light increasing ambient temperature causes body temperature rise to fever level above 38{degree sign}C. Subsequently, they showed that at the fever temperature of 39{degree sign}C, the increased spike threshold (ST) increased in both populations (P12-14 and P7-8) of cortical excitatory pyramidal neurons (PNs). However, the spike number only decreased in P7-8 PNs, while it remained stable in P12-14 PNs at 39{degree sign}C. In addition, the fever temperature also reduced the late peak postsynaptic potential (PSP) in P12-14 PNs. The authors further characterized the firing properties of cortical P12-14 PNs, identifying two types: STAY PNs that retained spiking at 30{degree sign}C, 36{degree sign}C and 39{degree sign}C, and STOP PNs that stopped spiking upon temperature change. They further extended their and analysis and characterization to striatal medium spiny neurons (MSNs) and found that STAY MSNs and PNs shared same ST temperature sensitivity. Using small molecule tools, they further identified that themo-TRPV3 currents in cortical PNs increased in response to temperature elevation, but not TRPV4 currents. The authors concluded that during fever, neuronal firing stability is largely maintained by sensory STAY PNs and MSNs that express functional TRPV3 channels. Overall, this study is well designed and executed with substantial controls, some interesting findings and quality of data.

Comments on revisions:

My previous concerns have been addressed in this revised manuscript.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In the study by Roeder and colleagues, the authors aim to identify the psychophysiological markers of trust during the evaluation of matching or mismatching AI decision-making. Specifically, they aim to characterize through brain activity how the decision made by an AI can be monitored throughout time in a two-step decision-making task. The objective of this study is to unfold, through continuous brain activity recording, the general information processing sequence while interacting with an artificial agent, and how internal as well as external information interact and modify this processing. Additionally, the authors provide a subset of factors affecting this information processing for both decisions.

Strengths:

The study addresses a wide and important topic of the value attributed to AI decisions and their impact on our own confidence in decision-making. It especially questions some of the factors modulating the dynamical adaptation of trust in AI decisions. Factors such as perceived reliability, type of image, mismatch, or participants' bias toward one response or the other are very relevant to the question in human-AI interactions.

Interestingly, the authors also question the processing of more ambiguous stimuli, with no real ground truth. This gets closer to everyday life situations where people have to make decisions in uncertain environments. Having a better understanding of how those decisions are made is very relevant in many domains.

Also, the method for processing behavioral and especially EEG data is overall very robust and is what is currently recommended for statistical analyses for group studies. Additionally, authors provide complete figures with all robustness evaluation information. The results and statistics are very detailed. This promotes confidence, but also replicability of results.

An additional interesting method aspect is that it is addressing a large window of analysis and the interaction between three timeframes (evidence accumulation pre-decision, decision-making, post-AI decision processing) within the same trials. This type of analysis is quite innovative in the sense that it is not yet a standard in complex experimental designs. It moves forward from classical short-time windows and baseline ERP analysis.

Weaknesses:

This manuscript raises several conceptual and theoretical considerations that are not necessarily answered by the methods (especially the task) used. Even though the authors propose to assess trust dynamics and violations in cooperative human-AI teaming decision-making, I don't believe their task resolves such a question. Indeed, there is no direct link between the human decision and the AI decision. They do not cooperate per se, and the AI decision doesn't seem, from what I understood to have an impact on the participants' decision making. The authors make several assumptions regarding trust, feedback, response expectation, and "classification" (i.e., match vs. mismatch) which seem far stretched when considering the scientific literature on these topics.

Unlike what is done for the data processing, the authors have not managed to take the big picture of the theoretical implications of their results. A big part of this study's interpretation aims to have their results fit into the theoretical box of the neural markers of performance monitoring.

Overall, the analysis method was very robust and well-managed, but the experimental task they have set up does not allow to support their claim. Here, they seem to be assessing the impact of a mismatch between two independent decisions.

