eLife assessment

This study presents a useful finding on the interplay of CCL5 and miR-324-5p during ischemic stroke injury. Despite its importance, the evidence supporting the claims of the authors is incomplete. In particular, the lack of methodological information, inappropriate statistical testing, a flawed culture system, and the temporal mismatch in the expression of CCL5 and miR-324-5p following stroke have hindered further evaluation of the claims. The work will be of interest to neuroscientists working on brain injury such as stroke.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Here, the authors attempt to show that CCL5 is increased after stroke, possibly due to decreased miR-324, and that this is a modifiable system to decrease stroke damage. By bidirectionally manipulating CCL5 levels through direct injection of CCL5; a CCL5 blocking antibody; miR324; miR324 antagomir; or CCR5-blocking Maraviroc, they broadly show improvement with lower CCL5 levels. This includes infarct size, behavioral analysis, and immunohistochemical analysis of astrocytes, microglia, and neurons. They further try to mechanistically tie miR324 and CCL5 in astrocytes specifically to stroke-induced changes using a neuronal/astrocytic coculture system. They argue that decreasing CCL5 leads to increased ERK and CREB phosphorylation as a potential neuroprotective mechanism. CCL5 is one potential ligand for CCR5, and recent work identified CCR5 as a targetable mechanism by clinically-approved drug Maraviroc to enhance stroke recovery. Particularly given the high level of interest in CCR5 in stroke recovery, the focus on CCL5 - one of CCR5's potential ligands - and its miR regulation is an exciting expansion of this area of stroke biology.

Strengths:

The authors' findings that decreasing CCL5 acutely after stroke shows behavioral improvement appear robust. This broadly replicates work from other groups, although the finding that miR324 manipulation can phenocopy direct CCL5 manipulation is novel and intriguing. However, many of their other claims are difficult to evaluate based on a combination of missing methodological information, inappropriate statistical testing, and a flawed culture system.

Weaknesses:

Broadly speaking, the manuscript takes a zoomed-out view of what is fundamentally highly localized biology.

(1) miRNA-based regulation, by definition, has to include miR and mRNA in the same cell type; as the authors note, CCL5 is expressed in many cells. It is therefore impossible to propose any interaction on the basis of the tissue-level changes described; any evidence of in vivo cell-type specificity would dramatically improve the claims.

(2) The authors treat an extensive area of ipsilesional cortex uniformly as "IP". Astrocytic and microglial responses to localized injuries such as stroke are highly location-dependent and undoubtedly change dramatically within this area. The presented data cannot be interpreted without confirmation that these were taken at identical distances from the injury, and what that distance was. These do not appear to be adjacent to the injury, where the responses would presumably be the most informative. Similarly, it is difficult to interpret the neuronal Sholl and spine data without more information on where within the large IP region these neurons were found.

The authors attempt to narrow in on cell-type specificity via culture. However, astrocytes are notoriously prone to a dramatic change in culture and require careful methods (immunopanning; see eg doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.07.022) to maintain much resemblance to their in vivo counterpart. It is difficult to conclude much about the role of astrocytes in the CCL5 pathway based on the use of this shaking-based culture system, particularly in the absence of cell-type specific validation in vivo.

There is missing methodological information, including infarct size measurements, TUNEL staining, and statistical testing. The TTC figures look very odd, like a collection of overlapping stars have been placed on the images rather than the natural relatively smooth infarct edges one would expect. It is unclear if the infarct volume measurements accounted for edema, as is standard; there is no description of the protocol used for quantification. It is also unclear if the infarct volume measurement comparisons were also done with t-tests vs ANOVA, as the statistical test used is not listed in the figure legends. In numerous cases where statistical testing is listed, repeated t-tests between subgroups are used vs the more appropriate ANOVA (assuming normality; nonparametric testing as appropriate), making it difficult to have confidence in the results.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The authors presented evidence from various in vivo and in vitro experiments demonstrating the mutual interaction between CCL5 and astrocytic miR-342-5p in the ipsilateral core of cerebral ischemia. However, miR-342-5p was downregulated only late after MCAO (D3-7). Additionally, this downregulation was observed not only in the ipsilateral core but also in the ipsilateral penumbra and contralateral sides. Therefore, it is not convincing that the upregulation of CCL5 in the ipsilateral core at later time points (D3 and D7) is attributable to the decreased expression of miR-342-5p. In particular, infarct injury was already evident within a short time period (say 24 h) following MCAO.

(1) The temporal and spatial expression patterns of miR-324-5p do not match those of CCL-5, especially at D1 and D3 (see Figure 1C, 1D). Despite the inverse relationship between miR-324-5p and CCL-5 expression at D7 after MCAO, what was the purpose of administering miR-324-5p agomir (or antagomir) at D1 post-MCAO? If the connection cannot be clearly established, the conclusion reached at the end will be difficult to accept.

(2) Would administering miR-342-5p or anti-CCL5 at later time points (e.g., after D3) reduce infarct size or improve functional recovery? If this is not the case, the effect of CCL5 on neuronal cell damage (infarct size formation) must occur within a very short time after MCAO. Additionally, if the increased CCL5 expression is due to the downregulation of miR-342-5p, its impact would likely be less significant.

(3) While the study offers valuable insights into the roles of CCL5 and its connection with the regulation of miR-342-5p (though this connection is somewhat weak), it is recommended that the authors explore potential translational applications of these findings.

Overall, given the experimental designs and results, it is difficult to support the conclusions drawn in the manuscript.

Author response:

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors of this study aim to use an optimization algorithm approach, based on the established NelderMead method, to infer polymer models that best match input bulk Hi-C contact data. The procedure infers the best parameters of a generic polymer model that combines loop-extrusion (LE) dynamics and compartmentalization of chromatin types driven by weak biochemical affinities. Using this and DNA FISH, the authors investigate the chromatin structure of the MYC locus in leukemia cells, showing that loop extrusion alone cannot explain local pathogenic chromatin rearrangements. Finally, they study the locus single-cell heterogeneity and time dynamics.

Strengths:

- The optimization method provides a fast computational tool that speeds up the parameter search of complex chromatin polymer models and is a good technical advancement.

- The method is not restricted to short genomic regions, as in principle it can be applied genome-wide to any input Hi-C dataset, and could be potentially useful for testing predictions on chromatin structure.

Weaknesses:

(1) The optimization is based on the iterative comparison of simulated and Hi-C contact matrices using the Spearman correlation. However, the inferred set of the best-fit simulation parameters could sensitively depend on such a specific metric choice, questioning the robustness of the output polymer models. How do results change by using different correlation coefficients?

This is an important question. We have tested several metrics in the process of building the fitting procedure. We now showcase side-by-side comparisons of the fitting results obtained using these different metrics in supplementary figure 2.

(2) The best-fit contact threshold of 420nm seems a quite large value, considering that contact probabilities of pairs of loci at the mega-base scale are defined within 150nm (see, e.g., (Bintu et al. 2018) and  (Takei et al. 2021)).

This is a good point. Unfortunately, there is no established standard distance cutoff to map distances to Hi-C contact frequency data. Indeed, previous publications have used anywhere between 120 nm to 500 nm (see e.g. (Cardozo Gizzi et al. 2019), (Cattoni et al. 2017) , (Mateo et al. 2019), (Hafner et al. 2022), (Murphy and Boettiger 2022), (Takei et al. 2021), (Fudenberg and Imakaev 2017) , (Wang et al. 2016), (Su et al. 2020), (Chen et al. 2022), (Finn et al. 2019)). 

We have included a supplementary table in the revised preprint (supplementary table 3) listing these values to demonstrate the lack of consensus. This large variation could reflect different chromatin compaction levels across distinct model systems, and different spatial resolutions in DNA FISH experiments performed by different labs. The variance in the threshold choice is also likely partially explained by Hi-C experimental details, e.g. the enzyme used for digestion, which biases the effective length scale of interactions detected (Akgol Oksuz et al. 2021). Among commonly used restriction enzymes, HindIII has a relatively low cutting frequency which results in a lower sensitivity to short-range interactions; on the other hand, MboI has a higher cutting frequency which results in a higher sensitivity to short-range interactions (Akgol Oksuz et al. 2021). Because the Hi-C data we used for the Myc locus in (Kloetgen et al. 2020) was generated using HindIII, we chose a distance cutoff close to the larger end of published values (420 nm). 

(3) In their model, the authors consider the presence of LE anchor sites at Hi-C TAD boundaries. Do they correspond to real, experimentally found CTCF sites located at genomic positions, or they are just assumed? A track of CTCF peaks of the considered chromatin loci would be needed.

We apologize this was not clear. The LE anchor sites in the simulation model were chosen because they correspond to experimental CTCF sites and ChIP-seq peaks located at the corresponding genomic positions. Representative CTCF ChIP-seq tracks from (Kloetgen et al. 2020) have been added to figure 2A in the revised preprint version to emphasize this point.

(4) In the model, each TAD is assigned a specific energy affinity value. Do the different domain types (i.e., different colors) have a mutually attractive energy? If so, what is its value and how is it determined? The simulated contact maps (e.g., Figure 2C) seem to allow attractions between different blocks, yet this is unclear.

Sorry this was not explicit. The attraction energy between a pair of monomers in the simulation is determined using the geometric mean of the affinities of the two monomers. This applies to both monomers within the same domain and in different domains. This detail has been clarified in the Methods section: “To optimize the simulation duration to streamline the parameter search (Supp. Fig. 1 B), we computed the autocorrelation function of the TAD2-TAD4 inter-TAD distance using the initial guess simulation parameters of the MYC locus in CUTLL. The simulation was saved every 5 simulation blocks.”

(5) To substantiate the claim that the simulations can predict heterogeneity across single cells, the authors should perform additional analyses. For instance, they could plot the histograms (models vs. experiments) of the TAD2-TAD4 distance distributions and check whether the models can recapitulate the FISH-observed variance or standard deviation. They could also add other testable predictions, e.g., on gyration radius distributions, kurtosis, all-against-all comparison of single-molecule distance matrices, etc,.

We agree that heterogeneity prediction is a key advantage of the simulations. We do note that the histograms (models vs. experiments) of the TAD2-TAD4 distance distributions measured by FISH were plotted in Fig. 3C as empirical cumulative probability distributions (as is standard in the field), side by side with the simulation predictions. Simulations indeed recapitulate the variance observed by FISH. We also had emphasized this important point in the main text: “Importantly, not just the average distances, but the shape of the distance distribution across individual cells closely matches the predictions of the simulations in both cell types, further confirming that the simulations can predict heterogeneity across cells.”

(6) The authors state that loop extrusion is crucial for enhancer function only at large distances. How does that reconcile, e.g., with Mach et al. Nature Gen. (2022) where LE is found to constrain the dynamics of genomically close (150kb) chromatin loci?

This is an interesting question. In (Mach et al. 2022), the authors tracked the physical distance between two fluorescent labels positioned next to either anchor of a ~150 kb engineered topological domain using live-cell imaging. They found that abrogation of the loop anchors by ablation of the CTCF binding motifs, or knock-down of the cohesin subunit Rad21 resulted in increased physical distance between the loci. HMM Modeling of the distance over time traces suggests that the increased distance resulted from rarer and shorter contacts between the anchors. While this might seem at odds with the results of Fig. 4L, we note a key difference between the loci. While (Mach et al. 2022) observed the dynamics of the distance separating two CTCF loop anchors, in our model only the MYC promoter is proximal to a loop anchor, while the position of the second locus is varied, but remains far from the other anchor. The deletion of the CTCF sites at both anchors in (Mach et al. 2022) indeed results in a lowered sensitivity of the physical distance to Rad21 knock-down, reminiscent of the results of Fig. 4L in our work. This result demonstrates that loop extrusion disruption disproportionately impacts distances between loci close to loop anchors, consistent with Hi-C results (Rao et al. 2017; Nora et al. 2017). We therefore believe that the models in our work and (Mach et al. 2022) are not at odds, but simply reflect that loop extrusion perturbations impact distances between loop anchors the most.  Enhancer-Promoter loops are generally distinct from CTCF-mediated loops (Hsieh et al. 2020, 2022). While (Mach et al. 2022) represents a landmark study in our understanding of the dynamics of genomic folding by loop extrusion, we therefore believe that the locus we chose here - which matches the endogenous MYC architecture - may more accurately represent Enhancer-Promoter dynamics than a synthetic CTCF loop.  To better articulate the similarities between model predictions and differences between the two loci, we have simulated a synthetic locus matching that of (Mach et al. 2022) in the revised preprint. Our simulation recapitulates the results obtained by Mach et al, including the sensitivity of contact frequency and duration to in silico cohesin knock-down (supplementary figure 6). We have updated the Results section accordingly: “The dependence of contact dynamics on loop extrusion in our simulations of MYC differs from that previously observed for two TAD boundaries (45). To check whether the different results are the product of different simulation models, we simulated contact dynamics across two TAD boundaries matching the locus of (45). Our simulations recapitulate the distance distribution and loop extrusion dependence previously observed (Supp. Fig. 6), establishing that the differences between the two systems are biological. While loop extrusion controls both the frequency and duration of contacts at TAD boundaries, it exerts a more nuanced effect on the frequency of contacts in loci pairs like the MYC locus that might better reflect typical enhancer-promoter pairs.”

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors Fu et al., developed polymer models that combine loop extrusion with attractive interactions to best describe Hi-C population average data. They analyzed Hi-C data of the MYC locus as an example and developed an optimization strategy to extract the parameters that best fit this average Hi-C data.

Strengths:

The model has an intuitive nature and the authors masterfully fitted the model to predict relevant biology/Hi-C methodology parameters. This includes loop extrusion parameters, the need for self-interaction with specific energies, and the time and distance parameters expected for Hi-C capture.

Weaknesses:

(1) We are no longer in the age in which the community only has access to population average Hi-C. Why was only the population average Hi-C used in this study?

Can single-cell data: i.e. single-cell Hi-C/Dip-C data or chromatin tracing data (i.e. see Tan et al Science 2018 - for Dip-C, Bintu et al Science 2018, Su et al Cell 2020 for chromatin tracing, etc.) or even 2 color DNA FISH data (used here only as validation) better constrain these models? At the very least the simulations themselves could be used to answer this essential question.

I am expecting that the single-cell variance and overall distributions of distances between loci might better constrain the models, and the authors should at least comment on it.

We agree that it is possible to recapitulate single-cell Hi-C or chromatin tracing data with simulations, and that these data modalities have a superior potential to constrain polymer models because they provide an ensemble of single allele structures rather than population-averaged contact frequencies. However, these data remain out of reach for most labs compared to Hi-C. Our goal with this work was to provide an approachable method that anyone interested could deploy on their locus of choice, and reasoned that Hi-C currently remains the data modality available to most. We envision this strategy will help reach labs beyond the small number of groups expert in single cell chromatin architecture, and thus hopefully broaden the impact of polymer simulations in the chromatin organization field. 

Nevertheless, we do agree that the comparison of single-cell chromatin architectures to simulations is a fertile ground for future studies, and have modified the preprint accordingly (Discussion):

“Future work extending this framework to single cell readouts out chromatin architecture (e.g. single-cell Hi-C or chromatin tracing) holds promise to further constrain chromatin models.”

(2) The authors claimed "Our parameter optimization can be adapted to build biophysical models of any locus of interest. Despite the model's simplicity, the best-fit simulations are sufficient to predict the contribution of loop extrusion and domain interactions, as well as single-cell variability from Hi-C data. Modeling dynamics enables testing mechanistic relationships between chromatin dynamics and transcription regulation. As more experimental results emerge to define simulation parameters, updates to the model should further increase its power." The focus on the Myc locus in this study is too narrow for this claim. I am expecting at least one more locus for testing the generality of this model.

We note that we used two distinct loci in the initial version of our study, the MYC locus in leukemia vs T cells (Figs. 2-3) and a representative locus in experiments comparing WT CTCF with a mutant that leads to loss of a subset of CTCF binding sites (Fig. 1L). To further demonstrate generality, we have added to the revised preprint a demonstration of the simulation fitting to other loci acquired in different cell types (supplementary figure 3).

Recommendations for the authors:.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) The Methods part of the imaging analysis lacks some quantitative details that could be useful for the readers: what is the frequency of double detections? How "small" is the 3D region around the centroid? How many cells with no spots or more than four spots are excluded?

We have clarified these important analysis parameters in the revised version of the preprint (Methods), including supplementary Table 2, listing the statistics of excluded cells:

“We then cropped out a small 3D region (20x20x10 pixels) around each approximate centroid, and subtracted the surrounding background intensity.”

“Cells with no spots or more than four spots were excluded from the cell cycle analysis (statistics in Supp. Table 2).”

(2) How is the autocorrelation function of chromatin structures computed?

We computed the autocorrelation function of the TAD2-TAD4 inter-TAD distance using the initial guess simulation parameters (Eattr, boundary permeabilities) of the MYC locus in CUTLL. All other simulation parameters are the same as other simulations in the preprint. The structure of the locus was saved every 5 simulation blocks. These structures were used to compute the TAD2-TAD4 inter-TAD distance as a function of time, which was used to calculate the autocorrelation function. This has been clarified in the revised version of the preprint (Methods):

“To optimize the simulation duration to streamline the parameter search (Supp. Fig. 1 B), we computed the autocorrelation function of the TAD2-TAD4 inter-TAD distance using the initial guess simulation parameters of the MYC locus in CUTLL. The simulation was saved every 5 simulation blocks.”

(3) How is the monomer length (35nm) chosen to best compare FISH data?

Because monomer length is difficult to derive from first principles, the standard in the field is to convert the size of a simulated monomer into a physical distance using a reference measurement in the system of choice. Similar to the Hi-C distance threshold, values for monomer size vary throughout the literature, e.g. 53 nm per 3 kbp monomer (Giorgetti et al. 2014), 50 nm per 2.5 kbp monomer (Nuebler et al. 2018), or from 36 to 60 nm per 3 kbp monomer, depending on the cell line or model details (Conte et al. 2022; Conte et al. 2020). 

Here we used the mean of the median TAD2-TAD4 distances in T Cells and CUTLL as our length reference, and converted simulation distances into nm by matching this value. We obtained 35 nm per 2.5 kbp monomer, a value well within the range of the literature values (see above).

Using this simple conversion, the simulated distance distributions recapitulate two independent metrics accessible by DNA FISH: the shift in median distances between T cell and CUTLL, and the width of each distribution. This agreement indicates that simulations recapitulate both the differences between the two cell types, and the single cell heterogeneity within each cell type. 

(4) The main text does not make clear the "known" biophysical parameters that establish the model ground truth.

In the initial validation of the fitting procedure, by “known biophysical parameters”, we meant that we generated simulated Hi-C maps in which we set the left/right permeabilities at each boundary, and Eattr values within each TAD to known values. We then assessed how well the fitting could recover these known ground truth values by trying to match the simulated representative Hi-C map. The specific values chosen are plotted for each set of simulations in Fig.1 F, H, J. The main text has been made more explicit in the revised preprint version (Results):

“We first validated the optimization method using ground truth maps built from simulation runs with known values of StallL, StallR, Eattr for each boundary/domainbiophysical parameters.”

(5) What are the correlation coefficients between experimental and model contact maps in Figure 1L?

We apologize for the oversight. The missing coefficient values have been added in the revised version of the manuscript (Results):

“As expected, the simulation predicted a significant drop of 0.13 in boundary permeability in CTCFmut compared to WT (Fig. 1 L; Spearman Correlation: 0.85±0.02 for CTCFmut, 0.82±0.01 for WT).”

(6) Figure 2A, B: Contact matrices look oversaturated. Next, why do model contact maps have negative values?

We apologize this was not clear. Figure 2 A,B plotted the log value of the contact matrices, thus the negative values. This has been made explicit in the revised version of the preprint (Fig. 2 Legend). 

(7) For model reproducibility, the authors could report the coordinates of the Hi-C TAD boundaries employed for the model.

We have included in the revised version of the preprint an explicit mention of all genomic coordinates of the loci simulated in the Methods section:

“The model used to fit into MYC Hi-C data consists of 1920 monomers representing chr8:126,720,000131,680,000, with the TAD boundaries located at monomer 456 (chr8: 127,840,000 - 127,880,001), monomer

808 (chr8: 128,720,000 - 128,760,001), monomer 1178 (chr8: 130,160,000 - 130,200,001) and monomer 1592 (chr8: 130,680,000 - 130,720,001).”

(8) What is the shaded area in Figure 3C?

The shaded area in Figure 3C is the standard deviation calculated from three independent DNA FISH or simulation replicates for each bin of the histogram. This detail has been clarified in the revised preprint (Figure 3 legend). 

(9) In the Discussion, I suggest changing as follows: "the time- and distance-gated model proposed here recapitulates several observations" -> "the time- and distance-gated model proposed here could recapitulate several observations", as they are speculations.

The sentence has been changed accordingly in the revised preprint (Discussion). Thank you for the suggestion. 

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Suggest analyzing the ability of single-cell data to better constrain dynamical models.

While we agree that modeling single-cell distributions is a worthwhile endeavor to be explored in future work, we believe that the tool presented here serves a slightly different purpose: enabling labs that only have access to the most widespread technique at present to perform simulations to interrogate the forces that shape the organization of an arbitrary locus in their model of choice. Analyzing single-cell data is in principle very powerful, but would by necessity be limited to the small number of systems where these cutting-edge techniques have been deployed. 

Suggest selecting another locus other than MYC to demonstrate generality.

We note that we used two distinct loci in the study, the MYC locus in leukemia vs. T cells (Figs. 2-3) and a representative locus in experiments comparing WT CTCF with a mutant that leads to loss of a subset of CTCF binding sites (Fig. 1L). To further demonstrate generality, we have added to the revised preprint a demonstration of the simulation fitting to other loci acquired in different cell types (supplementary figure 3).

Akgol Oksuz, Betul, Liyan Yang, Sameer Abraham, Sergey V. Venev, Nils Krietenstein, Krishna Mohan Parsi, Hakan Ozadam, et al. 2021. “Systematic Evaluation of Chromosome Conformation Capture Assays.” Nature Methods 18 (9): 1046–55.

Bintu, Bogdan, Leslie J. Mateo, Jun-Han Su, Nicholas A. Sinnott-Armstrong, Mirae Parker, Seon Kinrot, Kei Yamaya, Alistair N. Boettiger, and Xiaowei Zhuang. 2018. “Super-Resolution Chromatin Tracing Reveals Domains and Cooperative Interactions in Single Cells.” Science 362 (6413). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau1783.

Cardozo Gizzi, Andrés M., Diego I. Cattoni, Jean-Bernard Fiche, Sergio M. Espinola, Julian Gurgo, Olivier Messina, Christophe Houbron, et al. 2019. “Microscopy-Based Chromosome Conformation Capture Enables Simultaneous Visualization of Genome Organization and Transcription in Intact Organisms.” Molecular Cell 74 (1): 212–22.e5.

Cattoni, Diego I., Andrés M. Cardozo Gizzi, Mariya Georgieva, Marco Di Stefano, Alessandro Valeri, Delphine Chamousset, Christophe Houbron, et al. 2017. “Single-Cell Absolute Contact Probability Detection Reveals Chromosomes Are Organized by Multiple Low-Frequency yet Specific Interactions.” Nature Communications 8 (1): 1753.

Chen, Liang-Fu, Hannah Katherine Long, Minhee Park, Tomek Swigut, Alistair Nicol Boettiger, and Joanna Wysocka. 2022. “Structural Elements Facilitate Extreme Long-Range Gene Regulation at a Human Disease Locus.” bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.10.20.513057.

Finn, Elizabeth H., Gianluca Pegoraro, Hugo B. Brandão, Anne-Laure Valton, Marlies E. Oomen, Job Dekker, Leonid Mirny, and Tom Misteli. 2019. “Extensive Heterogeneity and Intrinsic Variation in Spatial Genome Organization.” Cell 176 (6): 1502–15.e10.

Fudenberg, Geoffrey, and Maxim Imakaev. 2017. “FISH-Ing for Captured Contacts: Towards Reconciling FISH and 3C.” Nature Methods 14 (7): 673–78.

Hafner, Antonina, Minhee Park, Scott E. Berger, Elphège P. Nora, and Alistair N. Boettiger. 2022. “Loop Stacking Organizes Genome Folding from TADs to Chromosomes.” bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.07.13.499982.

Hsieh, Tsung-Han S., Claudia Cattoglio, Elena Slobodyanyuk, Anders S. Hansen, Xavier Darzacq, and Robert Tjian. 2022. “Enhancer-Promoter Interactions and Transcription Are Largely Maintained upon Acute Loss of CTCF, Cohesin, WAPL or YY1.” Nature Genetics 54 (12): 1919–32.

Hsieh, Tsung-Han S., Claudia Cattoglio, Elena Slobodyanyuk, Anders S. Hansen, Oliver J. Rando, Robert Tjian, and Xavier Darzacq. 2020. “Resolving the 3D Landscape of Transcription-Linked Mammalian Chromatin Folding.” Molecular Cell 78 (3): 539–53.e8.

Kloetgen, Andreas, Palaniraja Thandapani, Panagiotis Ntziachristos, Yohana Ghebrechristos, Sofia Nomikou, Charalampos Lazaris, Xufeng Chen, et al. 2020. “Three-Dimensional Chromatin Landscapes in T Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia.” Nature Genetics 52 (4): 388–400.

Mach, Pia, Pavel I. Kos, Yinxiu Zhan, Julie Cramard, Simon Gaudin, Jana Tünnermann, Edoardo Marchi, et al. 2022. “Cohesin and CTCF Control the Dynamics of Chromosome Folding.” Nature Genetics 54 (12): 1907–18.

Mateo, Leslie J., Sedona E. Murphy, Antonina Hafner, Isaac S. Cinquini, Carly A. Walker, and Alistair N. Boettiger. 2019. “Visualizing DNA Folding and RNA in Embryos at Single-Cell Resolution.” Nature 568 (7750): 49–54.

Murphy, Sedona, and Alistair Nicol Boettiger. 2022. “Polycomb Repression of Hox Genes Involves Spatial Feedback but Not Domain Compaction or Demixing.” bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.10.14.512199.

Nora, Elphège P., Anton Goloborodko, Anne-Laure Valton, Johan H. Gibcus, Alec Uebersohn, Nezar Abdennur, Job Dekker, Leonid A. Mirny, and Benoit G. Bruneau. 2017. “Targeted Degradation of CTCF Decouples Local Insulation of Chromosome Domains from Genomic Compartmentalization.” Cell 169 (5): 930–44.e22.

Nuebler, Johannes, Geoffrey Fudenberg, Maxim Imakaev, Nezar Abdennur, and Leonid A. Mirny. 2018. “Chromatin Organization by an Interplay of Loop Extrusion and Compartmental Segregation.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115 (29): E6697–6706.

Rao, Suhas S. P., Su-Chen Huang, Brian Glenn St Hilaire, Jesse M. Engreitz, Elizabeth M. Perez, Kyong-Rim Kieffer-Kwon, Adrian L. Sanborn, et al. 2017. “Cohesin Loss Eliminates All Loop Domains.” Cell 171 (2): 305–20.e24.

Su, Jun-Han, Pu Zheng, Seon S. Kinrot, Bogdan Bintu, and Xiaowei Zhuang. 2020. “Genome-Scale Imaging of the 3D Organization and Transcriptional Activity of Chromatin.” Cell 182 (6): 1641–59.e26.

Takei, Yodai, Shiwei Zheng, Jina Yun, Sheel Shah, Nico Pierson, Jonathan White, Simone Schindler, Carsten H. Tischbirek, Guo-Cheng Yuan, and Long Cai. 2021. “Single-Cell Nuclear Architecture across Cell Types in the Mouse Brain.” Science 374 (6567): 586–94.

Wang, Siyuan, Jun-Han Su, Brian J. Beliveau, Bogdan Bintu, Jeffrey R. Moffitt, Chao-Ting Wu, and Xiaowei Zhuang. 2016. “Spatial Organization of Chromatin Domains and Compartments in Single Chromosomes.” Science 353 (6299): 598–602.

eLife assessment

This study presents a useful optimization algorithm to identify polymer models that best fit population-averaged chromosome contact data that will be of interest to physicists and biologists working on chromatin organization. The conclusions are supported by solid evidence.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors of this study use an optimization algorithm approach, based on the established Nelder-Mead method, to infer polymer models that best match input bulk Hi-C contact data. The procedure infers the best parameters of a generic polymer model that combines loop-extrusion (LE) dynamics and compartmentalisation of chromatin types driven by weak biochemical affinities. Using this and DNA FISH, the authors investigate the chromatin structure of the MYC locus in leukaemia cells, showing that loop extrusion alone cannot explain local pathogenic chromatin rearrangements. Finally, they study the locus single-cell heterogeneity and time dynamics.

In the revised manuscript the authors have adequately addressed my questions and comments. The exception concerns point #5 of my original review:

(5) Besides cumulative probability distributions, I asked the authors to show the TAD2-TAD4 (model vs. exp) distances in Fig. 3c as relative frequency histograms. This allows readers to more accurately evaluate whether model and experimental distributions have same shape and variance.

eLife assessment

This important study investigates the sensitivity to endogenous cosolvents of three families of intrinsically disordered proteins involved with desiccation. The findings, drawn from well-designed experiments and calculations, suggest a functional synergy between sensitivity to small molecule solutes and convergent desiccation protection strategy. The evidence is found to be convincing, and the authors provide appropriate caveats since the study's conclusions are based on a small number of proteins. This work will be of interest to biochemists and biophysicists interested in the conformation-function relationship of intrinsically disordered proteins.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The individual roles of both cosolvents and intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) in desiccation have been well established, but few studies have tried to elucidate how these two factors may contribute synergistically. The authors quantify the synergy for the model and true IDPs involved with desiccation and find that only the true IDPs have strong desiccation tolerance and synergy with cosolvents. Using these as model systems, they quantify the local (secondary structure vis-a-vi CD spectroscopy) and global dimensions (vis-a-vi the Rg of SAXS experiments) and find no obvious changes with the co-solvents. Instead, they focus on the gelation of one of the IDPs and, using theory and experiments, suggest that the co-solvents may enable desiccation tolerance, an interesting hypothesis to guide future in vivo desiccation studies. A few minor points that remained unclear to this reviewer and that were noted previously have been reasonably addressed in this revision.

Strengths:

This paper is quite extensive and has significant strengths worth highlighting. Notably, the number and type of methods employed to study IDPs are quite unusual, employing CD spectroscopy, SAXS measurements, and DSC. The use of the TFE is an exciting integration of the physical chemistry of cosolvents into the desiccation field is a nice approach and a clever way of addressing the gap of the lack of conformational changes depending on the cosolvents. Furthermore, I think this is a major point and strength of the paper; the underlying synergy of cosolvents and IDPs may lie in the thermodynamics of the dehydration process.

Figure S6A is very useful. I encourage readers who are confused about the DSC analysis, interpretation, and calculation to refer to it.

Weaknesses:

All minor weaknesses were addressed in this revision.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The paper aims to investigate the synergies between desiccation chaperones and small molecule cosolutes, and describe its mechanistic basis. The paper reports that IDP chaperones have stronger synergies with the cosolutes they coexist with, and in one case suggests that this is related to oligomerization propensity of the IDP.

Strengths:

The authors have done a good job improving the paper. The study uses a lot of orthogonal methods and the experiments are technically well done. They are addressing a new question that has not really been addressed previously.

Weaknesses:

The conclusions are still based on a few examples and only partial correlations. However, this is now acknowledged by the authors and the conclusions are presented with appropriate caveats.

Author response:

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The individual roles of both cosolvents and intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) in desiccation have been well established, but few studies have tried to elucidate how these two factors may contribute synergistically. The authors quantify the synergy for the model and true IDPs involved with desiccation and find that only the true IDPs have strong desiccation tolerance and synergy with cosolvents. Using these as model systems, they quantify the local (secondary structure vis-a-vi CD spectroscopy) and global dimensions (vis-a-vi the Rg of SAXS experiments) and find no obvious changes with the co-solvents. Instead, they focus on the gelation of one of the IDPs and, using theory and experiments, suggest that the co-solvents may enable desiccation tolerance, an interesting hypothesis to guide future in vivo desiccation studies. A few minor points that remain unclear to this reviewer are noted.

Strengths:

This paper is quite extensive and has significant strengths worth highlighting. Notably, the number and type of methods employed to study IDPs are quite unusual, employing CD spectroscopy, SAXS measurements, and DSC. The use of the TFE is an exciting integration of the physical chemistry of cosolvents into the desiccation field is a nice approach and a clever way of addressing the gap of the lack of conformational changes depending on the cosolvents. Furthermore, I think this is a major point and strength of the paper; the underlying synergy of cosolvents and IDPs may lie in the thermodynamics of the dehydration process.

Figure S6A is very useful. I encourage readers who are confused about the DSC analysis, interpretation, and calculation to refer to it.

Weaknesses:

Overall, the paper is sound and employs strong experimental design and analysis. However, I wish to point out a few minor weaknesses.

Perhaps the largest, in terms of reader comprehension, focuses on the transition between the model peptides and real IDPs in Figures 1 and 2. Notably, little is discussed with respect to the structure of the IDPs and what is known. Notably, I was confused to find out when looking at Table 1 that many of the IDPs are predicted to be largely unordered, which seemed to contrast with some of the CD spectroscopy data. I wonder if the disorder plots are misleading for readers. Can the authors comment more on this confusion? What are these IDPs structurally?

We apologize for the confusion caused here and thank the reviewer for this astute observation. Our CD spectroscopy data suggests all LEA proteins are almost entirely disordered under aqueous conditions, with a single major minimum at 200 nm, although most have a small inflection around 220 nm, indicating a small proportion of helicity (Fig. 3A). The notable exception here is CAHS D, which – in line with our work and the work of many others – possesses a substantial degree of transient helicity in the linker region (residues 100-200), giving rise to a more pronounced minimum at 220 nm. These conclusions are consistent with our SAXS data (Fig. 4), which predict a radius of gyration far larger than a globular folded protein of the same number of residues should have (15-20 Å). The structural predictions (both Metapredict and AlphaFold2), however, imply several of the proteins to be ordered; AvLEA1C and HeLEA68614 are both predicted to have large folded regions based on metapredict disorder scores. We believe this is an erroneous prediction driven by these regions' propensity to acquire helicity in the context of desiccation (Fig 3B) and/or when interacting with clients. As such, our computational analysis is at odds with the experimental data because these proteins are all poised to undergo a coil-to-helix transition, an effect our parallel work has proposed is important for their function (see Biswas et al. Prot. Sci. 2024). The ability of AlphaFold2 to predict bound-state or transient helices has been previously documented (Alderson et al PNAS 2023)

To address this discrepancy, the caption for Table 1 reads: “We note that the reason many of these profiles contain large folded regions is because the amphipathic LEA and CAHS proteins are predicted to form helices, which metapredict infers and incorrectly highlights these regions as ‘folded’ when really they are disordered in isolation”. We have also added additional context and information to the caption for Fig. S9 “We note that the structural predictions from AlphaFold2 contain largely ordered structures. We believe this is due to the propensity of these proteins to form helices in the context of drying or when interacting with a client. This has been shown in cases where an IDR contains residual helicity or is folded upon binding [70].”

Related to the above thoughts, the alpha fold structures for the LEA proteins are predicted (unconfidently) as being alpha-helical in contrast to the CD data. Does this complicate the TFE studies and eliminate the correlation for the LEA proteins?

AlphaFold2 predicted helicity in disordered regions is commonly observed, and thought to indicate a possible “bound” helical state (Alderson et al. PNAS 2023). As shown by the CD data, in aqueous conditions no secondary structure exists. It is only in the desiccated state - the path to which requires proteins to reach excessively high concentrations - that this secondary structure appears. Underlying our TFE model is that the AlphaFold2 predicted secondary structure is indicative of the state the proteins are in at high abundance, which occurs as cells ramp up protectant expression and as water is removed from the system. Under these assumptions, the CD data is in agreement with the AlphaFold2 predictions, and our analysis holds. This is explained in the methods under “Transfer Free Energy (TFE) Calculations” - but we have now also added an additional sentence to this effect in the main text: “Using a similar AlphaFold2-based approach for LEA proteins and for BSA, we can make correlations between the Gtr of the disorder-to-order transition and synergy (Fig. S8F-K). Interestingly, AlphaFold2 predictions of our LEA proteins were broadly helical, which is in contrast to our experimental characterization of these proteins in aqueous solutions. However, this is not unusual for AlphaFold2 predictions and could possibly represent a “bound” conformation for the proteins [70].”

Additionally, the notation that the LEA and BSA proteins do not correlate is unclear to this reviewer, aren't many of the correlations significant, having both a large R^2 and significant p-value?

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. While BSA and some LEA proteins have values that correlate with synergy, there’s more to consider in assessing the relevance of these correlations. For example, we cannot claim that the value is physiologically relevant without observing an actual structural change in the protein. Furthermore, several of these proteins (BSA and AvLEA1C) were found to be not significantly synergistic in the LDH assay, and any correlation should, therefore, also be considered non-significant. We have added a sentence to the results to clarify this: “For a subset of these proteins, we see a statistically significant correlation between G and synergy. However, this data is purely computational. For CAHS D, we saw our predictions recapitulated in changes in the protein structure, and for the LEA proteins we do not. Thus, we conclude that cosolutes do not induce synergy in our LEA proteins through a change in folding.”

The calculation of synergy seems too simplistic or even problematic to me. While I am not familiar with the standards in the desiccation field, I think the approach as presented may be problematic due to the potential for higher initial values of protection to have lower synergies (two 50%s for example, could not yield higher than 100%).

We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern about our synergy calculation. We would like to highlight the use of sub-optimal protective concentrations in our synergy assays similar to studies previously reported in the desiccation field (Nguyen et al. 2022; Kim et al. 2018).

As the reviewer pointed out, we agree that there is a theoretical 100% threshold in our experiments which if we hit, we cannot distinguish between individual additive vs synergistic effects. To avoid the situation of reaching the near maximal protection levels (~100%), we intentionally select a sub-optimal concentration of the protectants that are below the maximum efficacy level for individual protectants to use in our assays. This limits the potential for initial higher values of the protectants so that their combined effect is not maximized, and there is always the potential for synergy. We would also like to point out that we never actually hit that 100% threshold in any of our synergy experiments, which warrants that any observed increase in protection is attributed to a true synergistic effect between the protectants.

Instead, I would think one would need to really think of it as an apparent equilibrium constant between functional and non-functional LDH (Kapp = [Func]/[Not Func] and frac = Kapp/(1+Kapp) or Kapp = frac/(1-frac) ) Then after getting the apparent equilibrium constants for the IDP and cosolvent (KappIDP and KappCS), the expected additive effect would be frac = (KappIDP+KappCS)/(1+KappIDP+KappCS).

Consequently, the extent of synergy could be instead calculated as KappBOTH-KappIDP-KappCS. Maybe this reviewer is misunderstanding. It is recommended that the authors clarify why the synergy calculation in the manuscript is reasonable.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In the desiccation field, the synergy calculations that we used is the standard method that people use, so that’s what we present in our main manuscript. However, we have now quantified synergy through two new approaches: one, as suggested by the reviewer, using the equilibrium constant (Kapp) as a metric, and the other using the Bliss Independent model, which is a common approach for calculating synergy in drug combination studies. We see minimal differences in terms of the synergy scores using these different methods. We have included the results for these additional methods in supplemental figure S3.

Related to the above, the authors should discuss the utility of using molar concentration instead of volume fraction or mass concentration. Notably, when trehalose is used in concentration, the volume fraction of trehalose is much smaller compared to the IDPs used in Figure 2 or some in Figure 1. Would switching to a different weighted unit impact the results of the study, or is it robust to such (potentially) arbitrary units?

We thank the reviewer for this comment. Indeed, in studies of cosolute effect, concentration units can alter the conclusions of the study (Auton and Bolen 2004). In our case, the relevant figures where we use a concentration scale (1B and 2B) are not germane to the main conclusions: The only use of these PD50 values is to determine a sub-optimal concentration at which ~30% of the LDH is protected. While it is true that the number for the concentration of e.g., trehalose will be dramatically different if we were to use mass fraction units, the rest of the work and all our conclusions would be exactly the same.

Additionally, our use of a molar ratio when discussing synergy is a direct result of the way we think about such synergy: Since the concentration of both protein and cosolute can change by orders of magnitude during drying, it is the copy numbers of both proteins and cosolute that are conserved in this process, and it is this unit that we think is important to the protective effect (rather than the partial molar volume, for example, which would be changing as the system dries).

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The paper aims to investigate the synergies between desiccation chaperones and small molecule cosolutes, and describe its mechanistic basis. The paper reports that IDP chaperones have stronger synergies with the cosolutes they coexist with, and in one case suggests that this is related to oligomerization propensity of the IDP.

Strengths:

The study uses a lot of orthogonal methods and the experiments are technically well done. They are addressing a new question that has not really been addressed previously.

Weaknesses:

The conclusions are based on a few examples and only partial correlations. While the data support mechanistic conclusions about the individual proteins studied, it is not clear that the conclusions can be generalized to the extent proposed by the authors due to small effect sizes, small numbers of proteins, and only partial correlations.

Thank you for bringing this up. We agree that we should not generalize our results to other systems based on the evidence we have for the proteins used in our study. We have altered our discussion to highlight that this may apply to other IDPs, and that future experiments must be done to support this: “Additionally, we want to point out that our results cannot necessarily be generalized to all desiccation-related IDPs. More experiments will be needed to assess the relevance of cosolute effects to functional synergy and IDP folding in the context of desiccation and beyond. This remains an important future direction for the field.”

The authors pose relevant questions and try to answer them through a systematic series of experiments that are all technically well-conducted. The data points are generally interpreted appropriately in isolation, however, I am a little concerned about a tendency to over-generalize their findings. Many of the experiments give negative or non-conclusive results (not a problem in itself), which means that the overall storyline is often based on single examples.

We agree with the reviewer’s point. As mentioned earlier, we have modified our manuscript to reflect that our findings are based on the six proteins that we studied, and we can only speculate about other desiccation-related IDPs based on our results.

For example, the central conclusion that IDPs interact synergistically with their endogenous co-solute (Figure 2E) is largely driven by one outlier from Arabidopsis. The rest are relatively close to the diagonal, and one could equally well suggest that the cosolutes affect the IDPs equally (which is also the conclusion in 1F).

We appreciate the reviewer’s concern regarding our conclusion in Figures 2E and 1F. We would like to highlight that our conclusions that IDPs interact synergistically with their endogenous cosolute are based on statistical analysis. Our data shows that full-length proteins that were synergistic with both cosolutes are always significantly more synergistic with the endogenous cosolute (Fig. 2E, Fig. S2C-E). For example, the nematode protein is synergistic with both trehalose and sucrose, but is significantly more synergistic with trehalose, the endogenous nematode cosolute, than with sucrose (Fig S2D).

This is not the case in 1F. In Fig. 1F, it is to note that not only are the points close to the diagonal, but most points are close to zero along both axes indicating no synergy. In fact, many points have negative synergy (antagonistic effect).

We do recognize that our conclusions are based on the study of a specific set of six IDPs, and we do not want to overreach in our conclusions. To acknowledge this, we have now added text to emphasize that our conclusion is based on the six proteins that we tested, and we speculate it might apply to other systems: “Our data shows that these six IDPs synergize best with their endogenous cosolute to promote desiccation tolerance and we speculate that this may apply to other desiccation-related IDPs”.

Similarly, the mechanistic explanations tend to be based on single examples. This is somewhat unavoidable as biophysical studies cannot be done on thousands of proteins, but the text should be toned down to reflect the strength of the conclusions.

We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern. We have modified our manuscript accordingly to reflect that the mechanistic insights we gained are for the six proteins we tested empirically. These changes can be found throughout the manuscript. None of our experiments rule out the possibility that other LEA proteins or CAHS proteins may show different structural transitions, or that other IDPs may take on structural changes in response to the cosolutes.

The central hypothesis revolves around the interplay between cosolutes and IDP chaperones comparing chaperones from species with different complements of cosolutes. In Table 1, it is mentioned that Arabidopsis uses both trehalose and sucrose as a cosolute, yet experiments are only done with either of these cosolutes and Arabidopsis is counted in the sucrose column. While it makes sense to compare them separately from a biophysical point of view, the ability to test the co-evolution of these systems is somewhat diminished by this. At least it should be discussed clearly.

We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. As is mentioned in Table 1, Arabidopsis uses both trehalose and sucrose as cosolute. As such, we would predict that the Arabidopsis proteins would respond positively to both cosolutes. We would like to point out that Arabidopsis is counted in both trehalose and sucrose columns.

We would also like to emphasize that multiple osmolytes exist in all organisms as a desiccation response and a simple IDP-cosolute system is far from a true recapitulation of a desiccating system. We have touched on this in the discussion and explicitly addressed the presence of both cosolutes in Arabidopsis and the need for further experiments to test for synergistic interactions using both or multiple mediators to illustrate synergy in multiple cosolute systems: “It is important to note that desiccation-tolerant organisms employ multiple cosolutes to counteract the effects of desiccation. The use of a single cosolute-IDP system in our in vitro experiments does not accurately mirror the diverse cosolute changes in desiccating systems. For instance, Arabidopsis seeds enrich both trehalose and sucrose, among other cosolutes. This demands the necessity of future experiments that incorporate both or multiple cosolutes and assess their synergistic effects, thus elucidating the intricate synergy in multi-cosolute systems.”

It would be helpful if the authors could spell out the theoretical basis of how they quantify synergy. I understand what they are doing - and maybe there are no better ways to do it - but it seems like an approach with limitations. The authors identify one in that the calculation only works far from 100%, but to me, it seems there would be an equally strict requirement to be significantly above 0%. This would suggest that it is used wrongly in Figure 6H, where there is no effect of betaine (at least as far as the color scheme allows one to distinguish the different bars). In this case, the authors cannot really conclude synergy or not, it could be a straight non-synergistic inhibition by betaine.

We appreciate the reviewer’s concern about the theoretical basis of how we quantify synergy. We do acknowledge the limitation of our LDH protection/synergy assay only produces interpretable data when our protectant/mixture yields protection levels within the range 0 and below 100%. Betaine was not protective in any of the concentrations we tested in this study. In line with the reviewer’s comment, we also acknowledge that within our experimental procedures, the inhibitory effects of betaine cannot be accurately captured, considering that LDH activity is ~0% without protectants. However, in our positive control in which LDH is co-incubated with betaine or betaine and CAHS D overnight in the hydrated state, we do not see a loss of enzymatic function of LDH nullifying a direct inhibition by betaine. We have added this text in our manuscript: “Glycine betaine on its own is not protective to LDH during drying nor does it inhibit LDH activity (Fig. S8E)”.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

The conclusion in lines 195-196 seems overstated as the length dependence could be strongly changed in non-tested concentrations or those that are not possible experimentally. Notably, the IDPs in Figure 2 are around 200AA and only transition in the ranges tested for these peptides. Some other conclusions around this point seem a little overstated.

We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern about the potential variability of the length dependence of the motifs at concentrations beyond those tested. However, we would like to highlight that higher concentrations of the tandem repeats (At22 and At44) inactivated LDH during the incubation period, as was seen with  the 11-mer motifs. This meant we could not evaluate protection by these motifs at concentrations beyond those plotted in Fig. 1A. This behavior was not observed for the full-length proteins. Regardless, we have toned down the conclusion in lines 195-196 to only reflect our results for the 2X and 4X repeats of At11 which now reads “We synthesized 2X (At22) and 4X (At44) tandem repeats of the A. thaliana 11-mer LEA_4 motif (At11). At22 and At44 show minimal potency in preserving in vitro LDH function during drying (Fig. 1A, Fig. S1A).”

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Figure 3: The focus on the ratio 222/210 seems inappropriate. That would indeed be useful for telling apart e.g. an alpha-to-beta transition, or formation of coiled coils. However, for a helix-to-coil equilibrium, which is likely to dominate here, it will not be especially sensitive as demonstrated e.g. by BSA in the dry state.

We thank the reviewer for this comment. The use of ratios to measure structural transition is primarily to eliminate the effects of concentrations on the graph. It is clear from Fig. 3A and Fig. 3B that a structural transition occurs between the aqueous and the desiccated state. This is also very clear from the 222/210 ratio that we use (Fig. 3C), for every construct other than BSA - which indeed does not seem to undergo a dramatic structural change in the desiccated state. We have clarified this now in the description of the results: “Using this metric, all LEAs and CAHS D display a clear increase in helical propensity upon being desiccated (Fig. 3C). On the other hand, the helical propensity of BSA remains very similar to its hydrated state, indicating that no dramatic structural change took place (Fig. 3C).

Minor comments:

Figure 1F is not mentioned in the text.

We have included Fig. 1F in the text.

Some technical details missing for SAXS experiments.

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We’ve added additional technical details to the main text, and directed readers to the methods for more information.

It is well known that BSA is in a monomer-dimer equilibrium and this is normally taken into account in data analysis as this is often a calibration sample.

We’ve calculated for BSA, and correlated the resulting data with synergy. This can be found in figure S7M and figure S8I.

Line 247: "BSA, which comes from cows, which of course have no capacity for anhydrobiosis" - This seems like a rather strong statement without a reference. Did the authors consider reanimating beef jerky by soaking it in water? ;-)

This is a great idea, and we hope to assign this project to our next rotation student.

Minor suggestions for figures (that are generally very well done):

Figure 1-4: Consider using the color scheme to indicate what the endogenous cosolutes are. Even though this info is in table one, it would still improve readability.

We have added the colored organismal icons for all figures in which the plain black ones were previously used, including supplementals.

Figure 4: consider adding some white space between the two concentration series of solutes to avoid being read as a single concentration series.

We have updated this figure to clearly separate each sample by osmolyte.

Figure 6H: Consider changing the colors for Betaine and CAHS D, so they are easier to distinguish. They are hard to tell apart on a printout.

We have adjusted the colors for betaine and CAHS D.

eLife assessment

This study provides an important insight into the mechanisms of cooperation between Hsp70 and its cochaperones during reactivation of aggregated proteins. Based on convincing evidence, the authors demonstrate that the co-chaperone Hsp110 boosts disaggregation activity by enhancing Hsp70 recruitment to protein aggregates. This work is of broad interest to biochemists and cell biologists working in the protein homeostasis field.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Sztangierska et al explores how the Hsp70 chaperone together with its JDP-NEF cofactors and Hsp104 disentangle aggregated proteins. Specifically, the study provides mechanistic findings that explain what role the NEF class Hsp110 has in protein disaggregation. The results explain several previous observations related to Hsp110 in protein disaggregation. Importantly, the study provides compelling evidence that Hsp110 acts early in the disaggregation process.

Strengths:

(1) This is a very well performed study with multiple in vitro experiments that provide convincing support for the claims.

(2) An important finding is that the study places Hsp110 function early in the disaggregation process.

(3) The study has an important value in that it picks up on a number of observations in the field that have not been explored or directly tested by experiment. The presented results settle questions and controversy regarding Hsp110 function in disaggregation.

Weaknesses:

(1) While the key finding of this manuscript is that it places Hsp110 early in the disaggregation process, the other findings are advancing the field less.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Sztangierska et al. have investigated the impact of the nucleotide exchange (NEF) factor Hsp110 on the Hsp70-dependent dissolution of amorphous aggregates in the presence of representative members of two classes of J-domain protein.<br /> The authors find that the nucleotide exchange factor of the Hsp110 family, sse1, stimulates the disaggregation activity of yeast Hsp70, ssa1, in particular in the presence of the J-domain protein sis1. Linking chaperone-substrate interactions as determined by biolayer interferometry (BLI) to activity assays, they show that sse1 facilitates the loading of more ssa1 onto the aggregate substrate and propose that this is due to active remodelling of the protein aggregate which exposes more chaperone binding sites and thus facilitates reactivation. This study highlights two important facets of Hsp70 biology: different Hsp70 functions rely on the functional cooperation of specific co-chaperone combinations and the stoichiometry of the different players of the Hsp70 system is an important parameter in tuning Hsp70 chaperone activity.

Strengths:

The manuscript presents a systematic analysis of the functional cooperation of sse1 with a class B J-domain protein sis1 in the disaggregation of two different model aggregate substrates, allowing the authors to draw more general conclusions about Hsp70 disaggregation activity.

The authors can pinpoint the role of sse1 to the initial remodeling of aggregates, rather than the later stages of refolding, highlighting the functional specificity of Hsp70 co-chaperones.

They demonstrate the competitive nature of binding to ssa1 between sse1 and sis1 which can explain the poisoning of Hsp70 chaperone activities observed at high NEF concentrations.

Weaknesses:

While structural requirements have been identified that allow sse1, in cooperation with sis1, to facilitates the loading of Hsp70 on the amorphous aggregate substrate, how this is achieved on a mechanistic level remains an open question.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors studied the function of Hsp110 co-chaperones (e.g. yeast Sse1) in Hsp70-dependent protein disaggregation reactions. The study builds on former work by the authors (Wyszkowski et al., 2021, PNAS), analyzing the binding of Hsp70 and J-domain protein (JDP) cochaperones to protein aggregates using bio-layer interferometry (BLI). It was shown before by other groups that Hsp110 enhances Hsp70 disaggregation activity. The mechanism of Hsp110-stimulated disaggregation activity, however, remained poorly defined. Here, the authors show that yeast Hsp110 increases Hsp70 recruitment to the surface of protein aggregates. The effect is largely dependent on J-domain protein (JDP) identity and particularly pronounced for class B JDPs (e.g. yeast Sis1), which are also more effective in disaggregation reactions. The authors also confirm former results, showing inhibition by increased Hsp110 levels and provide novel evidence that the inhibitory effect is caused by competition between Hsp110 and JDPs for Hsp70 binding.

Strengths:

The work represents a very thoroughly executed study, which provides novel insights into the mechanism of Hsp70-mediated protein disaggregation. Key findings established for yeast chaperones are also documented for human counterparts. The observation that Hsp110 might displace JDPs from Hsp70 during the disaggregation reaction is very appealing. It will now become important to validate this initial finding and dissect how it propels the disaggregation reaction.

Weaknesses:

How exactly the interplay between JDPs and Hsp110 orchestrates protein disaggregation remains largely speculative and further analysis is required for a deeper mechanistic understanding.

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors): 

- The title may not reflect the key finding of the paper. It is well established in the field that the disaggregation process is sensitive to perturbations of the levels of the disaggregating factors.

We have changed the title to better reflect the major finding of the work, the importance of the NEF during the initiation of disaggregation. The new title is: Early Steps of Protein Disaggregation by Hsp70 Chaperone and Class B J-Domain Proteins are Shaped by Hsp110.

- Abstract:

Please note that the phrases "stimulation is much limited with class A JDPs", "limited destabilization of the chaperone complex improves disaggregation", and "tuned proportion between the co-chaperones" are hard to understand. Only after having read the manuscript are the meanings of these phrases accessible.

The phrases in the abstract were changed (page 1, lines 10-14).

- The subheading "Sse1 improves aggregate modification by Hsp70" on p. 7 is unclear. What is measured is a decrease in aggregate size dependent on Hsp70-JDP as well as Sse1.

The subheading was changed to include more precise information, into “Sse1 leads to Hsp70-depenent reduction of aggregate size”.

- The subheading "Biphasic effects of Sse1 on the Hsp70 disaggregation activity" does not describe the finding clearly; "Biphasic effects" is a term that is hard to understand.

To avoid phrases that can be understood in many ways, we have changed the subheading into “Hormetic effects of Sse1 in Hsp70 disaggregation activity”

- p.5, last line. Hsp110 typo The typos have been corrected.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) The article emphasises multiple times the importance of stoichiometry between the (co-)chaperones. Most figures would benefit from an indication of the used stoichiometry (or all absolute concentrations) to support the points made about the stoichiometry, especially the figures showing titrations of Sse1, Sse1-2, and Sis1 (Fig. 3D, 3E, 4A-C, S2B, S5F, S6A-E).

The information of protein concentrations has been included in all figure captions.

(2) The manuscript includes a summary model. While this model is a plausible hypothesis of the mechanism of disaggregation by Hsp70, in particular when viewed with previous data (Wyszkowski et al., 2021), it focuses rather heavily on the potential remodeling of clients by Hsp70, which is not the primary focus of the data presented in this manuscript. More emphasis could be put on the JDP class/ functional specificity observed.

The model has been changed according to the Reviewer’s comments to better reflect the findings presented in the manuscript (Figure 5).

(3) The methods section is very brief. I recommend including additional details about reaction conditions (temperature, buffer compositions, protein concentrations) even when previously reported elsewhere to improve the readability of the manuscript. Details regarding the DLS experiments performed are missing.

More detailed information on the experimental conditions has been added to the Methods section, as well as to figure legends.

(4) Many experiments incorporate BLI to assess the effect of NEFs on the binding of the Hsp70 and JDP to aggregates. Although appropriate controls are included (no ATP, Hsp70, and JDP only), a control with only Hsp70 and the NEF would be useful to determine to which extent the NEF itself alters the thickness of the (Hsp70-bound) aggregate biolayer.

The suggested controls were added (Figure 1—figure supplement 1 G) and discussed in the manuscript (page 5, lines 23-24).

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

- The refolding assay makes use of Luciferase denatured in 5 M GdnHCl. These conditions lead to a spontaneous refolding yield of 20% (Figure 3C), which is very high and limits conclusions on the effect of Hsp110 but also JDPs on the refolding process. Typically this assay uses 6 M GdnHCl for Luciferase denaturation and under these conditions, spontaneous refolding of Luciferase is hardly observed (e.g. Laufen et al. PNAS 1999). The authors are therefore asked to repeat key experiments using altered (6M) GdnHCl concentrations.

We based our experiments assessing luciferase refolding on the publication by Imamoglu et al. (2020), in which the authors, using 5 M GdnHCl for luciferase denaturation, demonstrated that spontaneous and chaperone-assisted luciferase refolding strongly depends on luciferase concentration. In this work, a similar degree of luciferase refolding was reported for the same final luciferase concentration (100 nM) as we used in our experiments (Figure 1—figure supplement 1D). As an additional control, we compared the effects of 5 M and 6 M of GdnHCl during denaturation on luciferase refolding under the same conditions (100 nM, 25 °C, 2 h) and we observed no significant differences (Author response image 1).

Author response image 1.

Chaperone-assisted folding of luciferase after denaturation at 5 M or 6 M GdnHCl. Luciferase was denatured in 5 M or 6 M GdnHCl according to the protocol in the Materials and Methods section. Luminescence was monitored alone or after incubation with Luminescence was monitored alone or after incubation with Ssa1-Sis1 or Ssa1-Ydj1. Chaperones were used at 1 µM concentration. Luciferase activity was measured after 2 hours and normalized to the activity of the native protein. Error bars indicate SD from three repeats.

- Figure 1B: The authors are asked to provide binding curves for Ssa1/Sse1 (no Sis1) and Sis1/Sse1 (no Ssa1) as controls. Particularly the latter combination is required as direct cooperation between Hsp110 and JDPs has been suggested in the literature (Mattoo et al., JBC 2013).

We performed the suggested BLI experiment, and the results are presented in the new Figure 1—figure supplement 1 G (page 5, lines 23-24).

- Figure 1B (and other figure parts showing BLI data): it is unclear how often the BLI experiments have been performed. This should be stated in the figure legend. Can the authors add SDs to the respective curves?

We added detailed information about the number of replicates to the figure legends. SD bars were added to the BLI results shown in Figures1-4, apart from the results of titrations, for which, for the sake of clarity, the three replicates are represented in the plots on the right (Figure 3D). In the case of less than 3 repeats of the results presented in the Supplementary Figures, the remaining repeats are added to the provided Source Data file, information about which has been added to the captions of the respective figures. 

- The observation that Hsp110 can interrupt Hsp70 interaction with JDPs is intriguing. Do the authors envision JDP displacement from the aggregate? If so this could be shown in BLI experiments by monitoring the release of fluorescently labeled Sis1 (similar to labeled Ssa1, Fig. S3C). Or will the released JDP immediately rebind to another binding site on the aggregate? The authors should at least discuss the diverse scenarios as they are relevant to the mechanism of protein disaggregation.

The proposed experiment is challenging due to the transient nature of Sis1 binding to aggregate and high background observed with the method using the fluorescently labelled proteins. The aspect of chaperone’s re-binding after their release by Hsp110 proposed by the reviewer has been introduced into the Discussion section (pages 12/13, lines 25-4). We speculate that Hsp110 might release an Hsp70 molecule as well as a JDP molecule that had been bound to the aggregate through Hsp70 (Figure 5).  

- Figure 2B: Ssa1/Sis1/Sse1 strongly decreases the size of Luciferase-GFP aggregates. Yet this activity only allows for limited refolding of aggregated Luciferase and the reaction stays largely dependent on Hsp104. How do the authors envision the role of the hexameric disaggregase in this process? Does it act exclusively on small-sized aggregates after Hsp110-dependent fragmentation?

A question of the Hsp104 activity with the Hsp70-processed aggregates is indeed intriguing and we agree that it should have been discussed more thoroughly. We added to the manuscript the results of the reactivation of luciferase-GFP with and without Hsp104 to emphasize the role of Hsp104 in the active protein recovery (Figure 2—figure supplement 1A) (page 7, lines 24-27). We propose that aggregate fragmentation by Hsp70-JDPB-Hsp110 increases the effective aggregate surface, at which Hsp104 might become engaged. We do not think that Hsp104 acts only on small aggregates, it might be just more effective, when the number of exposed polypeptides is larger. In the cell, where Hsp104 binds to aggregates of various sizes, protein aggregates apparently also need to undergo such Hsp110-boosted pre-processing by Hsp70, based on the finding that Sse1 is not necessary for Hsp104 recruitment to aggregates, but it is required for Hsp104-dependent disaggregation (Kaimal et al., 2017). We have added a comment on this problem to the Discussion section (pages 11/12, lines 33-4) .

- Page 9: The authors state that the Sse1-2 variant is nearly as effective as Sse1 Wt in stimulating substrate dissociation and refer to published work (Polier et al., 2008). It is unclear how the variant should have Wtlike activity in triggering substrate release although its activity in catalyzing nucleotide exchange is reduced to 5% (both activities are coupled). The observation that high Sse1-2 concentrations do not inhibit protein disaggregation does not necessarily exclude the possibility that high Sse1 WT concentration inhibit the reaction by overstimulating substrate release. The latter possibility should be considered by the authors and added to the discussion section.

We agree with the Reviewer that the description of the Sse1-2 variant was misleading, as it was lacking the key information, that according to the published data (Polier et al., 2008), it was 10 times higher the concentration of the Sse1-2 variant than Sse1 WT that had a similar nucleotide-exchange activity to the wild type. We have changed the text (page 9, lines 16-22, page 13, lines 26-28) to avoid confusion as well as the model in the Figure 5, to underline the importance of substrate release as the cause of the Hsp110-dependent inhibition.

- While similar effects are observed for human class A and class B JDP co-chaperones, they are clearly less pronounced. A mechanistic explanation for the difference between yeast and human chaperones is currently missing and the authors are asked to elaborate on this aspect.

There are indeed clear differences between the human and yeasts systems, especially regarding the dependence on the NEF. Hsc70 has been reported to have a lower rate of ADP release (Dragovic et al., 2006) and thus might rely more on Hsp110 than its yeast ortholog. For the same reason, the strong Hsc70 stimulation by Hsp105 is also observed with class A JDP. We have added a comment on these effects in the Discussion section (page 12, lines 17-21).

Minor points

- Figure S1C (right): the disaggregation rate (%GFP/h) is somewhat misleading/confusing as a value of more than 150%/h is determined in the presence of the complete disaggregation system while only approx. 60% GFP is indeed refolded by the system (Figure S1C, left). Showing the rate as %GFP/min seems more rational.

We changed the units according to the Reviewer’s comment (Figure 1—figure supplement 1A, C).

- Figure S5B: Only a single data point is shown for Ssa1/Sis1/Sse1.

We changed the figure to include datapoints from all three repeats (Figure 3—figure supplement 1 B).

- There are several typos throughout the manuscript. A more careful proofreading is recommended

We have corrected the typos.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The experiments differ somewhat in regard to the aggregated protein used. For example, in Figure 1A, FFL is used with only limited reactivation (10% reactivated at the last timepoint and the curve is flattening), while in Figure 2B FFL-EGFP is used to monitor microscopically what appears to be complete disaggregation. Does FFL-EGFP behave the same as FFL in assays such as the one in Figure 1A or are there major differences that may impact how the data should be interpreted?

We added the results of Luc-GFP reactivation (Figure 2—figure supplement 1 B) (discussed on page 7, lines 24-27 of the manuscipt) which agree with the results obtain with Luciferase as a substrate (Figure 1—figure supplement 1 B). They clearly show that the Ssa1-Sis1-Sse1-dependent decrease in aggregate size is not associated with the recovery of active protein.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Experimental data concerning the class A JDPs should be interpreted with caution. These experiments show very small reactivation activities for luciferase in the range of 0-1% without the addition of Hsp104 and 0-15% with the addition of Hsp104. Moreover, since the assay is based on the recovery of luciferase activity, it conflates two chaperone activities, namely disaggregation and refolding. It is possible that the small degree of reactivation observed for the class A JDP reflects a minor subpopulation of the aggregated species that is particularly easy to disaggregate/refold and may thus not be representative of bulk behaviour.

The disaggregation by the Hsp70 system can be enhanced by the addition of small heat shock proteins at the step of substrate aggregation (Rampelt et al., 2012). However, sHsps compete with Hsp70 for binding to the aggregate (Żwirowski et al., 2017) and for that reason we decided not to include sHsps in the experiments presented in the manuscript, as it would introduce another level of complexity. However, as a control, we performed the disaggregation assay with Hsp70 with Ydj1 using luciferase aggregates formed in the presence or absence of sHsp (Author response image 2). In 1 h, the Hsp70 system without Hsp104 yielded 5% of recovered luciferase activity and the system with Hsp104, 23% compared to the native. The impact of Sse1 on Ssa1-Ydj1 and Ssa1-Ydj1-Hsp104 was similar as for luciferase aggregates formed without sHsps (Figure 1A, Figure 1—figure supplement 1 B). Furthermore, according to the Reviewer’s comment, we have changed the Figure 5 to underscore the more prominent role of class A JDPs in the final protein folding than in disaggregation.

Author response image 2.

Disaggregaton of heat-aggregated luciferase – impact of sHsps. Luciferase (2 μM) was denatured with (blue) or without (red) Hsp26 (20 μM) at 45 ̊C for 15 min in the buffer A (Materials and Methods). Upon 100-fold dilution with the buffer A, supplemented wih 5 mM ATP, 2 mM DTT, 1.2 μM creatine kinase, 20 mM creatine phosphate, chaperones indicated in the legend were added to the final concentration of 1 μM, except for Sse1, concentration of which was 0.1 μM. Shown is luciferase activity measured after 1 h of incubation at 25 °C, normalized to the activity of native luciferase.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Enhanced recruitment of Hsp70 in the presence of Hsp110 was shown for amyloid fibrils before (Beton et al., EMBO J 2022) and should be acknowledged. 

We have added the suggested citation with a respective comment (page 11, lines 20-21).

eLife assessment

This fundamental study demonstrates a novel method for imaging glutamate receptors in situ via cryo-ET. The use of cutting-edge methods is well-described and is compelling. This paper is broadly relevant to biophysicists and neuroscientists.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Matsui et al. present an experimental pipeline for visualizing molecular machinery of synapses in the brain, which includes numerous techniques, starting with generating labeled antibodies and recombinant mice, continuing with HPF and FIB milling and finishing with tilt series collection and 3D image processing. This pipeline represents a breakthrough in preparation of brain tissue for high resolution imaging and can be used in future tomographic research to reconstruct molecular details of synaptic complexes as well as pre- and post-synaptic assemblies. This methodology can also be adapted for a broader range of tissue preparations and signifies the next step towards better structural understanding of how molecular machineries operate in natural conditions.

Strengths:

The manuscript is very well written, contains a detailed description of methodology, provides nice illustrations and will be an outstanding guide for future research.

Weaknesses:

None noted.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary

The authors present a method that allows for the identification and localization of molecular machinery at chemical synapses in unstained, unfixed native brain tissue slices. They believe that this approach will provide a 3D structural basis for understanding different mechanisms of synaptic transmission, plasticity, and development. To achieve this, the group used genetically engineered mouse lines and generated thin brain slices that underwent high-pressure freezing (HPF) and focused ion beam (FIB) milling. Utilizing cryo-electron tomography (cryo-ET) and integrating it with cryo-fluorescence microscopy, they achieved micrometer resolution in identifying the glutamatergic synapses along with nanometer resolution to locate AMPA receptors GluA2-subunits using Fab-AuNP conjugates. The findings are summarized with detailed examples of successfully prepared substrates for cryo-ET, specific morphological identification and localization, and the detailed structural organization of excitatory synapses, including synaptic vesicle clusters close to the postsynaptic density and in the cleft.

Strengths

The study advances previous work that used cultured neurons or synaptosomes. Combining cryo-electron tomography (cryo-ET) with fluorescence-guided targeting and labeling with Fab-AuNP conjugates enabled the study of synapses and molecular structures in their native environment without chemical fixation or staining. This preserves their near-native state, offering high specificity and resolution. The methods developed are mostly generalizable, allowing adaptation for identifying and localizing other key molecules at glutamatergic synapses and potentially useful for studying a variety of synapses and cellular structures beyond the scope of this research.

Weaknesses

The preparation and imaging techniques are complex and require highly specialized equipment and expertise, potentially limiting their accessibility and widespread adoption.

Additionally, the methods might need further modifications/tweaks to study other types of synapses or molecular structures effectively.

The reliance on genetically engineered mouse lines and monoclonal, high-affinity antibodies/Fab fragments to specifically label receptors/proteins would limit the wider employment of these methods.

Author response:

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Matsui et al. present an experimental pipeline for visualizing the molecular machinery of synapses in the brain, which includes numerous techniques, starting with generating labeled antibodies and recombinant mice, continuing with HPF and FIB milling, and finishing with tilt series collection and 3D image processing. This pipeline represents a breakthrough in the preparation of brain tissue for high-resolution imaging and can be used in future tomographic research to reconstruct molecular details of synaptic complexes as well as pre- and post-synaptic assemblies. This methodology can also be adapted for a broader range of tissue preparations and signifies the next step towards a better structural understanding of how molecular machineries operate in natural conditions.

Strengths:

The manuscript is very well written, contains a detailed description of methodology, provides nice illustrations, and will be an outstanding guide for future research.

Weaknesses:

None noted.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors present a method that allows for the identification and localization of molecular machinery at chemical synapses in unstained, unfixed native brain tissue slices. They believe that this approach will provide a 3D structural basis for understanding different mechanisms of synaptic transmission, plasticity, and development. To achieve this, the group used genetically engineered mouse lines and generated thin brain slices that underwent high-pressure freezing (HPF) and focused ion beam (FIB) milling. Utilizing cryo-electron tomography (cryo-ET) and integrating it with cryo-fluorescence microscopy, they achieved micrometer resolution in identifying the glutamatergic synapses along with nanometer resolution to locate AMPA receptors GluA2-subunits using Fab-AuNP conjugates. The findings are summarized with detailed examples of successfully prepared substrates for cryo-ET, specific morphological identification and localization, and the detailed structural organization of excitatory synapses, including synaptic vesicle clusters close to the postsynaptic density and in the cleft.

Strengths:

The study advances previous work that used cultured neurons or synaptosomes. Combining cryo-electron tomography (cryo-ET) with fluorescence-guided targeting and labeling with Fab-AuNP conjugates enabled the study of synapses and molecular structures in their native environment without chemical fixation or staining. This preserves their near-native state, offering high specificity and resolution. The methods developed are generalizable, allowing adaptation for identifying and localizing other key molecules at glutamatergic synapses and potentially useful for studying a variety of synapses and cellular structures beyond the scope of this research.

Weaknesses

The preparation and imaging techniques are complex and require highly specialized equipment and expertise, potentially limiting their accessibility and widespread adoption.

Additionally, the methods might need further modifications/tweaks to study other types of synapses or molecular structures effectively.

The reliance on genetically engineered mouse lines may again impact the generalizability of the findings.

Similarly, the requirement of monoclonal, high-affinity antibodies/Fab fragments to specifically label receptors/proteins would limit the wider employment of these methods.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Matsui et al. present an experimental pipeline for visualizing the molecular machinery of synapsis in the brain, which includes numerous techniques, starting with generating labeled antibodies and recombinant mice, continuing with HPF and FIB milling, and finishing with tilt series collection and 3D image processing. This pipeline represents a breakthrough in the preparation of brain tissue for high-resolution imaging and can be used in future tomographic research to reconstruct molecular details of synaptic complexes as well as pre- and post-synaptic assemblies. This methodology can also be adapted for a broader range of tissue preparations and signifies the next step towards a better structural understanding of how molecular machineries operate in natural conditions.

The manuscript is very well written, contains a detailed description of methodology, provides nice illustrations, and will be an outstanding guide for future research. I only have a few suggestions to further improve this excellent manuscript.

The labeling experiment in Supplementary Figure 3 may have a limitation in the accessibility of certain "narrow" regions to 15F1Fabs (both JF646 and AuNP labeled). Would that be more correct to refer to the labeling of accessible GluA2-containing AMPARs rather than the majority of these receptors in the tissue (lines 180-183)?

The text has been modified to reference “accessible GluA2-containing AMPARs”

Minor comments:

(1) Lines 38-39. "natively derived" appears to be unnecessary here and can be deleted.

Done

(2) Line 153. Please specify the 20% dextran cryoprotectant.

Done.

(3) Lines 155-157. Please label the stratum radiatum and stratum lacunosum-moleculare in Figure 3B.

Done

(4) Figures 1C, 2B, 5B, 5D-E. Missing units for Y-axes.

Done

(5) Supplemental Figure 1. Please add band annotation.

Done

(6) Supplemental Figure 3. Scale bars are missing.

Done

(7) Supplemental Video 1 does not play.

The video file has been corrected.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

My congratulations to the authors for undertaking this challenging work.

Major concerns that need to be addressed:

It's unclear if the anti-GluA2 15F1 Fab-AuNP conjugate would affect the receptor clustering and localization on the synaptic membranes. It binds at the distal end, which is likely to impact its interactions with other synaptic proteins, which may affect the synaptic organization and function.

Concern addressed in the ‘Discussion’ section.

