Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Male mice were tested in a classic behavioral "flee the looming stimulus" paradigm. This is a purely behavioral study; no neural analyses were done. Mice were housed socially, but faced the looming stimulus individually, using an elegant automated tunnel (see videos for clarity).

The additional changes made to the paper clarify the work done. While there are some limitations (male mice, weird stimulus), the general results are interesting and a valuable addition to the experimental literature. The main claim of the paper is that the different rewards (none, water, sucrose) did not change the escape properties early in learning, but did late, particularly that in the late (already experienced) conditions, reward value (assuming sucrose > water > no reward) interacted with the salience of the looming stimulus (light gray, dark gray). (Panels 3D, 3G, 3K, 3N).

For readers, I want to note that one of the most interesting results is actually in Figure S2, where they find that a looming stimulus behind the mouse still makes a mouse run to the nest. In these conditions, the mouse runs past the looming stimulus to get to safety! (I also do love the video of the mouse running around the barriers like a snake to get home.)

I have a few minor clarification questions and a few notes that I think would be useful additions for authors and readers to think about.

Dominance: What does the mouse social science literature say about the "test tube" test? What can we conclude from this test? This would be useful when trying to understand what is causing the dominance/submissive difference in responses. Figure 4 shows that the dominant mice are more risk-averse than the submissive mice. Is "dominance" in the test-tube actually a measure of risk-seeking? Is the issue that the submissive mice don't think they can get back to the food-site easily, so they are less willing to sacrifice the current (if dangerous) foraging opportunity? Is the issue that the submissive mice can't get back to the nest? As I understand it, the nest was always available to all the mice, so I suspect inability to get to the nest is an unlikely hypotheses. Is the issue that the submissive mice also don't feel safe in the nest?

Limitations of the study: There is an acknowledged limitation to male mice, and the limitations of the small data sets that are typical of such experiments. In addition, however, it is also worth noting the strangeness of the looming stimulus, which is revealed clearly in the videos. The stimulus is a repeating growing circle, growing in a single location within the environment. The stimulus repeats 10 times, once per second. This is not what an attacking hawk or owl would look like. (I now have this image of an owl diving down, and then teleporting up and diving down again.) Note - I am fine with this stimulus. It produces an interesting experiment and interesting results. I do not think the authors need to change anything in their paper, but readers need to recognize that this is not a "looming predator".

These "limitations" are better seen as "caveats" when folding these results in with the rest of the literature that has gone before and the literature to come. (Generally, I do not believe that science works by studies making discoveries that change how we think about problems - instead, science works by studies adding to the literature that we integrate in with the rest of the literature.) Thus, these caveats should not be taken as problems with the study or as fixes that need to be done. Instead, they are notes for future researchers to notice if differences are found in any future studies.

Thus, my only suggestion is that I think authors could write a more careful paper by using the past and subjunctive tense appropriately. Experimental observations should be in past tense, as in "the influence of reward was context-dependent and emerged in the late phase" instead of "the influence of reward is context-dependent and emerges in the late phase" - it emerged in the late phase this once - it might not in future experiments, not due to any fault in this experiment nor due to replicability problems, but rather due to unexpected differences between this and those future experiments. At which point, it will be up to those future experiments to determine the difference. Similarly, large conclusions should be in the subjunctive tense, as in "these data suggest that threat intensity is likely to be the primary determinant of decision making" rather than "threat intensity is the primary determinant of decision making", because those are hypotheses not facts.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Inoshita and Kawaguchi investigated the effects of GPR55 activation on synaptic transmission in vitro. To address this question, they performed direct patch-clamp recordings from axon terminals of cerebellar Purkinje cells and fluorescent imaging of vesicular exocytosis utilizing synapto-pHluorin. They found that exogenous activation of GPR55 suppresses GABA release at Purkinje cell to deep cerebellar nuclei (PC-DCN) synapses by reducing the readily releasable pool (RRP) of vesicles. This mechanism may also operate at other synapses.

Strengths:

The main strength of this study lies in combining patch-clamp recordings from axon terminals with imaging of presynaptic vesicular exocytosis to reveal a novel mechanism by which activation of GPR55 suppresses inhibitory synaptic strength. The results strongly suggest that GPR55 activation reduces the RRP size without altering presynaptic calcium influx.

Weaknesses:

The study relies on the exogenous application of GPR55 agonists. It remains unclear whether endogenous ligands released by physiological or pathological processes would have similar effects. There is also little evidence that GPR55 is expressed in Purkinje cell axon boutons. This study would benefit from the use of GPR55 knockout (KO) mice. The downstream mechanism by which GPR55 mediates the suppression of GABA release remains unknown.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have addressed all my concerns effectively. I have no further comments and want to commend their comprehensive study.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This work investigates whether human imprecision in numeric perception is a fixed structural constraint or an endogenous property that adapts to environmental statistics and task objectives. By measuring behavioral variability across different uniform prior distributions in both estimation and discrimination tasks, the authors show that perceptual imprecision increases sublinearly with prior width. They demonstrate that the specific exponents of this scaling (1/2 for estimation and 3/4 for discrimination) can be derived from an efficient-coding model, wherein decision-makers optimally balance task-specific expected rewards against the metabolic costs of neural coding. The revised manuscript expands this framework to accommodate logarithmic representations and validates the core model against an independent dataset of risky choices.

Strengths:

The authors have effectively addressed my previous concerns with rigorous additions:

(1) The mathematical formulation has been revised into a discrete signal accumulation framework, making the objective function and resource trade-offs much more transparent and mathematically tractable.

(2) The incorporation of the logarithmic representation resolves prior ambiguities regarding structural constraints.

(3) The new split-half analysis effectively addresses the temporal dynamics of adaptation. The stability of the sublinear scaling across the experiment provides solid evidence that human subjects utilize rapid, top-down modulation to adjust their encoding strategy when explicitly informed about the environment.

(4) Validating the derived scaling exponents on an independent risky-choice dataset robustly supports the generalizability of the theoretical framework beyond a single cognitive domain.

Weaknesses:

The methodological and theoretical issues raised in the first round have been thoroughly resolved, and the evidence supporting the claims regarding response variance is convincing.

There is one remaining theoretical point that warrants discussion to provide a complete picture of the proposed generative model. The manuscript exquisitely models and predicts response variance (imprecision), but it remains largely silent on the closed-form predictions for the mean estimation (i.e., bias). Under the assumption of optimal Bayesian decoding combined with specific encoding schemes (e.g., linear vs. logarithmic), the model implicitly generates mathematical predictions for the subjects' mean estimates. Specifically, varying the scaling exponent (α) and the prior width (w) should systematically alter the predicted bias in different conditions.

While fitting or explicitly explaining this mean bias is not strictly necessary for the core claims regarding variance scaling, acknowledging what the optimal decoder analytically predicts for the mean estimation-and how it aligns or contrasts with typical empirical observations-would strengthen the theoretical transparency of the paper.

Reviewer #5 (Public review):

Summary:

This study investigates the molecular mechanisms underlying the maintenance of neuropathic pain, specifically focusing on the role of mRNA translation in the spinal cord. Using the Spared Nerve Injury (SNI) model, the authors demonstrate that while both transcription and translation are active in the early phase, the chronic phase (day 63) is uniquely characterized by a shift toward translational control. They identify spinal inhibitory neurons, particularly parvalbumin-positive interneurons, as key sites of this translational regulation.

Strengths:

Technical Rigor: The use of Ribo-seq and TRAP-seq allows for a high-resolution view of the "translatome," which more accurately reflects the functional protein output than standard mRNA-seq.Novelty: The study uncovers that reducing a single translation initiation factor (eIF4E) specifically in the CNS is sufficient to provide long-lasting relief from established chronic pain.Addressing Disinhibition: The electrophysiological evidence showing that increased translation in PV+ neurons reduces their excitability provides a clear mechanism for the "spinal disinhibition" typically seen in chronic pain.

Weaknesses:

Cell-Type Sufficiency: New experiments in the revision show that while inhibiting translation in PV+neurons restores their individual excitability, it is not sufficient on its own to reverse behavioral pain hypersensitivity. This suggests that the maintenance of chronic pain likely involves translational changes across a broader network of cell types, including other inhibitory neurons or non-neuronal cells like microglia. -This does not have to be resolved in the current study, but providing some framework to account for potential mechanisms might help the audience.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The study aimed to address a fundamental question in T. cruzi and Chagas disease biology - how much variation is there in gene expression between individual parasites? This is particularly important with respect to the surface protein-encoding genes, which are mainly from massive repetitive gene families with 100s to 1000s of variant sequences in the genome. There is very little direct evidence for how expression of these genes is controlled. The authors conducted a single cell RNAseq experiment of in vitro cultured parasites with a mixture of amastigotes and trypomastigotes. Most of the analysis focused on the heterogeneity of gene expression patterns amongst trypomastigotes. They show that heterogeneity was very high for all gene classes, but surface-protein encoding genes were the most variable. Interestingly, in the case of the trans-sialidase genes, many sequence variants were detected in fewer than 5% of parasites while a subset of 31 others was detected in >40% if parasites, hinting at compartmentalised expression control within the gene family. The biology of the parasite (e.g. extensive post-transcriptional regulation) and potential technical caveats (e.g. high dropout rates across the genome) make it difficult to infer connections to actual protein expression on the parasite surface, but the results are a significant advance for the field.

(1) Limit of detection and gene dropouts.

An average of ~1100 genes are detected per parasite which indicates a dropout rate of over 90%. It appears that RNA for the "average" single copy 'core' gene is only detected in around 3% of the parasites sampled (Figure 2c: ~100 / 3192). While comparable with some other trypanosome scRNAseq studies, this remains a caveat to the interpretation that high cell-to-cell variability in gene expression is explained by biological factors. The argument would be more convincing if the dropout rates and expression heterogeneity were minimal for highly expressed housekeeping genes. The authors are appropriately cautious in their interpretation and acknowledge the need for further validation.

(2) Heterogeneity across the board.

The authors focus on the relative heterogeneity in RNA abundance for surface proteins from the multicopy gene families vs core genes. While multicopy gene sequences do show significantly more cell-to-cell variability, there is still surprisingly high inequality of expression amongst genes in other classes including single copy housekeeping and ribosomal genes. Again the biological relevance of the comparison is uncertain and the authors acknowledge the need for further investigation.

This study provides some tantalising evidence that the expression of surface genes may vary substantially between individual parasites in a single clonal population. The study is also amongst the very first to apply scRNAseq to T. cruzi, so the broader data set will be an important resource for researchers in the field.

Comment on revised version:

The manuscript is significantly improved. The revised explanations and figures make several aspects of the data analysis and interpretation much clearer to me now. Thanks to the authors.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Maigler & Lin et al present a compelling set of behavioral and electrophysiological experiments exploring how individual differences in taste preference map onto neural responses in the gustatory cortex (GC). They go on to examine how both preferences and neural responses shift following intervening taste experience. Their experiments are strengthened by examining tastes of distinct identities and palatability (sweet, sour, salty, bitter) and corresponding each animal's individual preference to the palatability-related late phase of the neural response.

Strengths:

(1) They demonstrate a relationship between the behavioral expression of taste preference and palatability-related GC neural responses. The direct correlation of expression of taste preference with GC neural responses indicates that taste preference behavior may be less noisy than previously thought, reflecting actual neural activity.

(2) They address the stability of individual taste preference by comparing within and between session expression. This finding indicates that individual preference on any given test session can differ from canonical palatability.

(3) They provide evidence that representational drift in palatability coding may arise from sensory experience rather than from the passive passage of time. The findings are novel and potentially impactful. The results are relatively complete.

Weaknesses:

Experiments require further clarification. The interpretations would be strengthened by reorganizing the experimental design.

(1) Figures 5-6 show shifts in palatability-related GC responses from recording day 1 to recording day 2. The authors propose that this drift is due to the taste experience during recording day 1, but the study, as designed, does not directly test this idea. Without a behavioral measure collected after recording day 1 intraoral exposure, it is not possible to determine whether taste preference was altered by that experience, nor whether the neural responses collected on recording day 2 represent current or most recent palatability expression vs something else. The authors' conclusion would be strengthened by adding an intervening brief access test between recording days 1 and 2. The authors could then determine whether the behavioral preferences changed after intraoral taste exposure on recording day 1, as well as whether the new set of taste-related palatability responses correlates with the updated taste preferences.

(2) The current experimental design exposes animals to 3 distinct sets of substances. These substances differ in identity (some rats never experienced sweet, while others did not experience bitter during the recording sessions) and concentration (ranging from very aversive to slightly aversive or possibly even neutral). Because palatability is known to be comparative depending on the other substances available and concentration-dependent, this introduces challenges to interpretation.

The authors state that "no differences in effects were observed between taste batteries" (Methods), but it is not clear which analyses were performed to determine the lack of difference, especially considering that many of the analyses are within-animal. Without more clarity, it is difficult to evaluate whether the interaction of different tastes within the sets of stimuli biases the main conclusions.

(3) Responses to sweet tastes are not reported in the electrophysiology data. This is seemingly the case because rats given set 1 received no sweet stimulus while rats given set 2 received to 2 distinct sweet tastes. Finally, rats given set 3 did not receive quinine, yet quinine is reported in electrophysiology data.

(4) The choice of reporting average lick cluster size is problematic because the authors use thirsty rats with 10-second-long trials. Thirsty rats are likely to lick in relatively long clusters, especially for neutral and palatable tastes. If the rat is mid-cluster when the trial ends, the final cluster would be cut off prematurely, resulting in shorter overall average lick cluster size, disproportionately affecting neutral and palatable tastes over aversive tastes.

(5) Canonical palatability rankings may not apply to the concentrations selected in every stimulus set. This is particularly true for set 1, which included two concentrations of citric acid and quinine for the behavior. It is also not clear which concentrations are reported in Figures 3A2 and 3B2. Meanwhile, the concentrations of quinine and citric acid used for electrophysiology are quite low.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The study by Hong, Loer, Hobert, and colleagues is a comprehensive description of monoaminergic neurons in the nematode Pristionchus pacificus. The work used multiple, complementary approaches, including immunostaining and expression of genes involved in neurotransmitter synthesis or transport, to identify neurons that express a monoamine neurotransmitter. Moreover, this study characterized the phenotypes of various mutants to study their organismal function. Extensive comparisons are made to C. elegans, the nematode model that, in a way, anchors the model studied here, and new outgroup species were examined for some features so that the polarity of their evolution could be inferred. Although there is no simple or groundbreaking punchline to distill from the manuscript (i.e., other than some things are the same as in C. elegans, and some things are different), and while the study is basically descriptive in nature, the scope of the project warrants broad attention.

Strengths:

This manuscript offers a tremendous resource for those who use this species as a model, which, based on the author list alone, includes many labs. This study sets the bar for what can be done in a "satellite" model system.

Given the complementarity of approaches used, such as the position of cell bodies, the connectivity and morphology of dendrites, and a previously published atlas of the connectome for this species, the identification of specific neurons (which, as the authors point out, can be easily mistaken) is convincing throughout. Likewise, appropriate caution is observed where neuron identities are ambiguous, e.g., unlabelled cells in Figure 5, or ambiguous identities in other species, as shown in Figure 10. There was a lot of data to unpack in this manuscript, but I could not find any obvious flaws in neuron identification.

Also, the phenotypic assays were straightforward and informative.

Weaknesses:

No serious weaknesses were noted. One minor comment is that in general, I think the Methods could use some additional text to describe what the goal of any given technique was. For example, although there is a description of the HCR protocol in the methods, nowhere does it say what genes this method would be used for. In addition to what is shown in Figure 4, this information should be given in the Methods.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, Guo and colleagues investigated the effects of stress and retrieval practice on memory inference. In the first experiment, they found that memory inference was significantly worse after induced stress. Conversely, when participants received retrieval practice in the second experiment, they found no significant differences between these conditions. They monitored EEG during the inference phase and applied multivariate decoding analysis to examine evidence of neural reactivation. Complementing the behavioural findings of the first experiment, they found that they were able to decode the stimulus category of the inference item with more fidelity in the no stress condition. Surprisingly, they found the opposite direction when participants had retrieval practice, with stronger evidence of reactivation in the stress condition than in the control condition.

Strengths:

(1) The authors have carefully designed two studies investigating the effects of stress and memory retrieval on memory inference.

(2) The use of multivariate decoding on the inference phase data sheds new light on how stress and retrieval may impact the neural signatures of inference processing.

Weaknesses:

(1) There are some key gaps in the reporting of the data. In particular, data is missing on how many trials were included in the inference phase and how many were retrieved in the direct memory task. This is important to know as the main conclusions are based on inference trials proportional to the direct retrieval trials. Considering that the direct retrieval performance differs significantly between the experiments, there could be issues with floor/ceiling effects (in the behaviour) and statistical power (in the EEG results) that confound the comparisons between experiments. Without the data, it is difficult to draw conclusions.

(2) There are some relatively strong conclusions drawn without the data to support them. An important example is the title suggesting a mechanistic role of memory reactivation for these effects; however, the data instead suggest a relationship between successful inference and evidence of reactivation. Additionally, one-tailed t-tests have been used in follow-up tests, and, as I understand it, no multiple comparisons corrections have been applied to the post-hoc tests, suggesting that these findings should be interpreted with caution.

(3) In places, the structure is unclear, making the narrative difficult to follow, often making it necessary for the reader to go back and forth between the sections to understand the study and analyses. I have made some recommendations for how to improve this.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary

This paper introduces EMUsort, an extension of Kilosort4 designed to sort motor unit action potentials from high-density intramuscular EMG recordings. Using rat and monkey forelimb recordings, the authors generate realistic simulated datasets with known ground truth and demonstrate that EMUsort substantially outperforms Kilosort4 and MUedit, particularly during periods of high motor unit overlap.

Strengths

This is a timely study in light of recent advances in intramuscular muscle recording technologies and the growing interest in automated methods for decoding neural and neuromuscular signals. The work leverages state-of-the-art electrode arrays and combines them with advanced signal processing tools to address a challenging and relevant problem in motor unit analysis.

Weaknesses

There are several aspects of the study that substantially limit the interpretation of the main results and conclusions. The following major points should be carefully considered by the authors.

(1) Choice of experimental model and validation framework: The study aims to validate a new methodology for EMG decomposition, yet the rationale for the chosen experimental models is unclear. Specifically, it is not evident why the authors focused on intramuscular recordings from two animal models performing dynamic tasks. Given the extensive literature on the development and validation of EMG decomposition methods, the choice of an experimental design that substantially deviates from established approaches is insufficiently justified. In particular, it is unclear why the authors did not consider more standard validation paradigms based on (i) isometric contractions, (ii) human data, (iii) surface EMG recordings, or (iv) combinations of their recording technologies with previously validated motor unit identification methods. This methodological divergence makes it difficult to interpret the findings in the context of existing evidence.

(2) Lack of manual EMG decomposition as reference: Related to the previous point, it is unclear why standard manual EMG decomposition methods were not used to generate reference datasets for validation. Manual decomposition has been shown to be reliable under specific conditions (low contraction levels, slow dynamics, etc.) and would have substantially strengthened the validation of the proposed algorithm.

(3) Neglect of muscle deformation effects: While the manuscript discusses several factors that complicate EMG decomposition relative to brain recordings, it does not address the well-known effects of muscle deformation during contractions on motor unit action potential shapes. There is extensive literature demonstrating that dynamic muscle contractions lead to systematic changes in action potential morphology, representing a major challenge for EMG decomposition and a fundamental difference from brain recordings. Additionally, even small relative movements of intramuscular electrodes can produce waveform changes that are large relative to muscle fiber dimensions. These issues are particularly relevant given the highly dynamic tasks studied here (e.g., treadmill walking in rats), yet they are not discussed or incorporated into the analysis.

(4) Exclusive reliance on simulated data for validation: The primary validation of EMUsort is based on simulated data, which represents a major limitation of the study. This reliance should be clearly and explicitly stated in the abstract, introduction, and discussion. Moreover, the simulation approach itself raises concerns. The simulated EMG signals are generated using templates derived from the same sorting framework being validated, which introduces a potential methodological bias. The linear combination of components used to synthesize waveforms constitutes an unjustified modeling assumption that may favor template-based approaches such as EMUsort. Additionally, the spike time generation procedure appears unnecessarily complex and insufficiently justified. Previous validation studies typically modeled motor units as firing at relatively stable levels along their recruitment curves, producing long spike trains with pseudo-random relative timing and diverse overlap conditions. This framework would likely provide a more robust and interpretable validation. If the authors believe their simulation approach is superior, a stronger justification is required. Finally, the limited number of simulated motor units is difficult to reconcile with the expected level of motor unit recruitment during the studied behaviors, and this choice is not adequately justified.

(5) Incomplete reporting and visualization of experimental data: The manuscript would benefit from a clearer description of the number of rats and monkeys used, which should be reported explicitly in the abstract. In addition, visualizations of the raw multichannel EMG data across different task phases and activation levels would substantially improve transparency. Providing comprehensive visualizations of motor unit action potential shapes across all channels and identified units (for both rats and monkeys) would also help readers assess the spatiotemporal features that underpin unit identification and sorting reliability.

(6) Physiological limitations of conduction delay correction: The proposed method for correcting conduction delays across channels is physiologically suboptimal. First, motor unit conduction velocities differ substantially across units, implying that delay correction should be applied at the unit level rather than uniformly across channels. Second, conduction delays depend on fiber orientation and distance relative to electrode geometry; if fibers are oriented at different angles with respect to the array, a single delay correction becomes invalid. Additionally, the schematic in Figure 2A appears to contradict the proposed correction approach: if electrode threads are arranged perpendicular to muscle fibers, conduction delays across channels within a single thread should be minimal.

(7) Clarity issues in Figure 4: Figure 4 (panels A-D) is potentially misleading. It should be clearly stated whether the signals shown are artificial examples or derived from real recordings; ideally, real data should be used to illustrate the advantages of dynamic thresholds. In panels B-D, the depiction of overlapping action potentials is difficult to interpret due to the thickness of the traces, and it is unclear whether overlaps with neighboring action potentials are absent by design or expected to occur in real data. If overlaps are expected, one would also expect to observe contamination in the extracted waveforms, which is not evident in the figure.

(8) Concerns regarding method comparisons: The comparison with existing methods raises methodological concerns. It appears that EMUsort was carefully optimized, whereas the competing algorithms were not equivalently fine-tuned. The literature clearly shows that EMG decomposition performance depends strongly on adapting algorithms to the signal type (intramuscular vs. surface, species, electrode geometry). Furthermore, it is surprising that MUedit is reported to perform particularly poorly during periods of motor unit overlap, as blind source separation methods were explicitly developed to handle convolutive mixtures and overlapping sources, especially in surface EMG (which is an extreme case of motor unit overlapping). This discrepancy requires further explanation.

(9) Insufficient characterization of motor unit firing properties: The study does not provide sufficient information about the firing characteristics of the identified motor units in experimental data. Relevant metrics that should be reported include average, minimum, and maximum firing rates; coefficients of variation of discharge rate; signal-to-noise ratios of motor unit action potentials; potential evidence of motor unit rotation over time; and stability of firing behavior across recording intervals.

(10) Lack of theoretical framing: Given the scope and claims of the paper, it would be valuable to include a more theory-driven introduction explaining why different sorting approaches (e.g., template matching vs. blind source separation) may be more or less suitable depending on the nature of the recorded signals. A clearer conceptual rationale for why the proposed approach is expected to outperform existing methods would substantially strengthen the manuscript.

(11) Limitations of validation metrics: Some of the metrics used to evaluate performance are not ideal. For example, reporting 0% accuracy for a unit is misleading and should instead be described as a failure to identify that unit. Similarly, comparisons of total spike counts are of limited interpretive value and may be misleading, as correct spike counts do not necessarily imply correct spike identities.