Nevertheless, this type of work is very important to various communities. First, it addresses topical concerns associated with the introduction of AI in our daily life and decisions, but it also addresses methodological difficulties that the EEG community has been having to move slowly away from the static event-based short-timeframe analyses onto a more dynamic evaluation of the unfolding of cognitive processes and their interactions. The topic of trust toward AI in cooperative decision making has also been raised by many communities, and understanding the dynamics of trust, as well as the factors modulating it, is of concern to many high-risk environments, or even everyday life contexts. Policy makers are especially interested in this kind of research output.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript provides a comprehensive systematic analysis of envelope-containing Ty3/gypsy retrotransposons (errantiviruses) across metazoan genomes, including both invertebrates and ancient animal lineages. Using iterative tBLASTn mining of over 1,900 genomes, the authors catalog 1,512 intact retrotransposons with uninterrupted gag, pol, and env open reading frames. They show that these elements are widespread-present in most metazoan phyla, including cnidarians, ctenophores, and tunicates-with active proliferation indicated by their multicopy status. Phylogenetic analyses distinguish "ancient" and "insect" errantivirus clades, while structural characterization (including AlphaFold2 modeling) reveals two major env types: paramyxovirus F-like and herpesvirus gB-like proteins. Although bot envelope types were identified in previous analyses two decades ago, the evolutionary provenance of these envelope genes was almost rudimentary and anecdotal (I can say this because I authored one of these studies). The results in the present study support an ancient origin for env acquisition in metazoan Ty3/gypsy elements, with subsequent vertical inheritance and limited recombination between env and pol domains. The paper also proposes an expanded definition of 'errantivirus' for env-carrying Ty3/gypsy elements outside Drosophila.

Strengths:

(1) Comprehensive Genomic Survey:<br /> The breadth of the genome search across non-model metazoan phyla yields an impressive dataset covering evolutionary breadth, with clear documentation of search iterations and validation criteria for intact elements.

(2) Robust Phylogenetic Inference:<br /> The use of maximum likelihood trees on both pol and env domains, with thorough congruence analysis, convincingly separates ancient from lineage-specific elements and demonstrates co-evolution of env and pol within clades.

(3) Structural Insights:<br /> AlphaFold2-based predictions provide high-confidence structural evidence that both env types have retained fusion-competent architectures, supporting the hypothesis of preserved functional potential.

(4) Novelty and Scope:<br /> The study challenges previous assumptions of insect-centric or recent env acquisition and makes a compelling case for a Pre-Cambrian origin, significantly advancing our understanding of animal retroelement diversity and evolution. THIS IS A MAJOR ADVANCE.

(5) Data Transparency:<br /> I appreciate that all data, code, and predicted structures are made openly available, facilitating reproducibility and future comparative analyses.

Major Weaknesses

(1) Functional Evidence Gaps:<br /> The work rests largely on sequence and structure prediction. No direct expression or experimental validation of envelope gene function or infectivity outside Drosophila is attempted, which would be valuable to corroborate the inferred roles of these glycoproteins in non-insect lineages. At least for some of these species, there are RNA-seq datasets that could be leveraged.

(2) Horizontal Transfer vs. Loss Hypotheses:<br /> The discussion argues primarily for vertical inheritance, but the somewhat sporadic phylogenetic distributions and long-branch effects suggest that loss and possibly rare horizontal events may contribute more than acknowledged. Explicit quantitative tests for horizontal transfer, or reconciliation analyses, would strengthen this conclusion. It's also worth pointing out that, unlike retrotransposons that can be found in genomes, any potential related viral envelopes must, by definition, have a spottier distribution due to sampling. I don't think this challenges any of the conclusions, but it must be acknowledged as something that could affect the strength of this conclusion

(3) Limited Taxon Sampling for Certain Phyla:<br /> Despite the impressive breadth, some ancient lineages (e.g., Porifera, Echinodermata) are negative, but the manuscript does not fully explore whether this reflects real biological absence, assembly quality, or insufficient sampling. A more systematic treatment of negative findings would clarify claims of ubiquity. However, I also believe this falls beyond the scope of this study.

(4) Mechanistic Ambiguity:<br /> The proposed model that env-containing elements exploit ovarian somatic niches is plausible but extrapolated from Drosophila data; for most taxa, actual tissue specificity, lifecycle, or host interaction mechanisms remain speculative and, to me, a bit unreasonable.

Minor Weaknesses:

(1) Terminology and Nomenclature:<br /> The paper introduces and then generalizes the term "errantivirus" to non-insect elements. While this is logical, it may confuse readers familiar with the established, Drosophila-centric definition if not more explicitly clarified throughout. I also worry about changes being made without any input from the ICTV nomenclature committee, which just went through a thorough reclassification. Nevertheless, change is expected, and calling them all errantiviruses is entirely reasonable.