The hippocampal slices were treated with the anti-GluA2 15F1 Fab-148 AuNP conjugate for 1 hour at room temperature. It might be helpful to discuss the potential affects of Fab-AuNp on synaptic function. It has been demonstrated previously that introducing binders of the receptors ectodomains can affect synaptic function.

Concern also addressed in the ‘Discussion’ section. 

Kunimichi Suzuki et al. Science369,eabb4853(2020).DOI:10.1126/science.abb4853 https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230192810A1/en

eLife assessment

This revised study presents valuable evidence that a combination of endothelial cells, astrocytes, and neuroblastoma cells of human origin can integrate to form an in vitro brain blood barrier, that recapitulates key aspects of its natural counterpart, especially at short times. Convincingly, the mechanism by which neuroblastoma-secreted GDNF increases Claudin-5 and VE-cadherin is described. To substantiate the role of GDNF in vivo, authors demonstrated that knock-down of this neurotrophic factor, increased the permeability of the brain blood barrier in mice. This in vitro system can be used to study the permeability of the human brain blood barrier to different drugs.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper by Yang et al. established an in vitro triple co-culture BBB model and demonstrated its advantages compared with the mono or double co-culture BBB model. Further, the authors used their established in vitro BBB model and combined it with other methodologies to investigate the specific signaling mechanisms that co-culture with astrocytes but also neurons enhancing the integrity of endothelial cells.

Strengths:

The results persuasively demonstrated that the established triple co-culture BBB model well mimicked several important characteristics of BBB compared with the mono-culture BBB model, including better barrier function and in vivo/in vitro correlation. The use of human-derived immortalized cells made the model construction process faster and more efficient and had a better in vivo correlation without the complications of species differences. This model is expected to be a useful high-throughput evaluation tool for CNS drug development.

Moreover, the authors used a variety of experiments to prove that the triple co-culture model also reflected the interactions between NVU cells, including promoting endothelial cell proliferation and the formation of intercellular junctions. Interestingly, the authors found that neurons also released GDNF to promote barrier properties of brain endothelial cells, as most current research has focused on the promoting effect of astrocytes-derived GDNF on BBB. Meanwhile, the author also validated the functions of GDNF for BBB integrity in vivo by silencing GDNF in mouse brains. Overall, the experiments and data presented support the claim that neurons, alongside astrocytes, contribute to the promoting effects of the barrier function of endothelial cells through GDNF secretion.

Weaknesses:

While the authors explained that the use of human-derived immortalized cells has been justified as more reproducible and efficient in constructing the model, the TEER value of the triple co-culture model remains lower than that of the physiological statement. Future research may need to explore additional methods to further enhance the barrier function of the model.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Yang and colleagues developed a new in vitro blood-brain barrier model that is relatively simple yet outperforms previous models. By incorporating a neuroblastoma cell line, they demonstrated increased electrical resistance and decreased permeability to small molecules

Strengths:

The authors initially elucidated the soluble mediator responsible for enhancing endothelial functionality, namely GDNF. Subsequently, they elucidated the mechanisms by which GDNF upregulates the expression of VE-cadherin and Claudin-5. They further validated these findings in vivo, and demonstrated predictive value for molecular permeability as well. The study is meticulously conducted and easily comprehensible. The conclusions are firmly supported by the data, and the objectives are successfully achieved. This research is poised to advance future investigations in BBB permeability, leakage, dysfunction, disease modeling, and drug delivery, particularly in high-throughput experiments. I anticipate an enthusiastic reception from the community interested in this area. While other studies have produced similar results with tri-cultures (PMID: 25630899), this study notably enhances electrical resistance compared to previous attempts.

Weaknesses:

The power of this system lies in its simplicity, which is enough to study BBB permeability. However, it also lacks some other important cell-cell interactions such as those involving pericytes. Nonetheless, this is still a valuable tool for high throughput screening.

As with many other similar systems, it has lower TEER values compared to the in vivo counterpart, this is an issue that researchers in the field will have to address in future studies

Author response:

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors established an in vitro triple co-culture BBB model and demonstrated its advantages compared with the mono or double co-culture BBB model. Further, the authors used their established in vitro BBB model and combined it with other methodologies to investigate the specific mechanism that co-culture with astrocytes but also neurons enhanced the integrity of endothelial cells.

Strengths:

The results persuasively showed the established triple co-culture BBB model well mimicked several important characteristics of BBB compared with the mono-culture BBB model, including better barrier function and in vivo/in vitro correlation. The human-derived immortalized cells used made the model construction process faster and more efficient, and have a better in vivo correlation without species differences. This model is expected to be a useful high-throughput evaluation tool in the development of CNS drugs.

Based on the previous experimental results, detailed studies investigated how co-culture with neurons and astrocytes promoted claudin-5 and VE-cadherin in endothelial cells, and the specific signaling mechanisms were also studied. Interestingly, the authors found that neurons also released GDNF to promote barrier properties of brain endothelial cells, as most current research has focused on the promoting effect of astrocytes-derived GDNF on BBB. Meanwhile, the author also validated the functions of GDNF for BBB integrity in vivo by silencing GDNF in mouse brains. Overall, the experiments and data presented support their claim that, in addition to astrocytes, neurons also have a promoting effect on the barrier function of endothelial cells through GDNF secretion.

Weaknesses:

Although the authors demonstrated a highly usable for predicting the BBB permeability, recorded TEER measurements are still far from the human BBB in vivo reported measurements of TEER, and expression of transporters was not promoted by co-culture, which may lead to the model being unsuitable for studying drug transport mediated by transporters on BBB.

Thank the reviewer very much for the opportunity to improve our manuscript. The immortalized human cell lines, hCMEC/D3 cell, have poor barrier properties and differences in the expression of some transporters and metabolic enzymes as well as TEER compared to human physiological BBB. However, the use of human primary BMECs may be restricted by the acquisition of materials and ethical approval. Isolation and purification of human primary BMECs are time-consuming and laborious. Moreover, culture conditions can alter transcriptional activity (PMID: 37076016). All limit the establishment of BBB models based on primary human BMECs for high-throughput screening. Thus, hCMEC/D3 is still widely used to study characteristics of drug transport across BBB and the effects of certain diseases on BBB (PMID: 37076016; 38711118; 31163193) as it is easy to culture and can express a large number of transporters and metabolic enzymes in its physiological state. Therefore, hCMEC/D3 cells were selected to develop our in vitro BBB model.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Point 1: The authors claim that GDNF is mainly released by human neuroblastoma SH-SY5Y cells in the in vitro BBB model, but there are still some differences between the characteristics of cell lines and neurons. The authors should discuss or provide evidence about the distribution and source of GDNF in the brain to support this conclusion.

We greatly appreciate your helpful suggestions. According to your advice, we have revised the “Discussion” in the revised manuscript as follows:

In “Discussion”:

“GDNF is mainly expressed in astrocytes and neurons (Lonka-Nevalaita et al., 2010; Pochon et al., 1997). In adult animals, GDNF is mainly secreted by striatal neurons rather than astrocytes and microglial cells (Hidalgo-Figueroa et al., 2012). The present study also shows that GDNF mRNA levels in SH-SY5Y cells were significantly higher than that in U251 cells. GDNF was also detected in conditioned medium from SH-SY5Y cells. All these results demonstrate that neurons may secrete GDNF”.

Point 2: The authors found that co-culture induced the proliferation of endothelial cells (Figure 1H). I suggest the authors discuss whether the proliferation of endothelial cells would affect their permeability.

Thanks for your suggestion. According to your advice, we have investigated the effect of cell proliferation on the leakage of the cell layer and included the results in Figure 1—figure supplement 1. The present study showed that basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) increased cell proliferation of hCMEC/D3 cells but little affected the expression of both claudin-5 and VE-cadherin (in Figure 2F). The hCMEC/D3 cells were incubated with different doses of bFGF and permeabilities of fluorescein (NaF) and FITC-Dextran 3–5 kDa across hCMEC/D3 cell monolayer were measured. The results showed that incubation with bFGF increased cell proliferation and reduced permeabilities of fluorescein and FITC-Dextran across hCMEC/D3 cell monolayer. However, the permeability reduction was less than that by double co-culture with U251 cells or triple co-culture. These results inferred that contribution of cell proliferation to the barrier function of hCMEC/D3 cells was minor. We have made the modifications in “Results” of our manuscript as follows:

In “Result”:

“Furthermore, hCMEC/D3 cells were incubated with basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF), which promotes cell proliferation without affecting both claudin-5 and VE-cadherin expression (Figure 2F). The results showed that incubation with bFGF increased cell proliferation and reduced permeabilities of fluorescein and FITC-Dex across hCMEC/D3 cell monolayer. However, the permeability reduction was less than that by double co-culture with U251 cells or triple co-culture. These results inferred that contribution of cell proliferation to the barrier function of hCMEC/D3 was minor (Figure 1—figure supplement 1)”.

Point 3: The authors claimed that GDNF induced the expression of claudin-5 and VE-cadherin separately. However, Andrea Taddei et al. reported that VE-cadherin itself also regulates claudin-5 through the inhibitory activity of FoxO1 (Andrea Taddei et al., 2008). The authors did not consider whether the upregulation of claudin-5 is associated with the increase of VE-cadherin.

Thank you for your suggestion. We also investigated whether VE-cadherin affected claudin-5 expression in hCMEC/D3 cells transfected with VE-cadherin siRNA. It was not consistent with the report by Taddei et al. that silencing VE-cadherin only slightly decreased the mRNA level of claudin-5 without significant difference. Furthermore, basal and GDNF-induced claudin-5 protein levels were unaltered by silencing VE-cadherin. The discrepancies may come from characteristics of the tested cells. Endothelial cells derived from murine embryonic stem cells with homozygous null mutation were used in Taddei’s study, while we transfected immortalized brain microvascular endothelial cells with siRNA. Several reports have demonstrated different mechanisms regulating expression of claudin-5 and VE-cadherin. In retinal endothelial cells, hyperglycemia remarkably reduced claudin-5 expression (but not VE-cadherin) (PMID: 24594192). However, in hCMEC/D3 cells, hypoglycemia significantly decreased claudin-5 (not VE-cadherin) expression but hyperglycemia increased VE-cadherin expression (not claudin 5) (PMID: 24708805). Therefore, the roles of VE-cadherin in regulation of claudin-5 in BBB should be further investigated.

Following your valuable suggestion, we have modified the “Results”, “Discussion” and “Figure 4—figure supplement 1” in the revised manuscript as follows:

In “Result”:

“It was reported that VE-cadherin also upregulates claudin-5 via inhibiting FOXO1 activities (Taddei et al, 2008). Effect of VE-cadherin on claudin-5 was studied in hCMEC/D3 cells silencing VE-cadherin. It was not consistent with the report by Taddei et al. that silencing VE-cadherin only slightly decreased the mRNA level of claudin-5 without significant difference. Furthermore, basal and GDNF-induced claudin-5 protein levels were unaltered by silencing VE-cadherin (Figure 4—figure supplement 1). Thus, the roles of VE-cadherin in regulation of claudin-5 in BBB should be further investigated.”

In “Discussion”:

“Claudin-5 expression is also regulated by VE-cadherin (Taddei et al., 2008). Differing from the previous reports, silencing VE-cadherin with siRNA only slightly affected basal and GDNF-induced claudin-5 expression. The discrepancies may come from different characteristics of the tested cells. Several reports have supported the above deduction. In retinal endothelial cells, hyperglycemia remarkably reduced claudin-5 expression (but not VE-cadherin) (Saker et al., 2014). However, in hCMEC/D3 cells, hypoglycemia significantly decreased claudin-5 expression but hyperglycemia increased VE-cadherin expression (Sajja et al., 2014)”.

“Figure 4—figure supplement 1: The contribution of VE-Cadherin on the GDNF-induced claudin-5 expression. Effects of the VE-Cadherin siRNA (siVE-Cad) on mRNA expression of VE-cadherin (A) and claudin-5 (B). Effects of siVE-Cad and GDNF on claudin-5 and VE-cadherin protein expression (C). NC: negative control plasmids. The above data are shown as the mean ± SEM. Four biological replicates per group. Two technical replicates for A and B, and one technical replicate for C. Statistical significance was determined using unpaired Student’s t-test or one-way ANOVA test followed by Fisher’s LSD test.”

Point 4:  The annotation of significance with the p-values in the figures might not be visually concise and clear. It is recommended to provide the p-values in the legends or raw data.

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have revised our figures in our revised manuscript. The specific p-values and statistical methods were summarized in the source data files of each figure.

Point 5: The authors need to note the material of the Transwell membrane used to increase the reproducibility of experiments, because different materials may cause differences in permeability and TEER (DianeM. Wuest et al., 2013).

We greatly appreciate your valuable suggestions. According to your advice, we have provided the information on the material of the Transwell membrane in the “Materials and Methods” in the revised manuscript as follows:

In “Materials and Methods”:

“U251 cells were seeded at 2 × 104 cells/cm2 on the bottom of Transwell inserts (PET, 0.4 µm pore size, SPL Life Sciences, Pocheon, Korea) coated with rat-tail collagen (Corning Inc., Corning, NY, USA)”.

Point 6: It is not necessary to abbreviate "in vitro/in vivo correlation" in the legend of Figure 7 as it was not mentioned again in the following text.

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have deleted the abbreviation of "Figure 7" of the revised manuscript.

In “Figure 7”

“Figure 7. In vitro/in vivo correlation assay of BBB permeability."

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Yang and colleagues developed a new in vitro blood-brain barrier model that is relatively simple yet outperforms previous models. By incorporating a neuroblastoma cell line, they demonstrated increased electrical resistance and decreased permeability to small molecules.

Strengths:

The authors initially elucidated the soluble mediator responsible for enhancing endothelial functionality, namely GDNF. Subsequently, they elucidated the mechanisms by which GDNF upregulates the expression of VE-cadherin and Claudin-5. They further validated these findings in vivo, and demonstrated predictive value for molecular permeability as well. The study is meticulously conducted and easily comprehensible. The conclusions are firmly supported by the data, and the objectives are successfully achieved. This research is poised to advance future investigations in BBB permeability, leakage, dysfunction, disease modeling, and drug delivery, particularly in high-throughput experiments. I anticipate an enthusiastic reception from the community interested in this area. While other studies have produced similar results with tri-cultures (PMID: 25630899), this study notably enhances electrical resistance compared to previous attempts.

Weaknesses:

(A) Considerable effort has been directed towards developing in vitro models that more closely resemble their in vivo counterparts, utilizing stem cell-derived NVU cells. Although these examples are currently rudimentary, they offer better BBB mimicry than Yang's study.

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. Indeed, hCMEC/D3 cells, have poor barrier properties and low TEER compared to human physiological BBB. The human pluripotent stem cells BBB models (hPSC-BBB models) make it possible to provide a robust and scalable cell source for BBB modeling, although many challenges remain, particularly concerning reproducibility and recreation of multifaceted phenotypes in vitro with increasing complexity. Moreover, the hPSC-derived BBB models are highly dependent upon the heterogeneous incorporation of hPSC-derived BMEC origins, cells derived from different protocols are not well validated and standardized in the BBB models. Thus, the hPSC-BBB models are still being developed and their clinic applications are still at an early stage (PMID: 34815809; 35755780). The hCMEC/D3 cell line is still widely used to study characteristics of drug transport across BBB and the effects of certain diseases on BBB (PMID: 37076016; 38711118; 31163193) as it is easy to culture and can express a large number of transporters and metabolic enzymes in its physiological state. Therefore, hCMEC/D3 cells were selected to develop our in vitro BBB model.

(B) Additionally, some instances might benefit from more robust statistical tests; nonetheless, I do not think this would significantly alter the experimental conclusions.

Thank you for your valuable suggestions on the statistical methods used in our study, which made us realize our lack of rigor in selecting statistical methods. We have made modifications to statistical methods, and all statistical results showed the manuscript have been updated accordingly.

(C) Similar experiments with tri-cultures yielding analogous results have been reported by other authors (PMID: 25630899). TEER values are a bit higher than the aforementioned experiments; however, this study has values at least one order of magnitude lower than physiological levels.

Thank your advice. We also noticed that TEER values in the present study were different from previous reports, which may come from types of BEMCs, astrocytes, and neurons.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Point 1: If you've already decided to enhance the model by incorporating additional cell types, why not include pericytes as well? As mentioned in the public review, other studies have explored tri-culture models; adding pericytes or other cell types could provide valuable insights.

We greatly appreciate your helpful suggestions. As you mentioned, the barrier function of our model still needs further improvement, which is also a limitation of our current model. In our future research, we will aim to optimize our model by incorporating other NVU cells. Beyond drug screening, we also hope that our in vitro BBB model can serve as a versatile tool to investigate underlying factors associated with neuropathological disorders. According to your advice, we have modified “Discussion” in the revised manuscript as follows:

In “Discussion”:

“However, the study also has some limitations. In addition to neurons and astrocytes, other cells such as microglia, pericytes, and vascular smooth muscle cells, especially pericytes, may also affect BBB function. How pericytes affect BBB function and interaction among neurons, astrocytes, and pericytes needs further investigation.”

Point 2: The decline in TEER after 6 days is concerning. Have you extended your experiments beyond day 7? If so, what were the outcomes? Did the system degrade, leading to decreased resistance, or did cell death occur?

We greatly appreciate your helpful recommendation. We also observed that the TEER of our culture system began to decline on day 7. To ensure the reliability of our experiments, our experiments were conducted on day 6 of co-cultivation and did not extend beyond day 7. We speculate that the reason for the decrease in TEER values may be due to excessive cell contact, which could inhibit cell proliferation and long-term cultivation may lead to cell aging. Similar results showing a decrease in TEER of i_n vitro_ BBB models after prolonged culture have been reported in other studies (PMID: 31079318; 8470770). To eliminate misunderstandings, we have made the following modifications to our manuscript:

In “Result”:

“TEER values were measured during the co-culture (Figure 1B). TEER values of the four in vitro BBB models gradually increased until day 6. On day 7, the TEER values showed a decreasing trend. Thus, six-day co-culture period was used for subsequent experiments”.

In “In vitro BBB permeability study” of “Materials and Methods”:

“On day 7, the TEER values of BBB models showed a decreasing trend. Therefore, the subsequent experiments were all completed on day 6”.

Point 3: It is standard practice for figures to be referenced in the order they appear in the manuscript. However, Figures 1A and 1B are not mentioned until the end of the methods section. Adding a brief sentence at the beginning of the main body referencing these figures would improve the clarity of the experimental approach.

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We had made modifications to Figure 1, and the details of the cell model establishment process had been included in Figure 9 which is mentioned in the “Materials and Methods” section.

Point 4: To strengthen the evidence supporting the proliferative effect of GDNF, consider incorporating additional measures beyond cell count alone. While an increase in cell count could be attributed to reduced cell death (given GDNF's pro-survival properties), proliferation effects have also been shown (PMID: 28878618). I suggest demonstrating proliferation with markers or cell cycle analysis would provide more robust evidence.

Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We used EdU incorporation and CCK-8 assays to further detect the proliferation of hCMEC/D3 cells, and corresponding results were added in the revised Figure 1H and Figure 1I. The description of results is shown as follows:

In “Results”:

“Co-culture with SH-SY5Y, U251, and U251 + SH-SY5Y cells also enhanced the proliferation of hCMEC/D3 cells. Moreover, the promoting effect of SH-SY5Y cells was stronger than that of U251 cells (Figure 1G-1I).”

Point 5: Could you specify the use of technical replicates in your experiments? How many?

Thank you for your helpful suggestion, and we apologize for the issue you pointed out. We have now specified the technical replicates of experiments in the legends of the revised manuscript. In general, the technical replicate number of ELISA and qPCR is two, and that of the rest experiments is one. And we have also made the following modifications to our manuscript:

In “Statistical analyses” of “Materials and Methods”:

“All results are presented as mean ± SEM. The average of technical replicates generated a single independent value that contributes to the n value used for comparative statistical analysis”.

Point 6: Given the sample size of 4 in most experiments, it may be insufficient for passing a normality test. Therefore, it's advisable to employ non-parametric tests such as the Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by appropriate post-hoc tests.

Thank you for your valuable and useful suggestion. We apologize for our initial oversight regarding statistics. Based on your suggestion, we have thoroughly reviewed and revised the statistical methods and statistical results in the manuscript. Referring to the ‘Statistics Guide’ of GraphPad (H. J. Motulsky, "The power of nonparametric tests", GraphPad Statistics Guide. Accessed 20 June 2024. https://www.graphpad.com/guides/prism/latest/statistics/stat_the_power_of_nonparametric_tes.htm), the Kruskal-Wallis test is more robust when the data does not follow a normal distribution or homogeneity of variance. However, due to its reliance on ranks, it may have lower sensitivity in detecting small differences. If the total sample size is tiny, the Kruskal-Wallis test will always give a P value greater than 0.05 no matter how much the groups differ. To address this, we first used the Shapiro-Wilk test to assume whether the samples come from Gaussian distributions. For samples meeting this criterion, parametric tests were employed. For samples that do not follow the Gaussian distribution, as per your advice, we utilized the non-parametric tests. We have modified the “Statistical analyses” in the revised manuscript as follows:

In “Statistical analyses” of “Materials and Methods”:

“The data were assessed for Gaussian distributions using Shapiro-Wilk test. Brown-Forsythe test was employed to evaluate the homogeneity of variance between groups. For comparisons between two groups, statistical significance was determined by unpaired 2-tailed t-test. The acquired data with significant variation were tested using unpaired t-test with Welch's correction, and non-Gaussian distributed data were tested using Mann-Whitney test. For multiple group comparisons, one-way ANOVA followed by Fisher’s LSD test was used to determine statistical significance. The acquired data with significant variation were tested using Welch's ANOVA test, and non-Gaussian distributed data were tested using Kruskal-Wallis test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The simple linear regression analysis was used to examine the presence of a linear relationship between two variables. Data were analyzed using GraphPad Prism software version 8.0.2 (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, CA, USA)”.

eLife assessment

The present study provides valuable evidence on the neurochemical mechanisms underlying working memory in obesity. The authors' approach considering specific working memory operations (maintenance, updating) and putative dopaminergic genes is solid, though the inclusion of a more direct measure of dopamine signaling would have strengthened the work.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Herzog and colleagues investigated the interactions between working memory (WM) task condition (updating, maintenance) and BMI (body-mass-index), while considering selected dopaminergic genes (COMT, Taq1A, C957T, DARPP-32). Emerging evidence suggest that there might be a specific negative association with BMI in the updating but not maintenance condition, with potential bearings to reversal reward learning in obesity. The inclusion of multiple dopaminergic genes is a strength in the present study, considering the complexity of the interactions between tonic and phasic dopamine across the brain that may distinctly associate with the component processes of WM. Here, the finding was that BMI was negatively associated with WM performance regardless of the condition (updating, maintenance), but in models including moderation by either Taq1A or DARPP-32 (but not by COMT and C957T) an interaction by task condition was observed. Furthermore, a two-way interaction effect between BMI and genotype was observed exclusively in the updating condition. These findings are in line with the accounts by which striatal dopamine as reflected by Taq1A and DARPP-32 play an important role in working memory updating, while cortical dopamine as reflected by COMT is mainly associated with maintenance. The authors conclude that the genetic moderation reflects a compound effect of having high BMI and an advantageous allele in Taq1A or DARPP-32 to working memory updating specifically.

These data increment the accumulating evidence that the dopamine system plays an important role in obesity. The result that Taq1A and DARPP-32 moderated the interaction between WM condition and BMI required intricate post hoc analysis to understand the bearings to updating. The authors found that Taq1A or DARPP-32 genotype moderated the negative association between BMI and WM exclusively in update condition (significant two-way interaction effect), suggesting that the BMI-WM associations in other conditions were similar across genotypes. Importantly, visual inspection of the relationship between WM and BMI (Fig 4 & 5) suggests more prevalent positive effects of the putatively advantageous Taq1A-A1 and DARPP-32-AA genotypes to the overall negative relationship between WM and BMI in updating, but not in the other conditions. Given that an overall negative relationship was statistically supported across all conditions (model 1), a plausible interpretation would be that updating condition stands out in terms of a positive moderation by putative advantageous genotypes, rather than compound negative consequences of BMI and genotype in updating. Statistical testing stratified by Taq1A genotype confirmed that the interaction with task condition was driven by the carriers of the advantageous genotype, whereas stratification by DARPP-32 genotype revealed a significant task-condition interaction in both A/A- and G-carriers. Taken together, the present results highlight inter-subject variability in the associations between obesity, dopamine, and working memory, which can sometimes be captured using blood-based dopamine markers. This finding indicates that not all individuals with obesity show the same patterns of dopamine-related alterations and underscores the necessity to address inter-individual variability in future research and treatment efforts.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors investigated if obesity is associated with elevated working memory deficits. Prior theorizing would suggest that individuals with a higher BMI would be worse at working memory updating, potentially due to impaired dopaminergic signaling in the striatum. However, the authors find that higher BMI was associated with worse working memory performance, irrespective of having to ignore or update new information. To further explore the putative dopaminergic mechanisms, participants are stratified according to genetic polymorphisms in COMT, Taq1A, DARPP and C957T and the ratio of the amino acids phenylalanine and tyrosine, all implicated in dopamine-signaling. They find that carrying specific alleles of Taq1A and DARPP, but not of COMT and C957T, mitigated the otherwise negative relationship between BMI and working memory for updating, but not for maintenance.

The authors put forward several possible mechanistic explanations of these observations, including imbalances in the striatal go/no-go dopamine pathways. However, only future, more direct measures of dopamine signaling can provide a confirmation of these hypotheses.

Strengths:

Differentiating between working memory maintenance (ignoring) and updating is a powerful way to get a deeper insight into specific working memory deficits in individuals with obesity. This way of assessing working memory could potentially be applied to various populations at risk for cognitive or working memory deficits.

By pooling data from three studies, the authors reached a relatively large sample of 320 participants, which enables the assessment of more subtle effects on working memory, including the differentiation between updating and ignoring.

Working memory gating has long implicated striatal dopamine signaling. This paper shows that a specific combination of a high BMI and specific dopamine-related genotypes can selectively moderate working memory updating. More insight into how these risk factors interact can ultimately lead to more tailor-made treatments.

Weaknesses:

The introduction mentions that specific alleles can alter dopamine signaling in various ways. However, the authors are less clear on how they expect these alterations to subsequently affect working memory updating and maintenance in the current study. While I understand that the complexity of these mechanisms might make it challenging to form specific predictions, it would be helpful if the authors acknowledged this uncertainty and clarified that their analyses are exploratory in nature, and they will therefore refrain from any directional hypotheses regarding the genotypes.

The majority of participants seems to fall within the normal BMI-range, whereas the interaction between BMI and genetic variations or amino acid ratio particularly surfaces at higher BMI. As genetic variations are usually associated with small effect sizes, the effective sample size, although large for a behavioral analysis only, might have been too small to detect meaningful effects of particular alleles of COMT and C957T.

The relationships between genetic variations, BMI and specific disturbances in dopamine signaling are complex, as compensating mechanisms might be at play to mitigate any detrimental effects. Future studies that apply more direct measures or manipulations of dopaminergic processes could therefore aid in mechanistically explaining the results.

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In particular, theoretical analysis of the extant evidence and formulation of the hypothesis remains elusive in terms of the potential mechanisms of updating/maintaining balance in obesity

We thank the reviewer for their feedback regarding the theoretical analysis and hypothesis formulation in our manuscript. We have attempted to build our hypothesis based on established correlations between dopamine levels and working memory capabilities, as seen in various populations affected by dopaminerelated changes (e.g. Parkinson’s disease (Fallon et al. 2017), older individuals (Podell et al., 2012), or more generally, in individuals with lower dopamine synthesis capacity (Colzato et al., 2013)). Our hypothesis — that individuals with higher BMI might show impaired updating — is an extrapolation from observed patterns in these conditions. We recognize that the evidence connecting obesity to similar neuropsychological profiles may seem preliminary. We have tried to elaborate more clearly on how we reached our hypotheses in the revised version of the introduction. 

“Based on the above considerations these inconsistencies may be due to prior studies not clearly differentiating between distractor-resistant maintenance and updating in the context of working memory. This distinction may be crucial, however, as indirect evidence hints at potential specific alteration in these two sub-processes in obesity. For instance, obesity has been associated with aberrant dopamine transmission, with there being an abundance of literature linking obesity to changes in D2 receptor availability in the striatum (see e.g. Horstmann et al., 2015). However, results are not consensual, with studies reporting decreased, increased, or unchanged D2 receptor availability in obesity (Ribeiro et al., 2023; Janssen & Horstmann, 2022; see Darcey et al. (2023) for a potential explanation). Additionally, there are reports of differences in dopamine transporter (DAT) availability in both obese humans (Chen et al., 2008; but also see Pak et al., 2023) and rodents (Narayanaswami et al., 2013; Jones et al., 2021; Hamamah et al., 2023). The observed changes in dopamine are often interpreted as being due to chronic dopaminergic overstimulation resulting from overeating (Volkow & Wise, 2005; Volkow et al., 2008) and altered reward sensitivity as a consequence thereof (Blum et al., 1996). Considering that working memory gating is highly dependent on dopamine signaling, such changes could theoretically alter the balance between maintenance and updating processes in obesity. Next to this, obesity has frequently been associated with functional and structural changes in WM gating-related brain areas, implying another pathway through which working memory gating might get affected. At the level of the prefrontal cortex (PFC), studies have reported reduced gray matter volume and compromised white matter microstructure in individuals with obesity (Debette et al., 2014; Kullmann et al., 2016; Morys et al., 2024; Lv et al., 2024), and functional changes become evident with frequent reports of decreased activity in the dorsolateral PFC during tasks requiring cognitive control (e.g., Morys et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2017). Notably, Han et al. (2022) observed significantly lower spontaneous dlPFC activity during rest, potentially indicating reduced baseline dlPFC activity in obesity. On the level of the striatum, gray matter volume seems to correlate positively with measures of obesity (Horstmann et al., 2011), and individuals with obesity show greater activation of the dorsal striatum in response to high-calorie food stimuli compared to normal-weight individuals, indicating a stronger dopamine-dependent reward response to food cues (Stice et al., 2008; Small et al., 2003). Additionally, changes in connectivity between and within the striatum and PFC in obesity, both structurally (Li et al., 2023) and functionally (Verdejo-Román et al., 2017a, 2017b; Contreras-Rodríguez et al., 2017) have been reported. Although these studies mostly investigate brain function in relation to food and reward processing, changes in these areas may also impair the ability to adequately engage in working memory gating processes, as activity in affective (reward) and cognitive fronto-striatal loops immensely overlap (Janssen et al., 2019). On the behavioral level, individuals with obesity consistently demonstrate impairments in food-specific (Janssen et al., 2017) but also non-food specific goal-directed behavioral control (Janssen et al., 2020) and reinforcement learning (Weydmann et al., 2023). It seems that difficulties with integrating negative feedback may be central to these alterations (Mathar et al., 2017; Kastner et al., 2017), which could explain a potential insensitivity to the negative consequences associated with (over) eating. Crucially, in humans, a substantial contribution to (reward) learning is mediated by working memory processes (Moustafa et al., 2008; Collins & Frank, 2012, 2018; Collins et al., 2014, 2017; Westbrook et al., 2024). The observed difficulties in reward learning in obesity may hence partly be rooted in a failure to update working memory with new reward information, suggesting cognitive issues that extend beyond mere difficulties in valuation processes. However, empirical support for this interpretation is currently lacking. A more nuanced understanding of the effects of obesity on working memory is crucial, however, as it could lead to more targeted intervention options.”

The result that Taq1A and DARPP-32 moderated the interaction between WM condition and BMI requires intricate post hoc analysis to understand the bearings to update. The authors found that Taq1A or DARPP32 genotype moderated the negative association between BMI and WM exclusively in the update condition (significant two-way interaction effect), suggesting that the BMI-WM associations in other conditions were similar across genotypes. Importantly, visual inspection of the relationship between WM and BMI (Fig 4 & 5) suggests more prevalent positive effects of the putatively advantageous Taq1A-A1 and DARPP-32-AA genotypes to the overall negative relationship between WM and BMI in updating, but not in the other conditions. Given that an overall negative relationship was statistically supported across all conditions (model 1), a plausible interpretation would be that the updating condition stands out in terms of a positive moderation by putative advantageous genotypes, rather than compound negative consequences of BMI and genotype in updating. Critically, this interpretation stands in stark contrast with the interpretation put forth by the authors suggesting a specifically negative association between BMI and WM updating.

We are grateful for the reviewers’ thorough review and insightful comments. We appreciate the attention to detail and the opportunity to improve our manuscript. We agree that further examination of the relationship between Taq1A, DARPP-32, and BMI, particularly in the update condition, is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of our results. In response to your feedback, we have conducted additional post hoc analyses, which indeed revealed the effects anticipated by the reviewer. Accordingly, we have revisited our discussion and conclusions to ensure that they accurately reflect the complexities of our findings, particularly regarding the positive moderation by putative advantageous genotypes in the update condition. Once again, we appreciate your thoughtful review and are grateful for the opportunity to strengthen the manuscript based on your feedback.

In the results section we added: 

“Further post hoc examination of the effects on updating revealed that, the association between BMI and performance was significant for A1-carriers (95%CIs: -0.488 to -0.190), with 33.9% lower probability to score correctly per unit change in BMI, but non-significant for non-A1-carriers (95%CIs: -0.153 to 0.129; 1.22% lower probability). Interestingly, compared to all other conditions, in the update condition, the negative association between BMI and task performance was weakest for non-A1-carriers (estimate = -0.012, SE = 0.072, but strongest for A1-carriers (estimate = -0.339, SE = 0.076; see Figure 3 and Table S6), emphasizing that genotype impacts this condition the most. To further check if this difference in slope was statistically significant across conditions, we stratified the sample into Taq1A subgroups (A1+ vs. A1-) and assessed whether BMI affected task performance differently across conditions separately for each subgroup. This analysis revealed no significant difference in the relationship between BMI and task performance across conditions among A1+ individuals (pBMI*condition = 0.219). However, within the A1- subgroup, a significant interaction effect between BMI and condition emerged (pBMI*condition = 0.049). Collectively, these findings suggest that the absence of the A1-allele is linked to improved task performance, particularly in the context of updating, where it seems to mitigate the otherwise negative effects of BMI.” 

“Once more, further examination of the observed DARPP-32, BMI, and condition interaction showed that, in the update condition, the negative association between BMI and task performance was weakest and nonsignificant for A/A (estimate = -0.044, SE = 0.066; 95%CIs: -0.174 to 0.086), but strongest and significant for G-carrying individuals (estimate = -0.324, SE = 0.079; 95%CIs: -0.478 to – 0.170). See Table S7 and Figure 5.  Splitting the sample in to DARPP subgroups (A/A vs. G-carrier) revealed that in both subgroups, there was significant interaction effect of BMI and condition on task performance (pA/A = 0.034, pG-carrier = 0.003). In the case of DARPP, it hence appears that carrying the disadvantageous G-allele could exacerbate the negative effects of BMI, while the more advantageous allele (A/A) might mitigate them - once again particularly in the context of updating.” 

Following from this, we added the following text snippets to the discussion:

“Noteworthy, our data revealed that differences in updating appeared to be driven by the non-risk allele groups. Despite increasing BMI, performance remained stable.” 

“However, as BMI increases, the possession of a greater D2 receptor density seems to become advantageous, as evidenced by the lack of a negative correlation between BMI and updating performance in non-A carriers. We speculate that this phenomenon could potentially be attributed to the compensating effects of this genotype. While individuals with fewer D2 receptors (A1+) may have quicker saturation of receptors regardless of dopamine levels, in those with more D2 receptors (A1-) saturation may be slower. This could contribute to a more finely tuned balance between "go" and "no-go" signaling, despite potential alterations in dopamine tone in obesity (Horstmann et al., 2015; but also see Darcey et al., 2023 or Janssen & Horstmann, 2022). Clearly, the current data cannot provide empirical evidence for these speculations, and further discrete research is needed to establish firm conclusions. 

Regarding DARPP, we found that carrying the G-allele significantly exacerbated the negative effects of BMI, while the more advantageous allele (A/A) mitigated them, once again particularly in the context of updating.”

“Collectively, our observations hint at the potential of advantageous genotypes to moderate the adverse impacts of high BMI on cognitive functions.” 

In conclusion, in its current form the title of the present work is ambivalent in terms of 1) the use of the term "impaired" in the context of cognitively normal individuals, 2) a BMI group difference specifically in the updating condition, and 3) the dopaminergic mechanisms based on observational data

Given the results of the additional post hoc analyses, we agree with the reviewer and have refined the title of our work to be less misleading. The title now reads:     

“Working Memory Gating in Obesity is Moderated by Striatal Dopaminergic Gene Variants” 

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the Authors):

Beyond the issues raised in the public review, I recommend the authors adjust the use of pathologizing terminology in the context of a clinically healthy population. In particular, terms like "dopaminergic abnormalities" and "working memory deficits/impairment" seem pathologizing in a healthy, non-morbidly obese cohort. To that end, despite a negative continuous association between BMI and WM, there are high and low-performing individuals in all BMI segments, and group differences (high vs low BMI; not reported) do not seem as dramatic as between healthy controls and say Parkinson's disease patients. Furthermore, owing to the observational design of the present study the authors should pay attention to the use of terms suggesting causal relationships, such as "influence" in the context of statistical associations. Also, sentences like "Our study is the first to show such selective effects" seem problematic not only in terms of claims of primacy, but also in terms of the selectivity of the effects (associations). See the public review for an alternative interpretation of selectivity to updating conditions.   

Of minor importance are the occasional spelling errors, that should be carefully checked by the authors. Also, I would like the authors to double-check the model configurations reported in the main text and the supplementary material. According to the supplement model 1 contains task condition by subject as a random effect (random slope model), whereas the main text states that this model configuration didn't converge and therefore only subject-specific intercepts are included. Hence, there seems to be discordance between the model descriptions in the main text and supplement. To that end, it would seem appropriate to briefly motivate the use of LME and the random effect for subject (within-subject correlation between conditions). Also, the origin of the odds ratios (OR) reported in the results section is not explicitly defined in the methods or results.

We appreciate the reviewer's thoughtful recommendations and have taken several steps to address the concerns raised:

(1) We have revised our manuscript to ensure that the language is less pathologizing and avoids suggesting causal relationships where only associations are indicated.  

For example: 

In the abstract, we replaced “abnormalities” with “alterations”:   

“Dopaminergic alterations have emerged as a potential mediator. However, current models suggest these alterations should only shift the balance in working memory tasks, not produce overall deficits”

In the introduction we replaced “impairments” with “alterations”:               

“This distinction may be crucial, however, as indirect evidence hints at potential specific alteration in these two sub-processes in obesity.

Generally, we took care to replace terms like 'dopaminergic abnormalities' and 'working memory deficits/impairments' with more neutral descriptors suitable for a clinically healthy population in the whole manuscript. 

(2) We have modified primacy statements to be more nuanced. In the discussion, for example, we now say “This finding is compelling as it demonstrates a rarely observed selective effect.” Instead of “This finding is compelling as we are the first to show such selective effects.”

(3) We have conducted an additional thorough review of our manuscript to correct any spelling errors.

(4) Upon reevaluation, we corrected the inconsistencies with respect to the random structure of model 1. We therefore have revised the supplementary material to now accurately reflect that the model did not converge when including condition as a random factor, and thus, only subject-specific intercepts are included.

(5) We have expanded our methods section to better explain the use of linear mixed effects models (LMEs) and the inclusion of random effects for subjects to account for within-subject correlation between conditions. We added the following text:

“Given the within-subject design of our study, we used generalized linear mixed models (GLM) […]” and

“The random structure of the model was thus reduced to include the factor ‘subject’ only, thereby accounting for the repeated measures taken from each subject.”

(6) We have clearly defined the derivation of the odds ratios reported in our results in the methods section of our manuscript. We added the following text to the methods section:

“Reported odds ratios (OR) are retrieved from exponentiating the log-odds coefficients called with the summary() function.”

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The majority of participants seem to fall within the normal BMI range, whereas the interaction between BMI and genetic variations or amino acid ratio particularly surfaces at higher BMI. As genetic variations are usually associated with small effect sizes, the effective sample size, although large for a behavioral analysis only, might have been too small to detect meaningful effects of risk alleles of COMT and C957T.

We thank the reviewer for the valuable feedback. We concur that the effective sample size may have posed a limitation in detecting meaningful effects of COMT and C957T, particularly given the skewness of our data towards participants within the normal BMI range. In response to the reviewer’s comments, we have refined the relevant paragraph in the limitations section of our manuscript, emphasizing the importance of recruiting a more balanced sample, including individuals with higher BMI, in future studies.

“Furthermore, an additional limitation is that our data is slightly skewed towards participants within the normal BMI range. The effective sample size to detect meaningful genotype effects (e.g. for COMT or C957T) might thus have been too small, particularly at higher BMI levels. Future studies may address this limitation by recruiting a more balanced sample, including more individuals with higher BMI.”

The relationships between genetic variations, BMI, and specific disturbances in dopamine signaling are complex, as compensating mechanisms might be at play to mitigate any detrimental effects. The results would therefore benefit from more direct measures or manipulations of dopaminergic processes.

We thank the reviewer for this valuable input. We acknowledge the potential benefits of employing a more direct measure, or ideally, a dopaminergic manipulation, to establish a clearer causal link between dopamine processes and working memory gating in the context of obesity. In response to the reviewers' constructive feedback, we have addressed this limitation in the discussion section of our manuscript, emphasizing the need for further research in this area:

“Additionally, the correlational nature of our findings highlights the need for more direct experimental manipulations of dopaminergic processes in obesity. Previous studies have established a causal link between dopamine and WM gating through drug manipulations (Fallon et al., 2017, 2019). Applying a similar approach to an obese sample could help establish a clearer causal link between dopamine activity and WM gating in the context of obesity.”

The introduction could benefit from a more elaborate description of the predicted effects: into which direction (better or worse updating) would the authors predict each effect to go and why? This is clearly explained for COMT, but not for e.g. DARPP-32.

We thank the reviewer for their valuable feedback. We appreciate the suggestion to provide a more detailed description of the predicted effects for each genetic marker in the introduction. We would like to note, however, that the analyses involving markers such as DARPP-32 were inherently exploratory in nature. Consequently, we intentionally refrained from formulating directed hypotheses, as our primary aim was to observe and report any emergent patterns.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the Authors):              

To what extent are the polymorphisms or amino acid ratios associated with BMI? For example, when including C957T polymorphism in the analysis, the detrimental effect of BMI on working memory is no longer statistically significant. Could this be due to a relatively strong relationship between C957T polymorphism and BMI? Could the authors provide figures showing how BMI relates to the genetic polymorphisms and amino acid ratio?

We appreciate the reviewer's insightful comment and have thoroughly investigated the potential relationship between the polymorphism and BMI. Our analysis did not reveal any direct association between C957T and BMI. We have included this analysis in our manuscript. The reviewer’s comment strengthened the comprehensiveness of our study.

“Because the main effect of BMI dissipated when including C957T in the model, we ran an additional exploratory analysis to check whether this polymorphism directly related to BMI. Linear regression, predicting BMI by genotype, showed no association between the two (p = 0.2432), indicating that BMI effect is probably not masked by the presence of the C957T polymorphism. See Table S8.”

eLife assessment

This valuable manuscript reports alterations in autophagy present in dopaminergic neurons differentiated from iPSCs of patients with WDR45 mutations. The authors identified compounds that improved the defects present in mutant cells by generating isogenic iPSC without the mutation and performing an automated drug screening. The methodological approaches are solid, but the claims still need to be completed; showing the effects of the identified compounds on iron-related alterations is crucial. The effects of these drugs in vivo would be a great addition to the study.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In the current study, Papandreou et al. developed an iPSC-based midbrain dopaminergic neuronal cell model of Beta-Propeller Protein-Associated Neurodegeneration (BPAN), which is caused by mutations in the WDR45 gene and is known to impair autophagy. They also noted defective autophagy and abnormal BPAN-related gene expression signatures. Further, they performed a drug screening and identified five cardiac glycosides. Treatment with these drugs effectively in improved autophagy defects and restored gene expression. Seeing the autophagy defects and impaired expression of BPAN-related genes adds strength to this study. Importantly, this work shows the value of iPSC-based modeling in studying disease and finding therapeutic strategies for genetic disorders, including BPAN.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors aim to demonstrate that cardiac glycosides restore autophagy flux in an iPSC-derived mDA neuronal model of WDR45 deficiency. They established a patient-derived induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-based midbrain dopaminergic (mDA) neuronal model and performed a medium-throughput drug screen using high-content imaging-based IF analysis. Several compounds were identified that ameliorate disease-specific phenotypes in vitro.

Strengths:

This manuscript engaged in an important topic and yielded some interesting data.

Author response:

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

eLife assessment 

This valuable manuscript reports alterations in autophagy present in dopaminergic neurons differentiated from iPSCs in patients with WDR45 mutations. The authors identified compounds that improved the defects present in mutant cells by generating isogenic iPSC without the mutation and performing an automated drug screening. The methodological approaches are solid, but the claims still need to be completed: showing the effects of the identified compounds on iron-related alterations is crucial. The effects of these drugs in vivo would be a great addition to the study. 

Thank you for this assessment. We agree that further hit validation would be a great addition to the study. At present, we provide this through RNAseq data but not at the protein level. Further validation using in vivo models would also be warranted but is beyond the scope of the current work.

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review): 

Summary: 

In the current study, Papandreou et al. developed an iPSC-based midbrain dopaminergic neuronal cell model of Beta-Propeller Protein-Associated Neurodegeneration (BPAN), which is caused by mutations in the WDR45 gene and is known to impair autophagy. They also noted defective autophagy and abnormal BPAN-related gene expression signatures. Further, they performed a drug screening and identified five cardiac glycosides. Treatment with these drugs effectively in improved autophagy defects and restored gene expression. 

Strengths: 

Seeing the autophagy defects and impaired expression of BPAN-related genes adds strength to this study. Importantly, this work shows the value of iPSC-based modeling in studying disease and finding therapeutic strategies for genetic disorders, including BPAN. 

Weaknesses: 

It is unclear whether these cells show iron metabolism defects and whether treatment with these drugs can ameliorate the iron metabolism phenotypes. 

We are pleased to ascertain that the reviewer feels the work is an important step in the field for BPAN. We also absolutely agree that secondary hit validation assays showing cardiac glycoside efficacy in restoring patient-related in vitro phenotypes would be very valuable. 

We set up  assays to investigate iron metabolism phenotypes, including  western blotting for Ferritin Heavy Chain 1, Transferrin and Ferroportin 1 (SLC40A1) at day 65 of differentiation, but found no significant difference when comparing patient lines to controls (data not shown). 

We also performed cell viability studies using the Alamar Blue assay on Day 11 ventral midbrain progenitors after 24 hour exposure to a) glucose starvation, b) media with no antioxidants (L-ascorbic acid and B-27 supplement), c) oxidative stressors MPP+ 1mM and FeCl3 100 uM (MPP+ and FeCl3 as suggested by  Seibler et al  (Brain 2018 PMID: 30169597). We found no difference in cell viability between patients, age-matched controls and CRISPR lines (data not shown). Additionally, we examined lysosomal function in BPAN Day 11 progenitors (2 age-matched controls, 3 patient lines, 2 isogenic controls); again, using the autophagy flux treatments mentioned above) via LAMP1 high content imaging immunofluorescence. We have seen no difference in LAMP1 puncta production between patient lines and controls and, therefore, have not included this data in our revision.

Overall, we agree with the reviewer that  more validation of the compound hits’ ability to restore robust BPAN-related in vitro and in vivo phenotypes (including studies of iron metabolism/ homeostasis) will be needed in the future – this could be undertaken in more mature 2D culture systems, 3D organoid models and disease-relevant animal models.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review): 

Summary: 

In this manuscript, the authors aim to demonstrate that cardiac glycosides restore autophagy flux in an iPSC-derived mDA neuronal model of WDR45 deficiency. They established a patientderived induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-based midbrain dopaminergic (mDA) neuronal model and performed a medium-throughput drug screen using high-content imaging-based IF analysis. Several compounds were identified to ameliorate disease-specific phenotypes in vitro. 

Strengths: 

This manuscript engaged in an important topic and yielded some interesting data. 

Weaknesses: 

This manuscript failed to provide solid evidence to support the conclusion. 

We are pleased that the reviewer assesses the work as conceptually important and interesting. We also agree that more work to understand the pathophysiology underpinning BPAN, and the mechanisms through which cardiac glycosides help restore affected intracellular pathways are warranted. More validation of the compound hits’ ability to restore broader disease-specific in vitro and in vivo phenotypes is also needed in future studies. 

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors): 

Overall, this is a nicely executed study. Here are my suggestions:

(1) Showing the iron phenotypes in these cells and testing if treatment with these drugs rescues iron-related phenotypes will add significant value to this work. 

We absolutely agree that secondary hit validation assays showing  glycoside efficacy in restoring disease-related in vitro phenotypes is warranted. The main issue here is identifying how WDR45 deficiency leads to cellular dysfunction or dyshomeostasis and early death. Unfortunately, the mechanism by which this happens is not yet delineated, and more relevant future work is needed. 

In our lab, we set up such assays. Regarding iron metabolism-related phenotypes, we performed western blotting for Ferritin Heavy Chain 1, Transferrin and Ferroportin 1 (SLC40A1) but found no significant difference when comparing patient lines to controls (data not shown). We also performed cell viability studies using the Alamar Blue assay on Day 11 ventral midbrain progenitors after 24 hour exposure to a) glucose starvation, b) media with no antioxidants (L-ascorbic acid and B-27 supplement), c) oxidative stressors MPP+ 1mM and FeCl3 100 uM (MPP+ and FeCl3, as suggested by the Seibler et al paper, Brain 2018 PMID: 30169597). We found no difference in cell viability between patients, age-matched controls and CRISPR lines (data not shown). Additionally, we examined lysosomal function in BPAN Day 11 progenitors (2 age-matched controls, 3 patient lines, 2 isogenic controls; again, using the autophagy flux treatments mentioned above) via LAMP1 high content imaging immunofluorescence. We have seen no difference in LAMP1 puncta production between patient lines and controls and, therefore, have not included this data in our revision.

(2) Assessing the effects of these drugs in an in vivo model will strengthen this study. 

This is a valid point, and we agree that further validation using in vivo models such as the reported BPAN mouse models, would be warranted in the future.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors): 

While this manuscript engaged in an important topic and yielded exciting data, there are still some concerns for the authors to address. 

(1) The biggest concern is that the characterization of autophagic flux solely with LC3 is not convincing enough. Although ATG2A and ATG2B are required for phagophore formation during autophagy, their interaction with WDR45 seems dispensable for phagophore formation for a mild autophagy defect observed in WDR45 knockout cell models and mouse models. All wdr45/- mice are born normally and survive the postnatal starvation period, unlike mice lacking essential ATG proteins, like ATG5, ATG7, and VMP1. The functional relevance of WDR45 and autophagy remains to be fully established. Overall, this manuscript failed to provide solid evidence to support the conclusion. 

This is a valid point. We have looked at autophagy flux in fibroblasts and Day 11 ventral midbrain stage. For fibroblasts, 1 control line and three patient lines were used; for Day 11 progenitors, 2 control lines, 2 patient lines and one isogenic control were used. Cells from different lines were cultured on the same 96-well plates, at the same plating density, and treated concurrently to minimise fluctuations in flux due to unaccounted factors, e.g., confluence, incubator temperature etc. Treatments consisted of a) DMSO (basal condition), b) Bafilomycin A1 (flux inhibition via autophagosome/ lysosome fusion blockage), c) Torin A1 (mTOR inhibitor, flux inducer) and d) combination of Bafilomycin A1 and Torin 1, for a total of 3 hours. In all these conditions, LC3 puncta production in BPAN lines was reduced when compared to controls. We believe that these results indicate defective autophagy flux in BPAN in different cell types.

Moreover, we have demonstrated defects in autophagy-related gene (ATG) expression through RNA sequencing, that is restored after CRISPR/Cas9-mediated correction of the disease-causing mutation in a patient derived line, but also after treatments with torin 1 and digoxin. These results suggest a dysregulated ATG network in WDR45 deficiency. 

(2) WDR45 is linked to BPAN. Do the authors detect any iron accumulation in DA progenitors or mDA neurons? 

Regarding iron metabolism-related phenotypes, we performed western blotting for Ferritin Heavy Chain 1, Transferrin and Ferroportin 1 (SLC40A1) but found no significant difference when comparing patient lines to controls (data not shown). We agree that more studies into the links between WDR45 deficiency, iron metabolism and neurodegeneration are needed. 

(3) It is necessary to detect LC3 protein levels by western blot to distinguish LC3I and LC3II and gain a more accurate understanding for the process of LC3 - marked autophagosome. 

Thank you for this valid point. 

Due to the very dynamic nature of autophagy, and many factors influencing flux , we have not been able to meaningfully examine autophagy-related markers in an iPSC-derived system that is also inherently prone to variability.  Therefore, LC3 and p62 values exhibited high variability, and hence we are unable to adequately interpret them (data not shown). Instead, in this manuscript we have focused on high-content assays with cells cultured and treated simultaneously at Day 11 of differentiation, which have shown autophagy flux defects.

We have looked at autophagy flux in fibroblasts and at Day 11 ventral midbrain stage. For fibroblasts, 1 control line and three patient lines were used; for Day 11 progenitors, 2 control lines, 2 patient lines and one isogenic control were used. Cells from different lines were cultured on the same 96-well plates, at the same plating density, and treated concurrently to minimise fluctuations in flux due to unaccounted factors, e.g., confluence, incubator temperature etc. Treatments consisted of a) DMSO (basal condition), b) Bafilomycin A1 (flux inhibition via autophagosome/ lysosome fusion blockage), c) Torin A1 (mTOR inhibitor, flux inducer) and d) combination of Bafilomycin A1 and Torin 1, for a total of 3 hours. In all these conditions, LC3 puncta production in BPAN lines was reduced when compared to controls. We believe that these results indicate defective autophagy flux in BPAN in different cell types.

(4)  Some methodological details need to be included - detailed descriptions of various quantifications for IF staining should be provided. For example, it is unclear how "% cells+ ve for marker combination" (Fig.1B) was quantified, and there are many unconventional units such as "% cells+ ve for marker combination "; please check and correct them. 

Thank you for pointing this out. We have changed the legends in Figure 1B and Supplementary Figure 2C to ‘percentage of cells positive for marker combination’. Moreover, in our Methods section (Immunocytochemistry sub-section), we have updated the text as follows, to give more clarification on the process of marker quantification (Page 25, Paragraph 2): ‘For quantification, 4 random fields were imaged from each independent experiment. Subsequently, 1200 to 1800 randomly selected nuclei were quantified using ImageJ (National Institutes of Health). Manual counting for nuclear (DAPI) staining and co-staining with the marker of interest was performed, and percentages of cells expressing combinations of markers were calculated as needed.’

(5) In Figure 3 and Figure 4, the quantifications for IF images were inconsistent with the shown IF image, for example, the representative IF image for detection of LC3 with Tor1 treatment. 

Due to space restrictions, we have not included representative images from all patient lines, and every treatment condition depicted in the graphs. In Figure 3 (describing the set-up of the LC3 screening assay), only one control line and one patient line is shown in basal (DMSO-treated) conditions. In Supplementary Figure 4D, only one patient line and the corresponding isogenic control line are depicted after Torin 1 treatments.

Quantification of the LC3 puncta in this assay (20 fields per well, each condition in a technical duplicate, n=8 biological replicates) was automated, using ImageJ and R Studio, with subsequent statistical significance calculation on GraphPad Prism. Hence, the immunofluorescence figures depict a reduction in LC3 puncta per nuclei numbers in patient-derived lines versus controls, but not the exact difference after automated image analysis. We have detailed this in the Methods section (High content imaging-based immunofluorescence subsection) of our manuscript (Page 26, Paragraph 2): ‘For all high content imaging-based experiments, the PerkinElmer Opera Phenix microscope was used for imaging. 20 fields were imaged per well, at 40 x magnification, Numerical Aperture 1.1, Binning 1. Image analysis was performed using ImageJ and R Studio.60 For the drug screen, puncta values were normalised according to positive and negative controls from each plate and Z-scores for each compound screened were generated.  Statistical significances were calculated on GraphPad Prism V.

8.1.2. software (GraphPad Software, Inc.; https://www.graphpad.com/scientific-software/prism/).’

(6)  In Figure 4C, LC3 should be co-stain with the DA progenitor maker to indicate that the intercellular LC3 level within the projectors. 

Thank you for raising this point. The images from Figure 4C were obtained during the medium throughput drug screen, where the FOXA2 co-stain was not used. The FOXA2 stain was only used during the initial set-up of the LC3 screening assay, to confirm that the Day 11 cells had ventral midbrain identities. Indeed, most of the Day 11 cells used in the high content imaging-related experiments were FOXA2-positive, as shown in Figure 3 and Supplementary Figure 4.

(7) Examining P62, one of the most important indicators for autophagic flux, should be parallel with LC3 detection. In Figure 5A, P62 accumulation seems not significant in patient 02 Day 11 ventral midbrain projectors; how about that in Day 65? 

The reviewer is raising a valid point. We have not examined p62 and LC3 staining in parallel in high content imaging-based experiments but agree that this would be good to examine in future studies. 

Some other minor points 

(8) It needs to give a more detailed description of the tested compounds you mentioned in the text. 

Thank you for this point. We have elaborated on the contents of the Prestwick library used for the screening, as below (Page 9, Paragraph 3): ‘We then utilised this high-content imaging LC3 assay to identify novel compounds of potential therapeutic interest for BPAN by screening the Prestwick Chemical Library containing 1,280 compounds, of which more than 95% FDA/ EMA approved.’

In the Methods Section, Page 25, Paragraph 5, we also detail the library as follows: ‘For drug screening, the Prestwick Chemical Library (1,280 compounds, 95% FDA/ EMA approved, 10 mM in DMSO, https://www.prestwickchemical.com/screening-libraries/prestwick-chemical-library/) was used; cells were treated with compounds for 24 hours at 10 μM final concentration.’

(9) Please pay attention to the abbreviation; many gene names only have abbreviations without full names when they first appear in the context. 

Thank you for this point. We have corrected this in various places throughout the manuscript and especially in the introduction section.

(10) Almost all figures have the problem of insufficient image resolution, or the font of the indicated words needs to be bigger to be distinguished clearly, like in Fig.1B, 1C, 1E. 

Thank you for this point, we have ensured that all figures have adequate image resolution as specified by the journal requirements. 

(11) The sample size or biological repeated times should be given in figure legends. 

Thank you for this point. We have now indicated numbers of biological replicates where appropriate.

eLife assessment

The aim of this valuable study is to identify novel genes involved in sleep regulation and memory consolidation. It combines transcriptomic approaches following memory induction with measurements of sleep and memory to discover molecular pathways underlying these interlinked behaviors. The authors explore transcriptional changes in specific mushroom body neurons and suggest roles for two genes involved in RNA processing, Polr1F and Regnase-1, in the regulation of sleep and memory. Although this work exploits convincing and validated methodology, the strength of the evidence is incomplete to support the main claim that these two genes establish a definitive link between sleep and memory consolidation.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Prior work by the Sehgal group has shown that a small group of neurons in the fly brain (anterior posterior (ap) α'β' mushroom body neurons (MBNs)) promote sleep and sleep-dependent appetitive memory specifically under fed conditions (Chouhan et al., (2021) Nature). Here, Li, Chouhan et al. combine cell-specific transcriptomics with measurements of sleep and memory to identify molecular processes underlying this phenomenon. They define transcriptional changes in ap α'β' MBNs and suggest a role for two genes downregulated following memory induction (Polr1F and Regnase-1) in regulating sleep and memory.

The transcriptional analyses in this manuscript are impressive. The authors have now included additional experiments that define acute and developmental roles for Polr1F and Regnase-1 respectively in regulating sleep. They have also provided additional data to strengthen their conclusion that Polr1F knockdown in α'β' mushroom body neurons enhances sleep.

The resubmitted work represents a convincing investigation of two novel sleep-regulatory proteins that may also play important roles in memory formation.

The authors have comprehensively addressed my comments, which I very much appreciate. I congratulate them on this excellent work.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Previous work (Chouhan et al., 2022) from the Sehgal group investigated the relationship between sleep and long-term memory formation by dissecting the role of mushroom body intrinsic neurons, extrinsic neurons, and output neurons during sleep-dependent and sleep-independent memory consolidation. In this manuscript, Li et al., profiled transcriptome in the anterior-posterior (ap) α'/β' neurons and identified genes that are differentially expressed after training in fed condition, which supports sleep-dependent memory formation. By knocking down candidate genes systematically, the authors identified Polr1F and Regnase-1 as two important hits that play potential roles in sleep and memory formation. What is the function of sleep and how to create a memory are two long-standing questions in science. The present study used a new approach to identify novel components that may link sleep and memory consolidation in a specific type of neuron. Importantly, these components implicated that RNA processing may play a role in these processes.

While I am enthusiastic about the innovative approach employed to identify RNA processing genes involved in sleep regulation and memory consolidation, I feel that the data presented in the manuscript is insufficient to support the claim that these two genes establish a definitive link between sleep and memory consolidation. First, the developmental role of Regnase-1 in reducing sleep remains unclear because knocking down Regnase-1 using the GeneSwitch system produced neither acute nor chronic sleep loss phenotype. In the revised manuscript, the author used the Gal80ts to restrict the knockdown of Regnase-1 in adult animals and concluded that Regnase-1 RNAi appears to affect sleep through development. Conducting overexpression experiments of Regnase-1 would lend some credibility to the phenotypes, however, this is not pursued in the revised manuscript. Second, while constitutive Regnase-1 knockdown produced robust phenotypes for both sleep-dependent and sleep-independent memory, it also led to a severe short-term memory phenotype. This raises the possibility that flies with constitutive Regnase-1 knockdown are poor learners, thereby having little memory to consolidate. The defect in learning could be simply caused by chronic sleep loss before training. Thus, this set of results does not substantiate a strong link between sleep and long-term memory consolidation. Lastly, the discussion on the sequential function of training, sleep, and RNA processing on memory consolidation appears speculative based on the present data.

Reviewer #4 (Public review):

Summary:

Li and Chouhan et al. follow up on a previous publication describing the role of anterior-posterior (ap) and medial (m) ɑ′/β′ Kenyon cells in mediating sleep-dependent and sleep-independent memory consolidation, respectively, based on feeding state in Drosophila melanogaster. The authors sequenced bulk RNA of ap ɑ′/β′ Kenyon cells 1h after flies were either trained-fed, trained-starved or untrained-fed and find a small number of genes (59) differentially expressed (3 upregulated, 56 downregulated) between trained-fed and trained-starved conditions. Many of these genes encode proteins involved in the regulation of gene expression. The authors then screened these differentially expressed genes for sleep phenotypes by expressing RNAi hairpins constitutively in ap ɑ′/β′ Kenyon cells and measuring sleep patterns. Two hits were selected for further analysis: Polr1F, which promoted sleep, and Regnase-1, which reduced sleep. The pan-neuronal expression of Polr1F and Regnase-1 RNAi constructs was then temporally restricted to adult flies using the GeneSwitch system. Polr1F sleep phenotypes were still observed, while Regnase-1 sleep phenotypes were not, indicating developmental defects. Appetitive memory was then assessed in flies with constitutive knockdown of Polr1F and Regnase-1 in ap ɑ′/β′ Kenyon cells. Polr1F knockdown did not affect sleep-dependent or sleep-independent memory, while Regnase-1 knockdown disrupted sleep-dependent memory, sleep-independent memory, as well as learning. Polr1F knockdown increased pre-ribosomal RNA transcripts in the brain, as measured by qPCR, in line with its predicted role as part of the RNA polymerase I complex. A puromycin incorporation assay to fluorescently label newly synthesized proteins also indicated higher levels of bulk translation upon Polr1F knockdown. Regnase-1 knockdown did not lead to observable changes in measurements of bulk translation.

Strengths:

The proposed involvement of RNA processing genes in regulating sleep and memory processes is interesting, and relatively unexplored. The methods are satisfactory.

Weaknesses:

The main weakness of the paper is in the overinterpretation of their results, particularly relating to the proposed link between sleep and memory consolidation, as stated in the title. Constitutive Polr1F knockdown in ap ɑ′/β′ Kenyon cells had no effect on appetitive long-term memory, while constitutive Regnase-1 knockdown affected both learning and memory. Since the effects of constitutive Regnase-1 knockdown on sleep could be attributed to developmental defects, it is quite plausible that these same developmental defects are what drive the observed learning and memory phenotypes. In this case, an alternative explanation of the authors' findings is that constitutive Regnase-1 knockdown disrupts the entire functioning of ap ɑ′/β′ Kenyon cells, and as a consequence behaviors involving these neurons (i.e. learning, memory and sleep) are disrupted. It will be important to provide further evidence of the function of RNA processing genes in memory in order to substantiate the memory link proposed by the authors.

Author response:

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

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Below, I will list the points that should be addressed by the authors:

(1) Line 139: The authors conclude that the lack of a phenotype induced by knockdown of Polr1F is due to reduced baseline sleep because of the leakiness of the Genswitch system. However, it is not clear why the argument of the SybGS being leaky should not apply to all experiments done with this tool. The authors should comment on that aspect. Furthermore, this claim is testable since it should be detectable against genetic controls. An alternative explanation to the proposed scenario is that the Polr1F sleep phenotype observed in the constitutive knockdown experiment is based on developmental defects. The authors should provide additional evidence to explain the discrepancy.

We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful feedback. We assume the reviewer is referring to Regnase-1 RNAi (and not Polr1F) as Regnase-1 RNAi flies exhibit reduced sleep before dusk, potentially hindering further detection of sleep reduction. The leaky sleep reduction was based upon comparison with genetic controls in that experiment. Nevertheless, to discern whether our observations stem from developmental effects, we conducted adult-specific knockdowns of both Polr1F and Regnase-1 using the TARGET system. We generated the R35B12-Gal4:TubGal80ts line and crossed it with the UAS-Polr1FRNAi and UAS-Regnase-1RNAi lines. We confirmed that Polr1F RNAi promotes sleep when knocked down in adults (Figure 3 - supplemental figure 1). Conversely, Regnase-1 showed no effect on sleep in the adult stage, which is consistent with our nSyb-GS experiments, and suggests, as noted by the reviewer, that the Regnase-1 RNAi sleep effect is likely developmental (Figure 3 – supplemental figure 3).

(2) Line 170: Regnase1 knockdown affects all memory types, including short-term and long-term memory. The authors conclude that these genes are involved in consolidation. However, besides consolidation, it has been shown that α′β′ KCs are involved in short-term appetitive memory retrieval. Thus, an equally possible explanation is that the knockdown impairs the neuronal function per se, which would lead to a defect in all behaviors related to α′β′ KCs, rather than a specific role for consolidation. The authors have to provide additional evidence to substantiate their claim.

The exact role of Regnase-1 in the α′β′ KCs remains unclear.  We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern and have amended our conclusion to include this potential explanation suggested by the reviewer.

(3) Line 87-88: For the protocol used, it was reported that GFPnls cannot be used for FACS sorting. The authors might want to comment/clarify that aspect. https://star-protocols.cell.com/protocols/1669.

For our RNA-seq experiments, we conducted single cell isolation by FACS sorting cells, instead of nuclei, labeled with GFP.nls. The protocol mentioned that GFP.nls is not effective for single nuclear RNA-seq as it is not specific for nuclei, but for our cell sorting purposes that did not matter.

(4) Line 131: The authors should report the concentration of RU486.

Sorry, this is now in methods.

(5) Line 155: Is that really 42 hours? This might be a typo. If not, it would be good to justify the prolonged re-starvation period.

Flies fed after training form sleep-dependent memories but did not show robust long-term memory after 30 h of restarvation. As starvation is a requisite for appetitive memory retrieval (Krashes and Waddell 2008), the low memory scores after 30 h could be due to inadequate starvation. Therefore, we starved flies for 42h, which is similar to the sleep-independent memory paradigm in which flies are starved for 18 h before training and then tested 24 h after training; this protocol resulted in robust long-term memory performance. These flies were fine and able to make choices in a T-maze after 42 h starvation.

(6) I will be listing mistakes/unclear points in the figures. However, all figures should be checked very carefully for clarity.

Thanks for these valuable comments. We have gone over the figures carefully and fixed any issues we found.

(7) Figure 1C: It is not entirely clear to me how this heatmap was created and what the values mean.

The 59 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were selected based on DESeq2 described in the methods. For the heatmap, Transcripts per million (TPM) of these 59 DEGs were log-transformed and then scaled row-wise and plotted with IDEP v0.95 (http://bioinformatics.sdstate.edu/idep95/).

(8) Figures 2A and 2B: The units might be missing. For Supplementary Figure 2, it is not clear what the different groups are without looking at the main figure.

Fixed.

(9) Figure 3: The panel arrangement is confusing. Furthermore, the "B)" is cut. The same issue is present in the Supplementary Figure.

Sorry! We rearranged the panels, and fixed the issue in both figures.

(10) Figure 5B: It is not clear what the scale bar means.

Now indicated

(11) Line 119: The citation "Marygold et al n.d."?

Fixed

(12) Line 620: I'm not sure that the rate and localization of nascent peptide synthesis are measured.

Great point. We used the puromycin assay to estimate significant changes in translation. However, we did not measure the absolute translational rate or the localization of newly synthesized proteins. We rephrased this in the updated manuscript.

(13) Line 627, the authors should give the NA of the objective, further the authors should double-check the information they provide on the resolution.

Fixed, it was 20X.

(14) Line 629 "Fuji" is unclear, it might refer to the Fiji software, and in that case, it should be listed in the used software. Further, the authors have to check on the information they provide on the intensity, e.g. is that GFP fluorescence?

Yes, it was Fiji and GFP. The manuscript has been updated accordingly.

(15) Line 634, It is stated that two concentrations of CX-5461 are used, however, as far as I can see only data for the 0.2 mM.

We apologize for the confusion. Data are indeed only shown for 0.2 mM. We also tested 0.4 mM and 0.6 mM under fed conditions once and 0.1 mM under starved conditions twice. Since all effects were not significant, we only presented the complete 0.2 mM results in the supplementary figure.

(16) Line 352 "Marygold et al nd" is probably a glitch in the citation?

It’s a citation tool issue and has been fixed.

(17) The authors use apostrophe rather than a prime in describing the α "prime" β "prime" KCs

We have corrected this.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

The authors have generated an interesting study that promises to advance the understanding of how context-dependent changes in sleep and memory are executed at the molecular level. The manuscript is well-written and the statistical analyses appear robust. Major and minor comments are detailed below.

Overall, I would suggest that the authors try to obtain additional evidence that Pol1rF modulates sleep and test the effect of acute adult-stage knockdown of Polr1F and Regnase-1 specifically in ap α'β' MBNs rather than pan-neuronally.

Major comments

(1) In Figures 2 and 3 and associated supplemental figures, the authors first test for a role for Polr1F and Regnase-1 specifically in ap α'β' MBNs (Fig. 2), then test for an acute role for these proteins via pan-neuronal drug inducible expression (Fig. 3). Because the former manipulation is cell-specific and the latter is pan-neuronal, it is hard for the reader to draw conclusions pertaining to ap α'β' MBNs from the second dataset. Perhaps Regnase-1 indeed acutely regulates sleep in ap α'β' MBNs, but that effect is masked by counteracting roles in other neurons? Conversely, it remains possible that Polr1F and Regnase-1 act during development in ap α'β' MBNs to modulate sleep. Indeed, since silencing the output of ap α'β' MBNs using temperature-sensitive shibire does not alter baseline sleep (Chouhan et al., (2021) Nature), the notion that Regnase-1 could act acutely in ap α'β' MBNs to reduce baseline sleep is somewhat surprising.

The authors could address this by using a method such as TARGET (temperature-sensitive GAL80) to acutely reduce Polr1F and Regnase-1 expression specifically in ap α'β' MBNs and test how this impacts sleep.

Thanks for the very helpful suggestions. We have done the suggested experiments and discuss them above in response to Reviewer 1. They are included in the manuscript as Figure 3 – supplemental figure 1 and figure 3 – supplemental figure 3.

(2) Figure 4 presents data examining whether Polr1F and Regnase-1 knockdown suppresses training-induced increases in sleep. For the untrained flies, based on the data in Fig. 2C, E I expected that Polr1F knockdown flies would exhibit more sleep than their respective controls (Fig. 4E), but this was not the case. These data suggest that more evidence may be warranted to strengthen the link between Polr1F (and potentially Regnase-1) knockdown and sleep. Could the authors use independent RNAi constructs or cell-specific CRISPR (all available from current stock centres) to validate their current results? Related to this, it would be useful to know whether the authors outcrossed any of their transgenic reagents into a defined genetic background.

The untrained flies in figure 4E are not equivalent to flies tested for Polr1F effects on sleep in figure 2C. In Figure 4E, flies were starved for 18 h and then exposed to sucrose without an odor at ZT6. Following sucrose exposure, flies were moved to sucrose locomotor tubes, and sleep was assessed only in the ZT8-12 interval. Sleep was not significantly different between untrained R35B12>Polr1FRNAi and Polr1FRNAi/+ flies, and while it was higher in R35B12>Polr1FRNAi than in R35B12/+ untrained flies, the data overall indicate that Polr1F downregulation has no impact on sleep under these conditions and at this time. Similarly, in fully satiated settings (Figure 2C), we found no difference in sleep during the ZT8-12 period between R35B12>Polr1FRNAi flies and genetic controls. We did not outcross our transgenic lines but have now tested another available Polr1F RNAi (VDRC: v103392) (Figure 3 – supplemental figure 1). As shown in the figure, adult-specific knockdown of Polr1F by this RNAi line promoted sleep, as did the initial RNAi line.

(3) Could the authors provide additional evidence that Polr1F knockdown in ap α'β' MBNs does not enhance sleep by reducing movement? A separate assay such as climbing would be beneficial. Alternatively, examining peak activity levels at dawn/dusk from the 12L: 12D DAM data.

We checked the peak activity per minute per day for adult specific knockdown of PorlF1 and Regnase-1 (data shown in Figure 3 – supplemental figure 4). The results show that Polr1F knockdown in ap α'β' MBNs does not enhance sleep by reducing movement.