(12) Clarification of computational performance claims: Finally, the discussion of computation times should clarify that some existing methods require substantial time for offline estimation of projection vectors but can operate in near real time once these vectors are learned and remain stable. This distinction is important for a fair comparison of practical usability.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The manuscript by Fuller et al describes a crosstalk between ARTG2A with components of the early secretory pathway, namely RAB1A and ARFGAP1. They show that ATG2A is recruited to membranes positive for RAB1A, which they also show to interact with ATG2A. In agreement with earlier findings by other groups, silencing RAB1A negatively affects autophagy. While ARFGAP1 was also found on ATG2A positive membranes, silencing ARFGAP1 had no impact autophagy. Notably, these ARFGAP1 positive membranes are not Golgi membranes.

The findings are interesting and the data are in general of good quality. I think the story is good enough to be published in eLife and I have the following questions, which the authors may attend to:

(1) Are the membranes to which ATG2A is recruited a form of ERGIC?

(2) Figure 3A/B: Is it possible to show a better example? The difference is barely detectable by eye. Since Immunoblotting is not really a quantitative method, I think that such a weak effect is prone to be wrong. Is there another tool/assay to validate this result?

(3) Is the curvature-sensitive region of ARFGAP1 required for its co-localization with ATG2A?

(4) What does Rab1A do? What is its effector? Or does the GTPase itself remodel the membrane?

(5) What about Arf1? It appears that this role of ARFGAP1 is unrelated to Arf1 and COPI? Thus, one would predict that Arf1 does not localize to these structures and does not affect ATG2A function

(6) Does ARFGAP1 promote fission of the membrane from its donor compartment?

(7) What are ARFGAP1 and Rab1A recruited to? What is the lipid composition, or protein that recruits these two players to regulate autophagy?

Comments on the latest version:

The revisions carried out by the authors are fine. The new data on ArfGAP1 and about the indirectness of the ATG2A and Rab1A interaction improve both clarity and strength of the manuscript. I have no further comments.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/TypewriterCollectors/posts/10163297970974678/

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Kern et al. critically assess the sensitivity of temporally delayed linear modelling (TDLM), a relatively new method used to detect memory replay in humans via MEG. While TDLM has recently gained traction and been used to report many exciting links between replay and behavior in humans, Kern et al. were unable to detect replay during a post-learning rest period. To determine whether this null result reflected an actual absence of replay or sensitivity of the method, the authors ran a simulation: synthetic replay events were inserted into a control dataset, and TDLM was used to decode them, varying both replay density and its correlation with behavior. The results revealed that TDLM could only reliably detect replay at unrealistically (not-physiological) high replay densities, and the authors were unable to induce strong behavior correlations. These findings highlight important limitations of TDLM, particularly for detecting replay over extended, minutes long time periods.

Strengths:

Overall, I think this is an extremely important paper, given the growing use of TDLM to report exciting relationships between replay and behavior in humans. I found the text clear, the results compelling, and the critique of TDLM quite fair: it is not that this method can never be applied, but just that it has limits in its sensitivity to detect replay during minutes long periods. Further, I greatly appreciated the authors efforts to describe ways to improve TDLM: developing better decoders and applying them to smaller time windows.

The power of this paper comes from the simulation whereby the authors inserted replay events and attempted to detect them using TDLM. Regarding their first study, there are many alternative explanations or possible analysis strategies that the authors do not discuss; however, none of these are relevant if replayed, under conditions where it is synthetically inserted, cannot be detected.

Further, the authors provide a simulation and series of analyses aimed at replicating previous TDLM-based replay studies. They demonstrate methodological flaws, and show that previous simulations greatly overestimated the sensitivity of TDLM. This work emphasizes the need to cast a critical eye over both past and future studies applying TDLM to detect replay.

Finally, the authors are relatively clear about which parameters they chose, why they chose them, and how well they match previous literature (they seem well matched); and provide suggestions for how others can determine the best parameters for TDLM within their own experimental contexts.

Comments on revisions:

The authors thoroughly addressed my previous comments; the added analyses and discussion significantly strengthen the paper's clarity, utility, and impact.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Shiqiang Xu and colleagues have examined the importance of ICAM-1 and ALCAM internalization and retrograde transport in cancer cells on formation of a polarized immunological synapse with cytotoxic CD8+ T cells. They find that internalization is mediated by Endophilin A3 (EndoA3) while retrograde transport to the Golgi apparatus is mediated by the retromer complex. Perturbing these trafficking pathways reduces cytokine release, but increases cytolytic killing. The paper is building on previous findings from corresponding author Henri-François Renard showing that ALCAM is an EndoA3 dependent cargo in clathrin-independent endocytosis.

The work is interesting as it describes a novel mechanism by which cancer cells might influence CD8+ T cell activation and immunological synapse formation, and the authors have used a variety of cell biology and immunology methods to study this. The authors have also made substantial efforts to address the reviewers comments to the first version of the paper. However, there are still some points which could be further improved to underpin their conclusions:

The movies and the related micrographs of EndoA3-mediated ICAM-1 endocytosis could be more convincing. Is the invagination of large membrane patches visible by volumetric imaging (e.g. confocal z-stacks) or brightfield microscopy?

There is still a lack of quantitative evidence for polarized transport of ICAM-1 positive vesicles towards the immunological synapse. Only one example is shown and the authors state that the data is from a single movie representative of two independent experiments. If there are multiple cells per experiment, the number of cells should be stated and more examples should be included.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary of work:

Cheng, Liu, Dong, et al. demonstrate that anterior endoderm cells can arise from prechordal plate progenitors, which is suggested by pseudotime reanalysis of published scRNAseq data, pseudotime analysis of new scRNAseq data generated from Nodal-stimulated explants, live imaging from sox17:DsRed and gsc:eGFP transgenics, fluorescent in situ hybridization, and a Cre/Lox system. Early fate mapping studies already suggested that progenitors at the dorsal margin give rise to both of these cell types (Warga), and live imaging from the Heisenberg lab (Sako 2016, Barone 2017) convincingly showed this previously. However, the data presented for this point are very nice and further cement this result. Though better demonstrated by previous work (Alexander 1999, Gritsman 1999, Gritsman 2000, Sako 2016, Rogers 2017, others), the manuscript presents confirmatory data that high Nodal signaling is required for both cell types. The manuscript generates new single-cell RNAseq data from Nodal-stimulated explants with increased (lft1 KO) or decreased (ndr1 KD) Nodal signaling and multi-omic ATAC+scRNAseq data from wild-type 6 hpf embryos, which can be used as a resource, though few new conclusions are drawn from it in this manuscript. Lastly, the manuscript presents suggests that SWI/SNF remodelers and Ripply1 may be involved in the anterior endoderm - prechordal plate decision, but these data are less convincing. The SWI/SNF remodeler experiments are unconvincing because the demonstration that these factors are differentially expressed or active between the two cell types are weak. The Ripply1 gain-of function experiments are unconvincing because they are based on incredibly high overexpression of ripply1 (500 pg or 1000 pg) that generates a phenotype that is not in line with previously demonstrated overexpression studies (with phenotypes from 10-20x lower expression). Similarly, the cut-and-tag data seems low quality and is based on high overexpression, so may not support direct binding of ripply1 to these loci.

During revision, the authors addressed some comments, including eliminating references to "lineage" when referring to pseudotime trajectories, eliminating conclusions drawn from locations of cells on UMAP plots, and reducing use of the term "cooperative" which may have been confusing in this context, as well as increasing the number of embryos analyzed for some experiments. The authors also point out that whole-embryo transcriptional trajectories typically do not associate endodermal cells with prechordal plate cells, despite classical evidence that they are related. This is most likely because endodermal cells arise from several different previous transcriptional states in different regions of the embryonic margin and are, as the authors point out, difficult to computationally sort into dorsal, lateral, and ventral populations. Thus, there is value in generating data to more specifically look at the relationship between dorsal mesodermal and endodermal populations. However, the decision to use an artificial Nodal-treated explant system, rather than isolating the relevant population from whole embryos (such as by dissection prior to dissociation) remains a weakness of the manuscript, since it is unclear whether endodermal specification has been altered in this system (there seem to be few endodermal cells produced and the system involves manipulating one of the signals under study in this work). Concerns about the rigor of experiments concerning ripply1 and SWI/SNF experiments remains. While the authors improved peak calling in their ripply1 cut-and-tag, it is still based on massive overexpression of ripply1 that may drive binding outside of its endogenous loci.

In the end, this study provides some additional details in the cell fate decision between the prechordal plate and anterior endoderm and generates new data that may be useful for reanalysis by other experts in the field. However, this work does not make clear how Nodal signaling, FGF signaling, and elements of the gene regulatory network (including gsc, possibly ripply1, and other factors) interact to make the decision. I suggest that this manuscript is of interest to Nodal signaling or zebrafish germ layer patterning afficionados, but may not be of interest to a broad audience. While it provides new datasets and observations, it does not weave these into a convincing story that advances our understanding of the specification of these cell types.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

In this revised report, De Franceschi et al. purify components of the Cdv machinery in archaeon M. sedula and probe their interactions with membrane and with one-another in vitro using two main assays - liposome flotation and fluorescent imaging of encapsulated proteins. This has the potential to add to the field by showing how the order of protein recruitment seen in cells is related to the differential capacity of individual proteins to bind membranes when alone or when combined.

Using the floatation assay, they demonstrate that CdvA, CdvB, and CdvB1 bind liposomes. CdvB2 lacking its C-terminus is not efficiently recruited to membranes unless CdvAB or CdvB1 are present. The authors then employ a clever liposome assay that generates chained spherical liposomes connected by thin membrane necks, which allows them to accurately control the buffer composition inside and outside of the liposome. With this, they show that all four proteins accumulate in necks of dumbbell-shaped liposomes that mimic the shape of constricting necks in cell division, possibly indicating a sensing of catenoid membrane geometry. Taken altogether, these data lead them to propose that Cdv proteins are sequentially recruited to the membrane as has also been suggested by in vivo studies of ESCRT-III dependent cell division in crenarchaea.

In their revision, the authors have addressed the vast majority of our previous concerns. The paper is much improved as a result. The Figures are improved and the authors have added appropriate controls and additional experiments, strengthening their conclusions.

There are still some discrepancies between these results and what is know about Sulfolobus division. Since the initial submission, other work has shown that in S. acidocaldarius, CdvA is the first component to assemble a ring (in absence of CdvB , doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2513939122) and that CdvB2 is able to bind membranes in vitro (doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2525941123). This might reflect differences between Sulfolobus and Metallosphaera, but probably should be discussed.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors of this manuscript have addressed a key concept in T cell development: how early thymus gd T cells subsets are specified and the elements that govern gd T17 versus other gd T cell subset or ab T cell subsets are specified. They show that the transcriptional regulator HEB/Tcf12 plays a critical role in specifying the gd T17 lineage and, intriguingly that it up regulates the inhibitor Id3 which is later required for further gd T17 maturation.

Strengths:

The conclusions drawn by the authors are amply supported by a detailed analysis of various stages of T cell maturation in WT and KO mouse strains at the single cell level both phenotypically, by flow cytometry for various diagnostic surface markers, and transcriptionally, by single cell sequencing. Their conclusions are balanced and well supported by the data and citations of previous literature.

Weaknesses:

I actually found this work to be quite comprehensive.

Comments on revisions:

Nothing to add here. The authors were very thorough in their original submission, and all minor issues identified have been addressed to my satisfaction.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The constraints limiting the usage of especially repetitive amino acid sequences in proteins remain enigmatic. In their manuscript, Murase et al. analyse the impact of polyamino acid homorepeats (PolyX) on the expression of EGFP-variants with PolyX modifications. Introducing a new measure, relative neutrality, allows us to rate beneficial versus harmful sequences. The authors find that especially hydrophobic repeats (I, V, W, F, Y) show harmful effects on the respective proteins, enhancing their aggregation. Hydrophilic repeats (E, S, N, Q), on the other hand, show beneficial properties but suppress proteotoxic stress. Interestingly, these observations correlate with the occurrence of such PolyX in natural proteins across the proteomes of different organisms.

Strengths:

The manuscript seems especially valuable in the context of rational or de novo protein design. The observations on the one hand should allow for enhancing the solubility of proteins by using beneficial PolyX. On the other hand, they explain very well why some PolyX do not occur in natural proteins. The authors present a sound, broad and well-analysed dataset. The study is well designed, the manuscript is very well written, and the conclusions drawn are overall valid.

Weaknesses:

The whole data set relies on the definition of the newly introduced "relative neutrality" score. Besides being a well-chosen tool, this score is limited and biased as it does not directly include a measure for "solubility" but relies on "fluorescence emission" derived from the respective EGFP-fusion-proteins.

A second major weakness is that the influence of PolyX-modifications on secondary structure is neither analysed nor discussed.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In the present study, through international gene-matching efforts, the authors present 29 individuals with rare, heterozygous ARID5B variants and find that these individuals have a newly recognizable neurodevelopmental syndrome. A recurring clinical syndrome of developmental delay/intellectual disability, behavioral difficulties, renal malformation, and recurrent infections is described. 19 of these variants were confirmed to be de novo, and only one was inherited from an unaffected parent. 24/29 of these variants introduce premature termination codons in the final exon and are predicted to escape nonsense-mediated decay. The ARID5B p.Q522Ter variant was studied in a mouse heterozygous knock-in model, found to be associated with behavioral abnormalities. The well-described genetic and phenotypic data for this cohort provide convincing clinical evidence for a novel neurodevelopmental syndrome. The functional evidence provided is preliminary, and further studies are needed to understand disease mechanisms.

Strengths:

(1) The authors give a good description of a novel clinical syndrome manifesting as developmental delay/intellectual disability, facial dysmorphism, and behavioral challenges.

(2) The authors create a mouse model harboring an Arid5b(Q522*/+) variant and identify subtle behavioral changes.

(3) Attempts are made to functionally characterize a subset of ARID5B variants in human cell lines.

Weaknesses:

(1) The title - "ARID5B mutations cause a neurodevelopmental syndrome with neuroinflammation episodes" - should be revised. 2/29 individuals (7%) had CNS inflammation; this does not appear to be a core feature of the disease and should not be highlighted as such. If this is going to be a feature that is highlighted, then more details are needed. MRI images of cerebellitis and/or ADEM would be helpful, as well as lumbar puncture results and supplemental information detailing the treatment course.

(2) The abstract states that "Remarkably, 19 of 29 variants (66%) cluster within the first quarter of exon 10, are de novo, and escape nonsense-mediated mRNA decay (NMD), which we confirmed for two variants affecting seven individuals." The authors state in the Results that they "indeed found no signs of NMD". In Figure 3f, when assessing for transcript amount, there appears to be a great deal of variability. Three ARID5B variant lines are tested. Transcript amounts in two lines appear to be near control levels, but one LCL ARID5B Ile497AsnfsTer31 line appears to demonstrate significantly lower levels of transcript. The control lines also show a great deal of variability. No explanation is given for this large difference between LCL ARID5B Ile497AsnfsTer31 lines and for the variability in control lines, making these data uninterpretable. A major theme of the paper is that early truncating variants in exon 10 escape NMD and lead to the described phenotypes, so this is an important point that needs to be resolved, either by testing more patient-derived lines or knocking in these variants into cell lines.

(3) The Arid5b(Q522*/+) mice are not sufficiently molecularly characterized. Does the variant transcript escape NMD? What happens at the protein level? Is there mislocalization of the protein?

(4) For the HEK293T cell experiments, variants are overexpressed and compared to a control. These experiments appear to leave endogenous ARID5B intact. What might the authors expect to see if these variants were knocked in?

(5) The functional consequences of the missense variants are not tested. The authors suggest that missense variants may be more associated with macrocephaly and possibly ASD. Are these missense variants causing loss-of-function or gain-of-function? Is there preserved protein function?

(6) There are a number of functional assays performed, but it remains unclear if the tested variants are operating through a loss- or gain-of-function. Are truncating variants early in exon 10 leading to a partial loss-of-function? Or do they prevent the functioning of the other allele through a dominant negative mechanism? These possibilities are not directly tested.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this paper, the authors identified dual inhibitory mechanisms, an intrinsic juxtamembrane (JM) region and an extrinsic cytoplasmic tail (CCT) domain in the binding protein PAN-1, that suppress MYRF-1 cleavage in C. elegans. The authors showed that MYRF-1 cleavage oscillates across larval stages, peaking in mid-to-late phases and being suppressed during molts. This oscillatory pattern is consistent with MYRF-1's role in promoting transitions of larval stages, particularly in late-L1 involving lin-4 activation and DD neuron remodeling.

Strengths:

This work generated several knock-in strains of fluorescent tags and mutations in the endogenous myrf-1 and pan-1gene loci, which will provide resources for future identification and characterization of the underlying molecular mechanisms regulating MYRF-1 cleavage inhibition.

The results presented in the paper are solid enough to support the paper's main conclusions.

This study is valuable for establishing MYRF-1 cleavage as a key gatekeeper of the C. elegans developmental timing. Findings from C. elegans MYRF-1 may provide insight into the regulation and function of mammalian MYRF.

Weaknesses:

The following points should be discussed to further support the authors' model that MYRF-1 cleavage is a key gatekeeper of developmental timing.

(1) Recent findings by Helge Großhans and Jordan Ward groups showed that KIN-20 (CK1δ) and LIN-42 (PERIOD) are required for proper molt timing in C. elegans, and that loss of LIN-42 binding or of the phosphorylated LIN-42 tail impairs nuclear accumulation of KIN-20, resulting in arrhythmic molts (EMBO J. 44, 6368-6396, 2025). In this paper, the authors concluded that PAN-1 promotes MYRF trafficking to the cell membrane, where MYRF-1 cleavage and nuclear translocation occur, and that oscillates with developmental molting cycles in C. elegans. It is unclear whether MYRF-1 and KIN-20 interact in the nucleus and, if so, how this interaction controls developmental timing.

(2) Separately, it was previously shown that the let-7 primary transcript (pri-let-7) exhibits oscillating, pulse-like expression that peaks during each larval stage, rather than a steady increase, and directly correlates with developmental molting cycles. It is unclear whether the nuclear-localized MYRF-1 fragment regulates the oscillatory primary let-7 expression during larval transition (McCulloch and Rougvie, 2014; Van Wynsberghe et al., 2011).

DOI: 10.7554/eLife.106720

Resource: None

Curator: @evieth

SciCrunch record: RRID:ZFIN_ZDB-ALT-130816-3

What is this?

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The study by Schönmann et al. presents compelling analyses based on two MEG datasets, offering strong evidence that the pre-onset response observed in a highly influential study (Goldstein et al., 2022) can be attributed to stimulus dependencies-specifically, the auto-correlation in the stimuli-rather than to predictive processing in the brain. Given that both the pre-onset response and the encoding model are central to the landmark study, and that similar approaches have been adopted in several influential works, this manuscript is likely to be of high interest to the field. Overall, this study encourages more cautious interpretation of pre-onset responses in neural data, and the paper is well written and clearly structured.

Strengths:

• The authors provide clear and convincing evidence that inherent dependencies in word embeddings can lead to pre-activation of upcoming words, previously interpreted as neural predictive processing in many influential studies.

• They demonstrate that dependencies across representational domains (word embeddings and acoustic features) can explain the pre-onset response, and that these effects are not eliminated by regressing out neighboring word embeddings-an approach used in prior work.

• The study is based on two large MEG datasets and one ECoG dataset, showing that results previously observed in ECoG data can be replicated in MEG. Moreover, the stimulus dependencies appear to be consistent across the three datasets.

Weaknesses:

• While this study shows that stimulus dependency can account for pre-onset responses, it remains unclear whether this fully explains them, or whether predictive processing still plays a role. The more important question is whether pre-activation remains after accounting for these confounds.

Comments on revisions:

I appreciate the added analyses. This study raises an important methodological concern regarding an influential paper and will certainly have a high impact on our field.

Reviewer #4 (Public review):

Summary:

Short photoperiod is an important experimental manipulation in neurobiology, endocrinology, and metabolism studies. However, the molecular mechanisms by which short photoperiod gives rise to behavioral phenotypes that are seen in seasonal affective disorders remain unknown. Using the classic circadian model organism Drosophila, this study examines short photoperiod-induced hypersomnolence and identifies the circadian photoreceptor cryptochrome as a regulator of GABAergic tone within the clock neural circuit to promote wakefulness under short photoperiod conditions. The discovery has broad implications for understanding how short photoperiod modulates neural inhibition in circadian circuits in regulating sleep.

Strengths:

The Drosophila model provided a powerful platform to dissect the molecular mechanisms underlying short photoperiod-induced hypersomnolence. A battery of behavioral, imaging, circuit-manipulation approaches was employed to test the novel hypothesis that the circadian photoreceptor cryptochrome modulates GABAergic tone within the clock neural circuit to promote wakefulness under short photoperiod conditions.

Weaknesses:

The current model proposed by the authors suggests that the small ventral lateral neurons of the Drosophila clock circuit are GABAergic; however, this remains unclear. At present, the field lacks sufficient data and validated reagents to definitively establish the GABAergic identity of these neuropeptidergic neurons.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Zilinskas et al seeks to understand the mechanisms underlying the ability of Mtb to suppress Th17 differentiation. As Th17 responses are needed for protective immunity against TB, this is an important topic of investigation. They use Mtb mutants that lack eccC1 (from the ESX-1 locus) and fadD28 (encoding PDIM) and implicate a Tbet-dependent pathway by which Mtb modulates Th17 differentiation. The mechanism by which ESX-1/PDIM function to impact Th17 differentiation is, however, unclear, which limits the novelty of the results.

Strengths:

Understanding how Mtb limits Th17 differentiation has implications for vaccine development. Comparative study of KO mice and Mtb mutants is a strength.

Weaknesses:

(1) The authors should acknowledge and reference key findings from the literature that have identified suppression of Th17 differentiation as an Mtb virulence mechanism, e.g., the role of the Hip1 protease and CD40 signaling (Madan-Lala JI 2014, Sia Plos Path 2017, Enriquez iScience 2022) and Khader JI 2005, showing the requirement of IL-23 for Th17 responses in vivo in a TB mouse model.

(2) Addressing several questions related to the Tbet KO mouse experiments would strengthen the study. Do the Tbet KO mice have elevated IL-4/5/13 (which has been previously reported in non-TB studies) in addition to IL-17? The lack of Th17 cells in the IFNg KO compared to the Tbet KO may be due to a difference in timing, since only 3-week data are shown; earlier and later time points would provide better interpretation. The authors do not present any data on neutrophil infiltration in WT vs Tbet KO vs IFNg KO mice. Since IL-17 is known to be important for recruiting neutrophils to the lung, data on neutrophils are important for clarifying the mechanism for the CFU outcomes.

(3) While IL-23 is important for sustaining IL-17 production, IL-6, TGF-b and/or IL-1β are necessary for Th17 polarization. What were the levels of these cytokines in DCs in the lung? (Figure 5). Additionally, Tbet-deficient DCs exhibit impaired activation of antigen-specific Th1 cells and have reduced IL-12 production. Given the data showing higher IL-17 levels in Tbet KO mice, the authors should provide information on the DC phenotype (IL-23, IL-6, etc.) in the Tbet KO experiments.

(4) The mechanism by which ESX-1/PDIM function to impact Th17 differentiation is not clear. While data showing a role for ESX-1 and PDIMs in inhibiting Th17 responses is interesting, there is no insight into the potential mechanism of action. Figure 3 showing reduction in IFNg+ CD4 T cells after infection with eccC1 and fadD28 mutants suggests that this outcome is due to a lower bacterial load relative to WT Mtb at the 3-week time point. Since IFNg is known to suppress IL-17, the higher levels of Th17 cells could be due to the reduction in IFNg due to the attenuated growth of the mutants. Additionally, what was the level of Type I IFNs elicited by these mutants?