(2) Figures and Supplementary Data Navigation:<br /> Some key phylogenies and domain alignments are found only in supplementary figures, occasionally hindering readability for non-expert audiences. Selected main-text inclusion of representative trees would benefit accessibility.

(3) ORF Integrity Thresholds:<br /> The cutoff choices for defining "intact" elements (e.g., numbers/placement of stop codons, length ranges) are reasonable but only lightly justified. More rationale or sensitivity analysis would improve confidence in the inclusion criteria. For example, how did changing these criteria change the number of intact elements?

(4) Minor Typos/Formatting:<br /> The paper contains sporadic typographical errors and formatting glitches (e.g., misaligned figure labels, unrendered symbols) that should be addressed.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

From a forward genetic mosaic mutant screen using EMS, the authors identify mutations in glucosylceramide synthase (GlcT), a rate-limiting enzyme for glycosphingolipid (GSL) production, that result in ee tumors. Multiple genetic experiments strongly support the model that the mutant phenotype caused by GlcT loss is due to by failure of conversion of ceramide into glucosylceramide. Further genetic evidence suggests that Notch signaling is comprised in the ISC lineage and may affect endocytosis of Delta. Loss of GlcT does not affect wing development or oogenesis, suggesting tissue-specific roles for GlcT. Finally, an increase in goblet cells in UGCG knockout mice, not previously reported, suggests a conserved role for GlcT in Notch signaling in intestinal cell lineage specification.

Strengths:

Overall, this is a well-written paper with multiple well-designed and executed genetic experiments that support a role for GlcT in Notch signaling in the fly and mammalian intestine. The authors have addressed my concerns from the prior review.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The study analyzes the gastric fluid DNA content identified as a potential biomarker for human gastric cancer. However, the study lacks overall logicality, and several key issues require improvement and clarification. In the opinion of this reviewer, some major revisions are needed:

(1) This manuscript lacks a comparison of gastric cancer patients' stages with PN and N+PD patients, especially T0-T2 patients.

(2) The comparison between gastric cancer stages seems only to reveal the difference between T3 patients and early-stage gastric cancer patients, which raises doubts about the authenticity of the previous differences between gastric cancer patients and normal patients, whether it is only due to the higher number of T3 patients.

(3) The prognosis evaluation is too simplistic, only considering staging factors, without taking into account other factors such as tumor pathology and the time from onset to tumor detection.

(4) The comparison between gfDNA and conventional pathological examination methods should be mentioned, reflecting advantages such as accuracy and patient comfort.

(5) There are many questions in the figures and tables. Please match the Title, Figure legends, Footnote, Alphabetic order, etc.

(6) The overall logicality of the manuscript is not rigorous enough, with few discussion factors, and cannot represent the conclusions drawn

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Most studies in sensory neuroscience investigate how individual sensory stimuli are represented in the brain (e.g., the motion or color of a single object). This study starts tackling the more difficult question of how the brain represents multiple stimuli simultaneously and how these representations help to segregate objects from cluttered scenes with overlapping objects.

Strengths:

The authors first document the ability of humans to segregate two motion patterns based on differences in speed. Then they show that a monkey's performance is largely similar; thus establishing the monkey as a good model to study the underlying neural representations.

Careful quantification of the neural responses in the middle temporal area during the simultaneous presentation of fast and slow speeds leads to the surprising finding that, at low average speeds, many neurons respond as if the slowest speed is not present, while they show averaged responses at high speeds. This unexpected complexity of the integration of multiple stimuli is key to the model developed in this paper.

One experiment in which attention is drawn away from the receptive field supports the claim that this is not due to the involuntary capture of attention by fast speeds.

A classifier using the neuronal response and trained to distinguish single speed from bi-speed stimuli shows a similar overall performance and dependence on the mean speed as the monkey. This supports the claim that these neurons may indeed underlie the animal's decision process.