(4) In terms of validating their proposed model, over-expressing of Polr1F during appetitive training might be predicted to suppress training-induced sleep increases and potentially long-term memory. Do the authors have any evidence for this?

We were unable to find any Pol1rF overexpression line. However, we obtained the Regnase-1 over-expression line from Dr. Ryuya Fukunaga’s lab and found that Regnase-1 OE does not affect sleep (Figure 4 – supplemental figure 1).

Minor comments

(1) Abstract: can the authors please define 'ap' as anterior posterior?

Fixed.

(2) Figure 2 Supplemental 1: can the authors please denote the genotypes each color refers to in?

Fixed.

(3) In Figure 3 Supplemental 1, the authors state that acute Regnase-1 knockdown did not reduce sleep, but sleep during the night period does appear to be reduced (panel A). Was this quantified?

We quantified this, and it was not significant.

(4) Discussion, line 234: the heading of this section is 'Polr1F regulates ribosome RNA synthesis and memory' but the data presented in Figure 4 suggests that Polr1F does not affect memory. Can the authors clarify this?

We made an adjustment to the title and acknowledge that at the present time we cannot say Polr1F affects memory.

(5) Methods, Key Resource Table: can the authors please identify which fly lines were used for Polr1F and Regnase-1 knockdown experiments?

Fixed. Fly line BDSC64553 was used for Polr1F RNAi except in Figure 3 – supplemental figure 1 and 4, where VDRC 103392 was used. VDRC 27330 was used for Regnase-1 knockdown experiments.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) Figure 1B: This plot is currently labelled as PCA of DEGs, which I believe is inaccurate, as such a plot is a quality control that examines the overall clustering of samples by using all read counts (not just the DEGs). In addition, the color key value of this Figure 1B is not provided.

Thank you for the insightful suggestion. The reviewer’s comment here that typically PCA plots are used for overall clustering of RNA-seq samples is indeed valid. We've acknowledged that our samples, due to their high similarity in cell populations and mild treatments, do not exhibit clear separation when we use all genes. However, we show a PathwayPCA plot of all DEGs. We aim to highlight that RNA processing pathways enriched among the DEGs account for much of the separation of the groups.

(2) A reviewer token is not provided to examine the sequencing data set.

The RNA-seq data has been submitted to the Sequence Read Archive (SRA) with NCBI BioProject accession number PRJNA1132369. The reviewer token is https://dataview.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/object/PRJNA1132369?reviewer=cvqkddp8rjuebsjefk0f19556r.

(3) In the discussion, the author pointed out that many of the 59 DEGs have implicated functions in RNA processing. To strengthen the statement, it would be beneficial to conduct the Gene Ontology analysis to test whether the DEGs are enriched for RNA processing-related GO terms.

We have included the GO analysis results in Figure1 and another GO analysis of all DEGs in Figure 1 – supplemental figure 1.

(4) Figure 4E presents an intriguing finding because it shows that the untrained R35B12>Polr1FRNAi flies exhibit reduced sleep (instead of increased sleep) when compared to untrained Polr1/+ control flies.

Please see above response to reviewer #2 question2.

(5) For the memory assay method, the identity of odor A and odor B is not provided.

We used 4-methylcyclohexanol and 3-octanol; this information has been added into the methods section.

(6) Female flies were used for the sleep assay. However, it is not clear whether only female flies were used for the memory assay.

Mixed sexes are used for memory assays because a huge number of files is needed for these experiments. We added this information in the methods.

(7) It is important to provide olfactory acuity data on control and experimental animals to rule out that the learning/memory phenotype is caused by defects in sensing the odor used for training and testing.

Since Polr1F RNAi flies perform well, odor acuity is not an issue. Regnase1RNAi affects both short-term and long-term memories, but this seems to be a developmental issue, so we did not do the odor acuity experiments here.

(8) Line 20: "ap alpha'/beta'" neurons should be spelled as "anterior posterior (ap) alpha'/beta' neurons", as this is the first time that this anatomical name appears in this manuscript.

Fixed.

(9) Figure 2C and 2D labelling: R35B12>control; UAS control should be changed to R35B12/+ control; UAS-RNAi/+ control.

Fixed.

(10) Line 155: it is unclear why the flies were re-starved for 42hr before testing. Is this a different protocol from the 30hr re-starvation that was used by Chouhan et al., 2021?

We have explained the rationale above. The starvation period was increased to get better memory scores.

(11) Line 160: it is stated that knocking down Polr1F did not affect memory, which is consistent with Polr1f levels typically decreasing during memory consolidation. Is there a reference demonstrating that Polr1f levels typically decrease during memory consolidation?

It’s from our RNA-seq dataset from Figure1C. The level of Polr1F decreased in fed trained flies compared with other control flies.

(12)  Genotype labeling in Figure 4F is inconsistent with the rest of the manuscript.

Fixed.

eLife assessment

Through anchored phylogenomic analyses, this important study offers fresh insights into the evolutionary history of the plant diet and geographic distribution of Belidae weevil beetles. Employing robust methodological approaches, the authors propose that certain belid lineages have maintained a continuous association with Araucaria hosts since the Mesozoic era. Although the biogeographical analysis is somewhat limited by uncertainties in vicariance explanations, this convincing study enhances our understanding of Belidae's evolutionary dynamics and provides new perspectives on ancient community ecology.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This is a very nice study of Belidae weevils using anchored phylogenomics that presents a new backbone for the family and explores, despite a limited taxon sampling, several evolutionary aspects of the group. I find that the methodology is appropriate, and all analytical steps are well presented. The paper is well written and presents interesting aspects of Belidae systematics and evolution. The major weakness of the study being the very limited taxon sampling that has deep implications for the discussion of ancestral estimations.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors used a combination of anchored hybrid enrichment and Sanger sequencing to construct a phylogenomic data set for the weevil family Belidae. Using evidence from fossils and previous studies they are able to estimate a phylogenetic tree with a range of dates for each node - a timetree. They use this to reconstruct the history of the belids' geographic distributions and associations with their hostplants. They infer that the belids' association with conifers pre-dates the rise of the angiosperms. They offer an interpretation of belid history in terms of the breakup of Gondwanaland, but acknowledge that they cannot rule out alternative interpretations that invoke dispersal.

Strengths:

The strength of any molecular-phylogenetic study hinges on four things: the extent of the sampling of taxa; the extent of the sampling of loci (DNA sequences) per genome; the quality of the analysis; and - most subjectively - the importance and interest of the evolutionary questions the study allows the authors to address. The first two of these, sampling of taxa and loci, impose a tradeoff: with finite resources, do you add more taxa or more loci? The authors follow a reasonable compromise here, obtaining a solid anchored-enrichment phylogenomic data set (423 genes, >97 kpb) for 33 taxa, but also doing additional analyses that included 13 additional taxa from which only Sanger sequencing data from 4 genes was available. The taxon sampling was pretty solid, including all 7 tribes and a majority of genera in the group. The analyses also seemed to be solid - exemplary, even, given the data available.

This leaves the subjective question of how interesting the results are. The very scale of the task that faces systematists in general, and beetle systematists in particular, presents a daunting challenge to the reader's attention: there are so many taxa, and even a sophisticated reader may never have heard of any of them. Thus it's often the case that such studies are ignored by virtually everyone outside a tiny cadre of fellow specialists. The authors of the present study make an unusually strong case for the broader interest and importance of their investigation and of its focal taxon, the belid weevils.

The belids are of special interest because - in a world churning with change and upheaval, geologically and evolutionarily - relatively little seems to have been going on with them, at least with some of them, for the last hundred million years or so. The authors make a good case that the Araucaria-feeding belid lineages found in present-day Australasia and South America have been feeding on Araucaria continuously since the days when it was a dominant tree taxon nearly worldwide, before it was largely replaced by angiosperms. Thus these lineages plausibly offer a modern glimpse of an ancient ecological community.

Comments on current version:

The MS was already in pretty good shape last time around, and the authors have made most of the minor revisions and copy-edits suggested by the reviewers. There may be a few remaining points of disagreement with the reviewers, but these seem to be minor matters of opinion and nothing that ought to delay publication.

Author response:

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This is a very nice study of Belidae weevils using anchored phylogenomics that presents a new backbone for the family and explores, despite a limited taxon sampling, several evolutionary aspects of the group. The phylogeny is useful to understand the relationships between major lineages in this group and preliminary estimation of ancestral traits reveals interesting patterns linked to host-plant diet and geographic range evolution. I find that the methodology is appropriate, and all analytical steps are well presented. The paper is well-written and presents interesting aspects of Belidae systematics and evolution. The major weakness of the study is the very limited taxon sampling which has deep implications for the discussion of ancestral estimations.

Thank you for these comments.

The taxon sampling only appears limited if counting the number of species. However, 70 % of belid species diversity belongs to just two genera. Moreover, patterns of host plant and host organ usage and distribution are highly conserved within genera and even tribes. Therefore, generic-level sampling is a reasonable measure of completeness. Although 60 % of the generic diversity was sampled in our study, we acknowledge that our discussion of ancestral estimations would be stronger if at least one genus of

Afrocorynina and the South American genus of Pachyurini could be included.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors used a combination of anchored hybrid enrichment and Sanger sequencing to construct a phylogenomic data set for the weevil family Belidae. Using evidence from fossils and previous studies they can estimate a phylogenetic tree with a range of dates for each node - a time tree. They use this to reconstruct the history of the belids' geographic distributions and associations with their host plants. They infer that the belids' association with conifers pre-dates the rise of the angiosperms. They offer an interpretation of belid history in terms of the breakup of Gondwanaland but acknowledge that they cannot rule out alternative interpretations that invoke dispersal.

Strengths:

The strength of any molecular-phylogenetic study hinges on four things: the extent of the sampling of taxa; the extent of the sampling of loci (DNA sequences) per genome; the quality of the analysis; and - most subjectively - the importance and interest of the evolutionary questions the study allows the authors to address. The first two of these, sampling of taxa and loci, impose a tradeoff: with finite resources, do you add more taxa or more loci? The authors follow a reasonable compromise here, obtaining a solid anchored-enrichment phylogenomic data set (423 genes, >97 kpb) for 33 taxa, but also doing additional analyses that included 13 additional taxa from which only Sanger sequencing data from 4 genes was available. The taxon sampling was pretty solid, including all 7 tribes and a majority of genera in the group. The analyses also seemed to be solid - exemplary, even, given the data available.

This leaves the subjective question of how interesting the results are. The very scale of the task that faces systematists in general, and beetle systematists in particular, presents a daunting challenge to the reader's attention: there are so many taxa, and even a sophisticated reader may never have heard of any of them. Thus it's often the case that such studies are ignored by virtually everyone outside a tiny cadre of fellow specialists. The authors of the present study make an unusually strong case for the broader interest and importance of their investigation and its focal taxon, the belid weevils.

The belids are of special interest because - in a world churning with change and upheaval, geologically and evolutionarily - relatively little seems to have been going on with them, at least with some of them, for the last hundred million years or so. The authors make a good case that the Araucaria-feeding belid lineages found in present-day Australasia and South America have been feeding on Araucaria continuously since the days when it was a dominant tree taxon nearly worldwide before it was largely replaced by angiosperms. Thus these lineages plausibly offer a modern glimpse of an ancient ecological community.

Weaknesses:

I didn't find the biogeographical analysis particularly compelling. The promise of vicariance biogeography for understanding Gondwanan taxa seems to have peaked about 3 or 4 decades ago, and since then almost every classic case has been falsified by improved phylogenetic and fossil evidence. I was hopeful, early in my reading of this article, that it would be a counterexample, showing that yes, vicariance really does explain the history of *something*. But the authors don't make a particularly strong claim for their preferred minimum-dispersal scenario; also they don't deal with the fact that the range of Araucaria was vastly greater in the past and included places like North America. Were there belids in what is now Arizona's petrified forest? It seems likely. Ignoring all of that is methodologically reasonable but doesn't yield anything particularly persuasive.

Thank you for these comments.

The criticism that the biogeographical analysis is “not very compelling” is true to a degree, but it is only a small part of the discussion and, as stated by the reviewer, cannot be made more “persuasive”, in part because of limitations in taxon sampling but also because of uncertainties of host associations (e.g. with ferns). We tried to draw persuasive conclusions while not being too speculative at the same time. Elaborating on our short section here would only make it much more speculative — and dispersal scenarios more so than vicariance ones (at least in Belinae).

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

I have a few comments relative to this last point of a more general nature:

- I think it would be informative in Figure 1 to present family names for the outgroups.

Family names for outgroups have been added to Figure 1.

- There is a summary of matrix composition in the results but I think a table would be better listing all necessary information for each dataset (number of taxa, number of taxa with only Sanger data, parsimony informative sites, GC content, missing data, etc...).

We added Table S4 with detailed information about the matrices.

- Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't find how fossil calibrations were implemented in BEAST (which prior distribution was chosen and with which parameters).

We used uniform priors, this has been added to the Methods section.

- I am worried that the taxon sampling (ca. 10% of the family) is too low to conduct meaningful ancestral estimations, without mentioning the moderately supported relationships among genera and large time credibility intervals. This should be better acknowledged in the paper and perhaps should weigh more into the discussion.

Belidae in general are a rare group of weevils, and it has been a huge effort and a global collaboration to sample all tribes and over 60 % of the generic diversity in the present study. A high degree of conservation of host plant associations, host plant organ usage and distribution are observed within genera and even tribes. Therefore, we feel strongly that the resulting ancestral states are meaningful.

Moreover, 70 % of the belid species diversity belongs to only two genera, Rhinotia and Proterhinus. Our species sampling is about 36 % if we disregard the 255 species of these two genera.

However, we acknowledge that our results could be improved by sampling more genera of Afrocorynina and Pachyurini. However, these taxa are very hard to collect. We have acknowledged the limitation of our taxon sampling, branching supports and timetree credibility intervals in the discussion to minimize speculative in conclusions.

- It might be nice to have a more detailed discussion of flanking regions. In my experience and from the literature there seems to be increasing concern about the use of these regions in phylogenomic inferences for multiple solid reasons especially the more you go back in time (complex homology assessment, overall gappyness, difficulty to partition the data, etc...)

We tested the impact of flanking regions on the results of our analyses and showed this data did not having a detrimental impact. We added more details about this to the results section of the paper, including information about the cutoffs we used to trim the flanking regions.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Line 42, change "recent temporal origins" to "recent origins".

Modified in the text.

Line 97-98, "phylogenetic hypotheses have been proposed for all genera" This is ambiguous. The syntax makes it sound like these were separate hypotheses for each genus - the relationships of the species within them, maybe. However, the context implies that the hypotheses relate to the relationships between the genera. Clarify. "A phylogenetic hypothesis is available for generic relationships in each subfamily. . . " or something.

Modified in the text.

Line 162, ". . . all three subtribes (Agnesiotinidi, Belini. . . " Something's wrong here. Change "subtribes" to "tribes"?

Modified in the text.

Line 219, the comma after "unequivocally" needs to be a semicolon.

Modified in the text.

Line 327 and elsewhere, the abbreviation "AHE" is used but never spelled out; spell out what it stands for at first use. Or why not spell it out every single time? You hardly ever use it and scientists' habit of using lots of obscure abbreviations is a bad one that's worth resisting, especially now that it no longer requires extra ink and paper to spell things out.

Modified in the text.

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1:

Minor

(MN1) The segregants should be referred to as F2 segregants as they are derived from an F1 cross.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this important oversight. We indeed analyzed segregants of an F1 cross and have corrected this in the text.

(MN2) The connections to eQTLs in other organisms should be addressed in the introduction and conclusion. For example, in humans, there has been little evidence for trans eQTLs in contrast to what has been found in yeast.

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out and improved our introduction and conclusion with such connections.

(M3) The authors state that an advantage of scRNAseq over bulk is that it captures rare cell populations (line 79), but this advantage is not exploited in this study.

While we did not explicitly demonstrate the effect of using scRNA-seq on capturing variation in rare cell populations, the referenced literature (21, 40) provides evidence that pooled scRNA-seq captures important expression heterogeneity (which implicitly contains potentially rare expression states). In our study, this is leveraged on F2 segregants to assess expression variation within the same lineage (genotype). This impacts the partitioning of expression variance from genotype.

Thus, we mentioned this point to further support the choice of using scRNA-seq for this analysis and showed that even a few single cells enable the reconstruction of the genome and expression profile of rare cell types.

(MN4) The authors use ~5% of the lineages from the original study. There is no rationale for why this is an appropriate sample size. Is there an argument for using more cells in eQTL mapping or conversely could the authors ask if fewer cells would provide similar conclusions by downsampling?

Although scRNA-seq is highly scalable, it has limitations in terms of throughput. Indeed, a single library with 10x Genomics generates data in the order of 10^4 wellcovered cells. With these limitations, our choice of ~5% of the lineages of the original study stems from the need to recover the same lineage multiple times within these 10^4 cells (in our study, each lineage is recovered on average 4 times). 

While it is possible to run multiple libraries and sequencing lanes, budget limitations prevent us from running more libraries, especially since we expect power to scale with the square-root of the number of lineages (there is diminishing returns). 

(MN5) I do not agree that the use of UMIs overcomes the challenges of low sequencing depth. UMIs mitigate the possible technical artifacts due to massive PCR amplification.

We thank the reviewer for this comment and will clarify this in the manuscript. Indeed, we intended to refer to the breadth of coverage (instead of the depth), which would usually manifest with massive PCR amplification of few transcripts.

(MN6) There is an inadequate reference to prior work on scRNAseq in yeast that established the methods used by the authors and eQTL mapping in human cells using scRNAseq.

We thank the reviewer for this and have added more context on scRNA-seq methods benchmark in yeast (drop-seq etc) and sc-eQTL in human. Additionally, we have cited Jariani et al. (2020) in eLife where similar techniques were employed for scRNA-seq in yeast.

(MN7) The use of empty quotes in Figure 4A is confusing and an alternative presentation method should be used.

We will remove these empty quotes characters and replace them with a more meaningful representation like “none”.

(MN8) The authors speculate about the use of predicted fitness instead of observed fitness, but this is something they could explicitly address in their current study.

We thank the reviewer for this comment but have decided not to perform a whole new bulk-segregant analysis experiment (X-QTL) to identify QTL that way. However, we do agree that we could in principle use the QTL that were identified in our previous study (Nguyen Ba et al, 2022). Despite this, we do not see the need for this because the predicted fitness is the overlap between genotype and phenotype (within the variance partitioning framework, it is the ‘narrow-sense heritability’ if one ignores epistasis). Thus, the use of predicted fitness when partitioning for expression variation would be constrained to that overlap (as opposed to the real observed fitness). This means that within the variance partitioning framework, the overlap of genotype, expression, and fitness is fully recapitulated by using predicted fitness instead (given that this predicted fitness is accurate to the narrow-sense heritability). In our previous study, we found that the QTL essentially predict all of the narrow-sense heritability. We believe it is therefore evident that the use of predicted fitness would be sufficient if and only if the expression variation independent of genotype is not associated with observed fitness.

We note that our study cannot generalize whether the overlap between genotype and expression fully captures fitness variation explained by expression. Indeed, we believe this is not generalizable to many other contexts (for example, in development). Thus, at present, the use of predicted fitness remains a speculation.

Major:

(MJ1) There is insufficient information provided about the nature of data. At a minimum, the following information should be provided to enable assessment of the study: What is the total library size, how many genes are identified per cell, how many UMIs are found per cell, what is the doublet rate, and how are doublets identified (e.g. on the basis of heterozygous calls at polymorphic loci?), how many times is each genotype observed, and how many polymorphic sites are identified per cell that are the basis of genotype inferences?

We understand that these metrics are relevant to the reader to have an idea of the power of our approach and integrate them in the manuscript in Table 1.

(MJ2) The prior study analyzed 18 different conditions, whereas this study only assays expression in a single condition. However, the power of the authors' approach is that its efficiency enables testing eQTLs in multiple conditions. The study would be greatly strengthened through analysis of at least one more condition, and ideally several more conditions. The previous fitness study would be a useful guide for choosing additional conditions as identifying those conditions that result in the greatest contrasts in fitness QTL would be best suited to testing the generalizations that can be drawn from the study.

We agree that a major strength of our approach is that it rapidly allows eQTL mapping in several conditions. While the experiments presented here are likely less expensive than the classical eQTL mapping experiments, the cost of 10x genomics and sequencing is still an important consideration. The pleiotropy analysis of the prior study was substantially difficult to interpret and put in context, and thus we decided to focus on a proof of concept and leave room for a more thorough analysis of multiple environments for a future study. We acknowledge that this is a main weakness of our manuscript.

(MJ3) Alternatively, the authors could demonstrate the power of their approach by applying it to a cross between two other yeast strains. As the cross between BY and RM has been exhaustively studied, applying this approach to a different cross would increase the likelihood of making novel biological discoveries.

We thank the reviewers for this suggestion, and it is indeed something that our lab is considering. Currently, one of our main point of the manuscript still relies on growth measurements of segregants (the fitness), which we cannot obtain from segregants and scRNA-seq alone. 

Unfortunately, in this experimental design, it is difficult to obtain the fitness of cells and the genotype simultaneously because the barcode of the segregant is not expressed and not frequently read during genotyping. Thus, we still need to perform a whole QTL panel for a new cross without substantial re-engineering. 

That being said, we are working on this but feel that including a new panel in this study is beyond the scope of our manuscript. 

(MJ4) Figure 1 is misleading as A presents the original study from 2022 without important details such as how genotypes were identified. It is unclear what the barcode is in this study and how it is used in the analysis. Is the barcode for each lineage transcribed so that it is identified in the scRNA-seq data? Or, does the barcode in B refer to the cell index barcode? A clearer presentation and explanation of terms are needed to understand the method.

Because F2 segregant lineage barcodes are not expressed, the barcode indicated in Figure 1B refers to cell barcodes from 10x Genomics. Our present study does not make use of the lineage barcode. We clarified this in the figure clarifying that panel A refers to the original study from 2022 and explicitly mentioning ‘cell barcodes’. 

(MJ5) The rationale for the analysis reported in Figure 2B is unclear. The fitness data are from the previous study and the goal is to estimate the heritability using the genotyping data from the scRNA-Seq data. What is the explanation for why the data don't agree for only one condition, i.e. 37C? And, what are we to understand from the overall result?

The rationale of Figure 2A/B is to show that cell lineage genotyping with scRNA-seq yields consistent results with previous genotype-phenotype analyses of the same cross. While Figure 2A shows that the single-cell imputed genotypes resemble the reference panel (sequenced in the Nguyen Ba 2022 study), Figure 2B shows that the variance partitioning to associate genotype to phenotype can be performed using the single-cell genotypes themselves (bypassing the reference panel). We believe this is an interesting result given that the reads obtained by scRNA-seq are constrained to a subset of SNP. However, we note that if the imputed single-cell genotypes were perfectly matching with the reference panel, it would not be surprising that one could do genotype-phenotype mapping from the single-cell genotypes.

In Figure 2B, we tested whether the similarity of the single-cell imputed genotypes to the reference panel was enough to estimate heritabilities (another summary statistic). 

In the remaining paragraphs of that result section, we further discuss that the single-cell lineage genotypes can be used for QTL mapping as well, recapitulating many of the QTL identified in the reference panel (provided that one controls for power). This result did not make it as a main Figure but is included in Figure S4.

That being said, we decided to update the figure by comparing the estimates in subsamples of batch1 scRNA-seq to subsamples of batch 1 reference panel and subsamples of the full reference panel. Subsamples were performed to control for power in the variance partitioning. We also noticed that the fitness of several F2 segregants is missing for the phenotypes 33C, 35C and 37C in the original study so we decided to exclude these environments.

(MJ6) Figure 3 presents an analysis of variance partitioning as a Venn diagram. This summarized result is very hard to understand in the absence of any examples of what the underlying raw data look like. For example, what does trait variation look like if only genotype explains the variance or if only gene expression explains the variance? The presented highly summarized data is not intuitive and its presentation is poor - the result that is currently provided would be easier to read in a table format, but the reader needs more information to be able to interpret and understand the result.

The Venn diagram is largely adopted in the context of variance partitioning (see Cohen, Jacob, and Patricia Cohen. 1975. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.) but we realize that it has not been used often for displaying heritability estimates. To this end, we have added explanatory labels for the biological meaning of the areas or components of the diagram in the Figure and in the text. 

(MJ7) I am concerned about the conclusions that can be drawn about expression heritability. The authors claim that expression heritability is correlated with expression levels. It seems likely that this reflects differing statistical power. How can this possibility be excluded?

We thank the reviewer for highlighting this. We now explicitly acknowledge this potential confounding factor in the manuscript.

(MJ8) Conversely, the authors claim that the genes with the lowest heritability are genes involved in the cell cycle. However, uniquely in scRNA-seq, cell cycle regulated genes appear to have the highest variance in the data as they are only expressed in a subset of cells. Without incorporating this fact one would erroneously conclude that the variation is not heritable. To test the heritability of cell cycle regulation genes the authors should partition the cells into each cell cycle stage based on expression.

The reviewer is right to say that the low heritability of cell cycle control genes could be explained by the fact that these genes are only expressed in a subset of the dataset. Indeed, a high transcriptomic variance does not necessarily imply a low expression heritability: the cell cycle could be the residual of the expression heritability model, i.e. it explains expression variance with low association to genetic mutation.

That being said, our result is consistent with results obtained from yeast bulk RNA-seq (Albert et al. 2018), in which cell cycle is averaged out. 

In our study, we also average out the cell-cycle as we use the consensus expression and the consensus genome to estimate the heritability.

(MJ9) I do not understand Figure S5 and how eQTL sites are assigned to these specific classes given that the authors say that causative variation cannot be resolved because of linkage disequilibrium.

The rationale for Figure S5 is to show that the QTL model obtained from single-cell data is consistent with the reference panel QTL mapping experiment. Although there is uncertainty around the exact position of the QTL, we relied on the loci with the highest likelihood and showed that the datasets have consistent features. This is enabled by the fact that the QTL identified using the scRNA-seq genotypes are the ones with largest effect size in the reference panel, and are thus more likely to be mapped accurately.

(MJ10) The paragraph starting at line 305 is very confusing. In particular, the authors state that they identify a hotspot of regulation at the mating type locus. It is not obvious why this would be the case. Moreover, they claim that they find evidence for both MATa and MATalpha gene expression. Information is not provided about how segregants were isolated, but assuming that the authors did not dissect 25,000 tetrads to obtain 100,000 segregants I would infer that random spore using SGA was used. In that case, all cells should be MATa. The authors should clarify and explain this observation.

Although most of the cells have the MATa mating type (as selected by random spore using SGA), it is well known and discussed in Nguyen Ba et al. paper that there are few lineages with other mating types or diploids (they are leakers in the selection process). 

Indeed, we verified that we can detect a small number of MATalpha cells or diploids within this pool.

(MJ11) Ultimately, it is not clear what new biological findings the authors have made. There are no novel findings with respect to causative variation underlying eQTLs and I would encourage the authors to make clearer statements in their abstract, introduction, and conclusion about the key discoveries. E.g. What are the "new associations between phenotypic and transcriptomic variations" mentioned in the abstract?

This paper focuses more on the proof of concept that scRNA-seq can help integrate expression data in GPM analysis to reveal broad scale associations between fitness and expression. Indeed, novel findings include new hotspots of expression regulation in the RM/BY genetic background, we find that trans-regulation of expression has more impact than cis-regulation on fitness and evaluate the strength of the association between the genome, the transcriptome and fitness (in one environment). Additionally, the analysis reveals biological questions that cannot be answered even by increasing the experimental scale of eQTL mapping experiments. For example, we find that most of the missing heritability is not explained by expression. These key points will be clarified in the abstract, introduction and conclusion as suggested by the editors.

Reviewer #2:

(MJ1) Most of the figures center on methods development and validation for the authors' single-cell RNA-seq in the yeast cross […] One potential novelty of the study is the methods per se: that is, showing that scRNA-seq works for concomitant genotyping and gene expression profiling in the natural variation context. The authors' rigor and effort notwithstanding: in my view, this can be described as modest in terms of principles. That is, the authors did a good job putting the scRNA-seq idea into practice, but their success is perhaps not surprising or highly relevant for work outside of yeast (as the discussion says).

Although the scope of the method is limited, we think that it can apply to any largescale dataset in which transcription variance and genetic diversity are not small. This can help reduce the lack of associations between trait heritability and expression regulation, which is frequent as these two parameters are often not measured within the same dataset. 

We can, however, think of some other settings where a similar experiment may be interesting. This includes, for example, pooling cells from different human individuals (with enough genetic diversity) and applying the same scRNA-seq method to back-identify the individuals and matching them to a particular phenotype. We believe our proof of concept is therefore an important contribution as these other experiments might have broad implications.

(MJ2) The more substantive claim by the authors for the impact of the study is that they make new observations about the role of expression in phenotype (lines 333-335). The major display item of the manuscript on this theme is Figure 4A, reporting which loci that control growth phenotype (from an earlier paper) also control expression. This is solid but I regret to say that the results strike me as modest.

This paper focuses more on the proof of concept that scRNA-seq can help integrate expression data in GPM analysis to reveal broad scale associations between fitness and expression. Indeed, novel findings include new hotspots of expression regulation in the RM/BY genetic background, we find that trans-regulation of expression has more impact than cis-regulation on fitness and evaluate the strength of the association between the genome, the transcriptome and fitness (in one environment). Additionally, the analysis reveals biological questions that cannot be answered even by increasing the experimental scale of eQTL mapping experiments. For example, we find that most of the missing heritability is not explained by expression. These key points will be clarified in the abstract, introduction and conclusion as suggested by the editors.

(MJ3) The discussion makes some perhaps fairly big claims that the work has helped "bridge understanding of how genetic variation influences transcriptomic variation" and ultimately cellular phenotype. But with the data as they stand, the authors have missed an opportunity to crystallize exactly how a given variant affects expression (perhaps in waves of regulators affecting targets that affect more regulators) and then phenotype, except for the speculations in the text on lines 305-319. The field started down this road years ago with Bayesian causality inference methods applied to eQTL and phenotype mapping (via e.g. the work of Eric Schadt). The authors could now try Mendelian randomization-type fine-grained detailed models for more firepower toward the same end, and/or experimental tests of the genotype-to-expression-to-phenotype relationship. I would see these directions, motivated by fundamental questions that are relevant to the field at large, as leading to a major advance for this very crowded field. As it stands, I felt their absence in this manuscript especially if the authors are selling principles about linking expression and phenotype as their take-home.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion and agree that the analysis of the genotypeto-expression-to-phenotype relationship would benefit from a more fine-grain model. While we are interested in exploring this, we decided to limit the scope of this manuscript to the proof of concept that scRNA-seq can help gain insights about the genotypephenotype map at a broader scale.

(MN1) I also wonder whether the co-mapping of expression and growth traits in Figure 4A would have been possible with e.g. the bulk RNA-seq from Albert et al., 2018, and I recommend that the authors repeat the Figure 4A-type analyses with the latter to justify their statement that their massive scRNA data set would actually be necessary for them to bear fruit (lines 386-388).

By repeating our eQTL hotspot analysis with Albert et al. (2018) data, we observed a non-significant association between eQTL hotspot and QTL (χ2 p = 0.50). That being said, there are some differences in the Albert et al. Experiment that preclude us from conclusively saying whether the bulk RNA-seq experiments by Alberts would not bear fruit. Indeed, that experiment is only 4 times smaller in scale and so we would not expect dramatic differences. To highlight power differences, the Albert et al. Paper identified about 6 eQTL per gene, while our study identified about 21 which is consistent with the power differences.

This highlights that this scRNA-seq experiment is scalable, so the technique may be useful for further studies. In addition, this pooled scRNA-seq strategy enables analysis of the association of transcription with phenotype.

(MN2) I also read the discussion of the manuscript as bringing to the fore some of the challenges a reader has in judging the current state of the results to be of actionable impact. The discussion, and the manuscript, will be improved if the authors can put the work in context, posing concrete questions from the field and stating how they are addressed here and what's left to do.

We agree with the reviewer and have summarized our answers to some of the questions in the field in the discussion section.

All that being said, we acknowledge the limitations of our study.

eLife assessment

This useful study describes expression profiling by scRNA-seq of thousands of cells of recombinant yeast genotypes from a system that models natural genetic variation. The rigorous new method presented here shows promise for improving the efficiency of genotype-to-phenotype mapping in yeast, providing convincing evidence for its efficacy. This revised manuscript focuses on overcoming technical challenges with this approach and identifies several new biological insights that build upon the field of genotype-to-phenotype mapping, a central question of interest to geneticists and evolutionary biologists.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In the revision of their paper, N'Guessan et al have improved the report of their study of expression QTL (eQTL) mapping in yeast using single cells. The authors make use of advances in single cell RNAseq (scRNAseq) in yeast to increase the efficiency with which this type of analysis can be undertaken. Building on prior research led by the senior author that entailed genotyping and fitness profiling of almost 100,000 cells derived from a cross between two yeast strains (BY and RM) they performed scRNAseq on a subset of ~5% (n = 4,489) individual cells. To address the sparsity of genotype data in the expression profiling they used a Hidden Markov Model (HMM) to infer genotypes and then identify the most likely known lineage genotype from the original dataset. To address the relationship between variance in fitness and gene expression the authors partition the variance to investigate the sources of variation. They then perform eQTL mapping and study the relationship between eQTL and fitness QTL identified in the earlier study.

This paper seeks to address the question of how quantitative trait variation and expression variation are related. scRNAseq represents an appealing approach to eQTL mapping as it is possible to simultaneously genotype individual cells and measure expression in the same cell. As eQTL mapping requires large sample sizes to identify statistical relationships, the use of scRNAseq is likely to dramatically increase the statistical power of such studies. However, there are several technical challenges associated with scRNAseq and the authors' study is focused on addressing those challenges. Most of the points raised by my review of the initial version have been addressed. However, one point remains and one additional point should be considered.

(1) Given that the authors overcame many technical and analytical challenges in the course of this research, the study would be greatly strengthened through analysis of at least one, and ideally several, more conditions which would expand the conclusions that could be drawn from the study and demonstrate the power of using scRNAseq to efficiently quantify expression in different environments.

(2) In this version the authors have introduced the use of data imputation using a published algorithm, DISCERN. This has greatly increased the variation explained by their model as presented in figure 3. However, it is possible that the explained variance is now an overestimation as a result of using the imputed expression data. I think that it would be appropriate to present figure 3 using the sparse data presented in the initial version of the paper and the newly presented imputed data so that the reader can draw their own conclusions about the interpretation.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The authors now say the main take-home for their work is (1) they have established methods for linkage mapping with scRNA-seq and that these (2) "can help gain insights about the genotype-phenotype map at a broader scale." My opinion in this revision is much the same as it was in the first round: I agree that they have met the first goal, and the second theme has been so well explored by other literature that I'm not convinced the authors' results meet the bar for novelty and impact. To my mind, success for this manuscript would be to support the claim that the scRNA-seq approach helps "reveal hidden components of the yeast genotype-to-phenotype map." I'm not sure the authors have achieved this. I agree that the new Figure 3 is a nice addition-a result that apparently hasn't been reported elsewhere (30% of growth trait variation can't be explained by expression). The caveats are that this is a negative result that needs to be interpreted with caution; and that it would be useful for the authors to clarify whether the ability to do this calculation is a product of the scRNA-seq method per se or whether they could have used any bulk eQTL study for it. Beside this, I regret to say that I still find that the results in the revision recapitulate what the bulk eQTL literature has already found, especially for the authors' focal yeast cross: heritability, expression hotspots, the role of cis and trans-acting variation, etc.

Likewise, when in the first round of review I recommended that the authors repeat their analyses on previous bulk RNA-seq data from Albert et al., my point was to lead the authors to a means to provide rigorous, compelling justification for the scRNA-seq approach. The response to reviewers and the text (starting on line 413) says the comparison in its current form doesn't serve this purpose because Albert et al. studied fewer segregants. Wouldn't down-sampling the current data set allow a fair comparison? Again, to my mind what the current manuscript needs is concrete evidence that the scRNA-seq method per se affords truly better insights relative to what has come before.

I also recommend that the authors take care to improve the main text for readability and professionalism. It would benefit from further structural revision throughout (especially in the figure captions) to allow high-impact conclusions to be highlighted and low-impact material to be eliminated. Figure 4 and the results text sections from line 319 onward could be edited for concision or perhaps moved to supplementary if they obscure the authors' case for the scRNA-seq approach. The text could also benefit from copy editing (e.g. three clauses starting with "while" in the paragraph starting on line 456; "od ratio" on line 415). I appreciate the authors' work on the discussion, including posing big picture questions for the field (lines 426-429), but I don't see how they have anything to do with the current scRNA-seq method.

eLife assessment

This study investigated the involvement of programmed cell death (PCD) in Arabidopsis thaliana root cap cells and its effect on microbial colonization. The authors have reported the importance of timely corpse clearance in the root cap and a root cap-specific transcription factor in controlling microbial colonization by beneficial fungi. By demonstrating the connection between transcriptional control of PCD and microbial colonization, this study provides fundamental insights into how relationships are established and regulated at the root-microbiome interface. The strength of the evidence presented is convincing, providing a foundation for further research concerning the spatial and temporal dynamics of microbiome recruitment along the root axis.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The study investigated how root cap cell corpse removal affects the ability of microbes to colonize Arabidopsis thaliana plants. The findings demonstrate how programmed cell death and its control in root cap cells affect the establishment of symbiotic relationships between plants and fungi. Key details on molecular mechanisms and transcription factors involved are also given. The study suggests reevaluating microbiome assembly from the root tip, thus challenging traditional ideas about this process. While the work presents a key foundation, more research along the root axis is recommended to gain a better understanding of the spatial and temporal aspects of microbiome recruitment.

Comments on revised version:

The authors have positively addressed all the critical points I raised in the previous review.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors identify the root cap as an important key region for establishing microbial symbioses with roots. By highlighting for the first time the crucial importance of tight regulation of a specific form of programmed cell death of root cap cells and the clearance of their cell corpses, they start unraveling the molecular mechanisms and its regulation at the root cap (e.g. by identifying an important transcription factor) for the establishment of symbioses with fungi (and potentially also bacterial microbiomes).

Strengths:

It is often believed that the recruitment of plant microbiomes occurs from bulk soil to rhizosphere to endosphere. These authors demonstrate that we have to re-think microbiome assembly as a process starting and regulated at the root tip and proceeding along the root axis.

Comments on revised version:

The authors have addressed all critical points in their revision.

Author response:

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The study investigated how root cap cell corpse removal affects the ability of microbes to colonize Arabidopsis thaliana plants. The findings demonstrate how programmed cell death and its control in root cap cells affect the establishment of symbiotic relationships between plants and fungi. Key details on molecular mechanisms and transcription factors involved are also given. The study suggests reevaluating microbiome assembly from the root tip, thus challenging traditional ideas about this process. While the work presents a key foundation, more research along the root axis is recommended to gain a better understanding of the spatial and temporal aspects of microbiome recruitment.

We thank Reviewer #1 for their positive evaluation and critical feedback.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors identify the root cap as an important key region for establishing microbial symbioses with roots. By highlighting for the first time the crucial importance of tight regulation of a specific form of programmed cell death of root cap cells and the clearance of their cell corpses, they start unraveling the molecular mechanisms and its regulation at the root cap (e.g. by identifying an important transcription factor) for the establishment of symbioses with fungi (and potentially also bacterial microbiomes).<br /> Strengths:

It is often believed that the recruitment of plant microbiomes occurs from bulk soil to rhizosphere to endosphere. These authors demonstrate that we have to re-think microbiome assembly as a process starting and regulated at the root tip and proceeding along the root axis.

Weaknesses:

The study is a first crucial starting point to investigate the spatial recruitment of beneficial microorganisms along the root axis of plants. It identifies e.g. an important transcription factor for programmed cell death, but more detailed investigations along the root axis are now needed to better understand - spatially and temporally - the orchestration of microbiome recruitment.

We appreciate Reviewers #2 insightful comments and agree that further investigations are needed to gain a deeper understanding of the intricate interplay between the spatial and temporal recruitment of the microbiome and developmental cell death in future studies.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

- Given that the smb-3 altered PCD phenotype has already been reported in several publications, the aim of using Evans blue staining to highlight LRC cell corpses along the root surface of smb-3 is not clear. Maybe S1 would be more informative as main figure.

As an indicator of membrane integrity loss and cell death, Evans blue staining was used to characterize all dPCD mutants described in this study and their interactions with S. indica. To avoid redundancies with other publications, we restructured Figure 1, incorporating panel S1A to provide an introductory overview of the smb-3 phenotype. The former Figure 1B is now located in Figure S1.

- It is not clear how the analysis of protein aggregates fits into the rationale, why analyze these formations? What role should they have in the process of PCD or interaction with microbes?

The manuscript has been modified the following way to clarify the analysis of protein aggregates in the dPCD mutants: “The transcription factor SMB promotes the expression of various dPCD executor genes, including proteases that break down and clear cellular debris and protein aggregates following cell death induction. In the LRCs of smb-3 mutants, the absence of induction of these proteases potentially explains the accumulation of protein aggregates in uncleared dead LRC cells.”.

- Is the accumulation of misfolded and aggregated proteins also present during physiological PCD of LRC cells in the WT?

The biochemical mechanisms underlying PCD can vary depending on the affected cell types and tissues. Within the root tip of Arabidopsis, two different modes of PCD have been described, differentiating between columella root cap cells and LRC cells. For clarification the manuscript has been adjusted the following way:” Under physiological conditions in WT roots, we previously observed protein aggregate accumulation in sloughed columella cell packages, but not during dPCD of distal LRC clearance (Llamas et al., 2021). This aligns with the findings that dPCD of the columella is affected by the loss of autophagy, while dPCD of the LRC is not (Feng et al., 2022).”.

- I suggest being more careful when using the term "root cap" instead of "LRC" to reduce ambiguity (i.e. lines 56; 137), maybe you need to double-check the text.

We agree with the reviewer that a clear distinction between “root cap” and “LRC” is very important. We have adjusted the manuscript to avoid any misunderstandings.

- A technical question regarding qPCR sample preparation: doesn't washing the smb-3 roots cause a loss of LRC stretched cells and would it therefore lead to an alteration of the results?

The mechanical washing of roots is essential to ensure a clear distinction between intraradical fungal growth and accommodation around roots. While we cannot exclude the possibility that mechanical washing removes LRC cells, intraradical quantification of fungal biomass aims to measure S. indica growth in the epidermal and cortical cell layers, underneath the uncleared LRC cells. Thus, we complemented this assay with extraradical colonization assays to quantify external fungal biomass with intact LRC cells.

- It is not clear if S. indica promotes PCD in wt and/or in smb-3, could you comment on it?

It remains an open question whether and to what extent S. indica promotes PCD, although there are strong indications that this fungus activates different cell death pathways at various developmental stages, including dAdo mediated cell death. We posit that certain microbes have evolved to regulate and manipulate different dPCD processes to enhance colonization, implicating a complex crosstalk between various PCD pathways. We have adjusted the manuscript to underscore this perspective the following way:” Transcriptomic analysis of both established and predicted key dPCD marker genes revealed diverse patterns of upregulation and downregulation during S. indica colonization. These findings provide a valuable foundation for future studies investigating the dynamics of dPCD processes during beneficial symbiotic interactions and the potential manipulation of these processes by symbiotic partners.”.

- How analysis of BFN1 expression in whole root confirms its downregulation at the onset of cell death in S. indica-colonized plants. Moreover, is the transcriptional regulation of BFN1 important for PCD, or is the BFN1 protein level correlated with the establishment of cell death?

BFN1 gene expression in Arabidopsis shows a transient decrease around 6–8 days after S. indica inoculation, coinciding with the proposed onset of S. indica-induced cell death. While we can only speculate on a potential correlation between BFN1 downregulation and the onset of S. indica-induced cell death, we have described other pathways through which S. indica induces cell death. For example, it produces small metabolites such as dAdo through the synergistic activity of two secreted fungal effector proteins (Dunken et al., 2023). This suggests that S. indica recruits different pathways to induce cell death, which may vary depending on the host plant and interact with each other as shown for many other immunity related cell death pathways which share some components.

Regarding the second part of the question, BFN1 expression correlates positively with cells primed for dPCD (Olvera-Carrillo et al., 2015). BFN1 protein accumulates in the ER lumen and is released into the cytoplasm upon cell death induction to exert its DNase functions (Fendrych et al., 2014). If accumulation of BFN1 is cause or consequence of cell death remains to be validated.

- Line 190: there is a typo "in the nucleus", this is superfluous given that the reporter is nuclear.

The manuscript has been adjusted accordingly; see line L208. However, we consider the distinction important as we aim to emphasize the difference between the nuclear localization of the fluorescent signal in "healthy" cells and the dispersed fluorescent signal spreading in the cytoplasm of cells priming or undergoing dPCD.

- Line 255: there is a typo, stem cells can not differentiate.

The manuscript has been adjusted.

- During root hair development some epidermal cells undergo PCD to allow the emergence of root hairs. Furthermore, during plant defense against pathogens, epidermal cells undergo cell death to prevent further colonization. Have these cell death events been reported to occur under physiological conditions during development?

Plant defence responses in roots and the hypersensitive response (HR) still remain largely unexplored. The HR is a defence mechanism that consists of a localized and rapid cell death at the site of pathogen invasion. It is triggered by pathogenic effector proteins, usually recognized by intracellular immune receptors (NLRs), and accompanied by other features such as ROS signalling, Ca2+ bursts and cell wall modifications (Balint-Kurti, 2019). Notably, HR has been widely described in leaves, but no strong evidence has been shown for the occurrence of HR in plant roots (Hermanns et al., 2003, Radwan et al., 2005). Additionally, previous studies have not shown any transcriptional parallels between common dPCD marker genes and HR PCD in Arabidopsis (Olvera-Carrillo et al., 2015; Salguero-Linares et al., 2022).

While S. indica is a beneficial root endophyte that does not induce classical hypersensitive response (HR) in host plants, the impact of dPCD on S. indica colonization should not be overlooked. S. indica promotes root hair formation in its hosts (Saleem et al., 2022), and in Arabidopsis, root hair cells naturally undergo cell death 2–3 weeks after emergence (Tan et al., 2016). This aspect could be particularly relevant for understanding the dynamics of S. indica colonization.

- Showing the analysis of pBFN1 in smb-3 would help in validating the idea that the downregulation of BFN1 by S. indica is regulated independently of SMB.

SMB is known to be a root cap specific transcription factor (Willemsen et al., 2008; Fendrych et al., 2014). The pBFN1:tdTOMATO reporter line shows that BFN1 expression occurs in many different tissues undergoing dPCD, above and below ground, where SMB is not expressed or present. Therefore, we can postulate that the downregulation of BFN1 by S. indica in the differentiation zone is regulated independently of SMB.

- A question of great interest still remains open: is it the microbe that induces the regulation of BFN1 causing a delay in cell clearance and favoring the infection or is it the plant that reduces BFN1 to favor the interaction with the microbe? In other words, is the mechanism a response to stress or a consolidation of the interaction with the host?

We agree with this reviewer that this question remains open. Whether active interference by fungal effector proteins, fungal-derived signaling molecules, or a systemic response of Arabidopsis roots underlies BFN1 downregulation during S. indica colonization remains to be investigated. Yet, it is noteworthy that the downregulation of BFN1 in Arabidopsis is not specific to S. indica but also occurs during interactions with other beneficial microbes such as S. vermifera and two bacterial synthetic communities. This suggests that it could be a broader plant response to microbial presence. However, at this stage, we can only speculate on these possibilities. We therefore changed some of the statements in the paper to moderate our conclusions: e.g. “Expression of plant nuclease BFN1, which is associated with senescence, is modulated to facilitate root accommodation of beneficial microbes” to leave open who exactly is controlling BFN1, the plant or the microbes.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

This is a straightforward study, well executed and well written. I have only a few specific comments, and some concern the statistics which is a bit more serious and where I would like to get answers first. Looking at the figures, I am sure that the authors can easily clarify the issues in the manuscript.

We appreciate the positive feedback and included clarifications in the statistical section in the material and methods.

Statistics:

- The statistics are not detailed in Material and Methods, but are only briefly indicated in the headings of the figures. Include a statistics section in Material and Methods.

We added an extra paragraph with statistical analysis in the Material and Method section for clarifications, which reads as follows:” All statistical analyses, except for the transcriptomic analysis, were performed using Prism8. Individual figures state the applied statistical methods, as well as p and F values. p-values and corresponding asterisks are defined as following, p<0.05 *, p<0.01**, p<0.001***.”.

- Figure 1/ Figure S3, etc: First of all, a **** with p< 0.00001 does not exist! Significance in statistics just means that we assume that there is a difference with some kind of probability that has been defined as p<0.05 *, p<0.01**, p<0.001***, and NOT more! Even if p<0.000001, it is still p<0.001***. Stating the meaning of asterisks in a separate Statistics section in Materials and Methods would also avoid repetitive explanations (e.g. Figure 4, L68: 'Asterisk indicates significantly different...').

We agree and have updated the manuscript accordingly. See comment above.  

- Also, it is advisable to reduce the digits of the p-values to a meaningful length (e.g. Figure 2 L 36: (*P<0.0466) should be (F[1, ?] = ?; p<0.047). The * is not necessary in the text, as p<0.05 is already given. We do not obtain more information by a more exact p-value, because all we need to know is that p<0.05.

We adjusted the p-values accordingly throughout the manuscript.

- It is NOT sufficient to communicate just the p-value of a statistical analysis. What is always needed is the F-value (student test and ANOVA) with both nominator and denominator degrees of freedom (e.g. F[2, 10] =) AND the p-value.

We included F-values throughout the manuscript in all main and supplemental figures to provide more clarity for the readers.

- The reason becomes clear in Fig. 2D where the authors state that they used 3 biological replicates, each with 40 plants. I assume the statistics was wrongly based on calculating with 120 plants (F[1,120] =) as technical replicates instead of correctly the biological replicates (3 means of 40 technical replicates each, (F[1,3] =))?? If F-value and df had been given, errors like this would be immediately visible - for any reviewer/reader, but also to the authors.<br /> \=>Please re-analyze the statistics correctly.

To assess S. indica-induced growth promotion, we measured and compared the root length of Arabidopsis plants under S. indica colonization or mock conditions at three different time points. Each genotype and treatment combination involved measuring 50 plants, with each plant serving as an independent biological replicate inoculated with the same S. indica spore solution. For comprehensive statistical analysis, we conducted the experiment a total of 3 times, using fresh fungal inoculum each time, originally referred to as "three biological replicates." We maintain that including all plant measurements is essential for a thorough statistical analysis of our growth promotion experiment. However, in order to avoid confusion, we have updated the figure legend to clarify the experimental set-up as following: “(D) Root length measurements of WT plants and smb-3 mutant plants, during S. indica colonization (seed inoculated) or mock treatment. 50 plants for each genotype and treatment combination were observed and individually measured over a time period of two weeks. WT roots show S. indica-induced growth promotion, while growth promotion of smb-3 mutants was delayed and only observed at later stages of colonization. This experiment was repeater 2 more independent times, each time with fresh fungal material. Statistical analysis was performed via one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc test (F [11, 1785] = 1149; p < 0.001). For visual representation of statistical relevance each time point was additionally evaluated via one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc test at 8dpi (F [3, 593] = 69.24; p < 0.001), 10dpi (F [3, 596] = 47.59; p < 0.001) and 14dpi (F [3, 596] = 154.3; p < 0.001).”

- Figure 2, L 18; Figure 5, L 95, Figure S5 L53, etc: I am worried about executing a statistical test 'before normalization' - what does it mean?? WHY was a normalization necessary, WHAT EXACTLY was normalized and do we see normalized plots that do NOT correspond to the data on which the statistics was based? At least this implies 'before normalization'! Please explain, and/or re-analyze the statistics correctly.

We agree that the phrasing “before normalization” may lead to confusion, as the normalization of data to the mean of the control group does not alter the statistical analysis. Normalization was performed to achieve a clearer visual representation. Additionally, Evans blue staining is quantified by measuring the mean grey value, which does not correspond to a specific unit. Normalizing the data allows for the representation of relative staining intensities. The manuscript has been adjusted accordingly throughout.

- Statistics in Figure 1: L8/9: 'in reference to B' is unclear, I guess the mean of the control was used as a reference? This would also explain the variation in relative staining intensity (Figure 1C). if normalization was carried out (see above) all control (WT) values should be exactly 1, but they are not. I guess it was normalized to the mean of the control?

“In reference to X” or “corresponding to X” typically means that Figure X shows an example image from the dataset on which the statistical quantification is based. We have updated the manuscript throughout the main and supplemental figure legends to use “refers to image shown in X” to avoid confusion.  

Figure S4, L 42: '(corresponding to A)', see comment above.

See comment above.

Figure 5B, L 87: '(in reference to A)'; L93: (in reference to C), etc. - see above. Unclear how A was used as a reference. Was it the mean of A? BUT again only 3 biological replicates! So it has to be the mean of 3 reps that was used as control! OR can we at least say that the 10 measured roots were independent of each other (crucial (!) precondition for executing student's test or ANOVA? Then you would have at least 10 replicates (mean of 4 pictures taken per root for each).

Quantification of Evans blue staining intensity involved taking 4 pictures along the main root axis of each plant. We re-evaluated the statistical analysis correctly with the averaged datapoints for each plant root. We adjusted main figures (Fig.1C and 5B) and supplementary figures (Fig. S1C and S4B) and changed the material and methods section of the manuscript as following: “4 pictures were taken along the main root axis of each plant and averaged together, for an overview of cell death in the differentiation zone.”.

- Statistics in Figure 4, L 69: what means 'adjusted p-value'? Which analysis?

The material and method section of the manuscript has been adjusted as following for clarification: “Differential gene expression analysis was performed using the R package DESeq2 (Love et al., 2014). Genes with an FDR adjusted p-value < 0.05 were considered as differentially expressed genes (DEGs). The adjusted p-value refers to the transformation of the p-value obtained with the Wald test after considering multiple testing. To visualize gene expression, genes expression levels were normalized as Transcript Per kilobase million (TPM).”.

- Statistics in Figure 5, L102-105: see above! Were the statistics correctly calculated with 7 reps, or wrongly with 30? # I guess each time point was normalized to the mean of WT? By the way, it is not clear if repeated measurements were done on the same plants. If repeated measurements were done on the SAME plants, then these data are statistically not independent anymore (time-series analysis), and e.g. MANOVA must be used and significant (!) before proceeding to ANOVA and Tukey.

The statistics for quantifying intraradical colonization of Arabidopsis roots were calculated with 7 replicates. For each replicate, 30 plants were pooled to obtain sufficient material for RNA extraction and cDNA synthesis. Plants from the same genotype were harvested separately for each time point, ensuring that the time points are statistically independent from one another.

Statistics Fig. S1, L 11-12: see above, '5 plants were imaged for each mock and ..., evaluating 4 pictures ...' That means you have means of 4 pictures for 5 biological replicates - the figure shows 20 replicates. However, the statistics must be based on 5 reps! You may indicate the 4 pictures per root by different colours. Change throughout all figures and calculate the statistics correctly (show this by indicating the correct df in your statistics as discussed above).

We have conducted a re-evaluation of the statistical analysis of Evans blue staining for all figures presented throughout the manuscript. See comment above.

Statistics Fig. S3, L 31: 'Relative quantification of ...' see above, relative to what? Explain this also clearly in Statistics in Materials and Methods.

Relative quantification refers to normalizing data to the mean of the corresponding control group. Figure legends have been revised to clarify this point.

Statistics Fig. S5, L 57/58: 'Genes are clustered using spearmen correlation as distance measure'. If I understand it correctly, Spearman correlation is NOT a distance measure. You used Spearman correlation to cluster gene expression. Now it would be interesting to know WHICH clustering method was used, e.g. a hierarchical or non-hierarchical clustering method? and which one, e.g. single linkage, complete linkage? The outcome depends very much on the clustering method. Therefore, this information is important.

To perform gene clustering, we set the option “clustering_distance_rows = "spearman" “ of the Heatmap function included in the ComplexHeatmap package. The function first computes the distance matrix using the formula 1 - cor(x, y, method) with Spearman as correlation method. It then performs hierarchical clustering using the complete linkage method by default.

# Arabidopsis is a genus name and by convention, this has to be written throughout the MS in italics - even if the authors define Arabidopsis thaliana (in italics) = Arabidopsis (without).

# typos

L 24: smb-3 mutants (must be explained)

L 83 insert: ...two well-characterized SMB loss-of-function ...

While smb-3 is a SMB loss-of-function mutant bfn1-1 is a BFN1 loss-of-function mutant, independent of SMB.

L 93: The switch between the biotrophic..

L 119: distal border

L 125: aggregates in the smb-3 mutant

L 132: between the meristematic

L 177/178: was observed at 6 dpi in Arabidopsis colonized by S. indica.

L 250: colonization stages by S. indica.

L 288: and root cell death (RCD)

L 289: and towards...

L 296: dPCD protects the

L 304: This raises the

L 351: to remove loose

All the above-mentioned typos have been addressed in the manuscript.

Materials and Methods

L 327: give composition and supplier of MYP medium

L 344 name supplier of MS medium

L 338 name supplier of PNM medium

L 353: replace 'Following,..' with 'Subsequently, ..'

L 360: replace 'on plate' with 'on the agar plate' - change throughout the Materials and methods!

L 360: name supplier of Alexa Fluor 488

L 363: name supplier of (MS) square plate

L 377: insert comma: After cleaning, the roots...

L 394: explain the acronym and name supplier of PBS

L 399: explain the acronym and name supplier of TBST

All the above-mentioned comments in the material and methods have been addressed in the manuscript.  

Figure 2G) x-axis, change order: Hoechst/Proteostat

Figure 3, L53: propidium iodide: name supplier

Figure 4, L68: Asterisks

L 60: explain LRC

L 67, L69, L70: explain the acronym TPM and how expression values were measured in Materials and Methods, the brief explanation in the figure is unclear and not sufficient

All the above-mentioned comments in the figure legends have been addressed.

Figure S5, L50: explain 'SynComs'

L 51: corrects 30 plans => 30 plants

L 56: vaules => values

L 57: use capital letter: Spearman correlation

All the above-mentioned comments in the supplemental figure legends have been addressed.

eLife assessment

This important manuscript presents several structures of the Kv1.2 voltage-gated potassium channel, based on state-of-the-art cryoEM techniques and algorithms. The authors present solid evidence for structures of an inactivating mutant of Kv1.2, DTX-bound Kv1.2 and of Kv1.2 in potassium-free solution (with presumably sodium ions bound within the selectivity filter). These structures advance our knowledge of the molecular basis of the slow inactivation process of potassium channels.

eLife assessment

This manuscript describes valuable findings on the expression pattern of orexin receptors in the midbrain and how manipulating this system influences several behaviors, such as context-induced locomotor activity and exploration. The overall strength of evidence - which includes anatomical, viral manipulation studies, and brain imaging - is solid and broadly supports claims in the paper, however, there are several areas in which the conclusions are only partially supported by the statistical evidence. These results have implications for understanding the neural underpinnings of reward and will be of interest to neuroscientists and cognitive scientists with an interest in the neurobiology of reward.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In this manuscript, the role of orexin receptors in dopamine transmission is studied. It extends previous findings suggesting an interplay of these two systems in regulating behaviour by first characterising the expression of orexin receptors in the midbrain and then disrupting orexin transmission in dopaminergic neurons by deleting its predominant receptor, OX1R (Ox1R fl/fl, Dat-Cre tg/wt mice). Electrophysiological and calcium imaging data suggest that orexin A acutely and directly stimulates SN and VTA dopaminergic neurons, but does not seem to induce c-Fos expression. Behavioural effects of depleting OX1R from dopaminergic neurons includes enhanced novelty-induced locomotion and exploration, relative to littermate controls (Ox1R fl/fl, Dat-Cre wt/wt). However, no difference between groups is observed in tests that measure reward processing, anxiety, and energy homeostasis. To test whether depletion of OX1R alters overall orexin-triggered activation across the brain, PET imaging is used in OX1R∆DAT knockout and control mice. This analysis reveals that several regions show a higher neuronal activation after orexin injection in OX1R∆DAT mice, but the authors focus their follow up study on the dorsal bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST) and lateral paragigantocellular nucleus (LPGi). Dopaminergic inputs and expression of dopamine receptors type-1 and -2 (DRD1 & DRD2) is assessed and compared to control demonstrating moderate decrease of DRD1 and DRD2 expression in BNST of OX1R∆DAT mice and unaltered expression of DRD2, with absence of DRD1 expression in LPGi of both groups. Overall, this study is valuable for the information it provides on orexin receptor expression and function on behaviour and for the new tools it generated for the specific study of this receptor in dopaminergic circuits.

Strengths:

The use of a transgenic line that lacks OX1R in dopamine-transporter expressing neurons is a strong approach to dissect the direct role of orexin in modulating dopamine signalling in the brain. The battery of behavioural assays to study this line provides a valuable source of information for researchers interested in the role of orexin in animal physiology.

Weaknesses:

This study falls short in providing evidence for an anatomical substrate of the altered behaviour observed in mice lacking orexin receptor subtype 1 in dopaminergic neurons. How orexin transmission in dopaminergic neurons regulates the expression of postsynaptic dopamine receptors (as observed in BNST of OX1R∆DAT mice) is an intriguing question poorly discussed. Whether disruption of orexin activity alters dopamine release in target areas is an important point not addressed.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript examines expression of orexin receptors in midbrain - with a focus on dopamine neurons - and uses several fairly sophisticated manipulation techniques to explore the role of this peptide neurotransmitter in reward-related behaviors. Specifically, in situ hybridization is used to show that dopamine neurons predominantly express orexin receptor 1 subtype and then go on to delete this receptor in dopamine transporter-expressing using a transgenic strategy. Ex vivo calcium imaging of midbrain neurons is used to show that, in the absence of this receptor, orexin is no longer able to excite dopamine neurons of the substantia nigra.

The authors proceed to use this same model to study the effect of orexin receptor 1 deletion on a series of behavioral tests, namely, novelty-induced locomotion and exploration, anxiety-related behavior, preference for sweet solutions, cocaine-induced conditioned place preference, and energy metabolism. Of these, the most consistent effects are seen in the tests of novelty-induced locomotion and exploration in which the mice with orexin 1 receptor deletion are observed to show greater levels of exploration, relative to wild-type, when placed in a novel environment, an effect that is augmented after icv administration of orexin.

In the final part of the paper, the authors use PET imaging to compare brain-wide activity patterns in the mutant mice compared to wildtype. They find differences in several areas both under control conditions (i.e., after injection of saline) as well as after injection of orexin. They focus in on changes in dorsal bed nucleus of stria terminalis (dBNST) and the lateral paragigantocellular nucleus (LPGi) and perform analysis of the dopaminergic projections to these areas. They provide anatomical evidence that these regions are innervated by dopamine fibers from midbrain, are activated by orexin in control, but not mutant mice, and that dopamine receptors are present. Thus, they argue these anatomical data support the hypothesis that behavioral effects of orexin receptor 1 deletion in dopamine neurons are due to changes in dopamine signaling in these areas.

Strengths:

Understanding how orexin interacts with the dopamine system is an important question and this paper contains several novel findings along these lines. Specifically:

(1) Distribution of orexin receptor subtypes in VTA and SN is explored thoroughly.<br /> (2) Use of the genetic model that knocks out a specific orexin receptor subtype from dopamine-transporter-expressing neurons is a useful model and helps to narrow down the behavioral significance of this interaction.<br /> (3) PET studies showing how central administration of orexin evokes dopamine release across the brain is intriguing, especially that two key areas are pursued - BNST and LPGi - where the dopamine projection is not as well described/understood.

Weaknesses:

The role of the orexin-dopamine interaction is not explored in enough detail. The manuscript presents several related findings, but the combination of anatomy and manipulation studies do not quite tell a cogent story. Ideally, one would like to see the authors focus on a specific behavioral parameter and show that one of their final target areas (dBNST or LPGi) was responsible or at least correlated with this behavioral readout.

In many places in the Results, insufficient explanation and statistical reporting is provided. Throughout the Results - especially in the section on behavior although not restricted to this part - statements are made without statistical tests presented to back up the claims, e.g., "Compared to controls, Ox1RΔDAT 143 mice did not show significant changes in spontaneous locomotor activity in home cages" (L143) and "In a hole-board test, female Ox1RΔDAT mice showed increased nose pokes into the holes in early (1st and 2nd) sessions compared to control mice" (L151). In other places, ANOVAs are mentioned but full results including main effects and interactions are not described in detail, e.g., in F3-S3, only a single p-value is presented and it is difficult to know if this is the interaction term or a post hoc test (L205). These and all other statements need statistics included in the text as support. Addition of these statistical details was also requested by the editor.

In the presentation of reward processing this is particularly important as no statistical tests are shown to demonstrate that controls show a cocaine-induced preference or a sucrose preference. Here, one option would be to perform one-sample t-tests showing that the data were different to zero (no preference). As it is, the claim that "Both of the control and Ox1RΔDAT groups showed a preference for cocaine injection" is not yet statistically supported.

Author response:

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the role of orexin receptors in dopamine neurons is studied. Considering the importance of both orexin and dopamine signalling in the brain, with critical roles in arousal and drug seeking, this study is important to understand the anatomical and functional interaction between these two neuromodulators. This work suggests that such interaction is direct and occurs at the level of SN and VTA, via the expression of OX1R-type orexin receptors by dopaminergic neurons.

Strengths:

The use of a transgenic line that lacks OX1R in dopamine-transporter-expressing neurons is a strong approach to dissecting the direct role of orexin in modulating dopamine signalling in the brain. The battery of behavioural assays to study this line provides a valuable source of information for researchers interested in the role of orexin-A in animal physiology.

We thank the reviewer for summarizing the importance and significance of our study. 

Weaknesses:

The choice of methods to demonstrate the role of orexin in the activation of dopamine neurons is not justified and the quantification methods are not described with enough detail. The representation of results can be dramatically improved and the data can be statistically analysed with more appropriate methods.

We have further improved our description of the methods in the revised reviewed preprint, and here in the response letter, we respond point-by-point to ‘Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors)’ below. 

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This manuscript examines the expression of orexin receptors in the midbrain - with a focus on dopamine neurons - and uses several fairly sophisticated manipulation techniques to explore the role of this peptide neurotransmitter in reward-related behaviors. Specifically, in situ hybridization is used to show that dopamine neurons predominantly express the orexin receptor 1 subtype and then go on to delete this receptor in dopamine neurons using a transgenic strategy. Ex vivo calcium imaging of midbrain neurons is used to show that in the absence of this receptor orexin is no longer able to excite dopamine neurons of the substantia nigra.

The authors proceed to use this same model to study the effect of orexin receptor 1 deletion on a series of behavioral tests, namely, novelty-induced locomotion and exploration, anxiety-related behavior, preference for sweet solutions, cocaine-induced conditioned place preference, and energy metabolism. Of these, the most consistent effects are seen in the tests of novelty-induced locomotion and exploration in which the mice with orexin 1 receptor deletion are observed to show greater levels of exploration, relative to wild-type, when placed in a novel environment, an effect that is augmented after icv administration of orexin.

In the final part of the paper, the authors use PET imaging to compare brain-wide activity patterns in the mutant mice compared to wildtype. They find differences in several areas both under control conditions (i.e., after injection of saline) as well as after injection of orexin. They focus on changes in the dorsal bed nucleus of stria terminalis (dBNST) and the lateral paragigantocellular nucleus (LPGi) and perform analysis of the dopaminergic projections to these areas. They provide anatomical evidence that these regions are innervated by dopamine fibers from the midbrain, are activated by orexin in control, but not mutant mice, and that dopamine receptors are present. Thus, they argue these anatomical data support the hypothesis that behavioral effects of orexin receptor 1 deletion in dopamine neurons are due to changes in dopamine signaling in these areas.

Strengths:

Understanding how orexin interacts with the dopamine system is an important question and this paper contains several novel findings along these lines. Specifically:

(1) The distribution of orexin receptor subtypes in VTA and SN is explored thoroughly.

(2) Use of the genetic model that knocks out a specific orexin receptor subtype from only dopamine neurons is a useful model and helps to narrow down the behavioral significance of this interaction.

(3) PET studies showing how central administration of orexin evokes dopamine release across the brain is intriguing, especially since two key areas are pursued - BNST and LPGi - where the dopamine projection is not as well described/understood.

We thank the reviewer for the careful summary and highlighting the novelty of our study.

Weaknesses:

The role of the orexin-dopamine interaction is not explored in enough detail. The manuscript presents several related findings, but the combination of anatomy and manipulation studies does not quite tell a cogent story. Ideally, one would like to see the authors focus on a specific behavioral parameter and show that one of their final target areas (dBNST or LPGi) was responsible or at least correlated with this behavioral readout. In addition, some more discussion on what the results tell us about orexin signaling to dopamine neurons under normal physiological conditions would be very useful. For example, what is the relevance of the orexin-dopamine interaction blunting noveltyinduced locomotion under wildtype conditions?

We agree that focusing on some orexin-dopamine targeting areas, such as dBNST or LPGi, is important to further reveal the anatomy-behavior links and underlying mechanisms. While we are very interested in further investigations, in the present manuscript we mainly aim to give an overview of the behavioral roles of orexin-dopamine interaction and to propose some promising downstream pathways in a relatively broad and systematical way. 

We have explained the physiological meanings of our results in more detail in the discussion in the revised reviewed preprint (lines 282-293, 318-332, ). Novelty-induced behavioral response should be at proper levels under normal physiological conditions. The orexin-dopamine interaction blunting novelty-induced locomotion could be important to keep attention on the main task without being distracted too much by other random stimuli in the environment. When this balance is disrupted, behavioral deficit may happen, such as attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).  

In some places in the Results, insufficient explanation and reporting is provided. For example, when reporting the behavioral effects of the Ox1 deletion in two bottle preference, it is stated that "[mutant] mice showed significant changes..." without stating the direction in which preference was affected.

For the reward-related behaviors described in this study, we did not find significant changes between [mutant] and control mice. We agree that it will be helpful for readers by describing the behavioral tests in more details. In the revised reviewed preprint, we have described in more detail in the results and Materials and Methods section how the control and [mutant] mice behave to the reward (lines 162-165, 171-181, 526-528).  

The cocaine CPP results are difficult to interpret because it is unclear whether any of the control mice developed a CPP preference. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the knockout animals were unaffected by drug reward learning. Similarly, the sucrose/sucralose preference scores are also difficult to interpret because no test of preference vs. water is performed (although the data appear to show that there is a preference at least at higher concentrations, it has not been tested).

We described the CPP analysis in the Materials and Methods section (lines 523-528 ) as below: ‘The percentage of time spent in the reward-paired compartment was calculated: 100 x time spent in the compartment / (total time - time spent in the middle area). The CPP score was then analyzed using the calculated percentage of time: 100 x (time on the test day – time on pre-test days)/ time on pre-test days. The pre-test and test days were before and after the conditioning, respectively. Thus, the CPP score above zero indicates that the CPP preference has developed.’ In Figure 2—figure supplement 4 C and F, it was shown that most control and knockout mice had a CPP score above zero. The control and knockout groups both developed a preference and there was no significant difference between the groups. 

For the sucrose/sucralose preference tests, in Figure 2—figure supplement 4 A and D, we present values as the percentages of sucrose/sucralose consumption in total daily drinking amount (sucrose/sucralose solution + water). Thus, percentages above 50% indicates mice prefer sucrose/sucralose to water. As shown in the figure, male mice only showed weak preference of 0.5% sucrose, compared to water, and under all other tested conditions, the mice showed strong preference of the sweet solution. There was no significant difference between control and knockout mice. 

We have described this in more details in the Results and Materials and Methods section in the revised reviewed preprint. 

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) Figure 1, A-I. It is difficult to depict the anatomical subdivision of VTA in Figure 1, panels A and B. It is recommended to add a panel showing a schematic illustration of the SNc and subregions of VTA: PN, PIF, PBP, IF (providing more detail than in Figure 1, panel J). It is also recommended to show lower magnification images (as in Figure 1 - supplement 1), including both hemispheres, and to delineate the outline of the different subregions using curved lines, based on reference atlases (similar to Figure 1, panel I, please include distance from bregma). It would be helpful to indicate in Figure 1 that panel A is a control mouse and panel B is a Ox1RΔDAT mouse and include C-F letters to show corresponding insets. Anatomically, the paraintrafasicular nucleus (PIF) is positioned between the paranigral nucleus (PN) and the parabrachial pigmented nucleus (PBP). The authors have depicted the PIF ventral to the PN in Figure 1 panels A, B, and I. These panels and the quantification of Ox1R/2R positive cells within the different subdivisions need to be corrected accordingly. The image analysis method used to quantify RNAscope fluorescent images is not described in sufficient detail. Please expand this section.

According to the reviewer’s suggestions, we have refined Figure 1 in the revised reviewed preprint. We are now showing the schematic illustration of the SN and subregions of VTA in panel I, with blue squares to label the regions shown in panels A and B, and the distance from bregma is included. The outlines to delineate SN and the subregions of VTA are adjusted from straight to curved lines based on reference atlases. As suggested, we have also indicated panel A is a control and panel B is a Ox1RΔDAT mouse and included C-F letters to show corresponding insets. We apologize for the mistake about labeling PIF and PN positions in Figure A. We have corrected the labeling of their positions and double checked the quantification accordingly. This does not change our discussion or conclusion since both PIF and PN are the medial part of VTA, where both Ox1R and Ox2R are observed. The description of the image analysis in Matierials and Methods section has been improved (lines 378-385). We decided not to show lower magnification images than in Figure 1—supplement 1 to include both hemispheres, in the interests of clarity and reader-friendliness.  

(2) Figure 1, J-L. The claim that orexin activates dopaminergic SN and VTA neurons is weakly supported by the data provided. Calcium imaging of SN dopaminergic neurons in control mice suggests a discrete effect of 100 nM orexin-A application compared to baseline. Application of 300 nM shows a slightly bigger effect, but none of these results are statistically analysed. 

We are surprised by this comment and thank the reviewer for pointing out our apparent lack of clarity in the previous version (lines 96-106 and legend of Figure 1K, L). In more detail, we explain the data analysis in the new version (lines 119-133, 451-465) and the legend of Figure 1K, L and Figure 1-figure supplement 3).