(5) Since macrophages have been implicated in the reduced cytokines seen in the ESX-1 mutant, IL-23 and other cytokine data on lung macrophages would complement the DC data.

(6) Figure 5. There are many fewer DCs overall in the eccC1 and fadD28 mutant groups, which could account for the increased % IL-23p19 in DCs (5D). What were the levels of IL-23 in DC1s?

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

In this work, the authors wanted to evaluate repurposed small molecule inhibitors for the treatment of envenomation by snakes of the Bothrops genus; one of the most medically relevant in the Americas. I believe the objectives of the research were clearly achieved, and compelling evidence for the ability of these molecules to neutralize enzymatic and toxic activities of metalloproteinases and phospholipases in all the tested venoms is provided. Furthermore, the work highlights the limited efficacy of the tested serineprotease inhibitor, suggesting a need for drug discovery campaigns to address toxicity caused by this protein family. The methods are well designed and performed, and the use of both in vitro and in vivo methodologies makes this a thorough and robust work.

These results are extremely relevant, since they take us one step further to a potential orally administered snakebite treatment. The existence of such a treatment could improve the outcomes for thousands of snakebite victims worldwide. I have a few comments and questions that I hope will be useful to the authors:

During the introduction, the authors mention that small-molecule inhibitors can neutralize the localized tissue damage via cytotoxicity of some venoms, and cite PLA2s, SVMPs and/or cytotoxic 3FTxs as the main causing agents of this pathology. I am not aware of any direct effect described by small molecule inhibitors on cytotoxic 3FTxs alone. Has this been observed at all? Or is it more likely that the small molecule inhibitors act on the enzymatic toxins only, preventing synergistic effects with 3FTxs?

I think it would be relevant to address the effects of non-enzymatic PLA2s, such as myotoxin II, which have been described in detail within Bothrops venoms. I believe there is some evidence of Varespladib also having a neutralizing effect on the myotoxicity caused by these non-enzymatic PLA2s. I suggest adding a comment about the contribution of these toxins in the discussion or in the section where PLA2 activity of the venoms is compared. In my opinion, right now it seems like these were overlooked.

Regarding Marimastat and the other MP inhibitors, are there any studies showing that they don't have an effect on endogenous MPs? I understand they have been approved for human use before, but is there any indication that they would not have an effect at the doses that would be required to treat envenomation?

Regarding the quenched fluorescence substrate used for enzymatic activity. Is there a possibility that some of the SVMPs would not act on this substrate, and therefore their activity or neutralization is not observed? Would it be relevant to test other substrates, such as gelatin, collagen, or even specific clotting factors?

Finally, could the authors comment or provide some bibliography regarding the translatability of the chicken embryo model in the context of envenomation?

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript analyzes two independent datasets collected at different sites. Using the same willed-attention paradigm (instructional vs. choice cues) and combining fMRI and EEG analyses, the authors investigate how attentional direction is selected when no external instruction is provided. Their main claims are that the dorsal attention network is engaged by both cue types, whereas the choice cue additionally involves a frontoparietal decision network. Moreover, left-versus-right attentional decisions can be decoded in this decision network only on choice trials, and multichannel pre-stimulus alpha patterns predict the subsequent attentional choice. Finally, individuals with more predictive alpha patterns show greater neural efficiency in the decision network, i.e., higher decoding with lower BOLD activation.

The question is worthwhile and the two-site design is a genuine strength. At the same time, several central inferences rely on decoding analyses for which the statistical testing and cross-validation structure are not described in enough detail to assess robustness. In addition, using a ratio-based neural-efficiency measure make the interpretation more fragile than it needs to be. With a focused revision that tightens inference around MVPA and clarifies a few methodological points, I think the paper could become substantially more convincing.

Strengths:

The work extends previous willed attention studies by attempting to link pre-stimulus alpha pattern predictability to post-cue frontoparietal representations, and by testing reproducibility across two datasets. The conceptual advance beyond previous studies, e.g., Bengson et al. (2015), however, depends on how solid the decoding-based evidence is and whether alternative explanations are convincingly excluded. At present, the strength of support is limited mainly by incomplete reporting and/or controls for MVPA significance testing, as well as potential inflation of decoding estimates if folds are not independent of run structure. Concerns about statistical assessment of decoding accuracy are well documented in the literature (Combrisson & Jerbi, 2015).

Weaknesses:

(1) The manuscript describes the decoding pipeline for both fMRI and EEG MVPA. However, it does not clearly specify how "significantly above chance" is determined for the fMRI ROI decoding, nor how multiple comparisons across ROIs are handled, even though p-values are reported. The same issue applies to the time-resolved EEG analysis across many time points. For each decoding analysis, please specify the inferential test (e.g., permutation test within participant, group-level test on subject accuracies, binomial test, etc.) and report effect sizes with confidence intervals (e.g., Combrisson & Jerbi, 2015). Further, for EEG decoding over time, it would be preferable to control family-wise error, e.g., cluster-based permutation, rather than thresholding pointwise p-values. A standard approach here is the nonparametric cluster framework (e.g., Maris & Oostenveld, 2007).

(2) The cross-validation approach used here is appreciated and appropriate in principle. However, random 10-fold splits across trials can inflate accuracy if training and test folds share run-specific noise, scanner drift, or autocorrelated structure. The manuscript should indicate whether folds were blocked by run or randomized across the entire session. In addition, please report the number of trials per condition after artifact rejection and after removing short ITIs for the long prestimulus epochs (−2500 ms to 0 ms) for each dataset in the section of EEG preprocessing. Similarly, please report how often participants chose left vs. right on choice trials, and whether balanced folds (or an equivalent balancing procedure) were used if needed.

(3) Moreover, ROI definition is not sufficiently specified and independence should be clarified. The ROIs are defined based on peaks from the choice-instructed univariate contrast (Table 2) and then used for MVPA. First, are these ROIs defined as spheres around peaks or using anatomical masks? What radius or voxel count was used? This needs to be explicit. Second, I am concerned about circularity risk. Although choice-vs-instructed selection is not identical to left-vs-right decoding, ROI selection from the same dataset can still bias descriptive estimates and encourages overinterpretation if not carefully justified (Kriegeskorte et al., 2009). At minimum, the authors should explain why their selection criterion is independent of the decoded contrast under the null, and ideally provide a robustness check using either anatomical ROIs or independently defined ROIs, e.g., from prior literature or an atlas.

(4) Using an index of neural efficiency is conceptually interesting. However, if the denominator, computed as the activation difference between choice and instructional conditions, is near zero or noisy, the ratio can become unstable. I would rather see a multivariate model that treats activation and decoding as separate dependent measures, or a latent-variable approach, than a single ratio.

This is surprising because it treats speech as a cost instead of a connection. It turns silence into a form of discipline that shapes the whole family.

This is interesting because it shows identity as a messy mix, not a clean category. The question forces you to notice how culture and personal history can blur into each other.

The sentence is troubling because it turns violence into a close physical detail. It makes the threat feel intimate and unavoidable inside the home. The image also suggests that cruelty is being displayed on purpose rather than hidden.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/TypewriterCollectors/posts/10163311006014678/

Some interesting 3-D printing advice for replacement typewriter feet here.

Zach Hubbird recommends using a filament dryer and Shore A 85 (or lower) TPU from Siraya Tech as 95A isn't great. Many feel that 95A isn't as "grippy".

Erik Bruchez also recommends 85A while Marty Morren suggests 70A and is contemplating sourcing 60A in the future.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

It has been proposed that the FOI is a method of using parasite genetics to determine changes in transmission in areas with high asymptomatic infection. The manuscript attempts to use queuing theory to convert multiplicity of infection estimates (MOI) into estimates of the force of infection (FOI), which they define as the number of genetically distinct blood-stage strains. They look to validate the method by applying it to simulated results from a previously published agent-based model. They then apply these queuing theory methods to previously published and analysed genetic data from Ghana. They then compare their results to previous estimates of FOI.

Strengths:

It would be great to be able to infer FOI from cross-sectional surveys which are easier and cheaper than current FOI estimates which require longitudinal studies. This work proposes a method to convert MOI to FOI for cross-sectional studies. They attempt to validate this process using a previously published agent-based model which helps us understand the complexity of parasite population genetics.

Weaknesses:

(1) I fear that the work could be easily over-interpreted as no true validation was done, as no field estimates of FOI (I think considered true validation) were measured. The authors have developed a method of estimating FOI from MOI which makes a number of biological and structural assumptions. I would not call being able to recreate model results that were generated using a model that makes its own (probably similar) defined set of biological and structural assumptions a validation of what is going on in the field. The authors claim this at times (for example, Line 153 ) and I feel it would be appropriate to differentiate this in the discussion.

(2) Another aspect of the paper is adding greater realism to the previous agent-based model, by including assumptions on missing data and under-sampling. This takes prominence in the figures and results section, but I would imagine is generally not as interesting to the less specialised reader. The apparent lack of impact of drug treatment on MOI is interesting and counterintuitive, though it is not really mentioned in the results or discussion sufficiently to allay my confusion. I would have been interested in understanding the relationship between MOI and FOI as generated by your queuing theory method and the model. It isn't clear to me why these more standard results are not presented, as I would imagine they are outputs of the model (though happy to stand corrected - it isn't entirely clear to me what the model is doing in this manuscript alone).

(3) I would suggest that outside of malaria geneticists, the force of infection is considered to be the entomological inoculation rate, not the number of genetically distinct blood-stage strains. I appreciate that FOI has been used to explain the latter before by others, though the authors could avoid confusion by stating this clearly throughout the manuscript. For example, the abstract says FOI is "the number of new infections acquired by an individual host over a given time interval" which suggests the former, please consider clarifying.

(4) Line 319 says "Nevertheless, overall, our paired EIR (directly measured by the entomological team in Ghana (Tiedje et al., 2022)) and FOI values are reasonably consistent with the data points from previous studies, suggesting the robustness of our proposed methods". I would agree that the results are consistent, given that there is huge variation in Figure 4 despite the transformed scales, but I would not say this suggests a robustness of the method.

(5) The text is a little difficult to follow at times and sometimes requires multiple reads to understand. Greater precision is needed with the language in a few situations and some of the assumptions made in the modelling process are not referenced, making it unclear whether it is a true representation of the biology.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript by Earp et al reports cryoEM structures of the hexameric (MmpS4)₃-(MmpL4)₃ complex from Mycobacterium tuberculosis, which belongs to the RND family of transporters and is known to have a role in the export of siderophores and contribute to drug resistance. The experimental workflow showcased involves the design of disulfide pairs using distance constraints obtained from the AlphaFold predicted structure of the hexameric complex. One such disulfide pair was used to determine the ~3.0 Å structures. The structure reveals density for the previously unresolved coiled-coil domain (CCD), a tilted CCD arrangement, and a cavity within the periplasmic domain, which the authors assert is occupied by detergent. Comparison of this complex with the monomer structure of MmpL4 shows conformational variations interpreted to implicate different domains and conserved residues involved in proton coupling, which might be related to the transport mechanism. While the methodological aspects of the manuscript are solid, enthusiasm for the overall advance/significance is less so, with doubts about the relevance of the tilted CCD structure, considering disulfide trapping and an incomplete validation of the claim that the titled CCD represents a stable intermediate conformation. A clear, updated transport mechanism is largely missing from the manuscript.

Strengths:

Beautiful structures, AF prediction-experimental validation nexus that could be fine-tuned for different systems/difficult to target complexes.

Weaknesses:

Physiological relevance of the tilted CCD conformation. No clear mechanistic model for the transport. While the CCD may indeed be a stable intermediate, the fact that the rest of the trimeric arrangement is unaffected does not fully rule out disulfide trapping as a factor in promoting this. The findings would be strengthened if the same tilted conformation is seen using a different set of disulfides. The significance of the detergent molecule and the new cavity observed could also be better discussed in terms of an updated transport model.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The paper begins by analyzing the drift in individual behavior over time. Specifically, it quantifies the circling direction of freely walking flies in an arena. The main takeaway from this dataset is that while flies exhibit an individual turning bias (when averaged over time), yet their preferences fluctuate over slow timescales.

To understand whether genetic or neuromodulatory mechanisms influence the drift in individual preference, the authors test different fly strains in a Y maze concluding that both genetic background and the neuromodulator serotonin contribute to the degree of drift (although with some contrasting results). The use of a different assay for this different dataset (Y maze istead of wide arena) is justified by previous observation of similar behavioral biases in these assay. Yet the conceptual link between the spectral power analysis used for the first dataset and the autoregressive model used for the second remains unclear.

Finally, the authors use theoretical approaches to show the potential advantage of individual drift for survival in unpredictable, fluctuating environments. They demonstrate that while bet-hedging provides an advantage over timescales matching the generation time (since reproduction is required), it offers less benefit on shorter timescales, where an increased individual drift could be advantageous.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript is focused on studying the spatial frequency selectivity of individual neurons in the mouse primary visual cortex (V1) in the anesthetized and awake brain states using 2-photon calcium imaging. Although previous studies have demonstrated that anesthesia decreases both size tuning and spatial selectivity in V1 neurons, the strength of this study is its focus on characterization of the same neurons in awake and anesthetized states in combination with transgenic mouse lines selectively labeling pan-inhibitory neurons and also more specific neuronal subtypes, including parvalbumin-positive (PV+) or somatostatin-positive (SOM+) interneurons. A combination of these methodologies allows for a more in-depth mechanistic study of the properties of different types of neurons. The main findings suggest that in excitatory neurons, anesthesia leads to a shift in preferred SF and broadening of SF tuning, with no changes in orientation and direction selectivity. Downward shift in preferred SF was more pronounced in both SOM+ and PV+ interneurons.

Strengths:

(1) 2-photon calcium imaging with single-cell resolution.

(2) Characterization of excitatory and two types of inhibitory neurons.

Weaknesses:

(1) VIP interneurons are critical to the neural circuit, and their characterization would be critical to the mechanistic understanding of this process, but is missing.

(2) Unfortunately, the manuscript does not lead to an additional insight into the nature of this anesthesia-induced shift in SF preference.

(3) Furthermore, it also doesn't help understand how SF preference is encoded in V1.

(4) Finally, some critical histological controls are missing.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

There is a threat of mirror life bacteria, which could possibly evade immunity and cause problems for human/animal hosts. This paper evaluates enantiomeric antibiotics and vaccines as a means to understand how this could be combatted in the future.

Strengths:

It is valuable to collect such information, as it is not always clear how an antibiotic in its enantiomeric form would interact with a bacterium in terms of its MIC or towards toxicity. The paper is scientifically sound with regard to assays and statistical methods.

Weaknesses:

The beginning of the paper could be described as hyperbolic. For a paper that demonstrates that mirror-image molecules have (expected) lower MICs and toxicity, some of the claims in the beginning that they are going to cause a pandemic of evading the immune system seem to be a bit overstated. If they are mirror images, how are these bacteria going to generate virulence factors or mediate pathogenesis mechanisms? It seems like the lack of adaptation would go both ways - supported by the empirical data gathered in this manuscript. There is also the issue of only relatively simple and accessible mirror-image antibiotics being available. This is a limitation that - to their credit - the authors do discuss in the discussion section.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In the present study, the authors examined pupillary responses to uncolored stimuli (number graphemes) among number-color synesthetes and non-synesthetes. After seeing a digit, the synesthetes and active control participants were asked to indicate which color they perceived using three dimensions of hue, saturation, and lightness. The lightness values were the primary independent variable for follow-up analyses. To see how the pupil responded to psychologically "bright" and "dark" digits, the authors split the reported lightness values at the median and plotted them. The synesthetes showed a pupillary constriction to digits they perceived as bright and dilation to digits they perceived as dark. Active control participants did not show that effect. In a subsequent block, only the synesthetes were shown the colors they reported perceiving as colored discs. Their pupillary responses were similar. The authors also found that the differences in pupillary responses between light and dark perceptions (with digits) were only slightly delayed in their onset to the perception of a colored disc, and therefore, the color perception accompanying a digit is unlikely to be effortful or a retrieved association, but occurs rather automatically.

Strengths:

The authors employed a well-controlled and designed quasi-experiment comparing color-grapheme synesthetes to non-synesthetes and showed convincingly that the color perceptions accompanying graphemes alter the physical perception of brightness. They also made a reasoned attempt to rule out the possibility that color associations are occurring effortfully via retrieved associations.

Weaknesses:

There are some areas in which the implications of these findings could be elaborated upon. I had the following questions:

(1) Are the pupillary responses among synesthetes, which objectively do not seem to match the degree of physical stimulation entering the retina, in any way maladaptive for eye functioning? I understand the constriction/dilation of the pupil to not only benefit visual acuity but also to protect the retina from damage. Are synesthetes at any risk of retinal damage due to over-dilation of the pupil to brighter stimuli? Or are these effects of a magnitude that is too small to matter? As reported in arbitrary units, it was hard to know how large these effects were in terms of measurable changes in dilation (e.g., millimeters).

(2) Likewise, is the automatic synesthetic merging of two percepts something that could be learned such that natural synesthetes and "artificial" synesthetes would look similar? For example, if a group of non-synesthetic participants were to learn a color-grapheme association to automaticity, would you expect their pupillary responses to the graphemes look similar to the synesthetes'? If so (or if not), what would this tell us anything about the phenomenology of synesthesia?

(3) Do the synesthetic perceptions of digit graphemes merge in a sensible way? For example, if a synesthete sees a particular color with the digit 1, and a different color with the digit 9, what do they perceive when they see 19? or 1-9, or 1 9? Is there color blending, or an altogether different color perception?

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

This study investigated the in vitro amplification of donor fecal virus using chemostat culturing technology, aiming to reduce eukaryotic virus load while preserving bacteriophage community diversity, thereby optimizing the safety and efficacy of FVT. The research employed a preterm pig model to evaluate the effects of chemostat-propagated viromes (CVT) in preventing necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) and mitigating adverse effects such as diarrhea.

Strengths:

(1) Enhanced Safety Profile:<br /> Chemostat cultivation effectively reduced eukaryotic virus load, thereby minimizing the potential infection risks associated with virome transplantation and offering a safer virome preparation method for clinical applications.

(2) Process Reproducibility:<br /> The chemostat system achieved stable amplification of bacteriophage communities (Bray-Curtis similarity >70%), mitigating the impact of donor fecal variability on therapeutic efficacy.

Comments on revision:

The authors have satisfactorily addressed all comments and concerns raised during the review process. The revised manuscript is clear, complete, and meets the standards of the journal.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This work proposes DASM, a new transformer-based approach to learning the distribution of antibody sequences which outperforms current foundational models at the task of predicting mutation propensities under selected phenotypes, such as protein expression levels and target binding affinity. The key ingredient is the disentanglement, by construction, of selection-induced mutational effects and biases intrinsic to the somatic hypermutation process (which are embedded in a pre-trained model).

Strengths:

The approach is benchmarked on a variety of available datasets and for two different phenotypes (expression and binding affinity). The biologically informed logic for model construction implemented is compelling and the advantage, in terms of mutational effects prediction as well as computational efficiency, is clearly demonstrated via comparisons to state-of-the-art models.

Weaknesses:

While all the main points are well addressed and supported, it could have been interesting to strengthen the claim of gain in interpretability by investigating it explicitly in relation to the functional effects studied in this paper.

Comments on revisions:

I thank the authors for clarifying a few points I had flagged up and I appreciate much better that the content of the companion paper was precisely covering model selection and structural interpretability.

Regarding my first point (references for language models for antibodies), I feel that the parenthetical citation format shouldn't be a problem (but the editors might advise here). Antiberta2 is this paper: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.12.12.569610v1.full.pdf (yet, I understand if the authors want to focus on models purely sequence-based). A couple of additional references could be: https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article/40/11/btae659/7888884; https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012646; https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2418918121; https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.13006.

A very minor comment: could one add some p-value (it could be a supplementary table) for the Pearson correlation coefficients? The comparison between methods is rather clear, but for some correlations it's a bit unclear whether they should be considered significant. It would be important to understand the extent to which in different datasets one might expect functional prediction power based on an evolutionary objective function alone.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The researchers performed a genetic screen to identify a protein, ZNF-236, which belongs to the zinc finger family, and is required for repression of heat shock inducible genes. The researchers applied a new method to map the binding sites of ZNF-236, and based on the data, suggested that the protein does not repress genes by directly binding to their regulatory regions targeted by HSF1. Insertion of a reporter in multiple genomic regions indicates that repression is not needed in repetitive genomic contexts. Together, this work identifies ZNF-236, a protein that is important to repress heat-shock-responsive genes in the absence of heat shock.

Strengths:

A hit from a productive genetic screen was validated, and followed up by a series of well-designed experiments to characterize how the repression occurs. The evidence that the identified protein is required for the repression of heat shock response genes is strong.

Weaknesses:

The researchers propose and discuss one model of repression based on protein binding data, which depends on a new technique and data that are not fully characterized.

Major Comments:

(1) The phrase "results from a shift in genome organization" in the abstract lacks strong evidence. This interpretation heavily relies on the protein binding technique, using ELT-2 as a positive and an imperfect negative control. If we assume that the binding is a red herring, the interpretation would require some other indirect regulation mechanism. Is it possible that ZNF-236 binds to the RNA of a protein that is required to limit HSF-1 and potentially other transcription factors' activation function? In the extrachromosomal array/rDNA context, perhaps other repressive mechanisms are redundant, and thus active repression by ZNF-236 is not required. This possibility is mentioned in one sentence in the discussion, but most of the other interpretations rely on the ZNF-236 binding data to be correct. Given that there is other evidence for a transcriptional role for ZNF-236, and no negative control (e.g. deletion of the zinc fingers, or a control akin to those done for ChIP-seq (like a null mutant or knockdown), a stronger foundation is needed for the presented model for genome organization.

(2) Continuing along the same line, the study assumes that ZNF-236 function is transcriptional. Is it possible to tag a protein and look at localization? If it is in the nucleus, it could be additional evidence that this is true.

(3) I suggest that the authors analyze the genomic data further. A MEME analysis for ZNF-236 can be done to test if the motif occurrences are enriched at the binding sites. Binding site locations in the genome with respect to genes (exon, intron, promoter, enhancer?) can be analyzed and compared to existing data, such as ATAC-seq. The authors also propose that this protein could be similar to CTCF. There are numerous high-quality and high-resolution Hi-C data in C. elegans larvae, and so the authors can readily compare their binding peak locations to the insulation scores to test their hypothesis.

(4) The researchers suggest that ZNF-236 is important for some genomic context. Based on the transcriptomic data, can they find a clue for what that context may be? Are the ZNF-236 repressed genes enriched for not expressed genes in regions surrounded by highly expressed genes?

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Sethi and Zou present a new neural network to study the importance of epistatic interactions in pairs and groups of amino acids to the function of proteins. Their new model is validated on a small simulated data set, and then applied to 10 empirical data sets. Results show that epistatic interactions in groups of amino acids can be important to predict the phenotype of a protein, especially for sequences that are not very similar to the training data.

Strengths:

The manuscript relies on a novel neural network architecture that makes it easy to study specifically the contribution of interactions between 2, 3, 4 or more amino acids. The novel network architecture achieves such a level of interpretability without noticeable performance penalty. The study of 10 different protein families shows that there is variation among protein families in the importance of these interactions, and that higher order interactions are particularly important to predict the phenotypes of distant proteins.