The authors expand the well-established divisive normalization model to capture the responses to bi-speed stimuli. The incremental modeling (eq 9 and 10) clarifies which aspects of the tuning curves are captured by the parameters.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The authors focus on the molecular mechanisms by which EMT cells confer resistance to cancer cells. The authors use a wide range of methods to reveal that overexpression of Snail in EMT cells induces cholesterol/sphingomyelin imbalance via transcriptional repression of biosynthetic enzymes involved in sphingomyelin synthesis. The study also revealed that ABCA1 is important for cholesterol efflux and thus for counterbalancing the excess of intracellular free cholesterol in these snail-EMT cells. Inhibition of ACAT, an enzyme catalyzing cholesterol esterification, also seems essential to inhibit the growth of snail-expressing cancer cells.

Overall, the provided data are convincing and enhance our knowledge on cancer biology.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study builds off prior work that focused on the molecule AA147 and its role as an activator of the ATF6 arm of the unfolded protein response. In prior manuscripts, AA147 was shown to enter the ER, covalently modify a subset of protein disulfide isomerases (PDIs), and improve ER quality control for the disease-associated mutants of AAT and GABAA. Unsuccessful attempts to improve the potency of AA147 have led the authors to characterize a second hit from the screen in this study: the phenylhydrazone compound AA263. The focus of this study on enhancing biological activity of the AA147 molecule is compelling, and overcomes a hurdle of the prior AA147 drug that proved difficult to modify. The study successfully identifies PDIs as a shared cellular target of AA263 and its analogs. The authors infer, based on the similar target hits previously characterized for AA147, that PDI modification likely accounts for a mechanism of action for AA263.

Strengths:

The work establishes the ability to modify the AA263 molecule to create analogs with more potency and efficacy for ATF6 activation. The "next generation" analogs are able to enhance the levels of functional AAT and GABAA receptors in cellular models expressing the Z-variant of AAT or an epilepsy-associated variant of the GABAA receptor, outlining the therapeutic potential for this molecule and laying the foundation for future organism-based studies.

The authors are able to establish that like AA147, AA263 covalently targets ER PDIs. While it is a likely mechanism that AA263 works through the PDIs, the authors are careful to discuss that this is a potential mechanism that remains to be explicitly proven. The study provides the foundation for future work to further define a role for the PDIs in the actions of AA263.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper formulates an individual-based model to understand the evolution of division of labor in vertebrates. The model considers a population subdivided in groups, each group has a single asexually-reproducing breeder, other group members (subordinates) can perform two types of tasks called "work" or "defense", individuals have different ages, individuals can disperse between groups, each individual has a dominance rank that increases with age, and upon death of the breeder a new breeder is chosen among group members depending on their dominance. "Workers" pay a reproduction cost by having their dominance decreased, and "defenders" pay a survival cost. Every group member receives a survival benefit with increasing group size. There are 6 genetic traits, each controlled by a single locus, that control propensities to help and disperse, and how task choice and dispersal relate to dominance. To study the effect of group augmentation without kin selection, the authors cross-foster individuals to eliminate relatedness. The paper allows for the evolution of the 6 genetic traits under some different parameter values to study the conditions under which division of labour evolves, defined as the occurrence of different subordinates performing "work" and "defense" tasks. The authors envision the model as one of vertebrate division of labor.

The main conclusion of the paper is that group augmentation is the primary factor causing the evolution of vertebrate division of labor, rather than kin selection. This conclusion is drawn because, for the parameter values considered, when the benefit of group augmentation is set to zero, no division of labor evolves and all subordinates perform "work" tasks but no "defense" tasks.

Strengths:

The model incorporates various biologically realistic details, including the possibility to evolve age polytheism where individuals switch from "work" to "defence" tasks as they age or vice versa, as well as the possibility of comparing the action of group augmentation alone with that of kin selection alone.

Weaknesses:

The model and its analysis are limited, which in my view makes the results insufficient to reach the main conclusion that group augmentation and not kin selection is the primary cause of the evolution of vertebrate division of labour. There are several reasons.

First, although the main claim that group augmentation drives the evolution of division of labour in vertebrates, the model is rather conceptual in that it doesn't use quantitative empirical data that applies to all/most vertebrates and vertebrates only. So, I think the approach has a conceptual reach rather than being able to achieve such a conclusion about a real taxon.