The main goal of this part of the project was to functionally validate the Ox1R knockout in dopaminergic (DAT-expressing) neurons. This was a prerequisite for the behavioral and PET imaging experiments. We used GCaMP-mediated Ca2+ imaging in acute brain slices to reach this goal. This analysis was performed on the dopaminergic SN neurons, which we used as an "indicator population" because a large number of these neurons express Ox1R, but only a few express Ox2R. 

The analysis consisted of two parts:

a) For each neuron, we tested whether it responded to orexin A. At the single cell level, a neuron was considered orexin A-responsive if the change in fluorescence induced by orexin A was three times larger than the standard deviation (3 σ criterion) of the baseline fluorescence, corresponding to a Zscore of 3. We found that 56% of the neurons tested responded to orexin A, while 44% of the neurons did not respond to orexin A (Figure 1L, top). These data agree with the number of Ox1R-expressing neurons (Figure 1J). 

b) We also determined the orexin A-induced GCaMP fluorescence for each neuron, expressed as a percentage of GCaMP fluorescence induced upon application of high K+ saline. Accordingly, the "population response" of all analyzed neurons was expressed as the mean ± SEM of these responses. The significance of this mean response was tested for each group (control and Ox1R KO) using a onesample t-test. We found a marked and highly significant (p < 0.0001, n = 71) response of control neurons to 100 nM orexin A, while the Ox1R KO neurons did not respond (p = 0.5, n = 86). Note that, as described in a), 44% of the neurons contributing to the mean do not respond to orexin. Thus, the orexin responses of most responders are significantly higher than the mean. This is also evident in the example recordings in Figure 1K and Figure1—figure supplement 3. The orexin A-induced change in fluorescence was increased by increasing the orexin A concentration to 300 nM.

Note: As mentioned above, the orexin A response was expressed for each neuron individually as a percentage of its high K+saline-induced GCaMP fluorescence. This value is a solid reference point, reflecting the GCaMP fluorescence at maximal voltage-activated Ca2+ influx. Obviously, the Ca2+ concentration at this point is extremely high and not typically reached under physiological conditions. Therefore, as shown in Figure1—figure supplement 3 for completeness, the physiologically relevant responses may appear relatively minor at first glance when presented together in one figure (compare Figure1—figure supplement 3 A and B).

The authors should provide more evidence of the orexin-induced activation of dopaminergic neurons in the SN to support this claim and investigate whether a similar activation is observed in VTA neurons. 

Following the reviewer's suggestion, we confirmed orexin A-induced activation of dopaminergic neurons in the mouse SN by using perforated patch clamp recordings (Figure1—figure supplement 2).

This finding is consistent with previous extracellular in vivo recordings in rats (Liu et al., 2018).

The activation of dopaminergic neurons in the mouse VTA by orexin A has been shown repeatedly in earlier studies (e.g., Baimel et al., 2017; Korotkova et al., 2003; Tung et al., 2016).

In addition, Figure 3-Figure Supplement 2 shows that injection of orexin does not induce c-Fos expression in SN and VTA dopaminergic neurons of control and Ox1RΔDAT mice, which further weakens the claim made by the authors.

Figure 3—Figure Supplement 2 in the original submission is now Figure 3—Figure Supplement 3 in the revised reviewed preprint. It shows low c-Fos expression in SN and VTA dopaminergic neurons, and orexin-induced c-Fos expression was observed in Th-negative cells in SN and VTA. 

Technically relatively straightforward, Fos analysis is widely (and successfully) used in studies to reveal neuronal activation. However, this approach has limitations, e.g., regarding sensitivity and temporal resolution. Electrophysiological or optical imaging techniques can circumvent these shortcomings. The electrophysiological and Ca2+ imaging studies presented here, along with previous electrophysiological studies by others, clearly show that orexin A acutely and directly stimulates SN and VTA dopaminergic neurons.

In vivo, the injection of orexin A induced a pronounced c-Fos activity in non-dopaminergic cells of the VTA and SN but not in dopaminergic neurons. This result shows that the detection of c-Fos has worked in principle. Whether the absent c-Fos staining in dopaminergic neurons is due to lack of sensitivity, whether other IEGs would have worked better here, or whether there are other, e.g., cell type-specific reasons for the absence of staining, cannot be determined from the current data.

(3) Figure 2, I-L. The fact that ICV injection of both saline and orexin causes a sustained increase of locomotion (around 20 minutes in males, and over 30 minutes in females) is problematic and could mask the effects of orexin, particularly in females. It is unclear what panels J and L are showing. To be appropriately analysed, the authors should plot the pre- and post-injection AUC data for all groups and analyse it as a two-way mixed ANOVA, with the within-subjects factor "pre/post injection activity" and between-subjects factor "group". The authors can only warrant a statistically meaningful hyperlocomotor effect in Ox1RΔDAT mice if a significant interaction is found.

Though mice were habituated to the injection, it still makes sense to see the injection-induced increase in locomotion to some extent. We described in the figure legend that the AUC was calculated for the period after orexin injection, which meant 5 – 90 min in Figure 2 I, K. We have clearly observed significant differences between genotypes and between saline and orexin application, which means the genotype and orexin impact is strong enough to pop up despite of the injection effect. 

As the reviewer’s suggests, we have now plotted the pre- and post-injection AUC data for all groups and analyzed it as a two-way mixed ANOVA, with the within-subjects factor "pre/post injection activity" and between-subjects factor "group". To match the pre- and post-injection duration, we are now comparing AUC for around 60 min before and after the injection. A significant interaction is found here. Panels I-L are renewed, and the differences induced by Ox1R knockout and orexin confirmed the results shown in the initially submitted manuscript.  

(4) Figure 3. The literature has robustly shown that one of the main projection areas of VTA and SN dopaminergic neurons is the striatum, in particular its ventral part. It is surprising to see that this region is not affected by the lack of OX1R or by the injection of orexin. How can the authors explain that identified regions with significantly different activity include neighbouring brain structures with heterogenous composition? See for example, in panel A, section bregma 0.62mm, a significant region is seen expanding across the cortex, corpus callosum, and striatum. While the data from PET studies is potentially interesting, it may not be adequate to provide enough resolution to allow examination of the anatomical distribution of orexin-mediated neuronal activation.

While the striatum is a major projection area of dopaminergic neurons in VTA and SN, the projection and function of Ox1R-positive dopaminergic neurons is not clear. We have improved the description of dopamine function diversity in the revised reviewed preprint (lines 46-58), and it was reported before that the projection-defined dopaminergic populations in the VTA exhibited different responses to orexin A (Baimel et al., 2017). Moreover, the striatum activity is modulated by the indirect effect via other brain regions affected by Ox1R-positive dopaminergic neurons. It is unknown how the striatum activity should change after Ox1R deletion in dopaminergic neurons. We could not rule out the possibility that the striatum is indeed modulated by the Ox1R-positive dopaminergic neurons, though there was only a trend of genotype difference (Ox1RΔDAT vs. ctrl) in the ventral striatum in the section bregma 1.42 mm in Figure 3A. The ICV injection of orexin is potentially acting on Ox1R and Ox2R in the whole brain, so projections from other brain regions to the striatum also affect striatum activity and could have masked the effect of Ox1R-positive dopaminergic neurons. 

The spatial resolution of the PET data is in the order of ~1 mm^3. As we also explained in the Materials and Methods section, the size of a voxel in the original PET data is 0.4mm x 0.4mm x 0.8 mm. All calculations were performed on this grid. The higher-resolved images shown in Figure 3 are for presentation purposes only inspired by a request of the reviewer who asked us to show this in the Jais et al. 2016 manuscript. To make this clearer we now added the p-map images with the original voxel size to the supplement (Figure 3—figure supplement 1). For the interest in specific brain areas, more precise identification of anatomical sub-regions requires using methods with higher spatial resolution such as staining of brain slices for c-Fos-positive cells as we do in Figure 4.

PET is a powerful tool to identify global regions of activation/inhibition. In the manuscript, we have described in the results and discussion section that the activity in brain regions with related functions were changed. In panel A, Ox1RΔDAT showed activity increase in MPA, Pir and endopiriform claustrum, which are important for olfactory sensation; spinal trigeminal nucleus, sp5, and IRt, which regulates mastication and sensation of the oral cavity and the surface of the face; SubCV and Gi, which regulates sleeping and motion-related arousal and motivation. In panel B, changes in HDB, MCPO, Pir, DEn, S1, V2L and V1 are related to sensation, and changes in BNST, LPGi and M2 are important for emotion, exploration, and action selection. 

(5) Figure 4. As in Figure 1, the authors should consider including a schematic illustration of the brain areas that are being analysed using a reference atlas. It is also recommended to provide more details describing the quantification of the images. Without such information, the data is not convincing, in particular, the claim that Ox1R depletion causes a decrease in DRD1 in BNST is unclear. Additional unbiased quantitative approaches could be used to strengthen this point.

We have added Figure 4—figure supplement 1 as a schematic illustration of the brain areas that were being analyzed using a reference atlas. More details describing the unbiased quantification of the images have been added to Materials and Methods. We have added Figure 4—figure supplement 3, to show DRD1, DRD2 and the merged signal separately.  

(6) The discussion starts by stating that the main findings of this study are based on RNAscope and optophysiological experiments, however, the latter are not presented anywhere in the manuscript. This sentence (line 192) should be revised. The authors state in line 193 that OX1R is the only orexin receptor in the SN, but they show in Figure 1 that in the SN, 3% of neurons express OX2R and 2% co-express both receptors. 

We thank the reviewer for the input. We have rephrased the beginning of the discussion to clarify the objectives (lines 238 - 246). In doing so, we changed "optophysiological experiments" and "single orexin receptor" (lines 192 and 193 in the original manuscript) to " Ca2+ imaging experiments" and "main subtype of orexin receptors ", respectively. In this context, it should be noted that Ca2+ imaging is considered an optophysiological method - optophysiology generally refers to techniques that combine optical methods with physiological measurements.

The results of LPGi and BNST dopamine receptors in control and Ox1RΔDAT mice are poorly discussed. The authors should justify why these two regions were selected for further validation and how these may be related to the behavioural effects found in Ox1RΔDAT regarding exposure to a novel context.

Ox1RΔDAT mice exhibited increased novelty- and orexin-induced locomotion compared to control mice. After orexin injection, PET imaging shows that the neural activity of BNST and LPGi was lower or higher than in control mice, respectively. We selected BNST and LPGi for further validation because we think their key functional roles in regulating emotion, exploratory behaviors and locomotor speed are related to novelty-induced locomotion. We confirmed changes in neural activity change by c-Fos staining and investigated the expression patterns of dopamine receptors in BNST and LPGi. Our findings suggested that Ox1R deletion in dopaminergic neurons results in the disinhibition of neural activity in LPGi via dopaminergic pathways and the decrease of dopamine-mediated neural activity in BNST. Emotion perception affects the decision of how to respond to the novelty. It is possible that novelty activates the orexin system and Ox1R signaling in dopaminergic neurons promotes emotion perception and inhibits exploration. Of course, further careful investigation is necessary to test this hypothesis in the future experiments. We have improved the rational description and discussion in the

‘Results’ and ‘Discussion’ section in the revised reviewed preprint (lines 210-213, 259-270, 293-308). 

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

A major recommendation - if possible - would be to directly show that one or both of the two target areas - dBNST and LPGi - are associated with the behavioral effects caused by the deletion of the orexin receptor 1 in dopamine neurons.

We completely agree that it would be very valuable to directly show dBNST and LPGi are associated with the behavioral effects caused by the deletion of Ox1R in dopaminergic neurons. While we are very interested in carefully investigating specific orexin-dopamine targeting areas and related neural circuits in the future, in the present manuscript, we mainly aim to give an overview of the behavioral roles of orexin-dopamine interaction and propose some promising downstream pathways. 

The authors should state if data are corrected for multiple comparisons, e.g., in the PET study of different regions.

We have included information about the post-hoc tests for all 2-way ANOVA analyses in the submitted manuscript. For the PET study, the p-values in the p-maps were not corrected for multiple comparison, Figure 3—figure supplement 2 shows the raw data of each mouse and the analysis method (t-test). In the revised reviewed preprint, we include the information on the analysis method in the figure legends of Figure 3. 

We consider that saline and orexin injections mimic the resting and active state of mice, respectively, and would like to study genotype effect under each condition. Doing 2-way ANOVA takes in count the difference between orexin and saline injection, which could mask the genotype effect under a certain condition. Therefore, we decided to perform t-tests for each condition in Figure 3. While we provide readers with full information in Figure 3—figure supplement 2 with the raw data of each individual mouse, below we present the p-maps after multiple comparisons (Sidak’s post hoc test). After multiple comparisons, we could see changes in similar brain regions as in Figure 3, though significant values are reduced by the correction for multiple comparisons, and under orexin-injection condition, we fail to see significantly higher activity around the lateral paragigantocellular nucleus (LPGi), nucleus of the horizontal limb of the diagonal band (HDB) and magnocellular preoptic nucleus (MCPO) in Ox1RΔDAT mice. In order to more precisely identify the anatomical locations, we performed additional experiments to confirm the changes revealed by PET. For example, LPGi is a relatively small region confirmed and identified more precisely by c-Fos immunostaining (Figure 4A, C). 

Author response image 1.

PET imaging studies comparing Ox1RΔDAT and control mice, with post-hoc t-test to correct for multiple comparisons. 3D maps of p-values in PET imaging studies comparing Ox1RΔDAT and control mice, after intracerebroventricular (ICV) injection of (A) saline (NS) and (B) orexin A. Control-NS, n = 8; control-orexin, n = 6; Ox1RΔDAT, n = 8. M2, secondary motor cortex; MPA, medial preoptic area; Pir, piriform cortex; IEn, intermediate endopiriform claustrum; DEn, dorsal endopiriform claustrum; VEn, ventral endopiriform claustrum; LSS, lateral stripe of the striatum; BNST, the dorsal bed nucleus of the stria terminalis; S1Sh, primary somatosensory cortex, shoulder region; S1HL, primary somatosensory cortex, hindlimb region; S1BF, primary somatosensory cortex, barrel field; S1Tr, primary somatosensory cortex, trunk region; V1, primary visual cortex; V2L, secondary visual cortex, lateral area; SubCV, subcoeruleus nucleus, ventral part; Gi, gigantocellular reticular nucleus; IRt, intermediate reticular nucleus; sp5, spinal trigeminal tract.

Provide a rationale for following up on BNST and LPGi and not any of the regions identified in the PET study.

We thank the reviewer for the careful reading and important input. Ox1RΔDAT mice exhibited increased novelty- and orexin-induced locomotion compared to control mice. After orexin injection, PET imaging shows that the neural activity of BNST and LPGi was lower or higher than control mice, respectively.

We selected BNST and LPGi for further validation because we think their key functional roles in regulating emotion, exploratory behaviors and locomotor speed are related to novelty-induced locomotion. We confirmed the neural activity change by c-Fos staining and investigated the expression patterns of dopamine receptors in BNST and LPGi. Our findings suggested that Ox1R deletion in dopaminergic neurons results in the disinhibition of neural activity in LPGi via dopaminergic pathways and the decrease of dopamine-mediated neural activity in BNST. Emotion perception affects the decision how to respond to the novelty. It is possible that novelty activates the orexin system and Ox1R signaling in dopaminergic neurons promotes emotion perception and inhibits exploration. Of course, further investigation is necessary to test this hypothesis in future. We have improved the rational description and discussion in the ‘Results’ and ‘Discussion’ section in the revised reviewed preprint (lines 210-213, 259-270, 293-308). 

Heatmap in Fig. 1K should not have smoothing across the y-axis, individual cells should be discrete.

We thank the reviewer for bringing this issue to our attention. The data had not been intentionally smoothed (neither across the x-axis nor the y-axis), but it was probably a formatting issue. We have corrected this and separated individual cell traces with lines (Figure 1K, Figure 1—figure supplement 3).

Dopamine cells are well known to lack Fos expression in most cases. Did the authors consider using another IEG to show neural activation, e.g., pERK?

We did not use another IEG. The electrophysiological and Ca2+ imaging studies presented here, along with previous electrophysiological studies by others, clearly show that orexin A acutely and directly stimulates SN and VTA dopaminergic neurons. Please see also the response to a related comment of Reviewer 1.

Consider adding a lower magnification section to anatomical figures to aid the reader in orienting and identifying the location.

We have added the schematic illustration of SN, VTA, BNST and LPGi in Figure 1I and Figure 4— figure supplement 1. We hope this helps the reader in orienting and identifying the location.  

Data availability should be stated.

There are no restrictions on data availability. We have added this section to the revised reviewed preprint.

Line 50. Some more references both historical and recent could be given to support this statement about the function of dopamine.

We have improved the description and references to support the statement about dopamine function (lines 46-58). We have cited recent studies and some reviews in the revised reviewed preprint (lines 4658). 

The PET data (Fig. 3) might be easier to visualize and interpret if a white background was used. In addition, is there a more refined way of presenting the data in Fig 3, S1?

It is common to present imaging data such as PET and MRI on a black background. We also have already applied this color scheme in multiple publications and would therefore prefer to stick to this color scheme. 

While Figure 3 is the concise way to present PET data, we aim to show the original individual results of mice in Figure 3—figure supplement 2 and to demonstrate how we performed the statistical analysis. Therefore, we take an example voxel of the respective brain area, perform the t-test, and present the data as bars with individual dots. 

Line 97. State what type of Ca imaging here, e.g., "we performed Ca imaging in ex vivo slices of VTA and SN".

As the reviewer suggested, we have specified the type of Ca2+ imaging (line 112).

Line 165. State which groups this post-mortem analysis was performed on and if any differences were to be found (not expected to find differences in this anatomical tracing experiment but good to report this as both groups were used).

Postmortem analysis of c-Fos staining revealed low c-Fos expression in dopaminergic neurons in the VTA and SN of Ox1RΔDAT and control mice after ICV injection of saline or orexin A (1 nmol). No obvious changes were observed among the groups. We have improved the description in the revised reviewed preprint (lines 202-208).

Line 192. What do you mean by optophysiological here? The Ca imaging (which is a fairly small, confirmatory element of the manuscript).

We have changed ‘optophysiological experiments’ (line 192 in initial submitted manuscript) to ‘calcium imaging experiments’ and rephrased the beginning of the discussion to clarify the objectives (lines 238246).

The protein level in the diet is substantially higher than in most rodent diets (34% here vs 14-20% in most commercial rodent chows). Please comment on this.

This diet is for rat and mouse maintenance, purchased from ssniff Spezialdiäten GmbH (product V1554).

The percentage of calories supplied by protein is affected by the calculation methods. The company calculated with pig equation before and the value was 34% in the old instruction data sheet. They have updated the value to 23% in the new data sheet with calculations by Atwater factors. We thank the reviewer for reminding us and have updated the values in the revised reviewed preprint (lines 314-316). 

Editor's note:

Should you choose to revise your manuscript, please include full statistical reporting including exact p-values wherever possible alongside the summary statistics (test statistic and df) and 95% confidence intervals. These should be reported for all key questions and not only when the p-value is less than 0.05.

We have provided the source data and the statistical reporting for each Figure with the revision

References

Baimel, C., Lau, B. K., Qiao, M., & Borgland, S. L. (2017). Projection-target-defined effects of orexin and dynorphin on VTA dopamine neurons. Cell Rep, 18(6), 1346-1355.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2017.01.030

Korotkova, T. M., Eriksson, K. S., Haas, H. L., & Brown, R. E. (2002). Selective excitation of GABAergic neurons in the substantia nigra of the rat by orexin/hypocretin in vitro. Regul Pept, 104(1-3), 83-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-0115(01)00323-8 

Korotkova, T. M., Sergeeva, O. A., Eriksson, K. S., Haas, H. L., & Brown, R. E. (2003). Excitation of ventral tegmental area dopaminergic and nondopaminergic neurons by orexins/hypocretins. J Neurosci, 23(1), 7-11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12514194

Liu, C., Xue, Y., Liu, M. F., Wang, Y., Liu, Z. R., Diao, H. L., & Chen, L. (2018). Orexins increase the firing activity of nigral dopaminergic neurons and participate in motor control in rats. J Neurochem, 147(3), 380-394. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnc.14568 

Tung, L. W., Lu, G. L., Lee, Y. H., Yu, L., Lee, H. J., Leishman, E., Bradshaw, H., Hwang, L. L., Hung, M. S., Mackie, K., Zimmer, A., & Chiou, L. C. (2016). Orexins contribute to restraint stress-induced cocaine relapse by endocannabinoid-mediated disinhibition of dopaminergic neurons. Nat Commun, 7, 12199. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12199

Author response:

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review): 

Summary: 

The authors investigated the anatomical features of the synaptic boutons in layer 1 of the human temporal neocortex. They examined the size of each synapse, the macular or perforated appearance, the size of the synaptic active zone, the number and volume of the mitochondria, and the number of synaptic and dense core vesicles, also differentiating between the readily releasable, the recycling, and the resting pool of synaptic vesicles. The coverage of the synapse by astrocytic processes was also assessed, and all the above parameters were compared to other layers of the human temporal neocortex. The authors conclude that the subcellular morphology of the layer 1 synapses are suitable for the functions of the neocortical layer, i.e. the synaptic integration within the cortical column. The low glial coverage of the synapses might allow increased glutamate spillover from the synapses, enhancing synaptic crosstalk within this cortical layer. 

Strengths: 

The strengths of this paper are the abundant and very precious data about the fine structure of the human neocortical layer 1. Quantitative electron microscopy data (especially that derived from the human brain) are very valuable since this is a highly time- and energy-consuming work. The techniques used to obtain the data, as well as the analyses and the statistics performed by the authors are all solid, strengthen this manuscript, and mainly support the conclusions drawn in the discussion. 

We would like to thank reviewer#1 for his very positive comments on our manuscript stating that such data about the fine structure of the human neocortex are are highly relevant.

Weaknesses: 

There are several weaknesses in this work. First, the authors should check and review extensively for improvements to the use of English. Second, several additional analyses performed on the existing data could substantially elevate the value of the data presented. Much more information could be gained from the existing data about the functions of the investigated layer, of the cortical column, and about the information processing of the human neocortex. Third, several methodological concerns weaken the conclusions drawn from the results. 

We would like to thank the reviewer for his critical and thus helpful comments on our manuscript. We took the first comment of the reviewer concerning the English and have thus improved our manuscript by rephrasing and shortening sentences. Secondly, according to the reviewer several additional analyses should be performed on the existing data, which could substantially elevate the value of the data presented. We will implement some of the suggestions in the improved version of the manuscript where appropriate. We will address a more detailed answer to the reviewer’s queries in her/his suggestions to the authors (see below). However, the reviewer states himself: “The techniques used to obtain the data, as well as the analyses and the statistics performed by the authors are all solid, strengthen this manuscript, and mainly support the conclusions drawn in the discussion”.

Reviewer #2 (Public review): 

Summary: 

The study of Rollenhagen et al. examines the ultrastructural features of Layer 1 of the human temporal cortex. The tissue was derived from drug-resistant epileptic patients undergoing surgery, and was selected as far as possible from the epilepsy focus, and as such considered to be non-epileptic. The analyses included 4 patients with different ages, sex, medication, and onset of epilepsy. The manuscript is a follow-on study with 3 previous publications from the same authors on different layers of the temporal cortex: 

Layer 4 - Yakoubi et al 2019 eLife

Layer 5 - Yakoubi et al 2019 Cerebral Cortex

Layer 6 - Schmuhl-Giesen et al 2022 Cerebral Cortex.

They find, that the L1 synaptic boutons mainly have a single active zone, a very large pool of synaptic vesicles, and are mostly devoid of astrocytic coverage. 

Strengths: 

The manuscript is well-written and easy to read. The Results section gives a detailed set of figures showing many morphological parameters of synaptic boutons and glial elements. The authors provide comparative data of all the layers examined by them so far in the Discussion. Given that anatomical data in the human brain are still very limited, the current manuscript has substantial relevance. The work appears to be generally well done, the EM and EM tomography images are of very good quality. The analysis is clear and precise.

We would like to thank the reviewer for his very positive evaluation of our paper and the comments that such data have a substantial relevance, in particular in the human neocortex. In contrast to reviewer#1, this reviewer’s opinion is that the manuscript is well written and easy to read.

Weaknesses: 

One of the main findings of this paper is that "low degree of astrocytic coverage of L1 SBs suggests that glutamate spillover and as a consequence synaptic cross-talk may occur at the majority of synaptic complexes in L1". However, the authors only quantified the volume ratio of astrocytes in all 6 layers, which is not necessarily the same as the glial coverage of synapses. In order to strengthen this statement, the authors could provide 3D data (that they have from the aligned serial sections) detailing the percentage of synapses that have glial processes in close proximity to the synaptic cleft, that would prevent spillover. 

We agree with the reviewer that we only quantified the volume ratio of the astrocytic coverage but not necessarily the percentage of synapses that may or not contribute to the formation of the ‘tripartite’ synapse. As suggested, we will re-analyze our material with respect to the percentage of coverage for individual synaptic boutons in each layer and will implement the results in the improved version of the manuscript. However, since this is a completely new analysis that is time-consuming we would like to ask the reviewer for additional time to perform this task.

A specific statement is missing on whether only glutamatergic boutons were analyzed in this MS, or GABAergic boutons were also included. There is a statement, that they can be distinguished from glutamatergic ones, but it would be useful to state it clearly in the Abstract, Results, and Methods section what sort of boutons were analyzed. Also, what is the percentage of those boutons from the total bouton population in L1? 

We would like to thank the reviewer for this comment. Although our title clearly states, we focused on quantitative 3D-models of excitatory synaptic boutons, we will point out that more clearly in the Methods and Result chapters. Our data support recent findings by others (see for example Cano-Astorga et al. 2023, 2024; Shapson-Coe et al. 2024) that have evaluated the ratio between excitatory vs. inhibitory synaptic boutons in the temporal lobe neocortex, the same area as in our study, which was between 10-15% inhibitory terminals but with a significant layer and region specific difference. We will include the excitatory vs. inhibitory ratio and the corresponding citations in the Results section.

Synaptic vesicle diameter (that has been established to be ~40nm independent of species) can properly be measured with EM tomography only, as it provides the possibility to find the largest diameter of every given vesicle. Measuring it in 50 nm thick sections results in underestimation (just like here the values are ~25 nm) as the measured diameter will be smaller than the true diameter if the vesicle is not cut in the middle, (which is the least probable scenario). The authors have the EM tomography data set for measuring the vesicle diameter properly. 

We partially disagree with the reviewer on this point. Using high-resolution transmission electron microscopy, we measured the distance from the outer-to-outer membrane only on those synaptic vesicles that were round in shape with a clear ring-like structure to avoid double counts and discarded all those that were only partially cut according to criteria developed by Abercrombie (1946) and Boissonnat (1988). We assumed that within a 55±5 nm thick ultrathin section (silver to gray interference contrast) all clear-ring-like vesicles were distributed in this section assuming a vesicle diameter between 25 to 40nm. For large DCVs, double-counts were excluded by careful examination of adjacent images and were only counted in the image where they appeared largest.

In addition, we have measured synaptic vesicles using TEM tomography and came to similar results. We will address this in Material and Methods that both methods were used.

It is a bit misleading to call vesicle populations at certain arbitrary distances from the presynaptic active zone as readily releasable pool, recycling pool, and resting pool, as these are functional categories, and cannot directly be translated to vesicles at certain distances. Indeed, it is debated whether the morphologically docked vesicles are the ones, that are readily releasable, as further molecular steps, such as proper priming are also a prerequisite for release.

We thank the reviewer for this comment. However, nobody before us tried to define a morphological correlate for the three functionally defined pools of synaptic vesicles since synaptic vesicles normally are distributed over the entire nerve terminal. As already mentioned above, after long and thorough discussions with Profs. Bill Betz, Chuck Stevens, Thomas Schikorski and other experts in this field we tried to define the readily releasable (RRP), recycling (RP) and resting pools by measuring the distance of each synaptic vesicle to the presynaptic density (PreAZ). Using distance as a criterion, we defined the RRP including all vesicles that were located within a distance (perimeter) of 10 to 20 nm from the PreAZ that is less than an average vesicle diameter (between 25 to 40 nm). The RP was defined as vesicles within a distance of 60-200 nm away, still quite close but also rapidly available on demand and the remaining ones beyond 200 nm were suggested to belong to the resting pool. This concept was developed for our first publication (Sätzler et al. 2002) and this approximation since then is very much acknowledged by scientist working in the field of synaptic neuroscience and computational neuroscientist. We were asked by several labs worldwide whether they can use our data of the perimeter analysis for modeling. We agree that our definition of the three pools can be seen as arbitrary but we never claimed that our approach is the truth but nothing as the truth. Concerning the debate whether only docked vesicles or also those very close the PreAZ should constitute the RRP we have a paper in preparation using our perimeter analysis, EM tomography and simulations trying to clarify this debate. Our preliminary results suggest that the size of the RRP should be reconsidered.

Tissue shrinkage due to aldehyde fixation is a well-documented phenomenon that needs compensation when dealing with density values. The authors cite Korogod et al 2015 - which actually draws attention to the problem comparing aldehyde fixed and non-fixed tissue, still the data is non-compensated in the manuscript. Since all the previous publications from this lab are based on aldehyde fixed non-compensated data, and for this sake, this dataset should be kept as it is for comparative purposes, it would be important to provide a scaling factor applicable to be able to compare these data to other publications.

We thank the reviewer for his suggestion. However, for several reasons we did not correct for shrinkage caused by aldehyde fixation. There are papers by Eyre et al. (2007) and the mentioned paper by Korogod et al. 2015 that have demonstrated that cryo-fixation reveals larger numbers of docked synaptic vesicles, a smaller glial volume, and a less intimate glial coverage of synapses and blood vessels compared to chemical fixation. Other structural subelements such as active zone size and shape and the total number of synaptic vesicles remained unaffected. In two further publications Zhao et al. (2012a, b) investigating hippocampal mossy fiber boutons using cryo-fixation and substitutions came to similar results with respect to bouton and active zone size and number and diameter of synaptic vesicles compared to aldehyde-fixation as described by Rollenhagen et al. 2007 for the same nerve terminal. This was one of the reasons not correcting for shrinkage. In addition, all cited papers state that chemical fixation in general provides a much better ultrastructural preservation of tissue samples when compared with cryo-fixation and substitution where optimal preservation is only regional within a block of tissue and therefore less suitable for large-scale ultrastructural analyses as we performed.

Reviewer #3 (Public review): 

Summary: 

Rollenhagen et al. offer a detailed description of layer 1 of the human neocortex. They use electron microscopy to assess the morphological parameters of presynaptic terminals, active zones, vesicle density/distribution, mitochondrial morphology, and astrocytic coverage. The data is collected from tissue from four patients undergoing epilepsy surgery. As the epileptic focus was localized in all patients to the hippocampus, the tissue examined in this manuscript is considered non-epileptic (access) tissue. 

Strengths: 

The quality of the electron microscopic images is very high, and the data is analyzed carefully. Data from human tissue is always precious and the authors here provide a detailed analysis using adequate approaches, and the data is clearly presented. 

We are very thankful to the reviewer upon his very positive comments about our data analysis and presentation.

Weaknesses: 

The study provides only morphological details, these can be useful in the future when combined with functional assessments or computational approaches. The authors emphasize the importance of their findings on astrocytic coverage and suggest important implications for glutamate spillover. However, the percentage of synapses that form tripartite synapses has not been quantified, the authors' functional claims are based solely on volumetric fraction measurements. 

We thank the reviewer for his critical comments on our findings concerning the layer-specific astrocytic coverage as also suggested by reviewer#2. As already stated above we will analyze the astrocytic coverage and the layer-specific percentage of astrocytic contribution to the ‘tripartite’ synapse in more detail. We are, however, a bit puzzled about the comment that structural anatomists usually receive that our study only provides morphological details. Our thorough analysis of structural and synaptic parameters of synaptic boutons underlie and might even predict the function of synaptic boutons in a given microcircuit or network and will thus very much improve our understanding and knowledge about the functional properties of these structures, in particular in the human brain where such studies are still quite rare. The main goal of our studies in the human neocortex was the quantitative morphology of synaptic boutons and thus the synaptic organization of the cortical column, layer by layer which to our knowledge is the first such detailed study undertaken in the human brain. Our efforts have set a golden standard in the analysis of synaptic boutons embedded in different microcircuits und is meanwhile internationally very well accepted.

The distinction between excitatory and inhibitory synapses is not clear, they should be analyzed separately. 

As already stated above in response to reviewer#1 our study focused on excitatory synaptic boutons since they represent the majority of synapses. However, in the improved version of our manuscript in the Material and Method section we included a paragraph with structural criteria to distinguish excitatory from inhibitory terminals (see also our comment to reviewer#1 concerning this point) including appropriate citations.

The text connects functional and morphological characteristics in a very direct way. For example, connecting plasticity to any measurement the authors present would be rather difficult without any additional functional experiments. References to various vesicle pools based on the location of the vesicles are also more complex than suggested in the manuscript. The text should better reflect the limitations of the conclusions that can be drawn from the authors' data. 

We thank the reviewer for this comment. However, it has been shown by meanwhile numerous publications that the shape and size of the active zone together with the pool of synaptic vesicles and the astrocytic coverage critically determines synaptic transmission and synaptic strength, but can also contribute to the modulation of synaptic plasticity (see also citations within the text). It has been shown that synaptic boutons can switch upon certain stimulation conditions to different modes of release (uni- vs. multiquantal, uni- vs multivesicular release) and from asynchronous to synchronous release leading also to the modulation of synaptic short- and long-term plasticity. To the second comment: When we started with our first paper about the Calyx of Held – principal neuron synapse in the MNTB (Sätzler et al. 2002) we tried to define a morphological correlate for the three functionally defined pools. As already mentioned above in our reply to the other two reviewers, this is rather difficult since synaptic vesicles are normally distributed over the entire nerve terminal. After long and thorough discussions with Bill Betz, Chuck Stevens and other leading scientist in the field of synaptic neuroscience, we together with Bert Sakmann tried to define a morphological correlate for the functionally defined pools using a perimeter analysis. We defined the readily releasable pool as vesicles 10 to 20 nm away from the presynaptic active zone, the recycling pool as those in 60-200 nm distance and the remaining as those belonging to the resting pool. However, it has been shown by capacitance measurements (see for example Hallermann et al 2003), FM1-43 investigations (see for example Henkel et al. 1996) and high-resolution electron microscopy (see for example Schikorski and Stevens 2001; Schikorski 2014) that our estimate of the RRP nearly perfectly matches with the functionally defined pools at hippocampal and cortical synapses (Silver et al. 2003). In addition, in one of our own papers (Rollenhagen et al. 2018) we also estimated the RP functionally from trains of EPSPs using an exponential fit analysis and came to similar results upon its size using the perimeter analysis.

Of course, as stated by the reviewer the scenario could be more complex, using other criteria but we never claimed that our morphologically defined pools are the truth but nothing as the truth but we believe it offers a quite good approximation.

eLife assessment

This is a useful study depicting the ultrastructural features of layer 1 of the human temporal cortex, the authors assess various synaptic parameters, astrocytic volumetric ratio, and mitochondrial morphology. The data were collected using a solid methodology, however, the analysis of the functional vesicle pools is incomplete, and reliance solely on electron microscopy limits the scope of the work to structural observation. The work will be of interest to neuroscientists and computational researchers investigating cortical and network function.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors investigated the anatomical features of the synaptic boutons in layer 1 of the human temporal neocortex. They examined the size of each synapse, the macular or perforated appearance, the size of the synaptic active zone, the number and volume of the mitochondria, and the number of synaptic and dense core vesicles, also differentiating between the readily releasable, the recycling, and the resting pool of synaptic vesicles. The coverage of the synapse by astrocytic processes was also assessed, and all the above parameters were compared to other layers of the human temporal neocortex. The authors conclude that the subcellular morphology of the layer 1 synapses are suitable for the functions of the neocortical layer, i.e. the synaptic integration within the cortical column. The low glial coverage of the synapses might allow increased glutamate spillover from the synapses, enhancing synpatic crosstalk within this cortical layer.

Strengths:

The strengths of this paper are the abundant and very precious data about the fine structure of the human neocortical layer 1. Quantitative electron microscopy data (especially that derived from the human brain) are very valuable since this is a highly time- and energy-consuming work. The techniques used to obtain the data, as well as the analyses and the statistics performed by the authors are all solid, strengthen this manuscript, and mainly support the conclusions drawn in the discussion.

Weaknesses:

There are several weaknesses in this work. First, the authors should check and review extensively for improvements to the use of English. Second, several additional analyses performed on the existing data could substantially elevate the value of the data presented. Much more information could be gained from the existing data about the functions of the investigated layer, of the cortical column, and about the information processing of the human neocortex. Third, several methodological concerns weaken the conclusions drawn from the results.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The study of Rollenhagen et al. examines the ultrastructural features of Layer 1 of the human temporal cortex. The tissue was derived from drug-resistant epileptic patients undergoing surgery, and was selected as far as possible from the epilepsy focus, and as such considered to be non-epileptic. The analyses included 4 patients with different ages, sex, medication, and onset of epilepsy. The manuscript is a follow-on study with 3 previous publications from the same authors on different layers of the temporal cortex:

Layer 4 - Yakoubi et al 2019 eLife<br /> Layer 5 - Yakoubi et al 2019 Cerebral Cortex<br /> Layer 6 - Schmuhl-Giesen et al 2022 Cerebral Cortex.

They find, that the L1 synaptic boutons mainly have a single active zone, a very large pool of synaptic vesicles, and are mostly devoid of astrocytic coverage.

Strengths:

The manuscript is well-written and easy to read. The Results section gives a detailed set of figures showing many morphological parameters of synaptic boutons and glial elements. The authors provide comparative data of all the layers examined by them so far in the Discussion. Given that anatomical data in the human brain are still very limited, the current manuscript has substantial relevance.

The work appears to be generally well done, the EM and EM tomography images are of very good quality. The analysis is clear and precise.

Weaknesses:

One of the main findings of this paper is that "low degree of astrocytic coverage of L1 SBs suggests that glutamate spillover and as a consequence synaptic cross-talk may occur at the majority of synaptic complexes in L1". However, the authors only quantified the volume ratio of astrocytes in all 6 layers, which is not necessarily the same as the glial coverage of synapses. In order to strengthen this statement, the authors could provide 3D data (that they have from the aligned serial sections) detailing the percentage of synapses that have glial processes in close proximity to the synaptic cleft, that would prevent spillover.

A specific statement is missing on whether only glutamatergic boutons were analysed in this MS, or GABAergic boutons were also included. There is a statement, that they can be distinguished from glutamatergic ones, but it would be useful to state it clearly in the Abstract, Results, and Methods section what sort of boutons were analysed. Also, what is the percentage of those boutons from the total bouton population in L1?

Synaptic vesicle diameter (that has been established to be ~40nm independent of species) can properly be measured with EM tomography only, as it provides the possibility to find the largest diameter of every given vesicle. Measuring it in 50 nm thick sections results in underestimation (just like here the values are ~25 nm) as the measured diameter will be smaller than the true diameter if the vesicle is not cut in the middle, (which is the least probable scenario). The authors have the EM tomography data set for measuring the vesicle diameter properly.

It is a bit misleading to call vesicle populations at certain arbitrary distances from the presynaptic active zone as readily releasable pool, recycling pool, and resting pool, as these are functional categories, and cannot directly be translated to vesicles at certain distances. Indeed, it is debated whether the morphologically docked vesicles are the ones, that are readily releasable, as further molecular steps, such as proper priming are also a prerequisite for release.

Tissue shrinkage due to aldehyde fixation is a well-documented phenomenon that needs compensation when dealing with density values. The authors cite Korogod et al 2015 - which actually draws attention to the problem comparing aldehyde fixed and non-fixed tissue, still the data is non-compensated in the manuscript. Since all the previous publications from this lab are based on aldehyde fixed non-compensated data, and for this sake, this dataset should be kept as it is for comparative purposes, it would be important to provide a scaling factor applicable to be able to compare these data to other publications.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Rollenhagen et al. offer a detailed description of layer 1 of the human neocortex. They use electron microscopy to assess the morphological parameters of presynaptic terminals, active zones, vesicle density/distribution, mitochondrial morphology, and astrocytic coverage. The data is collected from tissue from four patients undergoing epilepsy surgery. As the epileptic focus was localized in all patients to the hippocampus, the tissue examined in this manuscript is considered non-epileptic (access) tissue.

Strengths:

The quality of the electron microscopic images is very high, and the data is analyzed carefully. Data from human tissue is always precious and the authors here provide a detailed analysis using adequate approaches, and the data is clearly presented.

Weaknesses:

The study provides only morphological details, these can be useful in the future when combined with functional assessments or computational approaches. The authors emphasize the importance of their findings on astrocytic coverage and suggest important implications for glutamate spillover. However, the percentage of synapses that form tripartite synapses has not been quantified, the authors' functional claims are based solely on volumetric fraction measurements.

The distinction between excitatory and inhibitory synapses is not clear, they should be analyzed separately.

The text connects functional and morphological characteristics in a very direct way. For example, connecting plasticity to any measurement the authors present would be rather difficult without any additional functional experiments. References to various vesicle pools based on the location of the vesicles are also more complex than suggested in the manuscript. The text should better reflect the limitations of the conclusions that can be drawn from the authors' data.

eLife assessment

This fundamental work provides creative and thoughtful analysis of rodent foraging behavior and its dependence on body reference frame-based vs world reference frame-based cues. It compellingly demonstrates that a robust map, capable of supporting taking novel shortcuts, is learned primarily if not exclusively based on self-motion cues, which has rarely if ever been reported outside of the human literature. The work, which will be of interest to a broad audience of neuroscientists, provides a rich discussion about the role of the hippocampus in supporting the behavior that should guide future neurophysiological investigations.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Assessment:

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

Summary:

The authors have designed a novel experimental apparatus called the 'Hidden Food Maze (HFM)' and a beautiful suite of behavioral experiments using this apparatus to investigate the interplay between allothetic and idiothetic cues in navigation. The results presented provide a clear demonstration of the central claim of the paper, namely that mice only need a fixed start location and path integration to develop a cognitive map. The experiments and analyses conducted to test the main claim of the paper -- that the animals have formed a cognitive map -- are conclusive. While I think the results are quite interesting and sound, one issue that needs to be addressed is the framing how landmarks are used (or not), as discussed below, although I believe this will be a straight forward issue for the authors to address.

Strengths:

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

Weaknesses:

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

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

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

Strengths:

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

Weaknesses:

The task is low stakes, and thus the failure to use distal cues at most costs the animal a delay in finding the food; this delay is likely unimportant to the animal, and the pre-training procedure is likely to make it clear to the animal's that distal cues are unreliable even if desirable to use. Thus, it is unclear whether this result would generalize to a situation where the animal may be under some time pressure, urgency due to food (or water) restriction, or due to predatory threat, or situations where distal cues are reliable. In such cases, the use of distal cues to make locating the reward robust to changing start locations may be more likely to be observed.

Author response:

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

We would like to thank the reviewers and editors for their careful assessment and review of our article. The many detailed comments, questions and suggestions were very helpful in improving our analyses and presentation of data. In particular, our Discussion benefited enormously from the comments. 

Below we respond in detail to every point raised. 

We especially note that Reviewer #3’s small query on “trial where learning is defined to have occurred, we were not given the quantitative criterion operationalizing "learning" - please provide” led to deeper analyses and insights and a lengthy response.

This analysis prompted the addition of a sentence (red) to the Abstract. 

“Animals navigate by learning the spatial layout of their environment. We investigated spatial learning of mice in an open maze where food was hidden in one of a hundred holes. Mice leaving from a stable entrance learned to efficiently navigate to the food without the need for landmarks. We developed a quantitative framework to reveal how the mice estimate the food location based on analyses of trajectories and active hole checks. After learning, the computed “target estimation vector” (TEV) closely approximated the mice’s route and its hole check distribution. The TEV required learning both the direction and distance of the start to food vector, and our data suggests that different learning dynamics underlie these estimates. We propose that the TEV can be precisely connected to the properties of hippocampal place cells. Finally, we provide the first demonstration that, after learning the location of two food sites, the mice took a shortcut between the sites, demonstrating that they had generated a cognitive map. ”

Note: we added, at the end of the manuscript, the legends for the Shortcut video (Video 1) and the main text figure legends; these are with a larger font and so easier to read. 

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Assessment:

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

Thank you.

Summary:

The authors have designed a novel experimental apparatus called the 'Hidden Food Maze (HFM)' and a beautiful suite of behavioral experiments using this apparatus to investigate the interplay between allothetic and idiothetic cues in navigation. The results presented provide a clear demonstration of the central claim of the paper, namely that mice only need a fixed start location and path integration to develop a cognitive map. The experiments and analyses conducted to test the main claim of the paper -- that the animals have formed a cognitive map -- are conclusive. While I think the results are quite interesting and sound, one issue that needs to be addressed is the framing of how landmarks are used (or not), as discussed below, although I believe this will be a straightforward issue for the authors to address.

We have now added detailed discussion on this important point. See below.

Strengths:

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

Weaknesses:

I have two comments. The second comment is perhaps major and would require rephrasing multiple sentences/paragraphs throughout the paper.

(1) The data clearly indicate that in the hidden food maze (HFM) task mice did not use external visual "cue cards" to navigate, as this is clearly shown in the errors mice make when they start trials from a different start location when trained in the static entrance condition. The absence of visual landmark-guided behavior is indeed surprising, given the previous literature showing the use of distal landmarks to navigate and neural correlates of visual landmarks in hippocampal formation. While the authors briefly mention that the mice might not be using distal landmarks because of their pretraining procedure - I think it is worth highlighting this point (about the importance of landmark stability and citing relevant papers) and elaborating on it in greater detail. It is very likely that mice do not use the distal visual landmarks in this task because the pretraining of animals leads to them not identifying them as stable landmarks. For example, if they thought that each time they were introduced to the arena, it was "through the same door", then the landmarks would appear to be in arbitrary locations compared to the last time. In the same way, we as humans wouldn't use clouds or the location of people or other animate objects as trusted navigational beacons. In addition, the animals are introduced to the environment without any extra-maze landmarks that could help them resolve this ambiguity. Previous work (and what we see in our dome experiments) has shown that in environments with 'unreliable' landmarks, place cells are not controlled by landmarks - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028390898000537, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7891125/. This makes it likely that the absence of these distal visual landmarks when the animal first entered the maze ensured that the animal does not 'trust' these visual features as landmarks.

Thank you. We have added many references and discussion exactly on this point including both direct behavioral experiments as well as discussion on the effects of landmark (in)stability of place cell encoding of “place”.  See Page 18 third paragraph.

“An alternate factor might be the lack of reliability of distal spatial cues in predicting the food location. The mice, during pretraining trials, learned to find multiple food locations without landmarks. In the random trials, the continuous change of relative landmark location may lead the mice to not identifying them as “stable landmarks”. This view is supported by behavioral experiments that showed the importance of landmark stability for spatial learning (32-34) and that place cells are not controlled by “unreliable landmarks” (35-38). Control experiments without landmarks (Fig. S6A,B) or in the dark (Fig. S6C-F) confirmed that the mice did not need landmarks for spatial learning of the food location.”

(2) I don't agree with the statement that 'Exogenous cues are not required for learning the food location'. There are many cues that the animal is likely using to help reduce errors in path integration. For example, the start location of the rat could act as a landmark/exogenous cue in the sense of partially correcting path integration errors. The maze has four identical entrances (90-degree rotationally symmetric). Despite this, it is entirely plausible that the animal can correct path integration errors by identifying the correct start entrance for a given trial, and indeed the distance/bearing to the others would also help triangulate one's location. Further, the overall arena geometry could help reduce PI error. For example, with a food source learned to be "near the middle" of the arena, the animal would surely not estimate the position to be near the far wall (and an interesting follow-on experiment would be to have two different-sized, but otherwise nearly identical arenas). As the rat travels away from the start location, small path integration errors are bound to accumulate, these errors could be at least partially corrected based on entrance and distal wall locations. If this process of periodically checking the location of the entrance to correct path integration errors is done every few seconds, path integration would be aided 'exogenously' to build a cognitive map. While the original claim of the paper still stands, i.e. mice can learn the location of a hidden food size when their starting point in the environment remains constant across trials. I would advise rewording portions of the paper, including the discussion throughout the paper that states claims such as "Exogenous cues are not required for learning the food location" to account for the possibility that the start and the overall arena geometry could be used as helpful exogenous cues to correct for path integration errors.

We agree with the referee that our claim was ill-phrased. Surely the behavior of the mouse must be constrained by the arena size to some extent. To minimize potential geometric cues from the arena, we carefully analyzed many preliminary experiments (each with a unique batch of 4 mice) having the target positioned at different locations. We added a paragraph to the section “Further controls” where we explain our choice for the target position. Page 12 last paragraph; Page 13 “Arena geometry” paragraph.

Also, following the suggestion from the reviewer, we probed whether the hole checks accumulated near the center of the arena for the random entrance mice, as a potential sign that some spatial learning is going on. In fact, neither the density of hole checks, nor the distance of the hole checks to the center of the arena change with learning: panel A below shows the probability density of finding a hole check at a given distance from the center of the arena; both trial 1 and trial 14 have very similar profiles. Panel B shows the density of hole checks near (<20cm) and far (>20cm) from the arena’s center.

Author response image 1.

It also doesn’t show any significant differences between trials 1 and 14.

So even though there’s some trend (in panel A, the peak goes from 60cm to a double peak, one at 30cm away from the center, and the other still at 60cm), the distance from the center is still way too large compared to the mouse’s body size and to the average inter-hole distance (<10cm). These panels are now in the Supplementary Figure S8B.

Finally, we enhanced the wording in our claim. We now have a new section entitled: “What cues are required for learning the food location?”. There, we systematically cover all possible cues and how they might be affected by their stability under the perturbation of maze floor rotation. 

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This manuscript reports interesting findings about the navigational behavior of mice. The authors have dissected this behavior in various components using a sophisticated behavioral maze and statistical analysis of the data.

Strengths:

The results are solid and they support the main conclusions, which will be of considerable value to many scientists.

Thank you.

Weaknesses:

Figure 1: In some trials the mice seem to be doing thigmotaxis, walking along the perimeter of the maze. This is perhaps due to the fear of the open arena. But, these paths along the perimeter would significantly influence all metrics of navigation, e.g. the distance or time to reward.

Perhaps analysis can be done that treats such behavior separately and the factors it out from the paths that are away from the perimeter.

In Page 4, we added a small section entitled: “Pretraining trials”. Our reference was suggested by Reviewer #3 (noted as “Golani” with first author “Fonio”). Our preliminary experiments used naïve mice and they typically took greater than 2 days before they ventured into the arena center and found the single filled hole. This added unacceptable delays and the Pretraining trials greatly diminished the extensive thigmotaxis (not quantified). The “near the walls” trajectories did continue in the first learning trial (Fig. 2A, 3A) but then diminished in subsequent trials. We found no evidence that thigmotaxis (trajectories adjacent to the wall) were a separate category of trajectory. 

Figure 1c: the color axis seems unusual. Red colors indicate less frequently visited regions (less than 25%) and white corresponds to more frequently visited places (>25%)? Why use such a binary measure instead of a graded map as commonly done?

Thank you; you are completely correct. We have completely changed the color coding. 

Some figures use linear scale and others use logarithmic scale. Is there a scientific justification? For example, average latency is on a log scale and average speed is on a linear scale, but both quantify the same behavior. The y-axis in panel 1-I is much wider than the data. Is there a reason for this? Or can the authors zoom into the y-axis so that the reader can discern any pattern?

We use logarithmic scale with the purpose of displaying variables that have a wide range of variation (mainly, distance, latency, and number of hole checks, since it linearly and positively correlates with both distance and latency – see new Fig. S4B,C). For example, Latency goes from hundreds of seconds (trial 1) to just a few seconds (trial 14). Similarly, the total distance goes from hundreds of centimeters (trial 1, sometimes more than 1000cm, see answer about the 10-fold variation of distance below) to just the start-target distance (which is ~100cm). These variables vary over a few orders of magnitude. We display speed in a linear axis because it does not increase for more than one order of magnitude.

Moreover, fitting the wide-ranged data (distance, latency, nchecks) yields smaller error in logscale [i.e., fitting log(y) vs. trial, instead of y vs. trial]. In these cases, the log-scale also helps visualizing how well the data was fitted by the curve. Thus, presenting wide-ranged data in linear scale could be misleading regarding goodness of fit.

We now zoomed into the Y axis scale in Panels I of Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. We kept it in log-scale, but linear Y scale produces Author response image 2 for Figs. 3I and 2I, respectively.

Author response image 2.

Thus, we believe that the loglog-scale in these panels won’t compromise the interpretation of the phenomenon. In fact, the loglog of the static case suggests that the probability of hole checking distance increases according to a power law as the mouse approaches the target (however, we did not check this thoroughly, so we did not include this point in the discussion). Power law behavior is observed in other animals (e.g, ants: DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009621) and is sometimes associated with a stochastic process with memory.

1F shows no significant reduction in distance to reward. Does that mean there is no improvement with experience and all the improvement in the latency is due to increasing running speed with experience?

Correct and in the section “Random Entrance experiments” under “Results” (Page 5) we explicitly note this point.

“We hypothesize that the mice did not significantly reduce their distance travelled (Fig. 2A,B,F) because they had not learned the food location - the decrease in latency (Fig. 2D) was due to its increased running speed and familiarity with non-spatial task parameters.”

Figure 3: The distance traveled was reduced by nearly 10-fold and speed increased by by about 3fold. So, the time to reach the reward should decrease by only 3 fold (t=d/v) but that too reduced by 10fold. How does one reconcile the 3fold difference between the expected and observed values?

The traveled distance is obtained by linearly interpolating the sampled trajectory points. In other words, the software samples a discrete set of positions, for each recorded instant 𝑡. The total distance is 

where is the Euclidean distance between two consecutively sampled points. However, the same result (within a fraction of cm error) can be obtained by integrating the sampled speed over time 𝑣! using the Simpson method

Since Latency varies by 10-fold, it is just expected that, given 𝑑 = 𝑣𝑡, the total distance will also vary by 10-fold (since 𝑣 is constant in each time interval Δ𝑡; replacing 𝑣! in the integral yields the discrete sum above).

The correctness of our kinetic measurements can be simply verified by multiplying the data from the Latency panel with the data from the Velocity panel. If this results in the Distance plot, then there is no discrepancy. 

In Author response image 3, we show the actual measured distance, 𝑑_total_, for both conditions (random and static entrance), calculated with the discrete sum above (black filled circles). 

Author response image 3.

We compare this with two quantities: (a) average speed multiplied by average latency (red squares); and (b) average of the product of speed by latency (blue inverted triangles). The averages are taken over mice. Notice that if the multiplication is taken before the average (as it should be done), then the product 〈𝑣𝑡〉45*( is indistinguishable from the total distance obtained by linear interpolation. Even taking the averages prior to the multiplication (which is physically incorrect, since speed and latency and properties of each individual mouse), yields almost exactly the same result (well within 1 standard deviation).

The only thing to keep in mind here is that the Distance panel in the paper presents the normalized distance according to the target distance to the starting point. This is necessary because in the random entrance experiments, each mouse can go to 1 of 4 possible targets (each of which has a different distance to the starting point).

Figure 4: The reader is confused about the use of a binary color scheme here for the checking behavior: gray for a large amount of checking, and pink for small. But, there is a large ellipse that is gray and there are smaller circles that are also gray, but these two gray areas mean very different things as far as the reader can tell. Is that so? Why not show the entire graded colormap of checking probability instead of such a seemingly arbitrary binary depiction?

Thank you. Our coloring scheme was indeed poorly thought out and we have changed it. Hopefully the reviewer now finds it easier to interpret. The frequency of hole checks is now encoded into only filled circles of varying sizes and shades of pink. Small empty circles represent the arena holes (empty because they have no food); The large transparent gray ellipse is the variance of the unrestricted spatial distribution of hole checks.

Figure 4C: What would explain the large amount of checking behavior at the perimeter? Does that occur predominantly during thigmotaxis?

Yes. As mentioned above, thigmotaxis still occurs in the first trial of training. The point to note is that the hole checking shown in Fig. 4C is over all the mice so that, per mice, it does not appear so overwhelming. 

Was there a correlation between the amount of time spent by the animals in a part of the maze and the amount of reward checking? Previous studies have shown that the two behaviors are often positively correlated, e.g. reference 20 in the manuscript. How does this fit with the path integration hypothesis?

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. Indeed, the time spent searching & the hole checking behavior are correlated. We added a new panel C to Fig. S4 showing a raw correlation plot between Latency and number of checks. 

Also, in the last paragraph of the “Revealing the mouse estimate of target position from behavior” section under “Results”), we now added a sentence relating the findings in Fig. 4H and 4K (spatial distribution of hole checks, and density of checks near the target, respectively) to note that these findings are in agreement with Fig 3C (time spent searching in each quadrant).

“The mean position of hole checks near (20cm) the target is interpreted as the mouse estimated target (Fig. 4C,D,G,H; green + sign=mean position; green ellipses = covariance of spatial hole check distribution restricted to 20cm near the target). This finding together with the displacement and spatial hole check maps (Figs. 4F and 4H, respectively) corroborates the heatmap of time spent in the target quadrant (Fig. 3C), suggesting a positive correlation between hole checks and time searching (see also Fig. S4C).”

"Scratches and odor trails were eliminated by washing and rotating the maze floor between trials." Can one eliminate scratches by just washing the maze floor? Rotation of the maze floor between trials can make these cues unreliable or variable but will not eliminate them. Ditto for odor cues.

The upper arena floor is rotated between trials so that any scratches will not be stable cues. We clarified this in the Discussion about potential cues. 

See “What cues are required for learning the food location?”

"Possible odor gradient cues were eliminated by experiments where such gradients were prevented with vacuum fans (Fig. S6E)" What tests were done to ensure that these were *eliminated* versus just diminished?

"Probe trials of fully trained mice resulted in trajectories and initial hole checking identical to that of regular trials thereby demonstrating that local odor cues are not essential for spatial learning." As far as the reader can tell, probe trials only eliminated the food odor cues but did not eliminate all other odors. If so, this conclusion can be modified accordingly.

We were most worried about odor cues guiding the mice and as now described at great length, we tried to mitigate this problem in many ways. As the reviewer notes, it is not possible to have absolute certainty that there are no odor cues remaining. The most difficult odor to eliminate was the potential odor gradient emanating from the mouse’s home cage. However, the 2 vacuum fans per cage were very powerful in first evacuating the cage air (150x in 5 minutes) and then drawing air from the arena, through the cage and out its top for the duration of each trial. We believe that we did at least vastly reduce any odor cues and perhaps completely eliminated them.

The interpretation of direction selectivity is a bit tricky. At different places in this manuscript, this is interpreted as a path integration signal that encodes goal location, including the Consync cells. However, studies show that (e.g. Acharya et al. 2016) direction selectivity in virtual reality is comparable to that during natural mazes, despite large differences in vestibular cues and spatial selectivity. How would one reconcile these observations with path integration interpretation?

Thank you. We had not been serious enough in considering the VR studies and their implications for optic flow as a cue for spatial learning. We now have a section (Optic flow cues) in the Discussion that acknowledges the potential role of such cues in spatial learning in our maze. 

However, spatial learning in our maze can also occur in the dark. The next small section (Vestibular and proprioceptive cues) addresses this point. We cannot be certain about the precise cues used by the mouse to effectively learn to locate food in our maze, but it will take further behavioral and electrophysiological studies to go deeper into these questions. 

An extended discussion is found in the sections entitled “What cues are required for learning the food location” and “A fixed start location and self-motion cues are required for spatial learning”.  We may have missed some references or ideas regarding VR maze learning with optic flow signals – the Acharya et al reference was an excellent starting point, and we would be grateful for additional pointers that would improve our discussion of this point.

The manuscript would be improved if the speculations about place cells, grid cells, BTSP, etc. were pared down. I could easily imagine the outcome of these speculations to go the other way and some claims are not supported by data. "We note that the cited experiments were done with virtual movement constrained to 1D and in the presence of landmarks. It remains to be shown whether similar results are obtained in our unconstrained 2D maze and with only self-motion cues available." There are many studies that have measured the evolution of place cells in non- virtual mazes, look up papers from the 1990s. Reference 43 reports such results in a 2D virtual maze.

We understand the reviewer’s concerns with the length of the manuscript. However, both the first and third reviewer did find this extensive section useful. We did not add the many papers on the evolution of place fields in real world mazes simply to prevent even greater expansion of the discussion, but relied on the very thorough review of Knierim and Hamilton instead. 

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

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

Strengths:

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

Thank you.

Weaknesses:

The task is low stakes, and thus the failure to use distal cues at most costs the animal a delay in finding the food; this delay is likely unimportant to the animal. Thus, it is unclear whether this result would generalize to a situation where the animal may be under some time pressure, urgency due to food (or water) restriction, or due to predatory threat. In such cases, the use of distal cues to make locating the reward robust to changing start locations may be more likely to be observed.

We have added “Combining trajectory direction and hole check locations yields a Target Estimation Vector” a section summarizing our main hypotheses and this section includes noting exactly this point + including the reference to the excellent MacIver paper on “robot aggression”.

The main point here follows the Knierim and Hamilton review and assumes that learning “heading direction” and “distance from start to food” require different cues and extraction mechanisms.  “Here we follow a review by Knierim and Hamilton (12) suggesting independent mechanisms for extraction of target direction versus target distance information. Averaging across trajectories gave a mean displacement direction, an estimate of the average heading direction as the mouse ran from start to food. The heading direction must be continuously updated as the mice runs towards the food, given that the mean displacement direction remains straight despite the variation across individual trajectories. Heading direction might be extracted from optic flow and/or vestibular system and be encoded by head direction cells. However, the distance from home to food is not encoded by head direction signals.”

And

“We hypothesize that path integration over trajectories is used to estimate the distance from start to food. The stimuli used for integration might include proprioception or acceleration (vestibular) signals as neither depends on visual input. Our conclusion is in accord with a literature survey that concluded that the distance of a target from a start location was based on path integration and separate from the coding of target heading direction (12). Our “in the dark” experiments reveal the minimal stimuli required for spatial learning – an anchoring starting point and directional information based on vestibular and perhaps proprioceptive signals. This view is in accord with recent studies using VR (47, 48). Under more naturalistic conditions, animals have many additional cues available that can be used for flexible control of navigation under time or predation pressure (51).”.

Furthermore, we added panel G do Fig S4, where we show the evolution of the heading angle along the trajectory, plotted as a function of the trials. We see that the mouse only steer towards the target in the last segment of the trajectory, consistent with having the head direction being continuously updated along the path to the food.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewing Editor (Recommendations For The Authors):

All three reviewers agreed during the consultation that the context in which distal cues are described in the manuscript would benefit significantly from refinement. The distal cues may be made completely useless from an ethological perspective e.g. if they are seen as "moving" relative to the entrance point (i.e. if the animal were to think it were entering the same location), then the cues would appear as unstable in the random entrance. As such, they may be so unlike natural experiences as to be potentially confusing to the animal. Moreover, as reported in some of the reviews, the animals may be using the entrances and boundaries as cues to help refine path integration. The results are still very interesting, but more refinement in the text on the interpretation of cues would greatly improve the manuscript. Thus, we recommend that you revise your manuscript to address the reviews.

Thank you. We agree with this recommendation of the reviewers have greatly expanded our discussion on cue stability as already indicated above. 

Should you choose to revise your manuscript, pleasse ensure the manuscript include full statistical reporting including exact p-values wherever possible alongside the summary statistics (test statistic and df) and 95% confidence intervals. These should be reported for all key questions and not only when the p-value is less than 0.05.

Done

Lastly, I want to personally apologize for the long delay in editing this manuscript. All three reviews were unfortunately quite delayed, including my own review. I want to thank you for submitting your work to eLife and hope that we can be more efficient in editing your work in the future.

It was a long review process, but we also appreciate that our article was dense and difficult to read. We tried to be comprehensive in our controls and analyses and we appreciate the considerable effort it must have taken to carefully review our paper.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

I quite enjoyed this paper and have some suggestions for further improvement.

First, while I appreciate that the format of the journal has Methods at the end, there are some key details that need to be moved forward in the study for proper appreciation of the results. These include:

(1) Location and size of distal cues.

Done

(2) Use of floor washing between mice.  

Done

(3) Use of food across the subfloor to provide some masking of the location of the food reward.

Done

(4) A scale bar on one of the early figures showing the apparatus would be beneficial.

Done for Figure 1 where we also provide arena diameter and area.

(5) Motivational state of the mouse with respect to the food reward (in this case, not food restricted, correct?).

Done

Although we are told the trial where learning is defined to have occurred, we were not given the quantitative criterion operationalizing "learning" - please provide (unless I missed it!).

Thank you.  This question turned out to be of importance and led to more detailed analyses and related Discussion. We therefore answer in depth.

We now realize that learning the distance to food versus learning the direction to food must be analyzed separately.

On Page 5 second paragraph we provide a definition of “learning distance to food”.

“Fitting the function dtotal \= B*exp(-Trial/K) reveals the characteristic timescale of learning, K, in trial units (Fig. 2F). We obtained K= 26±24 giving a coefficient of variation (CV) of 0.92. The mean, K=26, is therefore very uncertain and far greater than the actual number of trials. Thus, we hypothesize that the mice did not significantly reduce their distance travelled (Fig. 2A,B,F) because they had not learned the food location – the decrease in latency (Fig. 2D) was due to its increased running speed and familiarity with non-spatial task parameters. ”

On Page 7 second paragraph the same analysis gives:

“Now the fitting of the function dtotal\=B exp(-Trial/K) yielded K\=5.6±0.5 with a CV = 0.08; the mean is therefore a reliable estimate of total distance travelled. We interpret this to indicate that it takes a minimum number of K= 6 trials for learning the distance to the target (see also Fig. S4D,E,F,G).

Learning is still not complete because it takes 14 trials before the trajectories become near optimal.”

Learning of distance to food is evident by Trial 6 but is not complete.

On Page 9 third paragraph we give a very precise answer to time taken to learn the direction from start to food. This was already very clear from Fig. 4I but we had missed the significance of this result. 

“We compared the deviation between the TEV and the true target vector (that points from start directly to the food hole; Fig. 4I). While the random entrance mice had a persistent deviation between TEV and target of more than 70o, the static entrance mice were able to learn the direction of the target almost perfectly by trial 6 (TEV-target deviation in first trial mean±SD = 57.27o ± 41.61o; last trial mean±SD = 5.16o ± 0.20o; P=0.0166). A minimum of 6 trials is sufficient for learning both the direction and distance to food (Fig. 4I) (Fig. 3F) (see Discussion). The kinetics of learning direction to food are clearly different from learning distance to food since the direction to food remains stable after Trial 6 while the distance to food continues to approach the optimal value.”

Learning the direction from start to food is completely learned by Trial 6. 

These analyses led to an addition to the Discussion on Page 20 (following the Heading).

“Here we follow a review by Knierim and Hamilton (12) that hypothesized independent mechanisms for extraction of target direction versus target distance information. Our data strongly supports their hypothesis. Target direction is nearly perfectly estimated at trial 6 (Fig. 4I and Results). The deviation of the TEV from the start to food vector is rapidly reduced to its minimal value (5.16o) and with minimal variability (SD=0.20o). Learning the distance from start to food is also evident at trial 6 but only reaches an asymptotic near optimal value at trial 14 (Fig. 3F). The learning dynamics are therefore very different for target direction versus target distance. As noted below, the food direction is likely estimated from the activity of head direction cells. The neural mechanisms by which distance from start to food is estimated are not known (but see (49)).”

We believe that this small addition summarizes the complicated answer to the reviewer’s question and is helpful in better connecting the Knierim and Hamilton paper to our data. However, if the reviewers and editors feel that we have gone too far or that this discussion is not clear, we can remove or alter the extra sentences as per any comments. 

Reference #49 is to a review paper on spatial learning in weakly electric fish in the dark (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2021.07.002). The review summarizes data on a neural “time stamp” mechanism for estimating distance from start to food. In this review article, we explicitly hypothesized that rodents might utilize such a time stamp mechanism for finding food. We did not include this in the discussion because it was too distracting and would likely confuse readers but put in the reference in case some readers did want to access the “time stamp” hypothesis for spatial learning in the dark. 

Second, the discussion was thoughtful and rich. I particularly enjoyed the segment describing the likely computations of the hippocampus. There are a few thoughts I have for the authors to think about that might be useful to potentially add to the discussion:

"The remaining one, mouse 34, went from B to the start location and then, to A."

This out-and-back pattern has been seen in the literature, such as multiple papers by Golani (here's one: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0812513106). Would the authors speculate, given their suggested algorithm, what the significance of out and back may be? Is there something about the cell's encoding of direction and distance that requires a return to the start location, and would this be different if representation is based on self-motion versus based on distal cues in an allocentric representation?

We do discuss this for pretraining trials but have no idea what this mouse is doing in this case.

In a low-stakes task environment, for an animal that has a low acuity visual system, where the penalty for not using distal cues is at most some additional (likely enriching in itself to these mice who live a fairly unenriched life in small cages) search/learning/exploration time, perhaps it is not so surprising that body-frame cues are used. Considering the ethology of the animal, if it had multiple exits of an underground burrow, it might need to use distal cues to avoid confusion. The scenario you provide to the animal is essentially a deceptive one where it has no way of telling it is coming out to the arena from a different burrow hole, modulo some small landmarks on an otherwise uniform cylinder of space. This might be asking too much of an animal where the space it would enter normally would not be a uniform cylinder.

What happens with a higher-stakes case? This is clearly a different study, but you may find some recent work with a mobile predatory robot of interest (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211124723016820). Visual cues are crucial in the avoidance of threats in this case. Re-routing, as shown by multiple videos of that study, is after a brief pause, and seemingly takes into account the likely future position of the threat.

Done. A fascinating paper that illustrates the unexpected “high level” behavior a rodent is capable of when placed in more naturalistic situations. I think our “two food location” experiments are along the same direction – unexpected rich behavior when the mouse are challenged.

Connected to the low-stakes vs high-stakes point, it might be nice for the paper to discuss situations in which cognitive-map-based spatial problem solutions make sense versus not.

Here is an example of such a discussion, around page 496:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ayoo5w4jgnkblgfu7mpad/MacI09a_situated_cog.pdf?

rlkey=2qhh89ii7jbkavt6ivevarvdk&dl=0.

Right a very relevant discussion by MacIver. However, when I tried to write it in it took nearly half a page of dense writing to connect to the themes of our article. I figured that the already long discussion will try the patience of most readers and so decided to not include this extra discussion.

Minor points/ queries

Why the increase in sample density at about the 1/4 radius of arena distance? Static, trial 14, Figure 3I, shown also maybe Figure 4 H.

We were also puzzled when this occurred but have no explanation. And there are, in our figures, many other examples of the mice hole checking near their exit site. See next answer.

Why was the hole proximal to start so often probed in 7B?

We were also puzzled when this occurred but have no explanation.

Check Video 1 to exactly see this behavior. The mouse exits its home and immediately checks a nearby hole. It proceeds to Site B (empty) and then Site A (empty) with many hole checks along the way. After leaving Site A, the mouse proceeds to the wall located far from an entrance and does another hole check. The near the wall holes that are checked are in no way remarkable: a) they have never contained food; b) they are rotated between trials, and we wash the floor carefully, so they do not “smell” any particular hole; c) the food on the lower level floor is in no way “clumped” under that hole, etc.

We have discussed this phenomenon quite a lot and LM was able to come up with only one hypothesis for this behavior. In analogy to the electric fish work (responses of diencephalic neurons to “leaving or encountering a landmark”), the “near the entrance” hole check might be an active sensing probe to “time stamp” the exit from home while finding food would “time stamp” the end of a successful trajectory. Path integration between time stamps would then provide the estimate for time/distance from start to food – exactly our hypothesis for weakly electric fish spatial learning in the dark. This hypothesis is exceedingly speculative and so we do not want to include it.  

Normally I would cite a line number. Since I do not see line numbers, I will leave it to you to do a search:

"A than the expected by chance" -> "than expected"

Done. I apologize for the lack of line numbers. I have, so far, been unable to get Word to confine line numbers to selected text and not run over onto the Figure Legends. I have put in page numbers and hope this helps.

RW, VR, MWM, etc - please expand the acronym on first use.

Done

It might be interesting to see differences in demand/reliance on active sensing in the individuals who learn the task less well than the animals who learn the task well. If the point is to expunge uncertainty, then does the need for such expunging increase with the poverty of internal representation resolution / fewer decimal places on the internal TEV calculation?

We do have variation in the mice learning time but the numbers are not sufficient for this interesting extension. This is just one of many follow up studies we hope to carry out.

eLife assessment

This study describes the formation of a penetration ring in the rice blast fungus Magnaporthe oryzae during host cell invasion. The work provides useful insights into how the penetration ring facilitates the transition of penetration pegs into invasive hyphae, which leads to a better understanding of plant-pathogen interactions. However, the evidence supporting the function of this novel infection structure remains incomplete and further work is needed to help clarify the exact role of the penetration ring in the infection process.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study focuses on characterizing a previously identified gene, encoding the secreted protein Ppe1, that may play a role in rice infection by the blast fungus Magnaporthe oryzae. Magnaporthe oryzae is a hemibiotrophic fungus that infects living host cells before causing disease. Infection begins with the development of a specialized infection cell, the appressorium, on the host leaf surface. The appressorium generates enormous internal turgor that acts on a thin penetration peg at the appressorial base, forcing it through the leaf cuticle. Once through this barrier, the peg elaborates into bulbous invasive hyphae that colonizes the first infected cell before moving to neighboring cells via plasmodesmata. During this initial biotrophic growth stage, invasive hyphae invaginate the host plasma membrane, which surrounds growing hyphae as the extra-invasive hyphae membrane (EIHM). To avoid detection, the fungus secretes apoplastic effectors into the EIHM matrix via the conventional ER-Golgi secretion pathway. The fungus also forms a plant-derived structure called the biotrophic interfacial complex (BIC) that receives cytoplasmic effectors through an unconventional secretion route before they are delivered into the host cell. Together, these secreted effector proteins act to evade or suppress host innate immune responses. Here the authors contribute to our understanding of M. oryzae infection biology by showing how Ppe1, which localizes to both the appressorial penetration peg and to the appressorial-like transpressoria associated with invasive hyphal movements into adjacent cells, maximizes host cell penetration and disease development and is thus a novel contributor to rice blast disease.