Weaknesses:

The Github repository provides a README file to run a standard pipeline, but a user will need to go through the code to actually know what that pipeline is doing.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The SET1C/COMPASS complex is the histone H3K4 methyltransferase in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, where it plays pivotal roles in transcriptional regulation, DNA repair, and chromatin dynamics. While its canonical function in histone methylation is well-established, its full interactome remains poorly defined. Moreover, whether SET1C methylates non-histone substrates has been an open question.

In this study, Luciano et al. employ systematic yeast two-hybrid (Y2H) screening to uncover novel interactors and functions of SET1C. Their findings reveal potential functional connections to RNA biogenesis, chromatin remodeling, and non-histone methylation.

The authors performed multiple Y2H screens using Set1 (full-length, N-terminal, and C-terminal fragments) and each of its seven subunits as baits. They identified high-confidence interactors that link SET1C to diverse cellular processes, including chromatin regulation (e.g., the SWI/SNF complex via Snf2), DNA replication (e.g., Mcm2, Orc6), RNA biogenesis (e.g., spliceosome components Prp8 and Prp22; polyadenylation factors Pta1 and Ref2), tRNA processing (e.g., Trm1, Trm732), and nuclear import/export (e.g., importins Kap104 and Kap123). Some of these interactions were further validated by immunoprecipitation or in vitro assays.

Given the interaction of Set1 with Slx5 and Wss1 - proteins involved in SUMO-dependent processes - the authors investigated and convincingly demonstrated that Set1 is sumoylated. This modification may influence the function and regulation of the SET1C complex.

Finally, the authors provide evidence that SET1C methylates proteins beyond histone H3K4, notably Nrm1, a transcriptional corepressor, and Snf2, the catalytic subunit of the SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling complex. Although Nrm1 contains a domain resembling the H3K4-methylated sequence (H3K4-like domain), this region does not appear to be required for its methylation. The search for other proteins containing similar domains as potential methylation candidates (p.12, first paragraph) seems less justified, given the lack of evidence supporting the requirement for the H3K4-like domain in methylation.

This study offers valuable insights into the interactome of SET1C, suggesting potential links between the complex and a wide range of cellular processes. However, the functional implications of the Y2H interactions remain to be explored further. Additionally, the study provides intriguing information on the possible regulation of Set1 by sumoylation. The discovery of Nrm1 and Snf2 as methylation substrates could significantly expand the known targets and functions of SET1C.

The results are supported by high-quality data.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors performed single-cell RNA sequencing of adult zebrafish hearts and identified markers for distinct cardiomyocyte subpopulations. One marker, phlda2, marks primordial cardiomyocytes. They generated transgenic reporter lines to characterize phlda2 expression patterns and a phlda2-NTR ablation line to determine the functional requirement of primordial cardiomyocytes during heart regeneration. They found that phlda2+ primordial cardiomyocytes are essential for myocardial morphogenesis and coronary vessel development. Interestingly, when phlda2+ primordial cardiomyocytes are ablated during heart regeneration, gata4+ cortical cardiomyocytes, coronary vessel revascularization, and scar tissue formation are not affected.

Strengths:

The authors identified a new primordial cardiomyocyte marker, phlda2. They further demonstrated that primordial cardiomyocytes are important for heart morphogenesis but dispensable for heart regeneration. Their findings reveal a potential difference between heart development and regeneration programs.

Weakness:

Despite the interesting findings, the authors did not provide supplemental data for their scRNAseq to demonstrate the data quality and support their conclusions, and some results are not well described.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

PIFs play a pivotal role not only in light and temperature signaling pathways, but in many other signaling pathways regulating plant development by modulating transcription of a large number of genes both directly and indirectly. Similarly, alternative splicing (AS) plays a critical role in shaping the splice isoforms of thousands of genes under different environmental conditions to regulate plant development. In fact, AS of PIF6 has been shown to be involved in seed development. PIF4 is a central transcription factor integrating light and temperature signaling pathways. However, AS of PIF4 has not been involved in any pathways. This story first describes how AS of PIF4 is regulated by heat stress, and this regulation is involved in heat stress signaling to regulate plant development. This is an important finding of general interest.

Strengths:

The authors first describe AS of PIF4 is regulated by heat stress, and this regulation is involved in heat stress signaling to regulate plant development.

Weaknesses:

There are many loose ends in this story that need to be tied up.

Major points:

(1) The authors are showing only the AS transcripts by PCR, but no protein data. Given that the hypothesis is that the short form of PIF4 is functioning in a dominant negative fashion, the authors need to show that this short isoform expresses a protein. In addition, they need to show that this form is functioning in a dominant negative fashion with other PIFs, either by showing that this form reduces the DNA binding and/or transcriptional responses of other PIFs.

(2) The two mutant alleles used for this study (pif4-100 and pif4-2) have T-DNA insertion after the AS exon. Do these alleles express any short version of the protein? The previous studies showed no protein production, and thus, they may not function as a dominant negative form. Usually, the T-DNA insertion alleles may express truncated transcripts, but many do not express any protein due to a lack of stop codon and/or degradation of the transcripts. But in this case, the mutants are behaving like WT. The authors need to show that these alleles are expressing a truncated version of the PIF4 protein.

(3) Figure 4 shows phenotypes of independent lines expressing the PIF4 short version. The authors analyzed only the cotyledon and hypocotyl phenotypes, but not Pchlide or bleaching assays. The authors need to do a thorough phenotype analysis, including heat-stress phenotypes of these lines, to test if the data make sense with their hypothesis.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In the paper "Deep mutational scanning reveals pharmacologically relevant insights into TYK2 signaling and disease", the authors perform a comprehensive deep mutational scan of the kinase TYK2, a protein of pharmacological interest due to its central role in multiple immune-related phenotypes. The study assesses two key functional phenotypes: protein abundance and IFN-α-dependent signaling. The signaling assays were conducted across a dose-response range under various inhibitor conditions, allowing for an in-depth characterization of TYK2 activity and regulation. Both the experimental design and data analysis were executed with rigor and transparency, yielding a dataset that appears highly reliable. The authors provide strong evidence and a scientifically grounded interpretation of their results.

The paper presents the results of a deep mutational scan based on two assays: an IFN-α-stimulated signaling assay and a protein abundance assay. These measurements are further supported by variant classifications from AlphaMissense and ClinVar, providing a framework for functional interpretation. Building on these data, the authors propose four potential pharmacological applications of their screening system at the end of the first results section.

First, they demonstrate that the combined analysis of abundance and IFN-α signaling identifies potential allosteric sites, focusing on variants with normal protein stability but reduced signaling activity. Through this approach, they detect two previously uncharacterized allosteric regions (Results Section 2).

Second, they explore how the screen can be used to predict variant-specific drug responses or resistance mechanisms (Results Section 3). This is achieved through assays involving two different inhibitors, which reveal both resistance- and potentiation-associated variants.

Third, they assess the relative functional consequences of ligand and inhibitor dosing by performing IFN-α and inhibitor dose-response experiments (1, 10, and 100 U/mL IFN-α; IC99 and IC75 inhibitor concentrations; Results Section 3).

Finally, the authors investigate how specific human variants, such as P1104A and I684S, may inform therapeutic modality selection (Results Section 4). Although these variants exhibit no detectable effect on IFN-α signaling within this experimental system, they substantially impact protein abundance. By integrating data from the UK Biobank, the authors further demonstrate that protective effects against autoimmune disease are associated with altered protein abundance rather than differences in IFN-α signaling, highlighting the distinct mechanistic basis of TYK2's clinical relevance.

Strengths:

Overall, we found this paper rigorous, well-written, and easy to follow. As such, we think this is an exceptional example of a deep mutational scanning manuscript, and this dataset will be invaluable to the field. We particularly appreciate that the authors could explore sensitivity to inhibitor concentration across multiple doses of the inhibitor.

Weaknesses:

Despite the authors' rigorous experimentation and thoughtful interpretation, the study leaves several important mechanistic questions unresolved, as is common in any study. While the data provide clear functional patterns, the underlying biophysical and biochemical explanations remain insufficiently explored. For instance, in point 1, the identification of two novel allosteric sites is intriguing, yet the paper does not elaborate on the structural basis or mechanistic rationale for their regulatory effects. In point 2, resistance and potentiation variants are described for two distinct inhibitors, but it remains unclear why certain variants respond specifically to one compound and not the other. In point 3, higher inhibitor concentrations appear to diminish allosteric interactions, though the reasons why some sites are affected while others are not are left unexplained. Finally, in point 4, the observation that protein abundance, but not IFN-α signaling, correlates with autoimmune protection is compelling but mechanistically ambiguous. These gaps do not detract from the technical excellence of the work; rather, they highlight opportunities for future studies to clarify the molecular and pharmacological mechanisms underlying TYK2 regulation and to deepen the translational insights drawn from this comprehensive mutational scan. We hope that the authors could provide more direction and mechanistic context in the discussion section to guide readers toward these next steps.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The primary objective of this study is to develop high-throughput screening assays utilizing homogeneous 3D cell cultures that more accurately replicate the intricate architecture and cellular communication found in tissues. The authors have chosen pancreatic islet β-cells as a model system to evaluate agents that modulate insulin release, which is particularly relevant given the increasing prevalence of diabetes mellitus-a significant global health concern. Moreover, the incorporation of human-based 3D spheroids, organoids, or organ-on-chip technologies into drug discovery protocols is essential for enhancing clinical translation, as candidate compounds identified using animal models have often demonstrated limited success in clinical settings.

Strengths:

This study was thoughtfully planned and skillfully carried out. The use of micropatterned hydrogels to observe 19 spheroids at once is an ingenious aspect, which has been effectively validated with Ca microfluorography. Overall, I found this investigation to be exceptionally well-executed and free from notable flaws, as the results clearly back up the conclusions. Additionally, the developed method achieved the proposed aims, providing a high-throughput format with 3D cultures. I believe this study deserves publication.

Weaknesses:

For an HTS assay, authors should incorporate the Z-factor.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Sheidaei et al., report how chromosomes are brought to positions that facilitate kinetochore-microtubule interactions during mitosis. The study focusses on an important early step of the highly orchestrated chromosome segregation process. Studying kinetochore capture during early prophase is extremely difficult due to kinetochore crowding but the team has taken up the challenge by classifying the types of kinetochore movements, carefully marking kinetochore positions in early mitosis and linking these to map their fate/next-positions over time. The work is an excellent addition to the field as most of the literature has thus far focussed on tracking kinetochore in slightly later stages of mitosis. The authors show that the PANEM facilitates chromosome positioning towards the interior of the newly forming spindle, which in turn facilitates chromosome congression - in the absence of PANEM chromosomes end up in unfavourable locations, and they fail to form proper kinetochore-microtubule interactions. The work highlights the perinuclear actomyosin network in early mitosis (PANEM) as a key spatial and temporal element of chromosome congression which precedes the segregation process.

Major Comments:

(1) The complexity of tracking has been managed by classifying kinetochore movements into 4 categories, considering motions towards or away from the spindle mid-plane. While this is a very creative solution in most cases, there may be some difficult phases that involve movement in both directions or no dominant direction (e.g. Phase3-like). It is unclear if all kinetochores go through phase1, 2, 3 and 4 in a sequential or a few deviate from this pattern. A comment on this would be helpful. Also, it may be interesting to compare those that deviate from the sequence and ask how they recover in the presence and absence of azBB.

(2) Would peripheral kinetochore close to poles behave differently compared to peripheral kinetochore close to the midplane (figure S4) ?In figure 3D, are they separated? If not, would it look different?

(3) Uncongressed polar chromosomes (e.g., CENPE inhibited cells) are known to promote tumbling of the spindle. In figure 5B with polar chromosomes, it will be helpful to indicate how the authors decouple spindle pole movements from individual kinetochore movements.

(4) The work has high quality manual tracking of objects in early mitosis- if this would be made available to the field, it can help build AI models for tracking. The authors could consider depositing the tracking data and increasing the impact of their work.

Significance:

The current work builds upon their previous work, in which the authors demonstrated that an actomyosin network forms on the cytoplasmic side of the nuclear envelope during prophase. This work explains how the network facilitates chromosome capture and congression by tracking motions of individual kinetochores during early mitosis. The findings can be broadly useful for cell division and the cytoskeletal fields.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In the manuscript by Shen, Yeung, and colleagues, the authors generate an improved and expanded Mosaic analysis by gRNA-induced crossing-over (MAGIC) toolkit for use in making mosaic clones in Drosophila. This is a clever method by which mitotic clones can be induced in dividing cells by using CRISPR/Cas9 to generate double-strand breaks at specific locations that induce crossing over at those locations. This is conceptually similar to previous mosaic methods in flies that utilized FRT sites that had been inserted near centromeres along with heat-shock inducible FLPase. The advantage of the MAGIC system is that it can be used along with chromosomes lacking FRT sites already introduced, such as those found in many deficiency collections or in EMS mutant lines. It may also be simpler to implement than FRT-based mosaic systems. There are two flavors of the MAGIC system: nMAGIC and pMAGIC. In nMAGIC, the main constituents are a transgene insertion that contains gRNAs that target DNA near the centromere, along with a fluorescent marker. In pMAGIC, the main constituents are a transgenic insertion that contains gRNAs that target DNA near the centromere, along with ubiquitous expression of GAL80. As such, nMAGIC can be used to generate clones that are not labelled, whereas pMAGIC (along with a GAL4 line and UAS-marker) can be used much like MARCM to positively label a clone of cells. This manuscript introduces MAGIC transgenic reagents that allow all 4 chromosomes to be targeted. They demonstrate its use in a variety of tissues, including with mutants not compatible with current FLP/FRT methods, and also show it works well in tissues that prove challenging for FLP/FRT mosaic analyses (such as motor neurons). They further demonstrate that it can be used to generate mosaic clones in non-melanogaster hybrid tissues. Overall, this work represents a valuable improvement to the MAGIC method that should promote even more widespread adoption of this powerful genetic technique.

Strengths:

(1) Improves the design of the gRNA-marker by updating the gRNA backbone and also the markers used. GAL80 now includes a DE region that reduces the perdurance of the protein and thus better labeling of pMAGIC clones. The data presented to demonstrate these improvements is rigorous and of high quality.

(2) Introduces a toolkit that now covers all chromosome arms in Drosophila. In addition, the efficiency of 3 target different sites is characterized for each chromosome arm (e.g., 3 different gRNA-Marker combinations), which demonstrate differences in efficiency. This could be useful to titrate how many clones an experimenter might want (e.g., lower efficiency combinations might prove advantageous).

(3) The manuscript is well written and easy to follow. The authors achieved their aims of creating and demonstrating MAGIC reagents suitable for mosaic analysis of any Drosophila chromosome arm.

(4) The MAGIC method is a valuable addition to the Drosophila genetics toolkit, and the new reagents described in this manuscript should allow it to become more widely adopted.

Comments on revised version:

The authors have done a great job addressing reviewer concerns with the addition of updated figures, new experiments, and changes to the manuscript. I am supportive of this version and agree with the updated assessment.

she feels that being with her boyfriend makes her feel valued and become important to someone.

The speaker has hope and believes that she and her boyfriend can change their lives by saving money and work hard.

The speaker begins to doubt whether she can really escape this kind of life, or they will be stuck in the same life forever.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this work, the authors aim to improve neural encoding models for naturalistic video stimuli by integrating temporally aligned multimodal features derived from a deep learning model (VALOR) to predict fMRI responses during movie viewing.

Strengths:

The major strength of the study lies in its systematic comparison across unimodal and multimodal models using large-scale, high-resolution fMRI datasets. The VALOR model demonstrates improved predictive accuracy and cross-dataset generalization. The model also reveals inherent semantic dimensions of cortical organization and can be used to evaluate the integration timescale of predictive coding.

This study demonstrates the utility of modern multimodal pretrained models for improving brain encoding in naturalistic contexts. While not conceptually novel, the application is technically sound, and the data and modeling pipeline may serve as a valuable benchmark for future studies.

Weaknesses:

The overall framework of using data-driven features derived from pretrained AI models to predict neural response has been well studied and accepted by the field of neuroAI for over a decade. The demonstrated improvements in prediction accuracy, generalization, and semantic mapping are largely attributable to the richer temporal and multimodal representations provided by the VALOR model, not a novel neural modeling framework per se. As such, the work may be viewed as an incremental application of recent advances in multimodal AI to a well-established neural encoding pipeline, rather than a conceptual advance in modeling neural mechanisms.

Within this setup, the finding that VALOR outperforms CLIP, AlexNet, and WordNet is somewhat expected. VALOR encodes rich spatiotemporal information from videos, making it more aligned with movie-based neural responses. CLIP and AlexNet are static image-based models and thus lack temporal context, while WordNet only provides coarse categorical labels with no stimulus-specific detail. Therefore, the results primarily reflect the advantage of temporally-aware features in capturing shared neural dynamics, rather than revealing surprising model generalization. A direct comparison to pure video-based models, such as Video Swin Transformers or other more recent video models, would help strengthen the argument.

Moreover, while WordNet-based encoding models perform reasonably well within-subject in the HCP dataset, their generalization to group-level responses in the Short Fun Movies (SFM) dataset is markedly poorer. This could indicate that these models capture a considerable amount of subject-specific variance, which fails to translate to consistent group-level activity. This observation highlights the importance of distinguishing between encoding models that capture stimulus-driven representations and those that overfit to individual heterogeneities.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors record from the ACC during a task in which animals must switch contexts to avoid shock as instructed by a cue. As expected, they find neurons that encode context, with some encoding of actions prior to the context, and encoding of neurons post-action. The primary novelty is dynamic encoding of action-outcome in a discrimination-avoidance domain, while this is traditionally done using operant methods.

Comments on revised version:

I appreciate the considerable work done on review, and additional details added throughout. I also noted the additional sessions included in analyses, and additional behavioral data in response to R1 and R2's insightful comments.

The only remaining comment that was not addressed pertains to anatomy and recording details. Some electrodes appear to be clearly in M2 (Fig 2A), and the tetrodes were driven each day. I would strongly suggest that this be included as a further limitation, particularly given the statement on line 178.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript addresses an important, yet unresolved and long-debated, question: whether atypical protein kinase C is required for the maintenance of late-long-term synaptic potentiation (L-LTP) and long-term memory (LTM). The authors confirm previous findings that persistent activity of PKMζ is required for hippocampal L-LTP and spatial memory. They demonstrate that genetically deleting PKCι/λ and PKMζ individually induces compensatory upregulation, whereas deleting both atypical PKCs abolishes hippocampal L-LTP spatial long-term memory. The study uses an elegant combination of immunoblots, electrophysiology, and behavioral assays. The use of Cre-recombinase to target specific hippocampal regions and neurons adds to the rigor of the findings.

Strengths:

The manuscript addresses an important, yet unresolved and long-debated, question; whether PKMζ is required for the maintenance of L-LTP and LTM. The study demonstrates that PKCι/λ, which was previously shown to be critical for the initial generation of the early phase of LTP and short-term memory, becomes persistently active in L-LTP and LTM in a PKMζ knock-out model, compensating for the loss of PKMζ. Furthermore, when the compensation mechanisms are eliminated by simultaneous deletion of both PKMζ and PKCι/λ, maintenance of LTP and long-term spatial memory, but not of short-term memory, is diminished. The strength of this study is that the authors used a double-knockout strategy to directly address the controversy concerning the roles of PKMζ in memory formation. By showing that PKCι/λ compensates when PKMζ is deleted, the authors provided a compelling explanation for previous contradictory findings.

Weaknesses:

(1) The authors should provide the numerical values for all data.

(2) It appears that blind procedures were only used for the behavioral experiments. Some explanation is warranted.

(3) The description of the immunoblotting procedures lacks sufficient detail. The authors state that immunoblots were stained with multiple antisera to visualize multiple PKCs on the same immunoblot. To conserve antisera, the immunoblots were cut to isolate the relevant proteins based on molecular weight. Isoforms with similar molecular weights were either stained with antisera of different species or on separate blots. Despite this explanation, it is unclear how immunoblotting was performed in practice. For example, in Figure 1B, the authors compared the changes of four conventional PKC isoforms. Because all four antibodies are mouse monoclonal antibodies recognizing proteins of similar molecular weights, each probing should presumably have its own actin loading controls. However, these controls are missing from the figure. Some clarification is warranted.

(4) The statement in the legend to Figure 4B, that the increases of maximum avoidance time from pretraining to trial 1 are not different, indicates both groups of mice successfully established short-term memory, which is not correct. The analysis only reveals that there is no difference between the two groups. No differences could be due to both groups learning the same, as the authors suggest, or alternatively to no learning in either group.

(5) The labeling on some of the illustrations (e.g., Figure 2B) is unreadable.

(6) In Figure 4B, only the single statistical comparison between "pretaining" and "1 trial" is shown. The other comparisons described in the legend should also be illustrated.

(7) There is no documentation to support the statement that "The prevailing textbook mechanism for how memory is retained asserts that stable structural changes at synapses, the result of initial protein synthesis and growth, sustain memory without the need for ongoing biochemical activity dedicated to storing information" or for the statement in the Discussion that the structural model of memory storage is the standard account.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

TDP-43 proteinopathy is broadly found in neurodegenerative diseases. This manuscript investigates how nuclear export influences the biophysical properties of TDP-43. The authors use a combination of chemical screening and genome-wide siRNA screening to identify pathways that modulate TDP-43 liquid-to-solid transitions. Overall, the study employs a broad array of approaches and addresses an important question in TDP-43 pathobiology. The identification of nuclear export as a central regulator is compelling and conceptually aligns with the emerging view that TDP-43 nucleocytoplasmic trafficking is a major defect in neurodegeneration.

Strengths:

This work integrates chemical and genetic screening to identify novel modifiers. The candidates were validated in both reporter cell lines and iPS-differentiated organoids. The findings support the nucleocytoplasmic transport is important for the biophysical properties of TDP-43.

Weaknesses:

The mechanisms underlying the connection between nuclear export and phase transition need further clarification. Broader consequences of XPO1 inhibition are not addressed.

This is surprising because I thought research papers should mostly focus on sources. I didn’t realize the writer’s own ideas are actually the most important part.

This part is interesting because it shows that many of the people who were detained were normal community members. It makes the situation feel more real and personal.

This is troubling because only a small number of accounts created most of the hate. It shows that a few people or bots can make the internet feel negative.

This is interesting because it shows how a “small” decision can shape ten years. The details make her life feel realistic, not dramatic. It also shows how money and exhaustion can block steady progress, even when she keeps trying.

This is surprising because she says it in a very direct way. It shows a sudden moment when she stops believing what media has shown her. The line turns everyday TV stories into proof of unfair access.

This line feels troubling because it exposes an unequal bargain. The program is framed as a benefit for the privileged students’ awareness. It quietly implies the public school kids are there as a lesson, not as equal partners.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this paper, Weber and colleagues develop a generalization of the HGF, a widely used modeling tool. The generalization allows coupling between latent variables that was not possible in the original HGF. The resulting inference algorithm invites a predictive coding interpretation. The modular structure allows the construction of complex models out of simpler building blocks.

Strengths:

Overall, I think this is a valuable technical contribution, which will have applications to neuroscience, behavior, and psychiatry. It is mathematically rigorous, and the exposition is, for the most part, clear. It also comes with open-source software, so it should be a valuable resource to the modeling community.

Weaknesses:

My main concern is that the way that this paper is written will only be accessible and interesting to a niche audience interested in particular kinds of approximate inference schemes. The paper doesn't draw out the implications until the very end, so it's hard for readers to understand the motivation for certain modeling choices. It also requires readers to work through many pages of math before getting to applications. The applications themselves are very abstract.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript is interesting, and it is clearly written. While the experiments are well executed, a general flaw is that the LppA/B analyses are done in the E. coli K12 host as surrogate for Salmonella enterica. For the mechanistic and molecular analyses of LppB a surrogate host is certainly adequate, yet it limits extrapolation of the physiological implications of LppB in the natural context.