Second, I think that the model strongly restricts the possibility that kin selection is relevant. The two tasks considered essentially differ only by whether they are costly for reproduction or survival. "Work" tasks are those costly for reproduction and "defense" tasks are those costly for survival. The two tasks provide the same benefits for reproduction (eqs. 4, 5) and survival (through group augmentation, eq. 3.1). So, whether one, the other, or both helper types evolve presumably only depends on which task is less costly, not really on which benefits it provides. As the two tasks give the same benefits, there is no possibility that the two tasks act synergistically, where performing one task increases a benefit (e.g., increasing someone's survival) that is going to be compounded by someone else performing the other task (e.g., increasing that someone's reproduction). So, there is very little scope for kin selection to cause the evolution of labour in this model. Note synergy between tasks is not something unusual in division of labour models, but is in fact a basic element in them, so excluding it from the start in the model and then making general claims about division of labour is unwarranted. In their reply, the authors point out that they only consider fertility benefits as this, according to them, is what happens in cooperative breeders with alloparental care; however, alloparental care entails that workers can increase other's survival *without group augmentation*, such as via workers feeding young or defenders reducing predator-caused mortality, as a mentioned in my previous review but these potentially kin-selected benefits are not allowed here.

Third, the parameter space is understandably little explored. This is necessarily an issue when trying to make general claims from an individual-based model where only a very narrow parameter region of a necessarily particular model can be feasibly explored. As in this model the two tasks ultimately only differ by their costs, the parameter values specifying their costs should be varied to determine their effects. In the main results, the model sets a very low survival cost for work (yh=0.1) and a very high survival cost for defense (xh=3), the latter of which can be compensated by the benefit of group augmentation (xn=3). Some limited variation of xh and xn is explored, always for very high values, effectively making defense unevolvable except if there is group augmentation. In this revision, additional runs have been included varying yh and keeping xh and xn constant (Fig. S6), so without addressing my comment as xn remains very high. Consequently, the main conclusion that "division of labor" needs group augmentation seems essentially enforced by the limited parameter exploration, in addition to the second reason above.

Fourth, my view is that what is called "division of labor" here is an overinterpretation. When the two helper types evolve, what exists in the model is some individuals that do reproduction-costly tasks (so-called "work") and survival-costly tasks (so-called "defense"). However, there are really no two tasks that are being completed, in the sense that completing both tasks (e.g., work and defense) is not necessary to achieve a goal (e.g., reproduction). In this model there is only one task (reproduction, equation 4,5) to which both helper types contribute equally and so one task doesn't need to be completed if completing the other task compensates for it; instead, it seems more fitting to say that there are two types of helpers, one that pays a fertility cost and another one a survival cost, for doing the same task. So, this model does not actually consider division of labor but the evolution of different helper types where both helper types are just as good at doing the single task but perhaps do it differently and so pay different types of costs. In this revision, the authors introduced a modified model where "work" and "defense" must be performed to a similar extent. Although I appreciate their effort, this model modification is rather unnatural and forces the evolution of different helper types if any help is to evolve.

I should end by saying that these comments don't aim to discourage the authors, who have worked hard to put together a worthwhile model and have patiently attended to my reviews. My hope is that these comments can be helpful to build upon what has been done to address the question posed.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors investigate how the Drosophila TNF receptor-associated factor Traf4 - a multifunctional adaptor protein with potential E3 ubiquitin ligase activity - regulates JNK signaling and adherens junctions (AJs) in wing disc epithelium. When they overexpress Traf4 in the posterior compartment of the wing disc, many posterior cells express the JNK target gene puckered (puc), apoptose, and are basally extruded from the epithelium. The authors term this process "delamination", but I think that this is an inaccurate description, especially since they can suppress the "delamination" by blocking programmed cell death (by concomitantly overexpressing p35). Through Y2H assays using Traf4 as a bait, they identified the Bearded family proteins E(spl)m4 (and to a lesser extent E(spl)m2), as Traf4 interactors. They use Alphafold to model computationally the interaction between Traf4 and E(spl)m4. They show that co-overexpression of Traf4 with E(spl)m4 in the posterior domain of the wing disc reduces death of posterior cells. They generate a new, weaker hypomorphic allele of Traf4 that is viable (as opposed to the homozygous lethality of null Traf4 alleles). There is some effect of these mutations on wing margin bristles; fewer wing margin bristle defects are seen when E(spl)m4 is overexpressed, suggesting opposite effects of Traf4 and E(spl)m4. Finally, they use the Minute model of cell competition to show that Rp/+ loser clones have greater clone area (indicating increased survival) when they are depleted for Traf4 or when they overexpress E(spl)m4. Only the cell competition results are quantified. Because most of the data in the preprint are not quantified, it is impossible to know how penetrant the phenotypes are. The authors conclude that E(spl)m4 binds the Traf4 MATH/TRAF domain, disrupts Traf4 trimerization, and selectively suppresses Traf4-mediated JNK and caspase activation without affecting its role in AJ destabilization. However, I believe that this is an overstatement. First, there is no biochemical evidence showing that Traf4 binds E(spl)m4 and that E(spl)m4 disrupts Traf4 trimerization. Second, the data on AJs is weak and not quantified; additionally, cells that are being basally extruded lose contact with neighboring cells, hence changes in adhesion proteins. Related to this, the authors, in my opinion, inaccurately describe basal extrusion of dying cells from the wing disc epithelium as delamination.