Strengths:

A major goal of M. oryzae research is to understand how the fungus causes disease, either by determining the physiological underpinnings of the fungal infection cycle or by identifying effectors and their host targets. Such new knowledge may point the way to novel mitigation strategies. Here, the authors make an interesting discovery that bridges both fungal physiology and effector biology research by showing how a secreted protein Ppe1, initially considered an effector with potential host targets, associates with its own penetration peg (and transpressoria) to facilitate host invasion. In a previous study, the authors had identified a small family of small secreted proteins that may function as effectors. Here they suggest Ppe1 (and, later in the manuscript, Ppe2/3/5) localizes outside the penetration peg when appressoria develops on surfaces that permit penetration, but not on artificial hard surfaces that prevent peg penetration. Deleting the PPE1 gene reduced (although did not abolish) penetration, and a fraction of those that penetrated developed invasive hyphae that were reduced in growth compared to WT. Using fluorescent markers, the authors show that Ppe1 forms a ring underneath appressoria, likely where the peg emerges, which remained after invasive hyphae had developed. The ring structure is smaller than the width of the appressorium and also lies within the septin ring known to form during peg development. This so-called penetration ring also formed at the transpressorial penetration point as invasive hyphae moved to adjacent cells. This structure is novel, and required for optimum penetration during infection. Furthermore, Ppe1, which carries a functional signal peptide, may form on the periphery of the peg, together suggesting it is secreted and associated with the peg to facilitate penetration. Staining with aniline blue also suggests Ppe1 is outside the peg. Together, the strength of the work lies in identifying a novel appressorial penetration ring structure required for full virulence.

Weaknesses:

The main weakness of the paper is that, although Ppe1 is associated with the peg and optimizes penetration, the function of Ppe1 is not known. The work starts off considering Ppe1 a secreted effector, then a facilitator of penetration by associating with the peg, but what role it plays here is only often speculated about. For example, the authors consider at various times that it may have a structural role, a signaling role orchestrating invasive hyphae development, or a tethering role between the peg and the invaginated host plasma membrane (called throughout the host cytoplasmic membrane, a novel term that is not explained). However, more effort should be expended to determine which of these alternative roles is the most likely. Otherwise, as it stands, the paper describes an interesting phenomenon (the appressorial ring) but provides no understanding of its function.

The inability to nail down the function of Ppe1 likely stems from two underlying assumptions with weak support. Firstly, the authors assume that Ppe1 is secreted and associated with the peg to form a penetration ring between the plant cell wall and cytoplasm membrane. However, the authors do not demonstrate it is secreted (for instance by blocking Ppe1 secretion and its association with the peg using brefeldin A). Also, they do not sufficiently show that Ppe1 localizes on the periphery of the peg. This is because confocal microscopy is not powerful enough to see the peg. The association they are seeing (for example in Figure 4) shows localization to the bottom of the appressorium and around the primary hyphae, but the peg cannot be seen. Here, the authors will need to use SEM, perhaps in conjunction with gold labeling of Ppe1, to show it is associating with the peg and, indeed, is external to the peg (rather than internal, as a structural role in peg rigidity might predict). It would also be interesting to repeat the microscopy in Figure 4C but at much earlier time points, just as the peg is penetrating but before invasive hyphae have developed - Where is Ppe1 then? Finally, the authors speculate, but do not show, that Ppe1 anchors penetration pegs on the plant cytoplasm membrane. Doing so may require FM4-64 staining, as used in Figure 2 of Kankanala et al, 2007 (DOI: 10.1105/tpc.106.046300), to show connections between Ppe1 and host membranes. Note that the authors also do not show that the penetration ring is a platform for effector delivery, as speculated in the Discussion.

Secondly, the authors assume Ppe1 is required for host infection due to its association with the peg. However, its role in infection is minor. The majority of appressoria produced by the mutant strain penetrate host cells and elaborate invasive hyphae, and lesion sizes are only marginally reduced compared to WT (in fact, the lesion density of the 70-15 WT strain itself seems reduced compared to what would be expected from this strain). The authors did not analyze the lesions for spores to confirm that the mutant strains were non-pathogenic (non-pathogenic mutants sometimes form small pinprick-like lesions that do not sporulate). Thus, the pathogenicity phenotype of the knockout mutant is weak, which could contribute to the inability to accurately define the molecular and cellular function of Ppe1.

In summary, it is important that the role of Ppe1 in infection be determined.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The article focuses on the study of Magnaporthe oryzae, the fungal pathogen responsible for rice blast disease, which poses a significant threat to global food security. The research delves into the infection mechanisms of the pathogen, particularly the role of penetration pegs and the formation of a penetration ring in the invasion process. The study highlights the persistent localization of Ppe1 and its homologs to the penetration ring, suggesting its function as a structural feature that facilitates the transition of penetration pegs into invasive hyphae. The article provides a thorough examination of the infection process of M. oryzae, from the attachment of conidia to the development of appressoria and the formation of invasive hyphae. The discovery of the penetration ring as a structural element that aids in the invasion process is a significant contribution to the understanding of plant-pathogen interactions. The experimental methods are well-documented, allowing for reproducibility and validation of the results.

eLife assessment

This valuable work discusses the phylogenetic conservation of the hippocampal region and primary sensory cortical regions in mammalian species. The authors propose that species-specific differences in behavior and mnemonic functions may be due to differences in cortico-hippocampal connectivity patterns. However, the manuscript, in its present form, is speculative, and the strength of evidence for this proposition is incomplete.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The paper itself has a reasonable aim, to compare the inputs to the hippocampus from cortical regions across mammals. But for some reason, the conclusions that are reached are very limited. We know for example that the main laboratory rodents investigated, rats and mice, are nocturnal, live in underground tunnels, and have a very wide field of view with no fovea. In contrast, primates have a highly developed cortical system for vision and a fovea, and so have very different capabilities to rodents, as they have an ability to identify people or objects at a distance, and to remember where they have been seen. Despite this major difference in the visual cortical processing in these different mammals, somehow important points are missed in this paper about how the cortical processing is organised in these different mammals, and how this is reflected in the anatomy.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The manuscript emphasizes a phylogenetic conservation of the hippocampal region and primary sensory cortical regions in mammalian species. The authors then propose that the evident species-specific differences in behavior and memory-related functions may be due to differences in type and amount of cortico-hippocampal connectivity.

Strengths:

The authors are well-established researchers with a long history of excellent results and publications. The question (co-influence of cortical and hippocampal connections) is potentially interesting.

Weaknesses:

The treatment is very broad and macro scale, ignoring the likelihood that hippocampal-cortical connectivity and behavioral outcomes result from multiple differences at a more micro-scale. The designated "mammalian" sample is also broad. Thus, it can appear incomplete as a sample, and incompletely discussed.

eLife assessment

This research investigates the precision of numerosity perception in two different tasks and concludes that human performance aligns with an efficient coding model optimized for current environmental statistics and task goals. The findings may have important implications for our understanding of numerosity perception as well as the ongoing debate on different efficient coding models. However, the evidence presented in the paper to support the conclusion is still incomplete and could be strengthened by further modeling analysis or experimental data that can address potential confounds.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The "number sense" refers to an imprecise and noisy representation of number. Many researchers propose that the number sense confers a fixed (exogenous) subjective representation of number that adheres to scalar variability, whereby the variance of the representation of number is linear in the number.

This manuscript investigates whether the representation of number is fixed, as usually assumed in the literature, or whether it is endogenous. The two dimensions on which the authors investigate this endogeneity are the subject's prior beliefs about stimuli values and the task objective. Using two experimental tasks, the authors collect data that are shown to violate scalar variability and are instead consistent with a model of optimal encoding and decoding, where the encoding phase depends endogenously on prior and task objectives. I believe the paper asks a critically important question. The literature in cognitive science, psychology, and increasingly in economics, has provided growing empirical evidence of decision-making consistent with efficient coding. However, the precise model mechanics can differ substantially across studies. This point was made forcefully in a paper by Ma and Woodford (2020, Behavioral & Brain Sciences), who argue that different researchers make different assumptions about the objective function and resource constraints across efficient coding models, leading to a proliferation of different models with ad-hoc assumptions. Thus, the possibility that optimal coding depends endogenously on the prior and the objective of the task, opens the door to a more parsimonious framework in which assumptions of the model can be constrained by environmental features. Along these lines, one of the authors' conclusions is that the degree of variability in subjective responses increases sublinearly in the width of the prior. And importantly, the degree of this sublinearity differs across the two tasks, in a manner that is consistent with a unified efficient coding model.

Comments:

(1) Modeling and implementation of estimation task

The biggest concern I have with the paper is about the experimental implementation and theoretical account of the estimation task. The salient features of the experimental data (Figure 1C) are that the standard deviations of subjects' estimated quantities are hump-shaped in the true stimulus x and that the standard deviation, conditional on the true stimulus x, is increasing in prior width. The authors attribute these features to a Bayesian encoding and decoding model in which the internal representation of the quantity is noisy, and the degree of noise depends on the prior - as in models of efficient coding (Wei and Stocker 2015 Nature Neuro; Bhui and Gershman 2018 Psych Review; Hahn and Wei 2024 Nature Neuro).

The concern I have is about the final "step" in the model, where the authors assume there is an additional layer of motor noise in selecting the response. The authors posit that the subject's selection of the response is drawn from a Gaussian with a mean set to the optimally decoded estimate x*(r), and variance set to a free parameter sigma_0^2. However, the authors also assume that the Gaussian distribution is "truncated to the prior range." This truncation is a nontrivial assumption, and I believe that on its own, it can explain many features of the data.

To see this, assume that there is no noise in the internal representation of x, there is only motor noise. This corresponds to a special case of the authors' model in which υ is set to 0. The model then reduces to a simple account in which responses are drawn from a Gaussian distribution centered at the true value of x, but with asymmetric noise due to the truncation. I simulated such a model with sigma_0=7. The resulting standard deviations of responses for each value of x (based on 1000 draws for each value of x), across the three different priors, reproduce the salient patterns of the standard deviation in Figure 1C: i) within each condition, the standard deviation is hump-shaped and peaks at x=60 and ii) conditional on x, standard deviation increases in prior width. The takeaway is that this simple model with only truncated motor noise - and without any noisy or efficient coding of internal representations - provides an alternative channel through which the prior affects behavior.

Of course, this does not imply that subjects' coding is not described by the efficient encoding and decoding model posited by the authors. However, it does suggest an important alternative mechanism for the authors' theoretical results in the estimation task. Moreover, some of the quantitative conclusions about the differences in behavior with the discrimination task would be greatly affected by the assumption of truncated motor noise.

Turning to the experiment, a basic question is whether such a truncation was actually implemented in the design. That is, was the range of the slider bar set to the range of the prior? (The methods section states that the size on the screen of the slider was proportional to the prior width, but it was unclear whether the bounds of the slider bar changed with the prior). If the slider bar range did depend on the prior, then it becomes difficult to interpret the data. If not, then perhaps one can perform analyses to understand how much the motor noise is responsible for the dependence of the standard deviation on both x and the prior width. Indeed, the authors emphasize that their model is best fit at α=0.48, which would seem to imply that the best fitting value of υ is strictly positive. However, it would be important to clarify whether the estimation procedure allowed for υ=0, or whether this noise parameter was constrained to be positive (i.e., clarify whether the estimation assumed noisy and efficient coding of internal representations).

(2) Differences across tasks

A main takeaway from the paper is that optimal coding depends on the expected reward function in each task. This is the explanation for why the degree of sublinearity between standard deviation and prior width changes across the estimation and discrimination task. But besides the two different reward functions, there are also other differences across the two tasks. For example, the estimation task involves a single array of dots, whereas the discrimination task involves a pair of sequences of Arabic numerals. Related to the discussion above, in the estimation task the response scale is continuous whereas in the discrimination task, responses are binary. Is it possible that these other differences in the task could contribute to the observed different degrees of sublinearity? It is likely beyond the scope of the paper to incorporate these differences into the model, but such differences across the two tasks should be discussed as potential drivers of differences in observed behavior.

If it becomes too difficult to interpret the data from the estimation task due to the slider bar varying with the prior range, then which of the paper's conclusions would still follow when restricting the analysis to the discrimination task?

(3) Placement literature

One closely related experiment to the discrimination task in the current paper can be found in Frydman and Jin (2022 Quarterly Journal of Economics). Those authors also experimentally vary the width of a uniform prior in a discrimination task using Arabic numerals, in order to test principles of efficient coding. Consistent with the current findings, Frydman and Jin find that subjects exhibit greater precision when making judgments about numbers drawn from a narrower distribution. However, what the current manuscript does is it goes beyond Frydman and Jin by modeling and experimentally varying task objectives to understand and test the effects on optimal coding. This contribution should be highlighted and contrasted against the earlier experimental work of Frydman and Jin to better articulate the novelty of the current manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper provides an ingenious experimental test of an efficient coding objective based on optimization as a task success. The key idea is that different tasks (estimation vs discrimination) will, under the proposed model, lead to a different scaling between the encoding precision and the width of the prior distribution. Empirical evidence in two tasks involving number perception supports this idea.

Strengths:

- The paper provides an elegant test of a prediction made by a certain class of efficient coding models previously investigated theoretically by the authors.

The results in experiments and modeling suggest that competing efficient coding models, optimizing mutual information alone, may be incomplete by missing the role of the task.

Weaknesses:

- The claims would be more strongly validated if data were present at more than two widths in the discrimination experiment.

- A very strong prediction of the model -- which determines encoding entirely from prior and task -- is that Fisher Information is uniform throughout the range, strongly at odds with the traditional assumption of imprecision increasing with the numerosity (Weber/Fechner law). This prediction should be checked against the data collected. It may not be trivial to determine this in the Estimation experiment, but should be feasible in the Discrimination experiment in the Wide condition: Is there really no difference in discriminability at numbers close to 10 vs numbers close to 90? Figure 2 collapses over those, so it's not evident whether such a difference holds or not. I'd have loved to look into this in reviewing, but the authors have not yet made their data publicly available - I strongly encourage them to do so.

Importantly, the inverse u-shaped pattern in Figure 1 is itself compatible with a Weber's-law-based encoding, as shown by simulation in Figure 5d in Hahn&Wei [1]. This suggests a potential competing variant account, in apparent qualitative agreement with the findings reported: the encoding is compatible with Fisher's law, and only a single scalar, the magnitude of sensory noise, is optimized for the task for the loss function (3). As this account would be substantially more in line with traditional accounts of numerosity perception - while still exhibiting task-dependence of encoding as proposed by the authors - it would be worth investigating if it can be ruled out based on the data gathered for this paper.

References:

[1] Hahn & Wei, A unifying theory explains seemingly contradictory biases in perceptual estimation, Nature Neuroscience 2024

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This work demonstrates that people's imprecision in numeric perception varies with the stimulus context and task goal. By measuring imprecision across different widths of uniform prior distributions in estimation and discrimination tasks, the authors find that imprecision changes sublinearly with prior width, challenging previous range normalization models. They further show that these changes align with the efficient encoding model, where decision-makers balance expected rewards and encoding costs optimally.

Strengths:

The experimental design is straightforward, controlling the mean of the number distribution while varying the prior width. By assessing estimation errors and discrimination accuracy, the authors effectively highlight how imprecision adjusts across conditions.

The model's predictions align well with the data, with the exponential terms (1/2 and 3/4) of imprecision changes matching the empirical results impressively.

Weaknesses:

Some details in the model section are unclear. Specifically, I'm puzzled by the Wiener process assumption where r∣x∼N(m(x)T,s^2T). Does this imply that both the representation of number x and the noise are nearly zero at the beginning, increasing as observation time progresses? This seems counterintuitive, and a clearer explanation would be helpful.

The authors explore range normalization models with Gaussian representation, but another common approach is the logarithmic representation (Barretto-García et al., 2023; Khaw et al., 2021). Could the logarithmic representation similarly lead to sublinearity in noise and distribution width?

Additionally, Heng et al. (2020) found that subjects did not alter their encoding strategy across different task goals, which seems inconsistent with the fully adaptive representation proposed here. I didn't find the analysis of participants' temporal dynamics of adaptation. The behavioral results in the manuscript seem to imply that the subjects adopted different coding schemes in a very short period of time. Yet in previous studies of adaptation, experimental results seem to be more supportive of a partial adaptive behavior (Bujold et al., 2021; Heng et al., 2020), which might balance experimental and real-world prior distributions. Analyzing temporal dynamics might provide more insight. Noting that the authors informed subjects about the shape of the prior distribution before the experiment, do the results in this manuscript suggest a top-down rapid modulation of number representation?

Barretto-García, M., De Hollander, G., Grueschow, M., Polanía, R., Woodford, M., & Ruff, C. C. (2023). Individual risk attitudes arise from noise in neurocognitive magnitude representations. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(9), 1551-1567. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01643-4

Bujold, P. M., Ferrari-Toniolo, S., & Schultz, W. (2021). Adaptation of utility functions to reward distribution in rhesus monkeys. Cognition, 214, 104764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104764

Heng, J. A., Woodford, M., & Polania, R. (2020). Efficient sampling and noisy decisions. eLife, 9, e54962. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.54962

Khaw, M. W., Li, Z., & Woodford, M. (2021). Cognitive Imprecision and Small-Stakes Risk Aversion. The Review of Economic Studies, 88(4), 1979-2013. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdaa044

eLife assessment

This important study reports that slow fluctuations of serotonin release during wakefulness and non-REM sleep correspond to periods of either increased arousal or enhanced offline information processing. The evidence supporting the claim is convincing, and the methodology used in the study will benefit many in the field. The work will be of interest to neuroscientists working on sleep, memory, and neuromodulation.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this work, the authors recorded the dynamics of the 5-HT with fiber photometry from CA1 in one hemisphere and LFP from CA1 in the other hemisphere. They observed an ultra-slow oscillation in the 5-HT signal during both wakefulness and NREM sleep. The authors have studied different phases of the ultra-slow oscillation to examine the potential difference in the occurrence of some behavioral state-related physiological phenomena (hippocampal ripples, EMG, and inter-area coherence).

Strengths:

The relation between the falling/rising phase of the ultra-slow oscillation and the ripples is sufficiently shown. There are some minor concerns about the observed relations that should be addressed with some further analysis.

Systematic observations have started to establish a strong relation between the dynamics of neural activity across the brain and measures of behavioral arousal. Such relations span a wide range of temporal scales that are heavily inter-related. Ultra-slow time scales are specifically understudied due to technical limitations and neuromodulatory systems are the strongest mechanistic candidates for controlling/modulating the neural dynamics at these time scales. The hypothesis of the relation between a specific time scale and one certain neuromodulator (5-HT in this manuscript) could have a significant impact on the understanding of the hierarchy in the temporal scales of neural activity.

Weaknesses:

One major caveat of the study is that different neuromodulators are strongly correlated across all time scales and related to this, the authors need to discuss this point further and provide more evidence from the literature (if any) that suggests similar ultra-slow oscillations are weaker or lack from similar signals recorded for other neuromodulators such as Ach and NA.

A major question that has been left out from the study and discussion is how the same level of serotonin before and after the peak could be differentially related to the opposite observed phenomenon. What are the possible parallel mechanisms for distinguishing between the rising and falling phases? Any neurophysiological evidence for sensing the direction of change in serotonin concentration (or any other neuromodulator), and is there any physiological functionality for such mechanisms?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In their study, Cooper et al. investigated the spontaneous fluctuations in extracellular 5-HT release in the CA1 region of the hippocampus using GRAB5-HT3.0. Their findings revealed the presence of ultra-low frequency (less than 0.05 Hz) oscillations in 5-HT levels during both NREM sleep and wakefulness. The phase of these 5-HT oscillations was found to be related to the timing of hippocampal ripples, microarousals, electromyogram (EMG) activity, and hippocampal-cortical coherence. In particular, ripples were observed to occur with greater frequency during the descending phase of 5-HT oscillations, and stronger ripples were noted to occur in proximity to the 5-HT peak during NREM. Microarousal and EMG peaks occurred with greater frequency during the ascending phase of 5-HT oscillations. Additionally, the strongest coherence between the hippocampus and cortex was observed during the ascending phase of 5-HT oscillations. These patterns were observed in both NREM sleep and the awake state, with a greater prevalence in NREM. The authors posit that 5-HT oscillations may temporally segregate internal processing (e.g., memory consolidation) and responsiveness to external stimuli in the brain.

Strengths:

The findings of this research are novel and intriguing. Slow brain oscillations lasting tens of seconds have been suggested to exist, but to my knowledge they have never been analyzed in such a clear way. Furthermore, although it is likely that ultra-slow neuromodulator oscillations exist, this is the first report of such oscillations, and the greatest strength of this study is that it has clarified this phenomenon both statistically and phenomenologically.

Weaknesses:

As with any paper, this one has some limitations. While there is no particular need to pursue them, I will describe ten of them below, including future directions:

(1) Contralateral recordings: 5-HT levels and electrophysiological recordings were obtained from opposite hemispheres due to technical limitations. Ipsilateral simultaneous recordings may show more direct relationships.

(2) Sample size: The number of mice used in the experiments is relatively small (n=6). Validation with a larger sample size would be desirable.

(3) Lack of causality: The observed associations show correlations, not direct causal relationships, between 5-HT oscillations and neural activity patterns.

(4) Limited behavioral states: The study focuses primarily on sleep and quiet wakefulness. Investigation of 5-HT oscillations during a wider range of behavioral states (e.g., exploratory behavior, learning tasks) may provide a more complete understanding.

(5) Generalizability to other brain regions: The study focuses on the CA1 region of the hippocampus. It's unclear whether similar 5-HT oscillation patterns exist in other brain regions.

(6) Long-term effects not assessed: Long-term effects of ultra-low 5-HT oscillations (e.g., on memory consolidation or learning) were not assessed.

(7) Possible species differences: It's uncertain whether the findings in mice apply to other mammals, including humans.

(8) Technical limitations: The temporal resolution and sensitivity of the GRAB5-HT3.0 sensor may not capture faster 5-HT dynamics.

(9) Interactions with other neuromodulators: The study does not explore interactions with other neuromodulators (e.g., norepinephrine, acetylcholine) or their potential ultraslow oscillations.

(10) Limited exploration of functional significance: While the study suggests a potential role for 5-HT oscillations in memory consolidation and arousal, direct tests of these functional implications are not included.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The activity of serotonin (5-HT) releasing neurons as well as 5-HT levels in brain structures targeted by serotonergic axons are known to fluctuate substantially across the animal's sleep/wake cycle, with high 5-HT levels during wakefulness (WAKE), intermediate levels during non-REM sleep (NREM) and very low levels during REM sleep. Recent studies have shown that during NREM, the activity of 5-HT neurons in raphe nuclei oscillates at very low frequencies (0.01 - 0.05 Hz) and this ultraslow oscillation is negatively coupled to broadband EEG power. However, how exactly this 5-HT oscillation affects neural activity in downstream structures is unclear.

The present study addresses this gap by replicating the observation of the ultraslow oscillation in the 5-HT system, and further observing that hippocampal sharp wave-ripples (SWRs), biomarkers of offline memory processing, occur preferentially in barrages on the falling phase of the 5-HT oscillation during both wakefulness and NREM sleep. In contrast, the raising phase of the 5-HT oscillation is associated with microarousals during NREM and increased muscular activity during WAKE. Finally, the raising 5-HT phase was also found to be associated with increased synchrony between the hippocampus and neocortex. Overall, the study constitutes a valuable contribution to the field by reporting a close association between raising 5-HT and arousal, as well as between falling 5-HT and offline memory processes.

Strengths:

The study makes compelling use of the state-of-the-art methodology to address its aims: the genetically encoded 5-HT sensor used in the study is ideal for capturing the ultraslow 5-HT dynamics and the novel detection method for SWRs outperforms current state-of-the-art algorithms and will be useful to many scientists in the field. Explicit validation of both of these methods is a particular strength of this study.

The analytical methods used in the article are appropriate and are convincingly applied, the use of a general linear mixed model for statistical analysis is a particularly welcome choice as it guards against pseudoreplication while preserving statistical power.

Overall, the manuscript makes a strong case for distinct sub-states across WAKE and NREM, associated with different phases of the 5-HT oscillation.

Weaknesses:

All of the evidence presented in the study is correlational. While the study mostly avoids claims of causality, it would still benefit from establishing whether the 5-HT oscillation has a direct role in the modulation of SWR rate via e.g. optogenetic activation/inactivation of 5-HT axons. As it stands, the possibility that 5-HT levels and SWRs are modulated by the same upstream mechanism cannot be excluded.

eLife assessment

This valuable study aims to understand the function of ProSAP-interacting protein 1 (Prosapip1) in the brain. Using a conditional Prosapip1 KO mouse (floxed prosapip1 crossed with Syn1-Cre line), the authors performed analysis including protein biochemistry, synaptic physiology, and behavioral learning. Solid evidence from this study supports a role of Prosapip 1 in synaptic protein composition, synaptic NMDA responses, LTP, and spatial memory. Addressing some of the technical and methodological weaknesses may further improve the significance of the study.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In the manuscript by Hoisington et al., the authors utilized a novel conditional neuronal prosap2-interacting protein 1 (Prosapip1) knockout mouse to delineate the effects of both neuronal and dorsal hippocampal (dHP)-specific knockout of Prosapip1 impacts biochemical and electrophysiological neuroadaptations within the dHP that may mediate behaviors associated with this brain region.

Strengths:

(1) Methodological Strengths

a. The generation and use of a conditional neuronal knockout of Prosapip1 is a strength. These mice will be useful for anyone interested in studying or comparing and contrasting the effects of loss of Prosapip1 in different brain regions or in non-neuronal tissues.

b. The use of biochemical, electrophysiological, and behavioral approaches are a strength. By providing data across multiple domains, a picture begins to emerge about the mechanistic role for Prosapip1. While questions still remain, the use of the 3 domains is a strength.

c. The use of both global, constitutive neuronal loss of Prosapip1 and postnatal dHP-specific knockout of Prosapip1 help support and validate the behavioral conclusions.

(2) Strengths of the results

a. It is interesting that loss of Prosapip1 leads to specific alterations in the expression of GluN2B and PSD95 but not GluA1 or GluN2A in a post-homogenization fraction that the author's term a "synaptic" fraction. Therefore, these results suggest protein-specific modulation of glutamatergic receptors within a "synaptic" fraction.

b. The electrophysiological data demonstrate an NMDAR-dependent alteration in measures of hippocampal synaptic plasticity, including long-term potentiation (LTP) and NMDAR input/output. These data correspond with the biochemical data demonstrating a biochemical effect on GluN2B localization. Therefore, the conclusion that loss of Prosapip1 influences NMDAR function is well supported.

c. The behavioral data suggest deficits in memory in particular novel object recognition and spatial memory, in the Prosapip1 knockout mice. These data are strongly bolstered by both the pan-neuronal knockout and the dHP Cre transduction.

Weaknesses:

(1) Methodological Weaknesses

a. The synapsin-Cre mice may more broadly express Cre-recombinase than just in neuronal tissues. Specifically, according to Jackson Laboratories, there is a concern with these mice expressing Cre-recombinase germline. As the human protein atlas suggests that Prosapip1 protein is expressed extraneuronally, validation of neuron or at least brain-specific knockout would be helpful in interpreting the data. Having said that, the data demonstrating that the brain region-specific knockout has similar behavioral impacts helps alleviate this concern somewhat; however, there are no biochemical or electrophysiological readouts from these animals, and therefore an alternative mechanism in this adult knockout cannot be excluded.

b. The use of the word synaptic and the crude fractionation make some of the data difficult to interpret/contextualize. It is unclear how a single centrifugation that eliminates the staining of a nuclear protein can be considered a "synaptic" fraction. This is highlighted by the presence of GAPDH in this fraction which is a cytosolically-enriched protein. While GAPDH may be associated with some membranes it is not a synaptic protein. There is no quantification of GAPDH against total protein to validate that it is not enriched in this fraction over control. Moreover, it should not be used as a loading control in the synaptic fraction. There are multiple different ways to enrich membranes, extrasynaptic fractions, and PSDs and a better discussion on the caveats of the biochemical fractionation is a minimum to help contextualize the changes in PSD95 and GluN2B.

c. Also, the word synaptosomal on page 7 is not correct. One issue is this is more than synaptosomes and another issue is synaptosomes are exclusively presynaptic terminals. The correct term to use is synaptoneurosome, which includes both pre and postsynaptic components. Moreover, as stated above, this may contain these components but is most likely not a pure or even enriched fraction.

d. The age at which the mice underwent injection of the Cre virus was not mentioned.

(2) Weaknesses of results

a. There were no measures of GluN1 or GluA2 in the biochemical assays. As GluN1 is the obligate subunit, how it is impacted by the loss of Prosapip1 may help contextualize the fact that GluN2B, but not GluN2A, is altered. Moreover, as GluA2 has different calcium permeance, alterations in it may be informative.

b. While there was no difference in GluA1 expression in the "synaptic" fraction, it does not mean that AMPAR function is not impacted by the loss of Prosapip1. This is particularly important as Prosapip1 may interact with kinases or phosphatases or their targeting proteins. Therefore, measuring AMPAR function electrophysiologically or synaptic protein phosphorylation would be informative.

c. There is a lack of mechanistic data on what specifically and how GluN2B and PSD95 expression is altered. This is due to some of the challenges with interpreting the biochemical fractionation and a lack of results regarding changes in protein posttranslational modifications.

d. The loss of social novelty measures in both the global and dHP-specific Prosapip1 knockout mice were not very robust. As they were consistently lost in both approaches and as there were other consistent memory deficits, this does not impact the conclusions, but may be important to temper discussion to match these smaller deficits within this domain.

e. Alterations in presynaptic paired-pulse ratio measures are intriguing and may point to a role for Prosapip1 in synapse development, as discussed in the manuscript. It would be interesting to delineate if these PPR changes also occur in the adult knockout to help detail the specific Prosapip1-induced neuroadaptations that link to the alterations in novelty-induced behaviors.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors provide valuable findings characterizing a Prosapip1 conditional knockout mouse and the effects of knockout on hippocampal excitatory transmission, NMDAR transmission, and several learning behaviors. Furthermore, the authors selectively and conditionally knockout Prosapip1 in the dorsal hippocampus and show that it is required for the same spatial learning and memory assessed in the conditional knockout mice. The study uncovers how Prosapip1 is involved PSD organization and is a functional and critical player in dorsal Hippocampal LTP via its interaction with GluN2B subunits.

Strengths:

The study is well-controlled and detailed, and the data in the paper match the conclusions.

Weaknesses:

Some statistical information is lacking.

eLife assessment

This study presents a fundamental finding to the field interested in recurrent processing and its neuromodulatory underpinnings, finding unexpectedly that memantine (blocking NMDA-receptors) enhances the decoding of features thought to rely on NMDA-receptors. The evidence is solid and would be improved by further persuading the readership of the likely functional underpinnings of this direction of result and why there was no behavioural effect. These findings will be of interest to a wide community of researchers studying consciousness, sensory processing, attention, and neurotransmitters.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The authors investigate the function and neural circuitry of reentrant signals in the visual cortex. Recurrent signaling is thought to be necessary to common types of perceptual experience that are defined by long-range relationships or prior expectations. Contour illusions - where perceptual objects are implied by stimuli characteristics - are a good example of this. The perception of these illusions is thought to emerge as recurrent signals from higher cortical areas feedback onto the early visual cortex, to tell the early visual cortex that it should be seeing object contours where none are actually present.

The authors test the involvement of reentrant cortical activity in this kind of perception using a drug challenge. Reentrance in the visual cortex is thought to rely on NMDAR-mediated glutamate signalling. The authors accordingly employ an NMDA antagonist to stop this mechanism, looking for the effect of this manipulation on visually evoked activity recorded in EEG.

The motivating hypothesis for the paper is that NMDA antagonism should stop recurrent activity and that this should degrade perceptual activity supporting the perception of a contour illusion, but not other types of visual experience. Results in fact show the opposite. Rather than degrading cortical activity evoked by the illusion, memantine makes it more likely that machine learning classification of EEG will correctly infer the presence of the illusion.

On the face of it, this is confusing, and the paper currently does not entirely resolve this confusion. But there are relatively easy ways to improve this. The authors would be well served by entertaining more possible outcomes in the introduction - there's good reason to expect a positive effect of memantine on perceptual brain activity, and I provide details on this below. The authors also need to further emphasize that the directional expectations that motivated E1 were, of course, adapted after the results from this experiment emerged. The authors presumably at least entertained the notion that E2 would reproduce E1 - meaning that E2 was motivated by a priori expectations that were ultimately met by the data.

I broadly find the paper interesting, graceful, and creative. The hypotheses are clear and compelling, the techniques for both manipulation of brain state and observation of that impact are cutting edge and well suited, and the paper draws clear and convincing conclusions that are made necessary by the results. The work sits at the very interesting crux of systems neuroscience, neuroimaging, and pharmacology. I believe the paper can be improved in revision, but my suggestions are largely concerning presentation and nuance of interpretation.

(1) I miss some treatment of the lack of behavioural correlate. What does it mean that metamine benefits EEG classification accuracy without improving performance? One possibility here is that there is an improvement in response latency, rather than perceptual sensitivity. Is there any hint of that in the RT results? In some sort of combined measure of RT and accuracy?

(2) An explanation is missing, about why memantine impacts the decoding of illusion but not collinearity. At a systems level, how would this work? How would NMDAR antagonism selectively impact long-range connectivity, but not lateral connectivity? Is this supported by our understanding of laminar connectivity and neurochemistry in the visual cortex?

(3) The motivating idea for the paper is that the NMDAR antagonist might disrupt the modulation of the AMPA-mediated glu signal. This is in line with the motivating logic for Self et al., 2012, where NMDAR and AMPAR efficacy in macacque V1 was manipulated via microinfusion. But this logic seems to conflict with a broader understanding of NMDA antagonism. NMDA antagonism appears to generally have the net effect of increasing glu (and ACh) in the cortex through a selective effect on inhibitory GABA-ergic cells (eg. Olney, Newcomer, & Farber, 1999). Memantine, in particular, has a specific impact on extrasynaptic NMDARs (that is in contrast to ketamine; Milnerwood et al, 2010, Neuron), and this type of receptor is prominent in GABA cells (eg. Yao et al., 2022, JoN). The effect of NMDA antagonists on GABAergic cells generally appears to be much stronger than the effect on glutamergic cells (at least in the hippocampus; eg. Grunze et al., 1996).

This all means that it's reasonable to expect that memantine might have a benefit to visually evoked activity. This idea is raised in the GD of the paper, based on a separate literature from that I mentioned above. But all of this could be better spelled out earlier in the paper, so that the result observed in the paper can be interpreted by the reader in this broader context.

To my mind, the challenging task is for the authors to explain why memantine causes an increase in EEG decoding, where microinfusion of an NMDA antagonist into V1 reduced the neural signal Self et al., 2012. This might be as simple as the change in drug... memantine's specific efficacy on extrasynaptic NMDA receptors might not be shared with whatever NMDA antagonist was used in Self et al. 2012. Ketamine and memantine are already known to differ in this way.

(4) The paper's proposal is that the effect of memantine is mediated by an impact on the efficacy of reentrant signaling in visual cortex. But perhaps the best-known impact of NMDAR manipulation is on LTP, in the hippocampus particularly but also broadly. Perception and identification of the kanisza illusion may be sensitive to learning (eg. Maertens & Pollmann, 2005; Gellatly, 1982; Rubin, Nakayama, Shapley, 1997); what argues against an account of the results from an effect on perceptual learning? Generally, the paper proposes a very specific mechanism through which the drug influences perception. This is motivated by results from Self et al 2012 where an NMDA antagonist was infused into V1. But oral memantine will, of course, have a whole-brain effect, and some of these effects are well characterized and - on the surface - appear as potential sources of change in illusion perception. The paper needs some treatment of the known ancillary effects of diffuse NMDAR antagonism to convince the reader that the account provided is better than the other possibilities.

(5) The cross-decoding approach to data analysis concerns me a little. The approach adopted here is to train models on a localizer task, in this case, a task where participants matched a kanisza figure to a target template (E1) or discriminated one of the three relevant stimuli features (E2). The resulting model was subsequently employed to classify the stimuli seen during separate tasks - an AB task in E1, and a feature discrimination task in E2. This scheme makes the localizer task very important. If models built from this task have any bias, this will taint classifier accuracy in the analysis of experimental data. My concern is that the emergence of the kanisza illusion in the localizer task was probably quite salient, respective to changes in stimuli rotation or collinearity. If the model was better at detecting the illusion to begin with, the data pattern - where drug manipulation impacts classification in this condition but not other conditions - may simply reflect model insensitivity to non-illusion features.

I am also vaguely worried by manipulations implemented in the main task that do not emerge in the localizer - the use of RSVP in E1 and manipulation of the base rate and staircasing in E2. This all starts to introduce the possibility that localizer and experimental data just don't correspond, that this generates low classification accuracy in the experimental results and ineffective classification in some conditions (ie. when stimuli are masked; would collinearity decoding in the unmasked condition potentially differ if classification accuracy were not at a floor? See Figure 3c upper, Figure 5c lower).

What is the motivation for the use of localizer validation at all? The same hypotheses can be tested using within-experiment cross-validation, rather than validation from a model built on localizer data. The argument may be that this kind of modelling will necessarily employ a smaller dataset, but, while true, this effect can be minimized at the expense of computational cost - many-fold cross-validation will mean that the vast majority of data contributes to model building in each instance.

It would be compelling if results were to reproduce when classification was validated in this kind of way. This kind of analysis would fit very well into the supplementary material.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this paper, the authors investigate the role of NMDA-receptors in recurrent processing. In doing so, the authors present data from two studies, where they attempt to decode different stimulus features, namely contrast, collinearity, and illusory contours. The latter of which the authors claim relies uniquely on recurrent processing. Therefore, to test whether NMDA receptors are particularly involved in recurrent processing they administer a NMDA-antagonist to see whether the decoding of illusory contours is specifically perturbed, and leaves the decoding of other features intact. They further aim to disentangle the role of NMDA-receptors by manipulating visibility and task relevance of the decoded features

In the first experiment, the authors decode two targets, the first was always presented clearly, the second's visibility was manipulated by presenting it after a short lag rather than a long lag (inducing attentional blink), as well as masking the target on half the trials. First, they find for target 1 clear evidence for the NMDA-receptor increasing (rather than decreasing) decoding performance of illusory contours. They move on to analyse target 2 to explore the manipulations of lag and masking. Here they find that masking reduced decoding of all three stimulus features, but only the lag reduced decoding of illusory contours. Importantly, the NMDA-antagonist improved decoding only in the unmasked, long lag condition, in the cluster analyses. However, the interaction with the lag condition was not significant, and the effect on decoding was primarily present in the later decoding time window, and not significant when exploring the peak of the decoding time window.

The second experiment was highly similar, but got rid of the lag manipulation, and replaced it with a manipulation of task relevance. Notably, masking did not abolish the decoding of illusory contours completely, in contrast to the first experiment. More importantly, they find that the NMDA-receptor now clearly increases decoding of illusory contours, particularly when the illusory contours are not masked. No effect of task relevance is found.

Taken together the authors state that evidence is found for NMDA-receptors role in recurrent processing.

Strengths:

This is an interesting study using state-of-the-art methods in combination with drug manipulation to study recurrent processing. Their analysis methods are state-of-the-art, and the question that they are trying to address is topical and interesting to a wide research audience, encompassing both researchers interested in visual perception and consciousness, as well as those interested in perturbed vision as found in psychiatric disorders.

Weaknesses:

The experimental design is somewhat complicated, which can make it difficult to match the authors' claims to the actual evidence that is provided. I have some reservations about the paper which are born out of a few issues.<br /> (1) The title, abstract, and introduction hide their counterintuitive finding of increased decoding, presumably as it was unexpected.<br /> (2) Their analysis choices are sometimes unclear, making it difficult to assess whether the analyses are sensible.<br /> (3) The appropriate tests for the interactions that the authors claim they found are often lacking.

To start off, I think the reader is being a bit tricked when reading the paper. Perhaps my priors are too strong, but I assumed, just like the authors, that NMDA-receptors would disrupt recurrent processing, in line with previous work. However, due to the continuous use of the ambiguous word 'affected' rather than the more clear increased or perturbed recurrent processing, the reader is left guessing what is actually found. That's until they read the results and discussion finding that decoding is actually improved. This seems like a really big deal, and I strongly urge the authors to reword their title, abstract, and introduction to make clear they hypothesized a disruption in decoding in the illusion condition, but found the opposite, namely an increase in decoding. I want to encourage the authors that this is still a fascinating finding.

Apologies if I have missed it, but it is not clear to me whether participants were given the drug or placebo during the localiser task. If they are given the drug this makes me question the logic of their analysis approach. How can one study the presence of a process, if their very means of detecting that process (the localiser) was disrupted in the first place? If participants were not given a drug during the localiser task, please make that clear. I'll proceed with the rest of my comments assuming the latter is the case. But if the former, please note that I am not sure how to interpret their findings in this paper.

The main purpose of the paper is to study recurrent processing. The extent to which this study achieves this aim is completely dependent to what extent we can interpret decoding of illusory contours as uniquely capturing recurrent processing. While I am sure illusory contours rely on recurrent processing, it does not follow that decoding of illusory contours capture recurrent processing alone. Indeed, if the drug selectively manipulates recurrent processing, it's not obvious to me why the authors find the interaction with masking in experiment 2. Recurrent processing seems to still be happening in the masked condition, but is not affected by the NMDA-receptor here, so where does that leave us in interpreting the role of NMDA-receptors in recurrent processing? If the authors can not strengthen the claim that the effects are completely driven by affecting recurrent processing, I suggest that the paper will shift its focus to making claims about the encoding of illusory contours, rather than making primary claims about recurrent processing.

An additional claim is being made with regards to the effects of the drug manipulation. The authors state that this effect is only present when the stimulus is 1) consciously accessed, and 2) attended. The evidence for claim 1 is not supported by experiment 1, as the masking manipulation did not interact in the cluster-analyses, and the analyses focussing on the peak of the timing window do not show a significant effect either. There is evidence for this claim coming from experiment 2 as masking interacts with the drug condition. Evidence for the second claim (about task relevance) is not presented, as there is no interaction with the task condition. A classical error seems to be made here, where interactions are not properly tested. Instead, the presence of a significant effect in one condition but not the other is taken as sufficient evidence for an interaction, which is not appropriate. I therefore urge the authors to dampen the claim about the importance of attending to the decoded features. Alternatively, I suggest the authors run their interactions of interest on the time-courses and conduct the appropriate cluster-based analyses.

How were the length of the peak-timing windows established in Figure 1E? My understanding is that this forms the training-time window for the further decoding analyses, so it is important to justify why they have different lengths, and how they are determined. The same goes for the peak AUC time windows for the interaction analyses. A number of claims in the paper rely on the interactions found in these post-hoc analyses, so the 223- to 323 time window needs justification.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, Stein and colleagues use a clever masking/attentional blink paradigm using Kanisza stimuli, coupled with EEG decoding and the NMDA antagonist memantine, to isolate putative neural markers of feedforward, lateral, and feedback processing.

In two elegant experiments, they show that memantine selective influences EEG decoding of only illusory Kanisza surfaces (but not contour continuation or raw contrast), only when unmasked, only when attention is available (not when "blinked"), and only when task-relevant.

This neatly implicates NMDA receptors in the feedback mechanisms that are believed to be involved in inferring illusory Kanisza surfaces, and builds a difficult bridge between the large body of human perceptual experiments and pharmacological and neurophysiological work in animals.

Strengths:

Three key strengths of the paper are<br /> (1) The elegant and thorough experimental design, which includes internal replication of some key findings.<br /> (2) The clear pattern of results across the full set of experiments.<br /> (3) The clear writing and presentation of results.

The paper effectively reports a 4-way interaction, with memantine only influencing decoding of surfaces (1) that are unmasked (2), with attention available (3) and task-relevant (4). Nevertheless, the results are very clear, with a clear separation between null effects on other conditions and quite a strong (and thus highly selective) effect on this one intersection of conditions. This makes the pattern of findings very convincing.

Weaknesses:

Overall this is an impressive and important paper. However, to my mind, there are two minor weaknesses.

First, despite its clear pattern of neural effects, there is no corresponding perceptual effect. Although the manipulation fits neatly within the conceptual framework, and there are many reasons for not finding such an effect (floor and ceiling effects, narrow perceptual tasks, etc), this does leave open the possibility that the observation is entirely epiphenomenal, and that the mechanisms being recorded here are not actually causally involved in perception per se.

Second, although it is clear that there is an effect on decoding in this particular condition, what that means is not entirely clear - particularly since performance improves, rather than decreases. It should be noted here that improvements in decoding performance do not necessarily need to map onto functional improvements, and we should all be careful to remain agnostic about what is driving classifier performance. Here too, the effect of memantine on decoding might be epiphenomenal - unrelated to the information carried in the neural population, but somehow changing the balance of how that is electrically aggregated on the surface of the skull. *Something* is changing, but that might be a neurochemical or electrical side-effect unrelated to actual processing (particularly since no corresponding behavioural impact is observed.)

eLife assessment

This study explores the role of protein synthesis in spinal cord neurons in the regulation of chronic pain. Using innovative techniques, this valuable study outlines cell-type specific gene changes that occur in the spinal cord in the early and late phases of nerve injury. The presented evidence and methods used are, however, incomplete: there are several major technical and analysis issues that need to be addressed, and in addition, deeper gene expression analysis and additional controls would have strengthened the conclusions. This work will be of broad interest to biologists studying pathological plasticity in circuits.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study investigated the role of transcriptional and translational controls of gene expression in dorsal root ganglia and lumbar spinal cord in neuropathic pain in mice. Using ribosome profiling (Ribo-seq) and translating ribosome affinity purification (TRAP), they show changes in transcriptomic and translational gene expression at the peripheral and central levels rapidly after nerve injury. While translational changes in gene expression remained elevated for more than two months in both DRGs and the spinal cord, transcriptomic regulation was absent in the spinal cord long after the onset of neuropathy. Disrupting mRNA translation in dorsal horn neurons using antisense oligonucleotides reduced mechanical withdrawal threshold and facial expression of pain. Using fluorescent noncanonical amino acid tagging (FUNCAT), the authors further show that de novo protein expression primarily occurs in inhibitory neurons in the superficial dorsal horn after nerve injury. Accordingly, a selective increase in translational control of gene expression in spinal inhibitory neurons, or a subset of mainly inhibitory neurons expressing parvalbumin (PV), using transgenic mice, led to a decrease in the excitability of PV neurons and mechanical allodynia. In contrast, decreasing the translational control of spinal PV neurons prevented the alteration of the electrophysiological properties of the PV cells induced by nerve injury.

Strengths:

This is a well-written article that uncovers a previously unappreciated role of gene expression control in PV neurons, which seems to play an important part in the loss of inhibitory control of spinal circuits typically seen after peripheral nerve injury. The conclusions are generally well supported by the data.

Weaknesses:

The study would benefit from further clarifications in the methods section and a deeper analysis of gene expression changes in mRNA expression and ribosomal footprint observed after nerve injury.

Antisense oligonucleotides used to reduce translation by disrupting eIF4E expression were administered i.c.v. It is unknown if the authors controlled for locomotor deficits, which might add confounds in the interpretation of behavioral results. A more local route should have been preferable to avoid targeting brain regions, which could potentially affect behavior.

Only female mice were used for Ribo-Seq, TRAP, FUNCAT, and electrophysiology, but both sexes were used for behavior experiments.

The conditional KO of 4E-BP1 using transgenic animals should be total in the targeted cells. However, only a partial reduction is reported in Figure S2 in GAD2, PV, Vglut2, or Tac1 cells. Again, proper methods for quantification of fluorescence in these experiments are lacking.

The elegant knockdown of eIF4E using AAV-mediated shRNAmir shows a recovery of the electrophysiological intrinsic properties of PV neurons after injury. It is unclear if such manipulation would be sufficient to reverse mechanical allodynia in vivo.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

I reviewed the manuscript titled "Translational Control in the Spinal Cord Regulates Gene Expression and Pain Hypersensitivity in the Chronic Phase of Neuropathic Pain." This manuscript compares transcription and translation in the spinal cord during the acute and chronic phases of neuropathic pain induced by surgical nerve injury. The authors chose to focus their investigation on translation in the chronic phase due to its greater impact on gene expression in the spinal cord compared to transcription.

(1) The study is significant because the molecular mechanisms underlying chronic pain remain elusive. The role of translational regulation in the spinal cord has not been investigated in neuroplasticity and chronic pain mouse models. The manuscript is innovative and technically robust. The authors employed several cutting-edge techniques such as Rio-seq, TRAP-seq, slice electrophysiology, and viral approaches. Despite the technical complexity, the manuscript is well-written. The authors demonstrated that inhibition of eIF4E alleviates pain hypersensitivity, that de novo protein synthesis is more pronounced in inhibitory interneurons, and that manipulating mTOR-eIF4E pathways alters mechanical sensitivity and neuroplasticity.

(2) Strengths: innovation (conceptual and technical levels), data support the conclusions.

Weakness:

Confusion about the sex of the animals. It is unclear whether eIF4E ASO affects translation and which cells. It is not determined that modulating translation in PV+ neurons impacts neuropathic pain behaviors.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This study provides evidence for translational changes in inhibitory spinal dorsal horn neurons following chronic nerve injury. Gene expression changes have been widely studied in the context of pain induction and provided key insights into the adaptation of the nervous system in the early phases of chronic pain. Whereas this is interesting biologically, most patients will arrive in the clinic beyond the acute phase of their injury, thus limiting the translational relevance of these studies. Recent studies have extended this work to highlight the difference between acute and chronic pain states, potentially explaining the cascading factors leading to chronic pain, and hopefully how to prevent this in vulnerable populations. The present study suggests that translational changes within spinal inhibitory populations could underlie long-term chronic pain, leading to decreased inhibition and heightened pain thresholds.

Strengths:

The approaches used and the broad outcomes of the manuscript are interesting and could be an exciting development in the field. The authors are using approaches more common in molecular biology and extending these into neuroscientific research, getting into the detail of how pathology could impact gene expression differentially across the course of an injury. This could open up new areas of research to selectively target not only defined populations but additionally help alleviate pain symptoms once an injury has already reached the maintenance phase. There is an opportunity to delve into what must be a very large data set and learn more about what genes are differentially translated and how this could affect circuit function.

Weaknesses:

Whereas the authors approach a key question in pain chronicity, the manuscript falls a little short of providing any conclusive data.

The manuscript was in some areas very difficult to follow. Terminology was not always consistent or clear, and the flow of the manuscript could use some attention to highlight key areas. Whereas the overall message is clear in the summary, this would not necessarily be the case when reading the manuscript alone.

The study claims to show that translational control mechanisms in the spinal cord play a role in mediating neuropathic pain hypersensitivity, but the studies presented do not fully support this statement. The authors instead provide some correlation between translation and behavioural reflex excitability (namely vfh and Hargreaves).

It is difficult to fully interpret the work, as there are a number of inconsistencies, namely the range of timings pre- and post-injury, lack of controls for manipulations, the use of shmiRNA versus lineage deletions, and lack of detailed somatosensory testing. It is not completely clear how this work could be translatable as is, without a deeper understanding of how translational control affects circuit function and whether all of this is necessarily bad for the system, or whether this is a positive homeostatic adaptation to the hyperexcitability of the circuit following injury.

A large portion of the work is focussed on showing an inhibitory-selective change in translation following chronic nerve injury. The evidence for this is however lacking. Statistics to show that translational effects are restricted to inhibitory subpopulations are inadequate. The author's choice of transgenic lines is not clear and seems to rely on availability rather than hypothesis.

Author response:

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

Public Reviews: 

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In the article by Dearlove et al., the authors present evidence in strong support of nucleotide ubiquitylation by DTX3L, suggesting it is a promiscuous E3 ligase with capacity to ubiquitylate ADP ribose and nucleotides. The authors include data to identify the likely site of attachment and the requirements for nucleotide modification. 

While this discovery potentially reveals a whole new mechanism by which nucleotide function can be regulated in cells, there are some weaknesses that should be considered. Is there any evidence of nucleotide ubiquitylation occurring cells? It seems possible, but evidence in support of this would strengthen the manuscript. The NMR data could also be strengthened as the binding interface is not reported or mapped onto the structure/model, this seems of considerable interest given that highly related proteins do have the same activity. 

The paper is for the most part well well-written and is potentially highly significant 

Comments on revised version: 

The revised manuscript has addressed many of the concerns raised and clarified a number of points. As a result the manuscript is improved. 

The primary concern that remains is the absence of biological function for Ub-ssDNA/RNA and the inability to detect it in cells. Despite this the manuscript will be of interest to those in the ubiquitin field and will likely provoke further studies and the development of tools to better assess the cellular relevance. As a result this manuscript is important. 

We agree with the reviewer’s assessment.

Minor issue: 

Figure 1A - the authors have now included the constructs used but it would be more informative if the authors lined up the various constructs under the relevant domains in the full-length protein. 

Figure 1 will be fixed in the Version of Record.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The manuscript by Dearlove et al. entitled "DTX3L ubiquitin ligase ubiquitinates single-stranded nucleic acids" reports a novel activity of a DELTEX E3 ligase family member, DTX3L, which can conjugate ubiquitin to the 3' hydroxyl of single-stranded oligonucleotides via an ester linkage. The findings that unmodified oligonucleotides can act as substrates for direct ubiquitylation and the identification of DTX3 as the enzyme capable of performing such oligonucleotide modification are novel, intriguing, and impactful because they represent a significant expansion of our view of the ubiquitin biology. The authors perform a detailed and diligent biochemical characterization of this novel activity, and key claims made in the article are well supported by experimental data. However, the studies leave room for some healthy skepticism about the physiological significance of the unique activity of DTX3 and DTX3L described by the authors because DTX3/DTX3L can also robustly attach ubiquitin to the ADP ribose moiety of NAD or ADP-ribosylated substrates. The study could be strengthened by a more direct and quantitative comparison between ubiquitylation of unmodified oligonucleotides by DTX3/DTX3L with the ubiquitylation of ADP-ribose, the activity that DTX3 and DTX3L share with the other members of the DELTEX family.

Comment on revised version:

In my opinion, reviewers' comments are constructively addressed by the authors in the revised manuscript, which further strengthens the revised submission and makes it an important contribution to the field. Specifically, the authors perform a direct quantitative comparison of two distinct ubiquitylation substrates, unmodified oligonucleotides and fluorescently labeled NADH and report that kcat/Km is 5-fold higher for unmodified oligos compared to NADH. This observation suggests that ubiquitylation of unmodified oligos is not a minor artifactual side reaction in vitro and that unmodified oligonucleotides may very well turn out to be the physiological substrates of the enzyme. However, the true identity of the physiological substrates and the functionally relevant modification site(s) remain to be established in further studies. 

We agree with the reviewer’s assessment.

---

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

Public Reviews: 

Reviewer #1 (Public Review): 

In the article by Dearlove et al., the authors present evidence in strong support of nucleotide ubiquitylation by DTX3L, suggesting it is a promiscuous E3 ligase with capacity to ubiquitylate ADP ribose and nucleotides. The authors include data to identify the likely site of attachment and the requirements for nucleotide modification. 

While this discovery potentially reveals a whole new mechanism by which nucleotide function can be regulated in cells, there are some weaknesses that should be considered. Is there any evidence of nucleotide ubiquitylation occurring cells? It seems possible, but evidence in support of this would strengthen the manuscript. The NMR data could also be strengthened as the binding interface is not reported or mapped onto the structure/model, this seems of considerable interest given that highly related proteins do have the same activity. 

The paper is for the most part well well-written and is potentially highly significant, but it could be strengthened as follows: 

(1) The authors start out by showing DTX3L binding to nucleotides and ubiquitylation of ssRNA/DNA. While ubiquitylation is subsequently dissected and ascribed to the RD domains, the binding data is not followed up. Does the RD protein alone bind to the nucleotides? Further analysis of nucleotide binding is also relevant to the Discussion where the role of the KH domains is considered, but the binding properties of these alone have not been analysed. 

We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have tested DTX3L RD for ssDNA binding using NMR (see Figure 4A and Figure S2), which showed that DTX3L RD binds ssDNA. We have now tested the DTX3L KH domains for RNA/ssDNA binding using an FP experiment. However, the FP experiment did not show significant changes upon titrating RNA/ssDNA, suggesting that the KH domains alone are not sufficient to bind RNA/ssDNA. We have opted to put this data in the response-to-review as future investigation will be required to examine whether other regions of DTX3L cooperate with RD to bind RNA/ssDNA. We have revised the Discussion on the KH domains. We now state that “Our findings show the DTX3L DTC domain binds nucleic acids but whether the KHL domains contribute to nucleic acid binding requires further investigation.”

Author response image 1.

Fold change of fluorescence polarisation of 6-FAM-labelled ssDNA D4 upon titrating with DTX3L variants. DTX3L KH domain fragments were expressed with a N-terminal His-MBP tag to increase the molecular weight to enhance the signal.

(2) With regard to the E3 ligase activity, can the authors account for the apparent decreased ubiquitylation activity of the 232-C protein in Figure 1/S1 compared to FL and RD? 

We found that the 232-C protein batch used in the assay was not pure and have subsequently re-purified the protein. We have repeated the ubiquitination of ssDNA and RNA (Fig. 1H and 1I) and 232-C exhibited similar activity as WT. Furthermore, we performed autoubiquitination (Fig. S1G) and E2~Ub discharge assay (Fig. S1H) to compare the activity. 232-C was slower in autoubiquitination (Fig. S1G), but showed similar activity in the E2~Ub discharge assay as WT. These findings suggest that the RING domain in 232-C is functional and 232-C likely lacks ubiquitination site(s) present in 1-231 region necessary for autoubiquitination.

(3) Was it possible to positively identify the link between Ub and ssDNA/RNA using mass spectrometry? This would overcome issues associated with labels blocking binding rather than modification. 

We have tried to use mass spectrometry to detect the linkage between Ub and ssDNA/RNA, but was unable to do so. We suspect that the oxyester linkage might be labile, posing a challenge for mass spectrometry techniques. Similarly, a recent preprint from Ahel lab, which utilises LC-MS, detects the Ub-NMP product rather than the linkage (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.04.19.590267v1.full.pdf).

(4) Furthermore, can a targeted MS approach be used to show that nucleotides are ubiquitylated in cells? 

This will require future development and improvement of the MS approach, specifically the isolation of labile oxyester-linked products from cells and the optimisation of the MS detection method.

(5) Do the authors have the assignments (even partial?) for DTX3L RD? In Figure 4 it would be helpful to identify the peaks that correspond to the residues at the proposed binding site. Also do the shifts map to a defined surface or do they suggest an extended site, particularly for the ssDNA.

We only collected HSQC spectra which was insufficient for assignments. We have performed a competition experiment using ADPr and labelled ssDNA, showing that ADPr competes against the ubiquitination of ssDNA (Figure 4D). We have also provided an additional experiment showing that ssDNA with a blocked 3’-OH can compete against ubiquitination of ADPr (Figure 4E). These data, together with our NMR analysis, further strengthen the evidence that ssDNA and ADPr compete the same binding pocket in DTX3L RD. Understanding how DTX3L RD binds ssDNA/RNA is an ongoing research in the lab.

(6) Does sequence analysis help explain the specificity of activity for the family of proteins? 

We have performed sequence alignment and structure comparison of DTX proteins using both RING and DTC domains (Fig. S3). These analyses showed that DTX3 and DTX3L RING domains lack a N-terminal helix and two loop insertions compared to DTX1, DTX2 and DTX4. These additions make DTX1, DTX2 and DTX4 RING domain larger than DTX3L and DTX3. It is not clear how these would influence the orientation of the recruited E2~Ub. Comparison of the DTC domain showed that DTX1, DTX2 and DTX4 contain an Ala-Arg motif, which causes a bulge at one end of DTC pocket. In the absence of Ala-Arg motif, DTC pockets of DTX3 and DTX3L contain an extended groove which might accommodate one or more of the nucleotides 5' to the targeted terminal nucleotide. It seems that both features of RING and DTC domains might attribute to the specificity of DTX3L and DTX3. We have included these comparisons in the discussion and suggested that future structural characterization is necessary to unveil the specificity.

(7) While including a summary mechanism (Figure 5I) is helpful, the schematic included does not necessarily make it easier for the reader to appreciate the key findings of the manuscript or to account for the specificity of activity observed. While this figure could be modified, it might also be helpful to highlight the range of substrates that DTX3L can modify - nucleotide, ADPr, ADPr on nucleotides etc. 

We have modified this Figure to include the range of substrates.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review): 

Summary: 

The manuscript by Dearlove et al. entitled "DTX3L ubiquitin ligase ubiquitinates single-stranded nucleic acids" reports a novel activity of a DELTEX E3 ligase family member, DTX3L, which can conjugate ubiquitin to the 3' hydroxyl of single-stranded oligonucleotides via an ester linkage. The findings that unmodified oligonucleotides can act as substrates for direct ubiquitylation and the identification of DTX3 as the enzyme capable of performing such oligonucleotide modification are novel, intriguing, and impactful because they represent a significant expansion of our view of the ubiquitin biology. The authors perform a detailed and diligent biochemical characterization of this novel activity, and key claims made in the article are well supported by experimental data. However, the studies leave room for some healthy skepticism about the physiological significance of the unique activity of DTX3 and DTX3L described by the authors because DTX3/DTX3L can also robustly attach ubiquitin to the ADP ribose moiety of NAD or ADP-ribosylated substrates. The study could be strengthened by a more direct and quantitative comparison between ubiquitylation of unmodified oligonucleotides by DTX3/DTX3L with the ubiquitylation of ADP-ribose, the activity that DTX3 and DTX3L share with the other members of the DELTEX family. 

Strengths: 

The manuscript reports a novel and exciting observation that ubiquitin can be directly attached to the 3' hydroxyl of unmodified, single-stranded oligonucleotides by DTX3L. The study builds on the extensive expertise and the impactful previous studies by the Huang laboratory of the DELTEX family of E3 ubiquitin ligases. The authors perform a detailed and diligent biochemical characterization of this novel activity, and all claims made in the article are well supported by experimental data. The manuscript is clearly written and easy to read, which further elevates the overall quality of submitted work. The findings are impactful and will help illuminate multiple avenues for future follow-up investigations that may help establish how this novel biochemical activity observed in vitro may contribute to the biological function of DTX3L. The authors demonstrate that the activity is unique to the DTX3/DTX3L members of the DELTEX family and show that the enzyme requires at least two single-stranded nucleotides at the 3' end of the oligonucleotide substrate and that the adenine nucleotide is preferred in the 3' position. Most notably, the authors describe a chimeric construct containing RING domain of DTX3L fused to the DTC domain DTX2, which displays robust NAD ubiquitylation, but lacks the ability to ubiquitylate unmodified oligonucleotides. This construct will be invaluable in the future cell-based studies of DTX3L biology that may help establish the physiological relevance of 3' ubiquitylation of nucleic acids. 

Weaknesses: 

The main weakness of the study is in the lack of direct evidence that the ubiquitylation of unmodified oligonucleotides reported by the authors plays any role in the biological function of DTX3L. The study leaves plenty of room for natural skepticism regarding the physiological relevance of the reported activity, because, akin to other DELTEX family members, DTX3 and DTX3L can also catalyze attachment of ubiquitin to NAD, ADP ribose and ADP-ribosylated substrates. Unfortunately, the study does not offer any quantitative comparison of the two distinct activities of the enzyme, which leaves plenty of room for doubt. One is left wondering, whether ubiquitylation of unmodified oligonucleotides is just a minor and artifactual side activity owing to the high concentration of the oligonucleotide substrates and E2~Ub conjugates present in the in-vitro conditions and the somewhat lower specificity of the DTX3 and DTX3L DTC domains (compared to DTX2 and other DELTEX family members) for ADP ribose over other adenine-containing substrates such as unmodified oligonucleotides, ADP/ATP/dADP/dATP, etc. The intriguing coincidence that DTX3L, which is the only DTX protein capable of ubiquitylating unmodified oligonucleotides, is also the only family member that contains nucleic acid interacting domains in the N-terminus, is suggestive but not compelling. A recently published DTX3L study by a competing laboratory (PMID: 38000390), which is not cited in the manuscript, suggests that ADP-ribose-modified nucleic acids could be the physiologically relevant substrates of DTX3L. That competing hypothesis appears more convincing than ubiquitylation of unmodified oligonucleotides because experiments in that study demonstrate that ubiquitylation of ADP-ribosylated oligos is quite robust in comparison to ubiquitylation of unmodified oligos, which is undetectable. It is possible that the unmodified oligonucleotides in the competing study did not have adenine in the 3' position, which may explain the apparent discrepancy between the two studies. In summary, a quantitative comparison of ubiquitylation of ADP ribose vs. unmodified oligonucleotides could strengthen the study. 

We thank the reviewer for the constructive feedback. We agree that evidence for the biological function is lacking. While we have tried to detect Ub-ssDNA/RNA from cells, we found that isolating and detecting labile oxyester-linked Ub-ssDNA/RNA products remain challenging due to (1) low levels of Ub-ssDNA/RNA products, (2) the presence of DUBs and nucleases that rapidly remove the products during the experiments, and (3) our lack of a suitable MS approach to detect the product. For these reasons, we feel that discovering the biological function will require future effort and expertise and is beyond the scope of our current manuscript.

In the manuscript (PMID: 38000390), the authors used PARP10 to catalyse ADP-ribosylation onto 5’-phosphorylated ssDNA/RNA. They used the following sequences which lacks 3’-adenosine, which could explain the lack of ubiquitination.

E15_5′P_RNA [Phos]GUGGCGCGGAGACUU

E15_5′P_DNA [Phos]GTGGCGCGGAGACTT

We have performed the experiment using this sequence to verify this (see Author response image 2 below). We have cited this manuscript but for some reasons, Pubmed has updated its published date from mid 2023 to Jan 2024. We have updated the Endnote in the revised manuscript.

Author response image 2.

Fluorescently detected SDS-PAGE gel of in vitro ubiquitination catalysed by DTX3L-RD in the presence ubiquitination components and 6-FAM-labelled ssDNA D4 or D31.

We agree that it is crucial to compare ubiquitination of oligonucleotides and ADPr by DTX3L to find its preferred substrate. We have challenged oligonucleotide ubiquitination by adding excess ADPr and found that ADPr efficiently competes with oligonucleotide (Figure 4D). We have also performed an experiment showing that ssDNA with a blocked 3’-OH can compete against ubiquitination of ADPr (Figure 4E). These data support that ADPr and ssDNA compete for the same binding site on DTX3L.

We also performed kinetic analysis of ubiquitination of fluorescently labelled ssDNA (D4) and NAD+ by DTX3L-RD (Fig. 4F and Fig. S2D–G) to assess substrate preferences. Here, we used fluorescent-labelled NAD+ (F-NAD+) in place of ADPr as labelled NAD+ is commercially available. With the known concentration of fluorescently labelled ssDNA and NAD+ as the standard, we could estimate the rate of ubiquitinated product formation across different substrate concentrations. We have included this finding in the main text “DTX3L-RD displayed _k_cat value of 0.0358 ± 0.0034 min-1 and a _K_m value of 6.56 ± 1.80 mM for Ub-D4 formation, whereas the Michaelis-Menten curve did not reach saturation for Ub-F-NAD+ formation (Fig. 4F and fig. S2, D-G). Comparison of the estimated catalytic efficiency (_k_cat/_K_m = 5457  M-1 min-1 for D4 and estimated _k_cat/_K_m = 1190  M-1 min-1 for F-NAD+; Fig. 4F) suggested that DTX3L-RD exhibited 4.5-fold higher catalytic efficiency for D4 than F-NAD+. This difference primarily results from a better _K_m value for D4 compared to F-NAD+. Although DTX3L-RD showed weak _K_m for F-NAD+, it displays a higher rate for converting F-NAD+ to Ub-F-NAD+ at higher substrate concentration (Fig. 4F). Thus, substrate concentration will play a role in determining the preference.”

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors): 

Writing/technical points: 

(1) The introduction is relatively complex and the last paragraph, which reviews the discoveries on the paper, is long. It may be helpful to highlight the significance and frame the experiments as what they have addressed, rather than detailing each set of experiments completed. 

We have modified the last paragraph in the introduction to highlight the major discovery of our work.

(2) Line 24, Abstract. 'Its N-terminal region' is not obvious 

We have changed “Its N-terminal region” to “the N-terminal region of DTX3L”.

(3) Line 44 - split sentence to emphasize E3 ligase point? 

We have modified the sentence as suggested.

(4) Figures 1B and 1C could be larger - currently they are not very helpful. Also atoms (ADPr?) are shown, but not indicated in the legend or labelled on the panel. 

We have enlarged Figures 1B and 1C and indicated RNA on the structure.

(5) The structure of the D2 domain of DTX3L has recently been reported (Vela-Rodriguez et al). It might be helpful to comment on this manuscript. 

We have now commented on D2 domain in the results section and in the discussion.

(6) It would be helpful to indicate the DTX3L constructs used in Figure 1a. 

We have included all DTX3L constructs used in Figure 1a.

(7) Interpretation of Figure 4A is difficult, the authors may wish to consider other ways to visualize the data. 

We have now removed the black arrow in Figure 4A as it was confusing. Instead, we drew a black box on the cross-peak where the close-up views are shown in Figures 4B and 4C.

(8) Figure 4A. Please indicate which binding partner is highlighted by red/black arrows. 

We have removed black arrow. The red arrows indicate cross-peaks which undergo chemical shift perturbation when DTX3L-RD was titrated with ssDNA or ADPr, highlighting their binding sites on DTX3L-RD overlap.

(9) Line 284 - please indicate the bulge in Figure S3. 

We have indicated the bulge on Figure S3.

(10) Aspects of the discussion are speculative, given that evidence of Ub conjugated to nucleotides in cells is yet to be obtained and the functional consequences of modification are uncertain. 

We understand that the discussion on the potential roles of ubiquitination of ssNAs is speculative. We have now modified it to: “Based on the known functions of the DTX3L/PARP9 complex and the findings of this study, we propose several hypotheses for future research”, so that readers will understand that these are speculative.

(11) Line 295 onwards - this paragraph discusses the role of the KH domains in nucleotide binding, but it is not clear that the authors have directly demonstrated that the KH domains bind nucleotides as all constructs used in the binding experiments in Figure 1/S1 include the RING-DTC domains. 

We found that KH domains alone did not bind ssDNA or RNA. We have modified line 295. This section now reads “Typically, KH domains contain a GXXG motif within the loop between the first and second α helix (22). However, analysis of the sequence of the KHL domains in DTX3L shows these domains lack this motif. Multiple studies have shown that mutation in this motif abolishes binding to nucleic acids (23-26). Our findings show the DTX3L DTC domain binds nucleic acids but whether the KHL domains contribute to nucleic acid binding requires further investigation. Additionally, the structure of the first KHL domain was recently reported and shown to form a tetrameric assembly (20). Our analysis with DTX3L 232-C, which lacks the first KHL domain and RRM, indicate that it can still bind ssDNA and ssRNA. Despite this, a more detailed analysis will be required to determine whether oligomerization plays a role in nucleic acid binding and ubiquitination.”

eLife assessment

This important study reports the discovery of a novel nucleotide ubiquitylation activity by the DTX3L E3 ligase. Solid evidence is presented for ubiquitin attachment to single-stranded oligonucleotides. This very interesting biochemical finding can be used as a starting point for studies to establish relevance in a physiological setting.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In the article by Dearlove et al., the authors present evidence in strong support of nucleotide ubiquitylation by DTX3L, suggesting it is a promiscuous E3 ligase with capacity to ubiquitylate ADP ribose and nucleotides. The authors include data to identify the likely site of attachment and the requirements for nucleotide modification.

While this discovery potentially reveals a whole new mechanism by which nucleotide function can be regulated in cells, there are some weaknesses that should be considered. Is there any evidence of nucleotide ubiquitylation occurring cells? It seems possible, but evidence in support of this would strengthen the manuscript. The NMR data could also be strengthened as the binding interface is not reported or mapped onto the structure/model, this seems of considerable interest given that highly related proteins do have the same activity.

The paper is for the most part well well-written and is potentially highly significant

Comments on revised version:

The revised manuscript has addressed many of the concerns raised and clarified a number of points. As a result the manuscript is improved.

The primary concern that remains is the absence of biological function for Ub-ssDNA/RNA and the inability to detect it in cells. Despite this the manuscript will be of interest to those in the ubiquitin field and will likely provoke further studies and the development of tools to better assess the cellular relevance. As a result this manuscript is important.

Minor issue:<br /> Figure 1A - the authors have now included the constructs used but it would be more informative if the authors lined up the various constructs under the relevant domains in the full-length protein.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The manuscript by Dearlove et al. entitled "DTX3L ubiquitin ligase ubiquitinates single-stranded nucleic acids" reports a novel activity of a DELTEX E3 ligase family member, DTX3L, which can conjugate ubiquitin to the 3' hydroxyl of single-stranded oligonucleotides via an ester linkage. The findings that unmodified oligonucleotides can act as substrates for direct ubiquitylation and the identification of DTX3 as the enzyme capable of performing such oligonucleotide modification are novel, intriguing, and impactful because they represent a significant expansion of our view of the ubiquitin biology. The authors perform a detailed and diligent biochemical characterization of this novel activity, and key claims made in the article are well supported by experimental data. However, the studies leave room for some healthy skepticism about the physiological significance of the unique activity of DTX3 and DTX3L described by the authors because DTX3/DTX3L can also robustly attach ubiquitin to the ADP ribose moiety of NAD or ADP-ribosylated substrates. The study could be strengthened by a more direct and quantitative comparison between ubiquitylation of unmodified oligonucleotides by DTX3/DTX3L with the ubiquitylation of ADP-ribose, the activity that DTX3 and DTX3L share with the other members of the DELTEX family.