Strengths:

The work convincingly demonstrates that LppB forms disulfide-based dimers and that it is crosslinked to PG via LdtB in E. coli. Moreover, dimerisation is required for LppB abundance in E. coli and LppB can inhibit crosslinking of Lpp/A to PG in E. coli.

Weaknesses:

Regarding the key conclusion of the work: while it is shown that LppB is oxidized in E. coli, whether envelope integrity (or OMV production) changes arise from switches in oxidation of the LppB cysteines remains to be shown, for E. coli let alone in the native host Salmonella. Does expression of LppB influence Lpp/A activity or OM tethering in E. coli? Since the inhibition of the Lpp/A linking to PG is not affected by the oxidation state of LppB, the abstract/title implies redox-control of envelope integrity which is a bit misleading and an overstatement. Both are features of LppB: i.e. it dimerizes through disulfide bond formation and it reduces PG binding of Lpp/A through trimerisation. However, no link between the two is shown.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper uses a single Bayesian modelling framework to derive specific predictions for making inference, either with assumptions of a change-point structure or a gradually changing structure across tasks.

Strengths:

The paper nicely summarizes the slightly different subliteratures that have studied human behavior with models that only assume a single underlying task structure. The diagnostic predictions from the models are presented clearly, and the human data are nicely consistent with the model predictions.

As the authors discuss themselves, this work opens the door to many questions on the structured learning of inferring (from experience or verbal instructions) which meta-model is most appropriate to use.

Weaknesses:

Alignment between models and human behavior is mostly qualitative; the models are not fit to individual data (which could, for instance, uncover interesting differences between individuals.

There is no consideration of the possibility that individuals may not fully use one or the other meta-model (of gradual change vs changepoints), but instead a hybrid. Fits of the models to data may help uncover if some people (e.g., the 10% in experiment 2 that were best matched by the CP model?) use a slightly different mix of strategies than the one suggested by the verbal instructions received (which may cause the pattern in Figure 6d, which looks to have featured both models).

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The paper investigates neural fluctuations underlying arousal using a combination of resting state/naturalistic movie watching fMRI and eye tracking data. The authors have used several data-driven approaches, including time-varying sliding window analyses and clustering methods, to characterize large-scale brain organization and hemispheric asymmetries associated with arousal fluctuations. This is an interesting study framing arousal as a dynamic, continuously varying process rather than a discrete state. Overall, the manuscript is well written and provides sufficient methodological and analytical detail accompanied by an explanation of results. However, several conceptual and methodological issues require clarification or further discussion to strengthen the interpretation and robustness of the findings.

Strengths:

This is an interesting study framing arousal as a dynamic, continuously varying process rather than a discrete state. Overall, the manuscript is well written and provides sufficient methodological and analytical detail accompanied by an explanation of results.

Weaknesses:

(1) A major limitation of the study is the limited discussion of subcortical regions, which play a central role in arousal regulation according to extensive prior literature. Although the current analyses focus primarily on cortical organization, the authors should include a brief discussion of how their findings relate to subcortical arousal systems.

(2) While sliding window methods can capture temporal changes in functional organization, they have limitations in characterizing moment-to-moment neural fluctuations. In particular, results can be highly sensitive to window length and step size. The manuscript would benefit from (a) a clearer discussion of these methodological limitations, (b) justification for the chosen window length and step size, and (c) a sensitivity analysis demonstrating whether the main findings are robust across different parameter choices.

(3) The authors use k-means clustering to identify groups of brain regions and refer to these groupings as "communities." However, in general, community detection typically refers to graph-based algorithms that identify modules based on connectivity structure (e.g., modularity maximization). The clusters derived from k-means in feature space are not necessarily equivalent to graph-theoretic communities. The authors should explicitly clarify this distinction and adjust terminology accordingly to avoid conceptual ambiguity.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

This manuscript presents Neuroplex, a technically rigorous and carefully validated pipeline that links miniscope calcium imaging in freely behaving animals with high-dimensional fluorophore-based cell-type identification using in vivo multiplexed spectral confocal imaging through the same implanted GRIN lens. The work overcomes a major practical limitation of head-mounted microscopy by enabling the identification of up to nine projection-defined neuronal populations within the same animal, without post-fixation histology. The approach is well motivated and supported by extensive calibration and simulation. While the biological results are primarily illustrative, the methodological contribution is clear and likely to be broadly useful.

Major comments

(1) The approach relies on the assumption that fluorophore identity assigned during anesthetized confocal imaging accurately reflects the identity of neurons recorded during prior behavioural sessions. While the use of the same GRIN lens and in vivo co-registration mitigates many concerns, the manuscript would benefit from a more explicit discussion, or empirical demonstration, if available, of the stability of fluorophore assignments across time. Even limited repeat spectral imaging in a subset of animals would strengthen confidence in longitudinal applicability.

(2) Fluorophore identity is determined using thresholding of linear unmixing coefficients relative to an empirically defined baseline, followed by a second adaptive pass for over-represented fluorophores. While this heuristic is extensively validated via simulations, it remains ad hoc from a statistical perspective. The authors should more explicitly justify this choice and discuss its limitations relative to probabilistic or likelihood-based classifiers, particularly with respect to uncertainty estimation at the single-ROI level.

(3) Identifiability of fluorophores is demonstrated empirically, but the manuscript does not explicitly quantify spectral separability (e.g., similarity metrics between basis spectra or conditioning of the unmixing matrix). A brief analysis of spectral independence or sensitivity of beta estimates to noise would provide mathematical reassurance, especially given the reliance on linear regression in a high-dimensional feature space.

(4) The spectral unmixing treats CNMF-derived ROIs as fixed supports. I wonder whether ROI boundaries, neuropil contamination, and partial overlap can introduce structured uncertainty that could bias spectral estimates. If so, the authors should acknowledge this dependency more explicitly and discuss how ROI quality or overlap might influence false negatives or false positives, particularly in densely labelled regions.

(5) The manuscript reports meaningful rates of secondary fluorophore detection, but also nontrivial false-positive rates for secondary labels under realistic conditions. The authors appropriately caution against over-interpretation, but the Discussion should more clearly delineate when dual-label assignments are likely to be biologically interpretable versus methodologically ambiguous, and how experimental design (e.g., fluorophore pairing) should be optimized accordingly.

(6) I suspect that Neuroplex will be most effective in certain regimes (moderate convergence, bright and spectrally distinct fluorophores) and less reliable in others. A more explicit discussion of best practices, anticipated failure modes, and experimental scenarios where the method may be inappropriate would increase the practical value of the paper for adopters.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

This reanalysis of a classic study of visual perceptual learning in a texture discrimination task convincingly demonstrates the presence of sequential dependence effects, commonly seen in response time analyses in 2-alternative tasks, on response accuracy in the texture task in the visual periphery and in a simultaneous central letter report at fixation. Overall, this paper provides a new and interesting analysis of the effects of sequential dependencies from trial to trial on performance, learning, and generalizability in perceptual learning.

Strengths:

This new analysis of sequential dependency effects (SDEs) extends commonly observed sequential effects in two-choice reaction times to accuracy and relates them to response accuracy during visual learning in a frequently used perceptual learning task. The paper makes a convincing case that different conditions known to impact generalization of learning to a second visual location also express quantitatively distinct n-back SDEs.

Weaknesses:

Most of the new analyses emphasize the effects of SDEs, including trials designed to enhance the size of the effects, specifically when the current trial is low visibility, and the prior trial is of high visibility. Unless there is an argument that learning and subsequent generalization primarily occur in low-visibility trials, the presentation should also include displays and an emphasized discussion of analysis for all trials, unfiltered.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors described an exciting 400-drug screening using a MMV pathogen box to select compounds that effectively affect the medically important Toxoplasma parasite bradyzoite stage. This work utilises a bradyzoites culture technique that was published recently by the same group. They focused on compounds that affected directly the mitochondria electron transport chain (mETC) bc1-complex and compared with other bc1 inhibitors described in the literature such as atovaquone and HDQs. They further provide metabolomics analysis of inhibited parasites which serves to provide support for the target and to characterise the outcome of the different inhibitors.

Strengths:

This work is important as, until now, there are no effective drugs that clear cysts during T. gondii infection. So, the discovery of new inhibitors that are effective against this parasite-stage in culture and thus have the potential to battle chronic infection is needed. The further metabolic characterization provides indirect target validation and highlight different metabolic outcome for different inhibitors. The latter forms the basis for new studies in the field to understand the mode of inhibition and mechanism of bc1-complex function in detail.

The authors focused in the function of one compound, MMV1028806, that is demonstrated to have a similar metabolic outcome to burvaquone. Furthermore, the authors evaluated the importance of ATP production in tachyzoite and bradyzoites stages and under atovaquone/HDQs drugs.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Mansingh et al. used single-nucleus transcriptional and bulk proteomic profiling to characterize how gene expression changes in the lumbar spinal cord of adult, healthy mice after training (voluntary wheel-running exercise) and acutely after forced treadmill exercise. They found (1) that training was associated with a number of differentially expressed proteins, (2) training was associated with cell-type specific changes in transcription, notably glial cells had the highest numbers of differentially expressed genes, and (3) that trained mice had blunted transcriptional response to an acute exercise bout compared to sedentary mice.

Strengths:

The characterization of the changes to the proteome and the transcriptome associated with exercise will undoubtedly be a useful resource for scientists interested in the effects of exercise on central nervous system gene expression and may inspire mechanistic follow-up studies. The authors nicely use pathway and intercellular communication analyses to distill the complex dataset into key trends.

Weaknesses:

Weaknesses of this paper include two aspects of the analyses that underexplored the rich dataset. The analysis fails to explicitly compare the proteome and transcriptome results. Do the differentially expressed proteins correspond to the differentially expressed genes? If so, in which cell types? If not, why not? Comparison of the GO terms from the proteome dataset and the GSEA terms from the single-nucleus transcriptome dataset suggests that the same gene families were not identified in both data sets. I expect that integrating analyses across these datasets would help make the study truly multi-omic and highlight which expression changes are the most abundant and consistent across approaches. Second, the authors emphasize that related studies do not account for inter-individual variability in both the introduction and discussion. This aspect of the authors' dataset is also underexplored - the transcriptomic data appear to be pooled across animals, and only a single panel shows protein expression from individual animals (Fig. 1F). Is the variability in Figure 1F explainable by the amount of running on the wheel?

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper uses a novel method to look at how stable brain states and the transitions between them promote memory formation during encoding and post-encoding rest in children. I think the paper has some weaknesses (detailed below) that mean that the authors fall short of achieving their aims. Although the paper has an interesting methodological approach, the authors need better logic, and are potentially "double dipping" in their results - meaning their logic is circular. I think the method that they are using could be useful to the broader neuroimaging community, although they need to make this argument clearer in the paper.

Strengths:

The paper is interesting in that they use a novel method to look at brain state dynamics and how they might support memory.

Weaknesses:

The paper has several weaknesses:

(1) The authors use children as their study subjects but fail to reconcile why children are used, if the same phenomena are expected to be seen in adults (or only children), and if and how their findings change with age across an age range that ranges from middle childhood into early adolescence. They need to include more consideration for the development of their subject population. The authors should make it clear why and how memory was tested in children and not adults. Are adults and children expected to encode and consolidate in a similar manner to children? Do the findings here also apply to adults? Do the findings here also apply to adults? How was the age range of 8-13-year-old children selected? Why didn't the authors look at change with age? Does memory performance change with age? Do the BSDS dynamics change with age in the authors' sample?

(2) The authors look for brain state dynamics within a preselected set of ROIs that are selected because they display a subsequent memory effect. This is problematic because the state that is most associated with subsequent memory (S3, or State 3) is also the one that shows most activity in these regions (that have already been a priori selected due to displaying a subsequent memory effect). This logic is circular. It would be helpful if they could look at brain state dynamics in a more ROI agnostic whole brain approach so that we can learn something beyond what a subsequent memory analysis tells us. I think the authors are "double dipping" in that they selected regions for further analysis based on a subsequent memory association (remembered > forgotten contrast) and then found states within those regions showing a subsequent memory effect to further analyze for being associated with subsequent memory. Would it be possible instead to do a whole-brain analysis (something a bit more agnostic to findings) using the BSDS framework, and then, from a whole-brain perspective, look for particular brain states associated with subsequent memory? As it stands, it looks like S3 (state 3) has greater overall activation in all brain regions associated with subsequent memory, so it makes sense that this brain state is also most associated with subsequent memory. The BSDS analysis is therefore not adding anything new beyond what the authors find with the simple subsequent memory contrast that they show in Figure 1C. This particularly effects the following findings: (a) active-encoding state occupancy rate correlated positively with memory accuracy, (b) transitions to the active-encoding state were beneficial / Conversely, transitions toward the inactive state (S4) were detrimental, with incoming transitions showing negative correlations with memory accuracy / The active-encoding state serves as a "hub" configuration that facilitates memory formation, while pathways leading to this state enhance performance and transitions away from it impair encoding.

(3) The task used to test memory in children seems strange. Why should children remember arbitrary scenes? How this was chosen for encoding needs to be made clear. There needs to be more description of the memory task and why it was chosen. Why was scene encoding chosen? What does scene encoding have to do with the stated goal of (a) "Understanding how children's brains form lasting memories", (b) "optimizing education" and (c) "identifying learning disabilities"? What was the design of the recognition memory test? How many novel scenes were included in the test, and how were they chosen? How close were the "new" images to previously seen "old" images? Was this varied parametrically (i.e., was the similarity between new and old images assessed and quantified?)

(4) They ultimately found four brain states during encoding. It would be helpful if they could make the logic and foundation for arriving at this number clear.

(5) There is already extant work on whether brain states during post-encoding rest predict memory outcomes. This work needs to be cited and referred to. The present manuscript needs to be better situated within prior work. The authors should look at the work by Alexa Tompary and Lila Davachi. They have already addressed many of the questions that the authors seek to answer. The authors should read their papers (and the papers they cite and that cite them) and then situate their work within the prior literature.

More minor weaknesses:

(1) The authors should back up the claim that "successful episodic memory formation critically depends on the temporal coordination between these systems. Brain regions must coordinate their activity through dynamic functional interactions, rapidly reconfiguring their activity and connectivity patterns in response to changing cognitive demands and stimulus characteristics." Do they have any specific evidence supporting this claim?

(2) These claims seem overstated: "this work has broad implications for understanding memory function in children, for developing educational interventions that enhance memory formation, and enabling early identification of children at risk for learning disabilities." Can the authors add citations that would support these claims, or if not, remove them?

https://www.etsy.com/shop/JuwelTypewriterShop

via https://www.facebook.com/groups/705152958470148/?multi_permalinks=1202102332108539

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This work from Hira et al leverages mesoscopic 2-photon imaging to study large neural populations in different higher visual areas, in particular areas A and AM of the parietal cortex. The focus of the study is to obtain a better understanding of the representation of different task-related parameters, such as choice formation and short-term history, as well as visual responses in large neural populations across different cortical regions to obtain a better understanding of the functional specialization of neural populations in each region as well as the interaction of neural populations across regions. The authors image a large number of neurons in animals that either perform a visual discrimination or a history-dependent task to test how task demands affect neural responses and population dynamics. Furthermore, by including a behavioral perturbation of animal posture they aim to dissociate the neural representation of history signals from body posture. Lastly, they relate their functional findings to anatomical data from the Allen connectivity atlas and show a strong relation of functional correlations on anatomical connectivity patterns.

Strengths:

Overall, the study is very well done and tackles a problem that should be of high interest to the field by aiming to obtain a better understanding of the function and spatial structure of different regions in the parietal cortex. The experimental approach and analyses are sound and of high quality and the main conclusions are well supported by the results. Aside from the detailed analyses, a particular strength is the additional experimental perturbation of posture to isolate history-related activity which supports the conclusion that both posture and history signals are represented in different neurons within the same region.

Weaknesses:

The work does not focus on functional overlap at the single-cell level but on the spatial distribution of functional classes across areas. A minor weakness is therefore that it does not explicitly address how the finding of functional clusters relate to established notions of mixed selectivity within PPC.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

CTF18-RFC is an alternative eukaryotic PCNA sliding clamp loader which is thought to specialize in loading PCNA on the leading strand. Eukaryotic clamp loaders (RFC complexes) have an interchangeable large subunit which is responsible for their specialized functions. The authors show that the CTF18 large subunit has several features responsible for its weaker PCNA loading activity, and that the resulting weakened stability of the complex is compensated by a novel beta hairpin backside hook. The authors show this hook is required for the optimal stability and activity of the complex.

Relevance:

The structural findings are important for understanding RFC enzymology and novel ways that the widespread class of AAA ATPases can be adapted to specialized functions. A better understanding of CTF18-RFC function will also provide clarity into aspects of DNA replication, cohesion establishment and the DNA damage response.

Strengths:

The cryo-EM structures are of high quality enabling accurate modelling of the complex and providing a strong basis for analyzing differences and similarities with other RFC complexes. They use complementary pre-steady state FRET and polymerase primer extension assays to investigate the role of a unique structural element in CTF18.

Weaknesses:

The manuscript would have benefited from a more detailed biochemical analysis using mutagenesis and assays to tease apart the functional relevance of the many differences with the canonical RFC complex.

Overall appraisal:

Overall, the work presented here is solid and important. The data is sufficient to support the stated conclusions.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Rayan et al. aims to investigate the role of RNA in modulating both virulent amyloid and host-defense peptides, with the objective of understanding their self-assembly mechanisms, morphological features, and aggregation pathways.

Strengths:

The overall content is well-structured with a logical flow of ideas that effectively conveys the research objectives.

Weaknesses:

(1) Figure 2 displays representative FRAP images demonstrating fluorescence recovery within seconds. To gain a more comprehensive understanding of how recovery after photobleaching varies under different conditions, it is recommended to supplement these images with corresponding quantitative fluorescence recovery curves for analysis.

(2) Ostwald ripening typically leads to the shrinkage or even disappearance of smaller droplets, accompanied by the further growth of large droplets. However, the droplet size in Figure 2D decreases significantly after 2 h of incubation. This observation prompts the question, what is the driving force underlying RNA-regulated phase separation and phase transition?

(3) The manuscript aims to study the role of RNA in modulating PSMα3 aggregation by using solution-state NMR to obtain residue-specific structural information. The current NMR data, as described in the method and figure captions, were recorded in the absence of RNA. Whether RNA binding induces conformational changes of PSMα3, and how these changes alter the NMR spectra? Also, the sequential NOE walk between neighboring residues can be annotated on the spectrum for clarity.

(4) The authors claim that LL-37 shares functional, sequence, and structural similarities with PSMα3. However, no droplet formation was observed of LL-37 in the presence of RNA only. The authors then applied thermal stress to induce phase separation of LL-37. What are the main factors contributing to the different phase behaviors exhibited by LL-37 and PSMα3? What are the differences in the conformation of amyloid aggregates and the kinetics of aggregation between the condensation-induced aggregation in the presence of RNA and the conventional nucleation-elongation process in the absence of RNA for these two proteins?

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary

The study is grounded in the observation that mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) shows some resistance to mutagenesis under genotoxic stress. The manuscript focuses on the effects of UVC-induced DNA damage on TFAM-DNA binding in vitro and in cells. The authors demonstrate increased TFAM-DNA compaction following UVC irradiation in vitro, as assessed by high-throughput protein-DNA binding assays and atomic force microscopy (AFM). The authors did not observe a similar trend in fluorescence polarization assays and attributed the difference in the extent of TFAM oligomerization as a potential reason. In cells, the authors found that UVC exposure increased mRNA levels of TFAM, POLG, and POLRMT without altering mitochondrial membrane potential. Overexpressing TFAM in cells or varying TFAM concentration in reconstituted nucleoids did not alter the accumulation or disappearance of mtDNA damage. Based on their data, the authors proposed a plausible model: following UVC-induced DNA damage, TFAM facilitates nucleoid compaction, which may signal damage in the mitochondrial genome. The proposed model may inspire future follow-up studies to further study the role of TFAM in sensing UVC-induced damage.

Comments on revised version:

The authors have addressed the reviewer's concerns.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

In this study, Chen L et al. systematically analyzed the mycobacterial nucleomodulins and identified MgdE as a key nucleomodulin in pathogenesis. They found that MgdE enters into host cell nucleus through two nuclear localization signals, KRIR108-111 and RLRRPR300-305, and then interacts with COMPASS complex subunits ASH2L and WDR5 to suppress H3K4 methylation-mediated transcription of pro-inflammatory cytokines, thereby promoting mycobacterial survival.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have previously adequately addressed previous concerns through additional experimentation. The revised data robustly support the main conclusions, demonstrating that MgdE engages the host COMPASS complex to suppress H3K4 methylation, thereby repressing pro-inflammatory gene expression and promoting mycobacterial survival. This work represents a significant conceptual advance.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The LC3 family of proteins, which includes LC3B, are ubiquitin-like proteins that are covalently linked to phosphatidylethanolamine in the expanding autophagosomal membrane during autophagy. LC3 family members bind to short sequences of amino acids that reside within dynamic regions in a wide variety of proteins. These sequences, termed LC3 Interacting Regions (LIRs), were initially thought to function primarily to link LIR-containing autophagy cargo receptors to LC3 family members to help facilitate their capture during autophagy. However, the functional importance of LIRs in autophagy has broadened to include more general functions in autophagy as well. While a general consensus for LIR sequences has been described as [FWY]0-X1-X2-[LVI]3, recent work has suggested that additional sequences outside of the canonical LIR sequence can bind LC3 family members and play important roles in autophagy. In this manuscript by Kosmatka et al, the authors perform a high-throughput screen using bacterial surface display coupled with fluorescence-associated cell sorting to identify which human sequences can bind to LC3B. They identify a variety of peptides capable of binding LC3B, including peptides from proteins that have not previously been described as LC3B-binding proteins. The results from the bacterial surface display were then used to guide sequence analysis, mutational analysis, and structural studies to further characterize the range of LIR sequences that are capable of binding LC3B. Taken together, this work adds to the growing knowledge of how LIR sequences interact with LC3 family members and demonstrates which amino acids both inside and outside of the LIR sequence aid in binding. This work also identifies new potential LC3 binding proteins, which may play unknown roles in autophagy regulation. Lastly, this work reinforces the importance of alternative LIR sequences such as the [WFY]0-X1-X2-[WFY]3 sequence, which the authors have dubbed the LIR+ sequence.

Strengths:

The manuscript uses a robust approach to identify and characterize different peptide sequences that can interact with LC3B. They validate a large number of sequences using biolayer interferometry (BLI) and attempt to correlate different amino acids with their binding affinity for LC3B. The large number of LC3B binding sequences and their dissociation constants adds significant new information to the field that will help others understand what sequences can bind to LC3B. The authors are also very careful to accurately report on their data and not overly interpret their findings.