Strengths:

(1) The authors use multiple approaches to test the model that overexpressed E(spl)m4 inhibits Traf4, including genetics, cell biological imaging, yeast two-hybrid assays, and molecular modeling.

(2) The authors generate a new Traf4 hypomorphic mutant and use this mutant in cell competition studies, which supports the concept that E(spl)m4 (when overexpressed) can antagonize Traf4.

Weaknesses:

(1) Conflation of "delamination" with "basal extrusion of apoptotic cells": Over-expression of Traf4 causes apoptosis in wing disc cells, and this is a distinct process from delamination of viable cells from an epithelium. However, the two processes are conflated by the authors, and this weakens the premise of the paper.

(2) Dependence on overexpression: The conclusions rely heavily on ectopic expression of Traf4 and E(spl)m4. Thus, the physiological relevance of the interaction remains inferred rather than demonstrated.

(3) Lack of quantitative rigor: Except for the cell competition studies, phenotypic descriptions (e.g., number of apoptotic cells, puc-LacZ intensity) are qualitative; additional quantification, inclusion of sample size, and statistical testing would strengthen the conclusions.

(4) Limited biochemical validation: The Traf4-E(spl)m4 binding is inferred from Y2H and in silico models, but no co-immunoprecipitation or in vitro binding assays confirm direct interaction or the predicted disruption of trimerization.

(5) Specificity within the Bearded family: While E(spl)m2 shows partial binding and Tom shows none, the mechanistic basis for this selectivity is not deeply explored experimentally, leaving questions about motif-context contributions unresolved.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Nielsen et al have identified a new disease mechanism underlying hypoplastic left heart syndrome due to variants in ribosomal protein genes that lead to impaired cardiomyocyte proliferation. This detailed study starts with an elegant screen in stem cell derived cardiomyocytes and whole genome sequencing of human patients and extends to careful functional analysis of RP gene variants in fly and fish models. Striking phenotypic rescue is seen by modulating known regulators of proliferation including the p53 and Hippo pathways. Additional experiments suggest that cell type specificity of the variants in these ubiquitously expressed genes may result from genetic interactions with cardiac transcription factors. This work positions RPs as important regulators of cardiomyocyte proliferation and differentiation involved in the etiology of HLHS, and point to potential downstream mechanisms.

The revised manuscript has been extended, facilitating interpretation and reinforcing the authors' conclusions.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The study analyzes the gastric fluid DNA content identified as a potential biomarker for human gastric cancer. However, the study lacks overall logicality, and several key issues require improvement and clarification. In the opinion of this reviewer, some major revisions are needed:

(1) This manuscript lacks a comparison of gastric cancer patients' stages with PN and N+PD patients, especially T0-T2 patients.

(2) The comparison between gastric cancer stages seems only to reveal the difference between T3 patients and early-stage gastric cancer patients, which raises doubts about the authenticity of the previous differences between gastric cancer patients and normal patients, whether it is only due to the higher number of T3 patients.

(3) The prognosis evaluation is too simplistic, only considering staging factors, without taking into account other factors such as tumor pathology and the time from onset to tumor detection.

(4) The comparison between gfDNA and conventional pathological examination methods should be mentioned, reflecting advantages such as accuracy and patient comfort.

(5) There are many questions in the figures and tables. Please match the Title, Figure legends, Footnote, Alphabetic order, etc.

(6) The overall logicality of the manuscript is not rigorous enough, with few discussion factors, and cannot represent the conclusions drawn.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have addressed all concerns in the revision.