Comment on revised version:

In my opinion, reviewers' comments are constructively addressed by the authors in the revised manuscript, which further strengthens the revised submission and makes it an important contribution to the field. Specifically, the authors perform a direct quantitative comparison of two distinct ubiquitylation substrates, unmodified oligonucleotides and fluorescently labeled NADH and report that kcat/Km is 5-fold higher for unmodified oligos compared to NADH. This observation suggests that ubiquitylation of unmodified oligos is not a minor artifactual side reaction in vitro and that unmodified oligonucleotides may very well turn out to be the physiological substrates of the enzyme. However, the true identity of the physiological substrates and the functionally relevant modification site(s) remain to be established in further studies.

eLife assessment

This important study investigates the molecular mechanisms underpinning how the tumor necrosis factor alpha-induced protein, TIPE, regulates aerobic glycolysis to promote tumor growth in melanoma. Solid data using multiple independent approaches provide new insights into the molecular mechanisms underpinning aerobic glycolysis, also known as the Warburg Effect, in melanoma cells. However, further investigation of a potential oncogenic effect of TIPE in melanoma patients is warranted and more advanced metabolomic and bioenergetic assays could be employed. The work will be of interest to biomedical researchers working in cancer and metabolism.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Tian et al. describes how TIPE regulates melanoma progression, stemness, and glycolysis. The authors link high TIPE expression to increased melanoma cell proliferation and tumor growth. TIPE causes dimerization of PKM2, as well as translocation of PKM2 to the nucleus, thereby activating HIF-1alpha. TIPE promotes the phosphorylation of S37 on PKM2 in an ERK-dependent manner. TIPE is shown to increase stem-like phenotype markers. The expression of TIPE is positively correlated with the levels of PKM2 Ser37 phosphorylation in murine and clinical tissue samples. Taken together, the authors demonstrate how TIPE impacts melanoma progression, stemness, and glycolysis through dimeric PKM2 and HIF-1alpha crosstalk.

The authors manipulated TIPE expression using both shRNA and overexpression approaches throughout the manuscript. Using these models, they provide strong evidence of the involvement of TIPE in mediating PKM2 Ser37 phosphorylation and dimerization. The authors also used mutants of PKM2 at S37A to block its interaction with TIPE and HIF-1alpha. In addition, an ERK inhibitor (U0126) was used to block the phosphorylation of Ser37 on PKM2. The authors show how dimerization of PKM2 by TIPE causes nuclear import of PKM2 and activation of HIF-1alpha and target genes. Pyridoxine was used to induce PKM2 dimer formation, while TEPP-46 was used to suppress PKM2 dimer formation. TIPE maintains stem cell phenotypes by increasing expression of stem-like markers. Furthermore, the relationship between TIPE and Ser37 PKM2 was demonstrated in murine and clinical tissue samples.

The evaluation of how TIPE causes metabolic reprogramming can be better assessed using isotope tracing experiments and improved bioenergetic analysis.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

In this article, Tian et al present a convincing analysis of the molecular mechanisms underpinning TIPE-mediated regulation of glycolysis and tumor growth in melanoma. The authors begin by confirming TIPE expression in melanoma cell lines and identify "high" and "low" expressing models for functional analysis. They show that TIPE depletion slows tumour growth in vivo, and using both knockdown and over expression approaches, show that this is associated with changes in glycolysis in vitro. Compelling data using multiple independent approaches is presented to support an interaction between TIPE and the glycolysis regulator PKM2, and over-expression of TIPE promoted nuclear translocation of PKM2 dimers. Mechanistically, the authors also demonstrate that PKM2 is required for TIPE-mediated activation of HIF1a transcriptional activity, as assessed using an HRE-promoter reporter assay, and that TIPE-mediated PKM2 dimerization is p-ERK dependent. Finally, the dependence of TIPE activity on PKM2 dimerization was demonstrated on tumor growth in vivo and in regulation of glycolysis in vitro, and ectopic expression of HIF1a could rescue inhibition of PKM2 dimerization in TIPE overexpressing cells and reduced induction of general cancer stem cell markers, showing a clear role for HIF1a in this pathway.

The detailed mechanistic analysis of TIPE mediated regulation of PKM2 to control aerobic glycolysis and tumor growth is a major strength of the study and provides new insights into the molecular mechanisms that underpin the Warburg effect in melanoma cells. The main conclusions of this paper are well supported by data, however further investigation of a potential oncogenic effect of TIPE in melanoma patients is warranted to support the tumor promoting role of TIPE identified in the experimental models. Analysis of patient samples showed a significant increase in TIPE protein levels in primary melanoma compared to benign skin tumours, and a further increase upon metastatic progression. Moreover, TIPE levels correlate with proliferation (Ki67) and hypoxia gene sets in the TCGA melanoma patient dataset. However, the authors note in the discussion that high TIPE expression associates with better survival outcomes in the TCGA melanoma patients and these data should be included in this paper. Further investigation of how TIPE-mediated regulation of glycolysis contributes to melanoma progression is warranted to confirm the authors claims of a potential oncogenic function. Regardless, the new insights into the molecular mechanisms underpinning TIPE-mediated aerobic glycolysis in melanoma are convincing and will likely generate interest in the cancer metabolism field.

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Tian et al. describe how TIPE regulates melanoma progression, stemness, and glycolysis. The authors link high TIPE expression to increased melanoma cell proliferation and tumor growth. TIPE causes dimerization of PKM2, as well as translocation of PKM2 to the nucleus, thereby activating HIF-1alpha. TIPE promotes the phosphorylation of S37 on PKM2 in an ERK-dependent manner. TIPE is shown to increase stem-like phenotype markers. The expression of TIPE is positively correlated with the levels of PKM2 Ser37 phosphorylation in murine and clinical tissue samples. Taken together, the authors demonstrate how TIPE impacts melanoma progression, stemness, and glycolysis through dimeric PKM2 and HIF-1alpha crosstalk.

Strengths:

The authors manipulated TIPE expression using both shRNA and overexpression approaches throughout the manuscript. Using these models, they provide strong evidence of the involvement of TIPE in mediating PKM2 Ser37 phosphorylation and dimerization. The authors also used mutants of PKM2 at S37A to block its interaction with TIPE and HIF-1alpha. In addition, an ERK inhibitor (U0126) was used to block the phosphorylation of Ser37 on PKM2. The authors show how dimerization of PKM2 by TIPE causes nuclear import of PKM2 and activation of HIF-1alpha and target genes. Pyridoxine was used to induce PKM2 dimer formation, while TEPP-46 was used to suppress PKM2 dimer formation. TIPE maintains stem cell phenotypes by increasing the expression of stem-like markers. Furthermore, the relationship between TIPE and Ser37 PKM2 was demonstrated in murine and clinical tissue samples.

Weaknesses:

The evaluation of how TIPE causes metabolic reprogramming can be better assessed using isotope tracing experiments and improved bioenergetic analysis.

Thank you very much for your suggestions. Unfortunately, we cannot complete the isotope tracing experiments due to the lack of instruments, nor with the help of the company after consulting several companies. We are very sorry for this imperfect experiment, and we have discussed this disadvantage in our manuscripts. Moreover, due to our negligence, there was only three metabolites were presented in the previous manuscripts. However, we have performed the routine untargeted metabolomics to demonstrate how TIPE causes metabolic reprogramming. We have added the detailed results as a new figure named as Figure S3, in which, the glycolysis pathway particularly pyruvate and lactic acid is decreased after TIPE interference.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this article, Tian et al present a convincing analysis of the molecular mechanisms underpinning TIPE-mediated regulation of glycolysis and tumor growth in melanoma. The authors begin by confirming TIPE expression in melanoma cell lines and identify "high" and "low" expressing models for functional analysis. They show that TIPE depletion slows tumour growth in vivo, and using both knockdown and over-expression approaches, show that this is associated with changes in glycolysis in vitro. Compelling data using multiple independent approaches is presented to support an interaction between TIPE and the glycolysis regulator PKM2, and the over-expression of TIPE-promoted nuclear translocation of PKM2 dimers. Mechanistically, the authors also demonstrate that PKM2 is required for TIPE-mediated activation of HIF1a transcriptional activity, as assessed using an HRE-promoter reporter assay, and that TIPE-mediated PKM2 dimerization is p-ERK dependent. Finally, the dependence of TIPE activity on PKM2 dimerization was demonstrated on tumor growth in vivo and in the regulation of glycolysis in vitro, and ectopic expression of HIF1a could rescue the inhibition of PKM2 dimerization in TIPE overexpressing cells and reduced induction of general cancer stem cell markers, showing a clear role for HIF1a in this pathway. The main conclusions of this paper are well supported by data, but some aspects of the experiments need clarification and some data panels are difficult to read and interpret as currently presented.

The detailed mechanistic analysis of TIPE-mediated regulation of PKM2 to control aerobic glycolysis and tumor growth is a major strength of the study and provides new insights into the molecular mechanisms that underpin the Warburg effect in cancer cells. However, despite these strengths, some weaknesses were noted, which if addressed will further strengthen the study.

(1) The analysis of patient samples should be expanded to more directly measure the relationship between TIPE levels and melanoma patient outcome and progression (primary vs metastasis), to build on the association between TIPE levels and proliferation (Ki67) and hypoxia gene sets that are currently shown.

Thanks for your suggestions, we have added the relationship between TIPE levels and progression (non-lymph node metastasis vs lymph node metastasis). In addition, we added the association between TIPE and Ki67 or LDH levels as your advised, as shown in Figure 7.

However, the relationship between TIPE levels and melanoma patient outcome is not presented in this article. One reason is that the tissue microarray lack of the survival data. Interestingly, the TCGA dataset showed that the higher TIPE expression has a favorable prognosis for melanoma. We are also very curious about this. Our following study indicated that TIPE might serve as a positive regulator of PD-L1. Therefore, the higher expression of TIPE presents more sensitive tendency to immunotherapy, resulting in a favorable prognosis in melanoma. The detailed mechanisms will be discussed in our following article, and we hope that it might as a continuous research topic for TIPE in melanoma.

We just only disclose a little information that TIPE has a similar survival and immune signature to PD-L1 and PD-1 in melanoma as following:

Author response image 1.

(2) The duration of the in vivo experiments was not clearly defined in the figures, however, it was clear from the tumor volume measurements that they ended well before standard ethical endpoints in some of the experiments. A rationale for this should be provided because longer-duration experiments might significantly change the interpretation of the data. For example, does TIPE depletion transiently reduce or lead to sustained reductions in tumor growth?

Thanks for your suggestions. Actually, we have performed a pre-experiment before the formal experiments, and all the time points were referred to this. Furthermore, we have added the detailed time points into the figure legends as you suggested.

(3) The analysis of general cancer stem cell markers is solid and interesting, however inclusion of neural crest stem cell markers that are more relevant to melanoma biology would greatly strengthen this aspect of the study.

Thanks for your advices. We have selected two neural crest stem cell markers including Nestin and Sox10 to test their expression after overexpression of TIPE in G361 cells or interference of TIPE in A375 cells.

(4) The authors should take care that all data panels are clearly readable in the figures to facilitate appropriate interpretation by the reader.

Thanks for your suggestions. We have amended the data panels according to you advises to ensure it is clear and professionally presented.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Major points

(1) In Figure 1D, glucose, pyruvate, and lactate were measured at a steady state. However, metabolites at steady state do not accurately depict changes in pathway activity. An isotope tracing experiment (i.e., using labelled 13C glucose) can be used to study glucose catabolism into pyruvate, as well as tracing into lactate or into the TCA cycle following changes in TIPE expression. In addition, although the authors point towards changes in metabolic reprogramming, only three metabolites were measured. The use of isotope tracing to monitor metabolites from more than one pathway would be suggested to support the claim that metabolism is being reprogrammed due to TIPE.

Thank you very much for your suggestions. Unfortunately, we cannot complete the isotope tracing experiments due to the lack of instruments, nor with the help of the company after consulting several companies. We are very sorry for this imperfect experiment, and we have discussed this disadvantage in our manuscripts. Moreover, due to our negligence, there was only three metabolites were presented in the previous manuscripts. However, we have performed the routine untargeted metabolomics to demonstrate how TIPE causes metabolic reprogramming. We have added the detailed results as a new figure named as Figure S3, in which, the glycolysis pathway particularly pyruvate and lactic acid is decreased after TIPE interference.

(2) In Figure 1H, extracellular acidification was used to determine glycolytic activity. However, bicarbonate secretion can also greatly affect pH, and should be considered (PMID 25449966). Although total ATP content was measured, the contribution of ATP from glycolysis can be also determined (see PMID 28270511) to provide a more accurate representation of glycolytic ATP production.

Thanks for your suggestions again. As described at the above, we will improve our measurement methods in the future, and we have discussed our weakness in the manuscripts.

(3) On page 5, lines 108-111, the authors show that "This process represents an important regulator of the TIPE family switching between oxidative phosphorylation and aerobic glycolysis, paving the way for cancer-specific metabolism in response to low-oxygen challenge." However, there is no data on oxidative phosphorylation. What is the effect of TIPE on oxygen consumption?

Thanks for your careful and professional advices. We have conducted a thorough review of the manuscript for language accuracy and corrected this term to eliminate confusion and ensure the text is clear and professionally presented.

Minor points

(1) On page 3, line 68, it is unclear what is increasing lactate levels, as lactate can be transported inside of cells.

Thanks for your suggestions, we have corrected this misdescription to improve the overall quality and readability of the manuscript.

(2) In Figure 1B, RNA sequencing was performed on TIPE overexpressing G361 cells. The "ribosome" pathway has the highest count and lowest p-value. However, there is no mention of this in the text.

Thanks for your suggestions, we selected aerobic glycolysis as our major story comprehensively according to the transcriptomics, metabolomics and the Co-IP/MS results. Anyway, the "ribosome" pathway as you pointed might is our next research topic in the future.

(3) It would be helpful to include the cell line in Figure S1B-C as well as in the figure legend.

Thanks for your suggestions, we have added the cell line into Figure S1B-C as well as in the figure legend.

(4) Concerning supplementary figures, it would be helpful to include the panel numbers when referring to them in the main text (see line 120 or 122 as an example).

Thanks for your suggestions, we have added the panel numbers when referring to them in the main text.

(5) The sentence on lines 127-131 is very confusing.

Thanks for your suggestions, we have corrected the improper descriptions as you mentioned.

(6) In Figure S3, qPCR is misspelled in the figure legend. Also, it would be helpful to include what is meant by "relative expression" on the y-axis of Figure S3A.

Thanks for your suggestions, we have corrected the errors as you pointed. Due to the y-axis represents the expression both of TIPE and HIF-1α, the present description might be more suitable.

(7) There is an extra space on line 196.

Thanks for your suggestions, we have corrected as you pointed.

(8) In Figure 7E LDH staining was performed. Which isoform of LDH was detected?

Actually, we stained total LDH in Figure 7E.

(9) On line 931, Warburg is misspelled.

Thanks for your suggestion, we have corrected all mentioned typos, including " Warburg " in lines 931.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Major comments:

- Supplementary Figure 2G. Unit of time measurement for tumor growth panel needs to be defined. If this refers to days, 5 days is a relatively short period to assess tumor growth differences in vivo, and indeed, 1000-1200mm3 is a standard ethical end-point for these types of models, and this experiment was concluded well before reaching these tumor sizes. Can the authors explain why they ended this experiment at this timepoint?

Thanks for your suggestions. As you suggested, we have added the detailed time points into the figure legends. Actually, we have performed a pre-experiment before the formal experiments, and all the time points were referred to this.

- Supplementary Figure 2j - Correlation analysis between TIPE expression and overall survival outcome in melanoma patients is more relevant to support the experimental observations described in the paper than the correlation with Ki67. This analysis should also be provided. In addition, is there any difference in TIPE expression between primary and metastatic melanoma patients which would then more directly link TIPE with melanoma progression in patients?

The relationship between TIPE levels and melanoma patient outcome is not presented in this article. One reason is that the tissue microarray lack of the survival data. Interestingly, the TCGA dataset showed that the higher TIPE expression has a favorable prognosis for melanoma. We are also very curious about this. Our following study indicated that TIPE might serve as a positive regulator for PD-L1. Therefore, the higher expression of TIPE presents more sensitive tendency to immunotherapy, resulting in a favorable prognosis in melanoma. The detailed mechanisms will be discussed in our following article, and we hope that it might as a continuous research topic for TIPE in melanoma.

Furthermore, we have added the relationship between TIPE levels and progression (non-lymph node metastasis vs lymph node metastasis), and Ki67 in Figure 7.

- Figure 2 - The A2 domain protein represents a substantial reduction in the size of PKM2, which would likely have other structural effects that could affect interactions with TIPE. This should be discussed by the authors because, in this reviewer's opinion, the data presented do not shed light on the specific TIPE domain requirements for the interaction with PKM2.

Thanks for your suggestions. We have discussed this phenomenon in our manuscripts.

- Figure 4: The authors show that PKM2 recruitment to the promoters of GLUT1 and LDHA is induced by TIPE expression. Is HIF1a recruitment also induced by TIPE? This is a key gap in the detailed molecular analysis provided by the authors.

Thanks for your suggestions. This phenomenon you mentioned is very interesting, however, the expression of GLUT1 and LDHA was completely decreased when we overexpression of TIPE and PKM2 (S37A) compared to overexpression of TIPE and wild PKM2. Therefore, we believe that the higher expression of GLUT1 and LDHA was primarily promoted by TIPE-induced PKM2 recruitment.

- Figure 6: The authors present nice data for general pluripotency/stem cell markers however given melanocytes arise from the neural crest, and neural crest markers are expressed during melanoma initiation and response to therapies, analysis of neural crest stem cell markers would be appropriate to include in this analysis. For example, Sox10, Pax3, NGFR, and AQP2 have all been identified as neural crest stem cell markers expressed in both melanoma patients and experimental models.

Thanks for your advices. We have selected two neural crest stem cell markers including Nestin and Sox10 to test their expression after overexpression of TIPE in G361 cells or interference of TIPE in A375 cells.

Minor comments:

- All Figure and Supplementary Figure legends should indicate how many replicate experiments the data represents, and all error bars should be defined (StDev vs SEM).

We have added as you suggested.

- Supplementary Figure S1C - can the authors confirm the densitometry values on the western, as the band looks to be considerably larger than 1.6 fold higher compared to the control?

We redone the densitometry measurement by ImageJ. However, the result still the same.

- FACs panels in Supplementary Figure 2C-D are unreadable and should be enlarged.

- Supplementary Figure S2i - quantification of Ki67 images appears warranted.

- Supplementary Figure S2j - The text in the figure panel is too small and needs to be increased so the data can be interpreted accurately. Also, the authors should confirm the data is specifically from melanoma patients in the figure legend.

We have improved the quality of the figures and revised their descriptions for greater clarity and coherence, ensuring that they effectively highlight the key results of our study.

- Figure 1A - text on the heat map cannot be read. Gene-level information can be removed, and sample labels should be made larger. In panel D, no statistical analysis is shown for the metabolomics analysis. These should be added, or the authors should modify the text when referring to these data.

We have improved the quality of the figures and revised their descriptions for greater clarity and coherence, ensuring that they effectively highlight the key results of our study.

- Line 127: RNAseq data does not indicate a change in metabolites; text should be changed to say "TIPE dramatically promoted expression of genes...".

We have corrected as you suggested.

- Supplementary Figure S3c - Labels and correlation values are not readable.

- Figure 2A - The text and details in the figure are difficult to read.

- Figure S4 D-H - text in figure panels too small to read.

Thank you for above three questions, we have carefully reviewed the entire document to ensure all figures are clear and correctly cited, preventing any confusion and maintaining the integrity of our research findings.

- Figure 3 - the legend restates the major observations and interpretations of the figure, however does not contain enough information about what the data represents or how it was generated. The interpretation of the data should be made in the main text. For example, in panel 3. F-G the number of individual cells quantified for the analysis should be stated. In addition, given the data are generated from two completely independent cell lines, it would be more appropriate to have separate graphs for the A375 cells and G361 cells. The signal levels in the respective controls at baseline are very different, and plotted together without clear labels, making the reader question the validity of the data when this just reflects different basal signals in different cell models.

We have separated the graphs for the A375 cells and G361 cells.

- Figure 4 B-C - IgG controls are missing in Co-IP experiments.

We have added the IgG controls as you suggested.

- Figure 5F - The unit of measure of time should be indicated on the axes; is this days?

We measured the tumor volumes for 7 times every 5 days. We have added the detailed description in the materials and methods section.

- Line 348: error in text, mammosphere which should presumably be tumorsphere if from melanoma cells.

Thanks for your suggestions, we have corrected this term to "tumorsphere" and conducted a thorough language and grammar review of the manuscript to ensure its professional presentation.

- Methods: more experimental details for the transcriptomic, mass spec, and metabolomics studies should be provided. There are insufficient details if readers wish to repeat these experiments.

Thanks for your suggestions, we have corrected as you advised.

eLife assessment

In this study, Ferling and colleagues provide convincing evidence demonstrating that myeloid cells exert distinct, cargo-dependent responses during and after phagocytosis. These important findings establish previously unrecognized insights into the function(s) of myeloid cells in immunosurveillance and are thus likely to be broadly impactful across the spectrum of biomedical disciplines including immunology and cell biology. Notwithstanding these clear strengths of the article, some minor issues were noted pertinent to the relative opaqueness of the mechanisms underpinning context-specific RhoA activation.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript uses PS-coated and IgG-opsonized targets to model the engulfment of apoptotic cells and pathogens. It demonstrates that differential activation of the respiratory burst accounts for variations in cell morphology, adhesion, and migration following phagocytosis of different particles. Specifically, reactive oxygen species produced by phagosomes containing IgG-opsonized targets activate Rho GTPases. This activation triggers Formin- and ERM-dependent compaction of the cortical actin network, leading to rounded cell morphology, reduced membrane ruffling, disassembly of podosomes, and decreased migration. Some of these findings are validated in cells exposed to pathogens or soluble MAMPs.

Strengths:

The manuscript presents well-executed and controlled experiments. It proposes an intriguing model to explain the distinct behaviors of myeloid cells when confronted with different phagocytic cargoes and offers fresh insights into immune surveillance.

Weaknesses:

Certain aspects of the proposed model require further experimental evidence. The significance of the cellular behavioral differences in response to various phagocytic cargoes warrants further exploration within physiological contexts.

Specific comments:

How do reactive oxygen species lead to an increase in Rho activation while simultaneously reducing Rac activity? The underlying molecular mechanisms remain unresolved, although potential regulatory pathways are discussed.

Given that the number of phagocytosed particles affects cell behavior (SF1), it is important to ensure that an equivalent number of particles are phagocytosed when comparing cells treated with PS-beads and IgG-beads (Figure 1a). How was this experimentally controlled, and how many particles are phagocytosed under each condition?

Why were experiments conducted in BMDM, Raw264.7, and PMN cells under different conditions? For Raw264.7 and PMN cells, cell behavior was only compared between those treated with IgG-RBC and untreated cells. What occurs to these cells when they are exposed to PS-beads as opposed to IgG-beads?

How long does it take for cells treated with IgG-beads to recover and regain their mobility and surveillance activity? Does this recovery occur following a reduction in reactive oxygen species production?

A contractile actin cortex usually requires the activity of both Formin and myosin II. It is a bit surprising that inhibitors of ROCK and myosin II, when added to Raw cells engulfing IgG-RBC, did not affect podosome disassembly. Is the cytoskeletal rearrangement observed in Figure 2 also independent of myosin II activity?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Ferling et al. describes how phagocytosis of IgG but not PS-opsonized targets induces the cells to round up and disassemble their podosomes. The mechanism downstream of the FcR is then dissected. The authors show that RhoA-mediated actin polymerization is involved, as well as actin nucleators of the Formin family, but not ROCK or Myosin II. ERM proteins and ROS production play a role in podosome loss and RhoA activation. Similar observations were made after cells were put in contact with Candida albicans or with soluble LPS.

Strengths:

The manuscript is of very good scientific standards, based on solid cell biology and biochemistry approaches, both in a murine macrophage cell line and in murine primary macrophages. It reaches the criteria for a significant advance in the field.

Author response:

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

Reviewer 1:

Lines 43 to 46 cannot be referred to as methodology: 

"to investigate a) determinants of attribution; b) patterns of investigated events, including species and breed affected, history of previous abortion and recent stressful events, and the seasonality of cases; c) determinants of reporting, investigation and attribution; (d) cases in which zoonotic pathogens were detection". 

The above should be deleted from the methodology.  

The text is in the abstract and describes, in brief, analyses that we performed and the rationale for these analyses, which we consider relevant for understanding the approach.  As such, we think the text should remain.   

Italicize et al. in the citations

This has been done.

Reviewer 2: 

Data Presentation: While the analysis is comprehensive, the presentation of data could be enhanced with the use of more visual aids such as tables, graphs, or charts to illustrate key findings. 

While further visualisation of findings would be possible, we consider the key results are captured effectively in the existing figures and tables.  Open access to the data also allows for further analyses that might be of interest to readers. 

Discussion Section: The paper could benefit from a more in-depth discussion of the implications of the findings for disease control strategies and policy formulation in Tanzania. 

We thank the reviewer for this important comment.  In most of the paragraphs of the Discussion we discuss the implications of the findings with specific reference, where relevant, to disease control in Tanzania.  For example, in the paragraph regarding human capacity building, we discuss how LFOs might be incentivised to report health events and how this could improve the reach and sensitivity of future surveillance platforms.  Similarly, these issues are discussed in other paragraphs of the Discussion. 

Future Directions: Including recommendations for future research or areas for further investigation would add depth to the paper.

This suggestion has been acted upon and we have added text in the conclusion to describe recommendations for future research.

Reviewer 3:

The thoughts of the authors on the topic and its significance are implied, and the methodological approach needs further clarity.  The number of wards in the study area, statistical selection of wards, type of questionnaire ie open or close-ended. Statistical analyses of outcomes were not clearly elucidated in the manuscript. 

The number of wards and how they were selected (from randomly selected wards included in earlier cross-sectional exposure studies (Bodenham et al. 2021)) is described in the Abortion Surveillance Platform section of the Methods.  We have added description of the questionnaire to indicate that it was a mixture of open and closed questions. We have reviewed the statistical analyses and consider that they have been fully and appropriately described and so have not changed this. 

Fifteen wards were mentioned in the text but 13 used what were the exclusion criteria. 

As described, the study focussed on fifteen wards however two wards did not report any cases. As such, investigations only took place in thirteen of the fifteen wards and this has been described in the text. 

Observations were from pastoral, agropastoral, and smallholder agroecological farmers. No sample numbers or questionnaires were attributed to the above farming systems to correlate findings with management systems. 

As described, the 15 wards comprised five wards that were expected to be predominantly pastoral, three were expected to be predominantly agropastoral and seven expected to predominantly smallholder, and these categories were assigned by the research team following discussion with local experts (typically the district level veterinary officer) (Bodenham et al. 2021). As such, we consider this to be described sufficiently.  

The impacts of the research investigation output are not clearly visible as to warrant intervention methods. 

The aim of this paper was to provide insights on the feasibility and value of establishing a livestock abortion surveillance platform. The aetiological data that could be used to inform specific disease control measures or interventions was the focus of a previous paper (Thomas et al. 2022) as described in the text.    

What were the identified pathogens from laboratory investigation, particularly with the use of culture and PCR not even mentioning the zoonotic pathogens encountered if any? 

An earlier published paper describing the aetiology of the cases was mentioned (Thomas et al. 2022).  This paper fully describes the identified pathogens and the methods used for identification and attribution. Additionally, in the Sample Analysis section we describe the pathogens that were tested and the methods used.  In the section Exposure to Zoonotic Pathogens we specifically list Brucella spp. C. burnetiid, T. gondii and RVFV and so we consider that we have sufficiently described the pathogens tested for, the methods and the zoonotic pathogens detected. 

The public health importance of any of the abortifacient agents was not highlighted. 

The Introduction provides background information on the public health importance of abortifacient agents and we dedicate a whole section (Exposure to Zoonotic Pathogens) to the public health implications of the number of cases in which zoonotic pathogens were detected. Additionally, we discuss the implications of this in the Discussion. 

Comments in manuscript itself:

Line 230: Why are you estimating. The study was supposed to be based on real time abortion events or at least abortion events within 72 hours

We were estimating the sensitivity of the platform by dividing the number of investigated abortion cases by the number of abortions for the livestock population in each of the study wards that would have been expected over the study period.  Because the denominator in this calculation was an expected number, and not a measured count, we can only estimate.

236: In areas where there was no reported abortion event why will you estimate. This action will lead to false conclusion of abortion event in area that did have an event.

We think there has been some misunderstanding of what this section of text was describing. We were not attributing a case to an area where there was none. Rather, as mentioned above, the aim of this particular analysis was to estimate the sensitivity of the platform. To achieve this, we needed to estimate what the expected number of abortion cases in each ward would have been. 

279: Give a brief description of R

A citation and some explanatory text have been added.

348: Table 1: Your table did not show cases where estimate values were used

We think this comment has resulted from the confusion described above regarding estimated cases.  Table 1 has summary data for the actual cases that were reported in the study and does not have the data for the estimated number of abortions that were expected to have occurred in each ward.  As described in line 247, this data is given in Supplementary Materials 3.

404: Not clear, please rephase

This sentence has been re-drafted to improve clarity

467: Why are you numbering the findings of your investigation in your discussion? You have not told us about the previous abortion event in your study area prior to this study and why you embarked on this study in this regions. The current abortion event situation in your country based on other researchers work is missing and how your findings is important as it related to similar investigation elsewhere.

We number the key findings for clarity and to make each finding distinct and so prefer to retain it. 

The study area was chosen because it was the site of an earlier cross-sectional exposure study within which the wards were randomly selected.  As a result, thirteen of the fifteen wards targeted in the reported study were randomly selected.  Two additional wards were selected purposively because of strong existing relationships with the livestock-keeping community.  This was explained in the Methods in Lines 161 – 164. 

Regarding livestock abortion in Tanzania, as explained in the Introduction (lines 112-114), there is little data on abortion in livestock in Tanzania and elsewhere. Nonetheless, in the Discussion, we do describe the results with respect to other abortion studies carried out in

Ethiopia, Nigeria and India (lines 592-598). Moreover, as described in the Introduction (line 90-94), the implementation of syndromic or event-based surveillance in livestock is rare and to the authors’ knowledge has mostly been implemented in Europe, North America or Australasia with only a single pilot project identified in Africa.  

494: Why will you use an estimate for abortion event that were not reported

As described above, this comment reflects a misunderstanding of what was being described.  As written in line 494, an attempt was made to gauge the sensitivity of the surveillance platform by estimating the percentage of expected abortions that the investigated cases represented. That is, to estimate the percentage of abortions that the surveillance platform managed to detect, we divided the number of investigated abortions by the expected number of abortions (in each ward).  The method for this estimation was described in lines 228-238.  

511: Why was farming pattern excluded. Livestock rearing condition is equally critical for this type of investigation example an animal reared intensive system farming method will definitely experience different stress than livestock on nomadic free range system

We agree with the reviewer that livestock rearing system might be expected to impact both the aetiology and incidence of livestock abortion.  However, because the number of wards was small and the distribution across system not equal, any association between investigated cases and and livestock rearing system could not be assessed.  We have made this clearer with additional text in the same paragraph of the Discussion.

529: Nothing was mentioned about educating the farmers or livestock owners to assist in some instances on possible sample collection during this abortion events and

sending these samples as quickly as possible to the central laboratory in suitable condition for investigation and result of the finding communicated back to the farmers

Because abortions can be caused by zoonotic pathogens, we did not involve livestock keepers in the collection of samples.  Rather, sample collection was carried out by the research team and livestock field officers who had received appropriate training.  In addition, results were reported back to the livestock keepers within 10 days of the investigation and, where pathogens were detected, more specific advice provided as to management strategies that could minimise further transmission to livestock and people. This is all described in the Methods (lines 181-199).

540: The livestock owner can be taught how to collect vaginal swab and send samples under suitable condition to the laboratory and the findings reported back to them.

Please see above response.

549: Please summerise.

Line 549-581 succinctly describes the attribution of cases to specific pathogens.  The text given is required for comprehension and any further summarisation could impact understanding. Consequently, we have left the text as it is. 

584: Please summerise.

Line 584-626 describes the patterns of livestock abortion in Tanzania.  The text given is required to fully discuss the findings and any further reduction in text could impact understanding. Consequently, we have left the text as it is.

eLife assessment

This important study reports the use of a surveillance approach in identifying emerging diseases, monitoring disease trends, and informing evidence-based interventions in the control and prevention of livestock abortions, as it relates to their public health implications. The data support the convincing finding that abortion incidence is higher during the dry season, and occurs more in cross-bred and exotic livestock breeds. Aetiological and epidemiological data can be generated through established protocols for sample collection and laboratory diagnosis. These findings are of potential interest to the fields of veterinary medicine, public health, and epidemiology.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The paper examined livestock abortion, as it is an important disease syndrome that affects productivity and livestock economies. If livestock abortion remains unexamined it poses risks to public health.

Several pathogens are associated with livestock abortions but across Africa however the livestock disease surveillance data rarely include information from abortion events, little is known about the aetiology and impacts of livestock abortions, and data are not available to inform prioritisation of disease interventions. Therefore the current study seeks to examine the issue in detail and proposes some solutions.

The study took place in 15 wards in northern Tanzania spanning pastoral, agropastoral and smallholder agro-ecological systems. The key objective is to investigate the causes and impacts of livestock abortion.

The data collection system was set up such that farmers reported abortion cases to the field officers of the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries livestock<br /> The reports were made to the investigation teams. The team only included abortion of those that the livestock field officers could attend to within 72 hours of the event occurring.

Also a field investigation was carried out to collect diagnostic samples from aborted materials. In addition aborting dams and questionnaires were administer to collect data on herd/flock management. Laboratory diagnostic tests were carried out for a range of abortigenic pathogens

Over the period of the study 215 abortion events in cattle (n=71), sheep (n=44) and goats (n=100) were investigated. In all 49 investigated cases varied widely across wards, with three .The Aetiological attribution, achieved for 19.5% of cases through PCR-based diagnostics, was significantly affected by delays in field investigation.

The result also revealed that vaginal swabs from aborting dams provided a practical and sensitive source of diagnostic material for pathogen detection.

Livestock abortion surveillance can generate valuable information on causes of zoonotic disease outbreaks, and livestock reproductive losses and can identify important pathogens that are not easily captured through other forms of livestock disease surveillance. The study demonstrated the feasibility of establishing an effective reporting and investigation system that could be implemented across a range of settings, including remote rural areas,

Strengths:

The paper combines both science and socio economic methodology to achieve the aim of the study.

The methodology was well presented and the sequence was great. The authors explain where and how the data was collected. Figure 2 was used to describe the study area which was excellently done. The section on Investigation of cases was well written. The sample analysis was also well written. The authors devoted a section to summarizing the investigated cases and description of the livestock 221-study population. The logic model has been well presented

Weaknesses:

All the weaknesses identified have been resolved by the the authors

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the importance of livestock abortion surveillance in Tanzania. The authors aim to highlight the significance of this surveillance system in identifying disease priorities and guiding interventions to mitigate the impact of livestock abortions on both animal and human health.

Summary:

The paper begins by discussing the context of livestock farming in Tanzania and the significant economic and social impact of livestock abortions. The authors then present a detailed overview of the livestock abortion surveillance system in Tanzania, including its objectives, methods, and data collection process. They analyze the data collected from this surveillance system over a specific period to identify the major causes of livestock abortions and assess their public health implications.

Evaluation:

Overall, this paper provides valuable insights into the importance of livestock abortion surveillance as a tool for disease prioritization and intervention planning in Tanzania. The authors effectively demonstrate the utility of this surveillance system in identifying emerging diseases, monitoring disease trends, and informing evidence-based interventions to control and prevent livestock abortions.

Strengths:

(1) Clear Objective: The paper clearly articulates its objective of highlighting the value of livestock abortion surveillance in Tanzania.

(2) Comprehensive Analysis: The authors provide a thorough analysis of the surveillance system, including its methodology, data collection process, and findings as seen in the supplementary files.

(3) Practical Implications: The paper discusses the practical implications of the surveillance system for disease control and public health interventions in Tanzania.

(4) Well-Structured: The paper is well-organized, with clear sections and subheadings that facilitate understanding and navigation.

All suggestions made for improvement of the manuscript have been appropriately effected.

Final Recommendation:

Overall, this paper makes a significant contribution to the literature on livestock abortion surveillance and its implications for disease control in Tanzania.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The authors delved into an important aspect of abortifacient diseases of livestock in Tanzania. The thoughts of the authors on the topic and its significance have been clarified. The number of wards in the study area, statistical selection of wards, type of questionnaire ie open or close ended. and statistical analyses of outcomes have been clearly elucidated in the manuscript. The exclusion criteria for two wards out of the fifteen wards mentioned in the text are clearly stated. Observations were from pastoral, agro-pastoral and small holder agro ecological farmers. Sample numbers or questionnaires attributed to the above farming systems correlate findings with management systems. The impacts of the research investigation output are clearly visible as to warrant intervention methods. The identified pathogens from laboratory investigation, particularly with the use of culture and PCR, as well as the zoonotic pathogens encountered are stated in the manuscript and the supplementary files.

In conclusion, based on the intent of the authors and content of this research, and the weight of the research topic, the seeming weaknesses in the critical data analysis observed have been clarified, to demonstrate cause, effect and impact.

The authors have carried out the necessary corrections.

The findings do imply that identification of some of the abortifacient of livestock in Tanzania will necessitate important interventions in the control of the diseases in the study area

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Deletion of the hrp2 and hrp3 loci in P. falciparum poses an immediate public health threat. This manuscript provides a more complete understanding of the dynamic nature with which these deletions are generated. By delving into the likely mechanisms behind their generation, the authors also provide interesting insight into general Plasmodium biology that can inform our broader understanding of the parasite's genomic evolution.

Strengths:

The sub-telomeric regions of P. falciparum (where hrp2 and hrp3 are located) are notoriously difficult to study with short-read sequence data. The authors take an appropriate, targeted approach toward studying the loci of interest, which includes read-depth analysis and local haplotype reconstruction. They additionally use both long-read and short-read data to validate their major findings. There is an extensive set of supplementary plots, which helps clarify several aspects of the data.

Weaknesses:

In this first version, there are a few factors that hinder a full assessment of the robustness and replicability of the results.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Reviewer comment: First, a number of the analyses lack basic details in the methods; for instance, one must visit the authors' personal website to find some of the tools used.

We have extensively updated the methods to clarify which tools were used and how they were run. All code and results for the analyses have been deposited in Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12167687.

Reviewer comment: Second, there are several tricky methodological points that are not fully documented. Read depths are treated (and plotted) discretely as 0/1/2 without any discussion of how thresholds were used and determined.

We have added to the methods section the full details on how read depth was handled, including rounding to the closest 1 normalized coverage for visualizations. To ensure analysis of only highly confident deleted strains, normalized coverage of 0.1 or more was round to 1 instead of 0. Samples were considered for potential genomic deletion if they had zero coverage after rounding from chromosome 8 1,375,557 to 1,387,982 for pfhrp2, chromosome 13 from 2,841,776 to 2,844,785 for pfhrp3, and from chromosome 11 1,991,347 to 2,003,328. These numbers were chosen after visual inspection of samples with any zero coverage within the genomic region of pfhrp2/3.

Reviewer comment: For read mapping to standard vs hybrid chromosomes, there is no documentation on how assignments were made if partially ambiguous or how final sample calls were determined when some reads were discordant. There is no mention of how missing data were handled. Without this, it is difficult to know when conclusions were based on analyses that were more quantitative (for instance, using pre-determined read thresholds) or more subjective (with patterns being extracted visually).

We have updated several parts of the methods section to explicitly state what thresholds and analysis pipelines to use, making our documentation clearer. For mapping to the hybrid vs standard chromosomes for the long reads, spanning reads across the duplicated region were required to extend 50bp upstream and downstream of the region. These regions are significantly different between chromosomes 11 and 13, so requiring spanning reads to map to these regions prevented multi-mapping reads. Reads that started within the duplicated region were allowed to map to both the hybrid and standard chromosomes for visualization in Figure 4. Importantly, for both HB3 and SD01, no reads spanned from the duplicated region into chromosome 13, showing a complete lack of reads that contained the portion of chromosome 13 that came after the duplicated region. None of the other isolates had any spanning reads across the hybrid chromosomes. Details on deletion calls were based on initial visualization of pfhrp2/3 and then on read thresholds (see above response for details).

Reviewer comment: Third, while a new method is employed for local haplotype reconstruction (PathWeaver), the manuscript does not include details on this approach or benchmarking data with which to evaluate its performance and understand any potential artifacts.

We have added an analysis based on biallelic SNPs to compare to the PathWeaver results, which produced similar results to help validate the PathWeaver results. PathWeaver manuscript is in preparation.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This work investigates the mechanisms, patterns, and geographical distribution of pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 deletions in Plasmodium falciparum. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) detect P. falciparum histidine-rich protein 2 (PfHRP2) and its paralog PfHRP3 located in subtelomeric regions. However, laboratory and field isolates with deletions of pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 that can escape diagnosis by RDTs are spreading in some regions of Africa. They find that pfhrp2 deletions are less common and likely occur through chromosomal breakage with subsequent telomeric healing. Pfhrp3 deletions are more common and show three distinct patterns: loss of chromosome 13 from pfhrp3 to the telomere with evidence of telomere healing at breakpoint (Asia; Pattern 13-); duplication of a chromosome 5 segment containing pfhrp1 on chromosome 13 through non-allelic homologous recombination (NAHR) (Asia; Pattern 13-5++); and the most common pattern, duplication of a chromosome 11 segment on chromosome 13 through NAHR (Americas/Africa; Pattern 13-11++). The loss of these genes impacts the sensitivity of RDTs, and knowing these patterns and geographic distribution makes it possible to make better decisions for malaria control.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

The study provides a detailed analysis of the chromosomal rearrangements related to the deletions of histidine-rich protein 2 (pfhrp2) and pfhrp3 genes in P. falciparum that have clinical significance since malaria rapid diagnostic tests detect these parasite proteins. A large number of publicly available short sequence reads for the whole genome of the parasite were analyzed, and data on coverage and discordant mapping allowed the authors to identify deletions, duplications, and chromosomal rearrangements related to pfhrp3 deletions. Long-read sequences showed support for the presence of a normal chromosome 11 and a hybrid 13-11 chromosome lacking pfhrp3 in some of the pfhrp3-deleted parasites. The findings support that these translocations have repeatedly occurred in natural populations. The authors discuss the implications of these findings and how they do or do not support previous hypotheses on the emergence of these deletions and the possible selective pressures involved.

Strengths:

The genomic regions where these genes are located are challenging to study since they are highly repetitive and paralogous and the use of long-read sequencing allowed to span the duplicated regions, giving support to the identification of the hybrid 13-11 chromosome.

All publicly available whole-genome sequences of the malaria parasite from around the world were analysed which allowed an overview of the worldwide variability, even though this analysis is biased by the availability of sequences, as the authors recognize.

Despite the reduced sample size, the detailed analysis of haplotypes and identification of the location of breakpoints gives support to a single origin event for the 13-5++ parasites.

The analysis of haplotype variation across the duplicated chromosome-11 segment identified breakpoints at varied locations that support multiple translocation events in natural populations. The authors suggest these translocations may be occurring at high frequency in meiosis in natural populations but are strongly selected against in most circumstances, which remains to be tested.

Weaknesses:

Reviewer comment: Relying on sequence data publicly available, that were collected based on diagnostic test positivity and that are limited by sequencing availability, limits the interpretation of the occurrence and relative frequency of the deletions.

However, we have uncovered more mechanisms than previously detected for hrp2 (involving MDR1) in SEA and South American parasites are likely detected by microscopy as RDTs were never introduced due to the presence of the deletions.

Reviewer comment: In the discussion, caution is needed when identifying the least common and most common mechanisms and their geographical associations. The identification of only one type of deletion pattern for Pfhrp2 may be related to these biases.

We added a section in the Discussion on the limitations of our study, which states the following, “Limitations of this study include the use of publicly available sequencing data that were collected often based on positive rapid diagnostic tests, which limits our interpretation of the occurrence and relative frequency of these deletions. This could introduce regional biases due to different diagnostic methods as well as limit the full range of deletion mechanisms, particularly pfhrp2.”

Reviewer comment: The specific objectives of the study are not stated clearly, and it is sometimes difficult to know which findings are new to this study. Is it the first study analyzing all the worldwide available sequences? Is it the first one to do long-read sequencing to span the entire duplicated region?

In the Introduction, we added, “The objectives of this study were to determine the pfhrp3 deletion patterns along with their geographical associations and sequence and assemble the chromosomes containing the deletions using long-read sequencing.”

We also added in the Discussion, “To the best of our knowledge, no prior studies have performed long-read sequencing to definitively span and assemble the entire segmental duplication involved in the deletions.”

Reviewer comment: Another aspect that should be explained in the introduction is that there was previous information about the association of the deletions to patterns found in chromosomes 5 and 11. In the short-read sequences results, it is not clear if these chromosomes were analysed because of the associations found in this study (and no associations were found to putative duplications or deletions in other chromosomes), or if they were specifically included in the analysis because of the previous information (and the other chromosomes were not analysed).

The former is correct. Chromosomes 5 and 11 were analyzed due to the associations found in this study, not from prior information. We have added the following sentence in the Results: “As a result of our short-read analysis demonstrating these three patterns and discordant reads between the chromosomes involved, chromosomes 5, 11, and 13 were further examined. No other chromosomes had associated discordant reads or changes in read coverage. ”

Reviewer comment: An interesting statement in the discussion is that existing pfhrp3 deletions in a low-transmission environment may provide a genetic background on which less frequent pfhrp2 deletion events can occur. Does it mean that the occurrence of pfhrp3 deletions would favor the pfhrp2 deletion events? How, and is there any evidence for that?

We should have stated more explicitly that selection would better be able to act on the now doubly deleted parasite versus a parasite with HRP3 still intact and weakly detectable by RDTs.Since fully RDT-negative parasites require a two-hit mechanism, where both pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 need to be deleted, and since there appear to be more mechanisms and drivers for pfhrp3 deletions, this would create a population of parasites with one hit already and would only require the additional hit of pfhrp2 deletion to occur to become RDT negative. So the point in the discussion being made is not that the pfhrp3 deletion would favor pfhrp2 deletion but rather that there is a population circulating with one hit already, which would make it more likely that the less frequent pfhrp2 deletion would result in a dual deleted parasite and therefore an RDT-negative parasite. The discussion has been modified to the following to try to make this point more clear. “In the setting of RDT use in a low-transmission environment, a pfhrp2 deletion occurring in the context of an existing pfhrp3 deletion may be more strongly selected for compared to pfhrp2 deletion occurring alone still detectable by RDTs.”

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Reviewer comment: In the text, clonal propagation is the proposed hypothesis for the presence of near-identical copies of the chromosome 11 duplicated region. Even among the parasites showing variation between chromosomes, Figure 5 shows 3 haplotype groups with multiple sample members, which is also suggestive that these are highly related parasites. In addition to confirming COI status, it would be straightforward to calculate the genome-wide relatedness between/among parasites belonging to the same haplotype group. The assumption is that they are clones or highly related. A different finding would require more thought into potential genomic artifacts driving the pattern.

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We confirmed the COI of each sample using THE REAL McCOIL. Six samples were not monoclonal, and we removed these samples from the downstream analysis to remove any contribution of polyclonal samples to the downstream haplotype analysis. Then, by using hmmIBD on whole-genome biallelic SNPs, we determined the whole-genome relatedness between the parasites. The haplotype groups do appear clonal though there appear to be several clonal groups within the larger groups of clusters 01 (n=28) and 03 (n=12) which combined with the variation seen within the 15.2kb region on chromosome 11/13, there appears to be different events that then lead to the same duplicated chromosome 11.

Reviewer comment: By way of validating the PathWeaver results, it could be useful to use another comparator method on the samples that are COI=1 or 2.

We have added an analysis based on biallelic SNPs to compare to the PathWeaver results, which produced similar results to help validate the PathWeaver results. We continued to use PathWeaver (Hathaway, in preparation), which is better able to detect variation relative to standard GATK4 analyses due to the refined local alignments from assembled haplotypes.

Questions regarding Methods:

Reviewer comment: Were any metrics of genome quality factored into sample selection?

Yes, samples were removed if there was less than <5x median whole genome coverage. Additionally, several subsets of sWGA samples were removed based on visual inspection. These details have been added to the methods section.

Reviewer comment: How were polyclonal samples treated to ensure they did not produce analysis artifacts?

The read-depth analysis required zero coverage across the regions of pfhrp2/pfhrp3, which made it so that most of the samples analyzed were monoclonal (or polyclonal infections of only deleted strains). We have now used THE REAL McCOIL on whole genome SNPs to determine COIs. Six samples were identified as polyclonal, and we removed them for the analysis and updated the manuscript. Their removal did not significantly impact the results or conclusions.

Reviewer comment: How was local realignment of short-read data performed? Was this step informed by the conserved, non-paralogous genomic regions, or were these only used for downstream variant analysis?

No local realignment of short-read data was performed. The analysis was either read depth or de novo assembly from reads from specific regions. Regarding the de novo assembly, variant calls were replaced by complete local haplotypes, and a region was typed based on the haplotype called for the region.

Reviewer comment: For read-depth estimation, what cutoffs were used to classify windows as deletion, WT, or duplication? How much variability was present in the data? The plot legends imply a continuous scale, but in reality, only 3 discrete colors are used (0, 1, 2), so these must represent the data after rounding.

These have been added to the manuscript. See response to Reviewer #1 questions #2 and #3 above

Reviewer comment: Similarly, what thresholds were used for mapping the long-reads? In Fig S21, it appears there is a high proportion of discordant reads.

Long reads were mapped using minimap2 with default settings. For Figure 21, since it is from the mappings to 3D7 chromosome 11 and hybrid 3D7 13-11 chromosome, the genome from the duplicated region from the blue bar underneath is identical, so reads are expected to map to both since the genome regions are identical. The significance of this figure and Figure 4 is the number of long reads that span the whole chr11/13 duplicated region connection the 3D7 chromosome 11 and the hybrid proving that there are reads that start with chromosome 13 sequence and end with chromosome 11 sequence and the lack of reads that span from chromosome 13 into the 3D7 chromosome 13.

Reviewer comment: The section on the mdr1 breakpoints is too vague.

We have updated the methods section to be more explicit about how these breakpoints were determined.

Reviewer comment: I assume that the "Homologous Genomic Structure" section of the Methods is the number analysis that was alluded to in the Results? As with other sections, this needs more information on exact methods and tools

We have now updated the methods section to include exactly how the nucmer commands were run.

Smaller comments:

Reviewer comment: Introduction sub-header: "Precise *pfhrp2* and..."

We have corrected the sub-header.

Reviewer comment: Results (p.5) cite Table S4 instead of S3

We have corrected this to Table S3.

Reviewer comment: Results (p.5) "We identified 27 parasites with pfhrp2 deletion, 172 with pfhrp3 deletion, and 21 with both pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 deletions." This sentence makes it sound like they are 3 mutually exclusive categories. I'd suggest a rewording like "We identified 27 parasites with pfhrp2 deletion and 172 with pfhrp3 deletion. Of these, 21 contained both deletions."

We have re-worded this sentence to the following: “We identified 26 parasites with pfhrp2 deletion and 168 with pfhrp3 deletion. Twenty field samples contained both deletions; 11 were found in Ethiopia, 6 in Peru, and 3 in Brazil, and all had the 13-11++ pfhrp3 deletion pattern.”

Reviewer comment: The annotations used for the deletions differ between the text and the figures. It would be easier for the reader to harmonize the two if these matched.

The figures have been updated to reflect the annotations of the text.

Reviewer comment: Figure numbering does not match the order they are first referenced in the text

The figure numbers have been updated to match the order in which they are first referenced.

Reviewer comment: Results (p. 8) there is no Table S4

This has been changed to Table S3.

Reviewer comment: Results (p.8) mention a genome-wide number analysis, but I couldn't find these results. The referenced figure is for the duplicated region only.

We have updated to point to the correct location of the nucmer results by adding a supplemental table with the results and updated to point to the correct figure.

Reviewer comment: Discussion typo: "Here, we used publicly available short-read and long-read *short-read sequencing data* from..."

This was not a typo, as we used publicly available PacBio long-read data and then generated new Nanopore long-read data. However, we did clarify this in the sentence.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Introduction

Reviewer comment: "(...) suggesting the genes have important infections in normal infections and their loss is selected against". The word "infections" is in place of "role", etc.

We have changed the word accordingly.

Results

Reviewer comment: In the section "Pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 deletions in the global P. falciparum genomic dataset" it is mentioned the number of parasites with each deletion and where it is more common. "We identified 27 parasites with pfhrp2 deletion, 172 with pfhrp3 deletion, and 21 with both pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 deletions." and "Across all regions, pfhrp3 deletions were more common than pfhrp2 deletions; specifically, pfhrp3 deletions and pfhrp2 deletions were present in Africa in 43 and 12, Asia in 53 and 4, and South America in 76 and 11 parasites." It is not clear where the 21 parasites with both pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 deletions are located.

We have specified the following in the Results section: “We identified 26 parasites with pfhrp2 deletion and 168 with pfhrp3 deletion. Twenty field samples contained both deletions; 11 were found in Ethiopia, 6 in Peru, and 3 in Brazil, and all had the 13-11++ pfhrp3 deletion pattern”

Reviewer comment: "It should be noted that these numbers are not accurate measures of prevalence given that most WGS specimens have been collected based on RDT positivity." This, combined with the fact that subtelomeric regions are difficult to sequence and assembly, means these numbers are underestimated. I believe it should be more stressed in the text.

We have added the following sentence, “Furthermore, subtelomeric regions are difficult to sequence and assemble, meaning these numbers may be significantly underestimated.”

Reviewer comment: In the section "Pattern 13-11++ breakpoint occurs in a segmental duplication of ribosomal genes on chromosomes 11 and 13", Figures 2a and 2b should be mentioned in the text instead of just Figure 2.

We have specified Figures 2a and 2b in the text now.

Figures and Tables:

Reviewer comment: Figure 2: I believe the color scale for percentage of identity is unnecessary given that the goal is to show that the paralogs are highly similar, and not that there is a significant difference between 0.99 and 0.998.

Updated the color scale to represent the number of variants between segments rather than percent identity which ranges between 55-133 so that it represents something more discreet than 0.99 and 0.998.

Reviewer comment: Adjust Figure 2b and the size of supplementary figure legends.Supplementary Figure 5-15: the legends are hard to read.

All legends have been adjusted to be much more readable.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Some minor suggestions:

Reviewer comment: The order of the figures should follow the flow of the text, for example, Figure 5 appears in the text between Figure 1 and Figure 2.

We have reordered the figures according to the order in which they appear in the text.

Reviewer comment: Page 3 - "deleted parasites" - better to use: pfhrp2/3-deleted parasites.

We have edited this accordingly.

Reviewer comment: Define the acronyms the first time they are used, e.g. SEA.

We have defined the acronyms accordingly.

Reviewer comment: In the figures where pfmdr1 appears, indicate the correspondence to the full name of the gene that appears in the legend (multidrug resistance protein 1).

Legends updated.

Reviewer comment: Page 5 - Table S4 is missing.

We apologize for our typo. There is no Table S4. We meant to refer to Table S3, which has been updated accordingly.

Reviewer comment: Page 5 - "We identified 27 parasites with pfhrp2 deletion, 172 with pfhrp3 deletion, and 21 with both pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 deletions" - is it "and 21..." OR "from which, 21..."?

We have reworded the sentence to the following: “We identified 26 parasites with pfhrp2 deletion and 168 with pfhrp3 deletion. Twenty field samples contained both deletions; 11 were found in Ethiopia, 6 in Peru, and 3 in Brazil, and all had the 13-11++ pfhrp3 deletion pattern.”

Reviewer comment: Page 5 - "most WGS specimens have been collected based on RDT positivity." - explain better which tests are done - to detect pfhrp2, pfhrp3 or both?

Co-occurrence is not detected?

We used all publicly available WGS data that spanned over 30 studies, and the exact details of what RDTs were used are not readily available to fully answer this question. Though the exact details of RDTs are not known, this does not affect the deletion patterns found in the genomic data but does limit the ability to comment on how this affects prevalence. We have updated the manuscript to the following to be more explicit that we don’t have the full details: “It should be noted that these numbers are not accurate measures of prevalence, given that the publicly available WGS specimens utilized in this analysis come from locations and time periods that commonly used RDT positivity for collection”

Reviewer comment: Supplementary Figure 1 - Legend for "Pattern" - what is the white?

The “Pattern” refers to pfhrp3 deletion pattern with “white” being no pfhrp3 deletion. The annotation title has been changed to “pfhrp3- Pattern” to make this more clear and added to the text of the legend the following:”Of the 6 parasites without HRP3 deletion (marked as white in pfhrp3- Pattern column for having no pfhrp3 deletion),...”

Reviewer comment: Supplementary Figure 8 - explain the haplotype rank. How was it obtained?

The haplotype rank is based on the prevalence of the haplotype. To clarify this better the following has been added to the caption “Each column contains the haplotypes for that genomic region colored by the haplotype prevalence rank (more prevalent have a lower rank number, with most prevalent having rank 1) at that window/column. Colors are by frequency rank of the haplotypes (most prevalent haplotypes have rank 1 and colored red, 2nd most prevalent haplotypes are rank 2 and colored orange, and so forth. Shared colors between columns do not mean they are the same haplotype. If the column is black, there is no variation at that genomic window.”

Reviewer comment: Figure 1 - Pattern in legend appears 11++13- but in text it is always referenced as 13-11++

Figure legend has been updated to reflect the annotation within the text

Reviewer comment: Page 6 - pattern 13- is which one(s) in Figure 1?

This refers to the 13- with TARE1 sequence detected, the text has been updated to “(pattern 13-TARE1)” and the legend of Figure 1 has been updated so these statements match more closely.

Reviewer comment: Page 7 - states "The 21 parasites with pattern 13-" and refers to Supplementary Figure 3 which presents "50 parasites with deletion pattern 13-". I believe this is pattern 13- unassociated with other rearrangements but it should be made clear in the text and legend of the supplementary figure.

Thank you, you are correct. The manuscript has been updated in two locations for better clarity. The text has been updated to be “The 20 parasites with pattern 13-TARE1 without associated other chromosome rearrangements had deletions of the core genome averaging 19kb (range: 11-31kb). Of these 13-TARE1 deletions, 19 out of 20 had detectable TARE1 (pattern 13-TARE) adjacent to the breakpoint, consistent with telomere healing.” The Supplemental Figure 3 legend has been updated to “for the 48 parasites with pfhrp3 deletions not associated with pattern 13-11++”

Reviewer comment: Supplementary figure 25 - "regions containing the pfhrp genes (lighter blue bars below chromosomes 11 and 13)" - the light blue bars are shown below chromosome 8 and 13; what is the difference between yellow and pink bars (telomere associates repetitive elements in the truncated legend)?

The yellow bars are associated with the telomere-associated repetitive element 3 and the pink bars are telomere-associated repetitive element 1. To add clarity the legend has been updated to be “The yellow (TARE3) and pink (TARE1) bars on the bottom of the chromosomes represent the telomere-associated repetitive elements found at the end of chromosomes.”

Reviewer comment: It would be helpful to have a positioning scale in the figures.

Most plots have y-axis and x-axis with the genomic positioning labeled which can serve as a positioning scale so we opted not to add more to the figures to keep them less crowded. Other plots have regions plotted in genomic order but are all relatively positioned which prevents the usage of a positioning scale, we tried to clarify this by adding more details to the captions of these figures.

Reviewer comment: Legend of Figure 6 - The last paragraph seems to be out of place

We have deleted the last sentence in the legend of Figure 6 accordingly.

eLife assessment

This work provides important insight into the mechanisms of hrp2 and particularly hrp3 deletion generation. The generation of additional long-read data alongside a new analysis of 19,000 public short-read sequenced genomes makes this the most detailed investigation currently available on this topic, which has high public health importance and also basic biological interest. The revised version of the manuscript provides convincing evidence for the proposed mechanisms.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Deletion of the hrp2 and hrp3 loci in P. falciparum poses an immediate public health threat. This manuscript provides a more complete understanding of the dynamic nature with which these deletions are generated. By delving into the likely mechanisms behind their generation, the authors also provide interesting insight into general Plasmodium biology that can inform our broader understanding of the parasite's genomic evolution.

Strengths:

The sub-telomeric regions of P. falciparum (where hrp2 and hrp3 are located) are notoriously difficult to study with short-read sequence data. The authors take an appropriate, targeted approach toward studying the loci of interest, which includes read-depth analysis and local haplotype reconstruction. They additionally use both long-read and short-read data to validate their major findings. There is an extensive set of supplementary plots, which helps clarify several aspects of the data.

Weaknesses:

The revised version of this manuscript has helpfully expanded the details regarding methodology, however, publication of the tool PathWeaver (which is used for local haplotype reconstruction) remains in preparation.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This work investigates the mechanisms, patterns and geographical distribution of pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 deletions in Plasmodium falciparum. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) detect P. falciparum histidine-rich protein 2 (PfHRP2) and its paralog PfHRP3 located in subtelomeric regions. However, laboratory and field isolates with deletions of pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 that can escape diagnosis by RDTs are spreading in some regions of Africa. They find that pfhrp2 deletions are less common and likely occurs through chromosomal breakage with subsequent telomeric healing. Pfhrp3 deletions are more common and show three distinct patterns: loss of chromosome 13 from pfhrp3 to the telomere with evidence of telomere healing at breakpoint (Asia; Pattern 13-); duplication of a chromosome 5 segment containing pfhrp1 on chromosome 13 through non-allelic homologous recombination (NAHR) (Asia; Pattern 13-5++); and the most common pattern, duplication of a chromosome 11 segment on chromosome 13 through NAHR (Americas/Africa; Pattern 13-11++). The loss of these genes impact the sensitivity od RDTs, and knowing these patterns and geographic distribution makes it possible to make better decisions for malaria control.

Comments on latest version:

The authors answered all my questions.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The study provides a detailed analysis of the chromosomal rearrangements related to the deletions of histidine-rich protein 2 (pfhrp2) and pfhrp3 genes in P. falciparum that have clinical significance since malaria rapid diagnostic tests detect these parasite proteins. A large number of publicly available short sequence reads for whole-genome of the parasite were analyzed and data on coverage and on discordant mapping allowed to identify deletions, duplications and chromosomal rearrangements related to pfhrp3 deletions. Long-read sequences showed support for the presence of a normal chromosome 11 and a hybrid 13-11 chromosome lacking pfhrp3 in some of the pfhrp3-deleted parasites. The findings support that these translocations have repeatedly occurred in natural populations. The authors discuss the implications of these findings and how they support or not previous hypothesis on the emergence of these deletions and the possible selective pressures involved.

The genomic regions where these genes are located are challenging to study since they are highly repetitive and paralogous and the use of long read sequencing allowed to span the duplicated regions, giving support to the identification of the hybrid 13-11 chromosome.

All publicly available whole-genome sequences of the malaria parasite from around the world were analysed which allowed an overview of the worldwide variability, even though this analysis is biased by the availability of sequences, as the authors recognize.

Despite the reduced sample size, the detailed analysis of haplotypes and identification of location of breakpoints gives support to a single origin event for the 13-5++ parasites.

The analysis of haplotype variation across the duplicated chromosome-11 segment identified breakpoints at varied locations that support multiple translocation events in natural populations. The authors suggest these translocations may be occurring at high frequency in meiosis in natural populations but strongly selected against in most circumstances, which remains to be tested.

In this new version, the authors have addressed the points raised previously and adequately discuss the limitations of the study.

eLife assessment

This important work by Malita et al. describes a mechanism by which an intestinal infection causes an increase in daytime sleep through signaling from the gut to the blood-brain barrier. Their findings suggest that cytokines upd3 and upd2 produced by the intestine following infection act on the glia of the blood-brain barrier to regulate sleep by modulating Allatostatin A signaling. The evidence supporting the claims of the authors is solid. Further verification of certain critical tools, and addressing a few discrepancies from data previously published, would improve this work.

Joint Public Review

Summary:

The authors sought to elucidate the mechanism by which infections increase sleep in Drosophila. Their work is important because it further supports the idea that the blood-brain barrier is involved in brain-body communication, and because it advances the field of sleep research. Using knock-down and knock-out of cytokines and cytokine receptors specifically in the endocrine cells of the gut (cytokines) as well as in the glia forming the blood-brain barrier (BBB) (cytokines receptors), the authors show that cytokines, upd2 and upd3, secreted by entero-endocrine cells in response to infections increase sleep through the Dome receptor in the BBB. They also show that gut-derived Allatostatin (Alst) A promotes wakefulness by inhibiting Alst A signaling that is mediated by Alst receptors expressed in BBB glia. Their results suggest there may be additional mechanisms that promote elevated sleep during gut inflammation.<br /> The authors suggest that upd3 is more critical than upd2, which is not sufficiently addressed or explained. In addition, the study uses the gut's response to reactive oxygen molecules as a proxy for infection, which is not sufficiently justified. Finally, further verification of some fundamental tools used in this paper would further solidify these findings making them more convincing.

Strengths:

(1) The work addresses an important topic and proposes an intriguing mechanism that involves several interconnected tissues. The authors place their research in the appropriate context and reference related work, such as literature about sickness-induced sleep, ROS, the effect of nutritional deprivation on sleep, sleep deprivation and sleep rebound, upregulated receptor expression as a compensatory mechanism in response to low levels of a ligand, and information about Alst A.

(2) The work is, in general, supported by well-performed experiments that use a variety of different tools, including multiple RNAi lines, CRISPR, and mutants, to dissect both signal-sending and receiving sides of the signaling pathway.

(3) The authors provide compelling evidence that shows that endocrine cells from the gut are the source of the upd cytokines that increase daytime sleep, that the glial cells of the BBB are the targets of these upds, and that upd action causes the downregulation of Alst receptors in the BBB via the Jak/Stat pathways.

Weaknesses:

(1) There is a limited characterization of cell types in the midgut which are classically associated with upd cytokine production.

(2) Some of the main tools used in this manuscript to manipulate the gut while not influencing the brain (e.g., Voilà and Voilà + R57C10-GAL80), are not directly shown to not affect gene expression in the brain. This is critical for a manuscript delving into intra-organ communication, as even limited expression in the brain may lead to wrong conclusions.

(3) The model of gut inflammation used by the authors is based on the increase in reactive oxygen species (ROS) obtained by feeding flies food containing 1% H2O2. The use of this model is supported by the authors rather weakly in two papers (refs. 26 and 27 ): The paper by Jiang et al. (ref. 26) shows that the infection by Pseudomonas entomophila induces cytokine responses upd2 and 3, which are also induced by the Jnk pathway. In addition, no mention of ROS could be found in Buchon et al. (ref 27); this is a review that refers to results showing that ROS are produced by the NADPH oxidase DUOX as part of the immune response to pathogens in the gut. Thus, there is no strong support for the use of this model.

(4) Likewise, there is no support for the use of ROS in the food instead a direct infection by pathogenic bacteria. Furthermore, it is known that ROS damages the gut epithelium, which in turn induces the expression of the cytokines studied. Thus the effects observed may not reflect the response to infection. In addition, Majcin Dorcikova et al. (2023). Circadian clock disruption promotes the degeneration of dopaminergic neurons in male Drosophila. Nat Commun. 2023 14(1):5908. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-41540-y report that the feeding of adult flies with H2O2 results in neurodegeneration if associated with circadian clock defects. Thus, it would be important to discuss or present controls that show that the feeding of H2O2 does not cause neuronal damage.

(5) The novelty of the work is difficult to evaluate because of the numerous publications on sleep in Drosophila. Thus, it would be very helpful to read from the authors how this work is different and novel from other closely related works such as: Li et al. (2023) Gut AstA mediates sleep deprivation-induced energy wasting in Drosophila. Cell Discov. 23;9(1):49. doi: 10.1038/s41421-023-00541-3.

eLife assessment

This study presents a valuable dataset regarding chromatin remodeling by the BAF complex in the context of meiotic sex chromosome inactivation. Solid data generally support the conclusions, although the partial deletion of the BAF complex in the germline could be considered limiting. This work will be of interest to researchers working on chromatin and reproductive biology.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

In this manuscript, Magnuson and colleagues investigate the meiotic functions of ARID1A, a putative DNA binding subunit of the SWI/SNF chromatin remodeler BAF. The authors develop a germ cell specific conditional knockout (cKO) mouse model using Stra8-cre and observe that ARID1A-deficient cells fail to progress beyond pachytene, although due to inefficiency of the Stra8-cre system the mice retain ARID1A-expressing cells that yield sperm and allow fertility. Because ARID1A was found to accumulate at the XY body late in Prophase I, the authors suspected a potential role in meiotic silencing and by RNAseq observe significant misexpression of sex-linked genes that typically are silenced at pachytene. They go on to show that ARID1A is required for exclusion of RNA PolII from the sex body and for limiting promoter accessibility at sex-linked genes, consistent with a meiotic sex chromosome inactivation (MSCI) defect in cKO mice. The authors proceed to investigate the impacts of ARID1A on H3.3 deposition genome-wide. H3.3 is known be regulated by ARID1A and is linked to silencing, and here the authors find that upon loss of ARID1A, overall H3.3 enrichment at the sex body as measured by IF failed to occur, but H3.3 was enriched specifically at transcriptional start sites of sex-linked genes that are normally regulated by ARID1A. The results suggest that ARID1A normally prevents H3.3 accumulation at target promoters on sex chromosomes and based on additional data, restricts H3.3 to intergenic sites. Finally, the authors present data implicating ARID1A and H3.3 occupancy in DSB repair, finding that ARID1A cKO leads to a reduction in focus formation by DMC1, a key repair protein. Overall the paper provides new insights into the process of MSCI from the perspective of chromatin composition and structure and raises interesting new questions about the interplay between chromatin structure, meiotic silencing and DNA repair.

In general the data are convincing. The conditional KO mouse model has some inherent limitations due to incomplete recombination and the existence of 'escaper' cells that express ARID1A and progress through meiosis normally. This reviewer feels that the authors have addressed this point thoroughly and have demonstrated clear and specific phenotypes using the best available animal model. The data demonstrate that the mutant cells fail to progress past pachytene, although it is unclear whether this specifically reflects pachytene arrest, as accumulation in other stages of Prophase is also suggested by the data in Table 1.

The revised manuscript more appropriately describes the relationship between ARID1A and DNA damage response (DDR) signaling. The authors don't see defects in a few DDR markers in ARID1A CKO cells (including a low resolution assessment of ATR), suggesting that ARID1A may not be required for meiotic DDR signaling. However, as previously noted the data do not rule out the possibility that ARID1A is downstream of DDR signaling, and the authors note the possibility of a role for DDR signaling upstream of ARID1A.

A final comment relates to the impacts of ARID1A loss on DMC1 focus formation and the interesting observation of reduced sex chromosome association by DMC1. The authors additionally assess the related recombinase RAD51 and suggest that it is unaffected by ARID1A loss. However, only a single image of RAD51 staining in the cKO is provided (Fig. S11) and there are no associated quantitative data provided. The data are suggestive and conclusions about the impacts of ARID1A loss on RAD51 must be considered as preliminary until more rigorously assessed.

Comments on latest version:

The authors have effectively addressed the minor issues raised in the most recent round of non-public reviews. This reviewer has no additional recommendations.

Author response:

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

Reviewer 1:

I understand that the only spermatids observed in cKO testes are coming from cells that escaped the Cre system. However, I do think that the authors could provide sperm counts data also showing decreased sperm counts in the mutant, to make their claim stronger. This is a very common fertility assessment.

All round spermatids isolated from Arid1acKO testes appeared only to express the normal transcript associated with the floxed allele (Fig. S4A).

[New Data - Lines 154-159] Our evaluation of the first round of spermatid development based on DNA content (1C, 2C, and 4C), revealed a significantly reduced abundance of round spermatids (1C) in mutant testes compared to wild-type testes. This finding, obtained through flow cytometry, supports the observed meiotic block at the pachytene stage (new Fig. S5A-B).

Reviewer 3:

Lines 154-5: Currently read 'inefficient Stra8-cre inefficiency'. Should read 'inefficient Stra8-cre activity.' I see that this was noted in the first round of review but the original wording has persisted.

The nucleolin antibody used should be listed in Supplementary table 3.

'inefficient Stra8-cre inefficiency' now reads “inefficient Stra8-Cre activity”  [Line 158]

Nucleolin antibody is now listed in Supplementary Table 3

eLife assessment:

This theoretical study makes a useful contribution to our understanding of a subtype of type 2 diabetes – ketosis-prone diabetes mellitus (KPD) – with a potential impact on our broader understanding of diabetes and glucose regulation. The article presents an ordinary differential equation-based model for KPD that incorporates a number of distinct timescales – fast, slow, as well as intermediate, incorporating a key hypothesis of reversible beta cell deactivation. The presented evidence is solid and shows that observed clinical disease trajectories may be explained by a simple mathematical model in a particular parameter regime.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The goal of this work is to understand the clinical observation of a subgroup of diabetics who experience extremely high levels of blood glucose levels after a period of high carbohydrate intake. These symptoms are similar to the onset of Type 1 diabetes but, crucially, have been observed to be fully reversible in some cases.

The authors interpret these observations by analyzing a simple yet insightful mathematical model in which β-cells temporarily stop producing insulin when exposed to high levels of glucose. For a specific model realization of such dynamics (and for specific parameter values) they show that such dynamics lead to two distinct stable states. One is the relatively normal/healthy state in which β-cells respond appropriately to glucose by releasing insulin. In contrast, when enough β-cells "refuse" to produce insulin in a high-glucose environment, there is not enough insulin to reduce glucose levels, and the high-glucose state remains locked in because the high-glucose levels keep β-cells in their inactive state. The presented mathematical analysis shows that in their model the high-glucose state can be entered through an episode of high glucose levels and that subsequently the low-glucose state can be re-entered through prolonged insulin intake.

The strength of this work is twofold. First, the intellectual sharpness of translating clinical observations of ketosis-prone type 2 diabetes (KPD) into the need for β-cell responses on intermediate timescales. Second, the analysis of a specific model clearly establishes that the clinical observations can be reproduced with a model in which β-cells dynamics reversibly enter a non-insulin-producing state in a glucose-dependent fashion.