Weaknesses:

After the authors identify proteins from their bacterial display assay, the remainder of the manuscript is focused on characterizing the different types of sequences that are identified in addition to validating the LC3B-LIR interactions using biochemical approaches, including BLI and X-ray crystallography. However, it's not entirely clear if the screen identified novel LC3B binders that interact with LC3B in cells. While I acknowledge that the focus of the manuscript is on the characterization of LIR sequences that can bind LC3B, it seems like a missed opportunity not to validate a few of the novel LC3B binders in vivo. This may result in the demonstration of novel binders of LC3B in cells and may further demonstrate the strength of this approach for identifying LC3 family member binding partners. Therefore, it would be helpful to look at a few proteins identified in the HC set that have not previously been identified as LC3B binders in cells to determine if they CO-IP with LC3B or interact with LC3B using a different approach.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript titled "Mycobacterial Metallophosphatase MmpE Acts as a Nucleomodulin to Regulate Host Gene Expression and Promote Intracellular Survival", Chen et al describe biochemical characterisation, localisation and potential functions of the gene using a genetic approach in M. bovis BCG and perform macrophage and mice infections to understand the roles of this potentially secreted protein in the host cell nucleus. The findings demonstrate the role of a secreted phosphatase of M. bovis BCG in shaping the transcriptional profile of infected macrophages, potentially through nuclear localisation and direct binding to transcriptional start sites, thereby regulating the inflammatory response to infection.

Strengths:

The authors demonstrate using a transient transfection method that MmpE when expressed as a GFP-tagged protein in HEK293T cells, exhibits nuclear localisation. The authors identify two NLS motifs that together are required for nuclear localisation of the protein. A deletion of the gene in M. bovis BCG results in poorer survival compared to the wild type parent strain, which is also killed by macrophages. Relative to the WT strain infected macrophages, macrophages infected with the mmpE strain exhibited differential gene expression. Overexpression of the gene in HEK293T led to occupancy of the transcription start site of several genes, including the Vitamin D Receptor. Expression of VDR in THP1 macrophages was lower in case of mmpE infection compared to WT infection. This data supports the utility of the overexpression system in identifying potential target loci of MmpE using the HEK293T transfection model. The authors also demonstrate that the protein is a phosphatase and the phosphatase activity of the protein is partially required for bacterial survival but not for regulation of the VDR gene expression.

Weaknesses:

There are significant differences in lysosomal retention between M. tuberculosis and M. bovis BCG. This study uses BCG and MMPE overexpression to draw conclusions about the impact of the MMPE gene on host gene expression and the bacteria's lysosomal localisation. While the authors have convincingly supported their claims with this model system, the relevance of this mechanism in M. tuberculosis infection remains unaddressed.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In their paper entitled "Ventral hippocampal temporoammonic and Schaffer collateral pathways differential control fear- and anxiety-related behaviors" the authors use a bidirectional optogenetic approach to elucidate the role of temporammonic (TA) and Schaffer collateral (SC) inputs to the ventral hippocampus (CA1) in modulating both fear and anxiety-related behaviors. While fear and anxiety behaviors are often considered on a continuous spectrum, identifying neural pathways that are differentially activated represents an important open question in the field. The authors find that optogenetic stimulation or inhibition of the Schaffer Collateral pathway in the ventral hippocampus (CA3-CA1) bidirectionally modulates both fear-related and anxiety-related behavioral paradigms. More specifically, optogenetic excitation of the CA3-CA1 pathway using ChR2-expressing viral constructs increases anxiety-like behaviors in numerous behavioral paradigms (elevated plus maze, open field, Vogel conflict test). Conversely, optogenetic inhibition using halorhodopsin reduced anxiety-like behaviours. To examine fear behaviors, the authors examined contextual and trace fear conditioning. Similar to their results with anxiety-like behaviors, the authors observed bidirectional fear modulation following optogenetic stimulation of the vCA3-vCA1 pathway. The authors next examined the temporammonic pathway originating from the lateral entorhinal cortex to vCA1. Unlike with SC stimulation, stimulation of the TA pathway had no effect on anxiety-like behaviors but did bidirectionally modulate contextual fear conditioning. Together, these results differentiate the SC and TA pathways in the ventral hippocampus as distinct regulators of affective behavior.

Strengths:

The paper has numerous technical strengths, including dissecting the role of both excitation and inhibition of both pathways and the use of behavioral measures of anxiety and fear. This balanced and internally controlled design allows readers to evaluate the effects of both pathways in a single study, thereby reducing technical complications from experiments being completed across laboratories and experimental conditions.

Weaknesses:

There are a few limitations of the study, however, which bear discussion.

(1) The authors use halorhodopsin to achieve optogenetic inhibition. Halorhodopsin is generally considered a first-generation optogenetic actuator, as it is a Cl- pump rather than an ion channel. This limits the degree of inhibition (i.e. by preventing shunting inhibition) and can result in altered chloride gradients in the period immediately following optogenetic stimulation. This is of particular concern in this paper as the stimulation parameters and behavioral analysis are not temporally correlated, therefore confounds of disrupted chloride cannot be experimentally accounted for or controlled.

(2) The authors use an AAV-CaMKII-eGFP as a control (Sham) throughout the dataset; however, in the trace fear conditioning experiments, there are no AAV-CaMKII-ChR2-eYFP or AAV-CaMKII-eNpHR3.0-eYFP controls without optogenetic stimulation. Therefore, it is unclear the extent to which viral expression of optogenetic actuators impacts behavior. Additionally, the authors only provided optogenetic stimulation during contextual fear recall and tone fear recall. Additional experiments disrupting each pathway during trace conditioning would have provided additional insight into the role of each pathway in the initial encoding of fear memories.

(3) The location and extent of viral expression across animals were not systematically quantified.

Overall, however, these weaknesses do not significantly detract from the main conclusions of the paper. The authors' data convincingly demonstrates that disruption of the trisynaptic circuit bidirectionally modulates both fear- and anxiety-like behaviors while disruption of the temporammonic pathway has no effect on anxiety-like behaviors but disrupts fear-related behaviors. It is interesting to note, however, that the TA activation had no effect on tone-related fear conditioning, suggesting a potential specialized role of the temporammonic pathway specifically in contextual fear memory.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the investigators identified LMOD1 as one of a subset of cytoskeletal proteins that levels increase in early stages of myogenic differentiation. Lmod1 is understudied in striated muscle and in particular in myogenic differentiation. Thus, this is an important study. It is also a very thorough study, with perhaps even too much data presented. Importantly, the investigators observed that LMOD1 appears to be important for skeletal regeneration, myogenic differentiation and that it interacts with SIRT1. Both primary myoblast differentiation and skeletal muscle regeneration were studied. Rescue experiments confirmed these observations: SIRT1 can rescue perturbations of myogenic differentiation as a result of LMOD1 knockdown.

Strengths:

Particular strengths include: an important topic, the use of primary skeletal cultures, the use of both cell culture and in vivo approaches, careful biomarker analysis of primary mouse myoblast differentiation, the use of two methods to probe the function of the Lmod1/SIRT1 pathway via using depletion approaches and inhibitors, and the generation of six independent myoblast cultures. Results support their conclusions.

Weaknesses:

(1) Figure 1. Images of cells in Figure 1A are too small to be meaningful (especially in comparison to the other data presented in this figure). Perhaps make graphs smaller?

(2) Line 148 "We found LMOD2 to be the most abundant Lmod in whole skeletal muscle." This is confusing since most, if not all, prior studies have shown that Lmod3 is the predominant isoform in skeletal muscle. The two papers that are cited are incorrectly cited. Clarification to resolve this discrepancy is needed.

(3) Figure 2. Immunofluorescence (IF) panels are too small to be meaningful. Perhaps the graphs could be made smaller and more space allocated for the IF panels? This issue is apparent for just about all IF panels - they are simply too small to be meaningful. Additionally, in many of the immunofluorescence figures, the colors that were used make it difficult to discern the stained cellular structures. For example, in Figure S1, orange and purple are used - they do not stand out as well as other colors that are more commonly used.

(4) There is huge variability in many experiments presented - as such, more samples appear to be required to allow for meaningful data to be obtained. For example, Figure S2. Many experimental groups, only have 3 samples - this is highly problematic - I would estimate that 5-6 would be the minimum.

(5) Ponceau S staining is often used as a loading control in this manuscript for western blots. The area/molecular weight range actually used should be specified. Not clear why in some experiments GAPDH staining is used, in other experiments Ponceau S staining is used, and in some, both are used. In some experiments the variability of total protein loaded from lane-to-lane is disconcerting. For example, in Figure S4C there appears to be more than normal variability. Can the protein assay be redone and the samples run again?

(6) Figure S3 - Lmod3 is included in the figure but no mention of it occurs in the title of the figure and/or legend.

(7) Abstract, line 25. "overexpression accelerates and improves the formation of myotubes". This is a confusing sentence. How is it improving the formation? A little more information about how they are different than developing myotubes in normal/healthy muscle would be helpful

(8) Impossible from IF figures presented to determine where Lmod1 localizes in the myocytes. Information on its subcellular localization is important. Does it localize with Lmod2 and Lmod3 at thin filament pointed ends?

Comments on revisions:

Many comments have been adequately addressed. However, some concerns remain.

Former Concern #2. The issue with the lack of detection of LMOD3 in their muscle samples is troublesome and has not been adequately resolved in the revised manuscript. It is a fact that most, if not all, studies on Lmod3 report that it is the most abundant isoform in skeletal muscle. This issue should be discussed in the manuscript. It is recognized that a different assay was utilized in this paper. The papers that are cited continue to remain incorrect. Specifically:

Tsukada et al., reports abundance of LMOD2 in cardiac muscle, not in skeletal muscle.

Nworu et al., 2015 reports on LMOD3 in skeletal muscle.

Kiss et al.,2020. While this paper reveals an important function for Lmod2 in thin filament length regulation, it is clearly shows many examples of high expression of Lmod3 in various skeletal muscles isolated from mice.

Former Concern #3. With respect to small sample numbers. Hopefully a statistical editor is available to comment. While this reviewer is happy that other assays were used to verify their data, the problem still remains that many experimental groups only have 3 samples (with high variability).

Former Concern #3. Many immunofluorescence panels are hard to evaluate because of their small size.

Reviewer #4 (Public review):

Summary and background:

This report entitled "The insulin/IGF axis is critically important (for) controlling gene transcription in the podocyte" from Hurcombe et al is based on a mouse double knockdown of the IR and IGF1R and a parallel cultured mouse podocyte model. Insulin/IGF signaling system in mammals evolved as three gene reduplicated peptides (insulin, IGF-1, and IGF-2) and their two receptors IR and IGF1R that cross-react to variable extents with the peptides, are ubiquitously expressed, and signal through parallel pathways. The major downstream effect of insulin is to regulate glucose uptake and metabolism, while that of the IGF pathways is to regulate growth and cell cycling in part through mTORC1. The GH-IGF-1-IGF1R pathway regulates post-natal growth. IGF-2 signaling is thought to play a major role in regulating intrauterine growth and development, although IGF-2 is also present at high levels in post-natal life. Thus, one would anticipate that reducing IR/IGF1R signaling in any cell would slow growth and cell cycling by reducing growth factor and metabolic mTORC1-mediated and other processes including the splicing of RNA for protein synthesis.

Mouse IR/IGF1R double knockdown model:

A double knockdown mouse model was generated by interbreeding mice with different genetic backgrounds carrying floxed sites for IR and IGF-1R to produce mixed background offspring with both floxed IR and IGF-1R genes. These mice were crossed so that the podocin promoter driven-Cre (that comes on at about embryonic day 12 bas podocytes are developing) would delete IR and IGF-1R genes. Since podocin is believed to be an absolutely podocyte-specific protein, this podocin promoter this is predicted to specifically knock down the IR and IGF1R genes only in podocytes. The weight and growth of double KO offspring was not different from controls, but some proportion of the double knockdown mice subsequently developed proteinuria by 6 months and 20% died, although no specific data is provided to identify the cause of the deaths since eGFR was not decreased. Surviving mice were evaluated at 6 months of age. The efficacy of knockdown was not demonstrated in the mouse model itself, although a temperature-sensitive cell line developed from these double knockdown mice showed that expression of IR and IGF-1R proteins in the Cre-treated cell line were both reduced by about 50% (no statistical analysis of this result provided). In the knockout mice, proteinuria was significantly increased by 6 months, but not at earlier time points. Histologic analysis showed proteinaceous casts, glomerulosclerosis and interstitial fibrosis. Podocyte number was stated to be reduced by about 30% in double knockdown mice, although the method by which this was evaluated seems to have been by counting WT1 positive nuclei in glomerular cross-sections, an approach that is well-known not to be a reliable way of assessing true podocyte number. No information is provided about podocyte size, density or glomerular volume.

Comment: If IR/IGF1R deletion plays a significant role in normal podocyte function sufficient to cause proteinuria and glomerulosclerosis then the effect of reduced IR and IGF1R protein expression on podocyte function would have been expected to produce a phenotype before 6 months. A more likely scenario to explain the overall result is that deleting the IR and IGF1R genes at about embryonic day12 impacted podocyte development to a variable extent such that some mice developed fewer podocytes per glomerulus than other mice. As mice grow and their glomeruli and glomerular capillary area increases, those mice with fewer podocytes would not be able to completely cover the filtration surface with foot processes and would develop proteinuria and glomerulosclerosis. If reduced podocyte number per glomerulus is the proximate cause of the observed proteinuria, then modulation of the body and kidney growth rate by calorie restriction to slow growth (lower circulating IGF-1 levels) would be expected to be protective, while a high protein high calorie diet (higher circulating IGF-1 levels) or uni-nephrectomy to increase kidney growth rate would be expected to enhance proteinuria and glomerulosclerosis.

The model as used may be more representative of a variable degree of podocyte depletion than an effect of impaired IR/IGF1R signaling. Therefore, although the phenotype may be ultimately attributable to the IR/IGF1R gene deletions the proteinuria and glomerulosclerotic phenotype itself was probably a consequence of defective podocyte development. Examining podocyte number, size, density and glomerular volume at earlier time points (4 weeks) would help to answer this question. Therefore, a more appropriate title would be "The insulin/IGF axis is critically important (for) normal podocyte development and deployment". In this context the effect of the knockdowns on splicing would make more sense.

Cell culture studies. A cell line was generated using a temperature sensitive SV40 system that has been previously reported from this laboratory. A detailed analysis is provided to show that double knockout cells exhibited abnormal spliceosome activity. This forms the basis for the conclusion that "The insulin/IGF axis is critically important (for) controlling gene transcription in the podocyte". There are several concerns that weaken this conclusion.

(1) In the double knockdown cell culture system about 30% of cells were "lost" by 3 days and about 70% of cells were "lost" by 5days. The studies were done at the 3 day time point. It is not clear whether "lost" cells were in the process of dying, stress-induced detachment, or just growing more slowly than control due to reduced IR and IGF-1R signaling. These processes could have impacted splicing in a non-specific way independent of IR/IGF1R signaling itself.

(2) Can a single cell line derived from the double floxed mice be relied on to provide an unbiased picture of the effect of deleting IR and IGF-1R? Presumably, the transfection and selection process will select for cells that survive thereby including unknown biases, possibly related to spliceosome function. Is a single cell line adequate? These investigators have extensive experience with this type of analysis, but this question is not addressed in the discussion.

(3) To determine whether the effect is specific to reduced IR/IGFR signaling the deletion of IR and IGF-1R could be corrected by transfecting full length IR and IGF-1R cDNAs into the cells to restore normal IR/IGF1R signaling. If transfected cells with intact IR and IGF-1R expression and activity returns spliceosome activity to normal this would be evidence that receptors themselves play some role in spliceosome activity, as opposed to the downstream effect on growth limitation/stress on the cells.

(4) Other ways of testing whether the splicing effect is specifically due to reduced IR/IGF-1R signaling would be to (a) block IR and IGF1R receptors using available inhibitors, (b) remove or reduce insulin, IGF-1 and IGF-2 levels in the culture medium, (c) use low glucose and amino acid culture medium to slow growth rate independent of receptor function, (d) or block intra-cellular signaling via the IR and IGF-1R receptors through mTORC1 inhibition using rapamycin or other signaling targets.

(5) It would be useful to determine whether the cultured cells stressed in other ways (e.g. ischemia, toxins, etc.) also results in the same splicing abnormalities.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Shen et al. investigate the contribution of the type VI secretion system of Bacteroidales in the gut microbiome assembly and targeting of closely related species. They demonstrate that B. acidifaciens relies on T6SS-mediated antagonism to prevent displacement by co-resident Bacteroidales and other members of the microbiome, allowing B. acidifaciens to persist in the gut.

Strengths:

Using a gnotobiotic model colonized with a wild-mouse microbiome is a significant strength of this study. This approach allows tracking of microbiome changes over time and directly examining targeting by Bacteroidales carrying T6SS in a more natural setting. The development of ICE-seq for mapping the distribution of the T6SS in the microbiome is remarkable, enabling the study of how this bacterial weapon is transferred between microbiome members without requiring long-read metagenomics methods.

Weaknesses:

Some conclusions are based on only four mice per condition. The author should consider increasing the sample size.

Overall, the authors successfully achieved their objectives, and their experimental design and results support their findings. As mentioned in the discussion, it would be important to investigate the role of the T6SS in resilience to disturbances in the microbiome, such as antibiotics, diet, or pathogen invasion. This work represents a step forward in understanding how contact-dependent competition influences the gut microbiome in relevant ecological contexts.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

It is well established that poly(A) tails at the 3' end of mRNA are critical for mRNA stability, providing another layer of gene regulation. TENT5A is one of the non-canonical poly(A) polymerases that add an extra poly(A) tail. This manuscript demonstrates that the Tent5A mutation leads to mineralization abnormalities in the tooth, shorter poly(A) tails in amelogenin mRNA and some other selected mRNAs, and provides a list of TENT5A interacting proteins.

Strengths:

(1) The authors show in vivo genetic evidence that Tent5a is critical for normal tooth mineralization.

(2) The authors show that the length of the poly(A) tail in amelogenin (AmelX) is 13 bases shorter in Tent5a mutants but not in other mRNAs, such as ameloblastin (Ambn).

(3) Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in Tent5A mutant tissues (cervical loop) are identified, and some of them show different lengths of poly(A) tails.

(4) TENT5A interacting proteins are identified. Together with the DEGs, these datasets will provide valuable research tools to the community.

Weaknesses:

(1) There is no direct evidence to support the main conclusion; the length of the poly(A) tail is critical for normal tooth mineralization.

(2) The RNAseq data to identify TENT5A substrate is based on the assumption that shorter poly(A) tailed RNA is less stable. However, there are multiple reasons for the differential expression of RNA in Tent5A mutant tissues.

(3) Several TENT5A-interacting proteins have been identified, but, beyond their colocalization with a target mRNA, no mechanistic studies have been conducted.

DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2026.116971

Resource: (ZFIN Cat# ZDB-ALT-120723-3,RRID:ZFIN_ZDB-ALT-120723-3)

Curator: @areedewitt04

SciCrunch record: RRID:ZFIN_ZDB-ALT-120723-3

What is this?

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) is a receptor tyrosine kinase that can be amplified in gastric cancer and serves as a potential therapeutic target for this patient population. However, targeting FGFR2 has shown limited efficacy. Thus, this study seeks to identify additional molecules that can be effectively targeted in FGFR2 amplified gastric cancer, with a focus on Src homology region 2-containing protein tyrosine phosphatase 2 (SHP2). The authors first demonstrate that 6% of gastric cancer patients in a cohort of human patient samples exhibit FGFR2 amplification. Furthermore, they demonstrate that FGFR2 mRNA expression is positively correlated with PTPN11 gene expression (which is the gene that encodes the SHP2 protein). Using human gastric cancer cell lines with amplified FGFR2, the authors then test the effects of combining the FGFR inhibitor AZD4547 with the SHP2 inhibitor SHP099 on tumor cell death and signaling molecules. They demonstrate that combining the two inhibitors is more effective at tumor cell killing and reducing activation of downstream signaling pathways than either inhibitor alone. In further studies, the authors obtained gastric cancer cells with FGFR2 amplification from a patient that was treated with FGFR2 inhibitor. While this patient initially showed a partial response, the patient ultimately progressed, demonstrating resistance to FGFR2 inhibition. Following isolation of tumor cells from the patient's ascites, the authors demonstrate that these cells are sensitive to the combination treatment of AZD4547 and SHP099. Further studies were performed using a xenograft model using athymic nude mice in which the combination of SHP099 and AZD4547 were found to reduce tumor growth more significantly than either treatment alone. Finally, the authors demonstrate using an in vitro culture model that this combination treatment enhances T cell mediated cytotoxicity. The authors conclude that targeting FGFR2 and SHP2 represents a potential combination strategy in gastric patients with FGFR2 amplification.

Strengths:

The authors demonstrate that FGFR2 amplification positively correlates with PTPN11 in human gastric cancer samples, providing a rationale for combination therapies. Furthermore, convincing data are provided demonstrating that targeting both FGFR and SHP2 is more effective than targeting either pathway alone using in vitro and in vivo models. The use of cells derived from a gastric cancer patient that progressed following treatment with an FGFR inhibitor is also a strength. The findings from this study support the conclusion that SHP2 inhibitors enhance the efficacy of FGFR-targeted therapies in cancer patients. This study also suggests that targeting SHP2 may also be an effective strategy for targeting cancers that are resistant to FGFR-targeted therapies.

Weaknesses:

The main caveat with these studies is the lack of an immune competent model with which to test the finding that this combination therapy enhances T cell cytotoxicity in vivo.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Bhattacharya et al. describe significant differences in prey capture behaviour in PSD-95 KO (Knockout) and wild-type (WT) mice. This work develops logically from their previous findings that KO of PSD-95 inhibits the maturation in the primary visual cortex. However, their previous work revealed that the visual deficits in the KO mice were relatively modest. Here, by employing an ethologically-relevant behavioural task, they show that several aspects of prey capture are impaired in the KO. Importantly, the deficits in predatory behavior in the KO mouse improved with monocular deprivation, consistent with deficits in binocular vision.

Strengths:

Overall, the data presented are convincing and valuable, and support the idea that PSD-95 expression is important for the maturation of visual responses.

Weaknesses:

The manuscript could be strengthened by consideration of the following points:

(1) The deficits in predatory behavior are interpreted to reveal several possible visual defects, including the absence of binocularity, binocular summation, or binocular mismatch in V1 neurons. Yet this is done with insufficient detail about each possible mechanism and without direct neuronal evidence.

(2) The observation that binocular visual field bias is intact in the PSD-95 KO mice is interesting but appears to contradict other data suggesting the absence of binocularity in the KO visual system, and this is not discussed in sufficient detail.

(3) No consideration of previous work using constitutive PSD-95 KOs that documented a learning deficit.

(4) Throughout the manuscript, including the first paragraph of the discussion, the authors state that "This study explored whether the maturation of CP closure, inhibited by PSD-95 influences binocular visual behaviour". However, if this were the case, the current experiments would have compared cricket capture behavior at two ages across the two genotypes: pre- and post-CP closure in WTs and at matching chronological ages in KOs.

(5) Freeman and others have shown that the influence of binocular summation on orientation discrimination is highest at low stimulus contrast and short duration stimuli. How does this impact the interpretation of predatory behavior and discrimination in the VWT?

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

In this manuscript, the authors examine the role of Syt7 in the plasticity of synchronous and asynchronous release in cultured neurons. The experimental approach is the imaging of SF-iGluSnFR.A184V expressed in cultured neurons while delivering stimulation through whole-cell patch clamping of single neurons in the culture. In this manner, they could examine the optical signature of glutamate release in single presynaptic terminals, while separating the release events into synchronous (<10ms) and asynchronous (>10ms) while delivering both paired pulses or trains of stimuli (at 20 Hz, 50 ms between stimuli).

This manuscript employs techniques previously reported by the research group in their Mendoca et al., Nat Comms 2022 paper. This paper uses this approach to specifically examine the role of Syt7. The use of iGluSnFR in this manner provides significant rigor to the paper. The most significant weakness is that some of the events the authors discuss in this manuscript are rare, and the strength of the conclusions regarding those is somewhat unclear.