The likely impact of this work is a shift in attention in the field from a focus on the short and long-term dynamics in glucose regulation and diabetes progression to the intermediate timescales of β-cell dynamics. I expect this to lead to much interest in probing the assumptions behind the model to establish what exactly the process is by which patients enter a 'KPD state'. Furthermore, I expect this work to trigger much research on how KPD relates to "regular" type 2 diabetes and to lead to experimental efforts to find/characterize previously overlooked β-cell phenotypes.

In summary, the authors claim that observed clinical dynamics and possible remission of KPD can be explained through introducing a temporarily inactive β-cell state into a "standard model" of diabetes. The evidence for this claim comes from analyzing a mathematical model and clearly presented. Importantly, the authors point out that this does not mean their model is correct. Other hypotheses are that:

- Instead of switching to an inactive state, individual β-cells could adjust how they respond to high glucose levels. If this response function changes reversibly on intermediate timescales the clinical observations could be explained without a reversible inactive state.

- Kidney function is indirectly impaired through chronic high glucose levels. The apparent rapid glucose increase might then not highlight a new type of β-cell phenotype but would reflect rapid changes in kidney function.

- In principle, the remission could be due to a direct response of β-cells to insulin and not mediated through the lowering of glucose levels.

Crucially, the hypothesized reversibly inactive state of β-cells remains to be directly observed. One of the key contributions of this theoretical work is directing experimental focus towards looking for reversible β-cell phenotypes.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

In this manuscript, Ridout et al. present an intriguing extension of beta cell mass-focused models for diabetes. Their model incorporates reversible glucose-dependent inactivation of beta cell mass, which can trigger sudden-onset hyperglycemia due to bistability in beta cell mass dynamics. Notably, this hyperglycemia can be reversed with insulin treatment. The model is simple, elegant, and thought-provoking.

Concerning the grounding in experimental phenomenology, it would be beneficial to identify specific experiments to strengthen the model. In particular, what evidence supports reversible beta cell inactivation? This could potentially be tested in mice, for instance, by using an inducible beta cell reporter, treating the animals with high glucose levels, and then measuring the phenotype of the marked cells. Such experiments, if they exist, would make the motivation for the model more compelling. For quantitative experiments, the authors should be more specific about the features of beta cell dysfunction in KPD. Does the dysfunction manifest in fasting glucose, glycemic responses, or both? Is there a "pre-KPD" condition? What is known about the disease's timescale?

The authors should also consider whether their model could apply to other conditions besides KPD. For example, the phenomenology seems similar to the "honeymoon" phase of T1D. Making a strong case for the model in this scenario would be fascinating.

Author response:

Response to Public Comment of Reviewer 1: We thank the Reviewer for the positive assessment of the manuscript. We also are grateful to the Reviewer for pointing out that providing alternatives to our model is a strength, and not a weakness, potentially stimulating future experiments that could falsify our model.  

Response to Public Comment of Reviewer 2: We thank the Reviewer for the positive assessment of the manuscript. 

In our manuscript, we already provide some references to evidence supporting reversible β-cell inactivation in a high-glucose environment. In the revision, we will expand this discussion, emphasize it, and add additional references that we have discovered recently. 

In the revision, we will additionally expand our discussion of what is and is not known about the features of β-cell dysfunction in KPD, the relevant timescales, and so on. We will expand on how little is known about the possible pre-KPD state: individuals with KPD usually show up in a hospital with a new onset of diabetes, and often have had little access to medical care prior to this presentation. Thus, prior medical records are often unavailable. We hope this theoretical work will help justify appropriate future studies of the clinical history of KPD patients. 

In the revision of the manuscript, we plan to briefly discuss how our model might, indeed, account for the honeymoon phase of type 1 diabetes, as well as for some phenomenology of gestational diabetes, and progression of type 2 diabetes in youth. In other words, the model developed for explaining KPD is potentially much broader, explaining many other phenomena. However, we prefer to leave the detailed modeling of these conditions, and comparisons to alternate hypotheses of their pathogenesis, to a future publication.

eLife assessment

This valuable study advances our understanding of the histopathological features of type 1 diabetes, in particular in regard to the composition and spatial organization of pancreas infiltrating immune cells. The evidence supporting the conclusions is convincingly grounded in an application of both state-of-the-art high-dimensional in situ immunostaining technology as well as a tailored image analysis strategy. The work will be of broad interest to type 1 diabetes researchers as it contributes to a better understanding of the disease's etiopathology.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Barlow and coauthors utilized the high-parameter imaging platform of CODEX to characterize the cellular composition of immune cells in situ from tissues obtained from organ donors with type 1 diabetes, subjects presented with autoantibodies who are at elevated risk, or non-diabetic organ donor controls. The panels used in this important study were based on prior publications using this technology, as well as a priori and domain-specific knowledge of the field by the investigators. Thus, there was some bias in the markers selected for analysis. The authors acknowledge that these types of experiments may be complemented moving forward with the inclusion of unbiased tissue analysis platforms that are emerging that can conduct a more comprehensive analysis of pathological signatures employing emerging technologies for both high-parameter protein imaging and spatial transcriptomics.

Strengths:

In terms of major findings, the authors provide important confirmatory observations regarding a number of autoimmune-associated signatures reported previously. The high parameter staining now increases the resolution for linking these features with specific cellular subsets using machine learning algorithms. These signatures include a robust signature indicative of IFN-driven responses that would be expected to induce a cytotoxic T-cell-mediated immune response within the pancreas. Notable findings include the upregulation of indolamine 2,3-dioxygenase-1 in the islet microvasculature. Furthermore, the authors provide key insights as to the cell:cell interactions within organ donors, again supporting a previously reported interaction between presumably autoreactive T and B cells.

Weaknesses:

These studies also highlight a number of molecular pathways that will require additional validation studies to more completely understand whether they are potentially causal for pathology, or rather, epiphenomenon associated with increased innate inflammation within the pancreas of T1D subjects. Given the limitations noted above, the study does present a rich and integrated dataset for analysis of enriched immune markers that can be segmented and annotated within distinct cellular networks. This enabled the authors to analyze distinct cellular subsets and phenotypes in situ, including within islets that peri-islet infiltration and/or intra-islet insulitis.

Despite the many technical challenges and unique organ donor cohort utilized, the data are still limited in terms of subject numbers - a challenge in a disease characterized by extensive heterogeneity in terms of age of onset and clinical and histopathological presentation. Therefore, these studies cannot adequately account for all of the potential covariates that may drive variability and alterations in the histopathologies observed (such as age of onset, background genetics, and organ donor conditions). In this study, the manuscript and figures could be improved in terms of clarifying how variable the observed signatures were across each individual donor, with the clear notion that non-diabetic donors will present with some similar challenges and variability.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors aimed to characterize the cellular phenotype and spatial relationship of cell types infiltrating the islets of Langerhans in human T1D using CODEX, a multiplexed examination of cellular markers

Strengths:

Major strengths of this study are the use of pancreas tissue from well-characterized tissue donors, and the use of CODEX, a state-of-the-art detection technique of extensive characterization and spatial characterization of cell types and cellular interactions. The authors have achieved their aims with the identification of the heterogeneity of the CD8+ T cell populations in insulitis, the identification of a vasculature phenotype and other markers that may mark insulitis-prone islets, and the characterization of tertiary lymphoid structures in the acinar tissue of the pancreas. These findings are very likely to have a positive impact on our understanding (conceptual advance) of the cellular factors involved in T1D pathogenesis which the field requires to make progress in therapeutics.

Weaknesses:

A major limitation of the study is the cohort size, which the authors directly state. However, this study provides avenues of inquiry for researchers to gain further understanding of the pathological process in human T1D.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors applied an innovative approach (CO-Detection by indEXing - CODEX) together with sophisticated computational analyses to image pancreas tissues from rare organ donors with type 1 diabetes. They aimed to assess key features of inflammation in both islet and extra-islet tissue areas; they reported that the extra-islet space of lobules with extensive islet infiltration differs from the extra-islet space of less infiltrated areas within the same tissue section. The study also identifies four sub-states of inflamed islets characterized by the activation profiles of CD8+T cells enriched in islets relative to the surrounding tissue. Lymphoid structures are identified in the pancreas tissue away from islets, and these were enriched in CD45RA+ T cells - a population also enriched in one of the inflamed islet sub-states. Together, these data help define the coordination between islets and the extra-islet pancreas in the pathogenesis of human T1D.

Strengths:

The analysis of tissue from well-characterized organ donors, provided by the Network for the Pancreatic Organ Donor with Diabetes, adds strength to the validity of the findings.

By using their innovative imaging/computation approaches, key known features of islet autoimmunity were confirmed, providing validation of the methodology.

The detection of IDO+ vasculature in inflamed islets - but not in normal islets or islets that have lost insulin-expression links this expression to the islet inflammation, and it is a novel observation. IDO expression in the vasculature may be induced by inflammation and may be lost as disease progresses, and it may provide a potential therapeutic avenue.

The high-dimensional spatial phenotyping of CD8+T cells in T1D islets confirmed that most T cells were antigen-experienced. Some additional subsets were noted: a small population of T cells expressing CD45RA and CD69, possibly naive or TEMRA cells, and cells expressing Lag-3, Granzyme-B, and ICOS.

While much attention has been devoted to the study of the insulitis lesion in T1D, our current knowledge is quite limited; the description of four sub-clusters characterized by the activation profile of the islet-infiltrating CD8+T cells is novel. Their presence in all T1D donors indicates that the disease process is asynchronous and is not at the same stage across all islets. Although this concept is not novel, this appears to be the most advanced characterization of insulitis stages.

When examining together both the exocrine and islet areas, which is rarely done, authors report that pancreatic lobules affected by insulitis are characterized by distinct tissue markers. Their data support the concept that disease progression may require crosstalk between cells in the islet and extra-islet compartments. Lobules enriched in β-cell-depleted islets were also enriched in nerves, vasculature, and Granzyme-B+/CD3- cells, which may be natural killer cells.

Lastly, authors report that immature tertiary lymphoid structures (TLS) exist both near and away from islets, where CD45RA+ CD8+T cells aggregate, and also observed an inflamed islet-subcluster characterized by an abundance of CD45RA+/CD8+ T cells. These TLS may represent a point of entry for T cells and this study further supports their role in islet autoimmunity.

Weaknesses:

As the authors themselves acknowledge, the major limitation is that the number of donors examined is limited as those satisfying study criteria are rare. Thus, it is not possible to examine disease heterogeneity and the impact of age at diagnosis. Of 8 T1D donors examined, 4 would be considered newly diagnosed (less than 3 months from onset) and 4 had longer disease durations (2, 2, 5, and 6 years). It was unclear if disease duration impacted the results in this small cohort. In the introduction, the authors discuss that most of the pancreata from nPOD donors with T1D lack insulitis. This is correct, yet it is a function of time from diagnosis. Donors with shorter duration will be more likely to have insulitis. A related point is that the proportion of islets with insulitis is low even near diagnosis, Finally, only one donor was examined that while not diagnosed with T1D, was likely in the preclinical disease stage and had autoantibodies and insulitis. This is a critically important disease stage where the methodology developed by the investigators could be applied in future efforts.

While this was not the focus of this investigation, it appears that the approach was very much immune-focused and there could be value in examining islet cells in greater depth using the methodology the authors developed.

Additional comments:

Overall, the authors were able to study pancreas tissues from T1D donors and perform sophisticated imaging and computational analysis that reproduce and importantly extend our understanding of inflammation in T1D. Despite the limitations associated with the small sample size, the results appear robust, and the claims well-supported.

The study expands the conceptual framework of inflammation and islet autoimmunity, especially by the definition of different clusters (stages) of insulitis and by the characterization of immune cells in and outside the islets.

Author response:

We’d like to thank the reviewers for their fair, thoughtful, and critical review of our manuscript.

We acknowledge that the small number of specimens limits the impact of our findings. While we are unable to expand the study, we are optimistic that more cases with insulitis will be made available for research and spatial technologies will become more cost-effective over time. We hope that the design and analyses in our study are useful to future efforts and that our findings can be validated and revised.

We intend to revise the manuscript to address all other points raised by reviewers. These include a) adding HLA genotype information for each patient, b) analyzing how key immune signatures relate to the clinical variables, diabetes duration and age of onset, and c) measuring the relationship between IDO+ islets and HLA-ABC expression. We will also revise the text and figures for clarity in specific places and discuss important considerations including stem cell memory T cells and the potential impact of prolonged stays in the ICU.

eLife assessment

In the revised version of this important study, the authors present a convincing pipeline for insect genome regulatory annotation across 33 insect genomes spanning 5 orders. Despite technical limitations in the field owing to the lack of comprehensive knowledge of enhancer content in any system, the authors employ several independent downstream analyses to support the validity of their enhancer predictions for a subset of these genomes. Taken together, the revised results suggest that this prediction pipeline may have uses in identifying functional enhancers across large phylogenetic distances. Reviewers note caveats that an experimental validation is not yet available in the field to validate a large class of newly identified enhancers across such evolutionary distances, and other pipelines might be of use to compare. This work will be of interest to the computational genomics, evolutionary biology, and gene regulation fields.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors provide an genome annotation resource of 33 insects using a motif-blind prediction methods for tissue-specific cis-regulatory modules. This is a welcome addition that may facilitate further research in new laboratory systems, and the approach seem to be relatively accurate, although it should be combined with other sources of evidence to be practical.

Strengths:

The paper clearly presents the resource, including the testing of candidate enhancers identified from various insects in Drosophila. This cross-species analysis, and the inherent suggestion that training datasets generated in flies can predict a cis-regulatory activity in distant insects, is interesting. While I can not be sure this approach will prevail in the future, for example with approaches that leverage the prediction of TF binding motifs, the SCRMShaw tool is certainly useful and worth of consideration for the large community of genome scientists working on insects.

Weaknesses from the previous version were appropriately corrected in this revision, as the authors improved data availability including with genome annotation resources.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this ambitious paper, the authors develop an unparalleled community resource of insect genome regulatory annotations spanning five insect orders. They employ their previously-developed SCRMshaw method for computational cross-species enhancer prediction, drawing on available training datasets of validated enhancer sequence and expression from Drosophila melanogaster, which had been previously shown to perform well across select holometabolous insects (representing 160-345MY divergence). In this work they expand regulatory sequence annotation to 33 insect genomes spanning Holometabola and Hemiptera, which is even more distantly related to the fly model. They perform multiple downstream analyses of sets of predicted enhancers to assess the true-positive rate of predictions; the independent comparisons of real predictions with simulated predictions and with chromatin accessibility data, as well as the functional validation through reporter gene analysis strengthen their conclusions that their annotation pipeline achieves a high true-positive rate and can be used across long divergence times to computationally annotate regulatory genome regions, an ability that has been largely inaccessible for non-model insects and now is possible across the many newly-sequenced insect scaffold-level genomes.

Strengths:

This work fills a large gap in current methods and resources for predicting regulatory regions of the genome, a task that has long lagged behind that of coding region prediction and analysis.

Despite technical constraints in working outside of well-developed model insect systems, the authors creatively draw on existing resources to scaffold a pipeline and independently assess likelihood of prediction validity.

The established database will be a welcome community resource in its current state, and even more so as the authors continue to expand their annotations to more insect genomes as they indicate. Their available analysis pipeline itself will be useful to the community as well for research groups that may want to undertake their own regulatory genome annotation.

Weaknesses:

The work here is limited by the field-wide lack of an independently validated set of tissue specific enhancers that could be used to directly benchmark this pipeline. The prediction of true positive enhancer identification rates and in vivo reporter gene assays offer some insight into the rates of successful prediction, but the output of SCRMshaw regulatory annotation should be regarded as another prediction-generating tool.

Author response:

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

Public Reviews: 

Reviewer #1 (Public Review): 

Strengths: 

The paper clearly presents the resource, including the testing of candidate enhancers identified from various insects in Drosophila. This cross-species analysis, and the inherent suggestion that training datasets generated in flies can predict a cis-regulatory activity in distant insects, is interesting. While I can not be sure this approach will prevail in the future, for example with approaches that leverage the prediction of TF binding motifs, the SCRMShaw tool is certainly useful and worth consideration for the large community of genome scientists working on insects. 

We thank the reviewer for the positive comments, and would just like to point out that we agree: while we cannot of course know if other methods will overtake SCRMshaw for enhancer prediction—we assume they will, at some point (although motif-based approaches have not fared as well in the past)—for now, SCRMshaw provides strong performance and is a useful part of the current toolkit.

Weaknesses: 

While the authors made the effort to provide access to the SCRMShaw annotations via the RedFly database, the usefulness of this resource is somewhat limited at the moment. First, it is possible to generate tables of annotated elements with coordinates, but it would be more useful to allow downloads of the 33 genome annotations in GFF (or equivalent) format, with SCRMshaw predictions appearing as a new feature. Also, I should note that unlike most species some annotations seem to have issues in the current RedFly implementation. For example, Vcar and Jcoen turn empty. 

We have addressed these weaknesses in several ways:

(1) We have created GFF versions of the SCRMshaw predictions and provide them standalone and also merged into the available annotation GFFs for each of the 33 species

(2) We have made these GFF files, and also the original SCRMshaw output files, available for download in a Dryad repository linked to the publication (https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.3j9kd51t0).

(3) We have added the inadvertently omitted species to the REDfly/SCRMshaw database.

We agree that the database functions are still somewhat limited, but note that database development is ongoing and we expect functionality to increase over time. In the meantime, the Dryad repository ensures that all results reported in this paper are directly available.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review): 

Summary: 

… Upon identification of predicted enhancer regions, the authors perform post-processing step filtering and identify the most likely predicted enhancer candidates based on the proximity of an orthologous target gene. …

We respectfully point out a small misunderstanding here on the part of the reviewer. We stress that putative target gene assignments and identities have no impact at all on our prediction of regulatory sequences, i.e., they are not “based on the proximity of an orthologous target gene.” Predictions are solely based on sequence-dependent SCRMshaw scores, with no regard to the nature or identities of nearby annotated features. Putative target genes are mapped to Drosophila orthologs purely as a convenience to aid in interpreting and prioritizing the predicted regulatory elements. We have added language on page 8 (lines 189ff) to make this more clear in the text.

Weaknesses:

This work provides predicted enhancer annotations across many insect species, with reporter gene analysis being conducted on selected regions to test the predictions. However, the code for the SCRMshaw analysis pipeline used in this work is not made available, making reproducibility of this work difficult. Additionally, while the authors claim the predicted enhancers are available within the REDfly database, the predicted enhancer coordinates are currently not downloadable as Supplementary Material or from a linked resource. 

We have placed all the code for this paper into a GitHub repository “Asma_etal_2024_eLife” (https://github.com/HalfonLab/Asma_etal_2024_eLife) to address this concern. As described in our response to Reviewer 1, above, all results are now available in multiple formats in a linked Dryad repository in addition to the REDfly/SCRMshaw database.

The authors do not validate or benchmark the application of SCRMshaw against other published methods, nor do they seek to apply SCRMshaw under a variety of conditions to confirm the robustness of the returned predicted enhancers across species. Since SCRMshaw relies on an established k-mer enrichment of the training loci, its performance is presumably highly sensitive to the selection of training regions as well as the statistical power of the given k-mer counts. The authors do not justify their selection of training regions by which they perform predictions. 

Our objective in this study was not to provide proof-of-principle for the SCRMshaw method, as we have established the efficacy of the approach at this point in several previous publications. Rather, the objective here was to make use of SCRMshaw to provide an annotation resource for insect regulatory genomics. Note that the training regions we used here are the same as those we have used in earlier work. Naturally, we performed various assessments to establish that the method was working here, but we make no claims in this work about SCRMshaw’s relative efficiency compared to other methods. Some of our prior publications include assessments of the sort the reviewer references, which suggest that SCRMshaw is at least comparable to other enhancer discovery approaches. We note that benchmarking of such methods is in fact extremely complicated due to the fact that there are no established true positive/true negative data sets against which to benchmark (we have explored this in Asma et al. 2019 BMC Bioinformatics).

While there is an attempt made to report and validate the annotated predicted enhancers using previously published data and tools, the validation lacks the depth to conclude with confidence that the predicted set of regions across each species is of high quality. In vivo, reporter assays were conducted to anecdotally confirm the validity of a few selected regions experimentally, but even these results are difficult to interpret. There is no large-scale attempt to assess the conservation of enhancer function across all annotated species. 

We respectfully disagree that there is insufficient validation. We bring several different lines of evidence to bear suggesting that our results fall into the accuracy range—roughly 75%—established both here and in previous work. We are also clear about the fact that these are predictions only and need to be viewed as such (e.g. line 638). Although “large-scale” in vivo validation assays would certainly be both interesting and worthwhile, the necessary resources for such an assessment places it beyond our present capability.

Lastly, it is suggested that predicted regions are derived from the shared presence of sequence features such as transcription factor binding motifs, detected through k-mer enrichment via SCRMshaw. This assumption has not been examined, although there are public motif discovery tools that would be appropriate to discover whether SCRMshaw is assigning predicted regions based on previously understood motif grammar, or due to other sequence patterns captured by k-mer count distributions. Understanding the sequence-derived nature of what drives predictions is within the scope of this work and would boost confidence in the predicted enhancers, even if it is limited to a few training examples for the sake of clarity of interpretation. 

Again, we respectfully disagree that “this assumption has not been examined.” Although we did not undertake this analysis here, we have in the past, where we have shown that known TFBS motifs can be recovered from sets of SCRMshaw predictions (e.g., Kazemian et al. 2014 Genome Biology and Evolution). We return to this point when we address the Comments to Authors, below.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review): 

Weaknesses:  

The rates of predicted true positive enhancer identification vary widely across the genomes included here based on the simulations and comparison to datasets of accessible chromatin in a manner that doesn't map neatly onto phylogenetic distance. At this point, it is unclear why these patterns may arise, although this may become more clear as regulatory annotation is undertaken for more genomes. 

We agree that we do not see clear patterns with respect to phylogenetic distance in our results. However, we note that this initial data set is still fairly small, and not carefully phylogenetically distributed. We are hoping that, as the reviewer suggests, some of these questions become more clear as we add more genomes to our analysis. Fortunately, the list of available genomes with chromosome-level assembly is growing rapidly, and as we move ahead we should have much greater ability to choose informative species.

Functional assessment of predicted enhancers was performed through reporter gene assays primarily in Drosophila melanogaster imaginal discs, a system amenable to transgenics. Unfortunately, this mode of canonical imaginal disc development is only representative of a subset of all holometabolous insects; therefore, it is difficult to interpret reporter gene expression in a fly imaginal disc as evidence of a true positive enhancer that would be active in its native species whose adult appendages develop differently through the larval stage (for example, Coleopteran and Lepidopteran legs). However, the reporter gene assays from other tissues do offer strong evidence of true positive enhancer detection, and constraints on transgenic experiments in other systems mean that this approach is the best available. 

Please see an extensive discussion of this point in our response to Reviewer 3, below.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors): 

Major Concerns: 

(1) While the GitHub source code for SCRMshaw is provided, the authors do not provide a repository of manuscriptspecific code and scripts for readers. This is a barrier to reproducibility and the code used to perform the analysis should be made available. Additionally, links to available scripts do not work, see Line 690. Post-processing scripts point to a general lab folder, but again, no specific analysis or code is sourced for the work in this specific manuscript (e.g. Line 637). 

As noted above, we have corrected this oversight and established a specific GitHub repository for this manuscript “Asma_etal_2024_eLife” (https://github.com/HalfonLab/Asma_etal_2024_eLife). 

(2) On lines 479-488, there is a discussion about the annotations being provided on REDfly, though no link is provided. 

We have included a link in the text at this point (now line 515).

Additionally, for transparency, it would be valuable to provide in Supplementary Table 1 the genomic coordinates of the original training sets in addition to their identity. 

These coordinates have been added to Supplementary Table 1 as suggested.

Also, it is suggested to provide genomic coordinates of the predicted enhancers for each training set across all species, perhaps with a column denoting a linked ID of one genomic coordinate in a species to another species (i.e. if there is a linked region found from D. melanogaster to J. coenia, labeling this column in both coordinate sets as blastoderm.mapping1_region1). Providing these annotations directly in the work enhances the transparency of the results. 

We are unsure exactly what the reviewer means here by “a linked region.” It is critical to understanding our approach to recognize that the genome sequences have diverged to the point where there is no alignment of non-coding regions possible. Thus there is no way to directly “link” coordinates of a predicted enhancer from one species to those of a predicted enhancer in another species. The coordinates for each prediction are available on a per-species basis either through the database or in the files now available in the linked Dryad repository; these can be filtered for results from a specific training set. The database will allow users to select all results for a given orthologous locus, from any subset of species. More complex searches will continue to become available as we improve functionality of the database, an ongoing project in collaboration with the REDfly team.

(3) Figure 2B: It is unclear what this figure shows. Are the No Fly Orthologs false positives, Orthology pipeline issues, or interesting biology? 

We have clarified this in the Figure 2 legend. “No Mapped Fly Orthologs” indicates that our orthology mapping pipeline did not identify clear D. melanogaster orthologs. For any given gene, this could reflect either a true lack of a respective ortholog, or failure of our procedure to accurately identify an existing ortholog.

(4) SCRMshaw appears to be a versatile tool, previously published in a variety of works. However, in this manuscript, there is little discussion of the sensitivity of SCRMshaw to different initial parameters, how the selection of training loci can impact outcomes, or how SCRMshaw k-mer discovery methods compare to other similar tools.

- This paper would be strengthened by addressing this weakness. Some specific suggestions below: 

In order to strengthen confidence that SCRMshaw is a reliable predictor of enhancer regions in other species, it is suggested that you benchmark against other k-mer-derived methods to assign enhancers, such as GSK-SVM developed by the Beer Lab in 2016  (https://www.beerlab.org/gkmsvm/, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.10.06.561128v1). 

We have established the effectiveness of SCRMshaw as an enhancer discovery method in previous work, and the main goal of this study was to make use of the established method to annotate numerous insect genomes as a community resource. Our claim here is that SCRMshaw works well for this purpose; we do not attempt a strong claim about whether other approaches may work equally well or marginally better (although we do not believe this is the case, based on prior work). Benchmarking enhancer discovery is challenging, as we point out in Asma et al. 2019 (BMC Bioinformatics), and, while important, best left for a dedicated comprehensive study. A major problem is that there are no independent objective “truth” sets for enhancers from the various species we interrogate here. Thus, while we could also run, e.g., GSK-SVM, what criteria would we use to establish which method had better accuracy for a given species? Note that the work from Beer’s lab took advantage of the ability to match human-mouse orthologous (or syntenic) regions and available open-chromatin data to assess whether conserved enhancers were discovered, but this is not possible given the degree of divergence, limited synteny, and relative lack of additional data for the insect genomes we are annotating.

- In Table S1, we see that 7-146 regions are used as training sets, which is a huge variety. Does an increase in training set size provide a greater "rate of return" for predicted regions? Is the opposite true? Addressing this question would allow readers to understand if they wish to use SCRMshaw, a reasonable scope for their own training region selections. 

- Within a training set, does subsampling provide the same outcomes in terms of prediction rates? There is no exploration of how "brittle" the training sets are, and whether the generalized k-mer count distributions that are established in a training set are consistent across randomly selected subgroups. Performing this analysis would raise confidence in the method applied and the resulting annotations. 

These are interesting and important questions, but again we feel they are beyond the scope of this particular study, which is focused primarily on using SCRMshaw and not on optimizing various search parameters. That said, this is of course something we have investigated, although as with other aspects of enhancer discovery, the absence of a true gold standard enhancer set makes evaluation difficult. We have not found a clear correlation between training set size and performance beyond the very general finding that performance appears to be best when training set size is moderate, e.g. 20-40 initial enhancers. We suspect that larger training sets often contain too many members that don’t fit the core regulatory model and thus add noise, whereas sets that are too small may not contain enough signal for best performance (although small sets can still be useful, especially if used in an iterative cycle; see Weinstein et al. 2023 PLoS Genetics). However, establishing this rigorously is highly challenging given the limitations with assessing true and false positive rates at scale.

(5) In Figure 2C, when plotting hexMCD, IMM, pacRC, and then the merged set, it is unclear whether the scorespecific bar allows coordinate redundancy, though this is implied. What might be more useful is a revision of this plot where the hexMCD/IMM/pac-RC-specific loci are plotted, with the merged set alongside as is currently reported. This would give the reader a clearer understanding of the variability between these scoring methods and why this variability occurs. 

We have added the breakdowns between IMM, hexMCD, and pacRC in Supplementary Table S2, and made more complete reference to this in the text (lines 682ff). Both the database and the data files in the Dryad repository allow exploration of the overlap between the different methods and contain both separate and merged (for overlap and redundancy) results.

Additionally, there is no information in the Methods section of these three SCRMshaw scores and what they represent, even colloquially. While SCRMshaw has been applied in several papers previously, it would help with scientific clarity to describe in a sentence or two what each score is meant to represent and why one is different from another. 

We had chosen to err on the side of brevity given prior publication of the SCRMshaw methodology, but we recognize now that we went too far in that direction. We have added more complete descriptions of the methods in both the Results (lines 164-167) and the Methods (lines 667-681) sections.

(6) When describing results in Figure 2, an important question arises: "Is there an anti-correlation between the number of predicted regions and evolutionary distance?" This would be an expected result that could complement Figure 4's point that shared orthology across 16 species is rarer than across 10 species. Visualizing and adding this to Figure 2 or Figure 4 would be a powerful statement that would boost confidence in the returned predicted enhancers and/or orthologous regions. 

This is an important question and one in which we are very interested. Unfortunately, we do not have sufficient data at this time to address this proper statistical rigor. As we remarked above in response to Reviewer 3, “We agree that we do not see clear patterns with respect to phylogenetic distance in our results. However, we note that this initial data set is still fairly small, and not carefully phylogenetically distributed. We are hoping that, as the reviewer suggests, some of these questions become more clear as we add more genomes to our analysis. Fortunately, the list of available genomes with chromosome-level assembly is growing rapidly, and as we move ahead we should have much greater ability to choose informative species.”

(7) In Figure 3, the authors seek to convey that SCRMshaw predicts enhancer regions that are mapped nearby one another, across different loci widths, and that this occurrence of nearby predicted regions occurs more than a randomly selected control. This is presumably meant to validate that SCRMshaw is not providing predictions with low specificity, but rather to highlight the possibility that SCRMshaw is identifying groups of shadow enhancers. However, these plots are extremely difficult to decipher and do not strongly support the claims due to the low resolution and difficult interpretability of the boxplot interquartile distributions.

Additionally, as the majority of predicted regions are around ~750bp, how does that address loci groups of <1000bp? This suggests that predicted regions are overlapping, and therefore cannot be meaningfully interpreted as shadow enhancers. This plot should either be moved to the supplements or reworked to more effectively convey the point that "SCRMshaw is detecting predicted regions that are proximal to one another and that this proximity is not due to chance". 

- A suggestion to rework this plot is to change this instead to a bar plot, where the y-axis instead represents "number of predictions with at least 2 predicted regions proximal to one another" divided by "total number of predictions", separating bar color by simulated/observed values. The x-axis grouping can remain the same. Because this plot is a broad generalization of the statement you're trying to make above, knowing whether a few loci have 2 versus 4 proximal predicted enhancers doesn't enhance your point. 

We agree with the reviewer that these are not the clearest plots, and thank them for the suggestions regarding revision. We tried many variations on visualizing these complex data, including those suggested by the reviewer, and have concluded that despite their weaknesses, these plots are still the best visualization. The main problem is that the observed data cluster heavily around zero, so that the box plots are very squat and mainly only the outlier large values are observed. The key point, however, is that the expected values almost never give values much greater than one, so that the observed outlier points are the only points seen in the upper ranges of the y-axis. This is true across the three species, across the bins of locus sizes, and across training sets (averaged into the box plots). The reviewer is correct as well about the bins where locus size is < 1000. However, inspection of the data shows that this is not a large concern, as very few data points lie in this range and we never see multiple predicted enhancers there. Thus we believe while not the prettiest of graphs, Figure 3 does effectively support the claims made in the text. In keeping with our view that it is preferable to have data in the main paper whenever possible, we choose to keep the figure in place rather than move it to the Supplement.

- Label the species for the reader's understanding of each subplot on the plot. 

We apologize for this oversight and have now labeled each plot with its relevant species.

(8) SCRMshaw operates on k-mer count distributions compared to a genomic background across different species, allowing it to assign predicted regions without prior knowledge of an organism's cis-regulatory sequences. This is powerful and boosts the versatility of the method. However, understanding the cis-regulatory origins of the kinds of kmers that are driving the detection of orthologous regions across species is crucial and absolutely within the scope of the paper, particularly for the justification of the provided annotations. Is SCRMshaw making use of enriched motifs within the training region set to assign regions in other species? One would presume so, but it is necessary to show this. There are many motif discovery tools that are readily available and require little up-front knowledge and little to no use of a CLI, such as MEMESuite (https://meme-suite.org/meme/tools/meme). It is highly recommended that, even for a few training pairs that are well understood (e.g. mesoderm.mapping1, dorsal_ectoderm.mapping1), assess the motif enrichment within the original sequence set, then see whether motif enrichments are reflected in the predicted enhancers. As evolutionary distance increases between D. melanogaster and the species of interest, is the assignment of enriched motifs more sparse? Is there a loss of a key motif? These are the kinds of questions that will allow readers to understand how these annotations are assigned as well as boost confidence in their usage. 

This is a very important point and a subject of significant interest to us. We have demonstrated in earlier work (e.g., Kazemian et al. 2014 Genome Biol. Evol.) that SCRMshaw-predicted enhancers do contain expected TFBS motifs, across multiple species—and that even an overall arrangement of sites is sometimes conserved. Thus we have previously answered, in part, the reviewer’s question. 

What we also learned from our previous work is that filtering out relevant motifs from the noise inherent in motif-finding is both arduous and challenging. As the reviewer is no doubt aware, while using motif discovery tools is simple, interpreting the output is much less so. In response to the reviewer’s comments, we revisited this issue with data from a small sample of training sets. We can discover motifs; we can see that the motif profiles are different between different training sets; and we can observe the presence of expected motifs based on the activity profile of the enhancers (e.g., Single-minded binding sites in our mesectoderm/midline training and result data). However, to do this cleanly and with appropriate statistical rigor is beyond what we feel would be practical for this paper. We hope to return to this important question in the future when we have a larger and phylogenetically more evenly-distributed set of species, and the time and resources to address it appropriately.

(9) Figures 5-7 need to have better descriptions. 

We have added to the figure 6 and 7 legends in response to this comment; please note as well that there is substantial detail provided in the text. If there are specific aspects of the figures that are not clear or which lack sufficient description, we are happy to make additional changes.

Minor Concerns 

(1)  In Figure 1A, it is implied that "k-mer count distributions" are actually only "5-mer count distributions". However, in the published documentation of SCRMshaw, it is suggested that k-mers between 1-6 bp are involved in establishing sequence distributions. Please add a justification for the selection of these criteria. It would be helpful to understand the implications of using up to a 3-mer versus a 12-mer when assessing k-mer counts using SCRMshaw.

We have clarified in the Figure 1 legend that this is just an example, and the k-mers of different sizes are used in the IMM method; we have also increased the description of the basic method in the Methods section. To be clear, the hexMCD sub-method is 6-mer based (5th-order Markov chain), as is pacRC, while the IMM method considers Markov chains of orders 0-5.

(2) Control the y-axis to remove white space from Figure 2D. 

We have amended the figure as suggested.

Additionally, expand in the manuscript on expected results from SCRMshaw. Given training regions of 750 bp, is the expectation that you return predicted enhancers of the same length? This is not explicitly stated, only a description of outliers. 

The scoring is not dependent on the length of the training sequences, and there is no direct expectation of predicted enhancer length. Scores are calculated on 10-bp intervals, and a peak-calling algorithm is used to determine the endpoints of each prediction based on where the scores drop below a cutoff value. Thus there is no explicit minimum prediction length beyond the smallest possible length of 10-bp. That said, the initial scoring takes place over a 500-bp sequence window (for reasons of computational efficiency), which does influence scores away from the smaller end of the possible range. We correct for this in part by reducing scores below a certain threshold to zero, to prevent multiple low-scoring regions from combining to give a low but positive score over a long interval. Indeed, we found that in the original version of SCRMshawHD (Asma et al. 2019), multiple low-scoring but above-threshold intervals would get concatenated together in broad peaks, leading to an unrealistically large average prediction length. In the version used here, described in Supplementary Figure S6, low-scoring windows are now first reset to zero and a new threshold is calculated before overlapping scores are summed. This helps to prevent the broad peak problem, and we find that it results in a median prediction length ~750 bp, more in line with expected enhancer sizes.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors): 

Line 161: Given that the SCRMshaw HD method is the basis for the pipeline, the methodology deserves at least an "in brief" recapitulation in this manuscript. 

As we remark in our response to Reviewer 2, above, “We had chosen to err on the side of brevity given prior publication of the SCRMshaw methodology, but we recognize now that we went too far in that direction. We have added more complete descriptions of the methods in both the Results (lines 164-167) and the Methods (lines 667-681) sections.” 

Line 219: Throughout the reporting of the results, there appeared to be a bit of inconsistency/potential typos regarding whether threshold or exact P values were reported. In lines 219, 222, 265, 696, and 811, the reported values seem to clearly be thresholds (< a standard cutoff), while in lines 291,293, 297,300, values appear to be exact but are reported as thresholds (<). 

This is not an error but rather reflects two different types of analysis. The predictions per locus (originally lines 219, 222 etc) are evaluated using an empirical P-value based on 1000 permutations. As such, they are thresholded at 1/1000. The overlap with open chromatin regions, on the other hand, are based on a z-score with the P-values taken from a standard conversion of z-scores to P-values.

Page 13/Table 2: At face value, it seems surprising that the overlap between Dmel SCRMshaw predictions with open chromatin is so much smaller than the overlap between predictions and open chromatin in other species, both in raw % (Tcas, D plexippus, H. himera) and fold enrichment (Tcas), given that the training sets for SCRMshaw are all derived from Dmel data. The discussion here does not touch on this aspect of the results, and the interpretation of this approach, in general, would be strengthened if the authors could comment on potential reasons why this pattern may be arising here, or at least acknowledge that this is an open question.

There are many variables at play here, as the data are from different species, from different tissues, and from different methods. Thus we think it is difficult to read too much into the precise results from these comparisons—the main take-home is really just that there is a significant amount of overlap. In acknowledgment of this, we have slightly modified the text in this section so that it now notes (line 302ff): “These comparisons are imperfect, as the tissues used to obtain the chromatin data do not precisely correspond to the training sequences used for SCRMshaw, and the data were obtained using a variety of methods.”

Line 318-329: The inferences from the reporter gene assay deserve a more nuanced treatment than they are given here. The important nuance that was not addressed by the discussion here is that the imaginal disc mode of development in Drosophila is not broadly representative of the development of larval/adult epithelial tissues across Holometabola; thus, inference of a true positive validation becomes complicated in cases where predicted enhancers from a species were tested and shown to drive expression in a fly imaginal disc that the native species have no direct disc counterpart to. For example, in line 388 a Tcas enhancer is reported to drive expression in the eye-antennal disc, and in lines 404 and 423 additional Tcas enhancers were reported to drive expression in the leg discs; however, Tribolium larvae do not possess antennal discs or leg discs set aside during embryogenesis in the sense that flies do - instead the homologous epithelial tissues form larval antennae and larval legs external to the body wall that are actively used at this life stage and are starkly different in morphology than an internally invaginated epithelial disc, that will directly give rise to adult tissues in subsequent molts. Is the interpretation of an expression pattern driven in a fly disc as a true positive really as straightforward as it was presented here, when in the native species the expression pattern driven by the enhancer in question would be in the context of an extremely different tissue morphology? That said, I understand and am deeply sympathetic to the constraints on the authors in performing transgenic experiments outside of the model fly; but these divergent modes of development across Holometabola deserve a mention and nuance in the interpretation here. 

This is indeed a very important point, and we greatly appreciate Reviewer 3 pointing out this caveat when interpreting the outcomes of our cross-species reporter assay. Reviewer 3 is correct that the imaginal disc mode of adult tissue (i.e. imaginal) development found in Diptera does not represent the imaginal development across Holometabola. 

In fact, imaginal development is quite diverse among Holometabola. For instance, larval leg and antennal cells appear to directly develop into the adult legs and antennae in Coleoptera (i.e. primordial imaginal cells function as larval appendage cells), while some cells within the larval legs and antennae are set aside during larval development specifically for adult appendages in Lepidopteran species (i.e. imaginal cells exist within the larval appendages but do not contribute to the formation of larval appendages). In contrast, an almost entire set of cells that develop into adult epithelia are set aside as imaginal discs during embryogenesis in Diptera. Furthermore, the imaginal disc mode of development appears to have evolved independently in

Hymenoptera. Therefore, determining how imaginal primordial tissues correspond to each other among Holometabola has been a challenging task and a topic of high interest within the evo-devo and entomology communities.

Nevertheless, despite these differences in mode of imaginal development, decades of evo-devo studies suggest that the gene regulatory networks (GRNs) operating in imaginal primordial tissues appear to be fairly well conserved among holometabolan species (for example, see Tomoyasu et al. 2009 regarding wing development and Angelini et al. 2012 regarding leg development between flies and beetles). These outcomes imply that a significant portion of the transcriptional landscape might be conserved across different modes of imaginal development. Therefore, an enhancer functioning in the Tribolium larval leg tissue (which also functions as adult leg primordium) could be active even in the leg imaginal disc of Drosophila, if the trans factors essential for the activation of the enhancer are conserved between the two imaginal tissues. 

That being said, we fully expect there to be both false negative and false positive results in our cross-species reporter assay. We are optimistic about the biological relevance of the positive outcomes of our crossspecies reporter assay, especially when the enhancer activity recapitulates the expression of the corresponding gene in Drosophila (for example, Am_ex Fig6B and Tc_hth Fig7B). Nonetheless, the biological relevance of these enhancer activities needs to be further verified in the native species through reporter assays, enhancer knock-outs, or similar experiments.

In recognition of the Reviewer’s important point, we added the following caveat in our Discussion (lines 549553): “Furthermore, the unique imaginal disc mode of adult epithelial development in D. melanogaster  might have prevented some enhancers of other species from working properly in D. melanogaster imaginal discs, likely producing additional false negative results. Evaluating enhancer activities in the native species will allow us to address the degree of false negatives produced by the cross-species setting.” We moreover mention this caveat in the Results section when we first introduce the reporter assays (line 342).

Line 580: This is the first time that the weakness of the closest-gene pairing approach is mentioned. This deserves mention earlier in the manuscript, as unfortunately, this is one of the major bottlenecks to this and any other approaches to investigating enhancer function. Could the authors address this earlier, perhaps pages 7-8, and provide citations for current understanding in the field of how often closest-gene pairing approaches correctly match enhancers to target genes? 

We have added text as suggested on p.7-8 acknowledging the shortcomings of the closest-gene approach. We also clarify at the end of that section (lines 173-181) that target gene assignments, while useful for interpretation, have no bearing on the enhancer predictions themselves (which are generated prior to the target gene assignment steps).

eLife assessment

This manuscript compiles existing algorithms into an open-source software package that enables real-time (and offline) motor unit decomposition from muscle activity collected via grids of surface electrodes and indwelling electrode arrays. The package is valuable given that many motor neuroscience labs are using such algorithms and that there exists a host of potential applications for such data. Validation of the software package is compelling, suggesting that it can be successfully applied across a range of muscles and tasks.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Many labs world-wide now use the blind source deconvolution technique to identify the firing patterns of multiple motor units simultaneously in human subjects. This technique has had a truly transformative effective on our understanding of the structure of motor output in both normal subjects and, increasingly, in persons with neurological disorders. The key advance presented here is that the software provides real time identification of these firing patterns.

The main strengths are the clarity of the presentation and the great potential that real-time decoding will provide. Figures are especially effective and statistical analyses are excellent.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

In this manuscript, Rossato and colleagues present a method for real-time decoding of EMG into putative single motor units. Their manuscript details a variety of decision points in their code and data collection pipeline that lead to a final result of recording on the order of ~10 putative motor units per muscle in human males. Overall the manuscript is highly restricted in its potential utility but may be of interest to aficionados. For those outside the field of human or nonhuman primate EMG, these methods will be of limited interest.

Comment on revised version

The revised manuscript has thoroughly and responsively addressed the concerns and suggestions raised in the first review. I think the method will be of use to the field and fits well within the purview of eLife's publications on methods development.

Author response:

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

eLife assessment  

This manuscript compiles existing algorithms into an open-source software package that enables realtime motor unit decomposition from muscle activity collected via grids of surface electrodes and indwelling electrode arrays. The software package is valuable given that many motor neuroscience labs are using such algorithms and that there exist a host of potential real-time applications for such data. Validation of the software package is generally solid but incomplete in some important areas: the primary data is narrow in scope and only from male participants, and there is a lack of ground truth tests on synthetic data. The impact of the software package could be strengthened by making it less tied to specific electrode hardware and by expanding it to easily permit offline analysis.

We thank the reviewers and editors for their comments and suggestions after reading the initial version of our manuscript. In this second iteration, we have performed a validation of the algorithm using synthetic EMG signals. We have also added experimental data collected in female participants. Finally, the new version of I-Spin is compatible with the Open Ephys GUI that can interface with devices such as the Open Ephys and Intan acquisition boards. Another version has been developed for interfacing with the devices provided by the TMSi company (https://info.tmsi.com/blog/ispin-saga-real-timemotor-unit-decomposition-tool). We believe that such changes will make I-Spin more accessible for a broad range of experimental setups and research teams. Please find below the specific answers to the reviewers’ comments.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):  

Many labs worldwide now use the blind source deconvolution technique to identify the firing patterns of multiple motor units simultaneously in human subjects. This technique has had a truly transformative effect on our understanding of the structure of motor output in both normal subjects and, increasingly, in persons with neurological disorders. The key advance presented here is that the software provides real-time identification of these firing patterns. The main strengths are the clarity of the presentation and the great potential that real-time decoding will provide. Figures are especially effective and statistical analyses are excellent. 

We thank the reviewer for this positive appreciation of our work. 

The main limitation of the work is that only male subjects were included in the validation of the software. The reason given - that yield of number of motor units identified is generally larger in males than females - is reasonable in the sense that this is the first systematic test of this real-time approach. At a minimum, however, the authors should clearly commit to future work with female subjects and emphasize the importance of considering sex differences. 

As emphasised by the reviewer, the number of identified motor units is typically higher in males than females when using surface EMG (Taylor et al., 2022), which is the current main limitation of the implementation of offline EMG decomposition technique in a broad and representative sample of research participants. These differences between biological sex are less present when using intramuscular EMG, as the signals are less affected by the filtering effect of the volume conductor separating the motor units from the recording electrodes. Besides the different yields expected between males and females, we do not expect differences in terms of the accuracy of the motor unit identification algorithm, which is the main outcome of this paper. 

Nevertheless, we acknowledge the importance to understand the reasons for this difference, and the imperative to refine algorithms and/or surface electrode design to mitigate this major limitation with surface EMG. 

To support this point, the discussion has been updated (P20; L480):

‘An important consideration regarding the implementation of offline or real-time surface EMG decomposition is the difference between individuals, with an overall lower yield in number of identified motor units in females (here: 9 ± 12) than in males (here: 30 ± 13). Typically, the number of identified motor units from surface EMG is twice as low in females than males (32, 49, 50). The cause for this difference remains unclear. It may be related to variations in properties of the tissues separating the motor units from the recording electrodes, or to differences in the morphological and physiological properties of muscle fibres, as well as to the innervation ratios of motor units. These sex-related differences have so far only been supported by data extracted from animal experiments (51). However, the recent developments of simulation frameworks capable of generating highly realistic EMG signals for anthropometrically diverse populations may help understanding the impact of sex-related differences in humans (52). Specifically, these simulations can account for diverse anatomical (e.g. muscle volume and architecture, thickness of subcutaneous tissues) and physiological characteristics (e.g. innervation ratio, number of motor units, fibre cross sectional area, fibre conduction velocity, contribution of rate coding vs. spatial recruitment). Generating such dataset could help identifying the primary factors affecting EMG decomposition performance, ultimately enabling the refinement of algorithms and/or surface electrode design.’

Finally, we have completed new experiments including males and females in this new iteration (P.12; L.295):

‘Application of motor unit filters in experimental data

We then asked eight participants (4 males and 4 females) to perform trapezoidal isometric contractions with plateaus of force set at 10% and 20% MVC during which surface EMG signals were recorded from the TA with 256 electrodes separated by 4 mm. The aim of this experiment was to confirm the results of the simulation; specifically, to test the accuracy of the online decomposition when the level of force was below, equal to, or above the level of force produced during the baseline contraction used to estimate the motor unit filters (Figure 4). We assessed the accuracy of the motor unit spike trains identified in real time using their manually edited version as reference. 144 motor units were identified at both 10 and 20% MVC. When the test signals were recorded at the same level of force as the baseline contraction, we obtained rates of agreement of 95.6 ± 6.8% (10% MVC) and 93.9 ± 5.9% (20% MVC). The sensitivity reached 95.9 ± 6.7% (10% MVC) and 94.4 ± 5.6% (20% MVC), and the precision reached 99.6 ± 1.3% (10% MVC) and 99.4 ± 1.9% (20% MVC). 

When the filters identified at 20% MVC were applied on signals recorded at a lower level of force (10% MVC), the rates of agreement decreased to 87.9 ± 16.2%. The sensitivity also decreased to 88.0 ± 16.2%, but the precision remained high (99.4 ± 4.3). Thus, the decrease in accuracy was mostly caused by missed discharge times rather than the false identification of artifacts or spikes from other motor units. When the filters identified at 10% MVC were applied to signals recorded at a higher level of force, the rates of agreement decreased to 83.3 ± 13.5%. The sensitivity decreased to 90.7 ± 8.1%, and the precision also decreased to 90.9 ± 12.6%. This result confirms what was observed with synthetic EMG, that is motor units recruited between 10 and 20% MVC can substantially disrupt the accuracy of the decomposition in real-time, as highlighted in Figure 4 (lower panel). Importantly, this situation does not happen for all the motor units, as suggested by the distribution of the values in Figure 4.’

A second weakness is that the Introduction does a poor job of establishing the potential importance of the real-time approach. 

The introduction has been modified to highlight the importance of identifying the spiking activity of motor units in real time. Specifically, the first paragraph has been rewritten to read (P3; L67): 

‘The activity of motor neuron – in the form of spike trains – represents the neural code of movement to muscles. Decoding this firing activity in real-time during various behaviours can thus substantially enhance our understanding of movement control (2-5). Real-time decoding is also essential for interfacing with external devices (6) or virtual limbs (7) when activity is present at the periphery of the nervous system. For example, individuals with a spinal cord injury can control a virtual hand with the residual firing activity of the motor units in their forearm (7). Furthermore, sampling the activity of motor units receiving a substantial portion of independent synaptic inputs may pave the way for movement augmentation – specifically, extending a person’s movement repertoire through the increase of controllable degrees of freedom (8). In this way, Formento et al. (3) showed that individuals can intuitively learn to independently control motor units within the same muscle using visual cues. Having access to open-source tools that perform the real-time decoding of motor units would allow an increasing number of researchers to improve and expand the range of these applications’

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):  

Rossato et al present I-spin live, a software package to perform real-time blind-source separation-based sorting of motor unit activity. The core contribution of this manuscript is the development and validation of a software package to perform motor unit sorting, apply the resulting motor unit filters in real-time during muscle contractions, and provide real-time visual feedback of the motor unit activity. I have a few concerns with the work as presented: 

I found it challenging to specifically understand the technical contributions of this manuscript. The authors do not appear to be claiming anything novel algorithmically (with respect to spike sorting) or methodologically (with respect to manual editing of spikes before the use of the algorithms in real-time). My takeaway is that the key contributions are C1) development of an open-source implementation of the Negro algorithm, C2) validating it for real-time application (evaluating its sorting efficacy, and closed-loop performance, etc), and developing a software package to run in closed-loop with visual feedback. I will comment on each of these items separately below. It would be great if the authors could more explicitly lay out the key contributions of this manuscript in the text. 

The main objective of this work was to provide an open-source implementation of the real-time identification of motor units together with a user interface that allow researchers to easily process the data and display the firing activity of motor unit in the form of several visual feedback. We have explicitly laid out these key contributions in the introduction: “Having access to open-source tools that perform the real-time decoding of motor units would allow an increasing number of researchers to improve and expand the range of these applications.’

Related to the above, much of the validation of the algorithms in this manuscript has a "trust me" feel. The authors note that the Negro et al. algorithm has already been validated, so very few details or presentations of primary data showing the algorithm's performance are shown. Similarly, the efficacy of the decomposition approach is evaluated using manual editing of the sorting output as a reference, which is a subjective process, and users would greatly benefit from explicit guidance. There are very few details of manual editing shown in this manuscript (I believe the authors reference the Hug et al. 2021 paper for these details), and little discussion of the core challenges and variability of that process, even though it seems to be a critical step in the proposed workflow. So this is very hard to evaluate and would be challenging for readers to replicate. 

To address the reviewer’s comment, we added a validation step using synthetic EMG data (P.10; L.235). 

‘Validation of the algorithm

We first validated the accuracy of the algorithm using synthetic EMG signals generated with an anatomical model entailing a cylindrical muscle volume with parallel fibres [see Farina et al. (29), Konstantin et al. (36) for a full description of the model)]. In this model, subcutaneous and skin layers separate the muscle from a grid of 65 surface electrodes (5 columns, 13 rows), while an intramuscular array of electrodes is directly inserted in the muscle under the grid with an angle of 30 degrees. 150 motor units were distributed within the cross section of the muscle. Recruitment thresholds, firing rate/excitatory drive relations, and twitch parameters were assigned to each motor unit using the same procedure as Fuglevand et al. (37). During each simulation, a proportional-integral-derivative controller adjusted the level of excitatory drive to minimise the error between a predefined target of force and the force generated by the active motor units. 

Figure 3A displays the raster plots of the active motor units during simulated trapezoidal isometric contractions with plateaus of force set at 10%, 20%, and 30% MVC. A sinusoidal isometric contraction ranging between 15 and 25% MVC at a frequency of 0.5 Hz was also simulated. We identified on average 10 ± 1 and 12 ± 2 motor units with surface and intramuscular arrays, respectively (Figure 3A). During the offline decomposition, the rate of agreement between the identified discharge times and the ground truth, that is, the simulated discharge times, reached 100.0 ± 0.0% for intramuscular EMG signals and 99.2 ± 1.8% for surface EMG signals (Figure 3B). The offline estimation of motor unit filters was therefore highly accurate, independently of the level of force or the pattern of the isometric contraction.

Motor unit filters estimated during a baseline contraction at 20% MVC were then applied in real-time on signals simulated during a contraction with a different pattern (sinusoidal; Figure 3C). The rates of agreement between the online decomposition and the ground truth reached 96.3 ± 4.6% and 98.4 ± 2.3% for surface and intramuscular EMG signals, respectively. Finally, we tested whether the accuracy of the online decomposition changed when the level of force decreased or increased by 10% MVC when compared to the calibration performed at 20% MVC (Figure 3D). The rate of agreement remained high when applying the motor unit filters on signals recorded at 10% MVC: 99.8 ± 0.2% (surface EMG) and 99.5 ± 0.3% (intramuscular EMG). It is worth noting that only 3 out of 10 motor units identified from surface EMG at 20% MVC were active at 10% MVC, while 8 out of 12 motor units identified from intramuscular EMG were active at 10 % MVC. This shows how the decomposition of EMG signals tends to identify the last recruited motor units, which often innervate a larger number of fibres than the early recruited motor units (38). On the contrary, the application of motor unit filters on signals simulated at 30% MVC led to a decrease in the rate of agreement, with values of 88.6 ± 14.0% (surface EMG) and

80.3 ± 19.2% (intramuscular EMG). This decrease in accuracy did not impact all the motor units, with 5 motor units keeping a rate of agreement above 95% in both signals. For the other motor units, we observed a decrease in precision, which estimates the ratio of true discharge times over the total number of identified discharge times. This was caused by the recruitment of two motor units sharing a similar space within the muscle, which resulted in a merge in the same pulse train (Figure 3D).’

In addition, we added a new paragraph in the Method section to describe the manual editing process (P.26; L.658). 

‘There is a consensus among experts that automatic decomposition should be followed by visual inspection and manual editing (55).  Manual editing involves the following steps: i) removing spikes that result in erroneous firing rates (outliers), ii) adding discharge times thar are clearly distinguishable from the noise, iii) recalculating the separation vector, iv) reapplying the separation vector on the EMG signals (either a selected window or the entire signal), and v) repeating this procedure until no outliers are present and all clearly distinguishable spikes have been selected. Importantly, the manual editing of potentially missed or falsely identified discharge times should not be accepted before the application of the updated motor unit separation vector, thereby generating a new pulse train. Manual edits should be accepted only if the silhouette value improves following this operation or remains well above the preestablished threshold. A more extensive description of the manual editing of motor unit pulse trains can be found in (32). Even though some of the aforementioned steps involve subjective decision-making, evidence suggests that manual editing after EMG decomposition with blind source separation approaches remains highly reliable across operators (33). Specifically, the median rates of agreement calculated for 126 motor units over eight operators with various experience in manual editing was 99.6%.  All raw and processed data have been made available on a public data repository so that they can be used for training new operators (10.6084/m9.figshare.13695937).’

I found the User Guide in the Github package to be easy to follow. Importantly, it seems heavily tied to the specific hardware (Quattrocento). I understand it may be difficult to make the full software package work with different hardware, but it seems important to at least make an offline analysis of recorded data possible for this package to be useful more broadly. 

The software was updated to perform real-time decomposition with signals recorded from the Quattrocento and the Open Ephys GUI, which is compatible with Intan and Open Ephys acquisition boards. I-Spin has also been adapted by TMSi to perform real-time decomposition with their devices (https://info.tmsi.com/blog/ispin-saga-real-time-motor-unit-decomposition-tool). 

Moreover, the manual editing panel of the software can now import any files from these devices and allow users to reformat data in mat files to perform offline analyses.

While this may be a powerful platform, it is also very possible that without more details and careful guidance for users on potential pitfalls, many non-experts in sorting could use this as a platform for somewhat sloppy science. 

We fully agree with the reviewer that real-time EMG decomposition - with a different approach here than spike sorting - may yield unreliable results if not applied properly. As outlined in the introduction of our initial manuscript, assessing the accuracy and limitations of real-time decomposition was a primary motivation for this study. Specifically, we compared accuracy between contraction intensities, muscles, and electrode types (see Results section). 

We also demonstrated that manual editing of the decomposition outputs should be done after the training phase to improve the motor unit filters, thereby improving the accuracy of real-time decomposition. We also outlined the importance to never blindly accept the result of the decomposition without visual inspection and manual editing. (P8; L214)

‘These results show how manual editing can improve the accuracy of spike detection from the motor unit pulse trains. Moreover, a SIL value around 0.9 can be used as a threshold to automatically remove the motor unit pulse trains with a poor quality a priori. Thus, these two steps were performed in the all the subsequent analyses. Importantly, it is worth noting that the motor unit pulse train must always be visually inspected after the session to check for errors of the automatic identification of discharge times.’

We have also included more detailed information about the manual editing process (see above).

The authors mention that data is included with the Github software package. I could not find any included data, or instructions on how to run the software offline on example data. 

This link to the data on figshare was added in the GitHub.

Given the centrality of the real-time visual feedback to their system, the authors should show some examples of the actual display etc. so readers can understand what the system in action actually looks like (I believe there is no presentation of the actual system in the manuscript, just in the User Guide). Similarly, it would be helpful to have a schematic figure outlining the full workflow that a user goes through when using this system. 

A figure of the workflow is present in the user manual. Additionally, we now display traces of visual feedback in figure 5 and we added videos of the software during each of the visual feedback in supplemental materials. 

The authors note all data was collected with male subjects because more motor units can be decomposed from male subjects relative to females. But what is the long-term outlook for the field if studies avoid female subjects because their motor units may be harder to decompose? This should at least be discussed - it is an important challenge for the field to solve, and it is unacceptable if new methods just avoid this problem and are only tested on male subjects. 

This point was rightly raised by each of the three reviewers. To solve this, we added data collected on four females, and discussed future developments to make the decomposition of surface EMG equally performant for everyone (P.20; L.480).

‘An important consideration regarding the implementation of offline or real-time surface EMG decomposition is the difference between individuals, with an overall lower yield in number of identified motor units in females (here: 9 ± 12) than in males (here: 30 ± 13). Typically, the number of identified motor units from surface EMG is twice as low in females than males (32, 49, 50). The cause for this difference remains unclear. It may be related to variations in properties of the tissues separating the motor units from the recording electrodes, or to differences in the morphological and physiological properties of muscle fibres, as well as to the innervation ratios of motor units. These sex-related differences have so far only been supported by data extracted from animal experiments (51). However, the recent developments of simulation frameworks capable of generating highly realistic EMG signals for anthropometrically diverse populations may help understanding the impact of sex-related differences in humans (52). Specifically, these simulations can account for diverse anatomical (e.g. muscle volume and architecture, thickness of subcutaneous tissues) and physiological characteristics (e.g. innervation ratio, number of motor units, fibre cross sectional area, fibre conduction velocity, contribution of rate coding vs. spatial recruitment). Generating such dataset could help identifying the primary factors affecting EMG decomposition performance, ultimately enabling the refinement of algorithms and/or surface electrode design.’

Specific comments on the core contributions of this paper:  

C1. Development of an open-source implementation of the Negro algorithm 

This seems an important contribution and useful for the community. There are very few figures showing any primary data, the efficacy of sorting, raw traces showing the waveforms that are identified, cluster shapes, etc. I realize the high-level algorithm has been outlined elsewhere, but the implementation in this package, and its efficacy, is a core component of the system and the claims being made in this paper. Much more presentation of data is needed to evaluate this. 

It is worth noting that the approach used here is based on blind source separation, which is different than spike-sorting algorithms as it relies on the statistical properties of the spike trains (their sparseness) rather than the profiles of the action potentials. In short, we optimise separation vectors that are applied onto the whitened signal to generate a sparse motor unit pulse train. The discharge times are then directly estimated from the high peaks of this pulse train (Section 1 of the results; overview of the approach).

We are thus displaying motor unit pulse trains in three figures with the automatically detected discharge times, with cases of successful separation in figure 1 and merged motor units in the same pulse train in figures 3 and 4.

We also validated the algorithm with synthetic EMG to provide objective data on the accuracy of the algorithm. These results are shown in the section ‘Validation of the algorithm’ and displayed in figure 3.

Similarly, more information on the offline manual editing process (e.g. showing before/after examples with primary data) would be important to gain confidence in the method. The current paper shows application to both surface EMG and intramuscular EMG, but I could not find IM EMG examples in the Hug paper (apologies if I missed them). Surface and IM data are very, very different, so one would imagine the considerations when working with them should also be different. 

In response to another comment from the reviewer, we have included more detailed information about the manual editing process (see above). As stated above, the decomposition approach used in our software differs from a spike sorting approach. Therefore, even though intramuscular and surface EMG signals are different, the decomposition and manual editing process is the same. 

All descriptions of math/algorithms are presented in text, without any actual math, variable definitions, etc. This presentation makes it difficult to understand what is done. I would strongly recommend writing out equations and defining variables where possible. 

More details on how the level of sparseness is controlled during optimization would be helpful.

And how this sparseness penalty is weighed against other optimization costs. 

A mathematical description of the model has been added in the methods (P25; L620)

‘Mathematical modelling of the recorded spike trains.

The spike train of a motor neuron recorded over time 𝑡 ∈ [0, 𝑇] can be described as the result of a convolution between a delta function (d) representing the firing times (j), and finite impulse responses (h) representing action potentials of duration L: . In practice, the nature of h and the duration L depend on the type of recordings. For electrophysiological measurements, h characterises the local electrical field generated by the spike and conducted through the surrounding tissues. 

As the recorded volume of tissue comprises many active neurons, each recording can be considered as a convolutive mixture of multiple sources, and the previous equation can be expressed in the form of a matrix to also consider all the electrodes of an array: given , where is a matrix of m electrophysiological signals, is a matrix of n motor neurons’ spike trains, and 𝐻(𝑙) is a m by n matrix containing the lth sample of action potentials from n neurons and m signals. In this situation, we can reformulate the model as an instantaneous mixture of an extended set of sources, that is, the motor neurons’ spike trains and their delayed versions. This allows us to simply write the previous equation as a multiplication of matrices, in which each source is delayed L times, L being the duration of the impulse response h. This model can be inverted for neural decoding with source-separation approaches.’

The rest of the decomposition approach was rewritten to make it clearer for the reader:

‘The monopolar EMG signals collected during the baseline contractions were extended with an extension factor of   1000/m (21), where m is the number of channels free of any noise or artifact. The signals were then demeaned and whitened. A contrast function was iteratively applied to estimate a separation vector that maximised the level of sparseness of the motor unit pulse train (Figure 1B). This loop stopped when the variation of the separation vector between two successive iterations reaches a predefined lower bound. After the application of a peak detection algorithm, the motor unit pulse train contained high peaks (i.e., the spikes from the identified motor unit) and low peaks from other motor units and noise. High peaks were separated from low peaks and noise using K-mean classification with two classes (Figure 1B). The peaks from the class with the highest centroid were considered as spikes of the identified motor unit. A second algorithm refined the estimation of the discharge times by iteratively recalculating the separation vector and repeating the steps with peak detection and K-mean classification until the coefficient of variation of the inter-spike intervals was minimised. The accuracy of each estimated spike train was assessed by computing the silhouette (SIL) value between the two classes of peaks identified with K-mean classification (24). When the SIL exceeded a predetermined threshold, the motor unit filter was saved for the real-time decomposition, together with the centroids of the ‘spikes’ and ‘noise’ classes (Figure 2A).’

Overall the paper is not very rigorous about the accuracy of motor unit identification. For example, the authors note that SIL of 0.9 is generally used for offline evaluation (why is this acceptable?), but it was lowered to 0.8 for particular muscles in this study. But overall, it is unclear how sorting accuracy/inaccuracy affects performance in the target applications of this work. 

In the section mentioned by the reviewer, we aimed to show how this metric can help to automatically select motor units that are likely to have a higher accuracy of spike detections as the peaks of their pulse train are easily separable from the noise. 

We reformulated the conclusion of this section to make it clearer (P8; L214):

‘These results show how manual editing can improve the accuracy of spike detection from the motor unit pulse trains. Moreover, a SIL value around 0.9 can be used as a threshold to automatically remove the motor unit pulse trains with a poor quality a priori. Thus, these two steps were performed in the all the subsequent analyses. Importantly, it is worth noting that the motor unit pulse train must always be visually inspected after the session to check for errors of the automatic identification of discharge times.’

C2. For real-time experiments, variability/jitter is important to characterize. Fig. 4 seems to be presenting mean computational times, etc, but no presentation of variability is shown. It would be helpful to depict data distributions somehow, rather than just mean values. 

The variability in computational time was added to this section (P.28; L.730):

‘The standard deviation of computational times across windows reached 5.4 ± 4.0 ms (raster plot), 4.0 ± 3.2 ms (smoothed firing rate), and 2.8 ± 2.5 ms (quadrant)’

The computational time minimally varied between the successive windows, except when the labels of the x-axis were updated in real-time with scrolling feedback. It was overall always well below the duration of the window.

Author response image 1.

Computational time for each iteration of the algorithm in one participant. The top panels display the continuous computation time through the recording, while the bottom panels display the distribution of computational times. The dash line represents the duration of a window of EMG signals.

There is some description about the difference between units identified during baseline contractions, and how they might be misidentified during online contractions ("Accuracy of the real-time identification..."). This should be described in more detail. 

We added an additional section in the results to clarify the concept of motor unit filters, and the reapplication of motor unit filters on signals in real-time. We highlighted how each motor unit must have a unique spatio-temporal signature to be accurately identified by our algorithms, in opposition to merged motor units sharing the same spatio-temporal features. This section shows how motor units accurately identified during baseline contractions can be misidentified during online contractions (P12; L295).

‘Application of motor unit filters in experimental data

We then asked eight participants (4 males and 4 females) to perform trapezoidal isometric contractions with plateaus of force set at 10% and 20% MVC during which surface EMG signals were recorded from the TA with 256 electrodes separated by 4 mm. The aim of this experiment was to confirm the results of the simulation; specifically, to test the accuracy of the online decomposition when the level of force was below, equal to, or above the level of force produced during the baseline contraction used to estimate the motor unit filters (Figure 4). We assessed the accuracy of the motor unit spike trains identified in real time using their manually edited version as reference. 144 motor units were identified at both 10 and 20% MVC. When the test signals were recorded at the same level of force as the baseline contraction, we obtained rates of agreement of 95.6 ± 6.8% (10% MVC) and 93.9 ± 5.9% (20% MVC). The sensitivity reached 95.9 ± 6.7% (10% MVC) and 94.4 ± 5.6% (20% MVC), and the precision reached 99.6 ± 1.3% (10% MVC) and 99.4 ± 1.9% (20% MVC).  

When the filters identified at 20% MVC were applied on signals recorded at a lower level of force (10% MVC), the rates of agreement decreased to 87.9 ± 16.2%. The sensitivity also decreased to 88.0 ± 16.2%, but the precision remained high (99.4 ± 4.3). Thus, the decrease in accuracy was mostly caused by missed discharge times rather than the false identification of artifacts or spikes from other motor units.

When the filters identified at 10% MVC were applied to signals recorded at a higher level of force, the rates of agreement decreased to 83.3 ± 13.5%. The sensitivity decreased to 90.7 ± 8.1%, and the precision also decreased to 90.9 ± 12.6%. This result confirms what was observed with synthetic EMG, that is motor units recruited between 10 and 20% MVC can substantially disrupt the accuracy of the decomposition in real-time, as highlighted in Figure 4 (lower panel). Importantly, this situation does not happen for all the motor units, as suggested by the distribution of the values in Figure 4.’

Fig. 6: Given that a key challenge in sorting should be that collisions occur during large contractions, much more primary data should be presented/visualized to show how the accuracy of sorting changes during larger contractions in online experiments. 

As indicated above, the decomposition approach implemented in our software is not based on spikesorting, so it does not require to separate overlapping profiles of action potentials (see Methods). 

Fig.7: In presenting the accuracy of biofeedback, it is very hard to gain any intuition for performance by just looking at RMSE values. Showing the online decoded and edited trajectories would help readers understand the magnitude of errors. 

We updated the figure to display examples of visual feedback before and after manual editing.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):  

In this manuscript, Rossato and colleagues present a method for real-time decoding of EMG into putative single motor units. Their manuscript details a variety of decision points in their code and data collection pipeline that led to a final result of recording on the order of ~10 putative motor units per muscle in human males. Overall, the manuscript is highly restricted in its potential utility but may be of interest to aficionados. For those outside the field of human or nonhuman primate EMG, these methods will be of limited interest.

We thank the reviewer for his/her throughout evaluation of our manuscript. We recognise that this tool/resource will immediately benefit groups working with humans or nonhuman primate models. However, the recent development of intramuscular thin films with various designs adapted to rodents and smaller animals could expand the range of future users (Chung et al., 2023, Elife).  Nonetheless, decoding motor units in humans could be useful for many fields, e.g. in the domains of movement restoration and augmentation. The following paragraph has been added in the introduction section to highlight the importance of real-time decoding of motor unit activity (P3; L67):  

‘The activity of motor neuron – in the form of spike trains – represents the neural code of movement to muscles. Decoding this firing activity in real-time during various behaviours can thus substantially enhance our understanding of movement control (2-5). Real-time decoding is also essential for interfacing with external devices (6) or virtual limbs (7) when activity is present at the periphery of the nervous system. For example, individuals with a spinal cord injury can control a virtual hand with the residual firing activity of the motor units in their forearm (7). Furthermore, sampling the activity of motor units receiving a substantial portion of independent synaptic inputs may pave the way for movement augmentation – specifically, extending a person’s movement repertoire through the increase of controllable degrees of freedom (8). In this way, Formento et al. (3) showed that individuals can intuitively learn to independently control motor units within the same muscle using visual cues. Having access to open-source tools that perform the real-time decoding of motor units would allow an increasing number of researchers to improve and expand the range of these applications.’

Notes 

(1) Artificial data should be used with this method to provide ground truth performance evaluations. Without it, the study assumptions are unchallenged and could be seriously flawed.

A new section on the validation of the algorithm has been added. We verified the accuracy of the algorithm by comparing the series of identified discharge times with the ground truth, i.e., the simulated discharge times. (P10; L235)

‘Validation of the algorithm

We first validated the accuracy of the algorithm using synthetic EMG signals generated with an anatomical model entailing a cylindrical muscle volume with parallel fibres [see Farina et al. (29), Konstantin et al. (36) for a full description of the model)]. In this model, subcutaneous and skin layers separate the muscle from a grid of 65 surface electrodes (5 columns, 13 rows), while an intramuscular array of electrodes is directly inserted in the muscle under the grid with an angle of 30 degrees. 150 motor units were distributed within the cross section of the muscle. Recruitment thresholds, firing rate/excitatory drive relations, and twitch parameters were assigned to each motor unit using the same procedure as Fuglevand et al. (37). During each simulation, a proportional-integral-derivative controller adjusted the level of excitatory drive to minimise the error between a predefined target of force and the force generated by the active motor units. 

Figure 3A displays the raster plots of the active motor units during simulated trapezoidal isometric contractions with plateaus of force set at 10%, 20%, and 30% MVC. A sinusoidal isometric contraction ranging between 15 and 25% MVC at a frequency of 0.5 Hz was also simulated. We identified on average 10 ± 1 and 12 ± 2 motor units with surface and intramuscular arrays, respectively (Figure 3A). During the offline decomposition, the rate of agreement between the identified discharge times and the ground truth, that is, the simulated discharge times, reached 100.0 ± 0.0% for intramuscular EMG signals and 99.2 ± 1.8% for surface EMG signals (Figure 3B). The offline estimation of motor unit filters was therefore highly accurate, independently of the level of force or the pattern of the isometric contraction.