The main novel contribution of this manuscript is that single-bouton high-frequency imaging allowed them to examine paired-pulse plasticity in boutons that had not released neurotransmitter during the first pulse (failure-based analysis), thus separating between the effects of vesicle depletion and facilitation of the release machinery. This approach also allowed them to segregate their observations according to bouton-specific release efficacy. Both examinations are unavailable when performing cell-level analysis of neurotransmitter release, as is reported by most electrophysiological approaches.

The authors conclude that Syt7 contributes specifically to facilitation of synchronous release, not asynchronous release, while reducing the magnitude of the asynchronous component. Finally, the authors suggest segregation of synchronous and asynchronous release, either by differential use of calcium sensors or spatial segregation of the vesicles contributing to both modes of release.

This report contributes significantly to the discussion of the control of synaptic plasticity by different molecular players. It is not the first to examine Syt7, but its contribution to the examination of this protein is significant.

I find this report to be well executed and reasoned. In my opinion, the authors could improve the manuscript by clarifying the description of several methodological and experimental sections. Furthermore, in my opinion, some of the conclusions are overstated.

The authors state: "Because boutons along a single axon originate from the same presynaptic neuron, they are expected to share broadly similar molecular components of the vesicular release machinery and experience comparable presynaptic action potential waveforms." The authors should address the idea that presynaptic terminals from the same neuron on different postsynaptic targets can differ in the molecular components, as well as in the presynaptic side. There is ample evidence for differences between synapses onto glutamatergic and GABAergic neurons of the same neuron.

The authors used 4ms-long frames, but the stimuli are delivered at 20Hz (50ms apart). Therefore, in paired pulse stimulation, isn't there going to be a difference between the first and second stimuli regarding the timing of the frames relative to the stimulus? Isn't the deconvolution sensitive to such an offset?

A 10ms threshold for defining synchronous vs. asynchronous release full in-between frames. Doesn't this increase the chance of assigning borderline events to the wrong category?

On page 11 of the conclusion, the authors state that "Our data indicate that in our conditions during paired-pulse protocol Syt7 primarily enhances release probability rather than increasing the RRP size." While I understand the reasoning behind this statement, it should be toned down. The authors did not directly address the RRP size.

In failure-based analysis, the number of failure events in high-efficiency boutons is expected to be low. How does this affect the conclusions of the authors concerning the effects of Syt7 deletion on facilitation in high-efficiency boutons?<br /> SourceData.xlsx was not available to me, as far as I could tell.

How can the conclusions of the authors on the differential molecular composition of vesicles contributing to synchronous and asynchronous release be related to the reported effect of strontium on the nature of release? (see 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.20-12-04414.2000)

Is this the first use of failure-based analysis? If not, the authors should cite precedents. In 10.1016/s0896-6273(00)80338-4, failure of release during the 1st AP was presented, with facilitation during the 2nd, although no formal analysis was performed.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Protein complexes, like the GID/CTLH-type E3 ligase, adopt a complex three-dimensional structure, which is of functional importance. Several domains are known to be involved in shaping the complexes. Structural information based on cryo-EM is available, but its resolution does not always provide detailed information on protein-protein interactions. The work by van gen Hassend and Schindelin provides additional structural data based on crystal structures.

Strengths:

The work is solid and very carefully performed. It provides high-resolution insights into the domain architecture, which helps to understand the protein-protein interactions on a detailed molecular level. They also include mutant data and can thereby draw conclusions on the specificity of the domain interactions. These data are probably very helpful for others who work on a functional level with protein complexes containing these domains.

Weaknesses:

The manuscript contains a lot of useful, very detailed information. This information is likely very helpful to investigate functional and regulatory aspects of the protein complexes, whose assembly relies on the LisH-CTLH-CRA modules. However, this goes beyond the scope of this manuscript.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript of Spokaite et al. focuses on the Vps34 complex involved in PI3P production. This complex exists in two variants, one (class I) specific for autophagy, and a second one (class II) specific for the endocytic system. Both differ only in one subunit. The authors previously showed that the Vps34 complexes interact with Rab GTPases, Rab1 or Rab5 (for class II), and the identified site was found at Vps34. Now, the authors identify a conserved and overlooked Rab5 binding site in Vps15, which is required for the function of the Class II complex. In support of this, they show cryo-EM data with a second Rab5 bound to Vps15, identify the corresponding residues, and show by mutant analysis that impaired Rab5 binding also results in defects using yeast as a model system.

Overall, this is a most complete study with little to criticize. The paper shows convincingly that the two Rab5 binding sites are required for Vps34 complex II function, with the Vps15 binding site being critical for endosomal localization. The structural data is very much complete. What I am missing are a few controls that show that the mutations in Vps15 do not affect autophagy. I also found the last paragraph of the results section a bit out of place, even though this is a nice observation that the N-terminal part of BECLIN has these domains. However, what does it add to the story?

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, Tisdale et al. studied the sleep/wake patterns in the biological mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. The results in this study, together with the established literature on the relationship of sleep and Alzheimer's disease progression, guided the authors to propose this mouse model for the mechanistic understanding of sleep states that translates to Alzheimer's disease patients. However, the manuscript currently suffers from a disconnect between the physiological data and the mechanistic interpretations. Specifically, the claim of "impaired transitions" is logically at odds with the observed increase in wake-state stability or possible hyperactivity. Additionally, the description of the methods, the quantification, and the figure presentation could be substantially improved. I detail some of my concerns below.

Strengths:

The selection of the knock-in model is a notable strength as it avoids the artifacts associated with APP overexpression and more closely mimics human pathology. The study utilizes continuous 14-day EEG recordings, providing a unique dataset for assessing chronic changes in arousal states. The assessment of sex as a biological variable identifies a more severe "insomniac-like" phenotype in females, which aligns with the higher prevalence and severity of Alzheimer's disease in women.

Weaknesses:

The study seems to lack a clear hypothesis-driven approach and relies mostly on explorative investigations. Moreover, lack of quantitative analytical methods as well as shaky logical conclusions, possibly not supported by data in its current form, leaves room for major improvement.

Since this paper studied sleep states, the "Methods" section is quite unclear on what specific criteria were used to classify sleep states. There is no quantitative description of classifying sleep based on clear, reproducible procedures. There are many reasonably well-characterized sleep scoring systems used in rat electrophysiological literature, which could be useful here. The authors are generally expected to describe movement speed and/or EMG and/or EEG (theta/delta/gamma) criteria used to classify these epochs. The subjective (manual) nature of this procedure provides no verifiable validation of the accuracy and interpretability of the results.

One of the bigger claims is that "state transition mechanism(s)" are impaired. However, Figure 7 shows that model mice exhibit significantly more long wake bouts (>260s) and fewer short wake bouts (<60s). Logically, an "impaired switch" (the flip-flop model, Saper et al., 2010) results in state fragmentation. The data here show the opposite: the wake state has become too stable. This suggests the primary defect is not in the transition mechanism itself, but possibly in a pathological increase in arousal drive (hyper-arousal), likely linked to the dark-phase hyperactivity shown in Figures 4 and 5. Also, a point to note is that this finding is not new.

Figure 3 heatmaps lack color bars and units. Spectral power must be quantitatively defined and methods well-explained in the Methods section. Without these, the reader cannot discern if the "reduced power" in females is a global suppression of signal or a frequency-specific shift. Additionally, the representative example used to claim shorter sleep bouts lacks the statistical weight required for a major physiological conclusion. How does a cooler color (not clear what range and what the interpretation is) mean shorter sleep bout in female mice? The authors should clearly mark the frequency ranges that support their claims. In this figure, there is a question mark following the theta/delta range. The authors should avoid speculation and state their claims based on facts. They should also add the theta and delta ranges in the plot, such that readers can draw their own conclusions.

Figure 8 and the MSLT results show that model mice are "no sleepier than WT mice" and have a functional homeostatic rebound. This presents a logical flaw in the "insomnia" narrative. True insomnia in AD patients typically involves a failure of the homeostatic process or a debilitating accumulation of sleep debt. If these mice do not show increased sleepiness (shorter latency) despite ~19% less sleep, the authors might be describing a "reduced need" for sleep or a "hyper-aroused" state, possibly not a clinical insomnia phenotype.

In Figure 9, LFP power shown and compared in percentages is problematic, as LFP power distribution is known to be skewed (follows power law). This is particularly problematic here because all the frequencies above ~20 Hz seem to be totally flattened or nonexistent, which makes this comparison of power severely limited and biased towards the relative frequency in the highly skewed portion of the LFP power spectrum, i.e., very low frequency ranges like delta, theta, and possibly beta. This ignores low, mid, and high gamma as well as ripple band frequencies. NREM sleep is known to have relatively greater ripple band (100-250 Hz) power bursts in hippocampal regions, and REM sleep is known to have synchronous theta-gamma relationships.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors develop a tool for marking presynaptic active zones in Drosophila brains, dependent on the GAL4 construct used to express a fragment of GFP, which will incorporate with a genome-engineered partial GFP attached to the active zone protein bruchpilot - signal will be specific to the GAL4 expressing neuronal compartment. They then use various GAL4s to examine innervation onto the mushroom bodies to dissect compartment specific differences in the size and intensity of active zones. After a description of these differences, they induce learning in flies with classic odour/electric shock pairing and observe changes after conditioning that are specific to the paired conditioning/learning paradigm.

Strengths:

The imaging and analysis appears strong. The tool is novel and exciting.

Weaknesses:

I feel that the tool could do with a little more characterisation. It is assumed that the puncta observed are AZs with no further definition or characterisation. It is not resolved if the AZs visualised here simply tagged, or are the constructs incorporated to be an active functional part of the AZ.

Comments on revisions:

Apologies, I should have thought of this in the first round of review. An experiment I would suggest (and it is not a difficult one) to address the functionality of the marker: It is mentioned that the genetically tagged half of the construct is homozygous lethal. Can this be placed in trans to a brp null, with a neuronal UAS-expression of the other half of Brp-GFP - Are the animals then 1) alive, and 2) able to fly (brp mutants can't fly, hence the name 'crashpilot') - a rescue would suggest (and that is all that would be needed here) that the reconstituted brp-GFP has function.

On another note, the paper keeps switching between different DAN-GAL4 lines. In 1H, 2Band 4A, there are informative cartoons showing the extension of the neurons for PPL1, APL and DPM neurons - could these be incorporated into figures 5, 6 and 7, and the supplementary figures to help orient the reader. Ideally they would refer to a figure (in Fig 1?) -to refer to the groups of DANs in the adult brain that are known to innervate the MBs (e.g. Fig1 in Mao and Davis, Front in Neural Circuits 2009). I suggest this because I feel that this tool will be widely used, and if non-MB aficionados can follow what's being done here I feel it will be more widely accepted.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary

This is an exciting and timely study addressing the role of descending noradrenergic systems in nocifensive responses. While it is well-established that spinally released noradrenaline (aka norepinephrine) generally acts as an inhibitory factor in spinal sensory processing, this system is highly complex. Descending projections from the A6 (locus coeruleus, LC) and the A5 regions typically modulate spinal sensory processing and reduce pain behaviours, but certain subpopulations of LC neurons have been shown to mediate pronociceptive effects, such as those projecting to the prefrontal cortex (Hirshberg et al., PMID: 29027903).

The study proposes that descending cerulean noradrenergic neurons potentiate touch sensation via alpha-1 adrenoceptors on Hes5+ spinal astrocytes, contributing to mechanical hyperalgesia. This finding is consistent with prior work from the same group (dd et al., PMID:). However, caution is needed when generalising about LC projections, as the locus coeruleus is functionally diverse, with differences in targets, neurotransmitter co-release, and behavioural effects. Specifying the subpopulations of LC neurons involved would significantly enhance the impact and interpretability of the findings.

Strengths

The study employs state-of-the-art molecular, genetic, and neurophysiological methods, including precise CRISPR and optogenetic targeting, to investigate the role of Hes5+ astrocytes. This approach is elegant and highlights the often-overlooked contribution of astrocytes in spinal sensory gating. The data convincingly support the role of Hes5+ astrocytes as regulators of touch sensation, coordinated by brain-derived noradrenaline in the spinal dorsal horn, opening new avenues for research into pain and touch modulation.

Furthermore, the data support a model in which superficial dorsal horn (SDH) Hes5+ astrocytes act as non-neuronal gating cells for brain-derived noradrenergic (NA) signalling through their interaction with substantia gelatinosa inhibitory interneurons. Locally released adenosine from NA-stimulated Hes5+ astrocytes, following acute restraint stress, may suppress the function of SDH-Vgat+ inhibitory interneurons, resulting in mechanical pain hypersensitivity. However, the spatially restricted neuron-astrocyte communication underlying this mechanism requires further investigation in future studies.

Comments on revisions:

One important point remains insufficiently resolved. In Figure S4C, two of the three visible neurons in the A5 example appear to show a white "halo" at the cell border, suggesting a merge of eGFP (green) and TH (magenta) and therefore possible transgene positivity. To draw a confident conclusion about the specificity of the approach for the A6 (LC) population, the authors are kindly asked to provide high-resolution images of several representative A5 sections, presented both as merged and as separate colour channels. Ideally, quantification across multiple rostrocaudal sections of A5, A6 and A7 should be provided. This is essential for determining whether any transgene expression occurs within the A5 nucleus, particularly given its several-millimetre rostrocaudal extent. As the behavioural phenotype arises from manipulation of only a small subset of A6 neurons, ruling out any contribution from A5 (or A7) is critical for validating pathway specificity, especially in light of prior reports showing that similar approaches can label A5 fibres.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Disclaimer:

My expertise is in live single-molecule imaging of RNA and transcription, as well as associated data analysis and modeling. While this aligns well with the technical aspects of the manuscript, my background in translation is more limited, and I am not best positioned to assess the novelty of the biological conclusions.

Summary:

This study combines live-cell imaging of nascent proteins on single mRNAs with time-series analysis to investigate the kinetics of mRNA translation.<br /> The authors (i) used a calibration method for estimating absolute ribosome counts, and (ii) developed a new Bayesian approach to infer ribosome counts over time from run-off experiments, enabling estimation of elongation rates and ribosome density across conditions.

They report (i) translational bursting at the single-mRNA level, (ii) low ribosome density (~10% occupancy {plus minus} a few percents), (iii) that ribosome density is minimally affected by perturbations of elongation (using a drug and/or different coding sequences in the reporter), suggesting a homeostatic mechanism potentially involving a feedback of elongation onto initiation, although (iv) this coupling breaks down upon knockout of elongation factor eIF5A.

Strengths:

(1) The manuscript is well written and the conclusions are in general appropriately cautious (besides the few improvements I suggest below).

(2) The time-series inference method is interesting and promising for broader application.

(3) Simulations provide convincing support for the modeling (though some improvements are possible).

(4) The reported homeostatic effect on ribosome density is surprising and carefully validated with multiple perturbations.

(5) Imaging quality and corrections (e.g., flat-fielding, laser power measurements) are robust.

(6) Mathematical modeling is clearly described and precise; a few clarifications could improve it further.

Weaknesses:

(1) The absolute quantification of ribosome numbers (via the measurement of $i_{MP}$​) should be improved. This only affects the finding that ribosome density is low, not that it appears to be under homeostatic control. However, if $i_{MP}$​ turns out to be substantially overestimated (hence ribosome density underestimated), then "ribosomes queuing up to the initiation site and physically blocking initiation" could become a relevant hypothesis. In my first review of this work, I made recommendations, which the authors did not follow. In my view, the robustness of this particular aspect of this study remains moderate.

(2) The proposed initiation-elongation coupling is plausible, but alternative explanations such as changes in abortive elongation frequency should be considered. In their response to my previous comments, the authors indicate that this is "beyond the scope of the present work".

(3) More an opportunity for improvement than a weakness: It is unclear what the single-mRNA nature of the inference method is bringing since it is only used here to report _average_ ribosome elongation rate and density (averaged across mRNAs and across time during the run-off experiments -although the method, in principle, has the power to resolve these two aspects). In response to my previous comment, the authors note that such analyses could be incorporated in future work.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Chaya and Syed focuses on understanding the link between cell cycle and temporal patterning in central brain type II neural stem cells (NSCs). To investigate this, the authors perturb the progression of the cell cycle by delaying the entry into M phase and preventing cytokinesis. Their results convincingly show that temporal factor expression requires progression of the cell cycle in both Type 1 and Type 2 NSCs in the Drosophila central brain. Overall, this study establishes an important link between the two timing mechanisms of neurogenesis.

Strengths:

The authors provide solid experimental evidence for the coupling of cell cycle and temporal factor progression in Type 2 NSCs. The quantified phenotype shows an all-or-none effect of cell cycle block on the emergence of subsequent temporal factors in the NSCs, strongly suggesting that both nuclear division and cytokinesis are required for temporal progression. The authors also extend this phenotype to Type 1 NSCs in the central brain, providing a generalizable characterization of the relationship between cell cycle and temporal patterning.

Weaknesses:

One major weakness of the study is that the authors do not explore the mechanistic relationship between cell cycle and temporal factor expression. Although their results are quite convincing, they do not provide an explanation as to why Cdk1 depletion affects Syp and EcR expression but not the onset of svp. This result suggests that at least a part of the temporal cascade in NSCs is cell-cycle independent which isn't addressed or sufficiently discussed.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This study investigates the computational role of top-down feedback in artificial neural networks (ANNs), a feature that is prevalent in the brain but largely absent in standard ANN architectures. The authors construct hierarchical recurrent ANN models that incorporate key properties of top-down feedback in the neocortex. Using these models in an audiovisual integration task, they find that hierarchical structures introduce a mild visual bias, akin to that observed in human perception, not always compromising task performance.

Strengths:

The study investigates a relevant and current topic of considering top-down feedback in deep neural networks. In designing their brain-like model, they use neurophysiological data, such as externopyramidisation and hierarchical connectivity. Their brain-like model exhibits a visual bias that qualitatively matches human perception.

Weaknesses:

While the model is brain-inspired, it has limited bioplausibility. The model assumes a simplified and fixed hierarchy. The authors acknowledge this limitation in the discussion.

While the brain-like model showed an advantage in ignoring distracting auditory inputs, it struggled when visual information had to be ignored. This suggests that its rigid bias toward visual processing could make it less adaptive in tasks requiring flexible multimodal integration. It hence does not necessarily constitute an improvement over existing ANNs. The study does not evaluate whether the top-down feedback architecture scales well to more complex problems or larger datasets. A valuable future contribution would be to evaluate how the network's behaviour fits to human data.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The study aims to investigate sensorimotor plasticity mechanisms by exposing a cohort of 20 subjects to manipulation activities while using wearable finger extensions. With a series of experiments involving localization and motor tasks, the authors provide evidence that the finger extensions are integrated into the body representation of the subjects.

Strengths:

The study deserves attention, and the psychophysical protocols are carefully designed, and the statistical analyses are solid.

Weaknesses:

However, the current version of the manuscript, in my opinion, makes an exaggerated use of the term plasticity, and this should be amended. This is because the authors support the plasticity claims with psychophysical experiments, without providing evidence of neural-plasticity mechanisms (e.g., neuroimaging methods are not used).

The authors are recommended to revise the wording of the manuscript and possibly perform additional experiments with brain imaging methods (e.g., EEG or fMRI).

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Combining electrophysiological recording, circuit tracing, single cell RNAseq, and optogenetic and chemogenetic manipulation, Howe and colleagues have identified a graded division between anterior and posterior plCoA and determined the molecular characteristics that distinguish the neurons in this part of the amygdala. They demonstrate that the expression of slc17a6 is mostly restricted to the anterior plCoA whereas slc17a7 is more broadly expressed. Through both anterograde and retrograde tracing experiments, they demonstrate that the anterior plCoA neurons preferentially projected to the MEA whereas those in the posterior plCoA preferentially innervated the nucleus accumbens. Interestingly, optogenetic activation of the aplCoA drives avoidance in a spatial preference assay whereas activating the pplCoA leads to preference. The data support a model that spatially segregated and molecularly defined populations of neurons and their projection targets carry valence specific information for the odors. Moreover, the intermingling of neurons in the plCoA is consistent with prior observations. The presence of a gradient rather than a distinct separation of the cells fits the model being proposed. The discoveries represent a conceptual advance in understanding plCoA function and innate valence coding in the olfactory system.

Strengths:

The strongest evidence supporting the model comes from single-cell RNASeq, genetically facilitated anterograde and retrograde circuit tracing, and optogenetic stimulation. The evidence clear demonstrates two molecularly defined cell populations with differential projection targets. Stimulating the two populations produced opposite behavioral responses.

Weaknesses:

The weaknesses noted in primary review have all been addressed adequately.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors present an in vitro evaluation of drug-drug interactions between artemisinins and quinoline antimalarials, as an important aspect for screening the current artemisinin-based combination therapies for Plasmodium falciparum. Using a revised pulsing assay, they report antagonism between dihydroartemisinin (DHA) and several quinolines, including chloroquine, piperaquine (PPQ), and amodiaquine. This antagonism is increased in CQ-resistant strains in isobologram analyses. Moreover, CQ co-treatment was found to induce artemisinin resistance even in parasites lacking K13 mutations during the ring-stage survival assay. This implies that drug-drug interactions, not just genetic mutations, can influence resistance phenotypes. By using a chemical probe for reactive heme, the authors demonstrate that quinolines inhibit artemisinin activation by rendering cytosolic heme chemically inert, thereby impairing the cytotoxic effects of DHA. The study also observed negative interactions in triple-drug regimens (e.g., DHA-PPQ-Mefloquine) and in combinations involving OZ439, a next-generation peroxide antimalarial. Taken together, these findings raise significant concerns regarding the compatibility of artemisinin and quinoline combinations, which may promote resistance or reduce efficacy.

With the additive profile as the comparison and a lack of synergistic effect in any of the comparisons, it is hard to contextualize the observed antagonism. Including a known synergistic pair (e.g., artemisinin + lumefantrine) would have provided a useful benchmark to assess the relative impact of the drug interactions described.

Strengths:

This study demonstrates the following strengths:

• The use of a pulsed in vitro assay that is more physiologically relevant over the traditional 48h or 72h assays

• Small molecule probes, H-FluNox, and Ac-H-FluNox to detect reactive cytosolic heme, demonstrating that quinolines render heme inert and thereby block DHA activation.

• Evaluates not only traditional combinations but also triple-drug combinations and next-generation artemisinins like OZ439. This broad scope increases the study's relevance to current treatment strategies and future drug development.

• By using the K13 wild-type parasites, the study suggests that resistance phenotypes can emerge from drug-drug interactions alone, without requiring genetic resistance markers.

Weaknesses:

• The study would benefit from a future characterization of the molecular basis for the observed heme inactivation by quinolines to support this hypothesis - while the probe experiments are valuable, they do not fully elucidate how quinolines specifically alter heme chemistry at the molecular level.

• Suggestion of alternative combinations that show synergy could have improved the significance of the work. The invitro study did not include pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling, hence it leaves questions about how the observed antagonism would manifest under real-world dosing conditions, necessitating furture work based on these findings.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The authors identified EOLA1 in a CRISPR/Cas9 screen for essential mitochondrial genes in a mouse B16-F10 cell line; however, no information on the library used for this screen or the list of all identified essential genes is provided. What was the p-value for EOLA1 in Figure 1b?

The authors show that EOLA1 is indeed a mitochondrial protein (using both mouse and human cell lines). It is valuable that the authors use different cell lines to investigate the function of this protein; however, this also presents a challenge, as four different cell lines (two mouse and two human) are used across individual experiments, with no consistency between them. Knock-out (KO) experiments were performed in mouse cell lines only, and human cell lines were used in overexpression experiments, in which EOLA1 was tagged with FLAG-HA. It would be beneficial if a knock-out were also generated in a human cell line to confirm the effect on the expression of mitochondria-encoded proteins, along with a rescue experiment in which the EOLA1 protein is reintroduced into KO cells.

Functional analysis of EOLA1: The authors performed affinity immunoprecipitation of FLAG-HA-tagged EOLA1 from stably overexpressing cells, and identified 202 co-immunoprecipitating proteins, of which 71 were known mitochondrial proteins; however, no list of these proteins is provided. Why did the authors choose TUFM? Were any mitochondrial ribosomal proteins co-immunoprecipitated, if EOLA1 is suggested to regulate translation? Were levels of TUFM affected in EOLA1-KO cells?

The authors continued to analyze mitochondrial ribosomes using sucrose gradient fractionation and in-vitro mitochondrial translation. However, there are several technical problems with the presented data: It has been established that mitochondrial ribosomes do not form polysomes in mammalian cells but rather perform translation as monosomes. The authors indirectly confirm this: almost no 12S or 16S rRNA (Fig. 3f) or MRP proteins (Extended data 3c) are present in "polysome" fractions. Although indeed 12S and 16S rRNAs are decreased in monosome fractions, the levels of mRNAs are not different between KO and WT cells, and neither is the migration of mitochondrial ribosomal proteins. As there is no loading control provided for the sucrose gradients blots (such as SDHA, VDAC), it is not possible to assess the overall levels of mitochondrial ribosomes. The gel presented for mitochondrial translation is of poor quality, as it is impossible to identify any of the expected 13 polypeptides. Although the intensity of the signal is weaker for KO, so is the intensity in the portion of Coomassie stained gel. A better-quality gel and quantification need to be provided to support the claims.

What is the difference between endogenous and exogenous RIP-qPCR? EOLA1 pulled down 12S rRNA without cross-linking (Figure 3d) or with UV-crosslinking (Figure 3e), however, both 12S and 16S rRNAs were enriched in UV-crosslinked cells (Figure 3c) and by UV-RIP-seq (Extended data 3b; although no control is provided here). Is no discussion offered for this observation? Is it possible that EOLA1 plays a role in the maturation of the mito-ribosome, rather than translation? Does EOLA1 co-migrate with the mito-ribosome on sucrose gradients?

Altogether, there is insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that EOLA1 plays a role in mitochondrial translation.

To investigate EOLA1 biological function, the authors created a whole-body EOLA1-/- mouse that exhibited no overall developmental abnormalities; however presented with an abnormal cardiac function. This is an ideal model to confirm prior observations in cellular models; however, apart from one western-blot for three mitochondrial encoded subunits, no other experiments were provided (such as measurements of the levels of 12S, or 16S rRNA, TUFM levels, ribosomes profile, mitochondrial translation, OXPHOS assembly, respirometry).

In Figure 2 g-i: TEM images are presented, but the method is not described, nor is any information on the cells used provided, nor is it clear how the circularity was determined. KO cells certainly look abnormal; however, are the authors sure that the indicated structures are mitochondria? They rather resemble autophagosomes/lysosomes with lamellar inclusions.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

This work by Du et al. addresses a critical problem in cryo-electron microscopy. To date, there are few ways of generating phase contrast during cryo-EM imaging while remaining in focus. Cryo-EM practitioners today must generate contrast by collecting out-of-focus exposures, a process that introduces aberrations in the resulting image data. Recent work has shown that standing wave lasers are capable of using the ponderomotive effect to shift the phase of electrons in transmission electron microscopy to generate in-focus phase contrast imaging for cryo-EM. A limitation of this 'laser phase plate' is the high laser power required, which can damage optical mirrors and necessitate high laser safety. Thus, alternative approaches are needed for phase contrast imaging in cryo-EM.

In this manuscript, Du et al. exploit their expertise in ultrafast electron microscopy to explore the ability to shift the phase of electrons using pulsed electrons and lasers. The motivation for exploring pulsed laser phase plates stems from the fact that femtosecond pulses from 9W lasers can generate extremely high power (as much as the standing-wave laser phase plate, > 1 gigawatt) at the back focal plane. If successful, this type of instrument will likely be much more affordable and easier to deploy worldwide.

The work outlined here shows a proof of principle, highlighting that an ultrafast scanning electron microscopy beam at 30 kV can have the electron packets phase shift by 430 radians (24637 degrees), which is much greater than the required 1.5 radians (90 degrees) needed for phase contrast imaging. The data presented do not use any biological samples; instead, they measure the spread of the electron beam on a test sample to assess the ability to target pulsed lasers onto electron packets and the amount of electron spread (which relates to the phase shift). They were also able to take their system a step further to measure how changes to the system in terms of laser power affect performance, and show that the system can be stable for 10+ hours.

The only weaknesses relate to the broad readability of the text. Improved textual clarity will help ensure a wider readership.

Overall, this work is an important step toward developing lower-cost alternatives to the standing-wave laser phase plate.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors of this report wish to show that distinct populations of meningeal macrophages respond to cortical spreading depolarization (CSD) via unique calcium activity patterns depending on their location in the meningeal sub-compartments. Perivascular macrophages display calcium signaling properties that are sometimes in opposition to non-perivascular macrophages. Many of the meningeal macrophages also displayed synchronous activity at variable distances from one another. Other macrophages were found to display calcium signals in response to dural vasomotion. CSD could induce variable calcium responses in both perivascular and non-perivascular macrophages in the meninges, in part due to RAMP1-dependent effects. Results will inform future research on the calcium responses displayed by macrophages in the meninges under both normal and pathological conditions.

Strengths:

Sophisticated in vivo imaging of meningeal immune cells is employed in the study, which has not been performed previously. A detailed analysis of the distinct calcium dynamics in various subtypes of meningeal macrophages is provided. Functional relevance of the responses is also noted in relation to CSD events.

Weaknesses:

The specificity of the methods used to target both meningeal macrophages and RAMP1 is limited. Additional discussion points on the functional relevance of the two subtypes of meningeal macrophages and their calcium responses are warranted. A section on potential pitfalls should be included.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In the current manuscript, Sun et al aimed to determine the metabolic function of hepatocyte DHHC7, one of the key enzymes in protein palmitoylation. They generated inducible liver-specific Dhhc7 knockout mice and discovered that Dhhc7-LKO mice are more prone to gain weight and develop adipose expansion and obesity. Via unbiased proteomic analysis, they identified PRG4 as one of the top secreted factors in the liver of Dhhc7-LKO mice. Hepatic overexpression of PRG4 recapitulates the obesity phenotype observed in Dhh7-LKO mice. At the mechanistic level, PRG4, once secreted from the liver, can bind to GPR146 on adipocytes and inhibit PKA-HSL signaling and lipolysis. Taken together, their findings suggest a novel pathway by which the liver communicates with adipose tissue and impacts systemic metabolism.

Strengths:

(1) The systemic metabolic homeostasis depends on coordination among metabolically active tissues. Thus, active communication between the liver and adipose tissue when facing nutritional challenges (such as high-fat diet feeding) is crucial for achieving metabolic health. The concept that the liver can communicate with adipose tissue and impact the lipolysis process via secreted hepatokines is quite significant but remains poorly understood.

(2) Hepatocyte Dhhc7 knockout mice developed a significant obesity phenotype, which is associated with adipose expansion.

(3) Unbiased proteomic analysis identified PRG4 as one of the top secreted factors in the liver of Dhh7-LKO mice. Hepatic overexpression of PRG4 recapitulates the obesity phenotype observed in Dhh7-LKO mice.

(4) In vitro cell-based assay showed that PRG4 can bind to adipocyte GPR146, inhibit PKA-mediated HSL phosphorylation, and subsequently, the lipolysis process.

Weaknesses:

(1) Lack of a causal-effect study to generate evidence directly linking hepatocyte DHH7 and PRG4 in driving adipose expansion and obesity upon HFD feeding.

(2) Lack of direct evidence to support that PRG4 inhibits adipocyte lipolysis via GPR146. A functional assay demonstrating adipocyte lipolysis is required.

(3) The conclusion is largely based on the correlation evidence.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, the authors describe modeling of neuronopathic Gaucher disease (nGD) using midbrain-like organoids (MLOs) derived from hiPSCs carrying GBA1 L444P/P415R or L444P/RecNciI variants. These MLOs recapitulate several disease features, including GCase deficiency, reduced enzymatic activity, lipid substrate accumulation, and impaired dopaminergic neuron differentiation. Correction of the GBA1 L444P variant restored GCase activity, normalized lipid metabolism, and rescued dopaminergic neuronal defects, confirming its pathogenic role in the MLO model. The authors further leveraged this system to evaluate therapeutic strategies, including: (i) SapC-DOPS nanovesicles for GCase delivery, (ii) AAV9-mediated GBA1 gene therapy, and (iii) GZ452, a glucosylceramide synthase inhibitor. These treatments reduced lipid accumulation and ameliorated autophagic, lysosomal, and neurodevelopmental abnormalities.

Strengths:

This manuscript demonstrates that nGD patient-derived MLOs can serve as an additional platform for investigating nGD mechanisms and advancing therapeutic development.

Comments:

(1) It is interesting that GBA1 L444P/P415R MLOs show defects in midbrain patterning and dopaminergic neuron differentiation (Figure 3). One might wonder whether these abnormalities are specific to the combination of L444P and P415R variants or represent a general consequence of GBA1 loss. Do GBA1 L444P/RecNciI (GD2-10-257) MLOs also exhibit similar defects?

(2) In Supplementary Figure 3, the authors examined GCase localization in SapC-DOPS-fGCase-treated nGD MLOs. These data indicate that GCase is delivered to TH⁺ neurons, GFAP⁺ glia, and various other unidentified cell types. In fruit flies, the GBA1 ortholog, Gba1b, is only expressed in glia (PMID: 35857503; 35961319). Neuronally produced GluCer is transferred to glia for GBA1-mediated degradation. These findings raise an important question: in wild-type MLOs, which cell type(s) normally express GBA1? Are they dopaminergic neurons, astrocytes, or other cell types?

(3) The authors may consider switching Figures 2 and 3 so that the differentiation defects observed in nGD MLOs (Figure 3) are presented before the analysis of other phenotypic abnormalities, including the various transcriptional changes (Figure 2).

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The hypothesis is that Trehalose metabolism regulates transcriptional control of muscle development in lepidopteran insects.

The manuscript investigates the role of Trehalose metabolism in muscle development. Through sequencing and subsequent bioinformatics analysis of insects with perturbed trehalose metabolism (knockdown of TPS/TPP), the authors have identified transcription factor E2F, which was validated through RT-PCR. Their hypothesis is that trehalose metabolism regulates E2F, which then controls the myogenic genes. Counterintuitive to this hypothesis, the investigators perform EMSAs with the E2F protein and promoter of the TPP gene and show binding. Their knockdown experiments with Dp, the binding partner of E2F, show direct effect on several trehalose metabolism genes. Similar results are demonstrated in the trehalose feeding experiment, where feeding trehalose leads to partial rescue of the phenotype observed as a result of Dp knockdown. This seems contradictory to their hypothesis. Even more intriguing is a similar observation between paramyosin, a structural muscle protein, and E2F/Dp - they show that paramyosin regulates E2F/Dp and E2F/Dp regulated paramyosin. The only plausible way to explain the results is the existence of a feed-forward loop between TPP-E2F/Dp and paramyosin-E2F/Dp. But the authors have mentioned nothing in this line. Additionally, I think trehalose metabolism impacts amino acid content in insects, and that will have a direct bearing on muscle development. The sequencing analysis and follow-up GSEA studies have demonstrated enrichment of several amino acid biosynthetic genes. Yet authors make no efforts to measure amino acid levels or correlate them with muscle development. Any study aiming to link trehalose metabolism and muscle development and not considering the above points will be incomplete.

The result section of the manuscript is quite concise, to my understanding (especially the initial few sections), which misses out on mentioning details that would help readers understand the paper better. While technical details of the methods should be in the Materials and Methods section, the overall experimental strategy for the experiments performed should be explained in adequate detail in the results section itself or in figure legends. I would request authors to include more details in the results section. As an extension of the comment above, many times, abbreviations have been used without introducing them. A thorough check of the manuscript is required regarding this.

The Spodoptera experiments appear ad hoc and are insufficient to support conservation beyond Helicoverpa. To substantiate this claim, please add a coherent, minimal set of Spodoptera experiments and present them in a dedicated subsection. Alternatively, consider removing these data and limiting the conclusions (and title) to H. armigera.

In order to check the effects of E2F/Dp, a dsRNA-mediated knockdown of Dp was performed. Why was the E2F protein, a primary target of the study, not chosen as a candidate? The authors should either provide justification for this or perform the suggested experiments to come to a conclusion. I would like to point out that such experiments were performed in Drosophila.

Silencing of HaDp resulted in a significant decrease in HaE2F expression. I find this observation intriguing. DP is the cofactor of E2F, and they both heterodimerise and sit on the promoter of target genes to regulate them. I would request authors to revisit this result, as it contradicts the general understanding of how E2F/Dp functions in other organisms. If Dp indeed controls E2F expression, then further experiments should be conducted to come to a conclusion convincingly. Additionally, these results would need thorough discussion with citations of similar results observed for other transcription factor-cofactor complexes.

I consider the overall bioinformatics analysis to remain very poorly described. What is specifically lacking is clear statements about why a particular dry lab experiments were conducted.

In my judgement, the EMSA analysis presented is technically poor in quality. It lacks positive and negative controls, does not show mutation analysis or super shifts. Also, it lacks any competition assays that are important to prove the binding beyond doubt. I am not sure why protein is not detected at all in lower concentrations. Overall, the EMSA assays need to be redone; I find the current results to be unacceptable.

GSEA studies clearly indicate enrichment of the amino acid synthesis gene in TPP knockdown samples. This supports the plausible theory that a lack of Trehalose means a lack of enough nutrients, therefore less of that is converted to amino acids, and therefore muscle development is compromised. Yet the authors make no effort to measure amino acid levels. While nutrients can be sensed through signalling pathways leading to shut shutdown of myogenic genes, a simple and direct correlation between less raw material and deformed muscle might also be possible.

The authors are encouraged to stick to one color palette while demonstrating sequencing results. Choosing a different color palette for representing results from the same sequencing analysis confuses readers.

Expression of genes, as understood from sequencing analysis in Figure 1D, Figure 2F, and Figure 3D, appears to be binary in nature. This result is extremely surprising given that the qRT-PCR of these genes have revealed a checker and graded expression.

In several graphs, non-significant results have been interpreted as significant in the results section. In a few other cases, the reported changes are minimal, and the statistical support is unclear; please recheck the analyses and include exact statistics. In the results section, fold changes observed should be discussed, as well as the statistical significance of the observed change.

Finally, I would add that trehaolse metabolism regulates cell cycle genes, and muscle development genes establish correlation and causation. The authors should ensure that any comments they make are backed by evidence.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The study assesses whether CRISPR-generated founder (F0) "crispant" mice can be reliably used for initial phenotypic assessment and screening. By targeting seven genes with known visible recessive phenotypes, the authors show that, despite genetic mosaicism, the expected null phenotypes were observed in all targeted genes. These findings demonstrate that the phenotyping and screening of F0 "crispant" mice is a valid (and efficient) approach to selecting candidate alleles for follow-up studies, thereby streamlining mouse breeding and animal husbandry-related costs.

Strengths:

The study is comprehensive, carefully executed, and provides deep insight into the utility of F0 "crispant" mice for phenotypic screening. The authors evaluated the CRISPR/Cas9 editing outcomes across seven genes using multiple sequencing modalities, providing a robust framework for determining and interpreting complex founder genotypes. Importantly, the study examines/highlights the biological insight gained from compound heterozygous founders and naturally arising allelic series, enabling genotype-phenotype associations and functional inferences about protein domains.

More broadly, the authors' thorough evaluation of the CRISPR/Cas9-based gene editing events in the founders can serve as a benchmark for others in the field, engineering their own mouse "crispants."

Weaknesses:

The relationship between the sgRNA/Cas9 concentrations delivered to the zygotes and the resulting editing efficiencies are not explicitly investigated.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Kumar et al. examine the H3K115 epigenetic mark located on the lateral surface of the histone core domain and present evidence that it may serve as a marker enriched at transcription start sites (TSSs) of active CpG island promoters and at polycomb-repressed promoters. They also note enrichment of the H3K115ac mark is found on fragile nucleosomes within nucleosome-depleted regions, on active enhancers and CTCF bound sites. They propose that these observations suggest that H3K115ac contributes to nucleosome destabilization and so may servers a marker of functionally important regulatory elements in mammalian genomes.

Strengths:

The authors present novel observations suggesting that acetylation of a histone residue in a core (versus on a histone tail) domain may serve a functional role in promoting transcription in CPG islands and polycomb-repressed promoters. They present a solid amount of confirmatory in silico data using appropriate methodology that supports the idea that H3K115ac mark may function to destabilize nucleosomes and contribute to regulating ESC differentiation. These findings are quite novel.

Weaknesses:

Additional experiments to confirm specificity of the antibodies used have been done, improving confidence in the study.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Primary neutrophils are difficult to modify genetically, whereas the generation of knockout mice to study the role of specific proteins is time-consuming and expensive. CRISPR-Cas 9 genetic modification of neutrophil progenitors in vitro offers a platform to study neutrophil biology. Hoxb8 cells are immortalized neutrophil progenitors that differentiate into neutrophils when cultured in the presence of G-CSF, and have been shown to recapitulate the stages of murine neutrophil differentiation. They have also been shown to be amendable to CRISPR-Cas 9 genetic editing with successful deletion of key transcriptional regulators of neutrophil maturation and function. The authors of this manuscript offer an extension to this technique, by generating Hoxb8 cells that constitutively express Cas9. This may reduce the variation between the generated knock-out cells by avoiding the introduction of Cas9 in a plasmid every time together with a guide RNA.

The first part of the manuscript is dedicated to the characterisation of Cas9+HoxB8 cells throughout their differentiation. Considering the existing body of literature on HoxB8 progenitors and their differentiation into neutrophils ex vivo, it does not significantly further our understanding of these cells, but rather provides a good validation to their Cas9+ modified version of them. Gene editing using Cas9+ Hoxb8 progenitors seems to be highly efficient, which is an important technical point, however, it is hard to assess the degree of improvement in efficiency compared to the published protocols with Cas9 delivery in a plasmid.

As a test, the authors use Cas9+HoxB8 progenitor to generate a knockout of CEBPE, known for its important role in neutrophil development. They convincingly demonstrate its impact on HoxB8 cell differentiation, with in vivo reconstitution of wild-type and CEBPE-deficient HoxB8 progenitors into irradiated mice being especially elegant. However, the transfer into different recipient mice assumed no differences in the recipient environment, while immunophenotyping for mature neutrophils within the HoxB8 progenitor-derived cells did not account for possible differences in numbers of wt and CEBPE KO surviving cells, limiting the conclusions.

Finally, the authors put the system to the test by screening a library of Brie gRNA library of ~80K mouse sgRNAs, targeting almost 20K genes with 4 gRNA per gene coverage, to identify genes that are needed for the differentiation of Cas9+ERHoxb8 progenitors into mature neutrophils. They identify a number of hits, amongst which the WASH complex and CEBPE are highlighted. A comparison of cell numbers prior to differentiation and at 4 days post differentiation indicates that they are indeed required for neutrophil survival. To validate the role of these hits in neutrophil maturation itself, as they stated in the aims, i.e. "to identify genes that modulate the differentiation of Cas9+ERHoxb8 progenitors into mature neutrophils", phenotypic, functional, and morphological characterization of these cell lines could have been appropriate.

Overall, this study has the potential to improve on the established lentiviral CRISPR-Cas9 editing of Hoxb8 cells and be valuable for library-screening approaches for neutrophil modulators, which will benefit the community.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, Wang et al., investigate how herbivorous insects overcome plant receptor-mediated immunity by targeting plant receptor-like proteins. The authors identify two independently evolved salivary effectors, BtRDP in whiteflies and NlSP694 in brown planthoppers, that promote the degradation of plant RLP4 through the ubiquitin-dependent proteasome pathway. NtRLP4 from tobacco and OsRLP4 from rice are shown to confer resistance against herbivores by activating defense signaling, while BtRDP and NlSP694 suppress these defenses by destabilizing RLP4 proteins.

Strengths:

This work highlights a convergent evolutionary strategy in distinct insect lineages and advances our understanding of insect-plant coevolution at the molecular level.

Two minor comments:

In line 140, yeast two-hybrid (Y2H) was used to screen for interacting proteins in plants. However, it is generally difficult to identify membrane receptors using Y2H. Please provide more methodological details to justify this approach, or alternatively, include a discussion explaining this.

In Figure S12C, the interaction between the two proteins appears to be present in the nucleus as well. Please provide a possible explanation for this observation.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This study investigates the molecular underpinnings of immune responses in the leptomeninges in neonatal bacterial meningitis. Bacterial meningitis is a major disease burden, particularly for neonates, and it has previously been noted that the meningeal immune environment in infants is permissive to opportunistic infection (Kim et al., Sci Immunol, 2023). There is less known about the contribution of the stromal compartment to meningeal immune responses. Seegren et al. interrogate the role of leptomeningeal endothelium in host defence in E. coli infected neonatal mice using mouse genetic tools to delete the LPS receptor Tlr4 from either endothelial cells (using Cdh5-CreER) or macrophages (using LysM-Cre). The authors use snRNAseq, cleared cortical mounts, and in vitro work to define the impact of E. coli infection on leptomeningeal endothelial cells. This study uses a range of innovative techniques to probe the role of the stromal compartment in meningitis.

Strengths:

This study makes excellent use of cleared cortical mounts to examine the biology of the leptomeninges, in particular, changes to the endothelium, with unprecedented detail. In combination with high-quality sequencing data provide new insights into the impact of meningitis on the leptomeninges. The data presented by the authors is of very high quality.

Weaknesses:

The weaknesses of the study were in terms of interpretation and perhaps study design.

(1) Most importantly, the authors need to provide additional validation of their conditional knockout models. The authors need to confirm that the Cdh5-CreER does not impact leptomeningeal fibroblasts and to confirm gene deletion in macrophages.

(2) The authors could also strengthen the paper by providing data on the impact of these conditional knockout models on the course of meningitis and bacterial burden.

(3) Finally, it is perhaps not surprising that Tlr4 is required for meningitis responses with E. coli. However, it is unclear if these findings can be generalised to other, more common, meningitis infections (streptococcal/pneumococcal).

(4) There are additional minor issues; for instance, the arachnoid fibroblast 2 population appears to closely resemble dural border cells.

(5) The cell line model (bEnd.3) is a relatively low-fidelity model of BBB endothelial cells, and this should be acknowledged.

With these caveats, it is difficult to be certain that the endothelium alone is the driver of meningeal immune responses in meningitis, and what the impact of these is.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/721704878218903/posts/2997989990590369/

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that the inverted pendulum mechanism contributes to the gait transition from quadrupedal to bipedal gait in Japanese macaques. The author uses a neuromusculoskeletal model to generate different motor tasks by varying motor command parameters during forward dynamics simulations. After simulations were done, the authors used dynamical system analysis of the inverted pendulum model to reveal the underlying principles of gait transition control. The authors showed that successful gait transition from quadrupedal to bipedal gait mostly depends on increased step length of a hindlimb.

Strengths:

This study is important not only for understanding gait transition, but also to understand stability control of bipedal gaits. Another advantage of this study is that it allows us to estimate the effect of one control mechanism and find its effect and limits. In animal studies, we also have a combination of compensatory stability control mechanisms.

Weaknesses:

Any simulation is not perfect, so discrepancies from experimental data are expected. A 2D model is used, but the advantage of using a 3D model is not clear, and it is much more complicated.