Motor unit filters estimated during a baseline contraction at 20% MVC were then applied in real-time on signals simulated during a contraction with a different pattern (sinusoidal; Figure 3C). The rates of agreement between the online decomposition and the ground truth reached 96.3 ± 4.6% and 98.4 ± 2.3% for surface and intramuscular EMG signals, respectively. Finally, we tested whether the accuracy of the online decomposition changed when the level of force decreased or increased by 10% MVC when compared to the calibration performed at 20% MVC (Figure 3D). The rate of agreement remained high when applying the motor unit filters on signals recorded at 10% MVC: 99.8 ± 0.2% (surface EMG) and 99.5 ± 0.3% (intramuscular EMG). It is worth noting that only 3 out of 10 motor units identified from surface EMG at 20% MVC were active at 10% MVC, while 8 out of 12 motor units identified from intramuscular EMG were active at 10 % MVC. This shows how the decomposition of EMG signals tends to identify the last recruited motor units, which often innervate a larger number of fibres than the early recruited motor units (38). On the contrary, the application of motor unit filters on signals simulated at 30% MVC led to a decrease in the rate of agreement, with values of 88.6 ± 14.0% (surface EMG) and 80.3 ± 19.2% (intramuscular EMG). This decrease in accuracy did not impact all the motor units, with 5 motor units keeping a rate of agreement above 95% in both signals. For the other motor units, we observed a decrease in precision, which estimates the ratio of true discharge times over the total number of identified discharge times. This was caused by the recruitment of two motor units sharing a similar space within the muscle, which resulted in a merge in the same pulse train (Figure 3D).’

(2) From the point of view of a motor control neuroscientist studying movement in animals other than humans or non-human primates, the title was misleadingly hopeful. The use case presented in this study requires human participants to perform isometric contractions, facilitating spatially redundant recordings across the muscle for the algorithm to work. It is unclear whether these methods will be of utility to use cases under more physiological conditions (ie. dynamic movement). 

We modified the title to read: “I-Spin live: An open-source software based on blind-source separation for real-time decoding of motor unit activity in humans”. 

(3) The text states that "EMG signals recorded with an array of electrodes can be considered and instantaneous mixture of the original motor unit spike trains and their delayed versions." While this may be a true statement, it is not a complete statement, since motor units at distal sites may be shared, not shared, or novel. It was not clear to me whether the diversity of these scenarios would affect the performance of the software or introduce artifacts. In other words, if at site 1 you can pick up the bulk signal of units 1,2,3,4; at site two you pick up the signals of units 2,3,4,5 and site three you pick up the signal of units 3,4,5,6, what does the algorithm assume is happening and what does it report and why?

This section has been rewritten to clarify this point. The EMG signal represents indeed the sum of the active motor units within the recorded muscle volume. Put in other words, it is possible that deep motor units or motor units with innervated fibres far away from the grid were not in this recorded muscle volume, and thus non-identifiable. Another necessary condition to ensure the identifiability of the motor unit is its unique spatio-temporal signature within the signal. It means that two motor units close to each other within the muscle volume will be merged by the model. This point was clarified in the results during the validation and the application of filters on experimental data.

(P5; L115)

‘An EMG signal represents the sum of trains of action potentials from all the active motor units within the recorded muscle volume (Figure 1A). During stationary conditions, e.g., isometric contractions, the train of motor unit action potentials can be modelled as the convolution of series of discrete delta functions, representing the discharge times, and motor unit action potentials that have a consistent shape across time. When EMG signals are recorded with an array of electrodes, the shape of the recorded potential of each motor unit differs across electrodes. This is due to 1) the varying conduction velocity of action potentials among the muscle fibres, and 2) the location/depth of the muscle fibres that belong to each motor unit relatively to the electrodes, which impact the low pass filtering effect of the tissue on the recorded potential. Increasing the number and density of recording electrodes increases the likelihood that each motor unit will have a unique motor unit action potential profile (shape), i.e., a temporal and spatial profile that differs from all the other active motor unit within the recorded volume (16, 29). The uniqueness of motor unit action potential profiles is necessary for the blind source separation to accurately estimate the motor unit discharge times. Conversely, the spike trains of two motor units with similar action potential profiles will be merged by the model.

Our software uses a fast independent component analysis (fastICA) to retrieve motor unit spike trains from the EMG signals. For this, it iteratively optimises a separation vector (i.e., the motor unit filter) for each motor unit [Figure 1B; (24-26)]. (24-26)]. The projection of the EMG signals on this separation vector generates a sparse motor unit pulse train, with most of its samples close to zero and a smaller number of samples significantly greater than zero (Figure 1B). The discharge times are estimated from this motor unit pulse train using a peak detection function and a k-mean classification with two classes to separate the high peaks (spikes) from the low peaks (noise and other motor units). During the decomposition in real-time, short segments of EMG signals are projected on the saved separation vectors, and the peaks are classified as discharge times if they are closer to the centroid of the class ‘spikes’ than to the centroid of the class ‘noise’ (Figure 1C). The algorithm used to identify motor units discharge activity is based on that proposed by Negro et al. (24) and Barsakcioglu et al. (26).’

(4) I could not fully appreciate the performance gap solved by the current methods. What was not achievable before that is now achievable? The 125 ms speed of deconvolution? What was achievable before? Intro text around ln 85 states that 'most of the current implementations of this approach rely on offline processing, which restricts its ability to be used..." but no reference is provided here about what the non 'most' of can achieve. 

(8) The authors might try to add text to be more circumspect about the contributions of this method. I would recommend emphasizing the conceptual advances over the specifics of the performance of the algorithm since processor speed and implementation of the ideas in a faster environment (Matlab can be slow) will change those outcomes in a trivial way. Yet, much of the results section is very focused on these metrics. 

The main contribution of this work submitted to the section ‘Tools and Resource’ of Elife is to provide a user interface that enables researchers to decompose EMG signals recorded with multichannel systems into motor unit activities, to perform this process in real-time, and to translate it into visual feedback. The user interface is fully open source and does not require coding experience. If necessary, the users can inspect the commented code and even modify it for their own experimental setup. The toolbox is now compatible with various acquisition boards, which can expand its use to novel surface and intramuscular arrays of electrodes.

(5) Relatedly, it would have been nice to see a proof of concept using real-time feedback for some kind of biofeedback signal. If that is the objective here, why not show us this? I found the actual readout metrics of performance rather esoteric. They may be of interest to very close experts so I will defer to them for input.

We agree with the reviewer. Videos were added to the supplemental materials to show the different forms of feedback, together with a case scenario where the participant try to separate the activity of two motor units from the same muscle.

(6) I was disappointed to see that only male participants are used because of some vague statement that 'it is widely known in the field' that more motor units can be resolved in males, without thorough referencing. It seems that the objective of the algorithm is the speed of analysis, not the number of units, which makes the elimination of female participants not justified. 

The reviewer is right and that was corrected in the new version of the manuscript. We first performed additional experiments in both males and females focused on the accuracy of the approach, and further discussed the differences in yield between men and women in the discussion together with research perspectives to solve this issue.

Results (P12; L296):

‘We then asked eight participants (4 males and 4 females) to perform trapezoidal isometric contractions with plateaus of force set at 10% and 20% MVC during which surface EMG signals were recorded from the TA with 256 electrodes separated by 4 mm. The aim of this experiment was to confirm the results of the simulation; specifically, to test the accuracy of the online decomposition when the level of force was below, equal to, or above the level of force produced during the baseline contraction used to estimate the motor unit filters (Figure 4). We assessed the accuracy of the motor unit spike trains identified in real time using their manually edited version as reference. 144 motor units were identified at both 10 and 20% MVC. When the test signals were recorded at the same level of force as the baseline contraction, we obtained rates of agreement of 95.6 ± 6.8% (10% MVC) and 93.9 ± 5.9% (20% MVC). The sensitivity reached 95.9 ± 6.7% (10% MVC) and 94.4 ± 5.6% (20% MVC), and the precision reached 99.6 ± 1.3% (10% MVC) and 99.4 ± 1.9% (20% MVC).  

When the filters identified at 20% MVC were applied on signals recorded at a lower level of force (10% MVC), the rates of agreement decreased to 87.9 ± 16.2%. The sensitivity also decreased to 88.0 ± 16.2%, but the precision remained high (99.4 ± 4.3). Thus, the decrease in accuracy was mostly caused by missed discharge times rather than the false identification of artifacts or spikes from other motor units. When the filters identified at 10% MVC were applied to signals recorded at a higher level of force, the rates of agreement decreased to 83.3 ± 13.5%. The sensitivity decreased to 90.7 ± 8.1%, and the precision also decreased to 90.9 ± 12.6%. This result confirms what was observed with synthetic EMG, that is motor units recruited between 10 and 20% MVC can substantially disrupt the accuracy of the decomposition in real-time, as highlighted in Figure 4 (lower panel). Importantly, this situation does not happen for all the motor units, as suggested by the distribution of the values in Figure 4.’

Discussion (P20; L480):

“An important consideration regarding the implementation of offline or real-time surface EMG decomposition is the difference between individuals, with an overall lower yield in number of identified motor units in females (here: 9 ± 12) than in males (here: 30 ± 13). Typically, the number of identified motor units from surface EMG is twice as low in females than males (32, 49, 50). The cause for this difference remains unclear. It may be related to variations in properties of the tissues separating the motor units from the recording electrodes, or to differences in the morphological and physiological properties of muscle fibres, as well as to the innervation ratios of motor units. These sex-related differences have so far only been supported by data extracted from animal experiments (51). However, the recent developments of simulation frameworks capable of generating highly realistic EMG signals for anthropometrically diverse populations may help understanding the impact of sex-related differences in humans (52). Specifically, these simulations can account for diverse anatomical (e.g. muscle volume and architecture, thickness of subcutaneous tissues) and physiological characteristics (e.g. innervation ratio, number of motor units, fibre cross sectional area, fibre conduction velocity, contribution of rate coding vs. spatial recruitment). Generating such dataset could help identifying the primary factors affecting EMG decomposition performance, ultimately enabling the refinement of algorithms and/or surface electrode design.”

(7) Human curation is often used in spike sorting, but the description of criteria used in this step or how the human curation choices are documented is missing. 

To address the reviewer’s comment, we added a new paragraph in the Method section to describe the manual editing process: (P26; L657)

“There is a consensus among experts that automatic decomposition should be followed by visual inspection and manual editing (55).  Manual editing involves the following steps: i) removing spikes that result in erroneous firing rates (outliers), ii) adding discharge times thar are clearly distinguishable from the noise, iii) recalculating the separation vector, iv) reapplying the separation vector on the EMG signals (either a selected window or the entire signal), and v) repeating this procedure until no outliers are present and all clearly distinguishable spikes have been selected. Importantly, the manual editing of potentially missed or falsely identified discharge times should not be accepted before the application of the updated motor unit separation vector, thereby generating a new pulse train. Manual edits should be accepted only if the silhouette value improves following this operation or remains well above the preestablished threshold. A more extensive description of the manual editing of motor unit pulse trains can be found in (32). Even though some of the aforementioned steps involve subjective decision-making, evidence suggests that manual editing after EMG decomposition with blind source separation approaches remains highly reliable across operators (33). Specifically, the median rates of agreement calculated for 126 motor units over eight operators with various experience in manual editing was 99.6%.  All raw and processed data have been made available on a public data repository so that they can be used for training new operators (10.6084/m9.figshare.13695937).”

Minor 

Ln 115, "inversing" is not a word. "inverse" is not a verb 

Changed as suggested

Ln 186, typo, bioadhesive 

Changed as suggested

MVC should be defined on first use. It is currently defined on 3rd use or so. 

The term rate is used in a variety of places without units. Eg line 465 but not limited to that 

Changed as suggested

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors): 

Two minor comments: Para 125: it is not clear what is meant by "spatial distribution" of recording electrodes. 

‘Density’ was used instead of ‘spatial distribution’ to now read:

‘Increasing the number and density of recording electrodes increases the likelihood that each motor unit will have a unique motor unit action potential profile (shape), i.e., a temporal and spatial profile that differs from all the other active motor unit within the recorded volume (16, 29).’

Para 545: perhaps a bit more explanation about why low spatial overlap is better would be appropriate. 

We added a section in the results showing how motor units with similar spatial signatures are merged by our model, leading to a lower precision. We therefore changed this sentence to now read:

‘Therefore, the likelihood of having spatially overlapping motor unit action potentials - and thus merged motor units - is lower, which explains why the rate of agreement of motor units identified from intramuscular arrays of electrodes is much higher than grids of surface electrodes (12, 13).’

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors): 

The authors mention that data is included with the Github software package. I could not find any included data, or instructions on how to run the software offline on example data. (Apologies if I missed this - it would be helpful to make it more prominent)

The link to the data on figshare was added in the GitHub, as well as data samples to run the algorithm offline and test manual editing.

Minor comments: 

Not sure what is meant by "boundary capabilities of online decomposition" 

This was removed to only discuss the accuracy of online decomposition.

CoV for ISIs is not formally defined or justified.

This was added to the caption of figure 2:

‘The CoV of ISI estimates the regularity of spiking for each motor unit, an expected behaviour during isometric contractions at consistent levels of force.’

Fig. 4: slope units should be ms/motor unit, perhaps? 

Changed as suggested.

In some places, the manuscript uses "edition" to describe the editing process. I am not familiar with this usage, "editing" may be more common. 

Editing is now used through the entire manuscript.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors): 

I would recommend that the authors revise their manuscript to conform to eLife formatting guidelines, including moving the methods to the end of the manuscript. This change may entail substantial editing since many ideas are presented in order from the beginning of the methods. While this suggestion may seem superficial, the success of the new publishing model might benefit from general uniformity in manuscript style.

We changed and edited the draft to follow the classic format of Elife papers.

eLife assessment

This study describes a useful antibody-free method to map both G-quadruplexes and R-loops in vertebrate cells independently of the BG4 and S9.6 antibodies. It also reveals that the helicase Dhx9 can affect the self-renewal and differentiation capacities of mESCs, perhaps by regulating co-localized G4s and R-loops. The datasets provided might constitute a good starting point for future functional studies, and although the strength of the evidence that DHX9 interferes with the ability of mESCs to differentiate by regulating directly the stability of either G4s or R-loops has been improved compared to a previous version, it is still incomplete.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This study describes a useful antibody-free method to map G-quadruplexes in vertebrate cells. The analysis of the data is solid but it remains primarily descriptive and does not substantially add to existing publications (such as PMID:34792172 for example). Nevertheless, the datasets generated here might constitute a good starting point for more functional studies.

Comments on revised version:

It is disappointing to see that the authors decided to brush aside most of the comments made by the three referees, even though these comments were largely consistent with each other. As a result, the revised manuscript is not substantially changed or improved. Legitimate concerns regarding the specificity of the Cut&Tag signals were not addressed and therefore remain. The sensitivity of the HBD-seq signals to a combination of RNase A and RNase H does not demonstrate that HBD-seq specifically reports the presence of RNA:DNA hybrids. The new Figure 9 comparing HepG4-seq to existing datasets does not unequivocally demonstrate the superiority of the Hemin-based strategy to map G4s.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, Liu et al. explore the interplay between G-quadruplexes (G4s) and R-loops. The authors developed novel techniques, HepG4-seq and HBD-seq, to capture and map these nucleic acid structures genome-wide in human HEK293 cells and mouse embryonic stem cells (mESCs). They identified dynamic, cell-type-specific distributions of co-localized G4s and R-loops, which predominantly localize at active promoters and enhancers of transcriptionally active genes. Furthermore, they assessed the role of helicase Dhx9 in regulating these structures and their impact on gene expression and cellular functions.

The manuscript provides a detailed catalogue of the genome-wide distribution of G4s and R-loops. However, the conceptual advance and the physiological relevance of the findings are not obvious. Overall, the impact of the work on the field is limited to the utility of the presented methods and datasets.

Strengths:<br /> (1) The development and optimization of HepG4-seq and HBD-seq offer novel methods to map native G4s and R-loops.<br /> (2) The study provides extensive data on the distribution of G4s and R-loops, highlighting their co-localization in human and mouse cells.<br /> (3) The study consolidates the role of Dhx9 in modulating these structures and explores its impact on mESC self-renewal and differentiation.

Comments on revised version:

In this revised manuscript, Liu et al. address most of the previous concerns raised by this reviewer. Namely, the comparison between the novel methods and existing ones is an important addition.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors developed and optimized the methods for detecting G4s and R-loops independent of BG4 and S9.6 antibody, and mapped genomic native G4s and R-loops by HepG4-seq and HBD-seq, revealing that co-localized G4s and R-loops participate in regulating transcription and affecting the self-renewal and differentiation capabilities of mESCs.

Strengths:

By utilizing the peroxidase activity of G4-hemin complex and combining proximity labeling technology, the authors developed HepG4-seq (high throughput sequencing of hemin-induced proximal labelled G4s) , which can detect the dynamics of G4s in vivo. Meanwhile, the "GST-His6-2xHBD"-mediated CUT&Tag protocol (Wang et al., 2021) was optimized by replacing fusion protein and tag, the optimized HBD-seq avoids the generation of GST fusion protein aggregates and can reflect the genome-wide distribution of R-loops in vivo.

The authors employed HepG4-seq and HBD-seq to establish comprehensive maps of native co-localized G4s and R-loops in human HEK293 cells and mouse embryonic stem cells (mESCs). The data indicate that co-localized G4s and R-loops are dynamically altered in a cell type-dependent manner and are largely localized at active promoters and enhancers of transcriptional active genes.

Combined with Dhx9 ChIP-seq and co-localized G4s and R-loops data in wild-type and dhx9KO mESCs, the authors found that the helicase Dhx9, a major regulator of co-localized G4s and R-loops, affects the self-renewal and differentiation capacities of mESCs.

In conclusion, the authors provide an approach to study the interplay between G4s and R-loops, shedding light on the important roles of co-localized G4s and R-loops in development and disease by regulating the transcription of related genes.

Weaknesses:

As we know, there are at least two structure data of S9.6 antibody very recently, and the questions about the specificity of the S9.6 antibody on RNA:DNA hybrids should be finished. The authors referred (Hartono et al., 2018; Konig et al., 2017; Phillips et al., 2013) need to be updated, and the author's bias against S9.6 antibodies needs also to be changed. In contrast to S9.6 CUT&Tag and other inactive ribonucleotide H1-based methods including MapR (inactive ribonucleotide H1-mediated CUT&Run) (Yan et al., 2019)and GST-2xHBD CUT&Tag (Wang et al., 2021), HBD-seq did not perform satisfactorily and its binding specificity was questionable.

Although HepG4-seq is an effective G4s detection technique, and the authors have also verified its reliability to some extent, given the strong link between ROS homeostasis and G4s formation, hemin's affinity for different types of G4s and their differences in peroxidase activities, whether HepG4-seq reflects the dynamics of G4s in vivo more accurately than existing detection techniques still needs to be more carefully corroborated.

The authors focus on the interaction of non-B DNA structures G4s and R-loops and their roles in development and disease by regulating the transcription of related genes. Compared to the complex regulatory network of G4s and R-loops, the authors provide limited mechanistic insight into the major regulator of co-localized G4s and R-loops, helicase Dhx9. However, the authors propose that "A degron system-mediated simultaneous and/or stepwise degradation system of multiple regulators will help us elucidate the interplaying effects between G4s and R-loops." is attractive. The main innovations of this article are the proposal of new antibody-independent methods for detecting G4s and the optimization of the GST-2xHBD CUT&Tag (Wang et al., 2021) method for detecting R-loops. Unfortunately, however, the reliability and accuracy of these methods are still debatable, and the reference value of the G4s and R-loops datasets based on these methods is relatively limited.

Author response:

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

eLife assessment

This useful study describes an antibody-free method to map G-quadruplexes (G4s) in vertebrate cells. While the method might have potential, the current analysis is primarily descriptive and does not add substantial new insights beyond existing data (e.g., PMID:34792172). While the datasets provided might constitute a good starting point for future functional studies, additional data and analyses would be needed to fully support the major conclusions and, at the same time, clarify the advantage of this method over other methods. Specifically, the strength of the evidence for DHX9 interfering with the ability of mESCs to differentiate by regulating directly the stability of either G4s or R-loops is still incomplete.

We thank the editors for their helpful comments.

Given that antibody-based methods have been reported to leave open the possibility of recognizing partially folded G4s and promoting their folding, we have employed the peroxidase activity of the G4-hemin complex to develop a new method for capturing endogenous G4s that significantly reduces the risk of capturing partially folded G4s. We have included a new Fig. 9 and a new section “Comparisons of HepG4-seq and HBD-seq with previous methods” to carefully compare our methods to other methods.

In the Fig. 7, we applied the Dhx9 CUT&Tag assay to identify the G4s and R-loops directly bound by Dhx9 and further characterized the differential Dhx9-bound G4s and R-loops in the absence of Dhx9. Dhx9 is a versatile helicase capable of directly resolving R-loops and G4s or promoting R-loop formation (PMID: 21561811, 30341290, 29742442, 32541651, 35905379, 34316718). Furthermore, we showed that depletion of Dhx9 significantly altered the levels of G4s or R-loops around the TSS or gene bodies of several key regulators of mESC and embryonic development, such as Nanog, Lin28a, Bmp4, Wnt8a, Gata2, and Lef1, and also their RNA levels (Fig.7 I). The above evidence is sufficient to support the transcriptional regulation of mESCs cell fate by directly modulating the G4s or R-loops within the key regulators of mESCs.

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Non-B DNA structures such as G4s and R-loops have the potential to impact genome stability, gene transcription, and cell differentiation. This study investigates the distribution of G4s and R-loops in human and mouse cells using some interesting technical modifications of existing Tn5-based approaches. This work confirms that the helicase DHX9 could regulate the formation and/or stability of both structures in mouse embryonic stem cells (mESCs). It also provides evidence that the lack of DHX9 in mESCs interferes with their ability to differentiate.

Strengths:

HepG4-seq, the new antibody-free strategy to map G4s based on the ability of Hemin to act as a peroxidase when complexed to G4s, is interesting. This study also provides more evidence that the distribution pattern of G4s and R-loops might vary substantially from one cell type to another.

We appreciate your valuable points.

Weaknesses:

This study is essentially descriptive and does not provide conclusive evidence that lack of DHX9 does interfere with the ability of mESCs to differentiate by regulating directly the stability of either G4 or R-loops. In the end, it does not substantially improve our understanding of DHX9's mode of action.

In this study, we aimed to report new methods for capturing endogenous G4s and R-loops in living cells. Dhx9 has been reported to directly unwind R-loops and G4s or promote R-loop formation (PMID: 21561811, 30341290, 29742442, 32541651, 35905379, 34316718). To understand the direct Dhx9-bound G4s and R-loops, we performed the Dhx9 CUT&Tag assay and analyzed the co-localization of Dhx9-binding sites and G4s or R-loops. We found that 47,857 co-localized G4s and R-loops are directly bound by Dhx9 in the wild-type mESCs and 4,060 of them display significantly differential signals in absence of Dhx9, suggesting that redundant regulators exist as well. We showed that depletion of Dhx9 significantly altered the RNA levels of several key regulators of mESC and embryonic development, such as Nanog, Lin28a, Bmp4, Wnt8a, Gata2, and Lef1, which coincides with the significantly differential levels of G4s or R-loops around the TSS or gene bodies of these genes (Fig.7). The comprehensive molecular mechanism of Dhx9 action is indeed not the focus of this study. We will work on it in the future studies. Thank you for the comments.

There is no in-depth comparison of the newly generated data with existing datasets and no rigorous control was presented to test the specificity of the hemin-G4 interaction (a lot of the hemin-dependent signal seems to occur in the cytoplasm, which is unexpected).

The specificity of hemin-G4-induced peroxidase activity and self-biotinylation has been well demonstrated in previous studies (PMID: 19618960, 22106035, 28973477, 32329781). In the Fig.1A, we compared the hemin-G4-induced biotinylation levels in different conditions. Cells treated with hemin and Bio-An exhibited a robust fluorescence signal, while the absence of either hemin or Bio-An almost completely abolished the biotinylation signals, suggesting a specific and active biotinylation activity. To identify the specific signals, we have included the non-label control and used this control to call confident HepG4 peaks in all HepG4-seq assays.

The hemin-RNA G4 complex has also been reported to have mimic peroxidase activity and trigger similar self-biotinylation signals as DNA G4s (PMID: 32329781, 31257395, 27422869). Therefore, it is not surprising to observe hemin-dependent signals in the cytoplasm generated by cytoplasmic RNA G4s.

In the revised version, we have included a new Fig. 9 and a new section “Comparisons of HepG4-seq and HBD-seq with previous methods” to carefully compare our methods to other methods.

The authors talk about co-occurrence between G4 and R-loops but their data does not actually demonstrate co-occurrence in time. If the same loci could form alternatively either R-loops or G4 and if DHX9 was somehow involved in determining the balance between G4s and R-loops, the authors would probably obtain the same distribution pattern. To manipulate R-loop levels in vivo and test how this affects HEPG4-seq signals would have been helpful.

Single-molecule fluorescence studies have shown the existence of a positive feedback mechanism of G4 and R-loop formation during transcription (PMID: 32810236, 32636376), suggesting that G4s and Rloops could co-localize at the same molecule. Dhx9 is a versatile helicase capable of directly resolving R-loops and G4s or promoting R-loop formation (PMID: 21561811, 30341290, 29742442, 32541651, 35905379, 34316718). Although depletion of Dhx9 resulted in 6,171 Dhx9-bound co-localized G4s and R-loops with significantly altered levels of G4s or R-loops, only 276 of them (~4.5%) harbored altered G4s and R-loops, suggesting that the interacting G4s and R-loops are rare in living cells. Nowadays, the genome-wide co-occurrence of two factors are mainly obtained by bioinformatically intersection analysis. We agreed that F We will carefully discuss this point in the revised version. At the same time, we will make efforts to develop a new method to map the co-localized G4 and R-loop in the same molecule in the future study.

This study relies exclusively on Tn5-based mapping strategies. This is a problem as global changes in DNA accessibility might strongly skew the results. It is unclear at this stage whether the lack of DHX9, BLM, or WRN has an impact on DNA accessibility, which might underlie the differences that were observed. Moreover, Tn5 cleaves DNA at a nearby accessible site, which might be at an unknown distance away from the site of interest. The spatial accuracy of Tn5-based methods is therefore debatable, which is a problem when trying to demonstrate spatial co-occurrence. Alternative mapping methods would have been helpful.

In this study, we used the recombinant streptavidin monomer and anti-GP41 nanobody fusion protein (mSA-scFv) to specifically recognize hemin-G4-induced biotinylated G4 and then recruit the recombinant GP41-tagged Tn5 protein to these G4s sites. Similarly, the recombinant V5-tagged N-terminal hybrid-binding domain (HBD) of RNase H1 specifically recognizes R-loops and recruit the recombinant protein G-Tn5 (pG-Tn5) with the help of anti-V5 antibody. Therefore, the spatial distance of Tn5 to the target sites is well controlled and very short, and also the recruitment of Tn5 is specifically determined by the existence of G4s in HepG4-seq and R-loops in HBD-seq. In addition, RNase treatment markedly abolished the HBD-seq signals and the non-labeled controls exhibit obviously reduction of HepG4-seq signals, demonstrating that HBD-seq and HepG4-seq were not contamination from tagmentation of asccessible DNA.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this study, Liu et al. explore the interplay between G-quadruplexes (G4s) and R-loops. The authors developed novel techniques, HepG4-seq and HBD-seq, to capture and map these nucleic acid structures genome-wide in human HEK293 cells and mouse embryonic stem cells (mESCs). They identified dynamic, cell-type-specific distributions of co-localized G4s and R-loops, which predominantly localize at active promoters and enhancers of transcriptionally active genes. Furthermore, they assessed the role of helicase Dhx9 in regulating these structures and their impact on gene expression and cellular functions.

The manuscript provides a detailed catalogue of the genome-wide distribution of G4s and R-loops. However, the conceptual advance and the physiological relevance of the findings are not obvious. Overall, the impact of the work on the field is limited to the utility of the presented methods and datasets.

Strengths:

(1) The development and optimization of HepG4-seq and HBD-seq offer novel methods to map native G4s and R-loops.

(2) The study provides extensive data on the distribution of G4s and R-loops, highlighting their co-localization in human and mouse cells.

(3) The study consolidates the role of Dhx9 in modulating these structures and explores its impact on mESC self-renewal and differentiation.

We appreciate your valuable points.

Weaknesses:

(1) The specificity of the biotinylation process and potential off-target effects are not addressed. The authors should provide more data to validate the specificity of the G4-hemin.

The specificity of hemin-G4-induced peroxidase activity and self-biotinylation has been well demonstrated in previous studies (PMID: 19618960, 22106035, 28973477, 32329781). In the Fig.1A, we compared the hemin-G4-induced biotinylation levels in different conditions. Cells treated with hemin and Bio-An exhibited a robust fluorescence signal, while the absence of either hemin or Bio-An almost completely abolished the biotinylation signals, suggesting a specific and active biotinylation activity.

(2) Other methods exploring a catalytic dead RNAseH or the HBD to pull down R-loops have been described before. The superior quality of the presented methods in comparison to existing ones is not established. A clear comparison with other methods (BG4 CUT&Tag-seq, DRIP-seq, R-CHIP, etc) should be provided.

Thank you for the suggestions. We have included a new Fig. 9 and a new section “Comparisons of HepG4-seq and HBD-seq with previous methods” to carefully compare our methods to other methods.

(3) Although the study demonstrates Dhx9's role in regulating co-localized G4s and R-loops, additional functional experiments (e.g., rescue experiments) are needed to confirm these findings.

Dhx9 has been demonstrate as a versatile helicase capable of directly resolving R-loops and G4s or promoting R-loop formation in previous studies (PMID: 21561811, 30341290, 29742442, 32541651, 35905379, 34316718). We believe that the current new dataset and previous studies are enough to support the capability of Dhx9 in regulating co-localized G4s and R-loops.

(4) The manuscript would benefit from a more detailed discussion of the broader implications of co-localized G4s and R-loops.

Thank you for the suggestions. We have included the discussion in the revised version.

(5) The manuscript lacks appropriate statistical analyses to support the major conclusions.

We apologized for this point. Whereas we have applied careful statistical analyses in this study, lacking of some statistical details make people hard to understand some conclusions. We have carefully added details of all statistical analysis.

(6) The discussion could be expanded to address potential limitations and alternative explanations for the results.

Thank you for the suggestions. We have included the discussion about this point in the revised version.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors developed and optimized the methods for detecting G4s and R-loops independent of BG4 and S9.6 antibody, and mapped genomic native G4s and R-loops by HepG4-seq and HBD-seq, revealing that co-localized G4s and R-loops participate in regulating transcription and affecting the self-renewal and differentiation capabilities of mESCs.

Strengths:

By utilizing the peroxidase activity of G4-hemin complex and combining proximity labeling technology, the authors developed HepG4-seq (high throughput sequencing of hemin-induced proximal labelled G4s), which can detect the dynamics of G4s in vivo. Meanwhile, the "GST-His6-2xHBD"-mediated CUT&Tag protocol (Wang et al., 2021) was optimized by replacing fusion protein and tag, the optimized HBD-seq avoids the generation of GST fusion protein aggregates and can reflect the genome-wide distribution of R-loops in vivo.

The authors employed HepG4-seq and HBD-seq to establish comprehensive maps of native co-localized G4s and R-loops in human HEK293 cells and mouse embryonic stem cells (mESCs). The data indicate that co-localized G4s and R-loops are dynamically altered in a cell type-dependent manner and are largely localized at active promoters and enhancers of transcriptionally active genes.

Combined with Dhx9 ChIP-seq and co-localized G4s and R-loops data in wild-type and dhx9KO mESCs, the authors confirm that the helicase Dhx9 is a direct and major regulator that regulates the formation and resolution of co-localized G4s and R-loops.

Depletion of Dhx9 impaired the self-renewal and differentiation capacities of mESCs by altering the transcription of co-localized G4s and R-loops-associated genes.

In conclusion, the authors provide an approach to studying the interplay between G4s and R-loops, shedding light on the important roles of co-localized G4s and R-loops in development and disease by regulating the transcription of related genes.

We appreciate your valuable points.

Weaknesses:

As we know, there are at least two structure data of S9.6 antibody very recently, and the questions about the specificity of the S9.6 antibody on RNA:DNA hybrids should be finished. The authors referred to (Hartono et al., 2018; Konig et al., 2017; Phillips et al., 2013) need to be updated, and the authors' bias against S9.6 antibodies needs also to be changed. However, as the authors had questioned the specificity of the S9.6 antibody, they should compare it in parallel with the data they have and the data generated by the widely used S9.6 antibody.

Thank you for the updating information about the structure data of S9.6 antibody. We politely disagree the specificity of the S9.6 antibody on RNA:DNA hybrids. The structural studies of S9.6 (PMID: 35347133, 35550870) used only one RNA:DNA hybrid to show the superior specificity of S9.6 on RNA:DNA hybrid than dsRNA and dsDNA. However, Fabian K. et al has reported that the binding affinities of S9.6 on RNA:DNA hybrid exhibits obvious sequence-dependent bias from null to nanomolar range (PMID: 28594954). We have included the comparison between S9.6-derived data and our HBD-seq data in the Fig.9 and the section “Comparisons of HepG4-seq and HBD-seq with previous methods”.

Although HepG4-seq is an effective G4s detection technique, and the authors have also verified its reliability to some extent, given the strong link between ROS homeostasis and G4s formation, and hemin's affinity for different types of G4s, whether HepG4-seq reflects the dynamics of G4s in vivo more accurately than existing detection techniques still needs to be more carefully corroborated.

Thank you for pointing out this issue. In the in vitro hemin-G4 induced self-biotinylation assay, parallel G4s exhibit higher peroxidase activities than anti-parallel G4s. Thus, the dynamics of G4 conformation could affect the HepG4-seq signals (PMID: 32329781). In the future, people may need to combine HepG4-seq and BG4s-eq to carefully explain the endogenous G4s. We have discussed this point in the revised version.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Figures 1A&1G. Although no merge images were provided, it seems that the biotin signals are strongly enriched outside the nucleus. This suggests that hemin is not specific for G4s in DNA. Does it mean that Hemin can also recognise G4 on RNAs? How do the authors understand the cytoplasmic signal?

Hemin indeed could interact with RNA G4 to obtain the peroxidase activity like DNA G4-hemin complex (PMID: 27422869, 32329781, 31257395). The cytoplasmic signals in Figure 1A&1G were derived from RNA G4.

Figure 1A: The fact that there is no Alexa647 signal without hemin or Bio-An does not actually demonstrate that the signals are specific. These controls do not actually test for the specificity of the G4-Hemin interaction.

The specificity of hemin-G4-induced peroxidase activity and self-biotinylation has been well demonstrated in previous studies (PMID: 19618960, 22106035, 28973477, 32329781). In this study, we performed the IF to confirm this phenomena.

Figure 1C: It looks like the HepG4-seq signals are simply an amplification of the noise given by the Tn5 (the non-label ctrl has the same pattern, albeit weaker). It is unclear why this happens but it might happen if somehow hemin increased the probability that the Tn5 is close to chromatin in an unspecific manner (it would cut G-rich, nucleosome-poor, accessible sites in an unspecific manner). To discard this possibility, it would be interesting to investigate directly which loci are biotinylated. For this, the authors could extract and sonicate the genomic DNA and use streptavidin to enrich for biotinylated fragments. Strand-specific DNA sequencing could then be used to map the biotinylated loci.

In the cell culture medium, there were a certain amount of hemin from serum and a low dosage of biotin from the basal medium DMEM, which could not be avoid. Thus, these contaminated hemin and biotin would generate the background signals observed in the Non-label control samples. The biotinylated sites were specifically recognized by the recombinant Streptavidin monomer which further recruits Tn5 to the biotinylated sites with the help of Moon-tag. Different from the signals in the HEK293 samples, a much more robust HepG4-seq signals were observed in the mESC samples and the signals were also abolished in the non-label control samples. Thus, the relatively small signal-to-noise ratio in the HEK293 samples suggest the week abundance of endogenous G4s in the HEK293 cells. Thus, we politely disagree that hemin increased the non-specific recruitment of Th5. In addition, the CUT&Tag technology has been wildly demonstrated to have a much lower background, high signal-to-noise ratio and high sensitivity. Thus, we also politely disagree to replace the CUT&Tag with the traditional DNA library preparation method.

Figure 1H: No spike-in was added and the data are not quantitative. The number of replicates is unclear. 70000 extra peaks (10x) after inhibition of BLM or WRN seems enormous. These extra peaks should be better characterised: do they contain G4 motifs? Are they transcribed? etc...; again what kind of controls should be used here, in case the inhibition of BLP and WRN has a global impact on chromatin accessibility?

To quantitatively compare different samples, we have normalized all samples according their de-duplicated uniquely mapping reads numbers. Given that the inhibitors were dissolved in the DMSO, we used the DMSO as the control. Since the Tn5 were specifically recruited the biotinylated G4 sites through the recombinant Streptavidin monomer protein and the moon tag system, the chromatin accessibility will not affect the Tn5, which were normally observed in the ATAT-seq.

As suggested, we have analyzed the enriched motifs of the extra peaks induced by BLM or WRN inhibition and showed that the top enriched motifs are also G-rich in the supplementary Fig.1E. In addition, we analyzed the RNA-seq levels of genes-associated with these extra peaks. As shown in the figure below, the majority of these genes are actively transcribed.

Author response image 1.

Figure 2: The mutated version of HBD should have been used as a control. As shown clearly in PMID: 37819055, the HBD domain does interact in an unspecific manner with chromatin at low levels. As above, this might be enough to increase the local concentration of the Tn5 close to chromatin in the Cut&Tag approach and to cleave accessible sites close to TSS in an unspecific manner.

As shown in Fig.2B and Fig.4A, we have included the RNase treatment as the control and showed that the HBD-seq-identified R-loops signals are dramatically attenuated (Fig.2B) or almost completely abolished after the RNase treatment (Fig.4A). These data demonstrate the specificity of HBD-seq.

Figure 2: What fraction of the HEPG4-seq signal is sensitive to RNase treatment? The authors used a combination of RNase A and RNase H but previous data have shown that the RNase A treatment is sufficient to remove the HBD-seq signal (which means that it is not actually possible on this sole basis to claim or disclaim that the signals do correspond to genuine R-loops). Do the authors have evidence that the RNase H treatment alone does impact their HBD-seq or HEPG4-seq signals?

As shown in Fig.2B and Fig.4A, the HBD-seq-identified R-loops signals are all dramatically attenuated (Fig.2B) or almost completely abolished after the RNase treatment (Fig.4A). The specificity of HBD on recognizing R-loops has been carefully demonstrated in the previous study (PMID: 33597247). In this study, we used the same two copies of HBD (2xHBD) and replaced the GST tag to EGFP-V5 to reduce the possibility of variable high molecular-weight aggregates caused by GST tag. In addition, RNase H treatment has been shown to fail to completely abolish the CUT&Tag signals since a subset of DNA-RNA hybrids with high GC skew are partially resistant to RNase H (PMID: 32544226, 33597247). In consideration of the high GC skew of co-localized G4s and R-loops, we combined the RNase A and RNase H. We currently did not have the RNaseH alone samples.

Figure 3A: "RNA-seq analysis revealed that the RNA levels of co-localized G4s and R-loops-associated genes are significantly higher": the differences are not very convincing.

In the Figure 3A, we have performed the Mann-Whitney test to examine the significance in the revised manuscript. RNA levels of co-localized G4s and R-loops-associated genes are indeed significantly higher than all genes, G4s or R-loops- associated genes with the Mann-Whitney test p < 2.2E-16.

Figure 3B: the patterns for "G4" and "co-localised G4 and R-loop" are extremely similar, suggesting that nearly all G4s mapped here could also form R-loops. If this is the case, most of the HEPG4-seq signals should be sensitive to exogenous RNase H treatment or to the in vivo over-expression of RNase H1. This should be tested (see above).

The percentage of co-localized G4 and R-loop in G4 peaks is 80.3% ( 5,459 out of 6,799) in HEK293 cells and 72.0% (68,482 out of 95,128) in mESC cells, respectively. The co-localization does not mean that G4 and R-loop interact with each other. We have showed that only small proportion of co-localized G4s and R-loops displayed differential G4s and R-loops at the same time in the dhx9KO mESCs (Fig. 6D, Supplementary Fig. 3B), suggesting that the majority of co-localized G4s and R-loops do not interact with each other. Thus, we thought that it is not necessary to perform the RNase H test.

Figure 3C: there is no correlation between the FC of G4 and the FC of RNA; this is not really consistent with the idea that the stabilisation of G4 is the driver rather than a consequence of the transcriptional changes.

Given that the treatment of WRN or BLM inhibition induced a large mount of G4 accumulation (Fig.1H-I), we examined the transcription effect on genes associated with these accumulated G4s in Fig.3C. We indeed observed the effect of G4 accumulation on transcription of G4-associated genes. Given that G4 stabilization triggers the transcriptional changes, it does not mean that the transcriptional changes should be highly correlated with the increase levels of G4s. To our knowledge, we have not observed this type of connections in the previous studies. 

l279: the overlap with H3K4me1 is really not convincing.

For all G4 peaks, the signals of H3K4me1 indeed exhibit a high background around the center of G4 peaks but we still could observe a clear peak in the center.

Figure 5C: it should be clearly indicated here that the authors compare Cut&Tag and ChIP data. The origin of the ChIP-seq data is also unclear and should be indicated.

Thank you for the suggestions. We have clarified this point.

For the ChIP data, we have described the origin of ChIP-seq data in the “Data availability” section as below: “The ChIP-seq data of histone markers and RNAP are openly available in GNomEx database (accession number 44R) (Wamstad et al., 2012).”

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) Figure 1A. An experimental condition lacking H2O2 (-H2O2) should be included.

We have added this control in Fig.1A

(2) Does RNAse H affect G4 profiles?

We have not tested the effect of RNase H on G4 forming. However, we have showed that only small proportion of co-localized G4s and R-loops displayed differential G4s and R-loops at the same time in the dhx9KO mESCs (Fig. 6D, Supplementary Fig. 3B), suggesting that the majority of co-localized G4s and R-loops do not interact with each other. Thus, we thought that it is not necessary to perform the RNase H test on G4. In addition, to treat cells wit RNase H, we have to permeabilize cells first to let RNase H enter the nuclei. If so, we will lose the pictures of endogenous G4s.

(3) Figure 2G. R-loops are detected upstream of the KPNB1 gene. What is this region? Is it transcribed?

We are so sorry to make a mistake when we prepared this figure. We have change it to the correct one in Fig. 2G. The R-loop is around the TSS of KPNB1. We also showed the RNA-seq data in this region in Author response image 2 below. This region is indeed transcribed.

Author response image 2.

(4) Did BLM and WRN inhibition specifically affect the expression of genes containing colocalized G4s and R-loops? Was the effect seen in other genes as well? Appropriate statistical analyses are needed.

In the Fig.3, we have shown that the accumulation of co-localized G4 and R-loops induced by the inhibition of BLM or WRN significantly caused the changes of genes (480 in BLM inhibition, 566 in WRN inhibition) containing these structures most of which are localized at the promoter-TSS regions. We indeed detected the effect in other genes as well. There were 918 and 1020 genes with significantly changes (padjust <0.05 & FC >=2 or FC <=0.5) in BLM and WRN inhibition, respectively.

(5) The claim that "The co-localized G4s and R-loops-mediated transcriptional regulation in HEK293 cells" (title of Figure 3) is not supported by the presented data. A causality link is not established in this study, which only reports correlations between G4s/R-loops and transcription regulation.

We politely disagree with this point. BLM and WRN are the best characterized DNA G4-resolving helicase ((Fry and Loeb, 1999; Mendoza et al., 2016; Mohaghegh et al., 2001). Here, we used the selective small molecules to specifically inhibit their ATPase activity and observed dramatical induction of G4 accumulation. Notably, the accumulated G4s that trigger the transcriptional changes are mainly located at the promoter-TSS region. If the transcriptional changes trigger the G4 accumulations, we should not observe such a biased distribution and more accumulated G4s should be detected in the gene body.

(6) The effect of Dhx9 KO on colocalized G4s/R-loops and transcription is not clear. The suggestion that Dhx9 could regulate transcription by modulating G4s, R-loops, and co-localized G4s and R-loops is not supported by the presented data. Additional experiments and statistical analyses are needed to conclude the role of Dhx9 on colocalized G4s/Rloops and transcription.

Dhx9 has been extensively studied and reported to directly unwind R-loops and G4s or promote R-loop formation (PMID: 21561811, 30341290, 29742442, 32541651, 35905379, 34316718). Thus, it is not necessary to repeat these assays again. To understand the direct Dhx9-bound G4s and R-loops, we performed the Dhx9 CUT&Tag assay and analyzed the co-localization of Dhx9-binding sites and G4s or R-loops. 47,857 co-localized G4s and R-loops are directly bound by Dhx9 in the wild-type mESCs and 4,060 of them display significantly differential signals in absence of Dhx9, suggesting that redundant regulators exist as well. These data have clearly shown the roles of Dhx9 directly modulating the stabilities of G4s and R-loops. Furthermore, we showed that loss of Dhx9 caused 816 Dhx9 directly bound colocalized G4 and R-loop associated genes significantly differentially expressed, supporting the transcriptional regulation of Dhx9. We performed the differential analysis following the standard pipeline: DESeq2 for RNA-seq and DiffBind for HepG4-seq and HBD-seq. The statistical details have been described in the figure legends.

(7) The conclusion that Dhx9 regulates the self-renewal and differentiation capacities of mESCs is vague. Additional experiments are needed to elucidate the exact contribution of Dhx9.

In this study, we aimed to report new methods for capturing endogenous G4s and R-loops in living cells. In this study, we have shown that depletion of Dhx9 significantly attenuated the proliferation of the mESCs and also influenced the capacity of mESCs differentiation into three germline lineages during the EB assay. In addition, we showed that depletion of Dhx9 significantly reduced the protein levels of mESCs pluripotent markers Nanog and Lin28a. The comprehensive molecular mechanism of Dhx9 action is indeed not the focus of this study. We will work on it in the future studies. Thank you for the comments.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

The study on the involvement of native co-localized G4s and R-loops in transcriptional regulation further enriches the readers' understanding of genomic regulatory networks, and the functional dissection of Dhx9 also lays a good foundation for the study of the dynamic regulatory mechanisms of co-localized G4s and R-loops. Unfortunately, however, the authors lack a strong basis for questioning the widely used BG4 and S9.6 antibodies, and the co-localized G4s and R-loops sequencing data obtained by the developed and optimized method also lack parallel comparison with existing sequencing technologies, which cannot indicate that HepG4-seq and HBD-seq are more reliable and superior than BG4 and S9.6 antibody-based sequencing technologies. There are also some minor errors in the manuscript that need to be corrected.

Thank you for the constructive comments. We have added a new section (Comparisons of HepG4-seq and HBD-seq with previous methods) and a new figure 9 to parallelly compare our methods to other widely-used methods.

(1) This work mainly focuses on co-localized G4s and R-loops, but in the introduction section, the interplay between G4s and R-loops is only briefly mentioned. It is suggested that the importance of the interplay of G4s and R-loops for gene regulation should be further expanded to help readers better understand the significance of studying co-localized G4s and R-loops.

Thank you for the comments. The current studies about the interplay between G4s and R-loops are limited. We have summarized all we could find in the literatures.

(2) The authors mentioned that "a steady state equilibrium is generally set at low levels in living cells under physiological conditions (Miglietta et al., 2020) and thus the addition of high-affinity antibodies may pull the equilibrium towards folded states", in my understanding this is one of the important reasons why the authors optimized the G4s and R-loops detection assays, I wonder if there is a reliable basis for this statement. If there is, I suggest that the authors can supplement it in the manuscript.

The main reason we develop the new method is to develop an antibody-free method to label the endogenous G4s in living cells. We ever tried to capture endogenous G4s using the tet-on controlled BG4. Unfortunately, we found that even a short time induction of BG4 in living cells was toxic. The traditional antibody-based methos rely on permeabilizing cells first to let the antibodies enter the nuclei. In this case, it is easy to lost the physiological pictures of endogenous G4s. We will add more discussion about this point. For R-loops, we just further optimized the GST-2xHBD-mediated method to avoid the problem of GST-tag. GST-fusion proteins are prone to form variable high molecular-weight aggregates and these aggregates often undermine the reliability of the fusion proteins.

(3) Some questions about HepG4-seq:

Is there a difference in hemin affinity for intramolecular G quadruplexes, interstrand G quadruplexes, and their different topologies? If so, does this bias affect the accuracy of sequencing results based on G4-hemin complexes?

Thank you for pointing out this issue. In the in vitro hemin-G4 induced self-biotinylation assay, parallel G4s exhibit higher peroxidase activities than anti-parallel G4s (PMID: 32329781). Thus, the dynamics of G4 conformation possibly affect the HepG4-seq signals. In the future, people may need to combine HepG4-seq and BG4s-eq to carefully explain the endogenous G4s. We have discussed this point in the revised version.

HepG4-seq is based on proximity labeling and peroxidase activity of the G4-hemin complex. The authors tested and confirmed that the addition of hemin and Bio-An in the experiment had no significant influences on sequencing results, but the effect of exogenous H2O2 treatment may also need to be taken into account since ROS can mediate the formation of G4s.

For HepG4-seq protocol, we only treat cells with H2O2 for one minute. Thus, we thought that the side effect of H2O2 treatment should be limited in such a short time.

(4) As we know, there have been at least two structure data of the S9.6 antibody very recently, and the questions about the specificity of the S9.6 antibody on RNA:DNA hybrids should be finished. The authors referred to (Hartono et al., 2018; Konig et al., 2017; Phillips et al., 2013) need to be updated, and the author's bias against S9.6 antibodies needs also to be changed. However, as the authors had questioned the specificity of the S9.6 antibody, they should compare in parallel with the data they have and the data generated by the widely used S9.6 antibody.

Thank you for the updating information about the structure data of S9.6 antibody. We politely disagree the specificity of the S9.6 antibody on RNA:DNA hybrids. The structural studies of S9.6 (PMID: 35347133, 35550870) used only one RNA:DNA hybrid to show the superior specificity of S9.6 on RNA:DNA hybrid than dsRNA and dsDNA. However, Fabian K. et al has reported that the binding affinities of S9.6 on RNA:DNA hybrid exhibits obvious sequence-dependent bias from null to nanomolar range (PMID: 28594954). We have included the comparison between S9.6-derived data and our HBD-seq data in the Fig.9 and the section “Comparisons of HepG4-seq and HBD-seq with previous methods”.

(5) It is hoped that the results of immunofluorescence experiments can be statistically analyzed.

We have performed the statistical analysis and included the data in the new figure.

(6) Some minor errors:

Line 168, "G4-froming" should be "G4-forming";

Figure 5E, the color of the "Repressed" average signal at the top of the HepG4-seq heatmap should be blue;

Figure 7C, the abbreviation "Gloop" should be indicated in the text or in the figure caption.

Thank you for pointing out these issues. We are sorry for these mistakes. We have corrected them in the revised version.

Author response:

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

In this useful study, a solid machine learning approach based on a broad set of systems to predict the R2 relaxation rates of residues in intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) is described. The ability to predict the patterns of R2 will be helpful to guide experimental studies of IDPs. A potential weakness is that the predicted R2 values may include both fast and slow motions, thus the predictions provide only limited new physical insights into the nature of the relevant protein dynamics.

Fast motions are less sequence-dependent (e.g., as shown by R1). Hence the sequence-dependent part of R2 singles out slow motion.

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Solution state 15N backbone NMR relaxation from proteins reports on the reorientational properties of the N-H bonds distributed throughout the peptide chain. This information is crucial to understanding the motions of intrinsically disordered proteins and as such has focussed the attention of many researchers over the last 20-30 years, both experimentally, analytically and using numerical simulation.

This manuscript proposes an empirical approach to the prediction of transverse 15N relaxation rates, using a simple formula that is parameterised against a set of 45 proteins. Relaxation rates measured under a wide range of experimental conditions are combined to optimize residuespecific parameters such that they reproduce the overall shape of the relaxation profile. The purely empirical study essentially ignores NMR relaxation theory, which is unfortunate, because it is likely that more insight could have been derived if theoretical aspects had been considered at any level of detail.

NMR relaxation theory is very valuable in particular regarding motions on different timescales. However, it has very little to say about the sequence dependence of slow motions, which is the focus of our work.

Despite some novel aspects, in particular the diversity of the relaxation data sets, the residuespecific parameters do not provide much new insight beyond earlier work that has also noted that sidechain bulkiness correlated with the profile of R2 in disordered proteins.

The novel insight from our work is that R2 can mostly be predicted based on the local sequence.

Nevertheless, the manuscript provides an interesting statistical analysis of a diverse set of deposited transverse relaxation rates that could be useful to the community.

Thank you!

Crucially, and somewhat in contradiction to the authors stated aims in the introduction, I do not feel that the article delivers real insight into the nature of IDP dynamics. Related to this, I have difficulty understanding how an approximate prediction of the overall trend of expected transverse relaxation rates will be of further use to scientists working on IDPs. We already know where the secondary structural elements are (from 13C chemical shifts which are essential for backbone assignment) and the necessary 'scaling' of the profile to match experimental data actually contains a lot of the information that researchers seek.

Again, the novel insight is that slow motions that dictate the sequence dependence of R2 can mostly be predicted based on the local sequence. The scaling factor may contain useful information but does not tell us anything about the sequence dependence of IDP dynamics.

This reviewer brings up a lot of valuable points, clearly from an NMR spectroscopist’s perspective. The emphasis of our paper is somewhat different from that perspective. For example, we were interested in whether tertiary contacts make significant contributions to R2, as sometimes claimed. Our results show that, in general, they do not; instead local contacts dominate the sequence dependence of R2.

(1) The introduction is confusing, mixing different contributions to R2 as if they emanated from the same physics, which is not necessarily true. 15N transverse relaxation is said to report on 'slower' dynamics from 10s of nanoseconds up to 1 microsecond. Semi-classical Redfield theory shows that transverse relaxation is sensitive to both adiabatic and non-adiabatic terms, due to spin state transitions induced by stochastic motions, and dephasing of coherence due to local field changes, again induced by stochastic motions. These are faster than the relaxation limit dictated by the angular correlation function. Beyond this, exchange effects can also contribute to measured R2. The extent and timescale limit of this contribution depends on the particular pulse sequence used to measure the relaxation. The differences in the pulse sequences used could be presented, and the implications of these differences for the accuracy of the predictive algorithm discussed.

Indeed pulse sequences affect the measured R2 values. We make the modest assumption that such experimental idiosyncrasy would not corrupt the sequence dependence of IDP dynamics. As for exchange effects, our expectation is that the current SeqDYN may not do well for R2s where slow exchange plays a dominant role in generating sequence dependence, as tertiary contacts would be prominent in those cases; we now present one such case (new Fig. S5).

(2) Previous authors have noted the correlation between observed transverse relaxation rates and amino acid sidechain bulkiness. Apart from repeating this observation and optimizing an apparently bulkiness-related parameter on the basis of R2 profiles, I am not clear what more we learn, or what can be derived from such an analysis. If one can possibly identify a motif of secondary structure because raised R2 values in a helix, for example, are missed from the prediction, surely the authors would know about the helix anyway, because they will have assigned the 13C backbone resonances, from which helical propensity can be readily calculated.

We think that a sequence-based method that is demonstrated to predict well R2 values from expensive NMR experiments is significant. That pi-pi and cation-pi interactions are prominent features of local contacts and may seed tertiary contacts and mediate inter-chain contacts that drive phase separation is a valuable insight.

(3) Transverse relaxation rates in IDPs are often measured to a precision of 0.1s-1 or less. This level of precision is achieved because the line-shapes of the resonances are very narrow and high resolution and sensitivity are commonly measurable. The predictions of relaxation rates, even when applying uniform scaling to optimize best-agreement, is often different to experimental measurement by 10 or 20 times the measured accuracy. There are no experimental errors in the figures. These are essential and should be shown for ease of comparison between experiment and prediction.

Again, our focus is not the precision of the absolute R2 values, but rather the sequence dependence of R2.

(4) The impact of structured elements on the dynamic properties of IDPs tethered to them is very well studied in the literature. Slower motions are also increased when, for example the unfolded domain binds a partner, because of the increased slow correlation time. The ad hoc 'helical boosting' proposed by the authors seems to have the opposite effect. When the helical rates are higher, the other rates are significantly reduced. I guess that this is simply a scaling problem. This highlights the limitation of scaling the rates in the secondary structural element by the same value as the rest of the protein, because the timescales of the motion are very different in these regions. In fact the scaling applied by the authors contains very important information. It is also not correct to compare the RMSD of the proposed method with MD, when MD has not applied a 'scaling'. This scaling contains all the information about relative importance of different components to the motion and their timescales, and here it is simply applied and not further analysed.

Actually, applying the boost factor achieves the effect of a different scaling factor for the secondary structure element than for the rest of the protein.

Regarding comparing RMSEs of SeqDYN and MD, it is true that SeqDYN applies a scaling factor whereas MD does not. However, even if we apply scaling to MD results it will not change the basic conclusion that “SeqDYN is very competitive against MD in predicting _R_2, but without the significant computational cost.”

(5) Generally, the uniform scaling of all values by the same number is serious oversimplification. Motions are happening on all timescales they are giving rise to different transverse relaxation. It is not possible to describe IDP relaxation in terms of one single motion. Detailed studies over more than 30 years, have demonstrated that more than one component to the autocorrelation function is essential in order to account for motions on different timescales in denatured, partially disordered or intrinsically unfolded states. If one could 'scale' everything by the same number, this would imply that only one timescale of motion were important and that all others could be neglected, and this at every site in the protein. This is not expected to be the case, and in fact in the examples shown by the authors it is also never the case. There are always regions where the predicted rates are very different from experiment (with respect to experimental error), presumably because local dynamics are occurring on different timescales to the majority of the molecule. These observations contain useful information, and the observation that a single scaling works quite well probably tells us that one component of the motion is dominant, but not universally. This could be discussed.

The reviewer appears to equate a single scaling factor with a single type of motion -- this is not correct. A single scaling factor just means that we factor out effects (e.g., temperature or magnetic field) that are uniform across the IDP sequence.

(6) With respect to the accuracy of the prediction, discussion about molecular detail such as pi-pi interactions and phase separation propensity is possibly a little speculative.

It is speculative; we now add more support to this speculation (p. 18 and new Fig. S6).

(7) The authors often declare that the prediction reproduces the experimental data. The comparisons with experimental data need to be presented in terms of the chi2 per residue, using the experimentally measured precision which as mentioned, is often very high.

Again, our interest is the sequence dependence of R2, not the absolute R2 value and its measurement precision.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Qin, Sanbo and Zhou, Huan-Xiang created a model, SeqDYN, to predict nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spin relaxation spectra of intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs), based primarily on amino acid sequence. To fit NMR data, SeqDYN uses 21 parameters, 20 that correspond to each amino acid, and a sequence correlation length for interactions. The model demonstrates that local sequence features impact the dynamics of the IDP, as SeqDYN performs better than a one residue predictor, despite having similar numbers of parameters. SeqDYN is trained using 45 IDP sequences and is retrained using both leave-one-out cross validation and five-fold cross validation, ensuring the model's robustness. While SeqDYN can provide reasonably accurate predictions in many cases, the authors note that improvements can be made by incorporating secondary structure predictions, especially for alpha-helices that exceed the correlation length of the model. The authors apply SeqDYN to study nine IDPs and a denatured ordered protein, demonstrating its predictive power. The model can be easily accessed via the website mentioned in the text.

While the conclusions of the paper are primarily supported by the data, there are some points that could be extended or clarified.

(1) The authors state that the model includes 21 parameters. However, they exclude a free parameter that acts as a scaling factor and is necessary to fit the experimental data (lambda). As a result, SeqDYN does not predict the spectrum from the sequence de-novo, but requires a one parameter fitting. The authors mention that this factor is necessary due to non-sequence dependent factors such as the temperature and magnetic field strength used in the experiment.

Given these considerations, would it be possible to predict what this scaling factor should be based on such factors?

There are still too few data to make such a prediction.

(2) The authors mention that the Lorentzian functional form fits the data better than a Gaussian functional form, but do not present these results.

We tested the different functional forms at the early stage of the method development. The improvement of the Lorentzian over the Gaussian was slight and we simply decided on the Lorentzian and did not go back and do a systematic analysis.

(3) The authors mention that they conducted five-fold cross validation to determine if differences between amino acid parameters are statistically significant. While two pairs are mentioned in the text, there are 190 possible pairs, and it would be informative to more rigorously examine the differences between all such pairs.

We now present t-test results for other pairs in new Fig. S3.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The manuscript by Qin and Zhou presents an approach to predict dynamical properties of an intrinsically disordered protein (IDP) from sequence alone. In particular, the authors train a simple (but useful) machine learning model to predict (rescaled) NMR R2 values from sequence. Although these R2 rates only probe some aspects of IDR dynamics and the method does not provide insight into the molecular aspects of processes that lead to perturbed dynamics, the method can be useful to guide experiments.

A strength of the work is that the authors train their model on an observable that directly relates to protein dynamics. They also analyse a relatively broad set of proteins which means that one can see actual variation in accuracy across the proteins.

A weakness of the work is that it is not always clear what the measured R2 rates mean. In some cases, these may include both fast and slow motions (intrinsic R2 rates and exchange contributions). This in turn means that it is actually not clear what the authors are predicting. The work would also be strengthened by making the code available (in addition to the webservice), and by making it easier to compare the accuracy on the training and testing data.

Our method predicts the sequence dependence of R2, which is dominated by slower dynamics.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) Should make sure to define abbreviations such as NMR and SeqDYN.

We now spell out NMR at first use. SeqDYN is the name of our method and is not an abbreviation.

(2) The authors do not mention how the curves in Figure 2A are calculated.

As we stated in the figure caption, these curves are drawn to guide the eye.

(3) May be interesting to explore how the model parameters (q) correlate with different measures of hydrophobicity (especially those derived for IDPs like Urry). This may point to a relationship between amino acid interactions and amino acid dynamics

We now present the correlation between q and a stickiness parameter refined by Tesei et al. (new ref 45) and used for predicting phase separation equilibrium (new Fig. S6).

(4) The authors demonstrate that secondary structure cannot be fully accounted for by their model. They make a correction for extended alpha-helices, but the strength of this correction seems to only be based on one sequence. Would a more rigorous secondary structure correction further improve the model and perhaps allow its transferability to ordered proteins?

We have five 4 test cases (Figs. 4E, F and 5H, I). However, we doubt that the SeqDYN method will be transferable to ordered proteins.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Changes that could strengthen the manuscript substantially.

(1) The authors do not really define what they mean by dynamics, but given that they train and benchmark on R2 measurements, the directly probe whatever goes into the measured R2. Using a direct measurement is a strength since it makes it clear what they are predicting. It also, however, makes it difficult to interpret. This is made clear in the text when the authors, for example write "𝑅2 is the one most affected by slower dynamics (10s of ns to 1 μs and beyond)." First, with the "and beyond" it could literally mean anything. Second, the "normal" R2 rate is limited up to motions up to the (local) "tumbling/reorganization" time (which is much faster), so any slow motions that go into R2 would be what one would normally call "exchange". The authors should thus make it clearer what exactly it is they are probing. In the end, this also depends on the origin of the experimental data, and whether the "R2" measurements are exchange-free or not. This may be a mixture, which hampers interpretations and which may also explain some of the rescaling that needs to be done.

We now remove “and beyond”, and also raise the possibility that R2 measurements based on 15N relaxation may have relatively small exchange contributions (p. 17).

(2) Related to the above, the authors might consider comparing their predictions to the relaxation experiments from Kriwacki and colleagues on a fragment of p27. In that work, the authors used dispersion experiments to probe the dynamics on different timescales. The authors would here be able to compare both to the intrinsic R2 rates (when slow motions are pulsed away) as well as the effective R2 rates (which would be the most common measurement). This would help shed light on (at least in one case) which type of R2 the prediction model captures. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.7b01380

We now report this comparison in new Fig. S5 and discuss its implications (p. 17-18).

(3) In some cases, disagreement between prediction and experiments is suggested to be due to differences in temperature, and hence is used as an argument for the rescaling done. Here, the authors use a factor of 2.0 to explain a difference between 278K and 298K, and a factor of 2.4 to explain the difference between 288K and 298K. It would be surprising if the temperature effect from 288K->298K is larger than from 278K->298K. Does this not suggest that the differences come as much from other sources?

Note that the scaling factors 2.0 and 2.4 were obtained on two different IDPs. It is most likely that different IDPs have different scaling factors for temperature change. As a simple model, the tumbling time for a spherical particle scales with viscosity and the particle volume; correspondingly the scaling factor for temperature change should be greater for a larger particle than for a smaller particle.

(4) The authors find (as have others before) aromatic residues to be common at/near R2 peaks. They suggest this to be indicative for Pi-Pi interactions. Could this not be other types of interactions since these residues are also "just" more hydrophobic? Also, can the authors rule out that the increased R2 rates near aromatic residues is not due to increased dynamics, but simply due to increased Rex-terms due to greater fluctuations in the chemical shifts near these residues (due to the large ring current effects).

We noted both pi-pi and cation-pi as possible interactions that raise R2. There can be other interactions involving aromatic residues, but it’s unlikely to be only hydrophobic as Arg is also in the high-q end. For the same reason, a ring-current based explanation would be inadequate.

(5) The authors write: "We found that, by filtering PsiPred (http://bioinf.cs.ucl.ac.uk/psipred) (35) helix propensity scores (𝑝,-.) with a very high cutoff of 0.99, the surviving helix predictions usually correspond well with residues identified by NMR as having high helix propensities." It would be good to show the evidence for this in the paper, and quantify this statement.

The cases of most interest are the ones with long predicted helices, of which there are only 3 in the training set. For Sev-NT and CBP-ID4, we already summarize the NMR data for helix identification in the first paragraph of Results; the third case is KRS-NT, which we elaborate in p. 14.

(6) When analysing the nine test proteins, it would be very useful for the reader to get a number for the average accuracy on the nine proteins and a corresponding number for the training proteins. The numbers are maybe there, but hard to find/compare. This would be important so that one can understand how well the model works on the training vs testing data.

We now present the mean RMSE comparison in p. 14.

(7) The authors write: "The 𝑞 parameters, while introduced here to characterize the propensities of amino acids to participate in local interactions, appear to correlate with the tendencies of amino acids to drive liquid-liquid phase separation." It would be good to show this data and quantify this.

We now list supporting data in p. 18 and present new Fig. S6 for further support.

(8) It is great that the authors have made a webservice available for easy access to the work. They should in my opinion also make the training code and data available, as well as the final trained model. Here it would also be useful to show the results from the use of a Gaussian that was also tested, and also state whether this model was discarded before or after examining the testing data.

We have listed the IDP characteristics and sequences in Tables S1 and S2. We’re unsure whether we can disseminate the experimental R2 data without the permission of the original authors. As for the Gaussian function, as stated above, it was abandoned at an early state, before examining the testing data.

Changes that would also be useful

(1) The authors should make it clearer what they predict and what they don't. They mention transient helix formation and various contacts, but there isn't a one-to-one relationship between these structural features and R2 rates. Hence, they should make it clearer that they don't predict secondary structure and that an increased R2 rate may be indicative of many different structural/dynamical features on many different time scales.

We clearly state that we apply a helix boost after the regular SeqDYN prediction.

(2) The authors write "Instead, dynamics has emerged as a crucial link between sequence and function for IDPs" and cite their own work (reference 1) as reference for this statement. As far as I can see, that work does not study function of IDPs. Maybe the authors could cite additional work showing that the dynamics (time scales) affects function of IDPs beyond "just" structure? Otherwise, the functional consequences are not clear. Maybe the authors mean that R2 rates are indicative of (residual) structure, but that is not quite the same. Also, even in that case, there are likely more appropriate references.

Ref. 1 summarized a number of scenarios where dynamics is related to function.

(3) The authors might want to look at some of the older literature on interpreting NMR relaxation rates and consider whether some of it is worth citing.

Fitting/understanding R2 profiles https://doi.org/10.1021/bi020381o https://doi.org/10.1007/s10858-006-9026-9

MD simulations and comparisons to R2 rates without ad hoc reweighting (in addition to the papers from the authors themselves). https://doi.org/10.1021/ja710366c https://doi.org/10.1021/ja209931w

The R2 data for the two unfolded proteins are very helpful! We now present the comparison of these data to SeqDYN prediction in Fig. 6C, D. The MD papers are superseded by more recent studies (e.g., refs. 1 and 14).

There are more like these.

(4) In the analysis of unfolded lysozyme, I assume that the authors are treating the methylated cysteines (which are used in the experiments) simply as cysteine. If that is the case, the authors should ideally mention this specifically.

Treatment of methylated cysteines is now stated in the Fig. 6 caption.

(5) The authors write "Pro has an excessively low ms𝑅2 [with data from only two IDPs (32, 33)], but that is due to the absence of an amide proton." It would be useful with an explanation why lacking a proton gives rise to low 15N R2 rates.

That assertion originated from ref. 32.

(6) When applying the model, the authors predict msR2 and then compare to experimental R2 by rescaling with a factor gamma. It would be good to make it clearer whether this parameter is always fitted to the experiments in all the comparisons. It would be useful to list the fitted gamma values for all the proteins (e.g. in Table S1).

We already give a summary of the scaling factors (“For 39 of the 45 IDPs, Υ values fall in the range of 0.8 to 2.0 s–1”, p. 10).

(7) p. 14 "nineth" -> "ninth"

Corrected

eLife assessment

In this useful study, a solid machine learning approach based on a broad set of systems to predict the R2 relaxation rates of residues in intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) is described. The ability to predict the patterns of R2 will be helpful to guide experimental studies of IDPs. A potential weakness is that the predicted R2 values may include both fast and slow motions, thus the predictions provide only limited new physical insights into the nature of the underlying protein dynamics, such as the most relevant timescale.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Qin, Sanbo and Zhou, Huan-Xiang created a model, SeqDYN, to predict nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spin relaxation spectra of intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs), based primarily on amino acid sequence. To fit NMR data, SeqDYN uses 21 parameters, 20 that correspond to each amino acid, and a sequence correlation length for interactions. The model demonstrates that local sequence features impact the dynamics of the IDP, as SeqDYN performs better than a one residue predictor, despite having similar numbers of parameters. SeqDYN is trained using 45 IDP sequences and is retrained using both leave-one-out cross validation and five-fold cross validation, ensuring the model's robustness. While SeqDYN can provide reasonably accurate predictions in many cases, the authors note that improvements can be made by incorporating secondary structure predictions, especially for alpha-helices that exceed the correlation length of the model. The authors apply SeqDYN to study nine IDPs and a denatured ordered protein, demonstrating its predictive power. The model can be easily accessed via the website mentioned in the text.

The authors have adequately addressed the majority of my previous concerns. However, I still wonder if an attempt to fit the individual protein fitting parameter based on temperature and magnetic field strength would be possible. The authors would have 45 data points on which to fit such a parameter, which would only depend on two variables.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The revised manuscript adds some new relevant analyses. It still, however, is unclear which timescales of motions the method refers to and there is confusion about whether the model can predict "slower motions". While the authors answer some of my points, others are left unanswered. That is of course the authors' prerogative, and readers will in any case be able to read the reviewer comments. I am not sure it is productive to add further comments at this point.

Below are my comments from the first round of review:

The manuscript by Qin and Zhou presents an approach to predict dynamical properties of an intrinsically disordered protein (IDP) from sequence alone. In particular, the authors train a simple (but useful) machine learning model to predict (rescaled) NMR R2 values from sequence. Although these R2 rates only probe some aspects of IDR dynamics and the method does not provide insight into the molecular aspects of processes that lead to perturbed dynamics, the method can be useful to guide experiments.

A strength of the work is that the authors train their model on an observable that directly relates to protein dynamics. They also analyse a relatively broad set of proteins which means that one can see actual variation in accuracy across the proteins.

A weakness of the work is that it is not always clear what the measured R2 rates mean. In some cases, these may include both fast and slow motions (intrinsic R2 rates and exchange contributions). This in turn means that it is actually not clear what the authors are predicting. The work would also be strengthened by making the code available (in addition to the webservice), and by making it easier to compare the accuracy on the training and testing data.

eLife assessment

The manuscript proposes an alternative method by SDS-PAGE calibration of Halo-Myo10 signals to quantify myosin molecules in filopodia and discusses different scenarios regarding myosin 10 working models to explain intracellular diffusion and targeting to filopodia. Overall, the paper is elegantly written and the methodology is valuable in its descriptive potential as these are key numbers to know to ultimately decipher the cellular mechanism of Myo10 action as well as understand the molecular composition of a Myo10-generated filopodium. The evidence for the conclusions is compelling, but there are limitations to this study which should be kept in mind when applying this method to other systems.

Joint Public Review:

The paper sought to determine the number of myosin 10 molecules per cell and localized to filopodia, where they are known to be involved in formation, transport within, and dynamics of these important actin-based protrusions. The authors used a novel method to determine the number of molecules per cell. First, they expressed HALO tagged Myo10 in U20S cells and generated cell lysates of a certain number of cells and detected Myo10 after SDS-PAGE, with fluorescence and a stained free method. They used a purified HALO tagged standard protein to generate a standard curve which allowed for determining Myo10 concentration in cell lysates and thus an estimate of the number of Myo10 molecules per cell. They also examined the fluorescence intensity in fixed cell images to determine the average fluorescence intensity per Myo10 molecule, which allowed the number of Myo10 molecules per region of the cell to be determined. They found a relatively small fraction of Myo10 (6%) localizes to filopodia. There are hundreds of Myo10 in each filopodia, which suggests some filopodia have more Myo10 than actin binding sites. Thus, there may be crowding of Myo10 at the tips, which could impact transport, the morphology at the tips, and dynamics of the protrusions themselves. Overall, the study forms the basis for a novel technique to estimate the number of molecules per cell and their localization to actin-based structures. The implications are broad also for being able to understand the role of myosins in actin protrusions, which is important for cancer metastasis and wound healing.

Comments on latest version (from the Reviewing Editor):

One of the main critiques that still remains is that the results were derived from experiments with overexpressed Myo10 and therefore are hard to extrapolate to physiological conditions. Measurement were also only performed in a single cell line. The authors counter this critique with the argument that their results provide insight into a system in which Myo10 is a limiting factor for controlling filopodia formation. They demonstrate that U20S cells do not express detectable levels of Myo10 and thus introducing Myo10 expression demonstrates how triggering Myo10 expression impacts filopodia. An example is given of how melanoma cells often heavily upregulate Myo10.